[MRP] Spring Cleaning

[Tayler 395]

2 hours ago, shrimp said:

Structure

 

• 1.1 Faction Layouts & Purpose

  • 1.1.1 The Scale
    
    Right, let’s get started here. I think it’s no secret that with the recent removal of Marines, the grand scale of the server is finding itself a bit more on the balanced side. However, the removal of Marines opened a void for AFSOC to fill, thus restoring the long withstanding and prehistoric imbalance between US, RU, and formerly Afghan. In my entire time on the server, the US has always had at least one more faction than its opposition, and at most three. The current layout looks something like this on the US side.
    
    -> USASF -> RRC
    Army -> AFSOC
    -> MARSOC -> DEVGRU
    
    The structure is clearly and distinctly split into both an Army and Navy branch, starting and converging on single points, giving a very straightforward path of progression. It is a functional model that has been proven to work well over the years, while inviting a lot of room for drawing down the chain of command, and discouraging inter-faction fuckery. The RU model looks a little different right now.
    
    -> GRU
    
    2GA -> SSO -> Vega
    
    -> PDSS
    
    I know I talk about this a lot, however it should be alarming enough that the two sides of what should be a symmetrical server are anything but. Progression in the wild-west era of the server under Gildarts’ administration typically boiled down to any players of reasonable quality jumping immediately into one SF faction, making their friends, and staying there for their duration on the server. Anyone less fortunate to be selected typically found themselves stuck in a base faction for months, and not by choice. This is a very backwards practice of the server that became normalized under Gildarts. Players should be the ones choosing the faction or path they take in the server, not the groups of friends that make up the factions. It’s just bad for business.

 

• • 1.1.2 OMRP
    
    The solution for the aforementioned problem is literally in balancing the scale, and sticking to it. RU happens to be down a faction, particularly on it’s Naval side. PDSS is lacking a T1 counterpart to feed into, which has resulted in obvious problems. My recommendation is adding OMRP, or Russian Naval Special Reconnaissance. Other than that this is another SF unit in the Russian Navy, OMRP is useful to fill the gap here for a variety of reasons that I will get to later on. With adding a faction comes with its more obvious questions of weapons, models, and leadership. These questions will be answered later on, but I think many of you will come to understand that choice of leadership will no longer be as big of an issue as in the recent past.
    
    I also highly expect a large number of the current generation of RU players to come with arguments of ‘we’re fine how we are, and another faction would just complicate things’. To that I say, for how long? The instability of the server caused by imbalances as large as entire factions has contributed to countless heaps of nonsensical bullshit. Actions described in this thread are being suggested with the intention of improving the sustainability, retention and quality of the server permanently. Being proactive rather than reactive and finally mopping up an old mess.
    
    With the addition of OMRP, the RU model changes to look like this.
    
    -> GRU -> SSO
    2GA -> Vega
    -> PDSS -> OMRP
    
    Looks familiar, doesn’t it? With this model, we can start drawing parallels from RU to the US side of the server (finally). MARSOC is equal to GRU, PDSS is equal to GB, SSO is equal to DEVGRU, and OMRP would be equal to RRC all in terms of class setup. Done deal.
     

 

 

Class	Russian OMRP : Rifleman	Russian OMRP : Surgeon	Russian OMRP : Spectre	Russian OMRP : Commander
Primary	khr_cz858	N/A	cw_jng90	khr_cz858
Secondary	khr_cz52	khr_cz52	khr_cz52	khr_cz52
Equipment	N/A	fas2_ifak	N/A	N/A
Model

I do like the idea of an additonal faction for Russia. Having another alternative could be very beneficial in terms of attraction and letting the playerbase have more options and opportunity.

Although, I feel like this whole idea of "balancing" stems from how the server was when we played on it. It's not necessarily a major issue that a lot of people call on anymore because it isn't. Russia performs decently on having balanced factions WHEN the numbers are there, and the same thing can be applied to how US is. 

I am in support of adding it. Understandable how some leaders may be upset because they weren't brought into the talks about another faction being intigrated but I wouldn't doubt a proper leadership could be made from it.
 

2 hours ago, shrimp said:

 

• • 1.1.3 Identity
    
    Now that the factions look a little less fucked, we can talk about each faction's respective purpose from an RP standpoint. The function of a faction is important in retaining its niche on the server. For the longest time, most of the factions on the server attempted to fill the same role, and in some essence, it naturally aligned the server by competitive methods. Over time, factions gradually established their roles in the server other than simply just ‘War Factions’. Some of these roles happened to be more explicit than others. For example, MARSOC or GRU might attribute themselves as being ‘Sniper Factions’ due to the presence of sniper classes in both, however it’s not something directly stated in the server rules or otherwise. This often results in, over time, factions bouncing around and not sticking to what should be their one and only niche. Something that occurs as a result of this is two factions occupying the same role, one doing it far better, and the other being deemed redundant as a result. When the factions are what make up the server, and an entire faction being worthless is basically 10% null and void.
    
