Feedback Factions (And How to Kill Them)

[Lucien Dooku]

I dont think anyone is 100% throwing blame at the staff or the system, but you also can't pretend like there aren't points which if refined, would be far for the better, and maybe even without negatives.

Case in point?

Having to diplo, aka dom with extra steps, in order to cede territory, or alternatively "play around" the system and mass concede invasions, which creates an even greater separation between having a fluid IC narrative and OOC red tape mixed between.

Just sayin' that there's definitely steps that could be taken on some fronts that could ease these issues. Live and let live is great and all, but if you've got to more or less play around a system in order to accomplish an IC goal that's otherwise in a weird gray area to achieve, that's something which could be taken upon with initiative to try and see if it'll better serve the faction/map game as a whole.

And if it doesn't work? Can always be scrapped.

Ra Vizsla

 

[Laira Darkhold]

In order to "Kill" a faction without just using the Burn out the Writers method requires cooperation.

Both factions have to be willing to work with one another if they want to put story ahead of OOC like that. Like, that's how its supposed to be (I'm not saying it ever was, I don't live in the state of blind optimism) but if one side is determined to see it out until Staff recalls them, it doesn't matter how nice you are how many compromises you make, or how many breaks you give them, you either quit fighting them and wait for Staff to cull them eventually, or you burn them out yourself and hope they don't take you with them.

Would it be cool to tell a big story and see either side crumble in a major way? Yes. Will that happen without someone compromising with someone else who is compromising, Nope. That's why it doesn't usually happen.

I don't have a meme ready to post at the moment, but If I find inspiration to make one appropriate for the subject matter, you bet your buttcheeks I'll post it.

 

[Argis Volmir]

​

This man truly gets it! L Laira Darkhold

 

[Ra Vizsla]

The rules will always be refined and experimented with. And feedback threads are good places to vent.

But Chaos itself is the most powerful entity here, and having this conversation amongst ourselves in our closed rooms with our circles of friends is the most productive thing to do.

Sometimes, it takes more strength to step down, in my opinion, than it takes to step up.

 

[Jsc]

Both factions have to be willing to work with one another if they want to put story ahead of OOC...

...I don't have a meme ready to post at the moment, but If I find inspiration to make one appropriate for the subject matter, you bet your buttcheeks I'll post it.

 

[The Red of Sinner]

I think Map Wipes should have been a thing a lonnnng time ago, and it is now too late to get people used to such an idea. It would have certainly kept things fresh and lively with like a once a month wipe or more and it doesn't even need a real explanation for IC when the OOC reasons are much more important with this situation in my opinion. This would, however, had given factions a nice narrative as to why they lose territory from the wipe, and each faction having a different little mini event maybe or something I don't know. But if there were ever to be a Map Wipe I believe it too late now to implement it.

 

[Agrippa]

Every faction that exists today is not the same faction as it was when it was created. The Silver Jedi Order wasn't even "The Silver Jedi Order" when it started, it was the Silver Jedi and the Levantine Sanctum who later merged together into the Silver Sanctum and then renamed themselves to the Silver Jedi Order - and it wasn't just name changes, they were very different groups with very different members and identities from where they started.

The Silver Jedi Order of 3 years ago was very different (and the SJO has been around in some manner since at least 2014, if not 2013, and has never gone minor or been recalled), and even before that it was much different a year before that, and entirely different than when it was two different factions (the Levantine Sanctum was even two different factions before that).

Similarly, the Sith Empire wasn't the Sith Empire when it went major, and has undergone many identity shifts in the nearly 3 years (2 years, 11 months) it has been around. It's a Sith faction, but even its approach to RP and so on are as different now as the SJO is different from its past. The faction resembles its origin only because its IC leader (who wasn't the faction owner the entire time the faction has been around) was able to hold onto his position in-character the entire time. I doubt the Sith Empire will even be the same faction it is currently by the end of the year, or even in 2 months.

Factions that change and grow survive the map game and retain their activity, factions that remain static and avoid innovating and pivoting stagnate and die. It's why the Galactic Alliance (the original one) died (not because of whatever story you see in the Timeline, it opted to go minor under its own terms because they knew they wouldn't survive for much longer because people were losing interest in a faction that wasn't trying to change to match the changing interests of its members), it's why the One Sith died (again, went minor of its own volition, but they were much closer to death's door than the Galactic Alliance), it's why the Galactic Republic died (ditto with the One Sith).

