Mandalorian Legend
Monthly/Bi-Monthly UC bonus for a Major Faction balance based on the number of hexes controlled (I’ll flesh this out more when I get around to doing my Map Sectors big suggestion).
Star Wars Roleplay: Chaos
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Suggestion Major Faction Income
- Thread starter The Quartermaster
- Start date
- Status
Living In Color
We gonna risk this board and give out bonuses for controlling specific sectors?
I can dig it.
I can dig it.
Imperial Arbiter of the Outer Rim
An interesting prospect would be to classify worlds according to their supposed wealth, development or income to create more interesting targets for the factions, making some worlds more disputed than others. One way to do so would be to use the gradation one must use to classify a world's wealth in the Codex.
That being said, such a reform would be a way for the map game to have more impact on the board proper, and I don't know if everyone wants that.
That being said, such a reform would be a way for the map game to have more impact on the board proper, and I don't know if everyone wants that.
Velok Brokentusk
A simple fortuneteller
Coruscant burns again in three, two, one...
Knuckles
Not a bad idea overall, but I can see it requiring a lot of work so I have no clue if anyone will have the reasoning to do it.
Velok Brokentusk
A simple fortuneteller
What you need is this but with hexes having underworld ratings/bonuses. Control Tatooine or Ord Mantell or Nar Shaddaa, +X to your UCs.
The Admiralty
More Stellaris in the map game, yes please.
Additional points:
Additional points:
- Tie it into the invasion system
- If you are in the middle of an invasion, you stop generating UCs, but if you win you get a boost of looted UCs
- Maybe if you lose you actually get a minor boost in your generation (less than if you had won, but still a slight edge) as your government pours currency into the economy to stabilize its territory after losing a hex
The White Vornskr
It would really push the map game from a narrative/story-telling point to a strategic point. One has to consider if that is wanted or not.
The next step, if implementing, would obviously be costs for military and hard numbers. Money/resources always need something to be spent on, so that would go into a spiral of making a story driven map game, a strategic map game a la Stellaris.
I would be down for it, but it is a super-hard change from what is going on right now as far as I can judge it.
The next step, if implementing, would obviously be costs for military and hard numbers. Money/resources always need something to be spent on, so that would go into a spiral of making a story driven map game, a strategic map game a la Stellaris.
I would be down for it, but it is a super-hard change from what is going on right now as far as I can judge it.
Velok Brokentusk
A simple fortuneteller
(Can that include more........aliens?)
Well-Known Member
Combine this with having bonus UCs for worlds that fall on Hyperlanes to simulate the greater amount of trade they would reasonably be getting, and I think this would be cool as hell
What Major Factions are going to do with all of this UC is going to be interesting, though.
Jedi Knight
A cool concept and idea to make territories more than hexagons on a Galaxy Map. However, this would be essentially replicating Eve Online in a Web Forum requiring lots of investment from Faction Leaders, and perhaps, specialist knowledge (Accounting and Book Keeping). While I have said background, the concept would make the forums much less attractive to me as I don't come here to work.
If it was merely for guidance, then I can see a benefit and some interesting activities (see the edit).
With my perspective out of the way some observations;
It would also require a solid foundation in terms of valuing ships chassis and individual modules/components to accurately price void craft, which would hamper a lot of the creative ideas out there as they would need to price their submissions up (and update existing ones). You may also find factions begin chasing 'metas' rather than roleplay to remain competitive.
For example, you would expect every week a Flashpoint or Invasion of Core territories and those surrounding Hyperlanes. That being said, I can see a counter-argument that such things would encourage minor factions to do more exploratory missions to find new hyperlanes.
Edit:
I feel I'm being too dismissive of your idea and wanted to make a suggestion, a compromise of sorts that came to me after posting my response.
Rather than have 'income' generated from territory why not assign them certain values, similar to Monopoly. Core Worlds, Trade Hubs, and resource-rich planets could have the highest values, making them desirable for factions. Meanwhile, players who are interested in pursuing a more competitive roleplay can work to build their factions worth. This could be a general indication of the military and resources they could field in warfare, but not be a metric that restricts them entirely.
You could create leaderboards, and some factions may engage in diplomacy to weaken or sabotage their stronger rivals.
If it was merely for guidance, then I can see a benefit and some interesting activities (see the edit).
With my perspective out of the way some observations;
It would also require a solid foundation in terms of valuing ships chassis and individual modules/components to accurately price void craft, which would hamper a lot of the creative ideas out there as they would need to price their submissions up (and update existing ones). You may also find factions begin chasing 'metas' rather than roleplay to remain competitive.
For example, you would expect every week a Flashpoint or Invasion of Core territories and those surrounding Hyperlanes. That being said, I can see a counter-argument that such things would encourage minor factions to do more exploratory missions to find new hyperlanes.
