+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery General (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Discovery RP 24/7 General Discussions (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=23)
+--- Thread: My thoughts concerning factions/Indies and other such stuff. (/showthread.php?tid=9747)
My thoughts concerning factions/Indies and other such stuff. - Praetyre - 06-25-2008
' Wrote:What was said above was the simplicity of it: Don't make a faction and then design your lead character to be "head of the navy".
Be head of your division or flotilla or squadron or wing.
Being official doesn't mean dictating de facto policy for all players who have a char in that faction.
I would say that's logically consistent, though I think we'd lose some RP opportunities and a lot of RP over it.
My thoughts concerning factions/Indies and other such stuff. - n00bl3t - 06-25-2008
' Wrote:What was said above was the simplicity of it: Don't make a faction and then design your lead character to be "head of the navy".
Be head of your division or flotilla or squadron or wing.
Being official doesn't mean dictating de facto policy for all players who have a char in that faction.
There should be simply:
1) Independent 'commands' as I generally described above.
2) A uniform code of conduct and law that is a 'server rule' and applies to all who play in that faction.
There is no reason why a Kusari or Liberty or whatever Codex can't be proposed and voted on by members of a faction and then it is "law".
Instead of one faction saying, "We say so, we've been here longer and are bigger than you and will beat you up, discredit and mass flame you if you don't do what we say."
There are no independents or factions--there are players. Every one of them should have an equal say.
If the lawmaking was a "coded" process here and someone wanted a "Commander in Chief", then you could have an election and elect one. Instead of grabbing it and saying, "I am one, I don't need your approval."
The only reason not to have an amicable or democratic process here and for factions to insist they have the dominant say is that they don't trust the other players.
So why would those other players seem to have an attitude? Mistrust is not exactly the basis for "fun".
/signed.
' Wrote:I would say that's logically consistent, though I think we'd lose some RP opportunities and a lot of RP over it.
Don't you think that's better than the lack of an individuality in Rheinland RP now?
My thoughts concerning factions/Indies and other such stuff. - worldstrider - 06-25-2008
' Wrote:I would say that's logically consistent, though I think we'd lose some RP opportunities and a lot of RP over it.
Well sure, "we" being the big groups.
But as they have already said in so many ways, "We are big and you can't stop us"--so what's the real loss? they already have power and organization--there's a lot of rp in that. And having an "on forum voteing government" can be part of the rp as well:
"The faction of such and such a party moves that we institute this and that new regulation and asks for a second"
"Seconded"
"Any questions or debate?"
"Motion Sustained/Withdrawn"
"Vote/Dismissed"
It puts them in the same boat as everyone else, their role play has to become collaborative with everyone--not just members and supporters of their own faction.
And if people wanted a grand admiral, they would vote for one.
You would not hear ONE PEEP outta me if a server rule or democratically and server legal regulation were created--even if I hated and abhorred it. I might propose a vote for an alternative but I would readily live with the "law of the land" if everyone had a say in its creation and imposition.
Look at every post I've ever made (crosses fingers)--I have never griped about a server rule "being stupid" or said "I don't think I should have to do that cause its dumb". If its a rule, its a rule.
My thoughts concerning factions/Indies and other such stuff. - Praetyre - 06-25-2008
' Wrote:Don't you think that's better than the lack of an individuality in Rheinland RP now?
All militaries are uniform and generally group-oriented. Also, banning unilats means you also ban people RPing interesting positions, like heads of state or military. And in cases like the RM, it's been roleplaying these positions for years now, and is the second oldest faction on the server. That's a lot of RP to throw out.
My thoughts concerning factions/Indies and other such stuff. - MB52 - 06-25-2008
IMO If an indy has RP, theres no way the faction should get in the way as long as its reasonable.
I'd love to see RP stories as mandatory for any capship. Even capships in factions.
My thoughts concerning factions/Indies and other such stuff. - song - 06-25-2008
' Wrote:All militaries are uniform and generally group-oriented. Also, banning unilats means you also ban people RPing interesting positions, like heads of state or military. And in cases like the RM, it's been roleplaying these positions for years now, and is the second oldest faction on the server. That's a lot of RP to throw out.
