Jump to content

Server time (UTC): 2021-08-03 11:41

Dynamic Events: "The Mutated.."
TODAY | 2021-08-03 19:00:00 (server time) | Starts in 7 hours, 18 minutes | Nyheim City

stricter group requirements


cas

group requirements  

79 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

  • MVP

hello gamers, i brought up some points in the recent zerg thread which I believe should be discussed more. I believe that some stricter requirements are in order for us to have hopefully more but also more interesting and unique groups, which makes for better stories in role play.

not to name names, but from what i gather reading the radio forum we currently have not 1 but 2 (two) factions in-game currently that are based on factions from fallout new vegas, the "new chernarussian republic" and "dead horse". now im sure they are providing great roleplay and doing things well, but surely we can do better than that? again, this is not intended to come off as any kind of jab or insult at anyone or their group.

I am suggesting that we begin enforcing our current group rules, specifically the SMART goals and maybe more, idk, but i would like to ideally have the loremasters working on this as this has been an issue before.

Link to post
  • Sapphire

I feel as if DayZRP suffers from The Walking Dead Syndrome. After almost a decade, people start running out of ideas. Almost every group, aside from aesthetics, is the same:

"Group of [fishermen, gangbangers, political activists, etc.] who have as their goals the ownership of a specific area, where they hoard guns and very frequently engage in PVP."

It feels as if it's a pub server with KOS rules and light roleplay. One group I would point people to are the McCoomers. An absolute gem of a group I had the utmost honor of being a part of. It was a big family of people, and our primary goal was roleplay. Sometimes hostile, but always enjoyable to ALL parties. We had scheduled fights, we took people's shit without them noticing for scraps, we had our own endless sources of internal and external RP, extremely charming characters and personalities... And we just ripped shit off from the "Snatch" movie.

I don't think Cas' point, although it may seem like it, is that groups should be 100% original in their essence, only that they should be more than what they are. The Walking Dead is a great example of this. Every big faction so far has been a mix of bandits or cultists who own a town, seem nice at first but then have some evil twist which leads to bad situations where all characters come out alive... Except for maybe one or two.

I can't help but draw parallels between the two, specially with how scared people are of PKing their characters.

+1000 from me.

Link to post
  • Titanium
Posted (edited)

My personal opinion, you're right. However, I don't really think we should care about group names per say, only about their goals. I also think that groups should not be allowed to re-brand or divert from their original goals and should be forced to archive if that's even an option from group leadership. 

My opinion for this is based on yours and the SMART goal criteria, but when it comes to names... everyone isn't a creative writer or LM and some people can roleplay really well but might take influence from sources in other games for naming or overall group design. You also have to consider, there have been thousands of group ideas to this point, so you're gonna get repeats or reskinned groups a lot. 

Goals are what matters, if they're bland or too similar to another group, don't approve. 

Edited by SGCAlamor
Link to post
  • MVP
1 minute ago, SGCAlamor said:

-snip-

yeah, as Angel said my issue is absolutely not taking inspiration from other media - that is fine. I just believe that the lore and admin team can do better with enforcing more unique and achievable goals.

Link to post
  • Titanium
Just now, cas said:

yeah, as Angel said my issue is absolutely not taking inspiration from other media - that is fine. I just believe that the lore and admin team can do better with enforcing more unique and achievable goals.

Couldn't agree more.

Link to post
  • Sapphire

I wish to start my statement with a disclaimer. New Chernarussian Republic is not a group, nor will it see an actual group formed. Even if it was on paper, it will remain as it was designated to be, a Political State for the Lore Event, not a group. 

And yes, I agree with more unique approaches to groups, I have been given a collection of group ideas by several people over the last days, even offered suggestions what to do with them.

I do encourage people to present their ideas to the Loremasters team and to ask if there can be any adjustments and it can be done if there can be any changes to it or if it fits the lore.

