Suggestion #bringbackstrategy

[Kiff Brayde]

With the campaign flashpoint coming up soon, I thought this might be relevant. Essentially, make strategic victory a component in grading rebellions and invasions, a piece of grading criteria alongside the current ones.

Why this could be beneficial:

• Five different categories would make ties occur less often (although, who are we kidding, when does it ever happen).
• Rewards a faction for completing objectives and making big brain objective moves.
• Doesn't turn invasions and rebellions back into only strategic victory, you'd still be able to win either without winning in the strategic category.

I think that an implementation of this would require a slight overhaul of the objective system, requiring factions to list specific objectives if they want to win, but it could also be just as simple as 'defending faction successfully resists attackers,' or 'attackers successfully take the planet.' What do people think?

 

[Jaeger Harrsk]

The tangible element of objectives kind of gives me the ol' scoreboard vibes.

 

[Scherezade deWinter]

#MakePVPMatterAgain

 

[Onrai]

I think it already is, tbh.

 

[Rann Thress]

For those PVP inclined, sure. Personally I like choreographing my story where possible. But PvP should definitely matter for those who want it, but it shouldn’t be mandatory, if that makes sense.

Sometimes I don’t feel like racking my brain over who does what and why and how that looks and how to counter and whatever. I’m a nerd, not a combat specialist.

 

[Kiff Brayde]

I'm not talking making PVP mandatory, just strategics. It's like a square to a rectangle; similar, but not the same.

 

[Progflaw99]

I'd argue strategy is already included under the story element. What you do with the story whether it's "Win" or "Lose" objectives, how you handle the story elements and plot directly effect the scoring. Seems like a useless metric to attempt encapsulating to me.

 

[Rynn Vizsla]

Without fixed strategic resources, locations, or hyper-routes - there's no reason for strategy to be a grading criteria. Every planet, despite not being readily accessible by hyperspace from certain sectors is accessible due to map mechanics. They've got patrol fleets that would put the Galactic Empire to shame. Almost every planet has been EaW'd to have either a Not!Starforge or some ship-producing facility. There's also massive defense network around every planet that doesn't have to worry about upkeep, as credits and resources are replenishable and infinite.

Not to mention how every Naval battle is similar to Endor or Exogol in scope/scale.

As many folks have said, I believe and agree with them that strategy is already a part of the judging process under the story criteria. It can be an overarching objective that your faction seeks to complete, or a bit of flavour to flesh out the reason why your character is there in the first place. However, being its own category seems... excessive, especially with the way the board is now.

If people want PvP to matter so much that it deserves it's own category - make a dueling tourney and continually dodge left until your opponent gives up. I write my battles and duels for the Story that would come out of my character getting his arse kicked, or managing to triumph over great odds, not for the intangible clout that comes from winning duels on a RolePlay site.

 

[Danielle Mueller]

I was happy to see this suggestion go up as it seemed to encourage more tactical and cooperative story-telling in order to achieve a victory, however having read the responses I'm finding myself having to agree with what's being said. Strategic planning and action can and is indeed categorized and taken into considering within the story parameters, as well as shared participation and coordination across faction members.

I applaud the thought, as well as the desire to somehow help improve the system where possible Kiff Brayde (As many others have done). However, as stated, keeping things as they are currently, still achieves the desired effect in my opinion.

 

[Jsc]

I would advise against it.

PvP has very little strategy to it because it's currently a trust-based fantasy-physics system on Chaos. And the more you try to strategize a trust-based fantasy system? The more your head just ends up hurting.

I shoot a turbolaser at you. It's range is (Insert fantasy here). It obeys physics when (insert fantasy limits here). It has accuracy when (you allow it too). It does damage in the amount of (whatever the other wants I guess). The Force affects this weapon when (insert literally anything here).​

​

Again. Not really for me.

 

[Ellie Mors]

Most "strategy" and "fighting" buffs on Chaos have no idea what they're talking about anyway, so creating a category for judging that is going to get interpreted six ways from Sunday is going to do more harm than good.

 

[Uriel Kahn]

Kinda agree with Vesta with that last part lol

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

Ties do not happen often because the drama category is usually a tie unless one faction or the other does something egregious.

That leaves 3, which more often than not produces a result.

Having 5 categories would more often than not have 4 judged categories which makes ties easier.

As for the rest of it, I disagree. The invasion rules are written as following:

"
The following will not be considered when judging an Invasion.

• Person vs Person Duels. The amount of duels won or lost in an Invasion does not contribute to either faction’s victory.
• Objectives. The amount of objectives won or lost in an Invasion does not contribute to either faction’s victory.
• Non-Player Characters. The actions of NPCs involved from either side in an Invasion does not contribute to either faction’s victory.

"

Strategic victory sounds a lot like the bad old days of spamming NPCs and 'objectives' to get a 'victory', something the current system is designed to avoid.

Nothing in what you mention cannot be covered by tension or story.

The fundamental issue and flaw of anything trying to make PVP or strategy matter in Invasions is that this is not D&D or Warhammer where there are rules for combat. People write and take hits when they choose. What used to happen is that nobody took a hit because it hurt their faction to do so. I remember cases of people being accused of betrayal because they took a hit.

Ultimately, people are people. If they want to win something they'll do everything they can to get that victory. It's still a problem with the current rules, don't get me wrong, but if you're trying to make strategy or PVP be your meter of victory you will run into serious issues.

 

[Not Ordo]

Bring back force user rank requirements while you're at it.

 

[Heath Valhoun]

I like it, but as Valiens pointed out, it's flawed. I think there are better ways to encourage strategy.

 

[Coren Starchaser]

Enter no one taking hits ever

 

[Kyra Perl]

Coren Starchaser

war flashbacks