How do you feel about the Rebellion rules?

[Grrwunhoooll Agaburry]

Rebellions need to be easier to start in my opinion. I really want to start one and cause chaos

 

[Reverance]

A lot of the power still rests in the hands of major factions. Yes, major faction members can push a dominion to tier 2 fairly easily with just ten posts, which then opens it up to the power of minor factions. But they do it at the risk of causing drama within the faction, particularly if the intent of the leaders is to scuttle along business as usual. I.e. hit 100 and start up a brand new dominion. And even going back to initiation, a rebellion must be preceded by a dominion, which is first initiated by a major faction.

While there is a ton of incentive to do tier three dominions, for the largest factions, the risk it poses is also very real (at least perceived). Which in turn means that there still is no real cost to just continuing as is, sticking with bottom tier (particularly for those with an already massive hold on territory as is).

Personally, I love the idea of rebellions and the way it's been developed. And I'd love for them to start popping up. But I also think it would be equally interesting to see them forced on the largest of the factions. For instance, inactivity at a particular tendril or planet causes an all out rebellion that any minor faction can claim with activity, without there ever being a dominion.

But I think that's just a pipe dream...

 

[Julius Sedaire]

I'll be honest, I lack the attention span rcently to really devote to things that confuse me. And i've tried to read the rules for the new doms and rebellions about three separate times now since they came out. I have no better grasp now than the beginning, and everyone seems to be spouting different opinions and views on what and how and such.

So for me? They are confusing, murky, and causing panic style drama already. I can't imagine it will be much better when they hit the main stage. It feels rather like dominions, the one part of faction threads I liked, were just forcibly added to PVP, and that this new set of rules is just sort of hap-hazardly tacking on PvP as a more prominent facet to the dominion process than it was before.

I don't personally like the 'map game' as we call it here, and all i've ever seen arise from it is drama, butt-hurt, and egos. Not seen much at all of a contribution to story that outweighs the negatives those bring either. Further muddying those waters with more rules (and ones that are in my opinion murky at best in terms of my understanding) is just not going to end well.

But, this likely means I will just withdraw from doing much with major factions and stick to Minor Factions, Private Threads, and Non-Faction Public threads since everyone is in mild hysterics over dominions now. Doesn't mean they should change based on my opinion, and my opinion on all of this is likely wrong. Very wrong i'd wager. But until I understand them otherwise, that's the dealio for me.

So there it is as it stands, my $0.02

 

[Fatty]

I love the concept, and I can't wait to see it executed!

In fact, I would love if there was some sort of summit between writers and factions, to see if we could kick off the first Rebellion in an Event-like Style. I volunteer as tribute to help out!

 

[Isamu Baelor]

I am conflicted. I like the high risk, high reward aspect of it. I like that if a faction wants to risk it, they can expand really quickly. On the other hand, I'm not a fan of not being able to cap it at Tier 1. PVP stuff is fairly stressful, and we were gonna leave that to Invasions. Dom's were gonna be these low-stress PVE storyline threads. Now there's that cloud hanging over Dominions, that it could turn into a high-stress PVP situation. I feel like that high risk/high reward scenario should only be there if you choose to go to that level. I don't think the Rebellion idea would be hurt by giving people the option to very slowly, but safely, expand.

 

[Brynyar Ordo]

Perhaps a good way of doing this to make rebellions easier is to basically also use it as a way in which a minor faction could declare war on major factions allowing them to attempt rebellions on planet taken territory (except the capital of course.) . This would boost activity in major and minor factions as major factions would never have a certain territory unless they work hard at it. Another thing to balance this is to allow three selected planets beside the capital be unavailable for rebellion, once these three planets are selected the rest are game for constant rebellion and attack (unless one of said planets is taken from an invasion, then a new planet can replace this one). My rational opinion on this is the fact that certain worlds during the fight between the empire and the rebellion were ultra imperial loyalists, in which an underground rebellion was hopeless , forcing the rebellion to have to take those planets by force. While other planets held by the empire were constantly subject to insurgency type take overs by the rebellion. Endor is an example of that, the ewoks represent the insurgency type tactic the rebellion used if the planet's loyalties were in question. While the battle for the major factions like the empire were direct like on the battle of Hoth . I know it may not be the best idea but maybe parts of this would allow rebellion factions to have more freedom.

