Denied Allow multiple characters in the same faction

[Zen]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Allow people to create multiple characters in the same faction, and delete existing characters of theirs.

Any limits on this would be up to developers and Content Team, but ideally would be basically unlimited excepting spam. A good limit might be something along the lines of 15 or so - see my forums signature for how characters can/should be split for an idea of why. If this limit can be made to be a simple dev/SL change, i.e. just updating a number, it would be pretty useful.

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
None, other than this suggestion to allow deletion of characters, which was denied as not having a use. Deletion of characters probably should also be added as part of this as it would then have a use.

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):

• Allows you to separate characters, e.g. based on role, or if you want to play multiple characters for any other reason. Right now, you have to manually change your name every time.
  • Not too many people do this right now, but some do. I also (personally) think this should be done more to keep what are supposed to be separate characters actually separate.
  • EDIT: Also allows you to more easily set separate bios/lore
• Provides a fix for vehicles always being regiment-owned, as you can simply use a character that's not in a regiment if you e.g. want to spawn a vehicle as DEA
• Allows you to be in multiple regiments without completely reworking the regiment system, as you can just be in one per character, across different characters.
  • CT may not want to allow this generally, but it could be at least useful for allowing people to be part of SA/SC and an MTF, while SA/SC keeps their regiment powers.

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:

• Dev time
  • I'm hoping that this wouldn't actually be too hard, as there's not much (visible) data tied to your character, and none of it should be a problem for anyone. This might be less dev work than fixing the SA regiment and vehicle ownership issues separately would be, depending on how it's implemented.
  • EDIT: I have seen evidence that having multiple characters is literally only limited by the character creator not allowing you. Having multiple Foundation characters, when done, causes no issue on anything - the only thing that hasn't been tested is being in multiple regiments at once, so that may need to be tested. Literally the only thing that needs to be changed here is changing the code/config from denying you if you have at least one character in the faction to being e.g. denying if at least 15 or something like that. It can even be limited based on faction, so e.g. only 2 GOC, only 1 CI, only 15 F or something.
• People could spam this if it wasn't both rate limited and total character limited

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
This would be a QoL change for those that have characters with different names, along with fixing a couple of other issues - namely, that SA members can't also be in an actual regiment, and vehicles are always owned by the player's regiment if their character is in one.

I would really appreciate it if a dev would be able to have a look and give a rough estimate of whether this would be particularly difficult to impletor not.

EDIT: Just to be clear, this would mean that people can just stick with one and go on like they already were - they would just then have the option to have multiple characters if they wanted/needed them.

EDIT: Somebody showed a screenshot of an old CG character select screen where they had multiple characters on the same faction, so this has apparently been possible in the past, and apparently it was on SCP-RP.

 

[Dr Random K.]

-support
- Licenses are per character, you’d have to get your WLs/Licenses for every single one
- Name changing doesnt take long
- Can see this being used to minge while being harder to link to the other character
- I dont think they would want you to be in different regiments within foundation, focus on one instead; would discourage people from joining CI/GOC
+Only upside I see is better differentiation with character lore

 

[Skittles]

-Support

Changing character names isn't any inconvenience, and with the cooldown you can just play as said character for 5 minutes before changing.

I do agree though that there should be some fix for the issue of DEA vehicles. There's been times I was the only one with an armoured vehicle license on DEA, spawn in a vehicle, and whoops it's owned be E-11 and I can't open it since I'm on DEA.

With regards to being in multiple MTFs though. Base jobs like CM or GSD officer / SCU can assist in codes that MTFs attend to.

