Suggestion En Garde: Rework the Fair Fight Mandate

[IronHeart]

Opening:
I would like to propose a small adjustment to the Fair Fight mandate.

Currently, Fair Fight provides a very strong defensive benefit by limiting the faction to being targeted by only one invasion every thirty days. In exchange, the mandate currently restricts the faction to gaining a maximum of one hex per invasion. While the concept is solid, I believe the current weakness does not mirror the strength particularly well. The mandate is fundamentally themed around measured, honorable conflict rather than territorial limitations, and as it stands the offensive penalty feels somewhat disconnected from the defensive bonus.

Current Mandate:

1. Fair Fight
"Honor. That is why a Knight does what he does." -Ser Gawain

• Strength: This Major Faction may only be targeted by one Invasion every 30 days.
• Weakness: This Major Faction may only win a maximum of one hex per Invasion.
• Weakness: This Major Faction loses this Mandate if it forfeits an Invasion at any time, and may not choose it again.

Proposed Mandate:

1. Fair Fight
"Honor. That is why a Knight does what he does." -Ser Gawain

• Strength: This Major Faction may only be targeted by one Invasion every 30 days.
• Weakness: This Major Faction may only launch one Invasion every 30 days, the duration starting after an invasion launched by this Major Faction has been completed.
• Weakness: This Major Faction loses this Mandate if it forfeits an Invasion at any time, and may not choose it again.

Reasoning:

The strength of Fair Fight limits the number of invasions that can be directed against the faction, effectively reducing the frequency of major military engagements. Restricting the faction to only one invasion every thirty days would create a symmetrical tradeoff by similarly reducing the frequency with which that faction can project military force outward. This preserves the identity of the mandate as a more measured and honorable approach to warfare. A faction choosing Fair Fight would be opting into fewer wars overall, both offensively and defensively, rather than simply accepting an arbitrary reduction in territorial gains.

Importantly, this also avoids creating situations where a faction successfully wins a difficult invasion only to receive a reduced reward compared to every other mandate. The challenge and effort required to win an invasion remain the same regardless of mandate, making the current one-hex limitation feel disproportionately punitive, especially considering the large and expanded state of our current map.

Conclusion:

This change would maintain the defensive nature of Fair Fight while creating a cleaner and more intuitive balance between its strengths and weaknesses. Rather than limiting the rewards of victory, it would limit the frequency of warfare itself, reinforcing the mandate's theme and encouraging a distinct style of play without unnecessarily reducing the value of successful invasions and keeping it competitive in a larger map environment.

 

[Braze]

This is a great idea.

 

[Aether Verd]

On paper, can definitely see where you're coming from. However, there's come community context that you're missing:

Fair Fight exists as an ohshit button for factions that are getting ganged up on by several majors.

Instead of fighting multiple factions at once, inevitably burning out the member base and forcing going minor, you get a series of 1v1s.

The reason why the invasion reward is diminished is because it incentivizes surviving and fighting back.

Putting a 30-day time limit on swinging back on the gaggle swinging at you doesn't vibe with the spirit of why this mandate exists.

As such, I think it's fine as-is.

 

[Braze]

3 factions at once?

 

[IronHeart]

On paper, can definitely see where you're coming from. However, there's come community context that you're missing:

Fair Fight exists as an ohshit button for factions that are getting ganged up on by several majors.

Instead of fighting multiple factions at once, inevitably burning out the member base and forcing going minor, you get a series of 1v1s.

The reason why the invasion reward is diminished is because it incentivizes surviving and fighting back.

Putting a 30-day time limit on swinging back on the gaggle swinging at you doesn't vibe with the spirit of why this mandate exists.

As such, I think it's fine as-is.

I understand the intent behind the mandate, and I actually agree that Fair Fight should function as a safeguard against dogpiling. Where I disagree is the idea that the one-hex limitation is necessary to accomplish that goal. The strength already solves the problem it was designed to solve: it prevents a faction from being overwhelmed by multiple invasions simultaneously and gives them breathing room to focus on a single conflict at a time. Once that protection is in place, reducing the reward for successful invasions doesn't actually contribute to preventing burnout or stopping dogpiles. Those are already addressed by the primary strength. Instead, it simply means that the faction is fighting the same invasion as everyone else, expending the same effort, and accepting the same risks, but receiving a smaller reward for victory.

