Invasion Criteria Rework

[Valiens Nantaris]

Good day all.

As you are all aware we are constantly looking to fine tune the way rules, and especially Invasions work here at SWRP.

Just over a year and a half ago a significant change was made to invasions and how they were judged. Rather than judging based on duels or NPCs they were instead judged on a series of criteria which emphasised the story and good behaviour rather than IC results.
I believe it was necessary to make a change as 'racking up points' was a very common issue at the time and made invasions unpleasant.

Fast forward to now and I believe that whilst it was a positive change I believe it has swung too far the other way. Even with recent wording changes there is little incentive for factions to properly interact with each other, which leads to people doing their own thing without proper combat.

I initially looked at introducing an objective system which would provide definite IC targets, but there were numerous problems with this which after discussing with Staff. I could not find a way to make it work without more complications and confusion.

Instead, a proposal from [member="Jamie Pyne"] redefines the victory conditions in a way which reduces the ‘filler’ criteria and aims to make things more focused on IC action. At the same time it aims to be less nebulous than the current criteria.

However, this is a big change, and whilst I am in favour of it, I’d like to get some community feedback on the question. If you do not agree please explain why and provide constructive suggestions to assist us.

The new criteria are below, these would replace the existing 5, but not change anything else on the invasion page.



VICTORY CONDITIONS

The following will be considered when judging an Invasion.

1. Presence. Based on the participating characters, which faction demonstrated a greater presence throughout the course of the invasion? This should be measured by steady, active responses by those involved, not the total number of participants or number of total posts. Similarly, of those participating, were any conflicts between writers that arose handled in a professional manner?
2. Story. Invasions are conflict. Whether through war or diplomacy, those involved will gain and lose. When it comes to judging the story of an invasion, a victor will not be decided solely based on who ticks the most boxes in terms of duel victories, or buildings captured, but by the merit of the story as a whole. Which faction wrote their victories and defeats most consistently? Their strengths and weaknesses? Which faction explored and expanded upon the lore surrounding them? From a general overview, which faction unfolded their story at a steady pace to its climax and inevitable denouement? Victory cannot be achieved without actively engaging and collaborating with the opposing faction.
3. Rallying. During an invasion there will be climactic events. Perhaps a fleet's dreadnought has just been destroyed, how well do the characters belonging to the faction on the receiving side rally together to handle these crippling moments? How do the members of the opposing faction take advantage of their successes while continuing to push forward? This objective ties directly into the story, but is deserving of a closer review of each side during these key moments.

 

[Jorus Merrill]

I think it's worth trying. I think 'Rallying' could be hard to judge and pretty situational, but it's worth seeing in practice. I also think combining so much into 'Story' could wind up with a faction winning that criterion without taking hits, acknowledging their own weaknesses, etc.

 

[Ugoto Chivaro]

It's a yes from me.

 

[Kaili Talith]

So essentially, instead of calling it "OOC Drama" we are now calling it "Presence", yes?

 

[Kurayami Bloodborn]

An interesting take on the system, I see no reason it couldn't be put through a trial run. Perhaps in a non-canon invasion thread,if the status is unsure it would give a way to test the system and refine it without factions actually having to worry about losing a hex to a system that wasn't 100% official. Overall seems to be a solid enough set of criteria and relatively streamlined in presentation.

 

[Ria Misrani]

Eh, couldn't hurt

 

[Kinsey Starchaser]

Why not? Worth a go. But I agree with Jorus. Some of these will be a bit hard to judge. Things aren't so black and white. I wish there was a way to measure opponents actually taking hits - displaying their weaknesses and the more dynamic a fight is with each writer taking varying physical hits/damage would go toward higher points.

Makes me think of the fight between Velok and Damian. Both writers took significant physical hits. One wasn't taking more than the other and in that case - both factions would get good points for victory determination.

But would that mean everyone would suddenly take a TON more hits just to get top scores? Not sure. But it might also bring out more interesting and dynamic fights.

Just a thought.

 

[Julius Sedaire]

I can't seem to vote on any sub-account, but we can try.

Personally, I think it' just going to shift the haze and issues. Honestly any change from the present system won't really be any better or worse. But we can certainly try.

 

[Ugohr Poof]

One concern that would still remain: the consistency in taking hits.

 

[Delila Castillon]

At this point a neutral judge should just flip a coin to determine a winner. Some of those categories seem quite objective.

 

[Robogeber]

I'm not a fan of these changes at all. Say what you want about the nebulous rules, but they work. Instead, these changes and reworks will do nothing but telegraph invasions. It will take away from the fluidity of and ultimate creative freedom of invasions in favour of pandering to these proposed changes. What if your story doesn't allow for your troops to rally? What if that is your story?

Additionally, the examples you've given, for story changes, in my mind will just be used as a checklist. One post rambling about our organisation for lore points? Check. One post talking about how we're gonna win? Check. One post now having a climatic duel? Check.

It'll act like an OOC list for points. But to me, all it's gonna do, is just work to make clunky and awkward invasion posts.

Just the ramblings of a deranged madman.

 

[Gray Raxis]

I feel like it needs 1 more criteria: Cooperation. I do not mean this in the current fashion of teamwork either. What I feel we need is a criteria that is solely devoted towards cross-faction interaction. How well do the members of the two factions interact with each other? Did they work together to form a narrative or did one side force their own making the other go along just to avoid unneeded drama? How openly and consistently are the two sides working with each other?

