Feedback I think Annihilations were a bad idea.

[Zolasha Tyrin]

Zolasha Tyrin
There's like 4 Chiss worlds and 8 Sith ones, Korriban and Csilla are just names people remember. Nobody, in Canon or IC prior to the most recent major faction (because it was their only hex for the last moments of its life), actually lives on Korriban, and nobody actually has used Csilla for an RP thread in months prior to the Annihilation thread.

People underutilize planets on Chaos unless they're being targeted for invasions, dominions, or are a capital hex. Korriban just happened to be the former capital of a small major faction recently, prior to that it wasn't even used by the major faction before it (Sith Empire) aside from 3 threads that were not placed there for narrative reasons.

That being said, Annihilation threads don't always end in a planet being destroyed. Every single person on the forum can participate and stop it from happening.

Not disagreeing with you, like I said whatever happens won't alter anything I'm writing too drastically. I just see it as becoming something redundant, but like I said it's too early to have a strong opinion given it's such a recent addition.

 

[Davak]

My two cents just to add into the "for" or "against" pot, when I saw that there's a chance Korriban might be wiped off the map it got serious which is both a pro and a con. Pro, it gets users involved and there is something at stake, something "real". Con, if life gets in the way or for those who come late you don't have a say.

But what I really fell in love with here on Chaos is the insane spectrum of lore and so my main pro for Annihilations is that they give way for more potential lore. Through this, we create entirely new potentials for character and storyline development, and even for newbies who are freshly joining it can open up possibilities for them to indulge and get to know the Chaos universe.

Yes it should be moderated what comes after a planet is destroyed, IF it is destroyed since it makes sense that we shouldn't have 4 "New Korriban" floating around but I am sure it will be handled accordingly.

Altogether is an exciting prospect and makes Chaos and its stories unique.

 

[Noelle Varanin]

Tefka can I ask what staff response might be to someone launching an annihilation thread to take the toy that they couldn't have away from another party?

I've heard people toss that ultimatum around a few times and it's always made me uncomfortable. I love all the story that this brings, but when it comes to the petty ooc... I hear you say that you want annihilations to be story driven.

Does staff have any plans to handle a situration like that, or is it an unfortunate caveat for this level of stakes?

 

[Luca Donskoi]

Been away for a bit now and still kind of am as I am in the process of moving from one country to another, but I guess I can drop my 2 cents in on this as well.

Annihilations offer a unique opportunity for all writers on the site, not just those directly involved in the threads intent on seeing the destruction of a planet through. The potential for various reactions from the rest of the galaxy in the wake of a planet's absolute removal from the galaxy should also lead to some absolutely amazing stories, but it's all on the writers throughout all of Chaos to explore those. Overall, Annihilations offer something not offered to the site prior, and that's true consequences. It becomes a punch in the gut when it becomes reality that something had a true effect with a more or less permanent impact (unless staff should for some reason or another choose to reverse it or hit a reset). Before annihilations the biggest consequence in the map game was simply a cloud break and losing a few worlds. And often times you were gaining territory faster than you'd lose it so it really didnt provide much in the way of impact. Now, such losses cannot be so easily swept under a rug and/or forgotten.

My grievance with the prospect of annihilations is this, however. Although I do understand the reasoning behind the decision being made as it was, I feel it might be slightly amiss that user-created planets are protected from potential annihilations unless the creator of said Planet's submission gives the green light that it can indeed happen. To my knowledge, it was set this way due to the personal investment and ownership placed with it being one's own creation (similarly to how one cannot call a hit and/or applied effects on something another owns, such as a ship). This is good and all, but in the same sense, many canon planets have droves of subs and development established with them, but as they are canon planets, this does not matter. If a canon planet were to be wiped, the accompanying location subs etc, would also go with with.

In my own personal opinion, I just feel as though there shouldn't be a differentiation between the two. Either all require approval, or none do. But that is a decision to be made well above my member rank. And I trust that all of this has been discussed at the highest levels on the site already. All I can do is continue to enjoy my time here and enjoy the stories I can make while writing alongside other amazing writers. Because at the end of the day, I think that's what we're all here for. Creating enriching stories with fellow writers and writers and enjoying how it all unfolds.

