Gray Raxis
Blind and Broken
[member="Yarva Adisu"]
Yes but draws are not going to happen realistically with an odd number of judging points.
Yes but draws are not going to happen realistically with an odd number of judging points.
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!
Invasion Criteria Rework
- Thread starter Valiens Nantaris
- Start date
-
- Tags
- feedback
Alyson Halle
Supreme Gentlewoman
Replace Rallying with unity, sides which write more as one unit should be rewarded over disorganized messes. Sides which show that they can act as a Faction to tell a cohesive story should be rewarded in that, things like cooperation between different PCs and Groups of PCs to accomplish a larger objective. Invasion should be INVASIONS they should feel like large scale highly organized operations not a bunch of PCs locked in a room fighting each other for the fate of the galaxy. I have long had a problem with scale in Invasions, they feel disorganized and small for the objective they want to accomplish, different objectives rarely communicate or cooperate to complete their objectives. We should encourage large scale cooperation in Invasions both between teams and internally within factions. The two sides should cooperate to tell a cohesive story both internally within their own faction and within the confines of the invasion. Winning should be less important than telling a long term cohesive story.
The reason i dislike the Rallying criteria is that is tries to push a certain kind of story, one where heroes band together against a superior foe, and while that is rather exciting, it is not in fact what one will always want to write in a certain situation. While this is an unlikely scenario, i am going to posit it anyway, imagine a scenario where a group of say 100 soldiers are surrounded by a horde of billions of battledroids, and it is a race against time to evacuate the planet before they are overrun, and more importantly, before their fleet in orbit glasses the entire planet. In this case the story does not involve "Rallying" but is just as compelling. They have lost, and must now write the fallout of that defeat.
Otherwise i think these are great changes which will limit the massive amounts of salt produced ever invasion cycle. Good work ^_^
The reason i dislike the Rallying criteria is that is tries to push a certain kind of story, one where heroes band together against a superior foe, and while that is rather exciting, it is not in fact what one will always want to write in a certain situation. While this is an unlikely scenario, i am going to posit it anyway, imagine a scenario where a group of say 100 soldiers are surrounded by a horde of billions of battledroids, and it is a race against time to evacuate the planet before they are overrun, and more importantly, before their fleet in orbit glasses the entire planet. In this case the story does not involve "Rallying" but is just as compelling. They have lost, and must now write the fallout of that defeat.
Otherwise i think these are great changes which will limit the massive amounts of salt produced ever invasion cycle. Good work ^_^
Nima Tann
Master of Her Own Destiny
I think this is a step in the right direction, however needs some tweaking.
I agree with [member="Enyo Typhos"] that these rules don't add/change much than the current one, feels same with different names.
The Story criteria says that "Winning is not important, you can lose and still win the invasion." This doesn't make sense from the story standpoint. You can't win an invasion if you are losing in it in general.
I like Rallying criteria and if it can be implemented well, it can result in good storylines. However, it is connected to the Story criteria once again, so winning in these key moments will not mean much.
I agree with [member="Enyo Typhos"] that these rules don't add/change much than the current one, feels same with different names.
The Story criteria says that "Winning is not important, you can lose and still win the invasion." This doesn't make sense from the story standpoint. You can't win an invasion if you are losing in it in general.
I like Rallying criteria and if it can be implemented well, it can result in good storylines. However, it is connected to the Story criteria once again, so winning in these key moments will not mean much.
WelshPsych
Rawr!!!
[member="Jamie Pyne"]
Maybe, but a faction with more than one invasion on its hands, might then not have as many "active posts". I'd argue that Presence is the weaker to judge that won't be RPJs just looking at numbers involved.
Maybe, but a faction with more than one invasion on its hands, might then not have as many "active posts". I'd argue that Presence is the weaker to judge that won't be RPJs just looking at numbers involved.
Gray Raxis
Blind and Broken
[member="Jamie Pyne"]
Your response went through while I was responding to Yarva. Just wanted you to know I'm not ignoring you or something!
