Feedback Hex Gains for factions that successfully defend from an Invasion?

[Srina Talon]

As Valiens Nantaris mentioned in another feedback thread, we're looking to change some things up. We were thinking about introducing a mandate that would allow successful defending factions to claim the same number of hexes the other faction targeted. The mandate would look like this:

No, You "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles." - Sun Tzu Strength: Once every 30 days, when another Major Faction declares an Invasion against this faction, they may activate this mandate. Strength: The original attacker remains the attacker for judging purposes, but the invasion's territorial stakes become reciprocal. If the faction with this mandate successfully defends their territory, they can annex or turn neutral the same number of hexes that were targeted. Weakness: Once the mandate is activated, it cannot be withdrawn.

HOWEVER - And stay with me here...What if we didn't make it a Mandate? What if we applied it to Invasion Rules instead, and this became the standard?

Ex.)
- Sith invade Jedi and the Jedi Win: Currently, the Jedi get nothing but a pat on the head and an invisible cookie.
Versus
- Sith Invade the Jedi and the Jedi Win: With this change, the Jedi would get to choose the same number of connected hexes that the Sith initially targeted.

Reason: IMO, defending blows chunks. You do the same amount of work (sometimes more because defending is a lot) for two weeks, but get nada for your efforts? Maybe there's a reason for it that hasn't been pointed out to me yet, but I think it's dumb.

Give me a vote or some commentary please <3

 

[Madrona A’Mia]

Ooooh this is a cool idea! I’ll noodle on it some more but at face value it seems neat.

(I’m woefully ignorant about map game but I’ve been working to remedy that a bit)

 

[Matt the Radar Tech]

Yes. New rule for Invasions.

Any other answer means someone is scared.

 

[Aether Verd]

I'm all for giving rewards for defending a hex as part of the ruleset.

As you said, defending sucks right now. You put your faction's story on pause for a month only to get nada in return. Please buff defense.

 

[Taiia Locke]

I agree with this. Add it to the rules, this adds real consequences to launching an invasion. You have to commit.

 

[Arris Windrun]

I'd love to see stakes and opportunities on both ends of an invasion - 100% for this

 

[Srina Talon]

Aurelian Veruna We're cool now right? Right? nervous laughter backs away slow

 

[Aurelian Veruna]

Aurelian Veruna We're cool now right? Right? nervous laughter backs away slow

 

[Kaela Voss]

I feel like the defender shouldn’t get the same amount of hexes, maybe only one, but if they take a mandate then they can get equal amount of hexes. It still makes attacking more valuable and making the faction more active in a IC sence. Or maybe the attacker pick the hexes they’re gambling unless the defender takes the mandate then they get to pick the hexes.

While I’m not 100% only on mandate or everyone gets it as listed, I do like the core concept of the mechanic and while I think it needs a little more refinement, I’m still behind it being added even if it’s not in the way I specifically think it should be.

 

[Bido Roz’lyn]

I think taking initiative should be considerably more rewarding than waiting for enemies to come to you. Sticking your neck out and risking loss takes nerve and the rewards should reflect as such.

But what about a coin toss? Hear me out.

If you’re an attacker and you win, you are guaranteed to win the hex, as long as all requirements are met.

But if you are defending and you win, you only gain a hex with a coin toss.

This way, attackers are still putting up more risk to gain more guaranteed rewards, but defenders still have a chance to win rewards and are motivated by a potential “carrot”

 

[Aether Verd]

If you’re an attacker and you win, you are guaranteed to win the hex, as long as all requirements are met.

But if you are defending and you win, you only gain a hex with a coin toss.

Same effort as attacking, but the reward is gambling?

No thank you.

 

[Darth Solipsis]

I like the intent behind this, because I absolutely agree that successfully defending an invasion should matter beyond simply retaining what you already had. In hindsight this also helps alleviate the fear of factions being chain-invaded to burnout to some degree. Where I hesitate is making automatic defender territorial gain the standard consequence.