    Not cool.
    
    Ironing out a faction’s purpose is the first step in reorganizing the entire faction around that single purpose. It needs to be explicit, clearly defined, and consistent. Faction leaders should not be able to decide the function of 10% of the server at a whim. With the recent resurgence of RP and the introduction of the event server, establishing purpose is more important than ever so that members of the server understand exactly what it is they should be doing when under the microscope. A brief chart of faction purposes would look something like this (open to suggestions here), and most are pretty self-explanatory.
     

11B	United States Infantry
2GA	Russian Infantry
GB	Unconventional Warfare
GRU	Unconventional Warfare
MARSOC	Naval Infantry
PDSS	Naval Infantry
RRC	Special Recon
SSO	QRF
DEVGRU	QRF
OMRP	Special Recon
Vega	Covert Operations
AFSOC	Support

 

• 1.2 Ranking Structures

  • 1.2.1 Limiting
    
    Ranks are the de facto indicator of progression on the server. The higher the rank you are, the further along in the server you are. Ranks are also the foundation for the chain of command, something that has been in a sort of limbo for years. The CoC is something really important for RP in a server like this, but is scarcely respected or followed. The power of the CoC has always been retained where it doesn’t belong; in SF Factions. Gone are the days of the FADM and the DGEN, where SF leaders would hold ranks to rival that of whoever was supposed to be in charge of their entire country. In reality, SF leaders should not be the decision makers in a country, but rather the base faction leadership and Generals therein. Thanks to the ever generous concessions of SF faction leaders over the years, most of the SF factions have dropped down to the rank of Colonel or some equivalent (most), but still most SF leaders refuse to give into the authority of the Generals, and as a result find themselves rarely giving into authority of anyone real. SF leaders have a hard time listening, which is kind of a bad thing that I'll address later.
    
    The important takeaway here is that SF factions should have a universal rank cap at O-6, and operate at the discretion of their side’s respective O-11.
     

  • 1.2.2 Standardization
    
    With consistency issues comes again the topic of ranks. Some factions really like to change their ranking structure often, or maintain nonsensical ranking structures altogether. Here’s what they should look like.
     

	11B GB RRC	2GA   GRU SSO	MARSOC	DEVGRU	Vega	PDSS OMRP	AFSOC
E-1	PV1	PVT	Pvt	SR	CDT	SR	AB
E-2	PV2	PFC	PFC	SA	OPT	SM	AM
E-3	PFC	JSG	LCpl	SN	SO	SA	A1C
E-4	CPL	SGT	Cpl	SO3	JA	SSM	SRA
E-5	SGT	SNS	Sgt	SO2	AGT	S2C	SSG
E-6	SSG	SHS	SSgt	SO1	FA	S1C	TSG
E-7	SFC	POS	GySgt	SOC	SFA	GS	MSG
E-8	MSG	PPS	MSgt	SOCS	SA	GSS	SMS
E-9A	SGM	SSP	MGySgt	SOCM	SPV	MM	CMS
E-9B	CSM	ENS	SgtMaj	MCPON	CSA	SMM	CCM
O-1	2LT	LT	2ndLt	ENS	SSV	JLT	2LT
O-2	1LT	SLT	1stLt	LTJG	CSV	LT	1LT
O-3	CPT	KPT	Capt	LT	GCL	SLT	CAPT
O-4	MAJ	MAY	Maj	LCDR	COS	KPLT	MAJ
O-5	LTC	PPKN	LtCol	CDR	DDR	KPT	LTC
O-6	COL	PKN	Col	CAPT	EXD	CADM	COL
O-7	BG	GenMay	x	x	x	x	x
O-8	MG	GenLt	x	x	x	x	x
O-9	LTG	GenPkn	x	x	x	x	x
O-10	GEN	GenArmii	x	x	x	x	x
O-11	GA	MF	x	x	x	x	x

Two things I very much agree on sort-of. I believe that the factions should have identification so people stop comparing oneself to another because they both have a sniper class or something. Especially as you said considering that a resurgence of roleplay is happening. Certain factions have certain roles, and some people may dislike that but it's important to know and have because it allows you to describe what your faction is to players and makes it useful for when an RP situation calls for a certain role to be played. Everyone plays an equal and interesting part of their own. 