I do agree that the current judging criteria needs to be more streamlined, but the main issue right now with it is that the two opposing factions have no reason to interact with each other in any sort of positive, constructive way. Factions are only being encouraged to work with their own side and that defeats the whole point of having a cross-faction thread on an RP site. It should be that people automatically want to work with each other but considering that factions have to do dominions to gain the hexes being invaded they get very protective of their territory. This leads to people not going into invasions with the intent to create a narrative together rather to outright win. That is where all the drama stems from for invasions and why things are being abused. I just think pushing so much emphasis on it for judging to the point it has a real impact on the outcome will encourage people who haven't been working with the other faction to actually do that. And the factions who have been doing that will be rewarded for it.
The point of making it 4 is so that invasions have a realistic chance of being a draw. With an odd number of criteria you have a system that greatly hinders any chance of a draw or neutral outcome. Instead it rewards a win/lose outcome. This is also reflected in how the invasions get approached when judged. People feel there has to be a clear winner and loser when there doesn't need to be. If it gets turned into an even number though then two sides drawing becomes realistic. It means it can actually happen and judges don't feel they have to decide a winner between 2 equal performances. As I said it also helps deal with the abuse issue because with the current change people just need to tunnel on winning 2 out of 3 criteria to win rather than 3 out of 5. It doesn't fix the abuse of the system. It just makes judging easier.
To address the issue of adding on more work for judges, I feel like it doesn't really do that all that much to add on a criteria focused on cross-faction cooperation. As you said the elements are already there so judges should already be looking for it. The issue lies in that these elements get completely overshadowed by everything with them being so scattered so all you are really doing is putting them together then judges can just put their thoughts from the other areas together to sort that one out. It just adds a little extra work but has a ton of benefits for everyone.
Anyways that is just my thoughts on it. Staff will do what yall think is best for the site and regardless of what that is I appreciate it. Yall put in a lot of effort for the board and everyone on it so we can enjoy ourselves. I just wanted to voice my opinion to try and help out a bit in my own way.
Your response went through while I was responding to Yarva. Just wanted you to know I'm not ignoring you or something!
I do agree that the current judging criteria needs to be more streamlined, but the main issue right now with it is that the two opposing factions have no reason to interact with each other in any sort of positive, constructive way. Factions are only being encouraged to work with their own side and that defeats the whole point of having a cross-faction thread on an RP site. It should be that people automatically want to work with each other but considering that factions have to do dominions to gain the hexes being invaded they get very protective of their territory. This leads to people not going into invasions with the intent to create a narrative together rather to outright win. That is where all the drama stems from for invasions and why things are being abused. I just think pushing so much emphasis on it for judging to the point it has a real impact on the outcome will encourage people who haven't been working with the other faction to actually do that. And the factions who have been doing that will be rewarded for it.
The point of making it 4 is so that invasions have a realistic chance of being a draw. With an odd number of criteria you have a system that greatly hinders any chance of a draw or neutral outcome. Instead it rewards a win/lose outcome. This is also reflected in how the invasions get approached when judged. People feel there has to be a clear winner and loser when there doesn't need to be. If it gets turned into an even number though then two sides drawing becomes realistic. It means it can actually happen and judges don't feel they have to decide a winner between 2 equal performances. As I said it also helps deal with the abuse issue because with the current change people just need to tunnel on winning 2 out of 3 criteria to win rather than 3 out of 5. It doesn't fix the abuse of the system. It just makes judging easier.
To address the issue of adding on more work for judges, I feel like it doesn't really do that all that much to add on a criteria focused on cross-faction cooperation. As you said the elements are already there so judges should already be looking for it. The issue lies in that these elements get completely overshadowed by everything with them being so scattered so all you are really doing is putting them together then judges can just put their thoughts from the other areas together to sort that one out. It just adds a little extra work but has a ton of benefits for everyone.
Anyways that is just my thoughts on it. Staff will do what yall think is best for the site and regardless of what that is I appreciate it. Yall put in a lot of effort for the board and everyone on it so we can enjoy ourselves. I just wanted to voice my opinion to try and help out a bit in my own way.
skin, bone, and arrogance
Until we deal with the godmoding problem, "you can lose and still win the invasion" must remain - otherwise the godmoding will get worse than it already is.Nima Tann said:
Valiens Nantaris
Head Admin
As a side note, if you are opposed and have given feedback to this thread remember to vote.
