Invasions: The Next Step

[Kaden Farr]

Assuming the two hexes between the attackers cloud and the target are empty, those hexes still be gained?

I could get on board with this... might even change the landscape of how factions are allied with each other and the border buffers they have been creating.

 

[Ryan]

We can't, or invasions will mean literally nothing.

How so? In success you still get the territory you have invaded and with this suggested rule you can gain more hexes.

 

[Tefka]

"Sounds like" is a far cry from what it is. It's not that hard to launch and manage an invasion. (#GitGud)

...I'm no stranger to the entirety of the process that is an Invasion, 'cause I like, built them and stuff. Like your input, though, keep it coming.

 

[Tefka]

How so? In success you still get the territory you have invaded and with this suggested rule you can gain more hexes.

Well, the idea is to kill the enemy, right?

In Chaos, right now, your enemy can outdominion your invasions. They're easier, you can do them more consistently. So it's more roadrunnery and less "this empire naturally dies off as all do".

 

[Ryan]

[member="Tefka"] true, didn't think of it that way.

 

[Vaulkhar]

Dominions are far less entertaining than Invasions as well. I like this idea, it'll create the much needed potential for factions to die off to story versus burn out.

 

[Gilamar Skirata]

[member="Tefka"] question, are these 3 hex invasions always a straight line or can factions choose the route to the invaded hex? Would Contagious assault give you 3 extra hexes or just the one?

>

 

[Ari Zanareth]

Yes

#Makewargreatagain

 

[Kalic Daws]

[member="Tefka"] , while the idea seems interesting, I would be cautious. There a lot of potential that this could, without some sorta backlash for losing, become something that’s mostly gain. What happens with this if there are multiple invasions, which could Bering the chance of completely wiping out a faction? And I know the “one invasion at a time” mandate exists, but I really don’t feel like that’s the best argument (Seriously, it comes up all the time) for not having something to balance this out. But ‘ey, without knowing how you’re planning on making Rebellions more impactful, it can be a bit tricky to judge. I just feel like this could get abused, and possibly kill some folks enjoyment of the site, if there’s not something more than one mandate to balance it out. I’ve seen some folks say balance isn’t important, unless I misunderstood in which case I’m sorry, but I disagree. Just my two cents.

 

[Garza]

Go for it.

Just because this is a game doesn't mean both sides get to have "incentive" for defending or attacking their hexes. The Map game has been mostly stagnate for the time. Only the ORC/TSE events, and the most recent Total War against the Mandalorians. This could potentially shake some foundations and get people to take some hexes, or even cloudbreak some people.

Considering the amount of cloud breaks are far and few between, mostly due to how easy it is to spam out Dominions to prevent said cloudbreak. This could give invasions more power and hold more stakes.

 

[LT-137]

One could say that the incentive for the defender is keeping three hexes rather than losing them?

 

[Ryan]

Just try and promote respectable communications between factions and their admin teams. It totally makes a difference, looking at the TSE invasion of Mandalore, i see nothing but creative fun. That needs to be replicated and those that have problems in that department should take notes. No matter what rule sets are in place, this should be number one objective. When you see multiple critique threads pop up and then passive aggressive blogs made in response is proof that communications had failed.

 

[Darth Bellum]

I enjoy the premise of this suggestion as it makes invasions significantly more rewarding and promotes less sitting around not doing anything because one or two invasions would never result in a cloudbreak so an attacker is not very motivated to invade in the first place. At least with the incentive that mutliple hexes can be taken (Enough to cause a cloudbreak) there is more potential that they will be used more frequently.

My only real suggestion to add to it is that the target of the invasion is given a month long immunity from invasions from the attacker. This gives the losing faction some time to recuperate and gain back lost territory, or they can choose to surrender that immunity and retaliate earlier. Sort of like a shield immunity you get in a mobile game where your base gets attacked and there is a temporary shield that prevents you from getting attacked and raided for resources till you're bone dry. ICly this would result in some sense as you can simply say over that month of immunity was the amount of time it took for the attackers to gain those three hexes.

I do think that the defending side should get some sort of advantage in the future after having been invaded/cloudbroken. Perhaps some sort of 'second wind' mechanic where they can just gain a varying number of hexes for free proportional to the amount they lost - Getting one free hex for every three lost. Just a thought to not completely shatter a faction's morale at the loss of a large amount of territory. Or perhaps some sort of advantage if they invade back; I'm sure the community could possibly come up with a few ideas.

In the end, people will make an argument over it being too favorable for larger factions or the toxicity behind invasions going up, but people have to realize that if your Major faction is unable to stand up and put up a fight against a larger faction, especially when there are so many veteran players on the map, then perhaps you are not cut out for being a Major faction. I personally don't care what does or does not happen, as long as a good story comes of it then why complain or be angry about it? In the end it all results in character development anyway and forces more interfaction interaction.

Overall, good idea Tef. Would love to see the map game shaken up a bit more and maybe a bit more bells and whistles added to it later down the road.

[member="Tefka"]

 

[Ellie Mors]

Judgments for invasions are already heavily biased towards the defending faction.

A draw is a "win" for the defending faction, as they lose nothing, which means the invading faction needs to completely "win" to do anything. Anything short of a total victory means the defending faction defaults and keeps the hex(es). This is compounded on the fact that a faction needs to "win" the majority of the criteria used for judging an invasion, meaning that not only does a faction need to be an obvious victor in a category they also need to be the obvious victor in the majority of those categories.

This is certainly the perfect way to counterbalance it. I absolutely see zero issue aside from people disliking the idea of losing three hexes.

