Removal of the "Terms" Rule

[Velok the Younger]

[member="Darth Shara"] - I fixed some wording with multiple interpretations there, that I think could have contributed to your qualms. New draft:

• When an Invasion begins, either the attacker or the defender may require a reasonable list of relevant victory objectives from the other side, to help define the scale and setting of the thread. However, other objectives or flashpoints may arise spontaneously, and must be considered equal with preset objectives in the final victory decision. This means that, since threads may proceed organically, neither party may use ongoing consultation to delay or pause an invasion.
• If orbital bombardment and other air strikes occur, they must be aimed at legitimate, and legitimately known, targets. Targeting specific individuals for air strikes, without IC cause and knowledge, is not permitted.

 

[Velok the Younger]

I feel that I could easily utilize this rule to simply "show up" with "plot convenience number of ships and have an unfair impact on the thread as compared to other writers and characters.

Then the other team does too, until both sides' leaders are like 'yeah, enough's enough.' It's self-regulating. I personally like fleet caps, but this isn't the end of the world for the fleet cap crew.

 

[Nyxie]

Then the other team does too, until both sides' leaders are like 'yeah, enough's enough.' It's self-regulating. I personally like fleet caps, but this isn't the end of the world for the fleet cap crew.

Hmm. This is the ultimatum. No matter what, it always works both ways so to speak.

 

[Tefka]

[member="Darth Shara"] - I fixed some wording with multiple interpretations there, that I think could have contributed to your qualms. New draft:

• When an Invasion begins, either the attacker or the defender may require a reasonable list of relevant victory objectives from the other side, to help define the scale and setting of the thread. However, other objectives or flashpoints may arise spontaneously, and must be considered equal with preset objectives in the final victory decision. This means that, since threads may proceed organically, neither party may use ongoing consultation to delay or pause an invasion.
• If orbital bombardment and other air strikes occur, they must be aimed at legitimate, and legitimately known, targets. Targeting specific individuals for air strikes, without IC cause and knowledge, is not permitted.

imokaywiththis.jpeg

 

[J3C0]

[member="Rave Merrill"] This wording suits me more, because as i stated i myself and many in my faction would prefer no objectives at all and it really does solve quite a few of my problems with the ruleset.

I would like more input from other people still however as i've heard some quite interesting arguments so far.

 

[Jsc]

It's not all just about the war

I agree that it doesn't have to be. But this is Tef's website and his Map. And that Map was created for War.

Ashe, there are a thousand ways to ignore that Map and still have fun. And that's okay. You can join this website and never PvP at all, and we would all still love you. But this is a discussion about a PvP rule on a website that PvP's. When the day comes that Tef deletes the map and we can all have 'Star Peace'? These discussions won't be needed anymore.

And that's probably the day we'll all realize how much we miss it.

 

[Captain Larraq]

Nothing in that rule states that anyone needs to agree on anything.

I attack.
Defender asks for objectives.
I say "kill, defeat, convert, or route at least 6 player characters"
Defender says "that's stupid. What about all the orbital defense stations, planetary shields, exc that would be on the planet? Beating up 6 characters doesn't sound like a real 'objective' to me.


The rule proposed above stops at that point. No further agreements or propositions or covered. Simply "did you ask for objectives?"

"Yes, they said to murder 6 people."

Well then, that's the objective and somehow now an entire invasion boils down to whether or not the attackers can beat up 6 people on an entire planet of people. And there isn't really jack that the defending player can do about it beyond "I'm spawning objectives! Loooool!"

"Screw your objectives, I just have to kill people."

 

[Dredge]

http://i.imgur.com/U7Hfw.gif

 

[Velok the Younger]

Nothing in that rule states that anyone needs to agree on anything.

I attack.
Defender asks for objectives.
I say "kill, defeat, convert, or route at least 6 player characters"
Defender says "that's stupid. What about all the orbital defense stations, planetary shields, exc that would be on the planet? Beating up 6 characters doesn't sound like a real 'objective' to me.