 

[Zen]

-support
- Licenses are per character, you’d have to get your WLs/Licenses for every single one
- Name changing doesnt take long
- Can see this being used to minge while being harder to link to the other character
- I dont think they would want you to be in different regiments within foundation, focus on one instead; would discourage people from joining CI/GOC
+Only upside I see is better differentiation with character lore

1. Licenses being per character is a good thing, and makes more sense than having it across all roles like you do now. If I have e.g. a snipers license because of Nu-7, I shouldn't have it when I'm a Tech Expert
2. Name changing is a minor annoyance when you do it regularly, so it's still a positive, even if a minor one
3. There's things called "their voice" and "their SteamID" - if people wanted to abuse character names to minge, they already can by just changing their name
4. I don't necessarily think people should be able to be in multiple MTFs, but I do think people should be able to be in SA/SC and one MTF, which isn't currently possible.
5. Yeah, it would be pretty useful for this purpose.

 

[Zen]

-Support

Changing character names isn't any inconvenience, and with the cooldown you can just play as said character for 5 minutes before changing.

I do agree though that there should be some fix for the issue of DEA vehicles. There's been times I was the only one with an armoured vehicle license on DEA, spawn in a vehicle, and whoops it's owned be E-11 and I can't open it since I'm on DEA.

With regards to being in multiple MTFs though. Base jobs like CM or GSD officer / SCU can assist in codes that MTFs attend to.

1. It's a minor inconvenience, but enough of one if you use different names for me to put it on the list of positives.
2. This should fix the vehicle ownership issue, though if this gets rejected, that could be fixed separately via other means. This would just do multiple helpful things in one change.
3. I don't necessarily think people should be able to be in multiple MTFs - CT/Platform Team/whoever should set the rules about that. I do think though that you should be able to be in SA/SC and one MTF - the only reason it's even a regiment in the first place is to give them the power to kick/promote/demote/etc.

 

[Michael Dzhetnikov]

better idea, character presets, which simply change the name and description so you dont have to keep a copy paste of them or manually type them in each time. Keeps licences and whitelists. it could even change favourite jobs etc.

 

[Deleted member 1078]

+ Support used to be a feature back in the day

https://imgur.com/a/2MzpPkK

 

[Zen]

+ Support used to be a feature back in the day

https://imgur.com/a/2MzpPkK

If that's the case, it might just be something a dev/SL needs to configure, unless they've changed something since then that breaks it.

 

[Zen]

+ Support used to be a feature back in the day

https://imgur.com/a/2MzpPkK

Was this on SCP-RP, or what server was this?

 

[Kree]

+/- Seems like a lot of effort for not that much value
-Why would you need multiple characters on GOC/CI
-A lot of people just play 1 character or just change their name
+I guess it would fix the vehicle thing? But surely there's an actual fix instead of this
+It would be very helpful to people who like to play several jobs but I don't think its needed right now.

 

[Deleted member 1078]

Was this on SCP-RP, or what server was this?

Yes this is from CN SCP RP

 

[Niox]

+Support
-This is already possible with F/Civi characters btw. Not sure if i would get slaughtered if i said how to do it so i wont.

 

[Judge]

no

 

[Zen]

I don't really understand the amount of -Support so far. The only reasons that have been given have been:

• This will take too long to implement - that's up to the addon devs to look at, not random players that can't even see the code to know this. Also, it's apparently already a thing that does/has existed without issue, it just isn't currently normally possible. EDIT: Literally the only thing that needs to be changed to implement this is the check for characters when creating a new one in a faction - having multiple same-faction characters already works perfectly with no issue (only thing not known is if being in multiple regiments works fine).
• I wouldn't personally use this - then why do you have an opinion on it? This also applies to things like not having your licenses, just don't use this feature then.
• People shouldn't be able to be in multiple MTFs - the multi-regiment part literally explicitly says this may remain the case if Content Team/whoever want it to. This is mainly a benefit for SA/SC as it is currently a regiment of its own, so they can't join an MTF at all.

 

[Skittles]

• People shouldn't be able to be in multiple MTFs - the multi-regiment part literally explicitly says this may remain the case if Content Team/whoever want it to. This is mainly a benefit for SA/SC as it is currently a regiment of its own, so they can't join an MTF at all.

