Default State/Rules for Invasions

[Soeht]

This post is inspired by this recent status update:

This leads me to believe that there is an issue with Invasions and Factions negotiating terms to them.

I agree that there is an issue with Factions and Invasions. This comes from my previous experience as a Faction Admin. A major reason why this problem persists is that every, single Invasion requires a new set of rules to be mutually agreed upon by Factions. This is not only inefficient but also impractical since there is no standard given by Staff on what a fair Invasion is. The differing opinions on what rules would be fair makes it very hard to reach a mutual agreement - and thus necessitates a RPJ's involvement for every, single Invasion.

I have always believed that this issue could be resolved with appropriate additions to the Invasions Rules along the lines of the following:

• A default rule set for Invasions is defined. This rule set would be written in a way that would not require any negotiation between Factions - simply one Faction telling another that an Invasion will begin.
• If additional rules or conditions are desired, they must mutually be agreed upon by both Factions prior to the Invasion's start.

I believe this would cut out the need for RPJ intervention and make starting an Invasion far less prohibitive than what it currently is. It would create a standard for a fair Invasion that the community would abide by and develop a culture around.

 

[Dune Rhur]

This is a wonderful idea, honestly. Now we wait fot someone to come along and demand you come up with every last detail by yourself and submitting it otherwise shut your pie hole.

 

[Tanith Alde]

I support the idea wholeheartedly

 

[Julius Sedaire]

[member="Soeht"] - I like the idea. But in truth? You will 90% likely just run into a consistent issue of everyone taking the base rule-set and demanding additions and deviations, and you wouldn't really come out ahead in the end in my estimation.

 

[Matreya]

[member="Ostanes"] has my thoughts exactly

 

[Fatty]

Even so, all deviations from the standard rule set will at least have some basis in what they originally were intended to be.

Right now there is nothing, and factions leaders make them up as they go by the seat of their pants, or usually looking back on rules they've already tried before and deeming whether or not they worthy for the next encounter.

Despite the risks, I support the addition of a Default State for factions to base their rules off of.

 

[Julius Sedaire]

[member="Fatty"] - I respect that. But I feel we are getting way too many rules and micro-management going on.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

People want different things from invasions, so the negotiations would necessarily be just as bad as any alteration one side doesn't like can be vetoed on the grounds that it's not in the base set.

Does anyone have suggestions about what this default set of Invasion rules would be?

 

[Jsc]

2 cents incoming. (Just a perspective. Easily avoidable.)

Negotiations have the benefit to nerf superweapons and dreadnought-class vessels during PvP. Allowing the Factions to create victory objectives that scale and target their players favored demographics of play and participation. Talking was supposed to create opportunities for individual players and slow the expansion of EVE online's fleet zerg tactics. Else,

Example EVE-similar Rules:

• Fleeting will determine the air space at the maximum interdiction distance to the system.
  If you don't win the Fleet objective, you'll never reach the planet.
• If you do win the Fleet objective, you'll never need to land. Just nuke everything from orbit.
• GG: Win space, win everything.

Pros:

• Ends dueling victories
• Fleeting comes back
• Ship equipment +++

Cons:

• Jedi/Sith Battle Meditation everywhere now
• Superweapons and Flagships are requested every Invasion
• Interdiction & ECM +++

 

[Kurayami Bloodborn]

A good starting point IMO would be setting some sort of basic fleeting guidelines for how many total meters are allowed per side, including ally spots. Same for ground units, a certain number of support units, artillery, walkers, what have you(basically a cap. so say for the faction fleet and all allies in an invasion that the fleets couldnt go over 30,000 meters in total. Also I don't know how ships are weighted so that's just throwing a number out). As for how to determine the walkers, arty units, etcetera, same idea set a cap for each different type. Then a simple way to trade out units, similar to how weapons are treated in the encyclopedia(so say a heavy long range arty unit would count as 8 standard units). For the ground units each side would have say 512(so maybe standard artillery units would be say 5 points) total points to disperse as they saw fit amongst the ground units of varying types. I wouldn't be as concerned with the NPC troops overall, but say that a Jedi could lead up to a company of troops into an engagement. Just to keep things a bit more manageable.

I just came up with this basic idea after reading through this once, and the numbers I present are just for demonstration purposes only. Whatever the community felt fit best, I'm just throwing this out there as a basic template to work from. My two cents on the matter. Will be interesting to see how it works out if adopted.

 

[Vora Kaar]

[member="Jay Scott Clark"], I like this idea, however, that means people who don't know about fleeting, will be stuck. Which means they will either be left to "assaulting" the enemy vessels, or defending their own. Which I know does not make for great gameplay.

However, I would look forward to some zero-g duels.

 

[Jsc]

[member="Zephyr Carrick"] - It's not an idea Carrick. *faceplam*

It's what happens when you favor one specific system or style of play. (In this case I gave the example of Long Range Interdiction Fleeting.) Look. Listen to Soeht's statement here...

"...The differing opinions on what rules would be fair makes it very hard to reach a mutual agreement - and thus necessitates a RPJ's involvement for every, single Invasion." - S

See Zeph. He is arguing that "differing opinions" make it hard to reach a "mutual agreement". Necessitating an RPJ every time. ...Then. He says that what we need is a "Default system". Now. This default could be a "mutual agreement" built by "differing opinions" about how to always play the game right? IE, a single negotiation by which all negotiations are held accountable. Or, maybe it won't be a negotiation at all? Maybe the RPJs will just dictate this "Default system". They are our fairness Judges, remember? ...Or, maybe it won't be the RPJs? Maybe the Admins will dictate this "Default system". Maybe it will be Chess, or Risk, or Uno, or just a roll of the dice?

Look. My point is this.