I want the poll to be (somewhat) reflective of people's views.
I want the poll to be (somewhat) reflective of people's views.
Nima Tann
Master of Her Own Destiny
[member="Avadreia Lacroix"]
I understand your point, but people can also take advantage of it like [member="Jorus Merrill"] said.
I understand your point, but people can also take advantage of it like [member="Jorus Merrill"] said.
skin, bone, and arrogance
I don't disagree, but I'd prefer if our rule system wasn't something we had to "work around", exploit, or otherwise game. It leads to underhandedness and bad sportsmanship.Nima Tann said:
Delila Castillon
#OldRedheadsReign
[member="Jamie Pyne"]
Sorry, that is what I meant. Was having post issues at the time.
Sorry, that is what I meant. Was having post issues at the time.
OOC Writer Account
I have an issue with the “rallying” criteria, I for one do not enjoy having my story railroaded by an entity or event completely unrelated to the developing story. And as Robogeber pointed out, what if a Faction’s forces don’t rally? What that’s going to be counted against them during judging? That idea to me is rediculous, only a small part of a battle can be viewed through the window of an invasion thread. The staff aren’t there to DM our invasions and that’s exactly what I see happening under the “rallying” criteria with the way that it is written. I don’t write on Chaos to have a substitute for D&D, and writers I fear will keep this list in the back of their mind as an OOC scoreboard and push their writers to “rally” OOCly after a cataclysmic event because it will look good in front of the judges. Invasions should be carried on the merits of the stories constructed, the co-operation of the participating writers and friendly contribution to the wider story.
The critique aside, beside the “rallying” Portion I can make little objection and the rest looks fair and reasonable for the most part to me.
The critique aside, beside the “rallying” Portion I can make little objection and the rest looks fair and reasonable for the most part to me.
Huxy
[ Message Received ]
As Robogeber pointed out, not all events will involve 'Rallying.' Not all invasions will have some heroic moment amongst the darkest of times for a faction which suffered a major loss...as that is war, at least in my viewpoint. War isn't pretty, it isn't full of rallying cries and heroics. It's full of people fighting for survival and to win, to win for the chance of survival. Not all invasions will allow for or will involve a rallying point or motive in their plotlines, it can be any number of things. That and not all people will be present at the time of rallying. Typically, well in the one invasion I've been in, people are often split up. They are not typically together, more of joined together in groups of two or three to write their own story.
That's where I get into the problem with the 'Story' aspect. As with what I said above, not everyone is going to be grouped up or willing to expand on lore or write consistent victories and defeats. I feel it should be more tied to character-driven and more personal stories rather than just as a whole for lore expansion and the likewise. Such as me, I don't and won't write lore a lot, I will typically focus on my character and his experiences with those around him...the little adventures if you will. So, in short, I feel the story aspect should remain purely character-driven rather than as a quest for lore-expansion. As for collaborating with the faction opposition, what do you mean by that?
Then their Presence, which I feel would be hard to be measured with all of the simultaneous invasions of factions. Some people will be wrapped up in a number of invasions, leading to them having a large invasion participation but maybe not an overly large participation grade in a singular invasion thread. I feel either this should be taken in account for, or drop down the invasions per month to either or two as to give writers some breathing room instead of feeling a bit 'forced,' I guess is the word, due to a large number of invasion threads going on.
Anyways, that's just my 2 cents.
That's where I get into the problem with the 'Story' aspect. As with what I said above, not everyone is going to be grouped up or willing to expand on lore or write consistent victories and defeats. I feel it should be more tied to character-driven and more personal stories rather than just as a whole for lore expansion and the likewise. Such as me, I don't and won't write lore a lot, I will typically focus on my character and his experiences with those around him...the little adventures if you will. So, in short, I feel the story aspect should remain purely character-driven rather than as a quest for lore-expansion. As for collaborating with the faction opposition, what do you mean by that?
Then their Presence, which I feel would be hard to be measured with all of the simultaneous invasions of factions. Some people will be wrapped up in a number of invasions, leading to them having a large invasion participation but maybe not an overly large participation grade in a singular invasion thread. I feel either this should be taken in account for, or drop down the invasions per month to either or two as to give writers some breathing room instead of feeling a bit 'forced,' I guess is the word, due to a large number of invasion threads going on.
