Star Wars Roleplay: Chaos
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Feedback Hex Gains for factions that successfully defend from an Invasion?
- Thread starter Srina Talon
- Start date
Administrator
EXTORTED BY
Kahne Porte
THE ABSOLUTE BETRAYAL
Kahne Porte
THE ABSOLUTE BETRAYAL
Immaculate
Timing to me matters as a faction that just lost by defending and might want to invade before this goes in place LOL.
Administrator
I understand - But it matters to the website as a whole, for the reasons outlined above. I'm not going to hold up/sit on site changes, mandates, that can benefit the entirety of SWRP just so a faction can take advantage of the existing rule set "one more time" xD. There's a strange contradiction in this thought process because it's admitting that you'd rather invade while your own territory isn't at risk. That's...The crux of this entire discussion, isn't it?
It's precisely the imbalance that we're seeking to address.
Does it make your want unreasonable? No, I don't think so. I don't think anyone has been unreasonable in this thread so far. But, we are acknowledging that the current rules offer the attackers an advantage that you'd like to retain for the next invasion. IMO a rule/mandate shouldn't be adopted or rejected because it happens to benefit or disadvantage a particular faction at a particular moment. It should be evaluated independently of which factions recently won or lost invasions, or which factions are planning to attack next.
Ambassador
So... I'm admittedly new to the whole invasion experience but as it stands, I don't like them. I'm not a huge fan of engaging with invasions. Why? Well on the invading side, it's kinda fun? But on the defending side, it sucks. If you win, you get nothing for the work you put in. "YoU gEt To KeEp YoUr TeRrItOry." Oh you mean the hex(es) we've already worked hard to get in the first place? The hex(es) we're now having to do double the work for just to keep?
Winning/losing hexes is, as has been stated before on the boards, part of the map game. If you as the invading faction aren't willing to lose hexes as part of an invasion, perhaps reconsider how willing your faction is to engage in the map game?
This ... actually makes me kinda excited about invasions. Like, the invaders' story becomes more interesting because now there's something at stake. And defending becomes more enticing to join because now there's something material (digitally) to gain.
And if it doesn't pan out as expected, it literally can get yeeted into the void or reworked into something better but we won't know until the attempt is made. Send it.
My two cents.
Winning/losing hexes is, as has been stated before on the boards, part of the map game. If you as the invading faction aren't willing to lose hexes as part of an invasion, perhaps reconsider how willing your faction is to engage in the map game?
This ... actually makes me kinda excited about invasions. Like, the invaders' story becomes more interesting because now there's something at stake. And defending becomes more enticing to join because now there's something material (digitally) to gain.
And if it doesn't pan out as expected, it literally can get yeeted into the void or reworked into something better but we won't know until the attempt is made. Send it.
My two cents.
Matt the Radar Tech
ᴛɪɴᴋᴇʀɪɴɢ ᴀᴡᴀʏ ᴏɴ ʀᴀᴅᴀʀs
I'm a simple man.
I think the yes number is bigger than no number.
I think the yes number is bigger than no number.
cuckoo bananas
I'd like to point out one thing that makes me happy when it comes to this poll.
The clear and strong mandate given to staff by a large majority of the community in favor of making this change across the board.
While it doesn't mean staff will do it, it does make me happy to see that there is such a deep cut across the community who has recognized this issue and wants to fix it. Those people don't just belong to a single faction, or a single group, I can clearly see a wide margin across the whole website in support of this.
Transparency from Staff isn't always an option, so I'm grateful for it when we can all come to the table.
Especially in a period where loud voices have said numerous times that the community is divided and not in a good place, I think it's important to see that we really aren't that far away from one another.
And the sheer amount of people who are voting makes me happy too.
People care and people want things to get better for everyone.
I think that's great personally and I hope staff takes notice of that.
The clear and strong mandate given to staff by a large majority of the community in favor of making this change across the board.
While it doesn't mean staff will do it, it does make me happy to see that there is such a deep cut across the community who has recognized this issue and wants to fix it. Those people don't just belong to a single faction, or a single group, I can clearly see a wide margin across the whole website in support of this.
