The big invasion poll

[Raziel]

So, lots of questions here. Have a look through and pick your answers and discuss.

Tag me if you want to add questions or tweak existing ones!

If you haven't already seen my blog, I've made my views clear that I think the membership of both sides should be getting together to work out objectives before an invasion:

http://starwarsrp.net/blog/468/entry-1348-byoo-invasion/

So different objectives should only be in place if there are members on both sides who want to take part. If there's a disconnect, maybe some PvE!

 

[Sage Bane]

[member="Raziel"]

Nice poll! Just a suggestion:

For this question: "What's your preferred size for fleet battles?"

Could you add an entry for "Not sure?" or something like that? As I'm not a fleeter, I wouldn't know how to answer that one. Same for those who don't do NPC ground battles.

 

[Raziel]

If you're not sure, don't answer it! [member="Sage Bane"]

I've added another option

 

[Arage Bao]

[member="Raziel"]

We can't actually. If we leave a question opens it tells us we gotta answer all of 'em.

 

[Kay-Larr]

[member="Raziel"]

What's PvE? Player versus everyone?

 

[Raziel]

[member="Samael Rekali"]

I shall update

 

[Gabriel Sionoma]

[member="Lady Kay"]

Player versus Environment

 

[Corey's OOC]

I like player versus everyone.

 

[Sempra the Hutt]

[member="Raziel"]

Seems each account can vote... may make things messy.

 

[Seraphina Shel'tah]

[member="Raziel"] -

None of your options allow me to express myself as to how I see invasions properly so I will have to do this on my own...

 

[Kei Amadis]

[member="Raziel"]

Interesting Poll
Other: Invasions judged on flow of story, objective result and more importantly how much the writers gave each other to work with. (Which impacts the flow).

Someone getting beat down in combat, but doing so in a believable way that gives a lot to the other writer to work with, is (personal opinion) a mark of a great writer.
Someone reacts, and picks up on all you put on your post (which is difficult in a big invasion) shows they were really taking the time to read what you wrote, and react. - Next to impossible with many writers all working together, but a valued quality when you see it in another, I miss things in doms all the time (sorry [member="Seraphina Shel'tah"] about the elevator!)

So generally I like 2 or 3 person threads, or in the case of larger threads, 2 or 3 person individual battles - NPCs or not doesn't matter. NPCS are good for NFU's I wouldn't bring an NFU to a FvF battle without NPC backup or alternatively significant tech advantage, just to level the playing field.

 

[Raziel]

[member="Sempra the Hutt"]

See site rule 7.

If you see anyone in violation of this rule, you know what to do!

 

[Six-O]

While PVP should be huge, cohesion of story and attack should always be a main point of criteria in what makes an Invasion a win. For instance if your objective is to take out randomly convenient comm tower A, but instead you partake in a few duels. Winning we'll say 3 of 5. You never actually accomplished anything. You killed or maimed 3 people of possibly hundreds or thousands.However if you claim 3 of 5 duels, sabotage objective A, fight to a stalemate on B, and lose at C those duels should definitely sway the odds to your favor, right?

 

[Sinistra]

I voted on my Mal account but Sin was at Contruum so here are my thoughts.

I like ground battles, I like objectives, and I like duels.

However, there is a problem.

Break up your threads. Give the fleeters/NPC people a break. A mass of PvP duels will have more posts than the NPC stuff. I don't want to sift through 20 pages of your stuff to find the three posts I need.

I do not agree that invasions should ever be decided by PVP victory counts. I like everything is an objective. The only time a duel should count is if one leader defeats/kills the other leader. That might signal a retreat. But it should be bonus points and not a deciding factor.

People who don't like NPC ground warfare or fleets should not be designing the objective for those of us who do. If one side wants NPC ground fights, then you need to let your generals plan it out with their generals. It encourages the NPC people to work together ahead of time to decide on terrain, LZ, troop limits, load-outs and objectives. If you think as an FA that NPC is a waste of time, then do the people who like it a favor and either don't put it in or let us make the danged thing as part of the negotiations. If you are going to be unrelenting that FA's have to be the ones negotiating, watch the negotiations unfold and monitor us, but let us figure out stuff out. I'm not going to tell you how to duel, trust me to know what I need and want from an NPC objective.