When it comes to ranks, the only issue to me is when factions don't include them in their name. It's unappealing. I wouldn't wanna join a faction that does something like that. It's not elite, and it's not cool. Although it's only Rangers currently, MANY factions have taken part in this system and it always flops.

As for the structure you made, I don't think it's too much of an issue. If the ranks make more sense this way and actually provide a system that works and isn't complicated then it should be used.
 

2 hours ago, shrimp said:

 

• • 1.2.3 Approved
    
    Niggas will be probably be like ‘ShRImSp youC An’t JuST ChAANge OuR FAcTion, MY FACITion WhtIout Telling ME!!!111’ shut the fuck up and get that dumb idea out of your stupid heads, none of you own shit
     

I love ya man, but this shit isn't necessary. The community's opinion on this matters just as much as yours. Seemingly, you make it to be like it's something that is happening more than it being a suggestion. Let people voice themselves on it because other people can have good takes too. I do know what you mean though, just not something you needed to word like that.
 

2 hours ago, shrimp said:

 

• 1.4 Progression

  • 1.4.1 Cooldowns
    
    The value attributed to ranks by any given player is directly proportional to the amount of time and effort put in by a player to earn said rank and title. A person who earns an Officer position through a mediocre at best tryout and an overnight waiting period of minimal contribution is a lot less likely to commit themself to the position that they ‘earned’. As a result, players who earn a position quickly leave it just as fast. Setting long and concrete cooldowns per rank, given that the rank structure is standardized, can greatly prolong the amount of effort required to earn an officer position, adding value and merit to said titles. Once upon a time in MRP, such ranks were quite difficult to get, leaders swapped hands far less frequently, and being something meant something. Over time, that has become less and less of the norm. To counteract this, scaling the promotion cooldown on a broader and more fair spectrum is the single most effective way to limit the rapid promotion and poor retention rate of the server in its current state.
    
    Promotion cooldowns would start relatively short to give new players the feeling that they are achieving something in their first few days on the server. From there, the cooldowns would rapidly scale up to slow down progression. General ranks will be done by appointment from active officers.
    
     

E-1	No Cooldown
E-2	1 Day.
E-3	2 Days.
E-4	2 Days.
E-5	5 Days.
E-6	5 Days.
E-7	1 Week.
E-8	1 Week.
E-9A	1 Week.
E-9B	Officer Discretion.
O-1	2 Weeks.
O-2	2 Weeks.
O-3	2 Weeks, 4 days.
O-4	2 Weeks, 4 days.
O-5	3 Weeks.
O-6	By Appointment.

 

Basically agree with all of this. Actually putting a decent cool down on the ranks would add a lot of insentive for players to stay and feel like they are working up to something. Handing out ranks is just asking for people to move on from the faction to feel like they are progessing again. I know that when I was originally in SEALs that this system worked well, for when I wasn't leading and when I was. I strived for promotions and stuck to the faction cause I wasn't the 2iC in 1 week, and when I lead my guys had to wait for those promotions and I knew that when I gave it to them they felt pretty good about it. It was actually a big deal to see people given an O-2 or O-3 rank.

I skipped out on commenting on a lot of the other points made mainly because I don't feel like going through everything, so I'll leave these points for now.

[Lex_ 506]

Just gonna leave this link here as part of this suggestion is something that I've explored previously. I would suggest utilizing the information that I had gathered as to be both accurate and consistent (you swap between translated and transcribed ranks for Russia). I'd also like to note the big emphasis on US in some of the more major parts of your suggestion, with the obvious exception of OMRP.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Lky9X0PIcVR8enYMLfec83p0FGcP_2ezGqNal6iTLMM/

 

Each "faction" has the same number of ranks depending on whether or not they are an entry or some sort of Special Forces. The US ranks use the proper US DoD paygrades, while the RU ranks use the proper NATO equivalents. All of the Russian ranks are abbreviated based on their English transcription (not translation).

The Russian ranks listed are under assumption as there isn't much public information about how Russian Special Forces operate (my two sources for Russian ranks being here (Wikipedia) and here (also Wikipedia).

 

Before somebody comments, "But Fier, why does Vega use the same ranks as SSO?" That would be because I don't believe in this flawed idea that this server should have tiered factions - only with how the server is currently operating, which means that could easily change given time. So I opted for giving military ranks rather than coming up with this "agent" bullshit.