A great place to propose a first "oficial vote" (if such a thing were ever established) would be to let the long term factions present their cases to be the "official" head of a faction and then let people vote to see if they agree.
Its not differnt than a new leader being elected and restructuring military forces. It happens.
My thoughts concerning factions/Indies and other such stuff. - chovynz - 06-25-2008
Shigeo, Not very often. Leaders of Nations dont change very often. Directors of Secret organisations based on UN politics shouldn't either.
I don't understand why people who dont want to be told what to do
(i.e general Indie) join a faction (Player or computer) that has a
basis in "chain of command."
They want to be their own admiral? fine. Go freelancer. Or Privateer.
DONT join the military who's JOB it is, is to follow orders.
It's basic human sense.
The OORP indies are spoiling it for those of us who WANT to be ordered
around or find comfort in structure. Seriously. If I joined the LSF or Navy
or Army I would expect the "powers that be" to give me orders.
There are some Damn good Indies out there and I take my hat off to you
guys for putting up with the BS that the factions have (MUST) pull out
because the OORP indies are trying to change the Faction Roleplay.
Quote:You haven't seen an indie complain because clans will not submit to his view of rp and play as he directs them.Actauly I have. Every single one of these "trial on the factions by forum"
threads has been because the OORP indies want the factions to change their play style.
The reason people JOIN those factions is because they want those very structures that the
OORP indies want to pull down.
My thoughts concerning factions/Indies and other such stuff. - tk9780 - 06-25-2008
There server :D rules designed to make life within the server bearable :(for everyone; factions have rules to assist a better sense :crazy:of role play integration.
:DAny player should be able to purchase any discovery id, and RP that character. However there should be limits place upon none faction members, :cool:in the way of ships, rank, docking rights and possibly weapons.
What about something similar to the old ‘Dungeon master’ in the form of a team made up of player faction members, admin, and invited ind-players,
who each month would considers any stories / plots that could have server wide implications?
My thoughts concerning factions/Indies and other such stuff. - n00bl3t - 06-25-2008
' Wrote:I'd love to see RP stories as mandatory for any capship. Even capships in factions.
I'm sorry, but this has been shot down before. By some faction leader. Guess who?
My thoughts concerning factions/Indies and other such stuff. - song - 06-25-2008
Quote:Shigeo, Not very often. Leaders of Nations dont change very often. Directors of Secret organisations based on UN politics shouldn't either.
Well sure they do--every presidential election. Many high military offices are appointments and change with every new administration. When I was in the Navy, we got a new ship captain and fleet commodore every three years.
Quote:I don't understand why people who dont want to be told what to do
(i.e general Indie) join a faction (Player or computer) that has a
basis in "chain of command."
Ok...
I'm going to send you a list of things I want you to do that represent what I consider good rp.
If you don't do them, I'll start posting and inferring about how your unwillingness to be reasonable is whats killing the server.
I'll get some other players I'm tight with to join in with me and if you post back in your defense we'll talk about how sick we are of hearing the same argument from you and say why don't you just do what I say and stop being unreasonable.
If you question my authority, Ill tell you I'm older than you and have played rpg games before you were born and state that your opinion doesn't carry as much weight as mine does.
"Bad indies are ruining the game" so, we have to "Do what factions tell us"...non sequitur.
Again--I have no problem with players rping whatever they like for themselves--and I should be able to with the same freedom.
Make it a rule that "a" faction is in charge of a particular faction and fine.
Its unfair to say all the arguments on forum are attempts at forcing factions to change their rp. Not going along with a faction's rp isn't the same as forcing them to change their play.
If "bad indies" are ruining the server (no more, no less than bad factions imo) then who decides which factions are in charge? So far they have. Self appointed.
Explain what is wrong with structuring things so no one "declares" themselves king? That doesn't do away with order or forming a unified military--it just structures it--instead another player telling me I "have" to accept their structure.
I really am not getting how talking about leveling the playing field and instituting a non-biased structure is construed as, "You are a server hating instigator of chaos and bad play!".