The reason I bring this up is that with the current system there is no need to work with the other side to any degree. All of these current pieces for cross-faction cooperation are scattered through all of the judging points and get more or less ignored under normal circumstances. This means one side just needs to dig in their heels and the other either is forced to go along or face a lot of drama. This repeatedly keeps being the case for invasions and every time it happens the win goes to the side abusing the system rather than trying to form a good story. And this abusing of the system is not just in this area either of the judging but can be seen in all of it. Invasions are meant to be a thread where two major factions get together and write a story together, so why is the most important aspect of it being ignored? Making it be an aspect of winning will help deal with the current problem and has the potential to reduce the levels of drama currently haunting invasions.

The other reason I bring this up is that it would put the criteria up to 4 instead of 3. An odd number means that there will always be a winner or loser, but that is not always the case for conflict. It is not unusual for a stalemate to happen in real life so why shouldn't it be possible here as well where story is the main objective? This will also address the current issue of abuse with the invasion system where people can just focus on 3 of the 5 criteria and win every time. Making it an even 4 makes it so you can't abuse the system to nearly the level it currently can be and plays off of the above reasoning as well. And this possibility of a draw shores up the imbalance as well with risk and reward for the two sides. The attacking side right now will always benefit regardless of winning or losing so there is no real drawback for them. The defending side on the other hand has to win or they lose their hex. That puts far more pressure on the defending side than the attacking side which in turn creates drama and less cooperation between factions. By making draws possible and letting the defending side not lose their hex if it happens makes it so the risks and rewards are far more balanced.

Anyways that is just my idea on it. I feel like what is here is really good and does address the issue of sort of give-me/wasted criteria. I would just like to see an addition like the one above added to address the issues that this doesn't fix with the current invasion system.

 

[WelshGuy]

While I think OOC monitoring is important but with factions going under multiple invasions within a similar time frame. Is numbers of participates really important?

 

[Coren Starchaser]

Anything that makes it easier to judge so we can keep invading one another!

 

[Rayth]

The current list is 3/5 on OOC events based on how they are judged now.

Consider if that is appropriate as a starting point.

Think about how members of factions can't just turn up and enjoy themselves without an awful lot of organisation and whether that is a positive driver or not.

 

[Enyo Typhos]

Speaking as someone who's not a fan of the present system, I'm on the fence. Could be decent in theory. Maybe I'm just being a cynical person, but this seems like old wine in new bottles to me. In other words, same old, just in a different package. Drama and teamwork have been eliminated as separate categories, or rather folded into the three remaining ones, and effort was renamed into presence, assimilating drama in the process.


Story seems like a rather bloated category, especially since it seems to have swallowed Entertainment. Not a category I'll miss, since I always found it terribly nebulous and subjective. To me the story of the invasion is the story of the actual war, but that would require making duels and combat in general more important than they are in the present rule set.

 

[GhostOfProtocol]

What we have works. It does the job. Instead of bringing in a brand new system just refine what we already have.

Just my thoughts anyway

 

[Ever Dawnracer]

Seems more or less logical to me.

 

[Carbon]

The defending side on the other hand has to win or they lose their hex

Draws have always been awarded to the defending faction. They don't have to win - they just have to avoid losing.

 

[Jamie Pyne]

I think 'Rallying' could be hard to judge and pretty situational, but it's worth seeing in practice.

Valid concern. The vast majority of all invasions I reviewed had moments directly applicable to this criteria however, and therefore I believed it was worth implementing on its own, in tandem with the general story condition.

'Story' could wind up with a faction winning that criterion without taking hits

To address this concern, as well as the multitude of other similarly addressed points, this list is an example, not a series of checklists for a faction to tick. This category will seem bloated, but that was intentional. This is the largest factor of the invasion, and thus will be decided by majority, in this category. Failing to take hits, acknowledging your opponents, or just writing a lovely monologue about the trees on Kashyyk will in fact cost this category.

At this point a neutral judge should just flip a coin to determine a winner. Some of those categories seem quite objective.

I am sure this comment was rhetoric and that you actually meant subjective and not objective, so I will address this as such. Three of the five categories currently reviewed are subjective. This change reduces that victory condition based solely on a judges OOC perspective of a faction from three to one, harshly narrowing that gap.

It will take away from the fluidity of and ultimate creative freedom of invasions in favour of pandering to these proposed changes.

Your creative freedom is to write an intelligible story that surrounds your and your faction's involvement in the invasion from the offensive or defensive side, while interacting with your opponents in a fair, and meaningful way. As for the remainder of your comment, so long as you ensure that as individuals you are taking hits, collaborating with your opponents, and writing cohesively, you have nothing to fear from these three objectives. There is no check list to tick boxes.

[member="Gray Raxis"]

Your concern is, like Jorrus', valid. However the point was reduce the objectives to a two out of three victory condition, and cooperation is part of the criteria, just not its own. However to clarify, having an even number versus an odd number of conditions makes no difference in terms of draws. You can draw currently with five, and the victory by default goes to the defender. If you draw on three of these objectives, victory will again go to the defender.

While I think OOC monitoring is important but with factions going under multiple invasions within a similar time frame. Is numbers of participates really important?

I think you misread the Presence condition.

What we have works. It does the job. Instead of bringing in a brand new system just refine what we already have.

This is refining what we have. It's a reduction in objectives while removing those unnecessary such as entertainment.

I am fine with going back to rework these changes, as the goal is to make invasions more fun and less work for everyone, staff and writers both, however I would prefer it if you have a suggestion to implement it in the form it has been presented above, with a spoiler, and your changes in green. This makes reviewing these suggestions much easier, and appears more like constructive effort.