Jump to content
Server time: 2017-10-21, 23:15
Safe Zone: CLOSING SOON

Sign in to follow this  
Rolle

Group Balancing System

Recommended Posts

Rolle    2963

Here's a thought that I got during the weekend. Sorting and balancing groups based on their goals and in game actions.

We'd separate all clans into three groups (just an example taken from memory, if you're incorrectly placed - ignore it):

Bandit - SDS, Volki, B17, CRA, E1, ISOA

Neutral - BHM, TFW, Fallen, 501st

Friendly - FM, CBR, LK, TOR, YS, Fangs

Now, in GroupCP we place every group in one of those and they would get an additional logo indicating their affiliation (a gun for bandits, a flag for neutrals, a dove for friendlies?). This ranking would then be used in group approval process, at no point should there be 2 groups more than the opposing side. For example, if there are 8 friendly groups and 10 bandit groups active we will not accept any more new bandit groups (even if they meet all requirements) until the balance evens out.

Neutral groups would be limited to half of the number of groups on whichever side has more of them, using the example above this would be 10/2 = 5. Neutral groups can do a little of both sides, still haven't decided how that would work, but that's where you come in :P

Groups associated to a stance cannot change it unless the change gets approved by an admin. So, no creating a friendly group and then robbing people *cough*E1*cough*.

I think this would provide more balance to the server and the community would have a clearer picture who is who. Yes, it places restraints on what you can do in game, but that is to provide consistency in your actions and make the power struggle over Chernarus more balanced than how it is now.

What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mattbro    0

Yes! The amount of banditos is too damn high, but this also limits the amount of clans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Biiddy   
Guest Biiddy

Its a good idea to balance the groups i suppose, kind of seems like more restriction from creating groups though also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andrew    0

I like the idea of splitting clans up into the 3 groups and making sure they follow there goals and stance but I'm not too sure how I feel about limiting the number of say bandit clans or what not especially when clans are disbanding and being re created all the time. Overall I think it's a step in the right direction though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dave    1

I like it, it will also stop so many clans getting to the official stage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hatch    0

-snip-

Edit: After reading what BLS said, I agree with some of his words. Groups shouldn't be placed into categories because then they cannot be diverse.

For example with BHM, we all play our own characters. If one of use wants to be a bandit, be a bandit. If one of use wants to be a medic, be a medic.

By putting clans into groups means that OOC people will change their views.

The categories is a no, the balancing is a yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Samaritan    346

I do like the balancing of the clans and the 'no more than two' seems fair. But I'm not sure I like the restrictions that it would impose. Undecided.

If a member of a clan does something that they are not supposed to do, is it punishable by the clan leaders or staff as it is a 'server rule'?

I also think that part of the fun of meeting a new group is taking a chance on what kind of group they are, its good RP. If you already know OOC, it kind of spoils that (I know you shouldn't be using OOC information) but it will be there in the back of your mind.

Rolle (if this is implemented) - please not a dove lol...there must be something else for a friendly clan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wunsleh    10

Groups associated to a stance cannot change it unless the change gets approved by an admin. So, no creating a friendly group and then robbing people *cough*E1*cough*.

Never stated once that we were going to be friendly.

I told Tomeran, that our stance would be dependent on the interaction of the players we met ingame.

when we first got accepted and did the jump out of the osprey everyone instantly were threatening and hostile towards us. after that we met people ingame, trying to rob us etc. etc. etc.

this did not change at all. so we decided to take an aggresive approach which worked well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Husky    0

I like this idea a lot, it will also limit the amount of clan ideas posted that a similar to each other

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a great idea if I'm honest with you. Already we have a safe zone where people are untouchable, now we must create a group that categorises itself so boldly in one direction or the other? Not good.

The idea of bandit and hero is so basic. It undermines the whole idea of creating a diverse and evolving groups. As the Doragonzu we have an in-depth background and ideology based upon honour. If people don't show respect and are not deemed honourable, usually being stereotypically racist then only then do we take action.

I personally wouldn't class us in any of those sorts of categories because our group's behaviour is moulded by others in the community, calling us a bandit group would negate all of the positive and 'hero' like roleplay that we regularly perform also.