Transparency from Staff isn't always an option, so I'm grateful for it when we can all come to the table.
Especially in a period where loud voices have said numerous times that the community is divided and not in a good place, I think it's important to see that we really aren't that far away from one another.
And the sheer amount of people who are voting makes me happy too.
People care and people want things to get better for everyone.
I think that's great personally and I hope staff takes notice of that.
Immaculate
Initial reaction to timing rubbed me the wrong way and was trying to understand where the urgency was coming in. Also all you mfers could decide to invade THR this month, so hurry up and put it in place.
I’m good. Everyone here knows I like playing ball with all writers across factions. And if you don’t, catch me on voice.
Sulfur Lungs
My thoughts on this are mostly motivated by the systems design behind the decision, and I've been thinking through it some more.
It's another wall, strap in, folks. This type of discussion hits my exact venn-diagram of interests.
Since trust was named as a major factor in invasions, I want to lay out a few scenarios and my thoughts on how this change impacts them:
(1) High-trust pairs: Two factions with good trust relations between them.
Friends, effectively.
These factions don't care about this change, realistically. As with the example
Mercy
gave about the Lords of the Fringe and the OP, when two factions have a relationship of trust, the stakes and cost become secondary to the story they want to tell. Greater consequences for attacking are easily absorbed and no one really cares about the change.
Factions with this type of relationship are gonna be fine for the most part.
(2) Low-trust pairs: Two factions actively dislike each other, for whatever reason.
Two rivals, effectively.
Here, a faction intentionally works against their rival. Whether through territory, time, mental peace, or other levers: the goal is to inflict losses.
Greater cost to invasions doesn't deter these factions as much as one would hope. The penalty is hex loss, but hexes are easy to gain. At most, a loss fuels the grudge and makes them more bitter for the next round.
They don't care about the cost-benefit of invasions, because they're motivated by their opponent's losses.
(3) Neutral-trust pairs: Two factions without a history, fighting because they border each other and it would make a good story.
Two strangers, effectively.
This pairing is affected the most by these changes. These factions don't have the kind of established trust to make the stakes for wins/losses hurt less, so the question of "do I invade or not?" becomes one of cost.
Hex gain is easy[1]. Invasions hurt.
The cost-benefit analysis makes invading come up short, and so these factions engage with the system much more reluctantly, if at all.
---
The result from a change that, on the surface, evens the playing field, would mostly impact that neutral-trust population.
It's already struggling. We don't see a lot of invasions launched because stakes are high and the fatigue is immense. This change raises the stakes further. The two extremes of the trust-axis (high/low) suffer the same consequences, but absorb the blow a lot better.
The concerns I have around this being a nerf to aggression stem from exactly that middle-ground: the factions that aren't involved in the backroom politicking, maybe aren't that well established, or are simply not that invested, but would still like to involve themselves in the map game. Their barrier to entry is raised.
The obvious response is: build trust. But I don't think it holds up that well. Trust between factions doesn't appear out of nowhere. It takes time and effort to establish, and well-run invasions are one of the best ways to build it. If the cost of entering the game becomes too high, the path from neutral to trusted narrows, and we're left with backroom politicking as the new place where the map game is decided.
Newer and less-established factions have to engage with the map on the terms of established players, which works out to gatekeeping whether it's intended or not.
That's the main impact I see from this change. A mechanical adjustment toward the two extremes: friends who spar and rivals who blood-feud.
The knock-on effect: established players don't care, newcomers lose out.
This is a system read, not a board-state one. The actual dynamics of factions that exist currently I can only speculate about, and I'd get it wrong, but I feel like my read on the map game as a system is fairly well-founded.
It's another wall, strap in, folks. This type of discussion hits my exact venn-diagram of interests.
Since trust was named as a major factor in invasions, I want to lay out a few scenarios and my thoughts on how this change impacts them:
(1) High-trust pairs: Two factions with good trust relations between them.
Friends, effectively.
These factions don't care about this change, realistically. As with the example
Mercy
gave about the Lords of the Fringe and the OP, when two factions have a relationship of trust, the stakes and cost become secondary to the story they want to tell. Greater consequences for attacking are easily absorbed and no one really cares about the change.Factions with this type of relationship are gonna be fine for the most part.
