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

[Srina Talon]

Yay I'm batting 1000% tonight

Except for being EXTORTED you know who you are.

 

[Koda Fett]

1.) If equal consequences gives a faction reason to pause perhaps their narrative or faction identity isn't ready yet? I wouldn't say a skill issue, that's not fair, but perhaps the idea just needs more time to cook?

I think there's always people erring on the side of caution and with greater risk, I think there'll be a lot more of that to the point of inaction. It definitely prevents or otherwise inhibits spam invasions and so on, which I think is the upside of it all. Though I acknowledge I'm purely on a vibe assessment where I feel as if it takes out the teeth of invasions. It isn't entirely balanced and I think that's okay, and it's okay for people to disagree with that.

 

[Srina Talon]

I can understand the concern about factions becoming more cautious, and I do think that's worth considering. I just see the other side of it too. If the possibility of losing territory is enough to discourage someone from launching an Invasion, isn't that the same risk we're already asking the defending faction to accept without having any say in the matter?

Everyone agrees that they'll be invaded at some point when they go Major. But... If we're letting things stagnate because "this is how it's always been" I'm not sure that's the right approach. If there's a solid reason for narrative, the map, or the site why we don't offer equal rewards - I'd definitely want to hear it. The idea is to make invasions less of one faction pounding on another and giving BOTH factions a fighting chance with real, tangible benefits.

Now...I don't think balance needs to be perfectly symmetrical in every aspect of the map game, but I'd like there to be a good reason for the imbalance if one exists.

I suppose where we differ the most is that I don't think reciprocal consequences take the teeth out of Invasions. I think they give them sharper ones. There's a lot more weight behind declaring war when you're putting something of your own on the line, too.

 

[Koda Fett]

Totally valid points.

The idea is to make invasions less of one faction pounding on another and giving BOTH factions a fighting chance with real, tangible benefits.

This would be the biggest positive of it for me, as I do know that there's been issues with repeat invasions that wear out the playerbase. Even on both sides, at times. Though solving that is another question altogether that I'm not sure anyone really has much of an answer to.

I suppose where we differ the most is that I don't think reciprocal consequences take the teeth out of Invasions. I think they give them sharper ones. There's a lot more weight behind declaring war when you're putting something of your own on the line, too.

Valid. It does add more weight to things, which can make things more impactful as well. I think my only concern is it just removing invasions from being much of a thing, thinking people will be too cautious moving forwards. But, that's more of a watch this space, wait and see type of thing. Interested to see what happens.

 

[Kitter Bitters]

What if we added other rules to try to prevent inaction? Like major factions have to launch one invasion every three months? That might be a bad idea. I’m just thinking out loud here.

It might also be nice to have a discussion where people can just talk about what they want to see out of the map game. Then staff could better understand what the community vibe is?

 

[Redak Boyd]

It’s certainly interesting. Though, as voiced by some and highlighted by Srina, this might cause a different type of OOC agitation. ‘Great, we invaded, the judges found against us and we just lost one of our hexes that wasn’t even involved! I quit the invasion game.’ Maybe people prefer a more docile map game.

On the other hand, is it for the attacking faction to offer up collateral? The adjoining hex etc. I guess us coming to understand what the outcome of the measure, and its intended fix, might be will lead us to find other solutions or, perhaps, more nuance in the proposal.

 

[Arris Windrun]

What if we added other rules to try to prevent inaction? Like major factions have to launch one invasion every three months? That might be a bad idea. I’m just thinking out loud here.

I know it's an example suggestion, but I personally don't think we need to try to offset assumptions. I say it's simpler to make a change, see how it impacts things (positive and/or negative), and then evaluate whether or not additional measures need to be added.

Because we actually don't know if this will lead to a change in invasion activity at all - the only thing we do know is that it will change the stakes.

 

[Srina Talon]

What if we added other rules to try to prevent inaction? Like major factions have to launch one invasion every three months? That might be a bad idea. I’m just thinking out loud here.

It might also be nice to have a discussion where people can just talk about what they want to see out of the map game. Then staff could better understand what the community vibe is?

Well... That's why we're here. That's why we're putting out feelers on this particular issue because it's no doubt to be a hot button. I don't think it's wise to mandate when invasions need to happen unless it's something opted into like a mandate. Unfortunately, those are not popular and do not end well. I think when invasions happen should be dictated by STORY not by Staff or people not involved in the factions at all.

A lot of times two factions spend time building up to invade OR time arranging a good date that suits everyone best. I'm not down to end that spirit of collaboration whatsoever.

It’s certainly interesting. Though, as voiced by some and highlighted by Srina, this might cause a different type of OOC agitation. ‘Great, we invaded, the judges found against us and we just lost one of our hexes that wasn’t even involved! I quit the invasion game.’ Maybe people prefer a more docile map game.

On the other hand, is it for the attacking faction to offer up collateral? The adjoining hex etc. I guess us coming to understand what the outcome of the measure, and its intended fix, might be will lead us to find other solutions or, perhaps, more nuance in the proposal.

