Jump to content
Server time (UTC): 2020-10-30, 16:31 HALLOWEEN SALE
Sign in to follow this  
JoffreyRP

Group limits.

Group Limits  

108 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

Howdy folks, spitballin' a few more idea out there to see what you folks think.

 

It's my intent to focus on group lore a lot more heavily in the coming weeks. I feel you guys are the driving force behind what makes RP here.. RP... yanno? With that in mind here is idea #1

 

Bad guy group/good guy group limits.

what does this mean?

If we have like.. 7 bad guy groups, and only 2 good guy groups, we do not allow new bad guy groups to be made, until the current ones archive.

Stricter enforcement of group goals

what does this mean?

Instead of limiting what type of group you can or cannot make, focus on making sure the groups we do have keep an updated goals list, and are actively playing the group they represent properly. Give like, one warning when  they fuck up their shit, and then force archival if they do not improve within a week.

 

Both?

Start to balance goodguy/badguy ratio, AND enforce stricter regulation on group goals?

 

Disclaimer:

Neutral groups will also be closely watched if folks suddenly flock to neutral groups to avoid excess scrutiny.

Please vote, I'd like to know what you guys think before doing massive reforms.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, I agree 100% we need to balance this. +1 

Share this post


Link to post

Not a fan of the limits. You'll get multiple people waiting for a group to archive to post their own group thread. A balance would be nice but people will just RP what they want to RP in a dynamic instead of switching to a different kind of RP. We shouldn't tell people that they can't make the group they want.

The stricter enforcement of the approved groups I can agree with. Make people work to accomplish their goals and guide them with this.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't necessarily think there should be a limit on how many groups there are of which type, because then people who have good group ideas for either type won't be able to make a group, which would be unfair, monitoring groups is what we should be doing right now.

Share this post


Link to post

I will back this 100%. In the past we have had a problem with all the bad guys just ganging up on everyone even if the alliance didn't make any sense. Limiting the amount of group types could probably help with this as well as enforcing group goals in a more strict manner.

Share this post


Link to post

Wasn't this a faction idea Rolle had or something? And people voted against it?

 

Would of swore he suggested something along the lines of limiting the number of types of groups, and people thought that would restrict their RP play styles too much. Wish I could find the discussion post on it.

Share this post


Link to post

Limiting the official groups people can play won't stop them from rolling dynamically. Having a group CP really doesn't offer much in the way of in-game or out-of-character benefits, so you really have no incentive for people to make an official group if you're going to set a limit on a particular type of group. Scrap the limit, as its easily circumvented and pointless.

As for stricter enforcement of group goals, I can get behind this, but how would you determine whether or not their goals are being/have been fulfilled?

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Brayces said:

Wasn't this a faction idea Rolle had or something? And people voted against it?

 

Would of swore he suggested something along the lines of limiting the number of types of groups, and people thought that would restrict their RP play styles too much. Wish I could find the discussion post on it.

Ah! Found it, here.

Categorize and balance groups
I don't want to have another PvP fest with hostile groups dominating everyone else because the others are not enough in numbers to fight back. Let's balance the groups instead. When creating a group you must pick whether the group is peaceful or hostile. No in-between, no neutrals, either one or the other. You are then expected to play like the group you've chosen. The number of groups of each type would be balanced, so you wouldn't be able to create a new hostile group if we already have 7 hostile groups and only 3 peaceful ones. It could also be based on member numbers, so for example all hostile groups have 230 active players in them, but peaceful ones only 150 then creation of additional hostile groups would be disabled until a certain balance is reached.

Then the changes; 

6. DENIED - we shall not be labeling groups into friendly or hostile, instead we will try to accomplish the balance by more carefully reviewing groups that apply for official status - we will simply not be accepting additional official groups with hostile goals should we believe that there is already too much PvP on the server.

So, this should already be in practice right? Though, I do think that enforcing group goals more couldn't hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Brayces said:

When creating a group you must pick whether the group is peaceful or hostile. No in-between, no neutrals, either one or the other.

Yeah I feel that is TOO controlling. Perhaps a step further than what I am asking about here. But it does provide useful context. Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Joffrey said:

Yeah I feel that is TOO controlling. Perhaps a step further than what I am asking about here. But it does provide useful context. Thanks!

Of course! <3 
Hm, I wonder Joff. What's to stop a group from staying Neutral, right? But committing Hostile Actions? Are they then classified as Hostile because of those actions? You think maybe like a sliding bar of how many hostile actions need to happen to a neutral group before they become classified as Hostile? What about peaceful groups? I'm curious, if this were to be a thing (Excluding your ideas on enforcing group goals, I'm just pondering on point one) how would you and the LM team gauge it and stuff? 

To add, can a Peaceful group become Hostile later down the line? And vice versa? How do they do that? Is there a Re-Classification process, or a review or somethin'? 

Share this post


Link to post

@Joffrey the only one I can get behind is the stricter enforcement of group goals. 

