Major Faction "Decline"

[Ares]

Something I've observed in my short time here is that when a faction drops from Major (due to activity or otherwise), they essentially just give up months or years worth of progress they've made in the form of dominions and invasions, all at once. Or at least, within the span of about a month. And there isn't really much of an opportunity for a faction to salvage that aside from just having to avoid going to minor. I know there's the faction recall rules but I've noticed that there's an unstated "rule" where having this done to your faction ends up looking really bad and might ruin the reputation of the faction in the future. Or at least, more so than just declaring that the faction is not active enough yourself.

Sometimes activity for specific factions can temporarily wane while others prosper. Maybe certain faction leaders momentarily don't have enough muse for interesting stories, or a grind starts to develop. Or some IRL reason or a combination of IRL and/or on-site reasons can force a faction to go minor for a bit. It's not unreasonable to hold major factions accountable for activity and such, but at the same time I feel like going minor could probably be a lot less devastating. It really seems like the prospect of having to go minor or undergo a recall really stresses some people out.

Speaking in IC terms, Empires don't often collapse quickly, not unless there was a specific event or rapid sequence of events that were considerably cataclysmic. Generally speaking there are a lot of resources and systems in the background that prevent things from falling part quickly. For example, I wouldn't really say that the Roman Empire's decline was instantaneous. Anyone who studies knows that it was chipped away and gradually broken down over time. It had some periods where things got better and could have even possibly recovered given the right circumstances (That certainly sounds like a great opportunity for some PCs to save the day too).

What I'm proposing is adding a sort of territorial "decline" mechanic:

• If a major faction reverts to minor faction status for any reason, their former map territories are given a special "decline" status for a year.* After which they become neutral territories. The faction can regain these territories if they become a major faction again[SIZE=11pt]—[/SIZE]given they are not taken by other factions or made neutral first.
• At least one month must pass before the faction can apply to become major again.*
• A decline hex can be claimed by another major faction through a dominion, just as a neutral hex.
• A minor faction could "rebel" in a decline hex like with normal rebellions, except these rebellions follow dominion rules*. If they succeed, they can make the hex neutral or take the hex and become a major faction.
• Territories undergoing a dominion or rebellion when the faction becomes major again are not reclaimed unless the attacking factions fail the dominion/rebellion.

*So obviously the details of this doesn't have to be exactly as it is. I'd imagine the year-long status could be adjusted, so long as it's at least a couple of months to allow the faction a chance to recompose itself. Same with the mandatory one month time limit, give some time for other factions to make use of the "decline" status and so the staff isn't immediately spammed with a request to go major again. I figure this could also be a good opportunity for minors to cause a rebellion while treating it kind of like a dominion, since there's no active major faction that would provide a defense against it.

The main point of this suggestion is to give major factions a second chance after going minor, so that if they do so, it isn't as devastating as losing everything. At the same time, however, it still allows others to continue the map game without being impeded by an inactive major faction. I could see this being compared to the recall rules, and maybe those just work, but I think maybe just having something that can apply to both when a major faction undergoes recall and when it just voluntarily decides to go minor could maybe make the administration of major factions a little less stressful.

 

[Malok]

I love the spirit of where you're coming from with this idea. And in a perfect world, factions wouldn't die or decline or fade over time. But the nature of the Chaos map is dynamic - all factions have their peaks and all factions have their fall. None last forever.

There are a couple reasons why I'm opposed to this idea, but first I just want to share some context on how major faction "decline" currently works on the board.

Every two (ish) months, site staff calls an activity check for the major factions. We gather our threads written between now and the last check and provide it to the admins. Those factions that are lacking in activity are then given a recall warning and two weeks of time to ramp up activity. If they succeed, they get to maintain their major faction status. If they fail, they are reduced to a minor faction.


With that said, there are three reasons why I am opposed to a decline mechanic being implemented for major factions.

1. Overcrowding. In the event that territory becomes locked or artificially held due to the collapse of a major faction, the map will very quickly clutter. I am reminded of 2015 when the map was so so crowded that a reset occurred via site event. Rather than subject the board to such a dramatic change to the map again, things have become more dynamic via revamped invasions and stricter recall policies. Should territory be held for the chance that a faction can rise anew, we'll be back to 2015's map in short order.

2. Revival. On that map from 2015, you'll notice a red blob in the southern part of the map. The Abrion faction. A few months prior, it went by another name - The Confederacy of Independent Systems. If that sounds familiar in the context of Chaos - it should, as it was started in 2014 by yours truly and revived in 2017 by yours truly as well. Factions can get back on their feet, write well, and expand anew if they put in the effort. Yes, there's a degree of luck associated with factions and I'm not every faction owner - but each faction has the same opportunity to rise from the ashes and dominate if they rally their community and put in the effort.

3. Leadership. Factions are communities, at the end of the day, and require strong leadership to survive the stresses and challenges of the game. All factions decline and go through slow seasons. Life happens. But these realities aside, it does fall upon faction leadership to lead. Failing to successfully lead is a learning experience - one that I've taken on the nose personally. And it's an opportunity to learn from one's past shortcomings to try and do better for the future. By holding territory, we aren't really giving factions or leaders a chance to experience that growth opportunity. We aren't allowing leaders to learn how to lead. Essentially, we are removing the consequence of failure by putting training wheels on the major faction experience.

Is leading a major faction hard? Abso-karking-lutely. But I don't believe this is the way forward due to the above reasons. I really do respect where you're coming from and I know it's hard as hell to watch a community you've invested in decline. But, trust me when I say, it is possible to rally and to prevent recall. I've seen my peers do it many times being a faction owner. And I've seen similar faces rise from the ashes and make new, better factions that endure even longer.

[member="Ares"]

 

[Grrwunhoooll Agaburry]

Im having the worse case of deja vu midst reading your suggestion [member="Ares"]

Are you suggesting a grace period of sorts?

 

[Tathra Khaeus]

I think, counter to some othere in this thread that the worst thing a Faction can do is go on forever. But screw narrative, right?

The map game is a rough beasty. I like the spirit of what you're going for but I'm not sure about the exact details.

 

[Tefka]

Man, I love it when I can give "Best Answer" to a non-Staff member for writing an evidence-based summary of events and a respectful, neutral answer.

As always, Ares, we'll look into it. I don't think we're looking, at this time, to change up the process. I believe the Admins and I are very happy with the recall process, how often it occurs, and how honest it keeps everyone.

That 2015 map Metus posted is an accurate depiction of what was happening map-wise, but it was a very poor reflection of Major Faction activity.

 

[Gilamar Skirata]

I personally love how crowded the old map was. I think at this time it would force a lot of the "we must do dominions!!" mind set out and make factions look in on themselves and create better stories rather than

"Pirate raid #237" or "Beach day?! Just kidding its a raid!" etc etc that we get all the time.

 

[Tefka]

[member="Gilamar Skirata"]

I would love a crowded map too, and it's very possible now. Everyone just has to be active, and a large majority needs to contribute.

Again, that map had huge clouds that was being sustained by like, 3 people. In those days, dominions were being pushed through by 1-2 super active people. Rules began cranking out that prevented that.