*pulls out his Axis&Allies board game, pulls out his deck of cards, pulls out his bag of dice, and his DnD handbooks*

There are a thousand ways we can play this game. A thousand ways we can decide who "wins" and who "loses". I once thought that we as a community had all agreed that the suffering through of a few roundtable discussions, before an Invasion, could allow us all the opportunity to decide each time: What game are we gonna play, today. Let's strike a balance.

But if that's too hard now? Then perhaps a default system is a good way forward.

...

Anyway. Perspective given. 2 cents. Carry on.

 

[Julius Sedaire]

[member="Kurayami Bloodborn"] - This is a roleplaying site. What you are doing is why I refuse to fleet or get into ships that are designed for combat. Quit muddling your algebra and math into my writing

Legitimately, we don't need more numbers and strict resolutions. If some sort of rules are being debated or thought of, then that is beyond me to stop. But seriously, why do we need regulations for everything?

 

[Kurayami Bloodborn]

[member="Julius Sedaire"]

All I am saying is that if there were regulations put in place to help keep things 'standardized' for basic invasion rulesets, that a cap similar to what I suggested would help keep things a bit more balanced and make the job of the RPJ or FA's easier to decide a victor. It is a suggestion that could be easily tweaked to make it easier to work with, if I understood the weighting of how vehicles and everything work better I would have given example set ups instead of just the random caps I used as examples. I can't blame you for not liking the idea, but I have seen it work quite well elsewhere in similar scenarios.

 

[Magdalena Lethe]

There's nothing stopping the factions from coming together for a roundtable discussion to create their own basic outline of "things to consider for invasion negotiations." In fact, it's probably a good idea, and probably an even better idea to do when there aren't actually any invasions on the table at that present time. Clear heads and whatnot.

As far as implementing it through staff-enforced rulesets? The issue there is now limiting the playerbase of what it can do OOCly which then dictates limitations ICly that may or may not fit the given story or factions in question. Jay has a good point - not everyone wants to play the same game all the time and there are so many ways to play. Many of which probably haven't even been tried. We have the freedom to do that right now, why would we want to take that away?

So maybe just come up with a community-crafted terms outline for bare-basic-points to be met but can also be expanded upon at the leisure of the FAs to fit the theme and need of individual invasions. This way it's not forced, it's...

Let's look at the things I've seen and experienced as a FO and FA through negotiations for invasions:

Fleeting Limits [This part is easy, just decide the min/max allowed for each side]
Ally Limits [Again, easy, min/max it for each side]
Objectives - PVP, PVE, and Fleeting. The usual is three objectives with differing themes to appeal to the broader base of writers.


In my experience, the best invasions were the ones with simple terms. The more convoluted the terms, the more people bickered about.

 

[Rusty]

[member="Julius Sedaire"], [member="Kurayami Bloodborn"] is coming from a site where there were some rather strict guidelines on what constituted a fleet or army. It worked for us, to an extent, because we saw the results of anarchy in the early days of the site, and mostly we all agreed that those were Bad Times Indeed. Probably won't work for Chaos.

My view of the negotiation process for invasions is mostly secondhand. As in, I've heard plenty of FAs queen endlessly about it just about every time an invasion popped up. From the word go it's all bad blood and ruined friendships. The FAs in turn go back to their respective chats and rant and rave about the meanies on the other side, which poisons the well for the rank and file. It's just nasty. Like, not quite open MRSA sore nasty, but still pretty bad. Cutting down on that can't be a bad thing, but I wouldn't get rid of it entirely. Too many people seem to thrive on that sort of action, and if you get rid of it altogether, they'll find less predictable ways to cause trouble.

What I'd like to see is a template, not unlike the templates used in the Codex or the Factory. For better or worse, most invasions turn out pretty similar: you have a PVP objective, a fleet objective, and an NPC objective. Ally slots are usually limited to five per side. Invasions go on for two to three weeks. So on and so forth. If you already have a structure in place, all you really have to do is fill in the blanks. Everyone still gets to get their fill of trash talking and hand wringing, but the hard part is already done. Wouldn't necessarily have to be a mandatory thing, but it would be a useful resource to have on hand.

 

[Julius Sedaire]

[member="Rusty"] - If we're talking a guide/template that is suggested, and not mandated or forced down our throats, that is in no way a bad thing. The issue for me becomes when it sets up hard and fast rules with numbers and formulas. No to that all day long. I'm here to write. The instant my story telling becomes hampered by what amounts to algebra and geometry problems, the instant I get very disinterested. It is typically why you don't see me in invasions under any face.

 

[Isamu Baelor]

Personally, I don't believe that a template will serve to end negotiation drama, or even lessen it. That's going to come down to how reasonable each side is, and that will vary. If a point can be argued, chances are it will. Though, the recent OS/GR negotiations were an exception to this. Completely drama-free.

 

[Ellie Mors]

Why not propose a guideline for factions to consult by choice, rather than by rule?

 

[Jsc]

Why not propose a guideline for factions to consult by choice, rather than by rule?

The existing rule already states that a discussion must take place before an Invasion occurs to account for "fairness" and "balance". Sooo. To answer your question in a round about way:

Maybe, because fairness and balance are already guidelines?

So, ya know, when Tef and Soeht mention a dissatisfaction with the way Factions handle these pre-Invasion negotiations? Well. It may not because they aren't using or haven't been given any guidelines. Nah. It might be because they are already in breach of them.

But that's just pure speculation from my stand point. Soeht already mentioned that Staff hasn't given the Factions enough to go with and I have no idea what specifically Tef was complaining about in his update post. *shrugs* Without more information or insight into this supposed "problem" or "complaint" itself? I can't really diagnose anything at this point.

I didn't realize that pre-Invasion talks were broken.