Edit:
I feel I'm being too dismissive of your idea and wanted to make a suggestion, a compromise of sorts that came to me after posting my response.
Rather than have 'income' generated from territory why not assign them certain values, similar to Monopoly. Core Worlds, Trade Hubs, and resource-rich planets could have the highest values, making them desirable for factions. Meanwhile, players who are interested in pursuing a more competitive roleplay can work to build their factions worth. This could be a general indication of the military and resources they could field in warfare, but not be a metric that restricts them entirely.
You could create leaderboards, and some factions may engage in diplomacy to weaken or sabotage their stronger rivals.
Last edited:
Aculia Voland
Protecting her children from the shadows.
Don't mean to necro the thread, but having done a lot of fleet and even major faction leadership other SW sites/communities that put in a real economic/production system, I can definitely see the benefits and drawbacks to such a system. Guess it could be nice to hear some thoughts about it from
Tefka
.
Pros:
- It could limit the scale of fleet engagements to something more akin to what we see in the movies, cartoons, and the old EU as opposed to almost a Warhammer 40k/JJ Abrams tier system where major factions can replace most losses relatively easily as fluff. Lots more users of cruisers and smaller ships for most engagements and sectors, Star Destroyers being used in large numbers typically only for major invasions or heavily defended worlds, and Super Star Destroyer deployment being very noteworthy in life or death kinds of battles. I personally found this very fulfilling when I was on an older site that did something like this, I worked my way up from an ensign commanding a few small patrol boats to a fleet admiral, I still remember jumping with joy when I got my first outdated Star Destroyer as a Junior Captain in the Imperial Navy, it felt like a major accomplishment and I went to go name and be careful with every ship under my command. An individual has more room to be impactful the smaller the scale is.
-The same principle applies to armies and groups of Force Users, if your character ends up killing a few Jedi Masters in a kind of resource system sort of deal, that could become a major deal if they are relatively rare.
- In light of the above if implemented well with some kind of attrition system that applies the larger one's own empire becomes due to the cost of managing and defending a far flung empire on a budget we could see interesting alliances and strategic decisions come into play as one can't be everywhere at the same time. This could help one faction from "snowballing" too easily, while also allowing them to make a genuine attempt at galactic conquest if they are smart and play their cards right.
-Underworld Credits could become a very valuable resource that people spend wisely, albeit this would probably require a reset and an adjustment of payments and income at the moment.
-If implemented well, could streamline admin work when it comes to disputes et al.
-This would probably encourage a streamlining and centralization of technology across starships, vehicles, infantry, and other things especially when it comes to PVP sort of situations in order to ease misinterpretation or disputes when it comes to various technology being used in a context where losing a ship could actually really mean something, aka kind of like the Excel spreadsheets we have now. This could drastically reduce the amount of custom weapons systems et al factory judges would have to look over and evaluate (aka like some starships having like fifty billion different wookieepedia or custom weapon links sort of shoved into them right now) and add some kind of basically understood parity in the class, aka a starfighter that has heavy weapons=another starfighter that has heavy weapons, with technology being more of a kind of "how" rather than "why" one wins an engagement instead of a deciding factor/discouraging an endless tech arms race to squeeze in as many features as possible to gain a kind of edge.
Cons:
- Figuring out how to initially balance and implement this would be a logistical (and coding?) nightmare for the admins and would take months to do and tons of discussion. They would have to really rework a lot of technological things and figure out various balancing systems et al and it honestly just might come down to some kind of roll + modifier system when it comes to real PVP with real npc/ship/station assets based on the stats and class of your ship/army/vehicle whatever and the tactics you use in order to have some kind of objectivity. It would almost be like them creating an entire SW roleplaying game system from scratch and not get paid for their work.
-This would take away a lot of the freedom that some writers prefer in order to implement in a way that people would take seriously instead of having it just be fun money more or less. While some people might accept this easily in order to reduce the scale, simplify any possible PVP disputes, and make judging things a bit more objective and easier, others would feel like this is collaring them a bit. Kind of the old play by post vs DnD issue that popped up in the 70s over how one determines how one cool character vs another cool character fight when both writers have a real incentive to "win" since you are losing real assets and strategic locations rather than just a hex on a map that can be replaced relatively easily via PVE with a bit of writer engagement on an empty hex.
-In light of the above PVP could become more heated than it is unless the system is very well designed as people would have to come to an agreement on the "granularity" of a roll and what it means exactly.
Fyremage
and I can definitely attest to that taking some discussion in order to be fun for people. If I roll a 10 on my corvette escaping your star destroyer and you roll a 9, how far does my corvette get away from you exactly? If someone is an accomplished fleet admiral going up against a new commander what is an appropriate modifier to give them on rolls to account for their experience so we don't have silly things like a brand new starfighter pilot completely mogging an advanced veteran easily due to lucky rolls of the dice.