 

[Ilias Nytrau]

I'd like to see this thing happen, [member="Tefka"]. Make it so.

 

[Jsc]

This is not a thing. The rules stipulate *large fleets/armies.

^ I'm lovin' this.

...

In regard to Rebellions this week. 12 hexes a year per Major Faction is great for expansion. I expect we'll being seeing far more 'expanding' by our Majors and far less 'rebelling' from our Minors, in one years time. But that's just me guessing.

 

[Tefka]

These are my issues with PvP in a text based environment and my opinion based on the current state of the rules for Rebellions as I understand them.

It's my opinion that if you don't want to PvP, you should stay away from anything map-related (influence clouds, invasions, dominions). Dominions are inherently PvE but they lead towards PvP.

Factions that don't want to PvP should not do Dominions or even pop up on the map. To go major is to claim land. Land is finite. Eventually, someone will want what is yours.

I get your reasoning, but I think you need to look further down the road. All things map-related lead to PvP.

 

[Julian Viles Priest]

I adore this idea you have made. Rebellions are a big part of Star Wars, doing this just adds to the feel of Star Warsy RP.

 

[Mantic Dorn]

It is a good idea in general.

It will lead to issues with "smaller major factions" since they cant afford to loose entire hexes, and that can lead to unecesaary OOC drama that could be prevented by simply allowing a cap at tier one should faction admins choose to set it.

The thing with that all map things are pvp oriented is a good recomendation but it also hampers many writers that need to first learn to write PvE oriented with "regular" writer interaction. Thats from a "new member perspective" so to speak.

So apart from the lack of caping at tier 1 I give it two thumbs up.

 

[Netherworld]

I really love the potential opportunities that Tier 3 Dominions and Rebellions bring to the table. Let's face it, the old Dominion-Invasion rhythm has become largely stagnant, and Rebellions present a chance to shake up the game again.

To allow capping at T1 would be nipping those chances in the bud. The factions who hold the most territory have already expressed their unwillingness to take risks, even though it would make the most sense, ICly, for their fringe planets to rebel.

I would also like to draw a parallel between Invasions and Rebellions; a faction can't "deny" an Invasion, because enemies don't simply stop attacking if you ask them nicely enough. The same should go for Rebellions, seeing as the dissatisfied populace wouldn't be particularly inclined to leave the perceived tyrannical regime in place.

Bottom line, I think Rebellions are an awesome opportunity and we should give it a go at least once before we rush to fix the possible issues we aren't even sure will exist.

 

[Jack Sparrow]

I like it.

Would it help if we ran one as a non-canon test? I'm sure we could find any number of minor factions who'd volunteer. Maybe offer a small reward IC for participation?

 

[Fatty]

Bottom line, I think Rebellions are an awesome opportunity and we should give it a go at least once before we rush to fix the possible issues we aren't even sure will exist.

This 1000% percent.

We need to do this once, before we can start criticisms towards its implications. Let's test the implications in the field, where it deserves to be criticized. For the Rebellion and Tiered dominions to be successful, it needs one test, for good or ill. Otherwise it will die here in this discussion, and we'll never know for sure what story-lines could have been had we just done it.

 

[Raziel]

So the major faction owners who want to be able to force a cap at tier 1, what would make you more likely to go for a tier 3?

If people will fight an invasion for one world surely worth the risk of a rebellion for 3-10?

 

[Mantic Dorn]

So the major faction owners who want to be able to force a cap at tier 1, what would make you more likely to go for a tier 3?

If people will fight an invasion for one world surely worth the risk of a rebellion for 3-10?