Anyways, that's just my 2 cents.
Raziel
Dark Jedi Spymaster
I'm going to quote myself here:Jamie Pyne said:
Rhys said:
I am glad that staff are considering this from the angle of member enjoyment.
I have seen a lot of invasions where, under the current criteria, Factions have been punished for not all sticking rigidly to the same script. It happened to my own opposition in an invasion and in hindsight they should not have been punished for an inconsistent story, but judged for not making enough headway in their goals (that is an important distinction).
Writers should not be punished for enjoying themselves and just focusing on their own little aspect of the invasion.
Invasions have been relatively drama free, but the amount of interactions between Factions seems to have decreased a great deal. We used to have grand duels and rivalries that spanned many invasions. They've been a bit bland. Most of the time the entire first week is spent setting the scene with almost no interaction.
A lot of the issues stem from the fact that it is a very big ask to get a Judge to read 500 posts of an invasion and come out with a genuine feel for the ebb and flow of a story. It's easier to look at post headers, skim and go "Yeah these guys seem organised." As such individual aspects of an invasion tend to get judged in isolation. A few moments that catch the Judge's attention can be enough and this seems to lead to some pre-planning and grandstanding instead of having fun with the opposition.
That said, specifics:
- I don't like "Rallying". Factions will artificially generate these failure moments with pre-planned response tactics. Not every writer needs to jump on the response when these happen. Just as in a real war, writers on the ground are focused on their own little duel or piece of the big picture.
- Call it "Turning Points" or something to that effect. It's not just the response to a failure, it is how well both sides create these big moments in invasions and respond to them. They all have these. Right back to the sinking of the city at Manaan and forward to the destruction of the space station in the Hoth hex. It's those key events that drive success in the big story and they can come from anywhere. Your judges need to read invasions properly, understand the context of these events and not just judge posts in isolation. Ask the Faction Admins from each side to explain how they feel these moments impacted the story if you need to.
- I like "Presence" as a replacement for Effort and Entertainment. I feel it encompasses these in a more positive way.
- I think that OOC Drama should remain as a "secondary criteria". It doesn't count as a "best of X" system but can come into play if one side act like dicks. (People are still being dicks, they're just doing it on Discord out of sight of the Judges (which is still much better than it was)).
When I was staff and we created these criteria it was supposed to reduce the amount of bickering between Faction Admins in creating and arguing over duels and objectives. Members of Factions were being punished for not "winning" by their own staff. It was never my understanding at the time that the new criteria were going to be "Best of Five" and in hindsight I think that was a mistake.
Deleted
Active Member
I voted yes only as new rules and regulations will come up now and then for things, and not everyone will be happy regardless. Change is good, see if something works. If not, it's changed again.
No matter the criteria for winning an invasion, I feel OOC factors surrounding the Factions, their writers and anything else contribute more to this fictional win or losing more than anything IC.
No matter the criteria for winning an invasion, I feel OOC factors surrounding the Factions, their writers and anything else contribute more to this fictional win or losing more than anything IC.
Rallying seems the same as story - in fact, story should just be one factor. Everything about how characters act, react and handle themselves and others is part of what drives their and the Factions story. They would, I feel, naturally "rally" at any major events.
No points, no IC wins or losses (as any writer can simply choose not to lose any encounter from the start and not back down on that), nothing except 'Story' and 'Presence' I guess - the less red-tape for people to worry about adhearing too and worried about failing would hopefully allow them to write in a more enjoyable and less blinkered way without obvious pointers to score on so they can push themselves and be more creative to simply make a logical and exciting story, as that's the whole point of RP. Story.
No points, no IC wins or losses (as any writer can simply choose not to lose any encounter from the start and not back down on that), nothing except 'Story' and 'Presence' I guess - the less red-tape for people to worry about adhearing too and worried about failing would hopefully allow them to write in a more enjoyable and less blinkered way without obvious pointers to score on so they can push themselves and be more creative to simply make a logical and exciting story, as that's the whole point of RP. Story.