(2) Low-trust pairs: Two factions actively dislike each other, for whatever reason.
Two rivals, effectively.
Here, a faction intentionally works against their rival. Whether through territory, time, mental peace, or other levers: the goal is to inflict losses.
Greater cost to invasions doesn't deter these factions as much as one would hope. The penalty is hex loss, but hexes are easy to gain. At most, a loss fuels the grudge and makes them more bitter for the next round.
They don't care about the cost-benefit of invasions, because they're motivated by their opponent's losses.
(3) Neutral-trust pairs: Two factions without a history, fighting because they border each other and it would make a good story.
Two strangers, effectively.
This pairing is affected the most by these changes. These factions don't have the kind of established trust to make the stakes for wins/losses hurt less, so the question of "do I invade or not?" becomes one of cost.
Hex gain is easy[1]. Invasions hurt.
The cost-benefit analysis makes invading come up short, and so these factions engage with the system much more reluctantly, if at all.
---
The result from a change that, on the surface, evens the playing field, would mostly impact that neutral-trust population.
It's already struggling. We don't see a lot of invasions launched because stakes are high and the fatigue is immense. This change raises the stakes further. The two extremes of the trust-axis (high/low) suffer the same consequences, but absorb the blow a lot better.
The concerns I have around this being a nerf to aggression stem from exactly that middle-ground: the factions that aren't involved in the backroom politicking, maybe aren't that well established, or are simply not that invested, but would still like to involve themselves in the map game. Their barrier to entry is raised.
The obvious response is: build trust. But I don't think it holds up that well. Trust between factions doesn't appear out of nowhere. It takes time and effort to establish, and well-run invasions are one of the best ways to build it. If the cost of entering the game becomes too high, the path from neutral to trusted narrows, and we're left with backroom politicking as the new place where the map game is decided.
Newer and less-established factions have to engage with the map on the terms of established players, which works out to gatekeeping whether it's intended or not.
That's the main impact I see from this change. A mechanical adjustment toward the two extremes: friends who spar and rivals who blood-feud.
The knock-on effect: established players don't care, newcomers lose out.
This is a system read, not a board-state one. The actual dynamics of factions that exist currently I can only speculate about, and I'd get it wrong, but I feel like my read on the map game as a system is fairly well-founded.
[1] PvE threads take ~30 posts, typically a week of investment, and factions are given 4 of these a month, versus the typical 250+ post investment of an invasion which claims only 3.
120 posts for 4 hexes vs 250 posts for 3 -> 250/3 = 83.3 posts per hex vs 30 for PvE, or roughly 3x factor in favour of PvE effectiveness.
Two assumptions: normal-effort invasion participation and minimum-effort PvE participation.
I feel that reflects the conditions of getting invaded well. Defenders use what effort is left on compensating for a potential loss by continuing PvE threads.
Actual post numbers vary, mandates complicate it, the exact numbers aren't as important as the fact there's a difference in effectiveness skewing in favour of PvE hex gain.
120 posts for 4 hexes vs 250 posts for 3 -> 250/3 = 83.3 posts per hex vs 30 for PvE, or roughly 3x factor in favour of PvE effectiveness.
Two assumptions: normal-effort invasion participation and minimum-effort PvE participation.
I feel that reflects the conditions of getting invaded well. Defenders use what effort is left on compensating for a potential loss by continuing PvE threads.
Actual post numbers vary, mandates complicate it, the exact numbers aren't as important as the fact there's a difference in effectiveness skewing in favour of PvE hex gain.
Administrator
This is one of the more poignant arguments I've read so far. I think it's a thoughtful breakdown, and I can appreciate the concern about newer or less-established factions becoming reluctant to engage. Where I disagree, I think, is that we're looking at the barrier to entry almost exclusively from an attacking faction's perspective. In the "neutral-trust" scenario, there are two factions that don't know each other, yes? One decides to invade, and the other is required to respond. As it stands on SWRP (I've probably said this same thing before, forgive me), the attacker can initiate that conflict without risking its own territory, while the defender has everything to lose and nothing tangible to gain.
