[MRP] Group 4 Securicor

[Theos 423]

Personally I don't agree with this. Yeh it's a nice idea, but we're proposing another faction when realistically this won't work, especially not for the effort that would have to be put in.

This seems like a significant amount of work on Garnet's part, and it's not going to have a big pay-off if it does work. In my opinion, the server doesn't need another faction and probably can't support another faction that's independent from the rest, particularly with the current popularity of the server. 

Referring to your responses to Salmon, if that's the case then this faction wouldn't be used 90% of the time, and even when used it may consist of maybe 5 or so people maximum, which could have some effect but unless they're actually Tier 1 players (which would then harm both sides in the long-term) they won't be effectual in war.

 

[Texas 170]

Is getting afghan not enough? Absolutely 0 reason to add a 3rd faction when one that is currently on the server (RU) isn't doing near as well as US number wise. It would probably be dead within a month as well. 

-1

[Ziggy 1,353]

1 minute ago, Theos said:

Personally I don't agree with this. Yeh it's a nice idea, but we're proposing another faction when realistically this won't work, especially not for the effort that would have to be put in.

I promise you it's not nearly as much effort/work as you think it is. 

1 minute ago, Theos said:

it's not going to have a big pay-off if it does work.

Why wouldn't it? 

4 minutes ago, Theos said:

they won't be effectual in war.

This faction is mainly to introduce a new aspect of roleplay outside of war, not designed to focus on war. 

[Theos 423]

Don't need a dedicated RP faction during peacetime. GMs can set up classes and factions for any events they need. Having a static faction for this isn't worthwhile, really. The tools are there right now, it's just up to GMs and T. Admin+ to utilise the tools.

And my reference to pay-off, even if I'm wrong and this was maintainable without affecting other factions, the plus side is just a little extra in events compared to factions being set up for single events.

[Salmon 488]

1 minute ago, Theos said:

Don't need a dedicated RP faction during peacetime. GMs can set up classes and factions for any events they need. Having a static faction for this isn't worthwhile, really. The tools are there right now, it's just up to GMs and T. Admin+ to utilise the tools.

And my reference to pay-off, even if I'm wrong and this was maintainable without affecting other factions, the plus side is just a little extra in events compared to factions being set up for single events.

Couldn't have said it better myself

[Ziggy 1,353]

12 minutes ago, Theos said:

Don't need a dedicated RP faction during peacetime. GMs can set up classes and factions for any events they need.

I'm glad you said this because I'm sure the idea that G4S will be a "dedicated RP faction" is in a lot of people's minds. Ideally, every faction on the server should be a "dedicated RP faction". This faction isn't a singularity that will just exist and "do rp", it's a faction that will open the door for more unique interaction/roleplay with other factions/officers. That is an important distinction to make, because it completely shifts the image of the purpose this faction will serve. It wasn't made to do rp, it was made initiate it. 

Edited September 12, 2021 by bishopil

[Kurtle 298]

What issue will this suggestion solve? I don't really see the point of adding another faction just for the fun of it. GM's and T.Admins+ have all the tools they need to make this happen in game without it having to be an actual server job. 

Also, Comms is utilized by many Gamemasters already, so forcing a group to base there would kill any RP interaction that could otherwise happen organically. Having a faction there forces only one type of group to be interacted with, which could become stale quickly.

-1

[HonestDog_ 4]

Its gonna be a -1 for me at the moment could be reworked on a little, also since it would kinda be like MP if they just add MP we really don't need this but if we don't this would be great for a few things just not as a full on faction.

[Ziggy 1,353]

10 hours ago, Kurtle said:

What issue will this suggestion solve? I don't really see the point of adding another faction just for the fun of it.

The thing about suggestions is that they aren't always created to "fix" an issue. 

10 hours ago, Kurtle said:

GM's and T.Admins+ have all the tools they need to make this happen in game without it having to be an actual server job

Realistically, setting this idea up with GM tools is not only an extremely dumbed down version of what this suggestion proposes, but also not really doable. For example, this entire budget system that adds weight to wars wouldn't exist and can't be set up by GM tools. 

10 hours ago, Kurtle said:

forcing a group to base there would kill any RP interaction that could otherwise happen organically

This doesn't make much sense because an RP interaction would live there lol. I see what you're saying about COMMs being a center of attention for GMs, so again as I mentioned in the thread, that is just a proposal. This faction could literally operate out of a shack in the corner of the map and it wouldn't matter, just as long as the NPC and established location exists. 

10 hours ago, Kurtle said:

could become stale quickly.

This would be entirely dependent on the management team and faction leader. 

16 minutes ago, HonestDog_ said:

since it would kinda be like MP if they just add MP 

This is literally nothing like MP

16 minutes ago, HonestDog_ said:

great for a few things just not as a full on faction.

As I mentioned to Salmon, this isn't a faction that would exceed more than a few players. 

 

If this suggestion does get denied, which is completely likely, I ask that the model pack in the thread gets added to the server for more paramilitary choices. 