In a much less knee-jerky reaction, perhaps the best "limiter" for such an addition is simply stating that any faction invading for a multiple-hex gain can only declare that invasion for the month. Then a faction both cannot out-dominion the 3 hexes lost, nor can the invading faction do the (more than likely impossible) incredible task of invading a faction several times in a short span.

with this invasions become low risk, high reward

I more or less carried an invasion on my back (Charros IV) with the minimum required unique writers and just barely the minimum required posts and still emerged the victor, if that isn't low risk, high reward, I don't know what is.

 

[Valdus Bral]

[member="Tefka"] Previously you mentioned that Schisms would breed toxicity between major factions, though it's a great story mechanism. Here you say that it doesn't matter that it would create additional toxicity between major factions. How do you reconcile this? Schisms have an IC component, this is purely OOC mechanics, both breed toxicity in some fashion. With the addition of contagious assault I can't see this being anything other than a quick way to destroy months of work in 2 weeks. I know you mentioned that people can out dominion invasions, but that's hardly sustainable, writers get bored/burnt out of constant dominions just to try and get a net 0 territory loss/gain.

 

[Atlas Drake]

It helps when your faction doesn't commit drama suicide/hem and haw about even participating.

 

[Tefka]

[member="Tefka"] Previously you mentioned that Schisms would breed toxicity between major factions, though it's a great story mechanism. Here you say that it doesn't matter that it would create additional toxicity between major factions. How do you reconcile this? Schisms have an IC component, this is purely OOC mechanics, both breed toxicity in some fashion. With the addition of contagious assault I can't see this being anything other than a quick way to destroy months of work in 2 weeks. I know you mentioned that people can out dominion invasions, but that's hardly sustainable, writers get bored/burnt out of constant dominions just to try and get a net 0 territory loss/gain.

This is a solid, important question. I've been rather outspoken with both Staff and the Community that I do not mind the salt, I do not mind heated discussions or passion.

It shows that the writers are invested. I want that.

I stand by this. I do not agree that Schisms will be a positive improvement to our community.


I'll elaborate in detail:

Schisms have an IC component

This looks true on paper. The more experienced eye knows it's not.

Two things will happen here:

1. Half the community will contemplate seeding toons in other Major Factions to fulfill this requirement. This is an OOC move.

2. The other half of the community will turn their Major Factions private and begin regulating their members with a magnifying glass. This is an OOC move.



The proposed Schism ruleset breeds inherent distrust and paranoia. It doesn't raise the stakes, it alters the game and the relationships writers have with one another, and it doesn't do so at all positively.

Invasions are PvP. My team vs yours. Band together, fight the enemy.

Schisms aren't rebellions, they're infiltration. Great for loners looking to cause problems, bad for team-based environments.

Chaos's intent is to bring people together to write stories. ​

​

If you lose an Invasion, even if you lose your Major Faction, you still have your community to write with. ​

​

Schisms lays the groundwork to tear that community apart.​

​

​

If they would ever even happen. 10 people? That's nuts in this environment. Might as well just leave your faction and start a new one.​

 

[Valdus Bral]

[member="Tefka"] Perhaps my optimism in the community is misplaced - it is possible that a group of people can make use of Schisms for a great story. However, that then brings up the point that one does not need a Schism OOC mechanic in order to engage in a mutually agreed upon faction story. I like Schisms, they're realistic, and they naturally grow in probability as a faction grows in size - this is also true to life. As you mention and as I mentioned in the thread addressing schisms, 10 unique writers is a massive amount of people to rally to your cause to shake things up and as such is unlikely to occur.

Schisms aside, I still do not agree that this will create a healthier balance on the map. Right now there is a lot of incentive and rewards for people to invade another, which is fine in one sense as we're in Star Wars , but that also greatly reduces the chance for major factions that are not militarily based to exist. Those faction concepts/archetypes that are instead based on more on mercantile strategies, such as a huge conglomerate of companies or an ultra-powerful banking major, would not be able to use Dominions to increase their influence cloud once invasions outstrip dominions. I don't have the answer to this issue, but I also do not believe there needs to be yet more reward and incentives for declaring an invasion especially when there is no drawback to declaring an invasion and losing. Both factions need to spend time and effort setting up, not just the invaders, and only the defenders have something to lose. Where as in real warfare if you lose an incursion you've lost a lot of military resources, the confidence of your politicians/citizens/military, etc. Maybe there should be a cooldown if someone loses an invasion to represent the blowback from a failed campaign?

 

[Tefka]

[member="Valdus Bral"]

1. Cooldowns have been proposed. I hate it. Talk about a huge waste of time.

2. If you're a Major Faction and you can't/won't defend yourself, nature will eventually take it's course. If you don't want to fight, make deals.

3. I don't feel like #1 was enough, I just wanted to reiterate how much I hate cooldowns again. Giving me the "but my IC immersion" in one breath while proposing an OOC cooldown in the other. I'm the hypocritical one, guys. Don't try to take the crown.

4. I hate the idea of cooldowns. You just made some people on Staff pretty happy though.

 

[Valdus Bral]

[member="Tefka"]

Firstly, I'm not calling you a hypocrite so I would appreciate if you would afford me the same. My previous question on clarification in my first post was due to a what I saw as an inconsistency on how things are shotdown or suggested and I wanted to know what type of salt/drama is acceptable, which you answered. I said that purely OOC mechanics, such as gaining more hexes for no reason other to gain more hexes, is devoid of IC reasoning and solely based on OOC mechanics. Those mechanics would further slant what I see as an already large imbalance towards the invading side in an invasion. Agree or disagree, my belief is that many of the mechanics should reflect IC rationality and I've stayed true to that in my suggestion. I'm not about "but my IC immersion" only, it's dishonest to assert otherwise.