You're right. It's possible that it could... But any change to the map game could have that effect. For me (I'm not speaking for anyone else, not even other Staff) Doing nothing and allowing this imbalance to continue feels much worse. I don't want to use "that's not how we've done things in the past" as a crutch to sit on my hands.

Should it make the map game worse I'm not against rolling it back. We have done that in the past when a rule or mandate proved unnecessary, incorrect, or just didn't fit with the current state of the board. One of the biggest things I've noticed is that most (not all) factions are much less cut throat than they used to be. They're more story/collaboration focused and concerned with how their actions come across. Why?

It avoids unnecessary salt.

At any point when there is a "loser" and a "winner" there will be hard feelings. But I do believe there will be less overall if attackers and defenders are treated the same.

I'm still thinking about the end wording but the response should be reciprocal. Do attacking factions ask which hexes they intend to target? Not usually, no. So IMO the defender would be able to choose with the same stipulations of an attacker. At a bare minimum they would need to be connected. I do like the idea of giving the defender the option of doing nothing if they so choose.

There is also nothing saying attackers and defenders can't collaborate though. That one is on you guys.

There isn't a lot of nuance here... A few other mandates might need to be buffed up to compensate, like Total War, but I'm willing to put in the work in that regard.

 

[Alric Kuhn]

I've been back for like two weeks and to my dismay haven't gotten to experience any new invasions, but from the perspective of a person who used to invade other factions a lot I want to point out something that hasn't been hugely mentioned.

Generally speaking, at least from my memory, something like 80% of invasions end up with a counter reciprocal invasion being launched anyway. I can think of very few times where it didn't happen even if the defender lost. This kind of just seems like a time saver for everyone?

My own suggestion would be if this rule goes through to just rename Invasions to something like "Battles' and reframe the device around it to encourage factions to come up with a narrative where both sides could lose something in the fight. So an 'invasion' could just then become featured in whatever hexes that could potentially be lost. This expands the story potential of the 'Invasion'.

EX: TSC invades The Republic. TSC is doing the traditional star destroyers burn down Naboo. There's 2 objectives on Naboo of the usual burning and killing, yada yada. The Republic at the same time decides if they win they would take the hex with...Corellia or whatever, and their one objective is running around on the planet causing riots and stoking rebellion through nice speeches.

Imo this rule is fundamentally changing what an 'invasion' is, and I think it's worth reframing things around the change.

 

[Srina Talon]

I've been back for like two weeks and to my dismay haven't gotten to experience any new invasions, but from the perspective of a person who used to invade other factions a lot I want to point out something that hasn't been hugely mentioned.

Generally speaking, at least from my memory, something like 80% of invasions end up with a counter reciprocal invasion being launched anyway. I can think of very few times where it didn't happen even if the defender lost. This kind of just seems like a time saver for everyone?

My own suggestion would be if this rule goes through to just rename Invasions to something like "Battles' and reframe the device around it to encourage factions to come up with a narrative where both sides could lose something in the fight. So an 'invasion' could just then become featured in whatever hexes that could potentially be lost. This expands the story potential of the 'Invasion'.

EX: TSC invades The Republic. TSC is doing the traditional star destroyers burn down Naboo. There's 2 objectives on Naboo of the usual burning and killing, yada yada. The Republic at the same time decides if they win they would take the hex with...Corellia or whatever, and their one objective is running around on the planet causing riots and stoking rebellion through nice speeches.

Imo this rule is fundamentally changing what an 'invasion' is, and I think it's worth reframing things around the change.

My brother in Christ you've been back 2 Weeks and you're sad you haven't been in any invasions.. HOLD MY TEA. They're coming - They always do.

I'm not against rephrasing some things but logistically speaking an invasion taking place in SIX different locations is not tenable for most factions on the best and most active of days. We already have chapters to allow distance, different objectives, etc. and the factions use them pretty wisely. Beyond that, I worry that this would be Staff taking control of the narrative way too much.

Factions need to be able to choose how the story goes with 100% freedom. I'm not going to take that away from them by saying they must tell a story across six different planets (usually, invasions target 3 hexes... So that would be six in total.)

I don't know how the rest of Staff would feel about changing the name TBH. Invasions are the "brand" and while we're definitely trying to change things up we're also not breaking the wheel if that makes sense. It's still an invasion, plain and simple, there are just consequences for both sides now. A "Battle" may sound too much like a Skirmish.

But, Overall - Valid suggestions and points.

 

[Alric Kuhn]

'm not against rephrasing some things but logistically speaking an invasion taking place in SIX different locations is not tenable for most factions on the best and most active of days.

Just to clear this point up, I wasn't suggesting that it be required every planet in a hex be featured during the invasion. Simply opening up the possibility that some be. The reciprocity within the single thread of an 'invasion' explains why an attacker might lose hexes, as this rule makes possible, and gives the ability for greater narrative options.