Thanks for attending my TED Talk

 

[Mordecai Zambrano]

I asked for clarification on this specifically. There is an official admin response given which goes contrary to what you're saying (with a caveat). Officially only the attacking faction can use their superweapon, but if they agree to allow it another faction can as well - but the default is no.

That verdict is a bit lame, but oh well. Thanks for the info, Lis.

 

[Tefka]

Tefka can I ask what staff response might be to someone launching an annihilation thread to take the toy that they couldn't have away from another party?

I've heard people toss that ultimatum around a few times and it's always made me uncomfortable. I love all the story that this brings, but when it comes to the petty ooc... I hear you say that you want annihilations to be story driven.

Does staff have any plans to handle a situration like that, or is it an unfortunate caveat for this level of stakes?

1) It's an unfortunate side-effect of this map game, pettiness will always exist.

2) People who think like that don’t possess what it takes, in my opinion, to launch a successful Annihilation much less actually win it.

People tend to self-regulate here at Chaos. Even if that behavior doesn’t get reported, petty Faction Leaders don’t have a history of lasting very long here - people usually end up abandoning these types in the end.

 

[Tefka]

That verdict is a bit lame, but oh well. Thanks for the info, Lis.

It’s okay to provide criticism for why you felt it lame, if you want. This is an opportunity to make the SWRP Staff Team aware of any and all feedback regarding Annihilations.

 

[Mordecai Zambrano]

It’s okay to provide criticism for why you felt it lame, if you want. This is an opportunity to make the SWRP Staff Team aware of any and all feedback regarding Annihilations.

Sure thing, Tef. Didn't mean to make myself look like a butthead with that post lol.

To reiterate my main concern from the first post I made in this thread:

There should be risk involved in the map game, yes, but annihilation threads extend that risk to quite literally the entire player-base regardless if they've got stakes in the fight or not. That's just bad taste in my opinion. The map game should only be risky for the major and minor factions that actively participate in it, not the individual/solo writers that do their own stuff with a few friends.

Since there is a chance that a planet may be destroyed and cease to be used as a setting in roleplay (aside from flashback stuff), there's inherent risk towards all members on Chaos - even the ones that don't care for the map game because annihilations affect them whether they like it or not. I think there should be greater risk involved for the faction that wishes to destroy a planet in the Chaos universe; give the defenders a greater chance at keeping a canon/custom planet in existence.

My suggestion would be to permit the usage of superweapons in Annihilation threads by both sides. The attacker's intent will always be to destroy a specific planet/location/etc. If the defender chooses to use a superweapon to destroy the attacking superweapon, maybe there could be a penalty for the attacker should they lose the annihilation thread and see their superweapon destroyed and have to wait even longer for another annihilation thread.

Ex.
Attacking faction wants to destroy Coruscant with the Death Star Mk IV.
Defending faction makes their own Annihilation declaration with the intent to destroy the Attacker's superweapon with Duke Skywalker's X-Wing.

• If the attacker wins, the planet (Coruscant) is destroyed. 4-month waiting period for another Annihilation begins.
• If the defender wins, the attacking superweapon (Death Star Mk IV) is destroyed by the defender's (Duke Skywalker's X-Wing). 4-month waiting period begins for the defender since they counter declared an Annihilation. Attacker could be penalized for their loss by adding an additional month or so to their wait time, so maybe 5-6 months.

Bottom line: I want defenders to have an easier time in keeping planets (especially canon ones) alive. Allowing them superweapon usage may help them in the Tension and Story fields for instance. Being the aggressor in an annihilation thread should be very risky both IC and OOC: resources, fleets, superweapons, etc are at stake as well as the potential for an even greater wait time if they don't manage to win.

Idk. This sounded much better in my head than on paper. Lemme know what your two cents are.

 

[Vesta]

Perhaps a middle ground that (might) satisfy both for & against parties is looking at the whole cooldown bit and maybe making a soft limit of how many annihilation threads a major faction can do in a given (I haven't thought it out, but it was a year in my head) span of time? Still with the same minimum span of time between individual threads, but maybe force factions to pick and choose their targets carefully so they don't waste them on a narrative that could've been accomplished any other way?

