THE UNDEFEATED
[member="Zark"]
That seems like a good idea to me, tbh.
Whatever form it takes, I'm game.
That seems like a good idea to me, tbh.
Whatever form it takes, I'm game.
Star Wars Roleplay: Chaos
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Fanning The Flame - Dogpilie Invasions
- Thread starter Kahlil Noble
- Start date
-
- Tags
- suggestion
RC 212
HUNGRY HUNGRY HIPPO!
[member="Kor Vexen"]
It wasn't that bad Mirial.
It at least made an interesting story IC and set up RC as a Villainous cur.
It wasn't that bad Mirial.
It at least made an interesting story IC and set up RC as a Villainous cur.
But I Am Free
[member="Zark"]
It's a good way to use the mandates, but it has been said prior that any mandate suggestion should be placed in the thread for them or have a new one made about it. Just as a heads up. It got lost in the seven pages now of posts.
It's a good way to use the mandates, but it has been said prior that any mandate suggestion should be placed in the thread for them or have a new one made about it. Just as a heads up. It got lost in the seven pages now of posts.
Jsc
Disney's Princess
Doms being more profitable than Invasions, in regards to territory conservation, has been the status quo for quite some time. I remember well being Staff for the Republic and commenting about this during Invasion planning, years ago.Siobhan Kerrigan said:
Of course. Personally. I never had a problem with it as; moral, activity, popularity, and perception always seemed to have a much bigger impact on the success or failure of a faction than straight territory concerns. And, again. Just me. But I don't think frequent dominions warrant much conversation here. Though, you and Zark are right about their unique relationship with making frequent Invasions more potent.
[member="Zark"]
Love the mandate, we can modify that into this:
Love the mandate, we can modify that into this:
The Golden Rule
[member="Kahlil Zambrano"]
It wasn't always this way. In the past, the map itself offered a buffer. You could choose to start in an empty corner of the map, then build yourself up while avoiding invasions (but still be open to poking via skirmishes, rebellions, and other shenanigans). From there you could choose to expand at the risk of exposure to potentially hostile neighbors. Most of the current factions on the map got their start in that environment.
Then there was a paradigm shift about a couple years ago when invasions across the map and simultaneous invasions against single targets became normalized*. Historically a Major may be in close proximity to one or two neighbors that could invade, but now they can be attacked by anyone at anytime. (More) Anarchy basically.
So the map game has become more of a popularity contest as Tathra has suggested. Strategic expansion on the map has become a secondary consideration to building or maintaining personal clout offsite on Discord. The social game has always been an important aspect of the map game (it's never a bad thing to be on good relations as writers), but I feel right now it has too much sway on what happens on the board. The game has become pretty stale as result. Right now most of the board is bunched up in one super alliance, with one or two small independent factions outside of said alliance that are just kind of limping along.
Some folks have suggested new or revised Mandates to create a new buffer, which I think that's a good start. I'd also suggest some sort of cooldown period on these crossmap invasions too. ICily it can be justified by the logistical requirements needed for major military expeditions abroad. Maybe like a month or two. Otherwise Majors would still be able to invade nearby neighbors in adjacent hexes as much as they like without a cooldown.
Alternatively, crossmap invasions become a Mandate. Relentless Horde could be retooled for this purpose.
*I know it was always possible to do this, but it wasn't the norm.
It wasn't always this way. In the past, the map itself offered a buffer. You could choose to start in an empty corner of the map, then build yourself up while avoiding invasions (but still be open to poking via skirmishes, rebellions, and other shenanigans). From there you could choose to expand at the risk of exposure to potentially hostile neighbors. Most of the current factions on the map got their start in that environment.
Then there was a paradigm shift about a couple years ago when invasions across the map and simultaneous invasions against single targets became normalized*. Historically a Major may be in close proximity to one or two neighbors that could invade, but now they can be attacked by anyone at anytime. (More) Anarchy basically.
So the map game has become more of a popularity contest as Tathra has suggested. Strategic expansion on the map has become a secondary consideration to building or maintaining personal clout offsite on Discord. The social game has always been an important aspect of the map game (it's never a bad thing to be on good relations as writers), but I feel right now it has too much sway on what happens on the board. The game has become pretty stale as result. Right now most of the board is bunched up in one super alliance, with one or two small independent factions outside of said alliance that are just kind of limping along.