Narratively, it doesn't make sense for a defender to suddenly end up new lands and peoples for holding down the fort. I think that risks creating some unhealthy incentives for the map game. If every failed invasion can immediately cost them an equal amount of additional territory, I could see factions becoming significantly more reluctant to attack at all. Instead of encouraging the map game, it may encourage people to tuck tail and turtle. Considering how much OOC investment, judging, and general contention can already surround invasions, I am not sure giving the defenders the same territorial benefit of the attacking factions to make those situations healthier.

I think the better answer would be giving a successful defense meaningful consequences for the attacker without immediately handing the defender territory. Attackers should get penalized. For example, losing an offensive invasion could create a temporary vulnerability, neutralize hexes in between - creating a buffer zone, or altogether prevent that faction from immediately launching another invasion for a preset time based on the gravity of the invasion, give the defender some form of priority or advantage in launching a counteroffensive, or create a limited window where the defender can pursue the retreating faction into connected territory.

That creates something I think is much more useful narratively:

Attack → failed campaign → retreat/disorganization → opportunity for counterattack.

Now the defense actually creates another story rather than simply resolving the map result through an automatic hex exchange then sit decisively. It would also make offensive decisions matter. If you throw your faction into repeated wars and lose, eventually there should be consequences for overextension. At the same time, the defending faction would still have to do something to capitalize on its victory rather than receiving territory automatically. To me, that would help the map game more in the long term.

So TLDR: I am very much in favor of making defense more rewarding, I would just rather see the reward help In-Character story instead of just benefit Out-Of-Character actions.

 

[Srina Talon]

On a slightly more serious note...I won't be voting, but as well as my previous notes on why I think it's a reasonable adjustment:

Mainly? Community health...Invasions are stressful, and no amount of telling people "touch grass" or some version of it takes that stress away. Usually, it makes people angry and also increases tensions and OOC salt across the board. Currently, what we have is this:

Our system rewards aggression while treating a successful defense as merely avoiding punishment. That's not necessarily a good design, especially when both sides are expected to invest comparable amounts of time, writing, coordination, and effort. Most of the time, the defending faction puts just as much effort into the initial collaboration effort as the faction invading. Showing initiative isn't the same as it used to be, not in this era, and it's not a pivotal enough reason to continuously keep shortchanging an entire writer base.

Invasions are an unavoidable mechanic where Attackers have everything to gain and nothing to lose. So, they can just keep spamming attacks with no fear other than potentially burning their writers out. Defending should be worth something, and it would also help morale for factions that don't invade as often. Attackers should be willing to risk it for the biscuit, no complaints, when they're demanding that defenders do the same with no reward or compensation...And have been operating at the defenders' expense for literal years.

I don't agree with limiting it to one hex because it just preserves the same imbalance. An attacking faction does not necessarily have greater IC activity. Take a look at the HR, who is arguably the MOST active faction. When was the last time they invaded someone? Not recently, or in the last year, because that doesn't currently fit their faction narrative.

An invasion isn't a solo activity. The defending faction is participating in exactly the same event. They're writing, organizing, coordinating, and contributing to the same collaborative story. In fact, as mentioned before, defending can be more disruptive because the defender didn't necessarily choose the timing. If an attacking faction targets three hexes, why should its potential reward be three times greater than the defender's?

The attacker already has an inherent advantage: Declaring, hitting first. They choose when to attack, which faction to target, and which eligible territory to try and claim. They can prepare their writers and develop their narrative LONG beforehand. The defender is reacting to someone else's decision, and that's a significant strategic benefit.

As for why making it a site rule rather than a mandate? Making it a mandate may just...Undermine the purpose of the change. If the goal is to make defending worthwhile, why should only factions that sacrifice their mandate selection receive this benefit? mandates are supposed to offer different strategic options and playstyles, and I'm not sure that factions should need to choose a specific mandate simply to allow the defensive side to receive basic rewards. Making it a mandate could create a situation where everyone feels pressured to choose it because the potential reward is so significant, which further reduces any meaningful mandate diversity.

If reciprocal stakes are healthy, they should be healthy for everyone.

The strongest argument against this, that I can think of, is that it may potentially discourage invasions because it challenges the status quo. Some factions may become more reluctant to invade if losing means surrendering territory. Since invasions are a major source of collaborative storytelling and map movement, I don't want to accidentally discourage people from participating.

However, there's another side to this thought process.