While the people who dislike the idea of destroying any canon planets might still think that's however many too many, it'd prevent factions from systematically targeting every major hub on the map and such.

Edit: tbh I agree with Mordecai Zambrano , I was asking the question originally because it was an idea in my head for further down the road but I wanted to ask first to get a clear idea on how viable it'd be, and the major faction I'm in also had the same question so I know I'm not alone with that line of thinking.

Invasions are heavily biased towards a defender win (not a bad thing, due to the risk & rewards of win/lose for attackers), but it feels like Annihilation threads are, sort of, less so because rather than losing territory on the map you're outright erasing the planet from the map, which sort of skews the ratio of risk to "reward" for the attacking major faction up into the stratosphere. Essentially there's basically no drawback or counter-measure to an annihilation except getting that major faction off of the map, which is extremely difficult to do even with every single rule and mandate being geared towards doing so. Simply making it harder for that attacking major faction to launch another one, or limiting how many they can do at all or over a period of time (with the cooldown still in place), might leverage a little more hesitation to the decision a major faction might have before they launch one.

second edit: also every admin and staff response I've seen so far seems to paint a picture that tragedy and stuff (consequences of a blown up planet and its displaced survivors) are things weighed in favor of a successful annihilation. This might just be confirmation bias because I keep seeing the same thing repeated every time annihilations have been mentioned, which is admittedly few, but it might be worth keeping that in mind in the future to prevent a ruling where someone inadvertently is swayed to destroy the planet because the ramifications of it sounds cool/good/etc rather than judging the annihilation based on the merits of the thread's own contained story.

Tefka

 

[Tefka]

1. We're not allowing defenders to bring superweapons, that's... not the answer, lol.

2. The custom planet battle was a battle I was perfectly fine with, but in a rare moment of Admin unity vs Tefka, I was defeated.

Perhaps a middle ground that (might) satisfy both for & against parties is looking at the whole cooldown bit

3. There is a cooldown. It's every 4 calendar months. So, this forces your answer to a later question, by simple math. They can only do a max of 3/year.

second edit: also every admin and staff response I've seen so far seems to paint a picture that tragedy and stuff (consequences of a blown up planet and its displaced survivors) are things weighed in favor of a successful annihilation. This might just be confirmation bias because I keep seeing the same thing repeated every time annihilations have been mentioned, which is admittedly few, but it might be worth keeping that in mind in the future to prevent a ruling where someone inadvertently is swayed to destroy the planet because the ramifications of it sounds cool/good/etc rather than judging the annihilation based on the merits of the thread's own contained story.

I'm going to be incredibly clear, RPJs and Admins do not base their judgements on my comments in a Suggestion forum. You're like, hinting at some weirdchamp stuff with this statement, I actually don't know what you're trying to say. But for the parts I do, you're wrong, you keep "seeing the same thing repeated every time annihilations have been mentioned" because it's only me responding.

And to be clear, I have yet to be on an Annihilation judgement team.

...I send the Fixers in for that.

 

[Kitter Bitters]

.lI heard a quote one time, that the stories lost in the fire of the Library of Alexandria didn’t cease to exist - they just became a bigger story.

I like that quote a lot.

I’m on the fence about them . On the one hand it does raise the stakes and make this community unique. It also helps freshen up the map game which has become a little stagnant in my opinion. I like spicing things up and giving factions new ways to put the wars in Star Wars. I like seeing so many people get excited for such an important thread and I really like the staff isn’t just letting the community coast. They truly do seem to be actively shaping the galaxy which is one of the things I love here.

On the other hand sometimes this place feels more general science fiction than pure Star Wars. I’m not saying this is a bad thing so please don’t bite my head off. We have so many fan created planets, weapons, tech, companies etc that it does become a bit difficult to jump right in when your new and your frame of reference is the movies and you aren’t quite sure how this galaxy is different than the ones seen in the films. We are set so far in the future with so much new stuff I’d hate to lose one of those last bits of the franchise we all know and can relate to. I know it took me personally a long time to really dive in here because I was just confused with all the custom routes that diverged from the films. Don’t get me wrong, I LOVE that users can contribute to the lore through factory etc it just does make it hard to get a feel of things without reading hundreds of submissions. In many ways I’m still struggling to wrap my head around what the galaxy is currently like. I could write pages and pages about what life was like in the days of the Clone Wars, the Rebellion, The New Jedi Order (book series) etc but if you asked me to describe the state of this galaxy IC I honestly don’t know that I could.