Link to post
  • Emerald
Posted (edited)

I would personally like to see stricter enforcement of our existing group rules, in specific having more of each group's goals meet the SMART requirements and ensuring that groups are adhering to those goals and to the over all direction and tone of the group as it was presented. While I understand that some group goals are always going to be "ongoing" in nature I've seen quite a few groups this Lore that had only a handful of goals which had meaningful progression or a time requirement on them, followed by a long list of goals that never ended or seemed to change/evolve/progress because they were "indefinite". I've also seen more than a few groups that had a strong central theme that was, sometimes within just weeks or (in one case) even days of approval, seemingly cast aside everything they had in their lore and goals to go and live a lifestyle that was directly contradictory to it.  There's nothing wrong with a group that slowly changes and evolves over time in response to roleplay, but we should be holding new groups to the lore and goals that they themselves made right out of the gate. There's also nothing wrong with a group that's multi-faceted, even when some of those goals run directly contradictory to one another, as long as there's a solid story behind what they're doing: as an example, a quick read of the Belic Bar's group page will explain, OOCly at least, why friendly civilian bartenders and bouncers also had one foot in the back alleyways from day one. 

Edit: Grammar fixes.

Edited by K2U
Link to post
  • Emerald
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, cas said:

I just believe that the lore and admin team can do better with enforcing more unique and achievable goals.

Agreed.

20 minutes ago, Angel said:

It feels as if it's a pub server with KOS rules and light roleplay.

Agreed.

36 minutes ago, cas said:

but surely we can do better than that?

Agreed.

 

Overall i agree with the message that you're trying to get out there, Group Goals should be clear and actually have an impact on other people's roleplay alongside theirs.

Edited by Niller
Link to post

Stricter SMART  requirements could do a lot of good to this server IMO,  nothing wrong with inspiration from other groups or other games but it would not hurt to be a bit stricter more mostly the goals I would see more enforced than names they took inspiration from or the lore of a group that is either here or somewhere in another game.

Link to post
2 minutes ago, K2U said:

I've also seen more than a few groups that had a strong central theme that was, sometimes within just weeks or even days (in one case) of approval, seemingly cast aside everything they had in their lore and goals to go and live a lifestyle that was directly contradictory to it.

Thiiiis. I would give beanz but I have none left to give ;~;

Having staff looking out for whether or not the groups are actually trying to reach their more defined goals would be nice too. Some groups are using terms and ideas that are not very well explained (and are not played out well because they are using an outsider's perspective and not an actual insider's perspective) and could possibly mean many things to different people. 

As an avid Fallout New Vegas player, I was kinda disappointed to see the name Dead Horse(s) used for an outlaw group. But that's fine. Seeing a self-proclaimed anarcho-communist group being antagonistic to common people, and attempting to enforce rules and regulations on people outside their group in a country they don't belong in when, not only in their goals, but for actual anarcho-communists, that's who they're trying to get rid of...

It is entirely fine to use a name from something and play things out entirely different, but naming something whatever you want and pretending to be something and neither actually following goals you set out for your group nor the ones that you're naming yourself after, seems like cause for reevaluation.

Link to post
  • Diamond

Honestly, there are a lot of groups that are made and do not follow their own goals. They just do what ever. Only after the rights. And there are groups just do not make sense for them to be here in accordance with the current Lore. Or they are copies of other groups. I'm all for suspension of disbelief but some of these groups are quite a stretch. I think either stricter SMART goals or stricter Admins might improve things. 

But I doubt it simply due to people just going Dynamic anyway. 

Link to post
  • Emerald

Yeah tighter SMART goals would definitely help groups and their uniqueness. Every group I've seen in the past 2 or 3 years that's been unique is met with 5 other groups made with generic goals and generic lore with no progression in mind. They just exist for group rights let's be real 😎

Stricter group criteria means more direct groups, no more vague shit like 'recruit 5 people with the same beliefs as us' or 'establish trade'. If a group has actual SMART goals they'd be tied to the group lore and would push for meaningful progression and overall better RP

 

+1 Mr. @cas

Link to post

I worry that a result of this change would be fewer groups so -1 because I like lots of groups running around. I get what you’re saying cas, and I would agree with it if  the only consequence was better thought out groups. Fewer approved groups also might mean everyone stacks up in a few and then we get those supergroups and I don’t want that.