And speaking of FA's talking to the rest of the faction, yes. YES.

I am new here but I am not new to planning an all out site wide war with battles, skirmishes and invasions. I was an FA for years prior to being on Chaos. Always, always, always talk to your faction and make sure your members are on board and that they agree with the battles. Get their ideas and input. These are the people who are fighting the thing for you. Make sure your opposing faction members are also on board.

There should never be more than 4 people in a fight. 2 v 2 is just about all anyone can process. I had 9 opponents in total on Objective C on Contruum. 9. That's just ridiculous. A massive free for all does not benefit anyone. If more than 4 people want to engage, break it up. Be fluid. There are five people on the Objective? Great, that's a 1 v 1 and a 2 V 1. If someone drops, you can maneuver into position to engage in a 2 v 2. If there are more than that, work it out.

Sign ups and cutoffs are your friend. Dogpiling on an objective is not helpful. You make allies sign up and put in an alt limit, fine. Make your faction sign up so you know numbers. Have a cap. Hold them to it. If someone signs up but bails, stick in an alternate. Halfway through the battle, if you have had people drop, put in people from the alternates who didn't make the initial sign up list. IC it gets spun like the sides are calling for reinforcements.

I tend to think things are a little better when objectives start neutral. Say Balmorra. Yes they might be OS territory, but they govern themselves and have their own armies. Any faction garrisons would be silly to assault as control of the planet rests with the people who live on it. So make everything neutral, and make both sides go for control of certain points.

Yeah, yeah I know. Capture the flag. I don't see a problem with capture the flag type objectives because both sides start on equal footing. Duel victories mean squat in warfare if you can't control the land.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

Aha, an Invasion poll I didn't create!

Yes, give fleeters and NPC battles one separate thread. One of the most difficult things is having several tabs open at once so you can look at all the previous fleeting posts.

 

[Raziel]

Quite stark already is that people want to keep fleet and ground battles small, don't think they get enough of a say in invasion setups and want a PvE element.

 

[Nyxie]

All of my votes were in the majority, lol.

I picked 2v2 for Fleet Battles but only because anything above that generally mucks up coordination and because fleeting is such a wide-scale operation, things get confusing and over-complicated. If there was a greater patience and understanding for it, I'd probably say the sky's the limit.

As for this: "What's your favourite way of determining victory?"
(picked Other for this one)I say All of the Above. Invasions shouldn't be limited in the possibilities they present for writers of all backgrounds or/and preferences.

 

[Darth Kentarch]

Perhaps we need to ask ourselves, what actually is a 'win' and how we should determine it. We can shuffle rules around and split things into separate threads to make invasions more organized. But the thing is at the end of the day, Winning is Winning and there is no changing that.

 

[Jsc]

Perhaps we need to ask ourselves, what actually is a 'win' and how we should determine it. We can shuffle rules around and split things into separate threads to make invasions more organized. But the thing is at the end of the day, Winning is Winning and there is no changing that.

Grab an non-participating third party and let them read the thread and determine that according to their own preferences. They call the Invasion and don't have to release their criteria. Easy as pie. We even have RPJs specifically selected to make such decisions. Amazing! It's like we've done this before.

But I'll bite.

If we as a community specific how to "Win". Then the entire Map Game will shift to accomplish that in excess. In fact. The Factory will be subbed to achieve it. Characters will be created to achieve it. Factions will be created to achieve it. Training will be practiced to achieve it. Writers will shift their time to accomplish it. And blogs will be created to promote it. Defining how to "Win" will only serve to create a "war economy" across the whole board by which to achieve it. These are all cons.

To note further. It has also been argued rather well over the past three years that there is no "Winning" in roleplaying. There is only cooperative writing. So. I'm somewhat offended that we need to have this discussion again.