Edited April 19, 2020 by Torch

[eXg-Buddha 729]

2 hours ago, shrimp said:

1.1.2 OMRP

The solution for the aforementioned problem is literally in balancing the scale, and sticking to it. RU happens to be down a faction, particularly on it’s Naval side. PDSS is lacking a T1 counterpart to feed into, which has resulted in obvious problems. My recommendation is adding OMRP, or Russian Naval Special Reconnaissance. Other than that this is another SF unit in the Russian Navy, OMRP is useful to fill the gap here for a variety of reasons that I will get to later on. With adding a faction comes with its more obvious questions of weapons, models, and leadership. These questions will be answered later on, but I think many of you will come to understand that choice of leadership will no longer be as big of an issue as in the recent past.

I also highly expect a large number of the current generation of RU players to come with arguments of ‘we’re fine how we are, and another faction would just complicate things’. To that I say, for how long? The instability of the server caused by imbalances as large as entire factions has contributed to countless heaps of nonsensical bullshit. Actions described in this thread are being suggested with the intention of improving the sustainability, retention and quality of the server permanently. Being proactive rather than reactive and finally mopping up an old mess.

With the addition of OMRP, the RU model changes to look like this.

-> GRU -> SSO
2GA -> Vega
-> PDSS -> OMRP

Looks familiar, doesn’t it? With this model, we can start drawing parallels from RU to the US side of the server (finally). MARSOC is equal to GRU, PDSS is equal to GB, SSO is equal to DEVGRU, and OMRP would be equal to RRC all in terms of class setup. Done deal.

Russia doesn't need this right now. I don't know how actively you play, but I have been active for 9+ hours every day these past few weeks and have seen RU numbers dwindling. We do not need another SOC faction for your satisfaction of "keeping both sides even". You may have OCD, but the rest of us do not. US has an outrageous amount of numbers, so AFSOC would only serve to benefit. RU, on the other hand, would only be negatively affected by OMRP. We have enough factions, and we have a flow that we follow, which most RU appreciate and follow. Not to mention - not everyone wants to follow a set path. As Lark said, he went from Tier to Tier, not necessarily caring what meaningless "position" they held in terms of Tiers. The fact of the matter is people join factions they want to, not specifically because of their Tier. Adding OMRP would only serve to split the already small numbers of RU even further.

2 hours ago, shrimp said:

1.1.3 Identity

Now that the factions look a little less fucked, we can talk about each faction's respective purpose from an RP standpoint. The function of a faction is important in retaining its niche on the server. For the longest time, most of the factions on the server attempted to fill the same role, and in some essence, it naturally aligned the server by competitive methods. Over time, factions gradually established their roles in the server other than simply just ‘War Factions’. Some of these roles happened to be more explicit than others. For example, MARSOC or GRU might attribute themselves as being ‘Sniper Factions’ due to the presence of sniper classes in both, however it’s not something directly stated in the server rules or otherwise. This often results in, over time, factions bouncing around and not sticking to what should be their one and only niche. Something that occurs as a result of this is two factions occupying the same role, one doing it far better, and the other being deemed redundant as a result. When the factions are what make up the server, and an entire faction being worthless is basically 10% null and void.

Not cool.

Ironing out a faction’s purpose is the first step in reorganizing the entire faction around that single purpose. It needs to be explicit, clearly defined, and consistent. Faction leaders should not be able to decide the function of 10% of the server at a whim. With the recent resurgence of RP and the introduction of the event server, establishing purpose is more important than ever so that members of the server understand exactly what it is they should be doing when under the microscope. A brief chart of faction purposes would look something like this (open to suggestions here), and most are pretty self-explanatory.
 

Your first statement in here is true to some extent - faction is meant for one thing, yet the faction does another thing. This is also something I wish would change, shifting towards joining a faction for their specific specialties. However, with Donator weapons, anyone can become a sniper and anyone can CQC, essentially making your point invalid. You want to restrict a faction from using a certain weapon because they specialize in something else in real life? I don't think so. Now, for RP purposes, this would be excellent. This would mirror the factions in real life and how they operate, and would create for intense and strategic strategies. However, in war, this would serve no purpose other than to restrict players from using certain weaponry because of ridiculous RP restrictions. All of this makes sense in RP related events, and the event server, but not the main server and war. 

