Future Invasion Rules

[Kamon's OOC]

So I've seen a lot of issues with this set of invasions (albeit my experience is limited to Contruum because I limited myself to one invasion). These are issues stemming largely from people who abuse rules and RP etiquette in order to further their own agenda at the expense of fair play and good story. Those that know me, and have known me for a while, know that my priority is more on good story than it is on winning. However, when winning is part of the game, rules are necessary.

I think we need to spend some time working on hashing out what we want to see as rules in all of our invasions. Some may be negotiable rules, but I think we need some that are also mandates with the enemy that we must have them accept before we commit. These latter ones need to be fair, and all should be, but these denunciations are necessary.

I'm going to outline below a few things that I think we should have, in each category. And whenever someone posts a written up rule they'd like to see added, they can ping me and I'll add it to the Master List. So have at it, gang. Feel free to offer edits of what I post, as well. I will continue to add things as I think of them.

The Master Invasion Rules List
Negotiable
Slicing Limitations: Slicing is often overused to do things that simply are not plausible or possible. While it certainly has its uses, slicing is not as easy as it is often made out to be. The proposal is to place a limit or, possibly, ban on slicing use in this operation in order to focus on the more realistic efforts of battle, which would not include battlefield slicing. If a limit is accepted, only hard line access will be an acceptable method of slicing. Jacking into a port is necessary.


Non-negotiable
The 24 Hour Rule: Opponents must allow their opposing combatant a 24 hour window to respond to their post before moving on. This is an RP board and people have outside lives. 24 hours is a fair timeframe for posting. Exceptions may be made on a case by case basis between combatants.

Post Ignoring: It is not an acceptable excuse to say that you are ignoring someone's post just because you do not agree with it. Your posts must cease until the conflict you feel has been created on an OOC level is resolved satisfactorily between all parties. You may not progress by ignoring posts. All posts matter.

Post Ignorance: It is not an acceptable defense to say that you didn't see someone's post. There is no line for arguing. As an RPer writing in a collaborative story it is your responsibility to read the posts that other writers put effort into and respond accordingly. If someone points out that you missed a post, you should review the missed post and edit your post accordingly, no complaints lodged, unless there is a problem with the opponents post that requires a complaint.

Damage: You are not infallible. Nor are your troops infallible. If someone is shooting at your NPC's with artillery or other troops, no matter what you do, people are going to die. You MUST take losses, just the same as your opponent must if you fire back. In PvP battle you need to be willing to take damage as well. Damage does not mean you lose. Damage is realistic. Taking wounds is realistic. Just ask Vader and Luke.

 

[ADM. Reshmar]

While I agree with everything you have listed in this post and think these are important and needed changes to make writing more enjoyable, I think this will not be a productive conversation. You and I have been doing this for a decade and a half and have seen just about everything there is to see in roleplaying the writer base here is way to geared towards winning then writing. While we know this is not as enjoyable it is up to the community here to learn the lessons as we have from other forums. The writer base here is young and talented but have not gotten pasted the phase in thier writing where they move past a need to win. I have seen writers go through this process before and move on to become amazing writers "wes". And again i have seen writers never change "kraken" and in the end look at the outcome of the writer bases attitude with them. As I know few know these people the ones who do know exactly what I mean.

My point is while from a perspective of someone like you and I who have seen it all, these recommendations seem to make nothing but sense. But to the younger writer base whow write from a win at all costs standpoint they may seem limiting in thier creative process. While we know that story is more important then winning few here share that outlook. The best we can hope is that somewhere in all thos we can help younger writers make up thier own minds and try to set an example that will make them question thoer writing style.

But like I said I agree with what you said. Well most, I think why it is abused and not writen correctly slicing is a very effective battle field stratagy.

Anyway those are my thoughts.

 

[Kamon's OOC]

[member="Reshmar"]
It is effective if used and done correctly. I'm more interested in seeing it done correctly and not abused, however. I've RP'd against them where I was trying to hack in. I even had a hard point access. I was basically just rick-rolled and told I suck and couldn't possibly hack their system. So I dislike slicing in RP because it isn't RP'd fairly. And as I said, the above could be rewritten to make more sense.

But yes, I understand what you're saying. For you and I, these are common sense. For a lot on this site, they won't be. Still, it's a conversation I think needs to be had in order to prepare people for the future.

 

[Kiyron]

All four of the non-negotiable rules are already in place in some form or another in invasions. Slicing isn't, because it's only recently appeared as having much affect on invasions.

