Feedback Invasion Points System & War Exhaustion Mechanics.

[Razmir Tezhyn]

To put it bluntly, no mechanic in a wargame will fix it when someone's pissed off at you. At that point you either talk it through or stay bitter at each other. Same goes for faction scale. Either negotiate a deal or descend back into the salt mines.

There's plenty of room for meaningful invasion story lines with a good ebb and flow, a good loop and consequences, in the cooking mix already. I don't believe adding more mechanics that hinder attackers from actually accomplishing their goal incentivizes them to put up the required effort to get a prolonged conflict on the road.

If the problem is that invasions feel stale, then let's workshop more rewards beyond hex gain, or get creative with story lines instead.

 

[Selrik Lorcas]

Personally, I'm in favor of this. As someone who has written in checks notes 3 straight losing invasions with the GA, which has left me annoyed with invasions altogether, I'm in favor of there being something done to combat the fatigue other than just "Please don't invade us!" or an extremely detrimental mandate.

 

[Tefka]

I think people are making this about Salt when it was never meant to be about Salt.

People aren’t doing that. The majority of discussion has been about the merit of the idea, and most has been good faith and genuine thus far.

Stay on target, or don’t join the conversation. What you just said was extremely stupid.

 

[Selrik Lorcas]

.

 

[Tefka]

Tefka

You missed the other 3 paragraphs Valery wrote?

I suppose you’ll quote the other guy who said “salt” and try to prove your stupid point while ignoring everything else they wrote, too?

Cherry picking. Bad faith. Stupid.

Extremely unproductive.

 

[Tefka]

If I join a feedback thread, it’s because I’m interested in developing the conversation. Thats a time for the community to take the subject material seriously, because my presence alone brings the attention of the entire Staff team. A team responsible for implementing these ideas.

Not a time to fish for drama.

Thread bans will be thrown with very little provocation at people that want to detract from the conversation. The sun has fried my brain and I’m trigger happy, lets stay on target in this thread, I’m interested in reading the genuine, authentic responses.

 

[Vazela]

I've read the OP. My take away was that losing factions still get some kind of reward for participation. I do not like this idea. If you lose a battle then you also get to deal with the consequences and if that includes members of your faction burning out, or activity plummeting, or losing the hex/planet in question was a gigantic blow for your character, or faction in story, then that is how it should be. There should always be a winner and a loser, and losers don't get rewards for losing.

I'm also of the opinion that if you stop writing for an extended period of time after your faction loses an Invasion thread then you're not a good member in the first place. It is when you lose that you're needed the most.

 

[Ellie Mors]

Before I get into any of my thoughts on this, I want to preface it by saying I agree with the general idea you have here that invasions should have larger ramifications than just a hex gained/lost, I just don't necessarily think it needs to be longer than a couple of bullet points (and I fundamentally disagree on a few thoughts, but that's my personal opinion, and I'll explain below, so don't be discouraged).

Factions could spend a chunk of Invasion Points to trigger a War Exhaustion declaration. Once declared, that faction enters a cooldown period during which:

• They cannot be targeted for new invasions, and
• They cannot initiate invasions themselves.

I fundamentally disagree with the notion that factions should have an avenue to unilaterally avoid invasions aside from the existing mandate system. Minor factions which go major are actively pursuing interaction between other major factions in all of the avenues afforded to them (both giving and receiving), there shouldn't be an instance where a faction, after 3-4 invasions, decides they no longer want to participate in inter-faction threads where they stand to lose something.

Sure, a faction wouldn't be able to initiate an invasion themselves - but in what circumstance would this be what a faction trying to avoid receiving an invasion chooses to do? Dominions, junctions, etc, where the ability to gain a hex (or more) are what a faction trying to stave off invasions would be performing in order to minimize perceived loss - but the game-y behavior isn't even the biggest problem, there's entire factions whose purpose (in-character) is to act as antagonists to other factions, what do we think will happen if those factions aren't able to launch invasions (which might be their focus) against another faction that simply doesn't want to take part in their story?

We have a mandate system (examples: Fair Fight, Self Destruct), if a faction is facing heavy losses and their only avenue for reprieve from continual hex loss is calling a ceasefire then they should turn their attention to a mandate which allows them to avoid the confrontation with another major faction.

This mechanic would accomplish several things:

It provides a pressure release valve for factions who have fought hard and need time to catch their breath without being punished for taking a break.

I touched on this already, but I'll approach this from the topic of burnout rather than just map game rulesets: If you, as a faction's leadership, feel you are being worn down by invasions then you should either consider stepping back from the role you've stepped into or consider asking the other faction for a break. Asking another faction to simply put a pause on whatever storyline they've been trying to work out with you might not work out, but asking to switch from invasions to, say, junctions or skirmishes so that you can take a breather and not worry about losing a hex can lower the pressure your entire faction might be feeling at this point. If avoiding interaction with those other factions in their entirety is the goal here, though, I don't think that's really what factions agree to when they choose to go major.

It gives time for winning factions to instead focus on an internal story rather than worrying about their new gains.

I don't really understand what this means exactly. I'm guessing this is a reiteration of not needing to worry about invasions per the previous point but there's multiple different forms of threads factions can initiate to still gain things (junctions, dominions, etc).

It allows smaller or recovering factions to reset the board before they collapse entirely.

Again, I think this is better handled with a mandate that allows a faction to spin off from invasion losses to recover either elsewhere or by some other trade-off that makes invasions less of a concern for them.

These points could then be exchanged for rewards that already exist within Chaos' ecosystem, like Super Star Destroyers, or potentially for new incentives that are created collaboratively over time. The system would not replace map hex gains—it would supplement them.