People should never feel safe in-game because people have a hard time as it is IC'ly showing fear/intimidation by a group. If you declare OOC that you are a hero then you'll find people will start berating you until you crack and commit hostilities. If you declare OOC that you're a bandit then people will never want to interact with you.

I can't express enough how much I disagree with this idea. I don't want to see clans pigeonholed into groups that are based upon a 2 year old idea that has already been scrapped by this mod 'the humanity system'. This genuinely would be a huge step back for this community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Burgz    6

I like the idea, will prevent people from going crazy and making a new clan every week too.

One thing though. Back in the 501st, when we first started up, we were dead heroes and would help everyone. After the Altar period and taking so much shit from everyone we discussed in the private forums that it would make more sense, roleplaying wise, for us to slowly give up attempting to help everyone.

If this were implemented, what would happen in this situation?

TLDR: Essentially if a group were to change how it acted IG for role play.

EDIT: I see in the OP you said it would have to be approved but that's gonna take a while anyway, plus the fact that there needs to be a spot open. Then there's also the fact that clans being accepted can take even longer which cab deter people from making their own groups. Which is both good and bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Pandi   
Guest Pandi

I love the idea of this:

Now, in GroupCP we place every group in one of those and they would get an additional logo indicating their affiliation (a gun for bandits, a flag for neutrals, a dove for friendlies?).

This is a really cool idea and I support it, hopefully this gets implemented!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Astycc   
Guest Astycc

Sounds good, maybe involve more neutral clans than any other as neutral clans can tend to go either way, they can rob or help, like BHM, or whatever, it gives diversity in clan RP and gives more variety to the server.

Good idea though, will look forward for this to develop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the idea of this:

Now, in GroupCP we place every group in one of those and they would get an additional logo indicating their affiliation (a gun for bandits, a flag for neutrals, a dove for friendlies?).

This is a really cool idea and I support it, hopefully this gets implemented!

Really? Determining the whole nature, actions, OOC and IC perception of a group on a little logo? This pretty much negates the complexity of the clan requirements we have in the first place and that is to put RP first. Where is the roleplay in putting a logo next to your clan that determines how you should now be perceived. IC interactions with individuals? Who needs them because that little dove next to my name has told everyone all they need to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Burgz    6

I love the idea of this:

Now, in GroupCP we place every group in one of those and they would get an additional logo indicating their affiliation (a gun for bandits, a flag for neutrals, a dove for friendlies?).

This is a really cool idea and I support it, hopefully this gets implemented!

Really? Determining the whole nature, actions, OOC and IC perception of a group on a little logo? This pretty much negates the complexity of the clan requirements we have in the first place and that is to put RP first. Where is the roleplay in putting a logo next to your clan that determines how you should now be perceived. IC interactions with individuals? Who needs them because that little dove next to my name has told everyone all they need to know.

Surely this ensures that clans are roleplaying correctly. A hardcore bandit group such as SDS for example, should they be going around blood bagging people etc?

Although for our group, we do actually base how we act on whoever we meet so I do find the groups a little too strict?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes! The amount of banditos is too damn high, but this also limits the amount of clans

50080320.jpg

:P

The idea seems like a good way to "enforce" variety in the community, and no along any one "type" of clan to dominate the player base. Considering that a variety of play styles, and the ability to chose from them, with the added bonus of not having any one of them forced on a player, is what keeps a community healthy, the idea seems like it would be good, overall, for the community.

In my humble opinion, of course.

Edit to add:: Just because a clan is "categorized" as bandit/neutral/good...whatever, that doesn't mean they have to act that way 100% of the time. Categorization does not remove random actions or suspense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sidewinder    1

Really don't like it... The group system, leave it to people to have their own viewpoint on which groups they see as "friendly" or not.

Categorising groups will give a falsification for new members on who to trust.

Somalian's -can- be nice you know...