The rule proposed above stops at that point. No further agreements or propositions or covered. Simply "did you ask for objectives?"

"Yes, they said to murder 6 people."

Well then, that's the objective and somehow now an entire invasion boils down to whether or not the attackers can beat up 6 people on an entire planet of people. And there isn't really jack that the defending player can do about it beyond "I'm spawning objectives! Loooool!"

"Screw your objectives, I just have to kill people."

a ) That's the current de facto state of affairs.
b ) 'Screw your objectives' isn't possible because of the equality clause:

and must be considered equal with preset objectives in the final victory decision.

 

[Darth Metus]

Objectives make the battles realistic. Some people like fleeting, some people like commanding ground forces, and canon does list defenses on priority worlds. To make all of that background noise in favor of a half-dozen duels spits in the eye of what Star Wars warfare looks like. (In my opinion anyway). That said, up until the planning of the Carida invasion, this rule was a non-issue. Takes 20 seconds to sit down and talk with people; and if a consensus can be reached that's what the guys wearing the orange tags are for.

As a whole, I'm not a fan of what you're wanting here [member="Darth Shara"]. I'm fine with the ruling staying exactly as it is, because this invasion marks the first time "stalling" has ever been an accusation.

That said, if it becomes one of those "this rule is getting removed now, kkthanksbye" deals, then what [member="Rave Merrill"] has suggested, I can live with. Covers the bases.

*unpauses Watch Dogs*

 

[Ignatius]

What I would like to see is just simply an Invasion that takes place, where the theme is.

"kill all that you can." with eh defending of

"Stop them no matter the cost"

it would be so much better as those would be the objectives.

 

[Darth Metus]

[member="Supreme Overlord Dredge"]

Can't. Stop. The. Lols!

 

[J3C0]

[member="Isley Verd"] As i said earlier this is absolutely in no way a snipe at the leaders of the Republic. I'm not accusing them of stalling. I'm saying it COULD be used for that.

[member="Aden Dawson"] That was how Coruscant worked, and it was the biggest non-event RP thread ever and ran with nearly no problems at all.

 

[Captain Larraq]

I see way too many ways to abuse this rule and use it as a loophole to railroad other writers and characters. I think it will just lead to more headache and butthurt for both players and staff.

 

[Dredge]

[member="Isley Verd"]
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/94/06/67/940667e3ad1766f46a9dbb1bd82b868a.jpg

 

[Ignatius]

[member="Darth Shara"] I know, point being we need more of them. That was probably my favorite invasion thus far. It was simple and to the point. Kill.

 

[Velok the Younger]

[member="Captain Larraq"] - I want to keep the original rule, but I'd rather see a compromise than a repeal with nothing to take its place.

 

[Jsc]

[member="Supreme Overlord Dredge"] I'm am amazed at how many 6 weeks of LOA peace we are not getting from you right now.

*shoos Dredge out of the thread*

*keeps his Gifs*

 

[Jsc]

[member="Captain Larraq"] - I want to keep the original rule, but I'd rather see a compromise than a repeal with nothing to take its place.

Can somebody please tell me about this "Stalling Tactic" that appears so infamous now. I still haven't heard this explained. How does one circumvent an RPJ ruling over a disagreement. I swear that is the solution we are all searching for?

 

[Darth Metus]

[member="Darth Shara"]

I disagree. If a consensus cannot be reached, it's as simple as adding an RPJ to the PM. From there, it's not a "stall" it's "whenever the RPJ gets to it". And as is the case with the factory and everywhere else that staff judgments are involved, patience is required. The bottom line is, the second that an RPJ is added to the equation, a solution is all but guaranteed. The invasion will proceed the second a judgment is rendered and I sincerely doubt that any member of staff would willingly contribute to stalling. As such, removing a rule because of the so-called potential of stalling is ridiculous in my mind. It's a fair, decent rule that works to make invasions collaborative instead of butthurt festivals.