I don't know that this lopsided reward system necessarily encourages trust between strangers, either.
I also think trust and risk tolerance are two different things. Two friendly factions might be highly competitive, while two rivals might be extremely cautious about risking territory. I don't think we can confidently predict how factions will respond based solely on their existing relationships, especially, when those relationships IC and OOC can break down or change in the blink of an eye. One wrong meme, one stupid off-the-cuff comment or blog...
You and possibly your faction have become persona non grata. You may think I'm full of it, but a good reputation can be ruined in three words in a VC, and it can take absolutely ages to repair that "trust" with the community, other factions, and Staff. So..."Trust" can't be the only metric rules/mandates operate and survive by. It's impossible to predict how a faction will react, trust, or not.
It was also mentioned that hexes are relatively easy to gain, which I agree with. If that's the case, however, I'm not entirely convinced that the possibility of losing a few hexes would become such a significant deterrent, particularly when the time and effort involved in an Invasion are already a much greater investment.
I do agree that we don't want to discourage newer factions or inadvertently create a system that favors established relationships. That's a valid concern. But I think we also need to consider whether the current system already disadvantages those same factions when they're on the receiving end of an Invasion. There are times when it can't be helped, for example, which faction gets invaded? Which factions get asked to join junctions? A good portion of it is narrative/relationship-related. I wouldn't expect
Ronhar Tane
to roll out the red carpet for my characters, even though OOC I think he's a chill guy. (This is a hook to get you to engage, Ronhar, btw. I can spell it out more clearly if you want.)
It's impossible to completely separate narrative, relationships, or lack thereof from these decisions because we're not robots. We're human. Prone to error and in desperate need of a CREDITS when we have been extorted by SWRP pirates. So...The only way we can shoot for any reasonable level of fairness in a competitive atmosphere is by employing base rule sets that are actually fair from the jump.
I've been toying with some of the suggestions made here, like, giving defenders the option to claim neutral territory or decline any territorial gains, with their choice announced beforehand. So reciprocal territorial losses aren't necessarily inevitable, so perhaps those OOC "relationships" and "negotiations" could come into play in this way?
With this...I think I keep coming back to the same question:
Do we as a community want invasions at ANY cost? Or should we try to adjust the system so that both sides have meaningful incentives to participate?
Regardless of how it turns out...I stand by my thoughts on this. Both factions are contributing to the same competitive event, and both deserve meaningful consequences and opportunities based on the outcome. Both deserve the chance to be recognized with more because both factions matter. Not just one or the other. This is the point, not how faction relationships may or may not evolve or degrade in the future.
Catch me on the wrong day without my coffee, and it's on lol xD (I kid, 50/50, but really I do need coffee)
In the end, though, regardless of where I stand on this issue...I'm looking to you guys. I'm looking at the poll and letting that guide me, backed by the criticisms and suggestions that have been offered. If we're not doing something, are doing something, or even THINKING of something...I'm doing my best to explain. Cause again, no one is a mind reader. The more you know.
I don't know that this lopsided reward system necessarily encourages trust between strangers, either.
I also think trust and risk tolerance are two different things. Two friendly factions might be highly competitive, while two rivals might be extremely cautious about risking territory. I don't think we can confidently predict how factions will respond based solely on their existing relationships, especially, when those relationships IC and OOC can break down or change in the blink of an eye. One wrong meme, one stupid off-the-cuff comment or blog...
You and possibly your faction have become persona non grata. You may think I'm full of it, but a good reputation can be ruined in three words in a VC, and it can take absolutely ages to repair that "trust" with the community, other factions, and Staff. So..."Trust" can't be the only metric rules/mandates operate and survive by. It's impossible to predict how a faction will react, trust, or not.
It was also mentioned that hexes are relatively easy to gain, which I agree with. If that's the case, however, I'm not entirely convinced that the possibility of losing a few hexes would become such a significant deterrent, particularly when the time and effort involved in an Invasion are already a much greater investment.
