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!

 Prizes for Successful Invasion Defences?

Allow a Successful Invasion Defence to Claim/Nulify Hexes on the Attacker?


  • Total voters
    37
All, staff is currently working on updated mandates, and a question came up.

Successfully defending an invasion currently gets you nothing except not losing. But what if it did?

So our idea was either a mandate, or an update to the rules, which allowed a successful invasion defence to turn neutral - or claim if adjacent - the same number of hexes as the attacker tried to gain. Those retaliations would have to follow the same rules as normal.

Good idea for a mandate? Good idea for the main rules? Why not both? If both then the base version would be limited to 1 hex whilst the mandate version would be stronger.

Or just a bad ideas altogether? Let us know.

Even if the vote is yes it may or may not happen. But if the vote is majority no, it definitely won't.
 
What problem does this solve beyond making defeat more punitive?
It makes going on a series of attacks and wearing an enemy down with no risk to yourself is no longer a strategy. It also makes a besieged faction able to fight back without being on the offensive.

Currently an attacker loses nothing but time on a defeat, but a defender is winning a draw. This way, the defender gets some teeth.
 
It makes going on a series of attacks and wearing an enemy down with no risk to yourself is no longer a strategy. It also makes a besieged faction able to fight back without being on the offensive.

Currently an attacker loses nothing but time on a defeat, but a defender is winning a draw. This way, the defender gets some teeth.
I think time and the increased risk of burnout that can coming with losing an invasion is “punishment” enough for an attacking faction that loses an invasion, but that said…

Maybe an invasion cooldown instead?

Maybe a defender that wins an invasions earns a 30 day cooldown period during which the attacking faction (who lost the invasion) cannot attack the defender. This could be part of the standard invasion rule set. However, the defender surrenders this cooldown if they decide to attack the defeated attacker within the 30 day period.

A mandate to enhance this could be one that allows a defender who wins an invasion to extend that cooldown period to 60 days. That same mandate (or maybe a separate mandate) would allow the defender to attack the defeated attacker within the cooldown period without surrendering the benefit of the cooldown. So essentially by losing an invasion against a defender with this mandate equipped, defeat can carry consequences for the attacker, by potentially exposing them to an offensive which they can’t immediately counterattack against.
 
ꜰᴏᴜɴᴅʟɪɴɢ ᴏꜰ ʜᴏᴜsᴇ ᴠᴇʀᴅ
I voted for both.

Some possible ideas for the mandate:

- Hold Fast, Strike Back: Successful defence grants 1 normal retaliation hex, plus 1 additional hex for every X objectives/conditions the defender won during the invasion (supports a defensive reward scale).

- Border Reprisal: Instead of taking neutral space, the defender may neutralise one enemy-controlled hex adjacent to the invasion front.

- Hold the Line: A successful defence allows the faction to claim 1 adjacent neutral hex, and then designate 1 adjacent faction hex as protected from being targeted in the faction’s next invasion cycle.

- The Best Defence: If the defender wins, they may immediately launch a retaliatory invasion against an adjacent attacker-held hex without the usual waiting period (though the actual invasion still follows all normal rules).

- Punitive Expedition: After a successful defence, the defender may choose between claiming 1 adjacent neutral hex or neutralising 1 adjacent enemy hex.
 
It makes going on a series of attacks and wearing an enemy down with no risk to yourself is no longer a strategy. It also makes a besieged faction able to fight back without being on the offensive.

Currently an attacker loses nothing but time on a defeat, but a defender is winning a draw. This way, the defender gets some teeth.

Would this mechanic target the first invasion an attacker launches also?

Invasions are already scarce. They take a toll on both factions. An added threat of punishment makes launching an invasion even more unappealing.

If the aim is to target repeated invasions, its current proposed shape misses the mark and goes too far.
 

Kitter Bitters

Creator of the Bitterverse
I will admit that I still don't know a ton about invasions, so please take my perspective with a grain of salt.

From what I've seen this year, surprise attacks don't really seem to be an option anymore without stirring up drama. As a result, invasions have to be carefully planned and coordinated in advance, which I imagine places a considerable burden on the staff of every faction involved.

I can understand the appeal of offering some kind of reward for all that time and effort, but I worry about the larger impact this could have on the board. There already seems to be a growing sense of defeat and hopelessness among smaller factions, especially when it comes to challenging the larger, more established powers. We have reached a point where some factions seem almost untouchable, and I think that perception is already discouraging people from trying.

My concern is that rewarding these powerful factions simply for participating, regardless of the outcome, could make that imbalance feel even more insurmountable. If the biggest factions continue to gain rewards and advantages just for showing up, what incentive is there for the underdogs to keep fighting?