I also think there is a contradiction in the argument that Fair Fight exists to help struggling factions survive while simultaneously reducing their ability to recover. If a faction is being pressured by multiple majors, they are already in a disadvantaged position. Limiting them to a single invasion against them every thirty days helps stabilize that position, but limiting their gains to one hex when they successfully fight back slows their recovery and prolongs their weakness. A catch-up mechanic should generally help a faction re-establish itself, not make its victories worth less. The mandate's defensive protection already serves its purpose; the one-hex restriction feels less like a balancing mechanism and more like an additional penalty attached to a faction that is likely already under pressure.

 

[Romul Saxon]

On paper, can definitely see where you're coming from. However, there's come community context that you're missing:

Fair Fight exists as an ohshit button for factions that are getting ganged up on by several majors.

Instead of fighting multiple factions at once, inevitably burning out the member base and forcing going minor, you get a series of 1v1s.

The reason why the invasion reward is diminished is because it incentivizes surviving and fighting back.

Putting a 30-day time limit on swinging back on the gaggle swinging at you doesn't vibe with the spirit of why this mandate exists.

As such, I think it's fine as-is.

Wouldn’t that be dogpiling and illegal anyways? Getting multi-invaded by several factions at once, that is.

 

[Aether Verd]

Wouldn’t that be dogpiling and illegal anyways? Getting multi-invaded by several factions at once, that is.

You're thinking of stampeding, which is a specific offense during an invasion.

Multiple factions jumping one faction? Perfectly legal.

Dick move? Absolutely.

 

[Darth Morta]

I like this, the original Fair Fight isn't actually fair.

In a 1v1, which I know Fair Fight isn't intended to be used in, you can lose 3 hexes and gain 1.

But those numbers get exponentially worse when fighting a coalition (as is the intention) in the first month, you can lose 3 or gain 1, in the second, you can lose 6 and gain 2, third is lose 9 and gain 3, but in the fourth month you can gain 5 hexes if you run your faction like a sociopath and launch invasions the moment the last one ends, though the loss gap still increses by losing up to 12 hexes. With an additional punishment, the coalition can swap in a fresh faction every month, while the FF faction has to fight with the same members, slowly burning out. The moral value of being able to swing back, claiming new hexes from an attacker or retaking lost ones has a value that can't be defined in the pros and cons.

The new suggestion still has the burnout penalty of the Fair Fight faction having to deal with being the target of several successive invasions, but now the gain/loss math works out.

 

[Romul Saxon]

You're thinking of stampeding, which is a specific offense during an invasion.

Multiple factions jumping one faction? Perfectly legal.

Dick move? Absolutely.

Dang you’re right. I thought it had been outlawed.

 

[Braze]

You're thinking of stampeding, which is a specific offense during an invasion.

Multiple factions jumping one faction? Perfectly legal.

Dick move? Absolutely.

But 3?

 

[Allyson Locke]

But 3?

What about 4

 

[Braze]

What about 4

That's a lot

 

[Allyson Locke]

That's a lot

It’s a nice even number at least.

 

[Srina Talon]

On paper, can definitely see where you're coming from. However, there's come community context that you're missing:

Fair Fight exists as an ohshit button for factions that are getting ganged up on by several majors.

Instead of fighting multiple factions at once, inevitably burning out the member base and forcing going minor, you get a series of 1v1s.

The reason why the invasion reward is diminished is because it incentivizes surviving and fighting back.

Putting a 30-day time limit on swinging back on the gaggle swinging at you doesn't vibe with the spirit of why this mandate exists.

As such, I think it's fine as-is.

This.

This mandate definitely exists only as an "oh chit" button for when one faction is getting dogpiled by any number of major factions. It's not meant to be something utilized long-term for hex gain, but a way to provide a breather should such a situation arise. If there are ten Major Factions in existence without this mandate, another Major Faction could become the subject of ten different invasions at the same time. This mandate should not appeal to the masses, and truly, was a hard sell for the Admin Team in the first place because it's "Anti-RP" in that it actively stops writers from writing by limiting invasions. It is the only mandate of its kind because it is extremely powerful if utilized correctly.

That being said...This is not a mandate any faction should want or need to take. It's not meant to grow your cloud. It's meant to do one thing and one thing only:

Eliminate dog piling of multiple factions at the same time.

Could it be more? Yes.

Will it be changed? Unlikely...Because it is meant to be the emergency brake, not the elimination of the road the car is driving on.

Invasions will still happen.

 

[IronHeart]

This.

This mandate definitely exists only as an "oh chit" button for when one faction is getting dogpiled by any number of major factions. It's not meant to be something utilized long-term for hex gain, but a way to provide a breather should such a situation arise. If there are ten Major Factions in existence without this mandate, another Major Faction could become the subject of ten different invasions at the same time. This mandate should not appeal to the masses, and truly, was a hard sell for the Admin Team in the first place because it's "Anti-RP" in that it actively stops writers from writing by limiting invasions. It is the only mandate of its kind because it is extremely powerful if utilized correctly.

That being said...This is not a mandate any faction should want or need to take. It's not meant to grow your cloud. It's meant to do one thing and one thing only:

Eliminate dog piling of multiple factions at the same time.

Could it be more? Yes.

Will it be changed? Unlikely...Because it is meant to be the emergency brake, not the elimination of the road the car is driving on.

Invasions will still happen.

Thank you for the explanation. That said, I think my suggestion ultimately comes from a slightly different perspective. My concern wasn't necessarily that Fair Fight is too weak or that it needs to become a growth-oriented mandate, but rather that its strength and weakness feel somewhat disconnected from one another.

If the purpose of the mandate is to dramatically reduce the number of invasions a faction can be involved in, then limiting that faction to one offensive invasion every thirty days felt, at least to me, like a more direct mirror of the protection it receives. The faction would still be engaging in significantly fewer invasions overall and would remain a poor choice for aggressive expansion, but the limitation would be tied to activity rather than territorial reward.

That being said, if the mandate is intentionally intended to function as an emergency measure that discourages long-term adoption altogether, then I can certainly see the logic behind making the weakness especially unattractive. In that context, the one-hex cap serves less as a balancing mechanic and more as an incentive for factions to leave the mandate once the immediate threat has passed.

Even if I still prefer the alternative approach, I appreciate the clarification regarding the original design goals. It definitely provides more context for why the mandate is structured the way it is. Maybe, this was just a case of chasing 'Perfect' which is the enemy of 'Good'.

I suppose the only remaining point I would raise is that, if the mandate is intended to be an emergency brake rather than a permanent strategic choice, then it may actually be worth reflecting that more explicitly in the mandate itself.

At the moment, Fair Fight exists alongside every other mandate as a seemingly normal option, yet its intended purpose appears to be fundamentally different. Most mandates encourage a particular style of play or provide a unique strategic identity. Fair Fight, from your explanation, is instead a protective mechanism designed to stabilize a faction during exceptional circumstances.

Because of that, I wonder whether there is value in distinguishing it mechanically from the other mandates, rather than it sitting alongside expansion and conquest-focused options. That would make its purpose immediately clear to newer Major Faction Owners and better communicate that it exists to solve a specific problem rather than to compete with the other mandates as an equally attractive strategic choice.

I completely understand if there is no appetite to revisit it, especially given the history you described and the concerns surrounding invasion restrictions. My intention was never really to make Fair Fight stronger, but rather to make its tradeoff feel more internally consistent. If the broader design goal is that the mandate should be unattractive except in rare circumstances, then I can certainly appreciate why the current version ended up where it did.

In any case, I appreciate the response and the insight into the original reasoning behind it. Understanding the intent behind a rule is often just as valuable as discussing potential changes to it.