Suggestion "The Domino Effect"

[Ryv]

Anyone following young Adron Malvern and his recent suggestion thread found here probably knows where I'm going with this.

I find invasions to be the biggest pull to the site for me. The map is unique to chaos, it heavily impacts many writers' stories, and it provides quantifiable success to your stories. It's pretty cool. But as folks have also put it, you can just ignore the map and not care about it. Good vibes.

I consider the way invasions have played out on Chaos over the years as fundamentally flawed. Rarely does war come down to a decent or unique story ending (bar Endgame, I suppose). Most of the time, factions just get invaded until their writers give up or go LOA. The war of attrition has been the only way to win out against opposing factions. NIO's war on TSE has seen much strategic play with cutting off territory via cloud breaks, but it is still ultimately just attrition. TSE doesn't want to give up. They've put their feet down and will keep going. I think that's an awesome narrative direction, but I dunno if that's really fun at the end of the day.

I don't think the idea I want to express needs to be implemented right now. The new mandates and invasion rules really change how people are going to approach this map. It should be playtested for a few months and enjoyed (or hated) before any serious changes are considered. However, I like this idea and wouldn't mind some feedback from the community. Constructive or not, tbh.

Idea: The Domino Effect

I think war on this site should be faster.

The idea is pretty simple. Faction A invades faction B, faction A wins. In their next invasion, Faction A should be able to mark an additional hex for taking. With each invasion, the hexes they take increase as time goes on. The moment they lose? Everything comes to a screeching halt. Maybe they drop down to only winning the bare minimum, so three atm (or maybe go one below the minimum), but they're also given an invasion cooldown that represents a crushing defeat.

If all your forces are engaged in a mad dash through enemy territory? It probably takes months for them to regroup and prepare for the next assault. It'll give other factions time to bolster their defenses, engage in diplomacy to face the threat, or just straight-up start murdering them for all the past attacks.

Also, to stop them from just switching mandates the moment they lose, maybe the debuff stays in place anyway. Could also just be locked out of choosing a new mandate until cooldown ends as well.

While this could fit pretty easily as a mandate, I also find a passive effect to be an equally cool idea. Break the mold a bit, implement new mechanics, all that stuff.

Anyway, shoot your ideas my way, shoot this down, whatever. I'm here for it.

EDIT 1: Taken from this post. Decided to add a bit more to help try and balance the initial suggestion based on responses.

Spoiler: Edits & Stuff

When you take the mandate:

In the first invasion you win you are awarded one less hex than the base level. So in the current state of the board, you only get two.

The capital hex of other major factions cannot be the target of an invasion unless they are the only remaining hex available. This was suggested by Darlyn Excron and it's not bad. I think I'd modify it so you can't target the capital hex as an additional hex, but you can target it as the initial hex.


Pros:

• Every successive victory against the same faction rewards you an additional hex to claim, up to a maximum of five.

Cons:

• When you lose, you receive an invasion cooldown of X amount of days. (I'm thinking somewhere between 2-4 weeks.)
• When you begin invasions again, you start fresh at the two hex gain.
• During your cooldown period, any faction who launches an invasion against you can declare an additional hex to gain if they win.

For the last one, I'm taking Rynn Vizsla suggestion and modifying it slightly, cause I think momentum being used against you is good, but I don't think they should get the full effect of the mandate cause, well, they don't have the mandate.

 

[Robogeber]

MFW I see the literal Domino Effect suggested

But shitposts aside, I'm alright with this. Being able to Blitzkrieg through territory sounds neat. And helps draw wars of some inevitably in conclusion to an end. Ie: The GA-FO war, or the One Sith-Republic war.

 

[Luna Terrik]

Anyone following young Adron Malvern

​

Just gunna....follow you and keep postin this......

Otherwise, I don't hate the idea. Still think it could get very messy very quickly, and systems would need to be in place to help mitigate that.

 

[Ryv]

​

Just gunna....follow you and keep postin this......

Otherwise, I don't hate the idea. Still think it could get very messy very quickly, and systems would need to be in place to help mitigate that.