My main point, perhaps worded poorly by including SA in the MTF umbrella since it's a "regiment", was that if SA/SC members want to play MTF jobs they can without being in the MTF. DEA for surface and anti CI, SCU for SCPs etc. I believe that it's fine the way it is now, since as SA+ you're responsible for stuff running on the site which should be your priority instead of trying to get the 3 hours for activity checks.

 

[Niox]

My main point, perhaps worded poorly by including SA in the MTF umbrella since it's a "regiment", was that if SA/SC members want to play MTF jobs they can without being in the MTF. DEA for surface and anti CI, SCU for SCPs etc. I believe that it's fine the way it is now, since as SA+ you're responsible for stuff running on the site which should be your priority instead of trying to get the 3 hours for activity checks.

SA/SC can join CI and GOC at the same time, but them joining 1 MTF regiment is too much?

 

[Emilia Foddg]

+Support
eh, i think they should have the option if they want to. if it's not possible, then sure.

I don't really understand the amount of -Support so far.

shocking, isn't it. i've noticed recently that people are just reading the suggestion less and less and then -support for a reason you already gave a counterargument for, without addressing your counterargument; or just straight up for something not applicable.

honestly, if staff ever decide that they want to permanently close the suggestions subforum at some point, i just might actually be ok with that. it's not worth the headache and discussions here are becoming increasingly less and less cohesive/meaningful. alas, the funny must continue

as SA+ you're responsible for stuff running on the site which should be your priority instead of trying to get the 3 hours for activity checks.

i mean a regiment's activity requirements are generally decided internally by each regiment's leadership, if you have concerns with a facet of a regiment, you or anyone for that matter should definitely raise that with them. don't just be silent and be ok with something that might not be okay, we can't know if something's a problem.

anyway for something like this, something could be negotiated or w/e. it's not like there's like a flat "it has to be done this way," there can be exceptions and deviations from the standard for good reasons. there's also what niox said

i'm also surprised no-one brought up the whole potential conflict of interest/abuse of power issue that comes with being both in a regiment and in a position that gives orders to the regiment, from outside the regiment. i mean obviously it's a moot point anyway because that'd either be metagaming or some other violation that i can't determine off the top of my head, but. just surprised, really. not in the OP, not in replies. no-one thought of it.

 

[Zen]

+Support
eh, i think they should have the option if they want to. if it's not possible, then sure.

shocking, isn't it. i've noticed recently that people are just reading the suggestion less and less and then -support for a reason you already gave a counterargument for, without addressing your counterargument; or just straight up for something not applicable.

honestly, if staff ever decide that they want to permanently close the suggestions subforum at some point, i just might actually be ok with that. it's not worth the headache and discussions here are becoming increasingly less and less cohesive/meaningful. alas, the funny must continue

i mean a regiment's activity requirements are generally decided internally by each regiment's leadership, if you have concerns with a facet of a regiment, you or anyone for that matter should definitely raise that with them. don't just be silent and be ok with something that might not be okay, we can't know if something's a problem.

anyway for something like this, something could be negotiated or w/e. it's not like there's like a flat "it has to be done this way," there can be exceptions and deviations from the standard for good reasons. there's also what niox said

i'm also surprised no-one brought up the whole potential conflict of interest/abuse of power issue that comes with being both in a regiment and in a position that gives orders to the regiment, from outside the regiment. i mean obviously it's a moot point anyway because that'd either be metagaming or some other violation that i can't determine off the top of my head, but. just surprised, really. not in the OP, not in replies. no-one thought of it.

You can already be in this position of power by being an assistant or other senior role, e.g. Ambassador or Dpt. Directors and the like all have power over most of an MTF.

 

[Skittles]

SA/SC can join CI and GOC at the same time, but them joining 1 MTF regiment is too much?

yes they must dedicate their life to the foundation oorah

i just think its fine as it is now

 

[Niox]

yes they must dedicate their life to the foundation oorah

i just think its fine as it is now

but do think its a bit funny
SA/O5 can be a CI Delta, GOC 1SGT, any Jr CL4 role, but can't be even a MTF PVT at the same time?