I do agree that we don't want to discourage newer factions or inadvertently create a system that favors established relationships. That's a valid concern. But I think we also need to consider whether the current system already disadvantages those same factions when they're on the receiving end of an Invasion. There are times when it can't be helped, for example, which faction gets invaded? Which factions get asked to join junctions? A good portion of it is narrative/relationship-related. I wouldn't expect
Ronhar Tane
to roll out the red carpet for my characters, even though OOC I think he's a chill guy. (This is a hook to get you to engage, Ronhar, btw. I can spell it out more clearly if you want.) It's impossible to completely separate narrative, relationships, or lack thereof from these decisions because we're not robots. We're human. Prone to error and in desperate need of a CREDITS when we have been extorted by SWRP pirates. So...The only way we can shoot for any reasonable level of fairness in a competitive atmosphere is by employing base rule sets that are actually fair from the jump.
I've been toying with some of the suggestions made here, like, giving defenders the option to claim neutral territory or decline any territorial gains, with their choice announced beforehand. So reciprocal territorial losses aren't necessarily inevitable, so perhaps those OOC "relationships" and "negotiations" could come into play in this way?
With this...I think I keep coming back to the same question:
Do we as a community want invasions at ANY cost? Or should we try to adjust the system so that both sides have meaningful incentives to participate?
- Defending takes just as much time and effort as attacking, sometimes more. It makes sense that winning should come with something more than just keeping what you already had.
- Right now, the defender is the only one risking territory. The attacker can lose and walk away without any consequences and immediately try again.
- It gives factions a reason to think twice before invading. Not necessarily a bad thing when you're potentially dragging another group into weeks of writing they didn't ask for.
- It might discourage invasions that are launched just because there's nothing to lose. That doesn't mean discouraging invasions altogether.
- The attacker still has the advantage of choosing who to invade, when to invade, and which hexes they intend to target. That doesn't change.
- It gives smaller or newer factions a chance to gain something if they successfully defend against a larger faction.
- Defenders (if it gets written the way I hope) don't have to take the attacker's territory. They can choose neutral hexes or nothing at all, depending on what makes sense for their faction. (Ex. For the HR it might not make sense, and that would be their choice.)
- The consequences (if it gets written the way I hope) would be proportional. If you invade for one hex, you risk one hex. If you invade for three, you risk three.
- It doesn't make invasions harder to start.
- It doesn't change how invasions are judged, how people write them, or who is considered the attacker.
- It might encourage factions to put a little more thought/collaboration into their stories and why they're going to war, rather than invading simply because they can.
- It makes winning worthwhile for both sides. Someone shouldn't have to be the initial aggressor to have a chance at gaining territory when they did stellar work.
- Invasions are supposed to have stakes. I don't see why those stakes should only apply to the faction that didn't choose to start one.
Regardless of how it turns out...I stand by my thoughts on this. Both factions are contributing to the same competitive event, and both deserve meaningful consequences and opportunities based on the outcome. Both deserve the chance to be recognized with more because both factions matter. Not just one or the other. This is the point, not how faction relationships may or may not evolve or degrade in the future.
Catch me on the wrong day without my coffee, and it's on lol xD (I kid, 50/50, but really I do need coffee)
In the end, though, regardless of where I stand on this issue...I'm looking to you guys. I'm looking at the poll and letting that guide me, backed by the criticisms and suggestions that have been offered. If we're not doing something, are doing something, or even THINKING of something...I'm doing my best to explain. Cause again, no one is a mind reader. The more you know.
Salvage Team Six
Well hold on, I’d like to think our relationship transcends the confines of IC engagement, but ok, I see how it is. Totally not crying myself to sleep upon hearing such devastating news, no ma’am!A good portion of it is narrative/relationship-related. I wouldn't expect
Administrator
HOW IS THIS WHAT YOU TOOK FROM THIS OMG!
I WAS SAYING YOU ARE COOL AND I WANT TO WRITE IC, SIR, BUT I DON'T EXPECT YOUR CHARACTERS TO ACT OOC
LAWD HAVE MERCY WHY ARE YOU BREAKING MY HEART
Oh. I see what this is..Okay, okay. Srina extorted. T_T
forks over credits
Sulfur Lungs
Ayo, good summary, and really good moderation work on the discussion. I appreciate giving the community a platform (which I'm blasting with 250% volume), thank you
Srina Talon
and the Admin team.