[Kurtle 298]

As always I appreciate the discussion on threads like this. 

1 hour ago, bishopil said:

The thing about suggestions is that they aren't always created to "fix" an issue. 

For me, it just seems like it's being added for no real pressing reason. I can understand that we should refresh the RP of the server, but I don't believe this is the way that things should go.

1 hour ago, bishopil said:

budget system

I am a HUGE fan of adding a more heavyweight economy to this server. I am actually in favor of the "faction budget" idea, as long as it can be added in a efficient way. 

To sum up. I like the budget idea, but it will take EXTREME convincing for me to believe in the suggestion as a whole. If the community sees it fit and it gets accepted, then I will do anything I can as a GM and faction leader to make it work.

[Dillan 750]

I'm on the fence for this one. Due to my concerns of the fluid player base. I like merc factions. I like the thought of being more independent.  I love the idea of more then 2 main forces. 

The concern is numbers on the server. We have our active factions sure, like Vega, which stands out to me as the most stable of all the nation's. Even with that,  we have hit fall semester. Our numbers stay under 90 for the most part. How will it sustain in the current climate. 

There are concerns of the rp aspect from others,  but that's not a problem really, things are bent in rp often. 

[Larry_The_Potato 52]

I wanted to ask a few questions about purchasing G4S to play your side in war. So if they can be bought by either side then they would take the side that will the most money right? So if that is the case and say RU has more people on for one particular war and they without G4S's services would dominate US then they bought G4S's service they would make war even worse for the US side. So my main question is there going to be a rule where they have to be bought by the side that is initially going to lose based off of numbers/soc numbers? I ask this because wars are never really balanced it seems rare to have a war that is truly balanced and with this implementation I don't know if this would be beneficial for war but perhaps a negative thing. And on the flip side of things what if G4S has no impact on war and no one wants to buy their services because it isn't worth the money/effort. Also I forgot to mention I saw that there is losing side bonus but I am unsure on if that would guarantee that the previously losing side get G4S's service in the next upcoming war or not as I don't have a true understanding on how the economy is going to work out in practice.

 

On the RP side of things I like the idea of a neutral faction for different RP situations then we currently get however as previously mentioned gm's could simply could implement an event faction on the spot or even use the seemingly unused French National's faction in the event tab.

 

From how I see it the economy aspect could be cool however for RP G4S is something that could be done without this new implementation, and in war could rather be useless, good for balancing, or kill the balance if not restricted properly. I'm not exactly against this idea but it seems like it could be a huge flop or very successful in terms of bringing content/war balance therefore being a risky implementation (in terms of development time and keeping the general player base happy).

Also

On 9/11/2021 at 12:37 AM, bishopil said:

For the standard secondary, I went with the currently unused SR-1M.

 

 

SR-1M is the 2GA Pistol.

Edited September 13, 2021 by Larry_The_Potato

[Ziggy 1,353]

36 minutes ago, Larry_The_Potato said:

So my main question is there going to be a rule where they have to be bought by the side that is initially going to lose based off of numbers/soc numbers? I ask this because wars are never really balanced it seems rare to have a war that is truly balanced and with this implementation

The losing side of each war gets more money than the winning side. This is made this way to ensure that G4S will more often than not be hired by the previous losers of the war, if they wish to do so. This faction will also contain only around 4-6 players and we could also create a rule in which staff can tell G4S to help x nation because they are being base camped, and to ignore the payment for that war. However if we do this, then we need to ensure G4S isn't always being asked to help the losing side. 

36 minutes ago, Larry_The_Potato said:

gm's could simply could implement an event faction on the spot or even use the seemingly unused French National's faction

The problem with this is that if, for example, the SSO COL wanted to kidnap an Army officer without having any direct responsibility by hiring G4S, we would have to set up these aspects every single time we wanted to do it. The other problem with having GMs conduct it with GM tools is that the entire other half of the suggestion about a working budget system wouldn't even exist or be possible to set up. I agree that this suggestion's flaw is that the budget system relies on G4S's existence, but I am open to hearing alternatives if someone has suggestions. It's easy to say we have the tools to make this happen at any time, but in reality, are you really going to set up a merc faction with GM tools so that they can conduct a single kidnap? Or do a single assassination? 

36 minutes ago, Larry_The_Potato said:

SR-1M is the 2GA Pistol.

This suggestion was originally made by another player and I think that the SR-1M wasn't in use at the time. Honestly, the pistol could still work for the faction regardless, but at the end of the day it can be changed to anything. 

Edited September 13, 2021 by bishopil

[Jake 933]

I don't usually do this but i'm going to leave this to @Nutter as it would be his dev time burnt making all this

[Nutter 15,168]

6 hours ago, Jake said:

I don't usually do this but i'm going to leave this to @Nutter as it would be his dev time burnt making all this

I personally don't think this change is necessary at this time at all. We hardly have enough players to populate 2 countries, let alone add a third in that'd be held to a higher standard of RP.