 

[Kamon's OOC]

[member="Kiyron"]
They aren't adhered to. I listed them as general knowledge, even if they are accepted (and yes, I knew they were).

 

[Ellie Mors]

The Master Invasion Rules List Negotiable Slicing Limitations: Slicing is often overused to do things that simply are not plausible or possible. While it certainly has its uses, slicing is not as easy as it is often made out to be. The proposal is to place a limit or, possibly, ban on slicing use in this operation in order to focus on the more realistic efforts of battle, which would not include battlefield slicing. If a limit is accepted, only hard line access will be an acceptable method of slicing. Jacking into a port is necessary.

I think rather than generally this it should be a list of what is not allowed for "slicing". A lot of slicing done in previous invasions simply is not slicing in the star wars sense, nor hacking in the real world sense.

You MUST take losses

I think this is a very, very, black and white view on situations. If someone drops a bomb over an LZ and it is shot out of the sky by AA turrets, nobody is taking a loss, and while it is common sense - rules override common sense and making this a rule would be completely nonsensical in various situations.

It is not an acceptable excuse to say that you are ignoring someone's post just because you do not agree with it.

Pretty sure this has happened before.

The 24 Hour Rule: Opponents must allow their opposing combatant a 24 hour window to respond to their post before moving on. This is an RP board and people have outside lives. 24 hours is a fair timeframe for posting. Exceptions may be made on a case by case basis between combatants.

I honestly feel 24 hours is far too short, many of us have day/night/all day jobs. That being said, if someone moves on from you and finishes the conflict without taking a victory over the other person before the allotted time is over then it is their loss. I think it goes without saying that if there is a maximum delay between posts allowed, without taking into consideration the private agreements on longer waits, you can't leave them behind before that limit is up. If they do then it is their loss, as per the rules of the post time limit.

I think we should discard the ridiculous, stupid, PVP counting score list (I.E; I win fight A, +1 to Republic, Sith wins fight B, +1 to Sith) - it wasn't always like this, as hard as that is to grasp, and go back to over-all progression/story invasions, where you could still sacrifice your character without potentially losing the invasion after blowing yourself up with ten other people. I think the whole objective-based invasions that started with Barab I have historically been poor invasions to take part in, especially ones such as Kashyyk or Ord Mirit.

Example:

Faction A invades planet C, ran by Faction B.

• Faction A manages to break through the defensive positions of B, takes heavy losses but continues to press.
• Faction B sends in suicide squad that manages to reduce a portion of A's forces, but A still attempts to capture area D of planet C with their remaining few elite forces while the rest of them stay outside to provide distraction/defense for those inside.
• Faction A retreats into area D, which they have been attempting to capture, while a select few remain outside as martyrs/sacrifices to keep back B long enough to take D, which we'll call a castle/tower for ease of reference.
• B is unable to secure tower by end of the invasion, and though A took heavy losses they were able to take the tower and keep it.
• End of invasion decides outcome - if A could take the tower and keep it, reinforcements would show up and overrun B from the planet; if not, they were pushed out and B would keep the planet.
• A takes planet because they were able to succeed without having their losses count against them for successfully taking the vantage point (which I guess is still somewhat of an objective). B still suffered some losses, comparable to A, but were unable to secure the tower.

Or, as was done on Empress Teta's second invasion:

• A's fleet deploys the ground/air/infantry forces while duking it out with B's fleet to bide time. Victor of this doesn't necessarily matter unless it is agreed upon by said people that it does.
• A's goal is to take the city (Cinnegar in this case), and push B out. B is to retain the control over the city and repel A.
• A & B engage in heavy combat where the air forces on both sides take huge losses and the ground vehicles/troops keep a stalemate.
• A drops a huge bomb on the center of the city and flees.
• B keeps planet due to Pyrrhic Victory - pushing out A but taking major losses and huge damage to the city.

In both cases PVP victories (as in each duel won) would not be counted, though they would continue to influence the outcome of the invasion (as you still need people to be able to hold the line in various cases), and the result of the invasion is more dependent both story and combat than just tallying wins.

 

[Geneviève Lasedri]

[member="Braith Achlys"]

Keep in mind that the Republic FAs are not the ones who have been pushing for PVP-exclusive objectives. Hence why I promoted a Manaan-style invasion at Balmorra, except with some form of NPC regulation to cut out the 'zerg rush'. While we were able to get a decent set of terms, it is still not entirely the free-form invasion I was looking for due to continual insistence on 'PVP-only'.