2 hours ago, shrimp said:

1.2 Ranking Structures

• 1.2.1 Limiting
  
  Ranks are the de facto indicator of progression on the server. The higher the rank you are, the further along in the server you are. Ranks are also the foundation for the chain of command, something that has been in a sort of limbo for years. The CoC is something really important for RP in a server like this, but is scarcely respected or followed. The power of the CoC has always been retained where it doesn’t belong; in SF Factions. Gone are the days of the FADM and the DGEN, where SF leaders would hold ranks to rival that of whoever was supposed to be in charge of their entire country. In reality, SF leaders should not be the decision makers in a country, but rather the base faction leadership and Generals therein. Thanks to the ever generous concessions of SF faction leaders over the years, most of the SF factions have dropped down to the rank of Colonel or some equivalent (most), but still most SF leaders refuse to give into the authority of the Generals, and as a result find themselves rarely giving into authority of anyone real. SF leaders have a hard time listening, which is kind of a bad thing that I'll address later.
  
  The important takeaway here is that SF factions should have a universal rank cap at O-6, and operate at the discretion of their side’s respective O-11.

No. Just no. The ranking system is specific for each faction. Between each faction, rank names might change, but most SOC are capped at O-6. Factions like Vega, which have an O-10 as DGEN, should keep the DGEN title. They are the highest Tier on the Russian side and should receive special treatment for that. However, I also agree with your statement that the GA and Marshal respectively overrule all SOC factions, as they commandeer the entire forces of their respective side. Regardless, O-10 serves a purpose on Russia, where it might not serve a purpose on US. People respect the DGEN of Vega because of his skill, leadership, time invested, and more. Even if the Marshall is the highest ranking officer, people will still listen to the DGEN because of their status. And I feel this shouldn't change. It works differently on US, but that doesn't mean that RU has to fit into the mold of US. It is as if you are forcing a square into a circle hole - it doesn't fit. If the Marshall of 2GA genuinely has a problem with Vega keeping their O-10 rank that they've had for years now, he can comment and change it if he so pleases. He is the Marshall after all.

2 hours ago, shrimp said:

1.2.2 Standardization

With consistency issues comes again the topic of ranks. Some factions really like to change their ranking structure often, or maintain nonsensical ranking structures altogether. Here’s what they should look like.

No. It is their faction at the end of the day, and they are leading it. They should have some jurisdiction over what ranking structure they so please, as long as it doesn't break any server rules, become nonsensical, or overreaching with power (minus Vega). This alone made many faction leaders and enlisted alike uncomfortable. Who are you to change all this on a whim, simply because you don't like it? It seems very over-reaching, and doesn't positively effect the server in any way other than "being accurate". Its unnedeed, and just creates confusion and unwanted change in an area that is the faction leader's jurisdiction alone.

 

2 hours ago, shrimp said:

 

• 1.2.3 Approved
  
  Niggas will be probably be like ‘ShRImSp youC An’t JuST ChAANge OuR FAcTion, MY FACITion WhtIout Telling ME!!!111’ shut the fuck up and get that dumb idea out of your stupid heads, none of you own shit

 

This is just rude, toxic, and unwarranted. This is a suggestion. Humble yourself. I love you Shrimp, but this was uncalled for.

2 hours ago, shrimp said:

2.1.2 Permissions

Faction Leaders are responsible for managing their faction, and doing whatever necessary to keep it operational. Factions are meant to be run like military entities (hence the term: MilitaryRP), and as such certain rules need to be followed, certain precedents need to be set, and certain things shouldn’t be happening. For example, as previously stated, ranks are one of the many things that should remain relatively constant.

I’ll leave it to current management to more explicitly define what constitutes a concrete feature, but things like rank, internal structure, tryout, tier (some people legitimately think they can just “change” tier), and standards are all things that should not change with the leader. A new leader should not mean an entirely new faction.

In fact, if leaders are prevented from being able to fuck up a faction, new leaders shouldn’t have to change anything to fix it, and suddenly, we have consistency. Not so much as to take away freedom from leaders, but to ensure that they aren’t able to do stupid shit for no reason, which is often the case (See: Conway). 

While things like "Tier" should never change, as they are preset by leaders generations older than the current, tryouts, internal structure, rank, and standards need to change between each leader. Otherwise, the faction becomes stagnant. No one would want to join a bottom tier faction if everything on the server is pointing them towards the top tier. This quite literally makes every other SOC except for the Tier 1s obsolete. In GB, while we transitioned through 3 different leaders, the faction became very different. It was a fresh start each time, with each leader bringing a new element, and taking out an old element they didn't agree with. This keeps the server constantly fresh, and allows leaders to experiment with their faction, without going too far out of their boundaries. By no means should GB strive to become a Tier 1 - they aren't a Tier 1 - but on the same side of the coin they shouldn't be forced to have a specific guideline on how they run their faction, written and directed by you/staff. Jackal attempted to do a similar thing, and it was met with such harsh community feedback. Something like that should never happen again. While staff play a crucial role in maintaining order and peace between factions, keeping their boundaries in check, the faction leader should also be given the benefit of the doubt when changing their faction, as most of the time they believe it is for the better. Good examples - UB's GB to Cramer/Crypt. Bad examples - Ruin's DF to Spectre's DF. Staff intervened with the latter, and the situation was resolved.