Link to post
  • Game Master
1 hour ago, cas said:

I am suggesting that we begin enforcing our current group rules, specifically the SMART goals and maybe more, idk, but i would like to ideally have the loremasters working on this as this has been an issue before.

Enforcement is a nice buzz word but how would you like to see this implemented as a process which staff could follow; cause let's be real, the enforcement of this has been sporadic at best because there is no well-defined process for ensuring groups are following their SMART goals.

Link to post
  • Sapphire
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, cas said:

 

not to name names, but from what i gather reading the radio forum we currently have not 1 but 2 (two) factions in-game currently that are based on factions from fallout new vegas, the "new chernarussian republic" and "dead horse". now im sure they are providing great roleplay and doing things well, but surely we can do better than that? 


You have insulted an NCR official , prepare to pay taxes.

 

Jokes aside , i accidentally clicked no.

as founder of the ZELENO FISHING CLUB,
the single most interesting and unique idea of this year if i may say so myself.

i can say a lot of groups might need some polishing, in the smart model.
The SMART model scares me tough seeing i failed a test because of it and my parents got mad at me.


besides that Mr Cas is making a valid point, But some unoriginal groups are logical and needed in Dayzrp , seeing they would make normal / Lore sense.

so like +0.5, Good idea, but overdone doesn't necessarily mean bad.

 

 

also we need more lore masters @Stagsview pls

 

 

 

Edited by Knight
Link to post
  • Diamond

I think stricter requirements to form groups isn't a necessity. We already have what I believe to believe a process that works. Groups have to make goals according to the SMART criteria, but that doesn't mean they are automatically approved. Groups then have to show themselves in game and be active to get approved. So, its not just a factory line of "oh you have an idea lets slap the approve sticker on it and call it a day." 

Where I do think things fall flat is that groups do not show any form of working towards their goals or progressing story lines. Which can happen for numerous reasons. However, I think that staff should be communicating with group leaders (council members) to make sure that they are working on their goals or changing what goals they have because they aren't achievable for whatever reason. If staff then believes that groups are made for just having rights then staff can close said group. As a group leader you take responsibility for your group OOCly so you should be held to a higher standard within the community to help prove that your group is meeting its goals and helping progress stories in some type of way (besides just focusing on PvP). 

Creating stricter requirements isn't really going to change anything because the creation of groups really isn't the problem. It's there actions in game that matter the most. This community isn't about who can create the most creative group, its about the roleplay in the server. If your group isn't contributing to stories and working on their goals then there is no need for that group to exist. Now of course I know that it is debatable, but that is why I suggested that staff talk directly to Council Members. Its their role as responsible owners of the group. 

Link to post
  • Lore Master
Posted (edited)

The group concept could be the best in the world...with a refreshing pov or a completely utterly new idea behind it..

But if the players are shit, the group will be shit also. 

 

Let me expand upon that logic for ya fellas a bit.

I never was a supporter of the SMART rule system. It was implemented to "encourage" people to think up concepts to do IG. This in itself has failed, I never bothered following the SMART goal concept. With Liska or Dead Batteries. It was the quality of the encounters/roleplay/mentality and most important the members that pushed the groups quality.

I couldn't give 2 shits about updating goals. So we in the end put meme goals just as a large Finger to the system. It isnt a requirement, Its a rather silly requirement. 

There is little pride in peoples groups these days. They make an idea to "have a giggle" and honestly that mentality is fine. I currently am playing to have a giggle ig. However as my time as Loremaster..I think i saw only like...4-5 groups that really stood out? A very "me me" centralized mentality instead of "the server". I barely saw people pushing outside their comfort zone and try further. "me-me" was all that mattered and as long as players continue with the "me-me" mentality well... ::shrugs:: I guess we will have survivor group Version 10.1 or nationalistic/communist etc etc

 

AND THAT ISNT A BAD THING. People refreshing old ideas isnt a bad thing, the ideas are not bad in itself..its the players and how its executed. If you think the idea is what makes the quality better...well 😄 sorry but no.

Edited by Stagsview
Link to post
  • Administrator

I would say it's kinda hard to be unique with groups nowadays because whatever you can think of 90% of the time that idea's been already done. Like stags says tho, the group can be the best idea in the world but it's the people that make it. 

1 hour ago, Angel said:

"Group of [fishermen, gangbangers, political activists, etc.] who have as their goals the ownership of a specific area, where they hoard guns and very frequently engage in PVP."

It feels as if it's a pub server with KOS rules and light roleplay. One group I would point people to are the McCoomers. An absolute gem of a group I had the utmost honor of being a part of.

Interesting that you mentioned this, wasn't a portion of the McCoomer's goal to own a set a land to call their own (Guglovo) and that they also stored/hoarded guns? Being part of Fishermen we never had goals, we did what we wanted and basically almost never had stashes. You can ask the old Olsha group about the roleplay we gave, you can even reference this post by yourself how you mention the fishermen being something new and "the most unique hostile group on the server." So this all falls down to the people who run said group, not the idea itself.

Link to post
  • Diamond

I'd love to see some stricter requirements for SMART goals. Maybe a list of generic goals that can't be used, or a minimum number of non-indefinite goals. I also kind of have to agree that group names taken directly from other media are a bit immersion breaking. I'd much rather see a group like Vyzov, working some of the lore into a concept they find interesting from somewhere else and want to emulate, than just a group literally called Monolith that does exactly the Monolith things. There's a long tradition in fiction of adapting ideas from other works, but just yoinking something fully intact from something outside the lore should probably be discouraged in the same way that just making a character from another piece of fiction isn't allowed.

Personally, though? I think I generally prefer dynamic groups. Reasons:

  • Leadership is a matter of who people follow IC, not who is on top of a roster.
  • There's nothing preventing a former leader rejoining the group on a different character if we happen to get a bit rowdy and PK them internally or throw them to the wolves on purpose.
  • Initiations are more fun because everyone has to get in on them if they're going to help.
  • No roster or goals to meta. People won't really know who you are, what you're doing, or what you call yourselves unless you tell them.
  • It generally encourages IC motivations over OOC motivations and book-keeping.
Link to post
  • Emerald

Groups and the group ideas are merely devices that are intended to facilitate roleplay, not define it. I think that when you start getting too pinpointed with group goals and the aesthetic of the group, it doesn't leave much room to account for peoples characters growing, changing, or molding within the group and even affecting the group itself in that way.

 

All you had to say was "hey can we have more original group ideas?" And then hope the community responds in kind, but you can't police the ideas that people have simply because it's been done before. Nothing will stifle the community more than some new whitelisted peeps joining the server and then getting swatted with a newspaper because their group is kind of similar to a group that existed a year ago.

 

The reality is that there are only so many things you can do in the apocalypse. It's about survival, and that doesn't leave an immeasurable spectrum of creativity or flexibility in what people will do. I'd also like to point out that in the current lore, you need to write in a lot of extenuating and circumstantial events to ensure it makes sense for your group to exist in the first place if it isn't solely comprised of Chernarussians. If we want more diverse groups, we're going to need more hands-on loremaster-ing and the willingness to actually have groups affect things in the world on a more regular basis.

 

I digress a little but my point is that making it harder for groups to get approved is not going to improve the quality of roleplay. In fact, it will further shoe-horn it into something that adheres strictly to the apocalypse genre. Not much room in there when you think about it.

Link to post
  • Sapphire
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, KittyCocktails said:

Seeing a self-proclaimed anarcho-communist group being antagonistic to common people, and attempting to enforce rules and regulations on people outside their group in a country they don't belong in when, not only in their goals, but for actual anarcho-communists, that's who they're trying to get rid of...

I am assuming you are talking about our group.

If you have an issue with our portrayal of anarcho communists or are unsure of why we do what we do to certain people, feel free to direct message me or ask/leave feedback on our groupthread.

I cannot remember running into your character, so I have no clue what you base your accusations on. Personally, I think it is important to judge out of first hand experience.

With that being said, I dont think the current system in place needs to be reworked or anything. People have played pretty much anything at this point.

