![]() |
Admin Notice: Faction Creation Rule Change - Discussion Thread - Printable Version +- 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: Admin Notice: Faction Creation Rule Change - Discussion Thread (/showthread.php?tid=103520) |
Admin Notice: Faction Creation Rule Change - Discussion Thread - aerelm - 08-19-2013 (08-19-2013, 01:57 AM)aerelm Wrote: Flame away. RE: Admin Notice: Faction Creation Rule Change - Discussion Thread - Sabru - 08-19-2013 I think its a good idea. ![]() RE: Admin Notice: Faction Creation Rule Change - Discussion Thread - Cris - 08-19-2013 I likes RE: Admin Notice: Faction Creation Rule Change - Discussion Thread - Karst - 08-19-2013 Good thing. I never understood that rule anyway, if more than one group has a good enough reason to represent different aspects of an NPC faction as officials, why not? RE: Admin Notice: Faction Creation Rule Change - Discussion Thread - Durandal - 08-19-2013 Definitely a step in the right direction. RE: Admin Notice: Faction Creation Rule Change - Discussion Thread - Sarawr!? - 08-19-2013 Just as long as we don't have a million groups trying to do the same exact thing, I think this will be okay, and I think this overall is a decent idea. I mean for example, we don't need two Liberty Navy's, but we could certainly have numerous official groups representing say, different squadrons or flotillas, or strikegroups within the "Navy", all with different overall objectives and goals, that could be neat. So, I'm interested to see what happens here. RE: Admin Notice: Faction Creation Rule Change - Discussion Thread - Kazinsal - 08-19-2013 Right on. I fully support this. RE: Admin Notice: Faction Creation Rule Change - Discussion Thread - GrnRaptor - 08-19-2013 I suppose this gives you some leeway for more generic IDs like the Zoner, Corsair, and Outcast ones that could potentially allow for multiple different groups. Still, the question becomes who has the authority to do things like FR5, make law, and lead RP? Assume for example that the Zoner Alliance [ZA] became an official Zoner faction. Would they have the right to FR5 Order| vessels from Zoner bases everywhere because of their war? Would Phoenix (\^/) have the right to countermand that or even FR5 the Zoner Alliance? Would each group have rights to a certain section of Zoner space and the facilities therein, and how would this partition be decided? This gets infinitely more difficult for specific IDs that are meant to wield power, like the house militaries or intelligence groups. Imagine having the [LN], [7'TH], and 41st| all having "official" status. What then? I'm just really curious to hear how any of this has been thought out with respect to these issues. RE: Admin Notice: Faction Creation Rule Change - Discussion Thread - Sarawr!? - 08-19-2013 Hrm, I suppose that I /should/ point out, that I'm interested to see how "Powersharing" will be handled, I hope that the members of the admin team who are backing this are thoroughly thinking things through here. Anyway, I guess I'll wait and see what happens. RE: Admin Notice: Faction Creation Rule Change - Discussion Thread - Hone - 08-19-2013 Dont really like it, as an npc faction should function as one faction, not several arguing. But it could have some upsides, so it doesnt really matter. |