I think invasions should include all aspects of war and character story. We just need limits... and some common sense courtesy with a willingness to actually take a blow here and there. The latter points are what typically seem to be lacking.

 

[Ellie Mors]

PVP-exclusive objectives

Objectives should not center around PvP, NPCs, or victories of a mix of the two. The objective should be the objective and the invasion should be decided by the final outcome of the invasion, not by how many objectives are checked off or who has the highest/lowest body count.

Empress Teta, which I'll reference a lot because it was one of my first invasions after I got used to the forum, was decided by the fact that Mandalorians left the planet - even though they would have taken it if they had stayed and continued to press an assault. Their leader was killed, they fled, and though they left after dropping off a huge present in the form of 3-4 nukes and Dralshy'a, they still ended up losing the invasion because of their decision to flee. For all intents and purposes they would have taken the planet if that hadn't happened.

 

[Geneviève Lasedri]

[member="Braith Achlys"]

Objectives are necessary in the sense that no one ever defeated a nation (or world, in Star Wars) by simply destroying every civil structure in sight. The regulations we see lately are the product of players who seem to disregard consequences.

Objectives should not be constricting. But they are goals for the story characters to strive for.

 

[Danger Arceneau]

was decided by the fact that Mandalorians left the planet - even though they would have taken it if they had stayed and continued to press an assault.

This is not true.

This was determined by PVP wins on those objectives. By then it was already 4 weeks later and people were tired of continuing. The mandos had not been successful at taking Teta.

 

[Aleister Grey]

I’m not chiming to agree or disagree. Though I do have something to say.

Being around as long as some of you, I have seen much. This is what I do know from my perspective. Nothing is infallible. Nothing is perfect. There is no true sense of a utopian system. Though there is always chance of improvement. From what I have seen here on Chaos things do work. It may not be perfect but it has worked to some degree. If not, I would have not joined a takeover after refusing to join another after….how many years has it been? I think it has been near five years since I was last in an invasion. Things had gotten real bad on another board many of us were on before. So much so I had lost the taste for invasions.

Could there be small changes to make the role playing atmosphere better for invasions? Maybe. Forced change never ends well. I have seen it before. It ends the communication. The lack of good communication ends boards. So please commune but please remember. You can’t change someone who is not ready to change. Then again many of these rules we have now is to eliminate the chance of things that happened in the past.

 

[Kamon's OOC]

Bear in mind that the rules I've written are very rudimentary and quickly constructed. They are not perfect, nor was I conceiving them as completed. It was simply to get the ball rolling, and I see that some have begun good conversation because of it.

What people on this board fail to realize is that invasions aren't about winning, they're about competitive story telling. They're about the harshness of war and the toll it takes upon our characters. They're about how our characters react to having the world cut out from under them and being thrust to do things that they might not like. This isn't the real world where winning and losing in battle matters. We're writing stories for enjoyment. Which means that when you're been a kriffing jerk to someone, you aren't contributing positive writing.

The OS has continuously been a faction of jerks and bullies which is why invasions with them always end up with serious problems, and why some of us have grown rather hostile towards them. The goal of my creating this thread was in the hopes of us coming up with a way to make it so that they can't be jerks even if that's what they want to do, so that BOTH sides can enjoy an invasion for once.

 

[Taeli Raaf]

Please keep this conversation as constructive and do not let personal OOC feelings towards people into it, or else I'm gonna have to take action. If you have an idea about future invasion rules we might want to try, feel free to post them, but do not turn this thread into a bashing session of the OS please.

 

[Kamon's OOC]

I also don't mean to imply that all OS members are jerks and bullies. Simply not true. I just use the OS as an example because they are the most current, relevant example to use.

Ideally this thread is meant to create a list of guidelines and rules surrounding our attempt to make invasions fun for everyone, and more about storytelling than winning.

 

[Seraphina Shel'tah]

The overarching problem here is the manner in which this place operates. It is staffed on a least restrictive ideology, meaning that it is up to the players to regulate themselves up until the point where theoretical fists are being thrown and a RPJ has to make a call that inevitably favors one party over the other. It's also fine and well to say that an RPJ or staff member is impartial, but like every human being, it's not really true. Someone will always be favored over someone else. It's just human nature.

That being said, rules are just rules and only implemented when called out for being broken, at which point the entire invasion becomes subject to analyzing, and then the fun of picking apart every single person's post comes into effect and the situation just spirals out of control from there.