2 hours ago, shrimp said:

No faction leader lasts forever, and the turnover rate has only increased over the years. As a result of it being much, much slower in the past, there was never a defined standard for staff appointing a new leader. Sometimes it gets handed to the next in line to the throne, sometimes staff intervenes. Determining a leader on a case by case basis has typically invited some much unwanted dissension from the playerbase, especially when staff stick their noses into a friend faction. It gets messy, people threaten to leave, the whole tantrum.

By establishing a standard, we can avoid the mess altogether, and I believe that the chosen leader should not just be a staff member or an officer (legitimate or illegitimate) of the faction, but the most qualified candidate. To determine this, management should look to applications whenever a vacancy presents itself in order to cull the whining.

You have essentially taken all power away from the faction leader at this point in your suggestion. They are nothing more than a figurehead if this were to transpire, simply keeping the title until they step down. Now they can't even pick their successor? The whole reason of a leader choosing a successor is that they have spent the last few months training and preparing the 2IC to take over the faction, teaching the do's and don'ts of leading. This is absolutely ridiculous. If staff need to step in, which is very rarely, it is most likely due to problems with the leader/enlisted. And while this is great, and needs to happen to keep the server moving forward, faction leaders should not be stripped of their choice on who leads the faction next. Our current leaders are perfectly competent, and are striving to improve their factions daily. 

2 hours ago, shrimp said:

.4 Reserve Policy

• 2.4.1 The Status Quo
  
  A recent re-implementation of the reserve policy was pushed out by the management team, however the guidelines lack any sort of specific requirements.
  
  The current guideline is as follows:
  1. “[Player must have] strived for greatness within the faction while active duty.”
  2. “Lead the faction while/while not being the faction leader.”
  3. “Left due to medical issues. “
  
  On top of these three guidelines, the new mandated reserve rank is now exactly O-1, but only retains the power of an E-4 for whatever reason.
   

• 2.4.2 Toeing The Line
  
  As a result of the now vague guidelines and the previously non-existent guidelines, reserves have been warped over time from a scarcely awarded tool to provide players struggling with personal issues that force them to take time off the server with a chance at maintain their rank to what it is now; a further extension of the friend-faction system. Players now consider it a personal favor to be awarded reserves upon the end of their time in a faction, which is rarely of a long duration. It has become so commonplace that, in fact, some players feel insulted when they don’t receive reserves, when the reality is that most if not all players maintaining reserve ranks do nothing or have done nothing exceptional for said faction.
  
  The newer guidelines almost promote the less desirable usage of reserves rather than endorse it, and seem to encourage players to seek leadership positions within a faction just to guarantee what is effectively a permanent whitelist. Frankly, that’s not how it should work.

Reserves. I am very conflicted on this topic. If someone reaches the rank of O-1, why shouldn't they have reserves. The amount of time and energy you need to invest into a faction to become an officer is already immense enough. They don't need to be additionally burdened with the fact that if they decide to move on, they won't be able to return to their faction. My stance on this topic is very simple - it is the faction leader's discretion to give reserves to a player. If the faction leader decides that a certain player has invested a lot of time into their faction, they should have the option to give them reserves. I am not suggesting that reserves are just handed out to anyone in a faction, but rather the faction leader decided whether that person is worthy or not. If the reserves are given to a player that decides to ruin the faction name/minge on the WL, the faction leader simply removes them. It has always worked this way, and has produced almost no negative events. If a faction is dying, the reserves are there to help out. If a faction needs help in tryouts, the reserves are there to help out. I don't see a problem with reserves at all. I agree some limitations should be enforced, but reserves should not be removed/solely for medical leave. That is just cruel and unfair to those who invested their blood sweat and tears in a faction. 

2 hours ago, shrimp said:

Standards

• 3.1 Tryouts

  • 3.1.1 Difficulty
    
    As stated above, tryouts need to maintain some level of difficulty in order to keep the image of all the factions at a respectable level. If a tryout is too easy, or if they’re are suddenly a lot of people in a faction, people notice, start bickering, and a faction’s image suffers.
    
    It’s a constant back and forth where a faction that has a difficult tryout struggles to get numbers because there are factions with tryouts that are way easier. Over the years the server has become a competition to see who can have the easiest tryout in order to bolster the most amount of players and stage some claim to superiority. It’s back and forth, and a dumb cycle.
    