Making factions die earlier is not going to solve whatever problem you are imagining exists, it is going to just make people more wary of taking part in invasions and less likely to allow their capital to be anywhere near a border. That, in and of itself, is going to do much more harm to site activity than it is going to help.

Before you try to change things through rules, change things through social commentary and proactive or reactive behavior, show people why it's better to not try to drag on the same tired concept after its expiration date - and be mindful, and vocal, that a major faction is more than capable of changing their identity on their own. A major faction can change its name, what it does, how it acts - it doesn't need to "die" or go minor and go major again as a new faction for that to happen.

All this suggestion does is facilitate the game of risk on the map and help turn it further into a board game.

This is a role-playing community, write your stories and learn to end an arc and begin a new one - even in a Major Faction. You don't need to end something to begin something new every time, sometimes you can just change direction.

Spoiler

ok

 

[Zark San Tekka]

That is on the shoulders of the people who are doing things that way.

At the end of the day it was the choice of the writers who opted to try to burn out other writers and it is their fault.

The Sith Empire, or the SJO, or the OPA, or anyone else shouldn't get pulled off of the map because the people who are doing this on purpose suddenly feel like there needs to be a mercy kill button.

The Sith Empire isn't going anywhere, even if you take Bastion, and I assume the Silver Jedi Order would feel the same way if we had continued invading to their capital hex before we stopped. If you find yourself feeling bad for your opposition - or not enjoying what you're doing - because you realize it is wrong then you should realize the issue is not in the system, it is in the person who feels that way.

This kind of mentality is the source of a lot of problems on Chaos with the ruleset right now imo. It goes both ways, by making majors too big to fail in order to safeguard long term effort, the community is tacitly accepting that the only way to engage in a war with real stakes is by forcing drawn out OOC drama with reluctant factions.

Applying for the major is supposed to come with risk. Any territory you gain can be contested. Have things fallen so far that we've forgotten that? Just like you aren't going away the people who are here to tell those kind of big pvp stories about toppling empires aren't going away. This is basically giving them two choices, get called an nerf herder in backrooms by the other side or leave the site. "If you don't like the drama just leave us alone" is a Jen'ari level argument and it's dismaying to see it voiced by a TSE rep of all people.

I understand the value of months of hard work and there is a sense of pride in accomplishment that goes beyond simple ego, but the people who like war are here to stay and according to the rules we have agreed to OOC hellwar is the unofficial method of effecting true map change. You get what you pay for.

 

[Rann Thress]

Personally I'd like to see the chance for factions to split apart more so then rebellions.

For instance, the NIO-TSE "civil war"

I really like the idea. How it's handled is more of a war between two different factions then different aspects of the same faction. But I wish the NIO could have met on some planet in TSE space, been like "Yeetus Deletus TSE" and there you have it, that hex, the surrounding hexes, and maybe a little more split to form a new faction. Probably definitely extremely improbable but I like the thought.


What I'm thinking about in particular is what happened to the Empire following Palpatine's death in Legends. It fractured. Different factions sprang up from the embers of the Empire. I'd like to see that, personally.

I don't know how you'd incorporate that into the map game and the board because people would have to essentially agree to split the faction, but I like the story it could tell. It'd be interesting if one of these big factions, even the CIS, devolved into some warring states period where there were several different warlords vying for control over their little empires.

I wish it could be some amenable agreement. I think it would be really refreshing more so then just going "Yeah hey WIPE THIS FACTION'S PROGRESS"

Instead of doing that, because the most you're doing is delaying the same from happening again, you could be like "hey. Instead of saying you guys lost control of literally every system outside of your capital for some reason, how's about we give your faction staff the opportunity to break off with their own little factions inside your faction."

That adds the possibility for diplomatic politics, war or not, and what not. And if they say no, but you're already of the mind that you want to wipe the map anyway, what do you have to lose?

I think the idea of more interfaction politics is a good idea, and if you have these opposing factions made up of friends who were a part of the same faction, hopefully in my mind they'd say yes and they can keep their factions going with little, short, nonconsequential stories between the two factions bouncing off the civil war aspect.

It drums up story,

It wipes the big faction (or has the chance to)

It's been done in lore, so theres precedent for it.

And you had a rule for merging factions, why not split one up one time?