I don't see how this one was a bait. It was on his thread I put the idea initially, lol

As for the systems, the idea of stopping those factions and weakening their follow up seems like a p decent system. It gives factions who can dom a lot of territories basically two months to snag what, eight? Two junctions and six dominions? You dom properly, you can bolster your cloud to slow the chance for a cloud break.

 

[Luna Terrik]

I don't see how this one was a bait. It was on his thread I put the idea initially, lol

As for the systems, the idea of stopping those factions and weakening their follow up seems like a p decent system. It gives factions who can dom a lot of territories basically two months to snag what, eight? Two junctions and six dominions? You dom properly, you can bolster your cloud to slow the chance for a cloud break.

Just calling a writer that's been here since 2014 young, lolol. That's all, just teasin here.

Aye, that would be the gist of it. But right now, this would just continue to make dominions less and less worth it. Seems like a lot of suggetsions are more boosting invasions and taking territory from people than helping them gain it, but I digress.

Again, this could be a fun system, but I'd want to see it completely fleshed out before it really being put out there. Good start tho.

 

[Aelys]

I think the three hexes a bordering faction can already do is enough. I wouldn't hate having to implement a logistics element to writing but, I don't think it should be forced. I mean, of course if you want major you play the map game etc etc, but the idea feels too much of a video game mechanic rather than something 'fun' for writing.

 

[Dagon Kaze]

Aelys

ok u smart now or

 

[Aelys]

I often like to twerk alone in the cantinas

 

[Arage Bao]

Anything that actually makes invasions more impactful and 'fast'-paced gets a +1 from me.

I'd prefer if this was board-wide rather than a mandate, but I suppose the latter will be less messy from an implementation angle.

 

[Cara Dorniarn]

I just see this as something that can become a mess. I get some people are just here to win, others wants to roleplay and see eventual results of it, then others just want pure roleplay. It's difficult to balance for everyone, and obviously for this you wouldn't have to consider pure roleplayers. However, making wars "faster" is purely playing to one part of the board. Invasions are supposed to be two or more groups coming together to write, not allow one opposing side total victory as fast as possible because their narrative requires it. I could be wrong but it just reads that way.

I agree with Aelys that it feels more like a video game mechanic than a joint hobby mechanic. I get it, when I play Super Metroid I want ALL the items as fast as possible because heck yeah, bonus screen. But when interacting with others in something as broad and varied as joint narrative writing, where each faction obviously leans into a different style and speed of doing their stories? This just feels off.

It's like when you're eating your poptarts one at a time and some guy who just wolfed down both at once starts reaching for yours (manager's kid just stole a pack; I'm salty).

But does that sound clear enough? I'm not ragging on anyone, just making clear the feel one can get from this kind of suggestion, especially when the cons suggested don't feel adequate.

 

[Rynn Vizsla]

There are a few things that I wanted to say in the other thread, but I feel as if it'd be better to toss everything here for context and possible clarity into my madness. I loathe Invasions where everything's getting set up before the action starts, as I'm a competitive person - I want to get stuck in as soon and as fast as possible. However, I also understand that people want the chance to set up their narratives within the thread itself to better match their interpretations of their characters.

I believe Alkor mentioned that there could be a compelling angle, the whole "will we make it in time" aspect that people could build their narrative around and build tension. But, that only really works when the thread is in media res, as the second wave is coming to reinforce the speartip. If anything, the perfect Invasion thread is one that offers both sides to the writer-base - so everyone can work together towards making a compelling storyline.

Now, when it comes to the "domino effect" or the momentum-based mandate - I think it could be very, very powerful in the right hands. With the chance to cut a swathe through someone's territory in an incremental fashion, there's no way that it should be even considered as a board-wide standard. Don't get me wrong, I would absolutely revel in the messy Chaos that would ensue from its implementation. But, I do like to have my rules Balanced as much as possible, especially when it comes to something as tense and stressful as Invasions.