Plus huge +1 to Big's points, he outs it across a lot better than I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aundre    0

I think this would be a great idea! Limitations are always needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daryl Dixon    0

I think this is a cool idea, definitely would provide a clearer image of who is who. However it Might not encourage people to create friendly clans though, unless they are able to battle the bandits which I'm guessing they will be able too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DinoB    20

No. I don't like this at all. ISOA bandit? Yes you could say so, but we are only bandit to certain people. In character Chernarussians citizens would think of us as heroes while foreign people think of us as bandits. You can't just label a group bandit, without looking from other people's point of view.

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Pandi   
Guest Pandi

I love the idea of this:

Now, in GroupCP we place every group in one of those and they would get an additional logo indicating their affiliation (a gun for bandits, a flag for neutrals, a dove for friendlies?).

This is a really cool idea and I support it, hopefully this gets implemented!

Really? Determining the whole nature, actions, OOC and IC perception of a group on a little logo? This pretty much negates the complexity of the clan requirements we have in the first place and that is to put RP first. Where is the roleplay in putting a logo next to your clan that determines how you should now be perceived. IC interactions with individuals? Who needs them because that little dove next to my name has told everyone all they need to know.

Personally I think it's just a cool idea, maybe it shouldn't be used in-game, but I think it would be a nice touch to the forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely this ensures that clans are roleplaying correctly. A hardcore bandit group such as SDS for example, should they be going around blood bagging people etc?

Although for our group, we do actually base how we act on whoever we meet so I do find the groups a little too strict?

I've had mixed experiences with SDS, one of my characters was respected by them and actually had a friendship with one of their members, two of the others have been taken captive but both shown mercy at the end of the day. These varied experiences of not knowing what you're going to get is exciting. That's what makes this mod interesting.

Knowing plain and simply that these groups HAVE to behave this way is absurd. Basically you're saying that the group cannot be affected or influence by others. They are pre-determined to be bad or good, no exceptions because Rolle has decided that putting a logo next to the group is enough and that strictly governs how you behave.

We're always told roleplay before ruleplay. Roleplay and reasoning should be determining your actions, not a logo on a forum.

EDIT: Saw a post about variety. Personally, variety comes from a freedom of choice. Forcing people to make a certain type of group is not the way to go forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Samaritan    346

I love the idea of this:

This is a really cool idea and I support it, hopefully this gets implemented!

Really? Determining the whole nature, actions, OOC and IC perception of a group on a little logo? This pretty much negates the complexity of the clan requirements we have in the first place and that is to put RP first. Where is the roleplay in putting a logo next to your clan that determines how you should now be perceived. IC interactions with individuals? Who needs them because that little dove next to my name has told everyone all they need to know.

Personally I think it's just a cool idea, maybe it shouldn't be used in-game, but I think it would be a nice touch to the forums.

Only issue being is it would be used in game...I know it shouldn't due to it being OOC. But people will have a preconceived idea of a clan. Part of the fun is the 'not knowing' and finding out what a clan is like in game. You may lose some of the RP in doing just that.

Although I suppose all you have to do is look on the clan threads...hmmm difficult one this lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest ArcticStarling   
Guest ArcticStarling

Nope, limits RP progression of groups aswell as limiting RP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only issue being is it would be used in game...I know it shouldn't due to it being OOC. But people will have a preconceived idea of a clan. Part of the fun is the 'not knowing' and finding out what a clan is like in game. You may lose some of the RP in doing just that.

Although I suppose all you have to do is look on the clan threads...

I love looking at a clan thread and not knowing precisely where they stand, it adds so much more intrigue. You could play a character that they like and will never harm but you could play a character that they don't like. Your roleplay experiences with them shape their behaviour towards you, that's the beauty of this mod as it stands.

Also this whole idea of labelling a group stifles and restricts the roleplay of those within the group as individuals. For example, Yoshi our advisor is one of the least aggressive members of the group and merely speaks to others, for the most part. He doesn't really roleplay as a bandit but people will only see a 'bandit' when they see his XML because of what it reads on the forum.

EDIT: By all means balance and choose to approve or disapprove a clan based upon reading its clan thread but please don't section clans so boldly as this. I believe you already do this anyway so I don't see any need for there to be a change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×