Some folks have suggested new or revised Mandates to create a new buffer, which I think that's a good start. I'd also suggest some sort of cooldown period on these crossmap invasions too. ICily it can be justified by the logistical requirements needed for major military expeditions abroad. Maybe like a month or two. Otherwise Majors would still be able to invade nearby neighbors in adjacent hexes as much as they like without a cooldown.
Alternatively, crossmap invasions become a Mandate. Relentless Horde could be retooled for this purpose.
*I know it was always possible to do this, but it wasn't the norm.
Valiens Nantaris
Head Admin
Now we're talking.Zark said:
Good timing too as I will be unveiling Mandate changes very soon.
Dondagora
New Member
Too long, not reading the last three pages. I'm a new player, but would like to throw out a potential solution that I believe won't ruin the competitive nature of the Map Game while also providing the defense to not be overwhelmed IRL with the time they would need to put in to keep up with multiple invasions. But first, some context to this solution (which will be a second-hand account I received, to be clear):
Shadowbane was a highly competitive/hardcore PVP-oriented MMO where players could build cities on a map and other players could declare war, siege, steal, and so forth. Now the question this game struggled with was how to keep the game "fun" for players without bogging their base down with rules of what they can and cannot do, or else defeating the purpose. They isolated the experience they wanted players to have, and built around that instead of a concept. That experience is "PvP", the experience of fighting other players. The issue they were seeing was much like one we are seeing some people have, which is the OOC making the IC experience less fulfilling, AKA if cities were always siegable then enemy players would wait until a city's players were asleep and then destroy their stuff. Now, some cried fair play, that the city players simply did not commit enough, they should have had overnight watchers so such surprise sieges would not be possible. Now the city players could do that, but the devs saw the night sieges as a much more fundemental problem: by allowing it, it made the game not about PvP, but about avoiding PvP, finding times when players wouldn't be around to defend their stuff and destroying their stuff. In essence, it wasn't about whether it was fair or not, whether it was good sportsmanship or not, whether the other players should just step up or not. It was about the experience being delivered not the experience the game was meant to give.
So they made cities unattainable except during a siege window that is declared and known to both the attackers and defenders so that they could be on at the same time. Now, we have something similar, where you can't just take a hex, you have to declare the invasion. However, Shadowbane went further since this still allowed attackers to choose off-hours when they knew the defenders would be the weakest, again avoiding PvP. To counter this, they made a new system: Attackers would declare a siege, and the defenders would pick the time it starts within a given timeframe (choosing the hour of the siege within the week it was declared). Sure, the defender could pick a bad time for attackers, but in that same sense the attackers could choose a week that they're more flexible.
Now I feel we should also adopt this rule of "Defender's Right" where the Defender of an Invasion is the one allowed to choose the start time. As I'm told, Invasions last about 2 weeks, so the Defender could (for example) choose a time within a month, or four weeks. This way, should a faction be invaded by 3 other factions at once, the Defending Faction may spread out the invasions they're dealing with. They cannot postpone beyond the month (should they not declare a time within the month, the Defender loses the hex by default) and there is still no 'consenting' out of being invaded, both of which would ruin the competitive nature of the game and be insulting to the Attackers who instigated the invasion.
To those who say that such a policy would ruin the Attackers' initiative, I say "yes, it might". But that really shouldn't make a difference in the context of RP, I think. The Attackers still control the narrative of the invasion, the Attackers still instigate the invasion. the only thing they don't have is saying "this is starting right now!", and the only benefit I see in that is where Defenders will have to contend with multiple simultaneous invasions, wearing them out and mentally fatiguing them until they're tired of RP.
Now, to bring it back to the idea of "What experience do you want the game to provide?", I'll propose this as the experience I would assume people want in an invasion: To tell a massive and encompassing story with multiple writers. Now, the actual experience in these situations, as I see it, is anything but.
Defenders experience writing so much to keep their lot that they're worn down
Attackers experience writing with worn out writers
Neither of these experiences should be what people want. Attackers should want to write with Defenders who have the time and energy to write stories with enthusiasm, or else it's just cheapening the experience for both sides.
So I suppose the question of whether this solution is good is whether you'd rather be sieging an empty castle or you'd rather encounter and battle with present players.