I think this is a better goal to be eyeing, rather than adding a system that provides a faction to put a pause on invasion for taking part in invasions. Invasions, particularly the prospect of losing hexes/planets as a result of those invasions, are one of the key ways factions are able to interact with each other on Chaos in a way that has direct and immediate consequences. A losing faction shouldn't feel like they just spent two weeks and several hundred posts to just lose a hex, they should definitely be able to point at that time and effort spent as a substitution for things that'd normally only be available through other arbitrary means (i.e; dominions for SSDs) because they obviously were being active and the entire purpose for those other arbitrary goalposts is to incentivize faction activity.

This idea reads as a natural continuation of the direction Chaos has been moving towards to trade large thread activity for something in return, I just don't think being able to put a pause on invasions on top of other faction mandates is the way to go about it.

 

[Serina Calis]

I originally proposed the War Exhaustion mechanic because, despite the current lull in invasions—largely due to the fact that most factions are playing very respectfully and cooperatively OOC—I had multiple people tell me directly how exhausting just one invasion can be. That feedback stuck with me, and the mechanic was meant to address that exact issue: to offer a structured, earned break for those who need it, not to shield factions or prevent consequences. But given the general consensus on the board that such a concept isn't necessary right now, I'm content to step back from pushing it further. I still believe deeply in its long-term value, especially if the invasion climate becomes more aggressive again—but it's clear the community doesn't see the need at this time, and I respect that.

For now I want to shift the topic into something which has fallen under the radar, the bigger initial proposal of the IPS system.

The Invasion Points System (IPS) expands on the existing SSD reward system by offering incremental progress for factions that participate meaningfully in invasions—win or lose. It keeps the SSD as a high-tier prize but adds smaller incentives that reward effort, not just victory. This encourages more invasions, reduces burnout, and gives newer or rebuilding factions a reason to stay engaged.

IPS doesn't turn Chaos into a strategy game. It doesn't add complex mechanics or force factions to "play the system." It's a lightweight, narrative-facing tool that supports campaign arcs and faction development without changing how people write. It's opt-in, unobtrusive, and designed to reward the activity we're already doing—writing great stories in the heat of war.

This isn't adding troop movements or morale or any silly mechanic like that, that is not the intention, all the IPS would do is expand the existing system. I have a scaffold of a system I would be willing to share if people were interested in it.

 

[Ellie Mors]

I originally proposed the War Exhaustion mechanic because, despite the current lull in invasions—largely due to the fact that most factions are playing very respectfully and cooperatively OOC—I had multiple people tell me directly how exhausting just one invasion can be. That feedback stuck with me, and the mechanic was meant to address that exact issue: to offer a structured, earned break for those who need it, not to shield factions or prevent consequences. But given the general consensus on the board that such a concept isn't necessary right now, I'm content to step back from pushing it further. I still believe deeply in its long-term value, especially if the invasion climate becomes more aggressive again—but it's clear the community doesn't see the need at this time, and I respect that.

For now I want to shift the topic into something which has fallen under the radar, the bigger initial proposal of the IPS system.

The Invasion Points System (IPS) expands on the existing SSD reward system by offering incremental progress for factions that participate meaningfully in invasions—win or lose. It keeps the SSD as a high-tier prize but adds smaller incentives that reward effort, not just victory. This encourages more invasions, reduces burnout, and gives newer or rebuilding factions a reason to stay engaged.

IPS doesn't turn Chaos into a strategy game. It doesn't add complex mechanics or force factions to "play the system." It's a lightweight, narrative-facing tool that supports campaign arcs and faction development without changing how people write. It's opt-in, unobtrusive, and designed to reward the activity we're already doing—writing great stories in the heat of war.

This isn't adding troop movements or morale or any silly mechanic like that, that is not the intention, all the IPS would do is expand the existing system. I have a scaffold of a system I would be willing to share if people were interested in it.

I think you should take a look at the current site rules (particularly invasion/dominion/etc rules) to see how they're formatted and phrased, and then take your idea and propose it with how you'd like to see it incorporated to the existing rules. It'll cut down on any confusion anyone might have around what you're suggesting and it'll make it easier to digest for anyone who sees a bunch of information and gets intimidated by it.

 

[Srina Talon]

If you have more on what it might look like in action I'm sure everyone would be willing to give it a gander.

That being said... It currently reads like it's trying to solve a "problem" that doesn't actually exist. Chain invasions don't happen anymore where something like this might be necessary. I could be wrong but I've noticed Majors actually waiting months to invade. Organically, taking turns.

Trying to solve "writer exhaustion" isn't something we can do with any rule or mechanic. Sure, we could limit people to one character per invasion or put a post cap per person but that's not really fair. More than that, it's anti-rp.

As it stands we have two mandates available for a cool down if the faction requires it:

Fair Fight
Self Destruct

Saying "factions gain nothing" if they lose is also a touch closed-minded. Yes. No one likes to lose but take a beat and think about how much story and character growth is gained in the process? How many times to we refer to invasions as "the gift that keeps on giving" when all is said and done? We write about the effects of them for months. They give us life and monumental things to write about for months, even years.

Looking at you Mirial.

What is "gained" from an invasion is subjective, per person, and that's not decided by a participation trophy. It's up to the community to foster an environment, MFO'S especially, to help people understand and come to terms that losing an invasion isn't a death sentence.

I'd be much more open to suggestions about invasions claiming more than two hexes given the updated size of the map. Not so much a fan of a point system or any "additional" complications that makes the rules more convoluted.