Alongside this, I think if a group is to change their group goals I think the leader of the group should be required to state what has been changed and WHY. I would expect a very strong reason for a change in group goals, as group goals can sometimes change. But I think drastically changing group goals should come with a very strong reason.

IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post

The solution has already been presented by me a few months back.

 

1. Remove sharing of any kind of kill rights between non-official group members

2. Official groups are now important

3. Only approve X amount of hostile oriented and X amount of friendly oriented official groups

4. ???

5. Profit, tears from PvPers wanting to roll dynamic without any kind of checks on them, balance on the server

Share this post


Link to post

I like the idea of limiting the groups.  I don't see a reason why you can't have two hostile groups for ever whatever and then make sure those two hostile groups are progressing roleplay and goals and shit. Also encourages people to join the two high quality hostile groups or maybe try something new and go for the "good groups" idk how it would work in practice might just make two supergroups again but I wouldn't mind seeing it in action .

Share this post


Link to post

Fuck No.

Limiting groups limits creativity.

if you've been here as long as I have you know that the balance always corrects itself. While I believe you have the best intentions, Artificially limiting something is not the answer and will only hurt RP. Some of the best groups in the communities have been created because of your 7 to 2 ratio.

While I agree that group goals should have more enforcement, I feel that your letting your own personal experiences with leading groups get in the way of your better judgement. You've had few good groups and they've always pushed the norm and been pretty goal oriented from the outside looking in. BUT a good chunk of groups don't want to push the norm, they have an RP style and that is the way they want to play. 

Share this post


Link to post

I feel as if there's a lot of gray area between "Bad guys" and "Good guys." Unless that can be clearly defined, I don't think limiting groups is the correct way to go. I do have to agree that limiting groups can limit creativity and roleplay progression/relations. 

Share this post


Link to post

Honestly Joff I just feel like it’s tiresome having to jump through all these hoops to make a group nowadays. I get you want groups to contribute and drive RP more, but some guys just want to RP with their friends and make their own group to play in. As long as their RP is good and they have a decent lore, whether they’re good, evil, or whatever, I just don’t see why they need to be overly scrutinized. I think it just comes down to the fact that some people dedicate a lot of time and energy into this place, and I respect that, but some people just want to have a fun time without writing a Shakespearean play in the process.

Edited by Squillium

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Rolle said:

The solution has already been presented by me a few months back.

Welp, I intend to take some of your ideas and ..actually enforce them, with the help of the admin team.

 

2 hours ago, Brayces said:

What's to stop a group from staying Neutral, right? But committing Hostile Actions?

I think a large part of "policing" require the LMS to get IG and watch RP. It'll have to be on a case by case basis. certainly a peaceful group doing 1 hostile thing a week or two is no issue. But if they go full bandit.. a warning should be issued.

 

2 hours ago, Rolle said:

Remove sharing of any kind of kill rights between non-official group members

I really like the idea of trying to enforce a way to make groups like... LEGIT. and Making dynamic seem.. less ideal, as it would be in real life. However, if like.. 4 people ALL have to yell IG or text bomb their initiations.. it could clutter and cause mass confusion during initiations.

 

1 hour ago, Henning said:

they have an RP style and that is the way they want to play. 

Great point. I will need folks who "don't push to norm" to keep me in check when I get all high and might on them. Likely the rest of the team will tell me to stfu.. or you guys will.. i'll try my best to not be overbearing on folk's RP. I just want the RP to progress, and not become stale.

Just now, Squillium said:

writing a Shakespearean play in the process.

I 100% totally agree. I do not need perfectly written or drawn out lores. I just need them to make sense.. and drive rp IG forward. I'm only concerned about keeping RP from getting stale. Not.. how well written.. your like... lore is... its just gatta make sense.. and be updated to your current IG game play.

Share this post


Link to post

It concerns me that your aren't really responding to people issues with this Suggestion.

Please remember regardless of your position, this is a suggestion and you should be treating it like a done deal.

Share this post


Link to post

The Good guy/Bad guy... let's call them "categories" you propose, are ultimately labels. Much like the old bandit/hero labels, or PVP/campfire RPers that came after, they lack representation of the fluidity that actual RPers have with their characters and are used more to discriminate between subsets of people that disparage their perceived adversaries with them. I wouldn't use any of those labels them as part of official policy, ever.

Now, enforcing actual adherence to group goals... that's an idea I can get 100% behind. If you wanna balance something, balance group goals by making sure that:

  1. Approved groups stick to group goals
  2. Approved groups keep group goals updated
  3. The combo of all approved group goals doesn't create problems on a global scale
19 hours ago, Rolle said:

The solution has already been presented by me a few months back.

 

1. Remove sharing of any kind of kill rights between non-official group members

2. Official groups are now important

3. Only approve X amount of hostile oriented and X amount of friendly oriented official groups

4. ???

5. Profit, tears from PvPers wanting to roll dynamic without any kind of checks on them, balance on the server

So you already stealth-implemented this suggestion of mine:

Now you wanna implement this suggestion:

Is it like my birthday or something?