That being said I highly doubt a destroyed planet is gone forever. I’m sure there is an undo button the staff expects to hit someday.

 

[Vesta]

Tefka I was just trying to hit as many points as I could that were brought up to me in a discord chat that initially led to this thread, or at least contributed to it being made. I'll admit that I just knew there was a cooldown because it had been mentioned (as just being a cooldown) but I didn't actually care to check at the time to see how long or do anything like consider how many annihilations that would be in a year (because I am fine with annihilations personally, though I should have probably checked before I offered up that suggestion in hindsight).

The whole deal on the perception of favoring a planet's destruction is probably not represented well in my previous post, though. I read through the judgement on Csilla and most of any actual discussions about annihilations in general, not just in this thread but in general, and it just seemed like there was a preference to potential story over the written story of the thread itself, which, as stated, was just an observation that was probably unrelated to the mindset of judging the thread itself.

Anyways, I'm personally on-board with annihilations and think they're better than invasions - mostly because it brings people together that normally wouldn't be writing together except as opposition, which is usually in the form of an invasion that typically ends up with the general us vs them tribalism that people complain about all the time. Any attempt I've been making at offering ideas so far were to try to offer a middle ground that might work for the people who are currently against annihilation threads, but it seems to me, at least, that the current rules do offer enough limitation to keep people from burning through planets before the faction itself burns out.

I'd still like to see the use of opposing superweapons by major factions defending planets, but as you noted in my question thread it was up to the attacking faction's willingness to let it happen for that to be the case. The only thing that sucks about that, though, is a defending major faction needs to have launched a successful annihilation thread in order to acquire a superweapon.. which means blowing up a planet, which I would think most factions that would be defending a planet might typically try to avoid doing or be totally against.

 

[Tefka]

I’m just going to be clear again, it’s not our intention to allow defending Major Factions bring superweapons.

The closest we’ll get is what AC is doing, which is bringing MAW’s superweapon to try and make it look like it wasn’t AC’s fault - which I’ve mandated requires Admin permission (and MAW’s) for special circumstances. I’m about that crazy story life, but we can only permit it so many times before I have to say “stop trying to ‘accidentally’ blow up planets.”

I think I actually just wanna have fun. I think a majority, if not all, of the current MFOs just wanna have fun. I think they have to bend over backwards to motivate Dominions or PvE threads. Annihilations, Invasions spur activity naturally- so they launch those.

It chaps my ass when people get so serious and worked up that these MFOs, among others, get demonized with conspiracy. These guys are literally strugglebussin to motivate y’all.

 

[Avernus]

Sacred Lore

haha superlaser go brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

2: It's likely to put off some potential new arrivals if they find out their favorite canon world has been blown up.

Or, hear me out, it immediately gives them a character idea and motivation.

Also if someone sees the potential that any planet could receive THE_BUSINESS in an entirely writer-driven way as a deterrent and not a selling point, then I'm not sure that person wanted to be sold on Chaos to begin with.

 

[Eulogy Jones]

Personally, being new, I like the idea. Can see why folks would be hesitant but I like the stakes. About to jump in on Korriban once I get Eulogy added to the correct team.

 

[Heath Valhoun]

I like Annihilations but I think they should be harder. It should take a TON of effort to blow up a planet...thus making even attempting such an act extremely rare.

I also think we need a "Repopulate" process that allows the rebuilding of a planet.

 

[The Mongrel]

Respectfully, more difficult how, exactly?

Currently, Annihilations are BY FAR the hardest thing to pull off on Chaos. Destroying a planet requires:

• 400+ posts, vastly more than anything else (next closest is an invasion or capital change at 100+ posts)
• 10+ unique writers from the attacking faction, who must all post within 72 hours (invasions require only 5+)
• A successful judgement for the attackers at the end (and the only one so far won by only 1 category)

I keep seeing posts talking as if launching an Annihilation instantly means a planet is destroyed, and that is emphatically untrue. Just because the first one succeeded doesn't mean another one will. How would we make it more difficult? Require even more posts? Even more writers? Stack the judgement against the attackers? It's already hard, and with a four month cooldown (and most factions apparently not interested in launching them) they're not at all common.

