Official Faction Change Suggestions

[Connor]

Official Faction System - Change Suggestion Thread

So I am shameless stealing this format from Champ because it worked quite well gathering feedback last time in the PoB suggestion thread (it has now been pinned in this subforum). The aim of this thread is to gather problems with the current Official Faction system and potential ways we can improve it. A few ideas have been thrown about within the GMs however we'd like to see what you guys have to say first. There is a lot to discuss about this system because there is so much to it. Rules, application process, keeping officialdom, perks etc. We'd like feedback on all of it so we can improve the entire system and make it more beneficial for those who make it to officialdom. Even if it means redoing it from the ground up. Bare in mind this isn't going to be an overnight change as it'll probably take a while to sort out.

Official Factions Rights & Responsibilities
Official Faction Perks
Official Faction Creation Rules
Official Faction Leader Subforum

Something that has been brought up involves us going back to one official faction per NPC ID. I'd like to hear some feedback on this as we have multiple factions representing a single ID.

---

We're going to use templates to outline succinct change suggestions, and similar templates to provide reasoned critique of others' suggestions. +1s are not necessary because we are dealing with the logic, not the popularity, of ideas (here). Read other posts first and do not post a suggestion that has already been made and isn't unique. Try to steer clear of exact numbers, because those can and will be argued later - give approximate ranges for numerical values instead. Here's the same thing and more in a list.

• Read the thread before posting suggestions, at least the title, specifics and example sections
  
• Read the entirety of a suggestion and any existing critiques of it before posting critiques
  
• No +1s
  
• No duplicates
  
• Avoid exact numbers in suggestions
  
• Critique concepts, not specific numbers (unless they're negatives where they should be positives)
  
• Do not critique obvious typos
  
• You may put multiple suggestions in the same post, but maybe not more than like, four?
  
• Separate changes into individual suggestions rather than bundling them, unless it's the same concept
  
• Link, don't quote
  
• Stick to the templates

Simplicity, brevity and clarity are key.

Templates

Suggestion Template

Code:

[hrc]#FFFFFF[/hrc][size=14][color=#FFFFFF]Suggestion[/color][/size]
[color=#FFFFFF]Type:[/color] Use one or more of the following phrases to identify which are the domains of the specific change you're proposing: Rules / POB Plugin / Economy / Other
[color=#FFFFFF]Title:[/color] Here, in less than a sentence, what would change?

[color=#FFFFFF]Specifics[/color][list]
[*]In dot points no longer than a sentence, what must be done to make the change?
[/list]
[color=#FFFFFF]Potential Problems[/color][list]
[*]What are the potential flaws or exploits or shortcomings of this suggestion that you can identify, but not resolve?
[/list]
[color=#FFFFFF]Example of Effect[/color]
Provide one or two brief examples of how the change would affect gameplay.

[color=#FFFFFF]Further Discussion[/color]
Why this change? Here you may include further rambling, or links to other places where you have already completed that rambling. Don't forget that the more you write, the less likely people are to read it. If you make a real wall of text, consider throwing it in [spoiler] tags so the thread is still easy to navigate.

Critique Template

Code:

[hrc]#FFFFFF[/hrc][size=14][color=#FFFFFF]Critique[/color][/size]
[color=#FFFFFF]Suggestion Addressed:[/color] Include a link here to the precise post that you're addressing. You can get a post's link by clicking on the #number on the top right of the post. Use the title of the suggestion to provide text for the link, rather than posting the raw link, because there might be multiple suggestions in the same post.

[color=#FFFFFF]Problem Summary[/color][list]
[*]In dot points no longer than a sentence, what is each problem with the suggestion? You can't write "I don't like it", you have to write the reason, so others understand why.
[/list]
[color=#FFFFFF]Amendment[/color][list]
[*]In dot points no longer than a sentence, can things about the suggestion be amended to avoid the problems?
[/list]
[color=#FFFFFF]Further Discussion[/color]
Why not this change? Here you discuss or ramble about the problems in detail. You might want to provide a more detailed example than above of a negative outcome that the suggested change, as is, would result in. You can provide links to other posts in which you've discussed flaws with the suggestion. If you make a real wall of text, consider throwing it in [spoiler] tags so the thread is still easy to navigate.

---

[ONIKS]

---

Suggestion
Type: Other
Title: Give 2iCs access to Official Faction Leader Subforum

Specifics

• 1iCs can choose or assign 2iCs to also have the access to Official Faction Leader Subforum.
  

Potential Problems

• 1iCs must choose wisely, who else is going to see the Official Faction Leader Subforum. But it will make life for HC easier.
  