Like other people said, its not about the concept of a group, but the people portraying.

Edited by Hennessy
Link to post
  • MVP
2 hours ago, KittyCocktails said:

Seeing a self-proclaimed anarcho-communist group being antagonistic to common people, and attempting to enforce rules and regulations on people outside their group in a country they don't belong in when, not only in their goals, but for actual anarcho-communists, that's who they're trying to get rid of...

Let's not get into that here, instead leave feedback on the thread where one can properly reply and explain why that's a skewed point of view as I firmly believe you have the wrong idea about Narodniks, often times the thing you are missing is the IC context for actions.

As for the actual thread itself, SMART goals are dumb, we didn't need them in the past when excellent groups such as ZBOR, Clowns, The Kingdom and many more noteworthy mentions existed, what really defines the roleplay a group provides is the people in it and their willingness to provide a great experience not only for themselves but primarily to the opposing party.

The SMART goals do not really accomplish much other than allow for more excessive metagaming, instead each group should be in contact with a Loremaster and work with them frequently.

Link to post
  • Diamond
40 minutes ago, Faygo said:

I think that when you start getting too pinpointed with group goals and the aesthetic of the group, it doesn't leave much room to account for peoples characters growing, changing, or molding within the group and even affecting the group itself in that way.

There is nothing that says groups can't change over time. However, goals totally help direct roleplay, but as you said do not define it. If everyone was just running around with no goals then we might as well turn this into a modded server with combat rules and no roleplay. Goals help direct roleplay, whether it is someones personal goals or a groups goals, and this help groups from just being a defined group of friends with shared attacker and defender rights. That is why these goals should be monitored by staff and made sure that groups are working in some way towards their goals. 

So at the end of the day what do we really want approved groups to be there for? 

As stated by multiple people you can just run dynamic. Therefore, to get and keep shared attacker/defender rights, groups should be held to a higher standard. Otherwise there is no point in have groups other than those shared rights and we should just get rid of group threads and let people define who they want to share rights with a list. 

Link to post
  • Sapphire
1 hour ago, Inferno said:

I would say it's kinda hard to be unique with groups nowadays because whatever you can think of 90% of the time that idea's been already done. Like stags says tho, the group can be the best idea in the world but it's the people that make it. 

Interesting that you mentioned this, wasn't a portion of the McCoomer's goal to own a set a land to call their own (Guglovo) and that they also stored/hoarded guns? Being part of Fishermen we never had goals, we did what we wanted and basically almost never had stashes. You can ask the old Olsha group about the roleplay we gave, you can even reference this post by yourself how you mention the fishermen being something new and "the most unique hostile group on the server." So this all falls down to the people who run said group, not the idea itself.

Having our own town of Killeshandra? Yes. Stashing guns? What? Just because it's a place where we settle down to RP and bring people in for events, it doesn't make it a gun hoarding station. We barely had any good guns at any point. It was just the place to be if you wanted to find the McCoomers. The RP provided by the Fishermen is exactly what I mentioned is part of the problem. You said it yourself:

"Being part of Fishermen we never had goals."

Maybe that's not a good thing? Maybe there should be more to your RP than a group of young badasses shooting guns and acting, quite frankly, very childishly? At least, that was my most recent experience around you guys. A lot of whispering and girly giggling about my ass and the asses of every other female you came across.

At the time you guys were unique, yes. But now I can't honestly distinguish between any of the hostile groups, except for their thread aesthetics, and the Fishermen are no different.

Link to post
  • Sapphire
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Angel said:

It feels as if it's a pub server with KOS rules and light roleplay. One group I would point people to are the McCoomers.

As a member of the Ocelari I would have agreed maybe the first few times we spoke BUT I recently heard from a member that was IN the McCoomers that once some people learned we were after them for being slavers... they stopped playing or changed characters. So yes great group with MAYBE some dope ass goals... But at the end of the day, all I care about is the RP they provide not their SMART goals. A dynamic group with NO smart goals could have 10x better RP than, let’s say, Spero does. SMART goals don’t mean shit in the long run imo, the RP they give does.

Edited by Panda
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...