The proposal I settle on is the following:
One thing that addresses the pain points I saw immediately: Make the first invasion free of cost for the attacker, but apply it to subsequent ones.
This would leave the space of casual one-off invasions effectively untouched. Neutral-trust and small factions get to build relationships without fearing losing out on their hexes.
But this doesn't fix the issue of equality, which is why I would append: A successful first invasion defense awards neutral hexes.
An elegant way to set the number is defender gains hexes equal to the targeted number, up to 3.
It inflates the territory gain on the map a bit, but invasions are rare and they'd add few hexes. Meanwhile, the defender has real, tangible benefits from an invasion they're thrown into.
The window during which repeat invasions carry the cost could be a month after conclusion, two months, or three months, the details would have to be settled. It doesn't give a sanctuary to factions, but it rebalances invasions to be more fair, without harming the casual enjoyers (neutrals/newcomers), and it targets sustained attackers with greater risk.
There's potential for hex farming this way between colluding factions, but I trust y'all to have a handle on that. Extending rules around throwing and staff discretion should cover this.
IC is a silly basis to argue from, but for my immersion enjoyers, think of it like an ambush advantage or something. Frame it as accumulating war fatigue or something, I'm not well suited to be the marketing guy.
The culture/community/politicking/wider factors at play are out of scope for me.
Srina Talon
and the Admin team.The proposal I settle on is the following:
One thing that addresses the pain points I saw immediately: Make the first invasion free of cost for the attacker, but apply it to subsequent ones.
This would leave the space of casual one-off invasions effectively untouched. Neutral-trust and small factions get to build relationships without fearing losing out on their hexes.
But this doesn't fix the issue of equality, which is why I would append: A successful first invasion defense awards neutral hexes.
An elegant way to set the number is defender gains hexes equal to the targeted number, up to 3.
It inflates the territory gain on the map a bit, but invasions are rare and they'd add few hexes. Meanwhile, the defender has real, tangible benefits from an invasion they're thrown into.
The window during which repeat invasions carry the cost could be a month after conclusion, two months, or three months, the details would have to be settled. It doesn't give a sanctuary to factions, but it rebalances invasions to be more fair, without harming the casual enjoyers (neutrals/newcomers), and it targets sustained attackers with greater risk.
There's potential for hex farming this way between colluding factions, but I trust y'all to have a handle on that. Extending rules around throwing and staff discretion should cover this.
IC is a silly basis to argue from, but for my immersion enjoyers, think of it like an ambush advantage or something. Frame it as accumulating war fatigue or something, I'm not well suited to be the marketing guy.
The culture/community/politicking/wider factors at play are out of scope for me.
Administrator
So - Every "first attacking invasion" gets a freebie?
Can you run this by me one more time? I'm genuinely interested, just something isn't clicking in my brain haha. Parts of it make sense like "
defender gains hexes equal to the targeted number, up to 3" because that was always my starting point for this. But then I think I'm mashing ideas together in a way you might not mean. Sorry if I'm being obtuse!
Sulfur Lungs
It boils down to escalating stakes for attackers, with a softened--but still real--risk on their first invasion:
The first invasion (the attacker hasn't invaded this faction recently)
Example: Jedilovers69 invades Huttenthusiasts1337. It's their first invasion, so the Jedi don't stake any territory. If the Jedi win, they take the hexes they targeted. If they lose, they keep everything, but the Hutts grow their cloud.
If the Jedi invade the Hutts again next month, regardless of how the first one went, it's a repeat invasion. Now the Jedi's territory is on the line too.
--
Almost. Going on the offensive here wouldn't be risk-free. If the attacker loses, they gain nothing, but the defender does. A failed invasion grows their target's cloud and leaves them worse off relative to the faction they attacked.
To be upfront, this isn't full equality. In a first invasion, the attacker can take the defender's territory, while the defender can only gain neutral hexes. Full equal stakes apply once an attacker keeps coming back to the same target.