 

[Srina Talon]

Just to clear this point up, I wasn't suggesting that it be required every planet in a hex be featured during the invasion. Simply opening up the possibility that some be. The reciprocity within the single thread of an 'invasion' explains why an attacker might lose hexes, as this rule makes possible, and gives the ability for greater narrative options.

Ah I see - That makes more sense and it's definitely something to think about. My concerns still lay with the fact that mandating that to be the case might wrestle narrative control from the factions involved too much and complicate the exchange and/or spread the writer bases too thin.

I'll always stand behind narrative freedom (unless someone is being an absolute bonehead lol) and don't want to run afoul of that unless absolutely necessary.

 

[Alric Kuhn]

Ah I see - That makes more sense and it's definitely something to think about. My concerns still lay with the fact that mandating that to be the case might wrestle narrative control from the factions involved too much and complicate the exchange and/or spread the writer bases too thin.

I'll always stand behind narrative freedom (unless someone is being an absolute bonehead lol) and don't want to run afoul of that unless absolutely necessary.

Totally get that, but from my point of view by not at least opening the option for people to do this, it would constrict that narrative control more?

If this rule is implemented without a mechanism to explain IC what happened for the Invading faction to lose those hexes then it essentially will become a tacked on asterisk to the end of the invasion thread. That asterisk would most likely be written by the winning faction without much control by the losers. At least with this option opening the door to reciprocity within the thread it would allow for an IC explanation influenced by both factions and have the chance to create an interesting and different narrative that effects both factions.

Granted, I don't really know the faction environment well, nor the current atmosphere around invasions. This is just my two cents and in general I support the idea behind the proposal.

 

[Srina Talon]

Totally get that, but from my point of view by not at least opening the option for people to do this, it would constrict that narrative control more?

If this rule is implemented without a mechanism to explain IC what happened for the Invading faction to lose those hexes then it essentially will become a tacked on asterisk to the end of the invasion thread. That asterisk would most likely be written by the winning faction without much control by the losers. At least with this option opening the door to reciprocity within the thread it would allow for an IC explanation influenced by both factions and have the chance to create an interesting and different narrative that effects both factions.

Granted, I don't really know the faction environment well, nor the current atmosphere around invasions. This is just my two cents and in general I support the idea behind the proposal.

I hear you but again... Leaving it up to the faction how they lost hexes is not out of the realm of possibility. Factions should not be dictating what's happened to another faction, unless, it's just propaganda. That does happen and that's totally fine. Any "blogs" on the subject should be considered media.

The reason either side may lose in general is the invasion that just took place. If the factions wish to go beyond that (quite often, they do collaborate) that's just fine too. This change would open up the opportunity for either faction to enhance their faction narrative with any number of aftermath styled threads. Factions can choose to write PVE Threads (Faction Threads) within the cloud of another major. While it's polite to ask - They don't need to.

But in the end it's up to both factions how they choose to handle a win or a loss. Now... If they asked their overseeing Admin if they could do this organically? That's up to the overseeing Admin. When factions come together and collaboratively ask for something that harms no one we're much less likely to say no.

 

[Danger Arceneau]

I do like the idea of giving the defender the option of doing nothing if they so choose.

I’d be down with making this part of it too. Give the defending faction the option of doing nothing or a partial if they choose to.

 

[Ives]

To expand on or sidetrack Alric Kuhn 's idea, Srina Talon :

If both factions stand to lose hexes, it seems fair that both factions declare which hexes they want before the invasion thread commences. That way it's not an entirely unilateral buff.

Someone might have already suggested this but by god y'all post walls, and I'm not awake enough to read them yet.

---
I'm very hesitant to agree that attackers currently have all the advantages while defenders are left with nothing, but that's a point that needs more nuance than I can muster before coffee.

 

[Judah Lesan]

I took some time to think on this. I was in favor of one or the other but not both. If it’s going to be in the rules there is no point for it to be a mandate. However I landed on the mandate because successfully defending territory doesn’t usually net territory gain in a real world scenario.

I understand this RP, and that’s exactly the point of mandates. They give a buff that wouldn’t exist without it.

Just my thought here.

 

[Srina Talon]

Ives I'm sorry sir please take my money just don't hurt meeeeee

 

[Ives]

I will hold the world ransom for one MILLION Ucks...

[...]

What do you mean that's not a lot of ucks these days? Uckflation? How about a hundred million?

[...]

WHAT? Too LITTLE?

[...]

Okay, ONE BILLION UCK'OS.

Srina Talon

 

[Srina Talon]

I will hold the world ransom for one MILLION Ucks...

[...]

What do you mean that's not a lot of ucks these days? Uckflation? How about a hundred million?

[...]

WHAT? Too LITTLE?

[...]

Okay, ONE BILLION UCK'OS.

Srina Talon

EVERYONE IS SUCCESSFULLY EXTORTING ME MY POCKETS WILL RUN DRY... Please sir have a heart