An in built protection versus too much drama. One could, with a vivid imagination think that this will hit the GR and in that case I, along with the bulk of the GR writers would be watery in the eyes if it was done without a story that we can relate to.
We are trying to Role Play a light sided faction and if I may take a long shot here I am guessing we will see someone starting a rebellion where the GR has done great evil acts.
If, the rebellions are driven by story that the Major faction feel is the right stuff it wont matter. We would not mind a rebelion lead by a sith lord that has brain washed some folks into serving them or whatnot, but when someone appears from nowhere stating that the people consider the Republic tyrrants despite many, many members hard efforts to write a solid and good hearted faction it will be sort of neglecting their attempts to have fun with a faction in Chaos.

But, then, right here I am stomping in the big poodle of podoo again, and many very angry writers will claim that I am trying to control what folk write instead of the other way around! Bad Mantic!

So, dont mind me... I'll just be over here and dealing with it when it hits the fan.
No worries.

 

[Darth Ferus]

The first day the rule was implemented a Rebellion almost started. But because of a little mishap with the rules it didn't. Which isn't good or bad in my opinion, just how it goes. Why I bring this up though is because of the sudden surge of activity. Seven or more factions jumped right in to begin it. That's huge in my mind, as I've never seen that many factions all interact at the same time. I love the rule, I see a lot of potential for huge interactions that otherwise wouldn't.

 

[Mantic Dorn]

Suggestion.
1. The rebellion initiaters have to forewarn the faction they are starting a rebellion against. Same as in an invasion.
2. Both factions are to agree with the story behind the rebellion and it should reflect the dominion story up until post 100 somehow. Ie, if a faction has a dominion about freeing slaves and having nice diplo talks the rebellion could for instance be backed by the local slave traders that want to reinstate slave markets.

This will take away loads of potential drama imo.

Or the simple sollution. Cap possibility at tier 1.

 

[Fatty]

[member="Mantic Dorn"] I'm pretty sure the Tier One cap possibility is only ever going to be faction enforced, and not staff enforced. Because only people approved by the faction can join Tier One, and no "sneaking in" can happen that would push it over into Tier two territory, where by it can spiral off into a Tier three/rebellion.

So you can already cap it off if you wanted, so long as you can trust the people you approved to be in your initial dominion. But once you go for bigger rewards, it should only be intuitive that there should be bigger risks. It's like investments. You can go the safe route and invest in something low risk with low rewards (Tier One Dominion), maybe go for something a bit riskier but with slightly higher rewards (Tier Two Dominions), but once you go for something has highly rewarding as an entire hex, you better believe there is a high risk you are going to have deal with something less desirable (Tier Three into a Rebellion).

You can't control who hates your government and for what reasons, otherwise we'd only have one government. Trying to regulate the story based on who's currently in control, is the antithesis of what a Rebellion is about.

If you don't want to deal with rebellions, then take no risks, but I have a pretty strong feeling you'll be missing out an innovative and new piece of role playing experience.

 

[Mantic Dorn]

[member="Fatty"]
As per usual peeps dont read me well. I did not say no to rebellions. I said yes. You will prob find me in them seingim my saber shouting jihaa!


But to be consistant with my own image, let me put it this way;

Fact - writers will abuse this for ooc reasons causing unecessary ooc drama that could easily be avoided by:

Suggestion.
1. The rebellion initiaters have to forewarn the faction they are starting a rebellion against. Same as in an invasion.
2. Both factions are to agree with the story behind the rebellion and it should reflect the dominion story up until post 100 somehow. Ie, if a faction has a dominion about freeing slaves and having nice diplo talks the rebellion could for instance be backed by the local slave traders that want to reinstate slave markets.
This will take away loads of potential drama imo.
Or the simple sollution. Cap possibility at tier 1.

The major faction sets the "tone" of the dominion and the rebells will have to be creative and find their rebell support in the dominion story frame-work.