Talk:IDs

Should we add the ID price to the wiki pages? We already have the system location only in effect. I would like to add the ID price as it makes the wiki better.
~Chovynz~ ^{(Blabs • Ego)} 05:50, 29 June 2009 (MDT)

Go for it --Tazuras 08:30, 29 June 2009 (MDT)

Bretonian Privateer ID

Snak3, you edited this page and stated that the Bretonian Privateer ID is not generic. It is in fact generic. It is owned by no specific organization (official or otherwise), no specific RP or storyline (to my knowledge), it is just as generic as Vigilante or Pirate. While I do indeed question the necessity of having such an ID, they are most definitely not a Police, Military, or other Autonomous Organization. Save for their own category, I do believe it would be most proper to file them under Generic. Ipuvaepe 13:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not what you think or how you perceive it. Neither Privateer ID, nor is the Nomad Trial ID Generic IDs rule-wise. Neither of non-Liberty intelligence services has their faction of their own but they are not Generic IDs. Generic IDs are meant to be used because no fixed RP and ZoI is meant for them, but Privateer ID, Intelligence Service IDs and Nomad Trial ID has their preset RP and ZoI. Snak3 15:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is the proof for my points: Link to forum post by Cannon Snak3 06:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

First I will ask whomever reads this, please do not be annoyed with my grammar for I am running chkdsk /r (2tB) on my primary and am left with a keyboardless netbook and OSK is painfully slow. This makes it hard to convey my thoughts, and thus my sentence structure may seem crude.

It must be pointed out that while I was indeed wrong to classify the two IDs as generic, your perceptions are no more significant. In retrospect, the nomad trial ID was a definite mistake (I never claimed otherwise, my post pertains only to the bret privateer) and the Bretonian Privateer being newly associated with the BAF (You may have noticed I placed this here but did not revert the edit, I deferred and called for discussion as per standard unsure etiquette.) it most definitely is not generic, actually more of an association that would go in the corporate box (I have not finished reading about this new system, so my immediate opinion should not be taken seriously) though this is neither the time nor the place.

As for the Intelligence Service IDs, I never dreamed of labeling them as generic let alone putting them in the box, wherever did you get that from? Ipuvaepe 03:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You are looking at this too seriously. Losen up a bit. Snak3 16:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm taking this too seriously? I am not the one who reverts a partial edit and then goes on to demean the author, followed by "talking with other editors to have it removed" because you dislike the existing structure. I am taking this no more seriously than you are. Ipuvaepe 17:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

What the hell you want from me? I was right taht Bretonian Privateer ID is not Generic ID. Case closed. Snak3 17:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Sections

I would suggest getting rid of the Military, Police, Guild, and Autonomous Organization IDs category, and replacing it with three categories, one titled House Police and Millitary, one titled Unlawfuls and an other for the other IDs. "Tracky 01:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)"

There is absolutely no need for it, and even current sections of Corporate and Others make it quite hard to navigate and unneeded information. I will be talking with other Wiki Editors for possibility to remove them. When I created Generic ID section, those are clear to define and sort. As well as it is quite useful information for new players, especially those, wishing to create factions. There is anothet possibility to sort Corporate IDs: by adding "/corporation" to their affiliation. Snak3 05:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur, but I believe "House" and "Unlawful" is not the way to do it. In retrospect, lumping them all together was a bad idea. However, I believe the corporate table to be of paramount significance. It is, in my eyes, the least questionable part of the page! It is important to differentiate law abiding, non-sovereign, house corporations from quasi-autonomous factions that operate as a corporation as there is a fundamental difference in their existence.

However, how can we categorize IMG from Outcasts, SCRA from Bretonia, the Order from Rheinland, the Corsairs from Kusari, Gallia from Liberty?

For example, let's make the House Military/Police category. Well we all know Bretonia, Kusari, Gallia, Liberty, and Rheinland, but what about Outcasts, Coalition, and Corsairs? No, they would have to be excluded. Let's make a Military/Police category. Now we can add OC, SCRA, CO, Order, and any other relatively militarized ID. OOPS, we now have exactly the same as it is! So what do we do? Let's exclude "pirate" and other independent and autonomous but not soverign organizations using a more strict definition of military. So we exclude Xenos, Mollys, Unioners, GB, Maquis, Corse, LH and other factions who use war-like actions primarily, etc. We would leave those who maintain a regular (official or otherwise) military. What would we do with Junkers? It is now late so I bid you all adieu. Ipuvaepe 04:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Not really sure how primary ZoI is hard to understand. Instead of having many tables, with multiple fields, I think it was good as it was before these major overhaul of yours. Simplicity is what makes things look good and easy to understand. Snak3 16:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

4.86 Guard IDs

With the 4.86 public beta released, guard IDs have been marked as discontinued. Should we compile them all into a single page, stick a Historical template on it delete the original pages? Or what? --Alex 16:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Moved the Hogosha ID

I've moved the Hogosha ID from the Pirate section to the "guild and ...etc." section. The hogosha ID is not a pirate ID. It is much closer in likeness to the Junker ID, which also wasn't in the Pirate section. Yuki (talk) 00:52, 13 July 2012 (CEST)