But I would argue this bit of imbalance is one to keep. We already see very few invasions. Folks don't seem enthusiastic to go on the attack. And my previous reasoning about affecting small, newer and more isolated factions disproportionately still applies.
I hope this makes the idea more clear.
Srina Talon
The first invasion (the attacker hasn't invaded this faction recently)
- If the attacker wins, they take the territory they targeted, or flip it neutral.
- If the defender wins, they gain neutral hexes equal to the targeted number, up to 3.
- If the attacker wins, they take the territory they targeted, or flip it neutral.
- If the defender wins, they can take that many hexes from the attacker, or flip them neutral.
Example: Jedilovers69 invades Huttenthusiasts1337. It's their first invasion, so the Jedi don't stake any territory. If the Jedi win, they take the hexes they targeted. If they lose, they keep everything, but the Hutts grow their cloud.
If the Jedi invade the Hutts again next month, regardless of how the first one went, it's a repeat invasion. Now the Jedi's territory is on the line too.
--
Almost. Going on the offensive here wouldn't be risk-free. If the attacker loses, they gain nothing, but the defender does. A failed invasion grows their target's cloud and leaves them worse off relative to the faction they attacked.
To be upfront, this isn't full equality. In a first invasion, the attacker can take the defender's territory, while the defender can only gain neutral hexes. Full equal stakes apply once an attacker keeps coming back to the same target.
But I would argue this bit of imbalance is one to keep. We already see very few invasions. Folks don't seem enthusiastic to go on the attack. And my previous reasoning about affecting small, newer and more isolated factions disproportionately still applies.
I hope this makes the idea more clear.
Srina TalonSulfur Lungs
To further clarify, I was operating on the idea that this would be an addition to the invasion rules, not a mandate. I completely forgot this could be a mandate. It'd need considerable work as a mandate, probably. But my coffee high is running out and my brain power is depleting.
Administrator
I feel you, but please don't worry...Any idea is a GOOD and helpful idea, even if we can't implement them all. It makes us take another gander at it.
The Unchained
Idk, I'm still failing to see the IC logic behind the idea. It just doesn't make sense to me from a story perspective. I feel like there's gotta be a way to equal out the map game for defenders, but also make it make sense as a narrative.
Darth Mortyra
I might be too late to add to the convo! Been a bit distracted the last few days.
I voted "Yes, add it to the invasion rules." From what I've seen, defenders put in a ton of care and effort into the story of it. If they win, it makes sense to me that they get a bigger reward than simply keeping a planet (Hex?). Just keeping a planet doesn't seem like much for the effort involved, especially if they are continuously attacked. Even if the reward is not to gain more territory, a successful defence would likely cause some sort of ripple?
Hope this is helpful feedback. Sorry if it isn't.
I voted "Yes, add it to the invasion rules." From what I've seen, defenders put in a ton of care and effort into the story of it. If they win, it makes sense to me that they get a bigger reward than simply keeping a planet (Hex?). Just keeping a planet doesn't seem like much for the effort involved, especially if they are continuously attacked. Even if the reward is not to gain more territory, a successful defence would likely cause some sort of ripple?
Hope this is helpful feedback. Sorry if it isn't.
Last edited:
Valiens Nantaris
Head Admin
Sure it does, if the defender declares what hexes they want to take should they win in the OOC thread before the invasion starts you can have people fighting over that too. If anything it makes it feel like a real war more than the current setup.
And let's face it, IC logic is not something we actually deal with. Despite what earlier me might have wanted, we're not making this a Hearts of Iron logistics system where you have to account for each of your ships. We've had invasions with 3 million Ewoks showing up in X-Wings. Was that 'logical'? Of course not. We've had invasions - and most of them at that - where people teleport around in the space of a post, or people stop posting so people move on and that vital part of the battle just stops being a thing.
IC logic is like flavouring events, it's background. Because if this was actually IC logic we'd be having constant invasions all over the galaxy, we'd be regulating who could be where, we'd have a strict timeline, we'd have battles taking months of time.
IC logic bows to OOC necessity and fairness. Everything we do on this forum strains logic and credulity...but who tf cares so long as it works?