So, let's explore some potential weaknesses - as I'm going to treat this idea as a mandate. There was mention of an Invasion Cooldown, where the attacking faction can't Invade their Enemies for a certain time period. I think that's a good start, but I feel as if there should be more. Let's say your faction cut a massive empire in half with this mandate, as you've taken more and more territory with every win. Things are going great, and your faction is winning the war... but your enemy decides to change the game on you. The attacker's next invasion doesn't go so well, and through some Epic Suckerpunch, the Defenders manage to score a win.

They've taken the wind out of the attacker's sails, but... in an undetermined amount of time - it'll begin again anew - which makes their win feel like nothing more than a momentary reprieve. But, what if we added something else to spice up this idea? Like, the Invading Faction not only gets an Invasion Cooldown for X amount of days, so they can't start invasions but also suffers the same incremental losses if they're invaded by others? Momentum is a double-edged sword after all, so it makes sense - to me at least - that it should be something that works both ways.

Not only will it give one faction an edge over the others, but if things go wrong for the invaders?

 

[Ryv]

I think the three hexes a bordering faction can already do is enough. I wouldn't hate having to implement a logistics element to writing but, I don't think it should be forced. I mean, of course if you want major you play the map game etc etc, but the idea feels too much of a video game mechanic rather than something 'fun' for writing.

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with creating better game mechanics for a game. The new system looks promising, and I feel like it just made the game's system better. As for the logistics, no one would force anyone to write logistics. The mechanic exists to represent the logistics so writers don't have to engage them.

Anything that actually makes invasions more impactful and 'fast'-paced gets a +1 from me.

I'd prefer if this was board-wide rather than a mandate, but I suppose the latter will be less messy from an implementation angle.

Nice.

-snip-

1. It's not to necessitate one faction's narrative over the other. If you start to lose a war, you're probably going to continue to lose a war without proper support or a change in approach. This makes it faster so that victory is attained and people can move on to tell more stories while opening the board to newer opportunities. We're seeing that happen now as a bunch of smaller Sith groups are popping up to replace TSE if they lose to NIO. It creates a constantly changing environment, and imo, a dynamic environment is better than a static one for storytelling.
2. Like I said above, the map is a game, having better mechanics in place to approach numerous styles of play is better.
3. I've been thinking more on it and I think some base additions I'd add are like:

When you take the mandate:

In the first invasion you win you are awarded one less hex than the base level. So in the current state of the board, you only get two.

Pros:

• Every successive victory against the same faction rewards you an additional hex to claim, up to a maximum of five.

Cons:

• When you lose, you receive an invasion cooldown of X amount of days. (I'm thinking somewhere between 2-4 weeks.)
• When you begin invasions again, you start fresh at the two hex gain.
• During your cooldown period, any faction who launches an invasion against you can declare an additional hex to gain if they win.

For the last one, I'm taking Rynn Vizsla suggestion and modifying it slightly, cause I think momentum being used against you is good, but I don't think they should get the full effect of the mandate cause, well, they don't have the mandate.

 

[Dagon Kaze]

map game is competitive, that's the nature of it. twist it, morph it, paraphrase it - it's a game of win or lose in essence, like it or not. if that's not what you dig - the map isn't mandatory.

aka - increasing invasion impact = good in my book.

 

[Captain Jordan]

Wholly agree with Cara Dorniarn 's sentiments here.

This is massively unbalanced, both for the map game and for the site's writers. Factions can already gain territory too fast, with no penalties for keeping it.

Definite no.

 

[Dagon Kaze]

Wholly agree with Cara Dorniarn 's sentiments here.

This is massively unbalanced, both for the map game and for the site's writers. Factions can already gain territory too fast, with no penalties for keeping it.

Definite no.

but isn't the point of heavier impact invasion to offset the quick territory grab?

 

[Ryv]

Wholly agree with Cara Dorniarn 's sentiments here.

This is massively unbalanced, both for the map game and for the site's writers. Factions can already gain territory too fast, with no penalties for keeping it.

Definite no.

Do you have any constructive criticism that could make this idea better?

Also, I think the penalty for keeping territory is getting invaded and potentially losing it.

 

[Captain Jordan]

Do you have any constructive criticism that could make this idea better?