#WarringStates2020

Edit: Imagine a "Civil War Application" form which, if agreed, would split the faction amidst participants, set a set number of invasions for the course of an IRL year maybe? Idk best 3 out of 5. and the winner overthrows the other faction and sets up a new government, And they can agree to free planets, shrink the cloud, whatever.

It'd make the "Civil War" feel a lot more like a civil war.

 

[Zark San Tekka]

Lean on Flashpoints. They’re D.N.T.’s last formula to shake up the map.

The rest of it is on us. If we want cliquey large factions leading the social ladder, that’s what we’ll have. Don’t blame the system or Staff - they didn’t create these things, they just allowed for them - and an infinitesimal amount of other opportunities- to occur.

You chose this direction, and it’s in your power to change it.

Hey guys, Zark here back with another hot take PSA this time on site staff whataboutism. I respect Tefka's view here even if I think it's incredibly naive because 'the community should do better' is a very common sense thing to say.

Fortunately I'm no longer in a position to have to respect the forum keyfabe where we all pretend every faction admin at the end of the day is a reasonable person willing to negotiate in good faith. Some of them aren't. Some entire teams arent. Some people about now might be feeling a nauseating sense of irony to hear that coming from me. Maybe it's a difference in perspective, maybe there's some truth to that (there's probably some truth to that). Either way the end result is the same, the only way to fix it is to disincentivize that kind of king of the hill sandcastle clutching behavior with the ruleset. Otherwise the problem will simply never go away.

A utopian community that is always able to find common ground is an aspiration we should always strive for. But we should never hold ourselves hostage to the delusion that it's actually attainable.

 

[Adhira Chandra]

Generally speaking, I tend to keep to myself about controversial topics like the rule changes and map wipes etc. I am not a seasoned veteran of the site and my knowledge is limited, but the last couple of days have certainly piqued my interest enough to research and form an opinion.

The primary problem with the current rule set and structure of map game seems to rest entirely on the reactionary trend of rule changes. From all the rule change threads I've read, very few of them have ever arisen out of a pro activity. It is usually a complaint being addressed, an exploit being patched out, or in recent times, an advantage being "balanced." I suppose.

The rules on factions and invasions seem to get a lot of these very minor reactionary changes that essentially change nothing of substance. They don't really affect the overall map game outside of cosmetic fixes. Even the most recent rule change which had everyone up in arms is a bandaid patching up a much bigger issue. The rules need to be closely examined and it would be refreshing for there to be a proactive approach to that intended to make things better.

I personally get tired of hearing the same empty platitudes about the community being responsible for content and how everyone should work together. It's like a particularly boring episode of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood without the charm or a repeat of School House Rock without subtance. It also writes off the fairly common, largely unaddressed concerns that seem to be perennially posted in suggestions.

The rules are stale and the occasional update targeted at specific situations as they arise doesnt make things any fresher. Take Capital Hexes, for example, there is currently no reward for successfully conquering a capital. The faction simply moves capitals and moves on like nothing happened. That makes no sense, but apparently because it hasnt been brought up enough times it isnt seen as an issue that needs addressed. It does because it makes capital hexes pointless to anyone but the defender. Why not make it more rewarding or at least make it not such a useless feature? Halve a faction influence cloud, give away more than one hex, force an FO vote. Something, anything of substance would be better than "well you get nothing if you win, but if you lose or even draw you lose a hex."

Maybe this is just a silly opinion dreamt up at 6am, but I like to think somewhere I hit a few salient points particularly when it comes to reactionary behavior. I hope someone gets something out of it.

Xoxo

 

[Zark San Tekka]

There is no rule that says you have to invade someone back simultaneously to spite them/burn them out/save face.

In fact, I can't really see the point of doing things that way.

Youve fallen into my clever trap! Just kidding, but I was hoping someone would say this. It boils down to a question the community needs to wrestle with, that being how attainable should ultimate victory over another faction's space be?

To answer this, we have to ask why demoralization tactics are as popular as they are. Under optimal conditions, a major faction is always able to take territory faster than an opponent can conquer it. So how do you decrease an opponent's activity levels to the point where they can't keep up with your invasions? Sure it's not explicitly baked into the ruleset, but burnout pace IS the only strategy that actually works. That's why I call it tacit acceptance on the community's part.