    Management ensuring that factions at the same tier, on both sides of the server, have tryouts of similar difficulty would ensure that tryouts are less manipulable, and less prone to frequent change. Because tryouts will be standardized and wont need to change as often, the player base will gradually adapt to participating in more challenging tryouts because they won't have an easier route to turn to. Players that do complete the harder tryouts will feel more rewarded and commit to their faction longer.
     

  • 3.1.2 Generic Components
    
    Generic parts of tryouts are common items like combat sims, OC/Match, or other universally used courses. While these are useful in setting a common standard to compare relative skill among players, including too many common items allows for a tryout that can be easily passed by many players on the first try, making what should be a hard tryout very easy for some players. Ensuring that a tryout includes a number of elements on top of the generic items is important in making sure a tryout is passable but not on the first try.
     

  • 3.1.3 Quality Assurance
    
    With this new way of overseeing tryouts, staff will need to keep a tight leash on the amount and circumstances of handpicks, or modifying a tryout in order to allow certain people an easier time.
    
    Faction leaders, like staff members, should have the capability to record their in-game footage. From now on, faction leaders (or officers) should record and be able to present footage of all their faction members passing a legitimate version of their tryout in the event that questions arise surrounding the inclusion of a player in a faction where they might not belong.

You really expect staff to monitor and observe all tryouts? Really? This is so unrealistic. Once again, this is up to the faction leader. Each leader's tryouts are a little different from the last, and that is how it should be. It is the faction leader's discretion, based on their Tier, numbers, and status to run their faction. If they want easy tryouts to gain numbers, so be it. Who is that negatively effecting, other than the faction? No one. And lately, this hasn't been an issue. Factions, respective to Tier, escalate in difficulty. It has been this way for the longest time, and should remain so. 

 

This entire thread over-reaches. You are the head of Gamemasters, not the game man. It is a little ironic - suggesting faction leaders need to be put in their place and be restricted on what they can do, yet pulling a 180 and saying everything needs to change because you don't agree with it, and your vision is different on the server. I feel as if you have an insane amount of good ideas, and they truly do progress the server, but this wasn't one of them. For roleplay suggestions, I completely agree. You definitely know what you're talking about, and these ideas can create a new dynamic on the event server, and RP on the main. However, trying to pull strings in factions and change the status quo because you don't agree with it is extremely reminiscent of Jackal, who gained an immense backlash and was ultimately removed from Manager. These things need time. You need to talk with faction leaders before making a ginormous suggestion like this, with so much to break down and analyze that it hurts. Step by step is how it is done. I highly recommend you scrap this suggestion, and only keep roleplay elements in mind for now, as there was a severe lack of communication on behalf of the faction leaders before doing this. I want to state once more that the roleplay ideas that you suggest are fantastic, and should not be ignored. But everything else regarding faction status should be considered null for now, as it is too big of a change on such short notice. 

[Kendal 450]

3 hours ago, Rem_Paki said:

 Not actively taking direct control of a faction

I don't think myself or shrimps said anything in relation to staff taking direct "control" over any faction.  I think that is a wild over-exaggeration for the sake of disagreeing. 

What I personally want to see is a shift in attitude/behavior that faction leaders/members have. I've seen a lot of entitlement among the ranks, especially in SOC factions. More often than not, at least when I was manager, if I made a decision on something that needed to be done, I'd get a lot of backlash from the faction I had to do it to. Not that I sought to mute criticisms people had. But at one point MARSOC was threatening mass resignation over Orange being re-perma'd, and also began threatening to get myself and Jim removed from the staff team for banning someone who broke the rules. This is the kind of entitlement that I want to see fixed. They feel that since it is their faction, they have final say or authority to make decisions over staff. 

This isn't seen with every faction, however other notable examples would be PDSS over-reaction to Viva getting warned and staff striked for being a toxic player, the faction for a couple days proceeded to be incredibly toxic during war to the point that I had to step in as staff. Not every leader is capable of policing their own faction when need be. Sometimes they need a push from staff to do so. "Hey, flame, you need to seriously have a talk with your PDSS about their behavior before staff need to intervein." after he and I had that conversation, Porche and Flame began reworking the way PDSS behaves. I haven't been on the server to see it as of late, but overall this was positive change made by staff putting the boot down and being more involved with a faction.

If the preferred way of staff dealing with any behavioral issues is just wiping immediately, then hey that's up to you. But I want staff to be more involved with factions overall to make sure that things don't NEED to get to the point where they are constantly teetering on edge of being wiped.