I worry that instead of encouraging more invasions and conflict, we could unintentionally reinforce the idea that the powerful factions will always remain powerful, while everyone else is fighting a losing battle. Eventually, people may decide there is no point in trying at all, and I think that would be a real shame for the board as a whole.
 
I will admit that I still don't know a ton about invasions, so please take my perspective with a grain of salt.

From what I've seen this year, surprise attacks don't really seem to be an option anymore without stirring up drama. As a result, invasions have to be carefully planned and coordinated in advance, which I imagine places a considerable burden on the staff of every faction involved.

I can understand the appeal of offering some kind of reward for all that time and effort, but I worry about the larger impact this could have on the board. There already seems to be a growing sense of defeat and hopelessness among smaller factions, especially when it comes to challenging the larger, more established powers. We have reached a point where some factions seem almost untouchable, and I think that perception is already discouraging people from trying.

My concern is that rewarding these powerful factions simply for participating, regardless of the outcome, could make that imbalance feel even more insurmountable. If the biggest factions continue to gain rewards and advantages just for showing up, what incentive is there for the underdogs to keep fighting?

I worry that instead of encouraging more invasions and conflict, we could unintentionally reinforce the idea that the powerful factions will always remain powerful, while everyone else is fighting a losing battle. Eventually, people may decide there is no point in trying at all, and I think that would be a real shame for the board as a whole.

Surprise invasions can still be a thing. You can still announce a surprise invasion while collaborating afterward on a proper timeframe that works for both sides, along with a narrative that gives everyone something meaningful to work with.

Planning and coordinating is ideal because it allows both parties to be aligned and have it be set up where both factions can try and figure out how to maximize its participants. That, and build up a story that make sense that leads to an invasion for both factions as a whole. Honestly, its one of those things: It's a "burden" if you make it a burden. Huge shout out to the MF staff and site staff for taking the time and being patient with each other to make these invasions work for both sides, while respecting other writers in the factions time so they can attend to these invasions.

It is pointed out multiple times here already that writer burnout is a thing. Surprise invasions don't really help and chain invasions are a thing that can be tiresome. It can start to feel like a burden when you're trying to collaborate and make things work in a way that makes sense for both sides, but things just aren't coming together. At the end of the day it is about respect. Respect for other people OOC/ICly, their time, and story as a whole.

Keep in mind, these larger factions you speak of didn't start off as "large". They were once the "little guys" as well. In the grand scheme of things, it is finding and building the community you want to build up. From my understanding the board is like seasons. There had been times where the Jedi were the forefront and there were hardly any Sith, there was a time when NFU's were huge, and I heard that there was even a time that even droids/AI were a big thing on the board as well. For people who mainly RP within certain factions or character types, I guess it can be frustrating when their preferred style of writing isn't what's currently popular or considered the "trend." To me, it's exciting to see what might come from a rebirth of the different types of factions and what kinds of stories people will create with them. That's how these smaller factions grow to become "bigger factions".

For the "larger winning" factions, there are only limited SSD slots. So if that is filled that is filled and the only thing they are receiving is territory, along with whatever mandate they have selected. So there is a "max limit" to the "powerful factions". If it is writers burn out you're trying to say, then yes. I can see how it can be viewed as writer burnout. Especially if the MF that are going into each invasion have that constant mindset of they're going to 1000% win and surprise surprised, they lose to the defending MF and lose territory. There is no 100% guarantee, it can be anyone's game. I can see how that can stir up negative feelings and make other factions that want to go on the offense be more hesitant if they were to be penalized for wanting to initiate. To me, it makes more sense for it to be a mandate with the added cool down effect that was mentioned above.

But, if this leans more towards having both. Perhaps for the winning defending side, they get a chance to build something similar like an SSD? but have it be half a point system compared to the full point the invader would get if they were to win?
 
Last edited:
I voted Yes for Mandates, because I don't see any added value in imposing significant territorial loss for a lost invasion without an offsetting balance as would typically exist in a mandate. Not to dredge up old issues, and definitely not expecting to re-open it, but the notion that you can do something that is heavily encouraged by the way our board is set up (invasions) and be penalized for being unsuccessful (losing) while the invasion judging system exists the way it does.

If the concern is chain invading, then that seems like a good rule to make, provided the rule is easily understood and universally applicable. Something like, for example, a faction's loss of a third consecutive invasion (to be understood as the third lost invasion in a row of the same faction, without counter-invasion from that faction) will result in a loss of the same number of hexes sought in the invasion, blah blah blah as described above.

In any event the rule should be clear (i.e. not require an on-the-fly interpretation when it is first applied) and universally applicable (not able to be negotiated around or otherwise circumvented).
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom