Invasion Draws

[Darth Carnifex]

When the attacking faction wins an invasion, they gain the subsequent hexes being attacked.

When the defending faction wins an invasion, they gain the subsequent hexes being defended.

But what if instead of defending faction retaining hexes in a draw, what if they go neutral?

Discuss.

 

[Adron Malvern]

I am entirely for this, since it seems an actual fair outcome. At least when both Factions neighbor the hex.

 

[Scherezade deWinter]

[member="Darth Carnifex"]

When the attacking faction wins an invasion, they gain the subsequent hexes being attacked.

When the defending faction wins an invasion, they gain the subsequent hexes being defended.

But what if instead of defending faction retaining hexes in a draw, what if they go neutral?

This is what happens if the attacking faction borders the invaded hex.

When it does not border the hex, the hex goes neutral in case of an invader win.

It's great to say that both sides did awesomely well, but eventually, unless the invaders win, they lose. The result of a draw is identical to the result of an invader's loss. Unless we agree that the defenders have lost, why would the defenders need to lose a hex? Perhaps what needs be done is remove the notion of a 'draw'.

 

[Malok]

I'm of the mindset that an invasion should never be a draw.

There should always be a clear winner and a clear loser. Currently, invasions are judged based on four categories - perhaps there should be a a fifth "tie breaker" category to prevent this from occurring.

But in the here and now, I'm all for draw invasions neutralizing the hexes in question, and then it being a Dominion race to reclaim.

 

[Ares]

I could kind of see both sides of this. A draw like that does sound fair, but at the same time, I would find it hard to explain it in a narrative sense each time it happened. Like sure, if the world is being oppressed by the defenders and the rebels don't like the invaders, then a rebellion for independence while the defense is weak makes sense. However, that's very circumstantial and doesn't always apply, especially if the population wants to be defended. And I wonder how that would be settled really. Like would both sides invade at the same time to reclaim the territory? Or would it be just one of them has a go one at a time? And if so, who gets to go first?

At the same time I also like the idea of it being a defender's victory because it implies a close battle that was barely won because of the home-field advantage. Typically full on draws where someone isn't technically victorious is kind of rare, and defensive advantages make sense. It's hard to pull off an invasion, especially against a faction like the Mandalorians I'd imagine. That said, some sort of mechanical consequence for having a draw should be extracted as well. Like a weakening of forces, or allowing a second attempt at an invasion right away. Unless that's already a thing? I'm not fully familiar with the invasion system yet, so if there already a sort of disadvantage for the defenders in a draw feel free to let me know.

 

[Ares]

There should always be a clear winner and a clear loser. Currently, invasions are judged based on four categories - perhaps there should be a a fifth "tie breaker" category to prevent this from occurring.

I actually really agree with this. It'd make a lot of sense. Maybe a category on the strategies of both sides? Like who has the more cunning one?

 

[Tefka]

I'm of the mindset that an invasion should never be a draw.

1. Before I start talking on this, here's some prefaces: I was a writer in the Invasion that ended in a draw and prompted this discussion. I do not have access to the discussions of the judgement nor was involved in any way.

2. They almost never are. I honestly can't recall the last draw I witnessed. The way we do Invasion judgements are engineered to prevent a draw.


1. Two RPJs and an Admin are assigned to an Invasion.

2. The team is instructed to perform the judgement "how they see fit", and if questions occur that this Invasion team cannot answer, the Admin is to seek answers from the other Admins.

3. The Admin oversees the judgement, and is only usually involved when the RPJs have an irreconcilable problem between the two, or again, have questions.

4. This one's the biggie - IN THE EVENT THE RPJs provide countering judgements (One says Team A wins, the other says Team B wins) and are unable to budge even at the Admin's request, the Admin provides the tie breaking decision.

Do they happen often enough to render new rules for? I don't think so, but I'm not in a place right now to offer my own judgement.
​

The majority of the Staff team, including myself, have no idea how the deliberations went.​

 

[Ares]

[member="Tefka"]

I appreciate the insight on the staff's process for deciding Invasions. Being an admin on another site, I realize how this thread probably comes across. The task of being an Admin/Moderator can be pretty thankless sometimes. I'm sure someone had to spend the time reading through an entire invasion they weren't a part of just for that decision, and do so within a reasonable amount of time for a decision to be made. Just wanted to clarify that I mean no disrespect adding in my own feedback here, I just wanted to contribute to the discussion. I hope you guys are doing well!

 

[Tefka]

No disrespect is taken, @Ares. Staff isn't beyond reproach, and is critiqued often. Yes, two RPJs and an Admin did read the entire thread, but their work is very appreciated, they know that.

And to Chaos's benefit, if there's a problem, ya'll don't shy away from telling us about it.

 

[Ryan]

Or instead of it going neutral the defender can't counter attack the attacker for a month. And the attacker can't invade said target for another month. Almost like a depletion of IC resources on both sides that will take a short respite before re-igniting war efforts.

I honestly don't like hte idea of going neutral, because then the attacking faction can just speed dom the crap out of said target and take a win. In almost all games i have played a draw always goes to the defender. In war, a Draw is a win for the defense.

 

[Adron Malvern]

[member="Tefka"]

So would you say that [member="Darth Metus"] Idea of a fifth category is a bad idea? Because you can't really say that the way the judgement process occurs is to prevent a draw, when we do have draws. I will agree they are the least likely outcome, but they do occur. But back to my main question, why wouldn't you instill a fifth category to make it more concrete on not having draws? I could see it being hard to find another category that doesn't cater/enable more drama or debate but I'd think it's possible.

 

[Matt the Radar Tech]

An odd number of determining categories would stop any draw, so long as there's a stated winner for each of the others. So a shift from 4 to 5 judging categories could solve any issue moving forward?

 

[Tefka]

why wouldn't you instill a fifth category to make it more concrete on not having draws?

Because I usually frown at writing new rules unless they're deemed necessary.

I will agree they are the least likely outcome, but they do occur

How often?

 

[Darth Voracitos]

I think that I am in the camp that a draw should virtually never happen, and/or, a draw is identical to an invader defeat.

There have been plenty of times in history where two forces have fought over a territory but find no conclusive victory by the end of the day. Usually in these circumstances from my understanding, the invader might temporarily retreat to regroup.

So perhaps, if a change is viewed as needed, a draw could initiate a follow up invasion of the same territory in an acceptable time frame? Frankly, this could already happen, but sometimes people don't jump on opportunities like that because it isn't written out to them.

Lastly, piggybacking on [member="Adron Malvern"], what if instead of expanding on the judgement categories, we just lump in Participation with OOC Drama? Three is just as good as Five, and also simpler in general. Personally, I see participation as an OOC category. If no one on one side shows up to a much anticipated invasion... I feel like that could produce just as much angst as if they were fully active but toxic. It does not make a cooperative storytelling environment.

Or maybe I'm wrong, and we need a fifth category for cooperation between two fighting factions. Was one side doing most of the talking as far as planning, setup, etc.? Maybe one side made a bigger deal out of the invasion for its faction, than the other side did? I'm not sure if maybe these should be factors or not, but they are something to consider, I think.

 

[Adron Malvern]

[member="Tefka"]

Id say i've seen a few over the past few years. But why have any at all if you can create a system without them? Seems like an intentional flaw at that point.

I can also agree with [member="Darth Voracitos"] that maybe dropping the number down to 3 would help? Make OOC Drama, into just an overall OOC category. Dealing with participation and Drama.

 

[Tefka]

This has been escalated to Staff discussion.

 

[Ellie Mors]

I think this is less a problem and more a reason to revisit three-hex distance invasions (or even just 2)

 

[Adenn Kyramud]

I agree with [member="Darth Voracitos"] in regards to a fifth category being 'Cooperation.' Being a Mando, I've been part of the group on the defensive this entire year in regards to invasions. Being part of the staff has allowed me to see 'cooperation' in action between the attackers and defenders. Several invasions had horrible planning and amounted to a salt fest because something was added or taken away, or nothing was planned prior to the invasion. That seems wrong though, to have no planning at all and just say, 'Go crazy.' Most of these invasions have essentially been that, there are exceptions of course, most recent being the Mandalore invasion, amazing amount of cooperation and coordination there. Other invasions, there has been a distinct lack of cooperation.

If this became a category, then invasions would be better IMO. After all, if cooperation is a category, then faction staff have to work together. This'll make conflict easier, ground rules clearer, and in general make invasions better. That's just my 2 cents on it.

 

[Ryan]

quick question. Does filing a report during a invasion count against your faction in the Drama section?

 

[Ellie Mors]

[member="Adenn Kyramud"]
Cooperation, insofar what you're referring to, is already in the invasion criteria.

Edit: Participation may be what it is called, but it is a criteria referring to cooperation between both factions. The name is what it is because it includes everything that participation in an invasion should require.