Shadowbane was a highly competitive/hardcore PVP-oriented MMO where players could build cities on a map and other players could declare war, siege, steal, and so forth. Now the question this game struggled with was how to keep the game "fun" for players without bogging their base down with rules of what they can and cannot do, or else defeating the purpose. They isolated the experience they wanted players to have, and built around that instead of a concept. That experience is "PvP", the experience of fighting other players. The issue they were seeing was much like one we are seeing some people have, which is the OOC making the IC experience less fulfilling, AKA if cities were always siegable then enemy players would wait until a city's players were asleep and then destroy their stuff. Now, some cried fair play, that the city players simply did not commit enough, they should have had overnight watchers so such surprise sieges would not be possible. Now the city players could do that, but the devs saw the night sieges as a much more fundemental problem: by allowing it, it made the game not about PvP, but about avoiding PvP, finding times when players wouldn't be around to defend their stuff and destroying their stuff. In essence, it wasn't about whether it was fair or not, whether it was good sportsmanship or not, whether the other players should just step up or not. It was about the experience being delivered not the experience the game was meant to give.
So they made cities unattainable except during a siege window that is declared and known to both the attackers and defenders so that they could be on at the same time. Now, we have something similar, where you can't just take a hex, you have to declare the invasion. However, Shadowbane went further since this still allowed attackers to choose off-hours when they knew the defenders would be the weakest, again avoiding PvP. To counter this, they made a new system: Attackers would declare a siege, and the defenders would pick the time it starts within a given timeframe (choosing the hour of the siege within the week it was declared). Sure, the defender could pick a bad time for attackers, but in that same sense the attackers could choose a week that they're more flexible.
Now I feel we should also adopt this rule of "Defender's Right" where the Defender of an Invasion is the one allowed to choose the start time. As I'm told, Invasions last about 2 weeks, so the Defender could (for example) choose a time within a month, or four weeks. This way, should a faction be invaded by 3 other factions at once, the Defending Faction may spread out the invasions they're dealing with. They cannot postpone beyond the month (should they not declare a time within the month, the Defender loses the hex by default) and there is still no 'consenting' out of being invaded, both of which would ruin the competitive nature of the game and be insulting to the Attackers who instigated the invasion.
To those who say that such a policy would ruin the Attackers' initiative, I say "yes, it might". But that really shouldn't make a difference in the context of RP, I think. The Attackers still control the narrative of the invasion, the Attackers still instigate the invasion. the only thing they don't have is saying "this is starting right now!", and the only benefit I see in that is where Defenders will have to contend with multiple simultaneous invasions, wearing them out and mentally fatiguing them until they're tired of RP.
Now, to bring it back to the idea of "What experience do you want the game to provide?", I'll propose this as the experience I would assume people want in an invasion: To tell a massive and encompassing story with multiple writers. Now, the actual experience in these situations, as I see it, is anything but.
Defenders experience writing so much to keep their lot that they're worn down
Attackers experience writing with worn out writers
Neither of these experiences should be what people want. Attackers should want to write with Defenders who have the time and energy to write stories with enthusiasm, or else it's just cheapening the experience for both sides.
So I suppose the question of whether this solution is good is whether you'd rather be sieging an empty castle or you'd rather encounter and battle with present players.
M E A T B A G
[member="Valiens Nantaris"] Personally, I'm not a fan of the name. While I understand what the mandate's trying to point out, to me - at least - it implies that everyone who doesn't have this mandate isn't defending their space. I'd rather see this awesome mandate [member="Zark"] made replace Defensive Stronghold's strength and cons section, as that would make more sense than unlimited allies. That's just my two cents on the matter, so feel free to ignore it at your leisure.
Valiens Nantaris
Head Admin
[member="Khonsu Amon"]
Oh yes, the name and details are subject to change, but it's a good start.
Oh yes, the name and details are subject to change, but it's a good start.
defy the tyrannous stars
[member="Valiens Nantaris"] [member="Khonsu Amon"]
I could care less about the name, I thought it up in 10 seconds. Although careful casting stones Mr. "Voidborne" Crusaders snort
You have my blessing to rework it however you deem fit.
I could care less about the name, I thought it up in 10 seconds. Although careful casting stones Mr. "Voidborne" Crusaders snort
You have my blessing to rework it however you deem fit.
M E A T B A G
[member="Zark"] - Who says I was casting stones? 
Besides, I hear that's terrible to do in glass houses.
Besides, I hear that's terrible to do in glass houses.
Runi Verin
Two pounds shy of a bomb.
[member="Zark"] [member="Khonsu Amon"]
Lads, do I need to sub a nanometer ruler for this contest? Play nice. You're both prett-- er, present.
Lads, do I need to sub a nanometer ruler for this contest? Play nice. You're both prett-- er, present.