---

On hiatus for unspecified amount of time

[Spectre]

---

Critique
Suggestion Addressed: Something that has been brought up involves us going back to one official faction per NPC ID.

Problem Summary

• There are some IDs that have two or even three official factions attached to them, and retroactively applying a rule that makes them unallowed only causes a problem that doesn't need to exist.
  
• Limiting IDs to one official faction stunts creative takes on IDs with the flexibility to allow it, such as independents, unlawfuls, etc, and guides that NPC faction's decisions ultimately towards one viewpoint.
  
• Unofficial factions of the same ID as official factions are suddenly relegated to the position of offering flavor to their faction, instead of being able to directly influence it in more hands-on methods if they so choose.
  

Amendment

• Limit the number of officials on the same ID to a larger number than 'one'.
  

Further Discussion
Limiting each ID to one official faction only serves to open a can of worms that we ultimately don't need. There are currently eight NPC factions that have two (or three in the case of the Coalition) official factions representing them, and retroactively enforcing a rule like this would be complete anarchy in terms of lashback from the leaders and members of said official factions. It would mean that GMs would need to decide which factions are to remain official, and which are to be devolved back to the realm of unofficial status, without so much as an activity check or faction-wide sanction post, all the while demotivating players from playing that particular faction.
There are also plenty of unofficial factions that may strive to make their own take on their NPC faction official, but suddenly wouldn't be able to because of a rule that prevents them from doing so. While it doesn't mean they can't effect things in the area they operate in, it significantly inhibits their presence and the responsibility over their compatriots flying independently on the same ID.

While the idea isn't bad in concept, in practice it would only cause a load of grief and salt that Disco doesn't need, and may ultimately kill the mod outright. If a rule like this is to be looked into, I'd suggest a higher threshold for officials on the same ID, limiting it at 3 per ID to as to allow factions like the Coalition to maintain their officials, or two at most perhaps and make an exception for the Coalition to prevent any of the lashback that will ultimately happen as a result. Even grandfathering current official factions as exceptions would be better, and cause less grief.

---

#BringBackTheCommonwealth

=CR=------*L|------TFP)
--.-----.-
A plurality is not a majority, and a majority is not everybody.

---

Spec's RP Consortium
V-3X | CV-Montu | Fort Murray
Unum pro Omnibus, Omnes pro Uno

Your signature grew too big, I helped downscale it. ~Vex
Your adjustment grew too big, I helped downscale it. ~Spectre

[Pepe]

---

Suggestion
Type: Ships
Title: Barge

Specifics

• Every OF with mining/commodity perk should have one barge too
  

Potential Problems

• Additional drama
  

Example of Effect

• Additional drama
  

Further Discussion
Barges were nice source of activity and thrill. Losing barge/cargo generated a lot of salt however, but game was rolling on.

---

[Prysin]

[Specifics

• Game masters must follow up, and ensure, that no single person holds a position of leadership (1ic/2ic) in more then ONE faction.
  

Potential Problems

• Salty feelings of people trying to become mini emperors ingame
  

Example of Effect
Reduction of pixel power-hoarding for the sake of keeping "pixel power"

Further Discussion
Why this change?

Because some people, try to insert themselves into leadership positions that they do not actually follow up on. They just "take the crown" and do nothing. Causing stalemate and loss of progression, or even a regression in activity in their region. IF you aren't going to actively play the game, you have no right to be in any sort of leadership position, and should resign your position to a more dedicated player. If no such player is avalible, you should look towards the forums for a decent representative.

---

DHC Discord

[Megaera]

---

Suggestion
Type: Other
Title: More requirements to stay Official

Specifics

• Return faction activity reports
  
• Prevent factions from activity farming the last week to keep officialdom
  

Potential Problems

• People losing officialdom might rage.
  

Example of Effect
Official factions are forced to make an actual contribution to the ingame environment or risk losing officialdom at which point factions that are motivated to contribute can take over. Right now OFs are never removed from officialdom as long as they can farm their 3 days of activity while contributing nothing otherwise.

Further Discussion
This will make people actually work for staying official, instead of them doing nothing after they achieved officialdom other than to log their 3 days to stay in their position. Becoming official takes efford. Keeping officialdom does not. I would like to see that official factions start living up to their name and actually have a presence again. One idea I propose is returning the activity report, so staff can evaluate the actual contribution of the faction to the game besides the incredibly small activity time of 3 days over a 3 months timespan.