Have I become the shadowy overlord of DayZRP without actually realizing it?

...

Do you want me as Staff?

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Henning said:

It concerns me that your aren't really responding to people issues with this Suggestion.

huh? ..D..did you not see the post directly above yours? Hello?

Share this post


Link to post

While I certainly can see where you are coming from, I think the bigger problem is vague group goals that just boil down to "Be dicks to everyone and initiate on anyone who dares be a dick back, then take all the stuff in the name of the group"

 

Honestly I would like to see a great deal more creativity in bandits groups and hostile RP groups outside of just being bandit or hostile group copypasta, and hope that any future groups (be it hostile or not) will need goals that more directly affect the server, as well as show through time continued adherence to said goals.

 

I think honestly goals are one of the biggest issues presently with groups as it seems more often than not, for both hostile groups and not, they are afterthoughts.

 

Here are some goals that I am unsure how groups got approved with (chosen at random, so no one take offense please):

- To kill whoever it takes to survive. We get to choose who lives and who dies in today's world. If you don't like someone, nobody is holding you back from ending their lives. Killing is a necessity. -

- Keep everyone who is below us in fear.

-Those that have not suffered, must be made to suffer in order for them to adapt and progress as individuals. We will find them, and we will show them suffering. Feel what we feel.

 

Each of these seem to be goals that boil down to 'initiate or harm as we see fit' which frankly contradicts the rules of the server, and honestly just seem like poor reasoning to initiate on someone.

Edited by Erik

Share this post


Link to post

Oh boy, oh boy. I love a good juicy thread. 

I personally think that categorizing groups as bad, good, or neutral is actually very limiting. It pushes this notion down their throat that they have to be a 2-Dimensional thing with very little room to grow in any direction. I love seeing bad groups do good things, or good groups making tough decisions that ultimately hurt a lot of people -- that's the sort of shit that makes RP interesting. So, in my opinion, categorizing any group as one particular thing is only effective if they never intend to sway as the RP may demand them to. 

I do, however, think that more control can definitely be placed on group ideas: 

Yes to making sure a group follows their OOC/IC goals.

Yes to making sure those goals are up to date, and are actively sought out OOC/IC.

And yes to archiving the fuck out of groups who don't comply. 

There are benefits that come from being in a group, meaning that people have a responsibility to earn those benefits. If they can't be assed to follow basic rules and comply to standards, then they can make way for a group that will, in my opinion. In addition, if there's an approved group similar to a new group idea, I think that the Loremasters should scrutinize that group thoroughly, making sure that the RP which will be provided will be different (the current Loremaster team may already do this, I'm not totally sure). If the ideas are too similar, then the new group idea can wait till the other archives, or adapt their goals/lore to distinguish between the two. The early bird gets the worm after all. 

23 hours ago, Spartan said:

Not a fan of the limits. You'll get multiple people waiting for a group to archive to post their own group thread.

^ I don't necessarily see how that's a bad thing. I mean, that scenario is likely to happen even without the limits if the Loremaster team denies a new group idea because there is a similar approved group already. Is it really any better to have five groups running around the server doing the exact same things? Sounds boring as fuck to me, personally. I'd rather see someone be denied or have to wait than have the same RP from five different groups. 

Share this post


Link to post

Its quite pain in the ass that every group you run into wants to rob you or something like that. I dont mind hostile rp, but when most of the people wants to be the badass bandits it ruins the fun.

Share this post


Link to post

100% agree @Eric

the problem is the people that need to make those changes, refuse to acknowledge its an actual problem in the first place.

Its apparently all about them and them being right, even though its obvious a lot of people are unhappy about it. 

Share this post


Link to post

-1 to limiting groups. +1 to enforcing group goals.

On 12/29/2017 at 3:41 PM, Squillium said:

Honestly Joff I just feel like it’s tiresome having to jump through all these hoops to make a group nowadays. I get you want groups to contribute and drive RP more, but some guys just want to RP with their friends and make their own group to play in. As long as their RP is good and they have a decent lore, whether they’re good, evil, or whatever, I just don’t see why they need to be overly scrutinized. I think it just comes down to the fact that some people dedicate a lot of time and energy into this place, and I respect that, but some people just want to have a fun time without writing a Shakespearean play in the process.

I disagree with the above though. Jumping through hoops to make a group is, imo, what we need & has been pretty good in getting groups that push good RP and make RP interesting approved and those that are practically shit and would remain shit until archived denied. There is nothing stopping those that want to RP with their friends and making their own little from rolling dynamically. Sure it's not an official group, but official groups should be reserved for those groups that are actively helping, not a group of friends who just want to stick people up and have shits and giggles and then fade out about a week or two later. You can have fun without being in an official group. 

That's not to say every group that is a group of friends will be/is/was shit. I just don't see why those who want to just roll around and have fun can't do it in a dynamic.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...