I guess the big question underlying the question of Annihilations is this: do we want Chaos to be a place, a sandbox where people can play their characters against any backdrop from Star Wars without worrying about what other characters have done, or do we want Chaos to be a timeline, a series of interwoven stories where our characters' choices have meaningful consequences. Personally, I'm in favor of the latter. I want to see a Chaos that forms its own epic story, not a generic backdrop.

That said, if you want to roleplay on Csilla (even though it's been blown up), there is nothing in the rules to prohibit you from doing so. Lots of people plunk down threads on planets with long Chaos histories without looking into what has happened there at all, and that's fine; so far as I know, no one has ever been banned for not doing their research. If (and it's a BIG if) Korriban goes kablooey, and you decide to fire your ignore cannon and roleplay there, I don't think staff will stop you.

Annihilations motivate people, and whether they succeed or fail, they create meaningful stories. Isn't that why we're here?

 

[Elpsis Kerrigan]

I am fine with annihilations.

 

[Fatty]

Respectfully, more difficult how, exactly?

Currently, Annihilations are BY FAR the hardest thing to pull off on Chaos. Destroying a planet requires:

• 400+ posts, vastly more than anything else (next closest is an invasion or capital change at 100+ posts)
• 10+ unique writers from the attacking faction, who must all post within 72 hours (invasions require only 5+)
• A successful judgement for the attackers at the end (and the only one so far won by only 1 category)

I keep seeing posts talking as if launching an Annihilation instantly means a planet is destroyed, and that is emphatically untrue. Just because the first one succeeded doesn't mean another one will. How would we make it more difficult? Require even more posts? Even more writers? Stack the judgement against the attackers? It's already hard, and with a four month cooldown (and most factions apparently not interested in launching them) they're not at all common.

I guess the big question underlying the question of Annihilations is this: do we want Chaos to be a place, a sandbox where people can play their characters against any backdrop from Star Wars without worrying about what other characters have done, or do we want Chaos to be a timeline, a series of interwoven stories where our characters' choices have meaningful consequences. Personally, I'm in favor of the latter. I want to see a Chaos that forms its own epic story, not a generic backdrop.

That said, if you want to roleplay on Csilla (even though it's been blown up), there is nothing in the rules to prohibit you from doing so. Lots of people plunk down threads on planets with long Chaos histories without looking into what has happened there at all, and that's fine; so far as I know, no one has ever been banned for not doing their research. If (and it's a BIG if) Korriban goes kablooey, and you decide to fire your ignore cannon and roleplay there, I don't think staff will stop you.

Annihilations motivate people, and whether they succeed or fail, they create meaningful stories. Isn't that why we're here?

All of this.

Personally, since its inception, Star Wars has always had an underlying theme of stopping massive scale destruction, with real consequences of failure. Even the Prequels, which had no superweapons in the movies (other than small hints of the Death Star), was about a destructive galaxy-wide conflict that ended in the near-total annihilation of the Jedi, the complete overthrow of the galactic government, and the beginning of an age of unprecedented oppression. I don't really need to talk about the Sequels, other than to mention that I'm glad that Annihilations are as difficult to pull off as they are, to prevent a planet being destroyed every other thread (or movie, as it were).

I'm all for them, so far the energy brought to both of the two Annihilations has been great to see. It reminds me of when site-wide events were more prominent. Everyone showed up. Now things are more fluid and totally dependant on the board bringing awesome story-arcs that involve everyone, and Annihilations are the perfect vehicle to facilitate this kind of narrative.

If it isn't your cup of tea, don't participate, and RP around it anyway. No sweat off your or my back.

Write and let write

 

[Decimus]

Tefka I concur with the earlier point that Mordecai Zambrano shared. It affects people and groups who don't want a part in the map game to begin with. Sure, it's cool for a thread and all but then no one can use that planet for stuff in the future, even people who don't take part in the whole faction conflict thing.