Putting majors at risk has it's own drawbacks of course, but it's really an either or proposition. Either major factions accept a greater level of risk, or we accept the dismal state of the OOC community in perpetuity. OR we contend ourselves with meaningless border skirmishes and all the groups stay the same so nothing really changes.

 

[Zark San Tekka]

K Kaine Australis

I suppose where we disagree is 'should major factions ever be allowed to lose big wars if they don't feel like it' then. Non consensual character death is in the rules but consensual invasions has never been a rule and it's ludicrous to suggest if you can't agree the invaders should let the defenders set the pace or screw off.

EDIT: to clarify I kind of agree with you in the sense that I think burnout tactics are not good and have negative effects on both sides. but until the game provides another path to the kind of victory over their rivals people who just aren't going away want, it's their only option. We would be better served examining possible ways to enforce the kind of behavior that we want to see without orwellian oversight by site staff, not by holding the community to blame for something that is on those in charge too.

 

[Ra Vizsla]

site staff whataboutism. I respect Tefka's view here even if I think it's incredibly naive because 'the community should do better' is a very common sense thing to say.

But "do better" isn't what I said... I'm just saying what I've always said, in my 8 long naive years here.

Don't wait for the silver spoon to be handed to you.

Don't wait for other people to give you what you've asked for.

Dare to be different and step outside these Discord echo chambers.

I suppose I've had the naivety of watching every environment, every atmosphere, even every role-play forum have it's expiration date come to pass - sure. I understand it's inevitability, and I also understand these events may not come to pass in the timeliness in which you or others would like it to. These "too big to fail", these "naive" statements - they're all just fluff, huff, and puff. Hot air.

I'm a rain dancer, baby. What I say will come to pass, it's only a question of how long I'll be dancing.

 

[Zark San Tekka]

But "do better" isn't what I said... I'm just saying what I've always said, in my 8 long naive years here.

Don't wait for the silver spoon to be handed to you.

Don't wait for other people to give you what you've asked for.

Dare to be different and step outside these Discord echo chambers.

I suppose I've had the naivety of watching every environment, every atmosphere, even every role-play forum have it's expiration date come to pass - sure. I understand it's inevitability, and I also understand these events may not come to pass in the timeliness in which you or others would like it to. These "too big to fail", these "naive" statements - they're all just fluff, huff, and puff. Hot air.

I'm a rain dancer, baby. What I say will come to pass, it's only a question of how long I'll be dancing.

And this is what I have come to expect from site staff feedback. Your concerns arent valid. You're just mad. Dare to be the change you see in Chaos. Meanwhile that change never comes, will never come, and it's fake complements across the aisle and shit eating grins all the way down.

 

[Maou]

That awkward moment when the change came and gets stomped out for being too different.

 

[Ra Vizsla]

Your concerns arent valid.

Brutal honesty? I don't live in a world where everyone's concerns are valid.

Meanwhile that change never comes, will never come, and it's fake complements across the aisle and shit eating grins all the way down.

I do live in a world where I've had to be the change. Several times. And I've had to do it all smiling carrying the angry and the denigrated on my back.

Be sure to thank whoever carries you when that change does arrive.

 

[Zark San Tekka]

Brutal honesty? I don't live in a world where everyone's concerns are valid.

This is how detached the admins have become from the game we're all trying to play. The state of major faction persistence isn't a problem, and despite the fact that every major war in the past several years has been an OOC nightmare its just 'a few bad apples' who are salty and bringing the rest of us down. Working as intended.

Yeah, sometimes you have to be the change. As the people in charge of the rules, that's pretty much your job.

 

[Ra Vizsla]

Detached, maybe. But I'd accuse a lot of you of the same.

I've done far more than rule changes in my time as a role-player, both here and elsewhere. I'm not sorry for the way I feel - not all concerns are valid. It's a simple fact, rail against it as hard as you want.

Change doesn't come from simply asking for it - it comes from people willing to make it.

 

[Zark San Tekka]

Change doesn't come from simply asking for it - it comes from people willing to make it.

If this is your poetic way of asking for me to make some actual suggestions, sure. Another trap sprung!

If we aren't going to come at the problem sideways with something like a map wipe system (I can see the egalitarian benefits of that), then we need to either increase the amount of hexes up for grabs per invasion, or slow down the rate at which major factions acquire new hexes. Or both. I will be the first to admit that even the simplest changes can have all kinds of unintended consequences, but as far as adding more risk to major factions this one is as close to an on/off switch as you can get.