3 hours ago, Rem_Paki said:

you are doing this now because someone who's never been in your faction said so on fourms.

Again, a wild exaggeration for argument's sake. You do this a lot, even in TS.

Now just because shrimps has not been in every single faction on the server, does not mean he isn't knowledgeable or capable of grasping the concept of how it should run. And it's a good thing he isn't singling out any single faction here isn't it? What's been said so far, is that factions OVERALL should be under some oversight from staff. This also isn't saying everyone that leads a faction needs to be manager/SA/Head admin. It is solely expressed that Staff should be more involved.

I do remember a lot of RU really fucking pissed when shrimps came back, and wanted to spread rumors of "memeware taking over GGMRP" etc, but that's just untrue. Take a step back from the idea that shrimps is some fucking con-artist, and see this thread for what it is. It's a way to try and help the community, and give ideas that may SEEM controversial at first glance, but upon removing that anti-shrimps vitriol in your head, you might realize there is some utility to this.

[PraetorDon 485]

10 hours ago, Kendal said:

Take a step back from the idea that shrimps is some fucking con-artist, and see this thread for what it is. It's a way to try and help the community, and give ideas that may SEEM controversial at first glance, but upon removing that anti-shrimps vitriol in your head, you might realize there is some utility to this.

Overall, the community doesn't seem to like most of what was proposed, it's not some vendetta against shrimps that you're making it out to be. The disagreement is coming from each country, not just RU. 

Here's a short list of what I would propose based on community feedback, and talks I've had with shrimps.
 

• VIP/Subscription ranks and perks added
• RP events and faction specialization Added
• War system overhaul/skill tree, both in code and from an RP based perspective
• Meetings between faction leaders and staff.

VIP/Subscription Ranks/Perks is fairly self explanatory, and I believe would genuinely bring in income for the server.

RP Events, from what I've seen lately, have been immensely popular. I encourage those doing these events to keep up the good work.

A revitalized war system that can give XP for more than just kills, allows for more interaction and tools for RP events and RP wars, making wars actually matter for an overarching story line. The revamped donor method would have to come before this for purposes of funding however.

For the skill tree, allowing leveling up to actually matter with the end result being to build a customized character so to speak.

Meetings between faction leaders and staff should happen on a biweekly basis, to make sure everything is running smoothly in the faction and to address any complaints that may have arisen.

Edited April 19, 2020 by Praetor_Don

[Not Naitsir 79]

I think this idea is excellent. But I believe what most people are failing to realize is that to have a successful rp experience you need some type of structure with appropriate staff intervention to make sure that everything is running smoothly and that’s what this suggestion is all about. Implementing new ideas while also giving details of controversial changes of things that have been debated on forever now (I.e reserves, faction leadership, staff intervention with factions, etc.). Now obviously just by looking at the thread most of the points @shrimp is making are disagreed upon so this suggestion can be tweaked so that it can benefit both the players and the staff team while also satisfying their wants and needs. Overall this suggestion gets a +1 from me. But hey what do I know I just came back to the community a couple days ago.

[shrimp 764]

2 hours ago, Not Naitsir said:

to have a successful rp experience you need some type of structure with appropriate staff intervention to make sure that everything is running smoothly

 

[Jared Cox 652]

An overhaul like this would definitely get me to play for a good while. People dislike what you've put on the table because a good amount of MRP players believe that this change isn't necessary and that the current state of MRP is already fine. I however see this as a positive direction into the roleplay aspect of the server, which is mostly why I joined this community in the first place. I trust that the staff team, as Naitsir said, will appropriately intervene to make this experience smooth, and I know you, shrimp, will do a great job at slowly implementing this change. I'm also kinda conflicted as well because I'm also on the side of the majority that believes that this change isn't needed and I think the server is just fine how it is right now, but I've always liked your suggestions and I appreciate you trying to think of ways to make the server better. I think if you tweak what you've suggested to appease to the people who disagree with you, I think this overhaul would be awesome to the MRP server, but I don't think you'll ever find the good medium you want because people don't want to see a huge change to the function of the server. 

[MRPAce 20]

On 4/18/2020 at 6:06 PM, shrimp said:

3.1.3 Quality Assurance

With this new way of overseeing tryouts, staff will need to keep a tight leash on the amount and circumstances of handpicks, or modifying a tryout in order to allow certain people an easier time.

Faction leaders, like staff members, should have the capability to record their in-game footage. From now on, faction leaders (or officers) should record and be able to present footage of all their faction members passing a legitimate version of their tryout in the event that questions arise surrounding the inclusion of a player in a faction where they might not belong.

This has been needed for a long time.