If defending becomes more attractive, factions might be more willing to engage enthusiastically when attacked. Invasions would become more meaningful to both sides and could lessen OOC salt tremendously because both sides have a fighting chance. The defenders won't feel like they had an entire month wasted, for winning, and it will cause attackers to look at the map more strategically. Actions have consequences...And we shouldn't shy away from that just because it's inconvenient.

The important question for the community is: Do you want more invasions regardless of stakes? Or invasions where both parties have meaningful opportunities to win something? Or - Are we fine with the imbalance?

Personally, I'm not.

This idea is not perfect, and there are a few things we would need to clarify. But, it does start to change the psychology of invasions. How we look at them and other people involved. The spirit of collaborating and telling stories together, not at the expense of someone else. This is all something to consider, which is why we're asking you guys for feedback. I know my thoughts, but I look forward to hearing more of yours.

Thank you to everyone who is voting and offering feedback (and extorting me at gun point).

 

[Alan]

I think invasions should come with risk. Being a major faction should come with risk. If you don't wanna do it, don't be a major faction and go minor if you don't wanna deal with them anymore like we did. Bubble-wrapping everything isn't really the answer

 

[Srina Talon]

I like the intent behind this, because I absolutely agree that successfully defending an invasion should matter beyond simply retaining what you already had. In hindsight this also helps alleviate the fear of factions being chain-invaded to burnout to some degree. Where I hesitate is making automatic defender territorial gain the standard consequence.

Narratively, it doesn't make sense for a defender to suddenly end up new lands and peoples for holding down the fort. I think that risks creating some unhealthy incentives for the map game. If every failed invasion can immediately cost them an equal amount of additional territory, I could see factions becoming significantly more reluctant to attack at all. Instead of encouraging the map game, it may encourage people to tuck tail and turtle. Considering how much OOC investment, judging, and general contention can already surround invasions, I am not sure giving the defenders the same territorial benefit of the attacking factions to make those situations healthier.

I think the better answer would be giving a successful defense meaningful consequences for the attacker without immediately handing the defender territory. Attackers should get penalized. For example, losing an offensive invasion could create a temporary vulnerability, neutralize hexes in between - creating a buffer zone, or altogether prevent that faction from immediately launching another invasion for a preset time based on the gravity of the invasion, give the defender some form of priority or advantage in launching a counteroffensive, or create a limited window where the defender can pursue the retreating faction into connected territory.

That creates something I think is much more useful narratively:

Attack → failed campaign → retreat/disorganization → opportunity for counterattack.

Now the defense actually creates another story rather than simply resolving the map result through an automatic hex exchange then sit decisively. It would also make offensive decisions matter. If you throw your faction into repeated wars and lose, eventually there should be consequences for overextension. At the same time, the defending faction would still have to do something to capitalize on its victory rather than receiving territory automatically. To me, that would help the map game more in the long term.

So TLDR: I am very much in favor of making defense more rewarding, I would just rather see the reward help In-Character story instead of just benefit Out-Of-Character actions.

I didn't mean to ignore you - I was just typing at the same time and didn't see you!

 

[Srina Talon]

I think invasions should come with risk. Being a major faction should come with risk. If you don't wanna do it, don't be a major faction and go minor if you don't wanna deal with them anymore like we did. Bubble-wrapping everything isn't really the answer

No risk is being removed, in fact, risk is added.

 

[Darth Solipsis]

I didn't mean to ignore you - I was just typing at the same time and didn't see you!

You are good lol! It didn't come off that way at all. Looks like we are on the same page, just thinking of different ways to get there.

 

[Kinley Pryse]

I’m just here for the creds

 

[Kitter Bitters]

Darth Solipsis maybe the IC reason is the surrounding territory now sees the risk so they join the faction to be ready for the next attack?

Idk trying to come up with ideas.

 

[Srina Talon]

Darth Solipsis maybe the IC reason is the surrounding territory now sees the risk so they join the faction to be ready for the next attack?

Idk trying to come up with ideas.

I'd wager there are a ton of IC reasons factions could come up with to offer narrative justification. Maybe, the defense just pushed back that hard. Maybe, something backfired on the attacker side and caused the loss. But... That's more a decision for the factions involved to make - Not Staff.