Tefka
.Pros:
- It could limit the scale of fleet engagements to something more akin to what we see in the movies, cartoons, and the old EU as opposed to almost a Warhammer 40k/JJ Abrams tier system where major factions can replace most losses relatively easily as fluff. Lots more users of cruisers and smaller ships for most engagements and sectors, Star Destroyers being used in large numbers typically only for major invasions or heavily defended worlds, and Super Star Destroyer deployment being very noteworthy in life or death kinds of battles. I personally found this very fulfilling when I was on an older site that did something like this, I worked my way up from an ensign commanding a few small patrol boats to a fleet admiral, I still remember jumping with joy when I got my first outdated Star Destroyer as a Junior Captain in the Imperial Navy, it felt like a major accomplishment and I went to go name and be careful with every ship under my command. An individual has more room to be impactful the smaller the scale is.
-The same principle applies to armies and groups of Force Users, if your character ends up killing a few Jedi Masters in a kind of resource system sort of deal, that could become a major deal if they are relatively rare.
- In light of the above if implemented well with some kind of attrition system that applies the larger one's own empire becomes due to the cost of managing and defending a far flung empire on a budget we could see interesting alliances and strategic decisions come into play as one can't be everywhere at the same time. This could help one faction from "snowballing" too easily, while also allowing them to make a genuine attempt at galactic conquest if they are smart and play their cards right.
-Underworld Credits could become a very valuable resource that people spend wisely, albeit this would probably require a reset and an adjustment of payments and income at the moment.
-If implemented well, could streamline admin work when it comes to disputes et al.
-This would probably encourage a streamlining and centralization of technology across starships, vehicles, infantry, and other things especially when it comes to PVP sort of situations in order to ease misinterpretation or disputes when it comes to various technology being used in a context where losing a ship could actually really mean something, aka kind of like the Excel spreadsheets we have now. This could drastically reduce the amount of custom weapons systems et al factory judges would have to look over and evaluate (aka like some starships having like fifty billion different wookieepedia or custom weapon links sort of shoved into them right now) and add some kind of basically understood parity in the class, aka a starfighter that has heavy weapons=another starfighter that has heavy weapons, with technology being more of a kind of "how" rather than "why" one wins an engagement instead of a deciding factor/discouraging an endless tech arms race to squeeze in as many features as possible to gain a kind of edge.
Cons:
- Figuring out how to initially balance and implement this would be a logistical (and coding?) nightmare for the admins and would take months to do and tons of discussion. They would have to really rework a lot of technological things and figure out various balancing systems et al and it honestly just might come down to some kind of roll + modifier system when it comes to real PVP with real npc/ship/station assets based on the stats and class of your ship/army/vehicle whatever and the tactics you use in order to have some kind of objectivity. It would almost be like them creating an entire SW roleplaying game system from scratch and not get paid for their work.
-This would take away a lot of the freedom that some writers prefer in order to implement in a way that people would take seriously instead of having it just be fun money more or less. While some people might accept this easily in order to reduce the scale, simplify any possible PVP disputes, and make judging things a bit more objective and easier, others would feel like this is collaring them a bit. Kind of the old play by post vs DnD issue that popped up in the 70s over how one determines how one cool character vs another cool character fight when both writers have a real incentive to "win" since you are losing real assets and strategic locations rather than just a hex on a map that can be replaced relatively easily via PVE with a bit of writer engagement on an empty hex.
-In light of the above PVP could become more heated than it is unless the system is very well designed as people would have to come to an agreement on the "granularity" of a roll and what it means exactly.
Fyremage
and I can definitely attest to that taking some discussion in order to be fun for people. If I roll a 10 on my corvette escaping your star destroyer and you roll a 9, how far does my corvette get away from you exactly? If someone is an accomplished fleet admiral going up against a new commander what is an appropriate modifier to give them on rolls to account for their experience so we don't have silly things like a brand new starfighter pilot completely mogging an advanced veteran easily due to lucky rolls of the dice.
Last edited:
Manda'lor the Rekindler
Can we just... not? The UC system is going fine as is, lets not make it the main thing on the board.
Tefka
L Admin
While my ability to stay quiet on most matters is non-existent, I do think we've somehow mistakenly made great choices with UC so far and I don't plan on screwing that up by saying HEY KIDS DO YOU WANNA SEE WHAT IT CAN REALLY DO.
People were screaming wipe the map, I pivoted hard with UC, we all seem to be enjoying it so let's just increase small and incrementally rather than rub our proverbial gorilla nuts all over everyone.
Last edited:
Tefka
L Admin
- Status