---

---

Matriarch Of the Gen'an Chrysanthemums - Ishikawa Aya
Gen'an Cell Information - Recruitment - Communications Network

---

Megaera - Ishikawa Masako
Feedback - Data Storage - Birth of a goddess

---

[Lord Helmchen]

---

Suggestion
Type: Trade
Title: Bonus

Specifics

• Give Factions that are Mostly Trade ones like OS&C a Bonus for Trade Prices
  

Potential Problems

• I dont have one in Mind
  

Example of Effect

• More Traders as it would be more Profitable.
  

Further Discussion
Currently, the Only Reason for Factions Like OS&C is to have some RP. then when I fly in my Palace Liner I get at best 10 to 12 Million per Flight, and even on a 5k Transport, it's Not Nearly as Profitable as Mining for Example. so there is not much Motivation to Fly those Ships if you aren't sure to have some good RP on the Way. I would suggest to give Trade Factions a Bonus on Trade that would make INRP Sense, like to Give OS&C a Bonus for Passengers, VIPs, and other Luxury Stuff.

---

---

Orbital Spa and Cruise

---

<> Information <> Recruitment <> Bounty Board <>

[WizardLizard]

---

Suggestion
Type: Rules/Other
Title: Salt for salts sake (in OFL feedback threads)

Specifics

• Unnecesary hysterics and overly harsh "criticisms" should be sanctionable or at least have some repercussions
  
• Less stress from outside hate when receiving OFL status
  

Potential Problems

• People will most likely think gms as more evil or unfair, people will misunderstand and abuse to extremes.
  

Example of Effect
There would be no effect in gameplay, as I am referring to forums, although this can be moved into the game as well.

Further Discussion
Right. I'm part of the Liberty Intelligence Agency. Before the OFL status, being in LIA was fun to some extent. We would still get dumped on by random players for things we haven't done by that point, hate in game, getting targetted in game, etc. Our leader still logged in those times. Then we became official. Once that happened, we made some mistakes. Yes, we deserved from criticism for those mistakes, but instead we got backlash and hate. The point of the feed back thread is to identify what's wrong with the faction and present solutions. No solutions were presented, only problems and more problems. Personally, as a member of the HC of LIA, I get more help asking HCs and people who hate us on discord rather than on the forums. Its like people want to dump on other people, but they feel some sort of ego boost if they get asked for help. If the rules, or at least the unspoken etiquette and purpose of a feedback thread (being that good feedback should be given) are broken, I think there should be repercussions. I don't want to see the crap that happened to us happen to any other new factions or unofficial factions, yet its still happening with certain factions such as the Blood Dragon (NKS) thread to some extent and other threads.

---

[romeodarkbeat]

---

Critique
Suggestion Addressed: Wizard's about Feedback

Problem Summary

• Problem of restricting feedback is you get constructive criticism banned too.
  

Amendment

• Suggestion, standart rules for forum abuse to be improved and enforced instead of new feedback rules.
  

Further Discussion
Full disclosure: I'm friends with Wizard and get his sentiment, as it doens't happen to LIA only and doens't happen on forums only. Every time feedback is restricted stuff tends to go haywire. If the standart forum abuse rules didn't get you covered it's either on who made the rules weak, who didn't enforce them or on LIA for not coming to GMs for help (again, in case you didn't, I'm guessing here). I saw a thread being locked once to stop drama because it was christmas, if stuff goes south quickly and people start calling people names you need to be covered by the forum rules that apply to everyone.

Now just *imagine* the few OFs that already cling to pixel power being protected from feedback.

---

JOIN THE 46th TODAY | INFORMATION | HOME | REPORTS | SPEC OPS

[Charo]

---

Suggestion
Type: Official Faction Rules
Title: Less strict checks on unpopular factions

Specifics

• Niche/Unpopular/factions with otherwise no representation are held to a lower standard to stay official (less time per quarter)
  

Potential Problems

• Factions could suddenly drop off to nothing but claim that they should fall under this ruling
  
• Factions in more popular areas can claim discrimination/unfairness
  

Example of Effect
Factions with no NPC representation can still have someone to speak for them even if they're not a faction that draws in a lot of players. It would also help with factions that gather a bunch of people, grind to be official, then lose players, burn out, and can't fully maintain that activity.

Further Discussion
It's pretty common that factions that people say they wish there was a faction for will get a burst of popularity, apply to be official, then fail their first check because they can only get 1-2 days. There are also some factions that won't have their activity for most of the quarter then grind everything out in the last few days just to stay around. This wouldn't change anything for NPC factions with multiple groups, but it would give other factions where it's only a few people playing a chance to get in place. If another faction pops up on someone claiming this, they could be pushed to normal standards.

---