Now, some people write for story, and by story I mean the story, not their story. There is a difference between writing the story and your story. I've seen far too many people claiming to write for story when in fact what they really mean is they are writing what they want to happen, and any attempts to divert from that story are met with complaints, reports, demands for edits, and uncompromising viewpoints. That's not writing for story, that's writing to win under the visage of story. Writing for story is a collaborative effort between two or more people with a clear understanding of boundaries and limitations. Sadly, certain writers of this board don't understand that subtle difference and refuse to acknowledge that. This is why I no longer participate in these.

Making a list of rules for invasions sounds fine, even putting limitations on them sounds great in theory, but the problem has been, in every invasion I've participated in, or simply read through, both the IC and OOC threads boil down to the same issue:

1. People don't write collaboratively, fail to understand what that word means, and generally only care about winning.
2. Rules are only rules when the opposing team breaks them.

I don't see any of this changing, simply based off of how the structure of invasions are set up here. Perhaps I'm wrong and by the graces of the RP gods invasions might one day be worth participating in again, but for now, I will simply continue on with private threads and pay no attention to the crayon war mongers who have to play "fill in the map" with their crayon.

 

[Kamon's OOC]

Nothing wrong with conquering. It's what some characters are bred for.

But yes, you are correct in your analysis. It's not individual stories being written here, it's a galactic one. Every story is part of the tale of the whole. If you become locked into your story, then you are no longer RPing, you are simply writing. If that's what people are aiming for then they shouldn't be here in the first place.

However, rules do serve a purpose in that if there are none, there will inevitably be people who are abusive. The Internet bully/troll is a major issue in the RP world. If rules are in place, people have a guide for what they can and cannot do.

Ultimately the issue comes down to people being fair. Impartiality will not ever exist because everyone has friends, goals, and motives. It can't exist. Truthfully, issues should probably be resolved by group consensus through a tribunal of peers (a jury if you will) where majority goes. But that's a huge pain in the butt in most cases.

People need to learn how to RP and collaborate on story is what it boils down to. But that won't happen until people are slapped into realizing that the way they view RP us wrong. The only way to do that is by imposing rules that are fair to ALL parties.

[member="Seraphina Shel'tah"]

 

[ADM. Reshmar]

While the system is flawed and the rules are not very limiting in scope it is the system we have. Finding a way to develop new rules that have a broader scope may not be the answer. I submit that this be done in the planning phase when the two parties work out the Invasion. That is when rules guiding an invasion can be hammered out. ALso do not make rules that limit a persons creativity. Yes some push the border and even cross it into power gaming and god modding and in some cases ignore other parties involved when they try to work out their issues with that persons post. This happens and well will always happen until the community as a whole decide to change it. Chaos has a large group of writers and the more writers the more opinions, the more opinions the more conflict. The key is not to impose your opinion onto someone.

For instance, and IM not pointing at anyone or any one faction. In my opinion there have been slights against collaborative writing on both sides of the invasion at Contruum. While alot of people feel some people are writing beyond limitations both physically and imaginary, that all falls on a individual writers perspective. One main issue is the failure of some writers to adapt to these situations. There are times that writers push and cross what another thinks can happen and is possible and the person immediately goes to pm for conflict. I mean expecting a fight. so going in they are already shields up weapons charges so to say. I was guilty of this in my debate about someone mistakenly positioning my forces in a position it was not. Fueled by OOC ferver and was more hostile then I should have been towards a person to at that point I had never had a single OOC word with. I was going into the PM expecting conflict. The issue is not what is written it is the OOC carrying over into the IC.

There have been conflicts that could have been prevented by just not taking things that happen IC into the OOC. Hell alot of the issues are not even god modding issues and If i were writing from an evil bad guy crazy with dark energy I may have in some way written something close to what they did. They are bad guys, that's what they do. This does not excuse power writing and GMing in the cases where that is indeed the case, but in most cases there is more OOC rage associated with the initial PM to the party. that is where this all goes sideways.

Invasions are flawed , no doubt, but they are a major factor in the forum chemistry. They need better rules no doubt but I feel that can be addressed in the planning stage. If the FA planning it has something they have in mind to limit any form of GMing or power gaming add it to their invasion proposal. You will not get any form of forum wide rule change with the current status of the OOC attitudes involved here.

 

[Kamon's OOC]

I should have been more specific that I intended these rules and guidelines to be things dealt with between FA's during invasion planning. Still, what you say is correct, Reshmar. It's the us versus them mentality that pervades the forum as a whole that creates all of these issues. Unfortunately that will never change because some people come here with the mindset that there is an endgame and they want to win.