Also, I think the penalty for keeping territory is getting invaded and potentially losing it.

Tell me how much net territory loss CIS and SJC (as examples of big, juggernaut factions only, there's nothing inherent about their specific factions that lend this benefit to them) have had over the years. There's no real penalties for keeping territory in this map game. Case in point, until this year TSE could be lumped into that, but waiting for the miraculous splinter story to come is hardly the way to balance mechanics.

The constructive criticism is either to balance the map game's realism by working on the other end (tackling big factions that can go years without real external threats), rather than what provides the most instant gratification for invasion lovers. While it's not the most enjoyable work to do, if you want the enjoyment of the map game then I think it's worth the grind. Or, the other option I see, is to lean into the map game's abstraction of story-writing itself and make mechanics that take advantage of this. Instead of treating invasions like wars, treat them like stories.

 

[Ryv]

Tell me how much net territory loss CIS and SJC (as examples of big, juggernaut factions only, there's nothing inherent about their specific factions that lend this benefit to them) have had over the years. There's no real penalties for keeping territory in this map game. Case in point, until this year TSE could be lumped into that, but waiting for the miraculous splinter story to come is hardly the way to balance mechanics.

The constructive criticism is either to balance the map game's realism by working on the other end (tackling big factions that can go years without real external threats), rather than what provides the most instant gratification for invasion lovers. While it's not the most enjoyable work to do, if you want the enjoyment of the map game then I think it's worth the grind. Or, the other option I see, is to lean into the map game's abstraction of story-writing itself and make mechanics that take advantage of this. Instead of treating invasions like wars, treat them like stories.

I think the only realistic solution to giant blobs is invasion lovers. Tefka already reset the map once, but it didn't change the fact giant factions who are good at indoctrinating new members of the community just ballooned again. The means of tackling big factions is just creating mechanics that support doing just that, head-on.

I dunno how involved you been in NIO invasions, but I've enjoyed them for the story elements and the gain in territory. Every planet had an awesome story I got to tell that has heavily impacted my character. A GREAT STORY and A GREAT GAME are not mutually exclusive. I could potentially see concern for groups that are smaller suffering to this, but I genuinely don't see a lot of small factions getting mass invaded. Its groups on the board who've been around a while and have had enough time to slight folks ICly (and OOCly) who end up getting nuked until they're gone.

I might be missing something, but I don't think your criticism is saying anything other than "let's solve the problem of the big factions through means other than the system already in place." And I think the system in place already does it. I just want it to do it better, without it lasting forever.

 

[Captain Jordan]

I think the only realistic solution to giant blobs is invasion lovers. Tefka already reset the map once, but it didn't change the fact giant factions who are good at indoctrinating new members of the community just ballooned again. The means of tackling big factions is just creating mechanics that support doing just that, head-on.

The map reset doesn't solve the problem because it doesn't change the system. This doesn't solve the problem because it doesn't change the system, either.

The map game is more of an invasion game for you. And that's fine. I read several of the NIO invasions (and thoroughly) while judging some of them, and I can tell that some people put their heart and soul into the invasion game. I love that Chaos has a place for that.

I just think that place has reached its limit within the map game as a whole. Further buffing the invasions won't tackle the map game issues. And ignoring the map game issues is what perpetuates a lot of the salt and drama on the site.

This is a no from me, because it's just focusing effort on the wrong parts. Focus first on what keeps the big juggernauts insulated, and this will look a lot more appealing in that future.

 

[Alkor Centaris]

I definitely support this as a Mandate; but not necessarily as an automatic aspect of invasions. My reason for saying so is that people are gonna cry foul and though I'm a huge advocate for realism, there's enough butthurt to go around already with the loss of a single hex.

That said, I would like to see actual tangible hindrances for losing an invasion to the defender. Say, inability to call for allies (not that they actually make or break an invasion anyway), some IC ramification like supply line breaks or morale plummeting (NPCs/artillery/armor can't be used because they've been routed, etc), limitations to things like reinforcement fleets ("We've expended these resources at X, Y is on its own.")