1 Faction per ID rule

[Montezuma/Kukulcan]

Remove it for unlawful factions, but keep it for lawful ones.

The reason it should be kept for lawful factions are that nation never has two navies or two police forces, and corporations are, well, corporations, the very definition of which is a single group of people that cooperate in order to benefit.

However, pirates, even the ones that are almost houses in their own rights (OCs and Corsairs), do not have a centralised government in the way the Houses do. The Corsairs for example are made up of thousands of groups, families and factions, all with their own agenda, their own fleets and infrastructure, hence there will never be a 'Corsair Navy' or whatever. And the same generally holds true for most pirate factions. Players factions should, IMO, reflect this, with all of the benefits of having more people to do the work, and all the disputes and arguments.

---

[Hell Hunter]

as I once said it... Remove it.
It's utterly useless. There might be a faction that just uses the same ID etc because for tech/their RP. but they cannot go offical.

---

[checker]

keep it, there was a reason that rule was put in

first, it saves a lot of stress, and makes things much more organized. Mess = stress

secondly, unofficial factions can successfully operate with teh offocials, as we have seen in so many examples.

and, as we all know, it helps keep oorp conflicts from happening. just think about diplomacy, tech permissions and all that.

all in all there are mor advantages than disadvantages to it. most who voted to remove it just want their own offocial faction, but this will just lead to splitting up tha community more than it already is.

[Korny]

Remove it.

---

[Daedric]

all in all there are mor advantages than disadvantages to it. most who voted to remove it just want their own offocial faction, but this will just lead to splitting up tha community more than it already is.

While you are entitled to your opinion, please refrain from speaking out of your ass. What I've quoted has no factual support but is your own very ignorant view. I want it removed and I'm in the leadership of two official factions. Many of the leaders of the current official factions want it removed.

---

Helpful Discovery Guides

Get Help Here! | Player Base Guide | Mining Guide | Trading Guide

Reputation Guide | Zoner Rep Guide

OSI Information | Join OSI! | Nichols Trade Center
OSI Bounty Board | OSI Feedback

[Nikkel005]

It's not like the XTF are going to become official anyway. And perhaps after they realize that they're their own worst enemy, they can start getting their act together. (sun)

Implying that we had anything to do with this poll. This issue effects the entire community, not just us.

In Fact, I was tempted to vote yes, more than one official faction per ID can make things complicated and messy. However, I do not like the amount of power it gives that one official faction so I voted no.

g'day

---

College=Life ';==(>.&lt
Member of RL since 1991, Freelancer since 2003, XTF since 2009

Pythios -- Bio/Char Page

[checker]

While you are entitled to your opinion, please refrain from speaking out of your ass. What I've quoted has no factual support but is your own very ignorant view. I want it removed and I'm in the leadership of two official factions. Many of the leaders of the current official factions want it removed.

you will be surprised how many share my view. and why don't you comment on my other 3 arguments?

i quote them again

first, it saves a lot of stress, and makes things much more organized. Mess = stress

secondly, unofficial factions can successfully operate with teh offocials, as we have seen in so many examples.

and, as we all know, it helps keep oorp conflicts from happening. just think about diplomacy, tech permissions and all that.

do you really want to have 10 official zoner/zoner-like factions for every npc faction?
it would end bad, and then the same rule for 1 faction/ID would be brought back, if this rule will actually be removed (which is very unlikely)

you have valid points, but you have to see that the current system has more advantages than the old one.

[Govedo13]

I am quite ok with the rule.
The bonus is bigger then the drawbacks, however it would be better if the same apply for the people who try to make official faction. If Group A try to make official faction with the ID B so group C cannot try the same with ID B but need to wait till admins give official status to A or not in order to try again. First come first serve rule. So the people in the factions A and B wont be angry on each other.

---

€œ

Official faction players that are often accused of elitism, never deploy them and have those weird, immersion killing "fair fight/dueling" suicidal hobbies. (yes, i've seen enough of those lolduels, where house military with overwhelming force on the field willingly loses a pilot in a duel. ffs.)

[Stefz]

All i have to say is REMOVE it.:$

---

[Kharon]

I agree with Kaiwren and lukasz_r128a on a mixed ruling.

One faction per one ID should be applied only for factions like Liberty Navy, Rheinland Military, LSF or organisation like them.

So aka institutionals only one Faction, rest dependent on player base (no "3 friends" factions ofcourse) and under demand of good conception.

As has been pointed to here, its been established with 3 Corsair tribes already and it seems to work.



Problem may come from 2-3 Factions ruling the indy`s but that can be solved or sorted most likely.

Another accociated problem that bugs me for some time is the TINA-concept of one Factionleader that can act like Monarchy written down in serverrules i belive. There should be competition of concepts aka democratic/shareholder models, not only TINA-Factionleader-monarchy!

---