Reborn
I have never been completely satisfied with the execution of the current invasion criteria. They were far too subjective to my taste and lacked the inherent clarity of "Faction X has 10 PVP wins, Y has 8, X wins". Yes, there were problems with that system, but the ambiguity surrounding the current criteria is a step-down rather than a step-up in my opinion.
That being said, I support this rule change.
I don't think it necessarily removes the ambiguity, but shaking up the system a bit can provide us some more insight in its weak points.
Maybe this will work better, maybe not, but we won't know until we try in my opinion.
That being said, I support this rule change.
I don't think it necessarily removes the ambiguity, but shaking up the system a bit can provide us some more insight in its weak points.
Maybe this will work better, maybe not, but we won't know until we try in my opinion.
It's a New Day
I agree that the current system is quite subjective and have voted yes to the changes, and going through and reading the comments. I'm inclined to agree with [member="Raziel"] and changing what Rallying is to Turning Points. I feel turning points is much more nautral than Rallying. Save the Rallying for Dominions. In an invasion, you're talking about turning points. We're talking about moment to moment build up to the inevitable destruction of the space station over Anoat. So now we're not focused on if they can 'rally' but how these factions react to what happens in this story.
Invasions are an opportunity to have two big groups come together and write out a great story.
No one, on either side of the GA/FO Hoth invasion could have predicted just how the station was going to go boom. But when it did this became a turning point in the invasion. Turning points are in my opinion, unpredictable, you don't know when one will occur or even if you do, you don't know how. Leaving room for both character/personal story and overall faction narrative of how do they react to this. And understandably not every character is going to be around for such an event especially considering how many theaters there can be in a single invasion but it's enough to say; x just happened where do we go from here.
I believe this would better fit what you're looking for here;
Invasions are an opportunity to have two big groups come together and write out a great story.
No one, on either side of the GA/FO Hoth invasion could have predicted just how the station was going to go boom. But when it did this became a turning point in the invasion. Turning points are in my opinion, unpredictable, you don't know when one will occur or even if you do, you don't know how. Leaving room for both character/personal story and overall faction narrative of how do they react to this. And understandably not every character is going to be around for such an event especially considering how many theaters there can be in a single invasion but it's enough to say; x just happened where do we go from here.
I believe this would better fit what you're looking for here;
Interacting/collaborating with the other group in a fair and meaningful way.
- Turning points would involve the interaction/collaboration of both sides (hopefully).
Taking hits / godmoding.
- Most turning points revolve around taking hits, and anyone who god mods are easily spotted during these little points.
Writing cohesively together as a group, creating and expanding on lore.
- Turning points almost always involve parts of the group and what happens during these moments are typically reflected upon later.
- Typically turning points are already expanding on lore that exists in the theater and creates more by becoming a turning point in a war.
Overall turning points would be better suited than say, Rallying and it plays into the other two categories of presence and story.
- Turning points would involve the interaction/collaboration of both sides (hopefully).
Taking hits / godmoding.
- Most turning points revolve around taking hits, and anyone who god mods are easily spotted during these little points.
Writing cohesively together as a group, creating and expanding on lore.
- Turning points almost always involve parts of the group and what happens during these moments are typically reflected upon later.
- Typically turning points are already expanding on lore that exists in the theater and creates more by becoming a turning point in a war.
Overall turning points would be better suited than say, Rallying and it plays into the other two categories of presence and story.
Ugohr Poof
The Traveling Gungan Salesman
Oh and also a moratorium on invasions until the final rules are released would be well-appreciated.
B E A C O N
Current and future invasions that are started before these rules are finalized will be judged in the current rules.Ugohr Poof said:
Valiens Nantaris
Head Admin
[member="Ugohr Poof"]
Unnecessary due to what [member="Nadja Keto"] above says.
Until the rules are in place they have no effect on current invasions or any announced before the introduction.
@everyone
Thank you for giving your opinions. We are working on a rewrite based on comments and concerns addressed here. We will present a second draft once we have composed it.
Unnecessary due to what [member="Nadja Keto"] above says.
Until the rules are in place they have no effect on current invasions or any announced before the introduction.
@everyone
Thank you for giving your opinions. We are working on a rewrite based on comments and concerns addressed here. We will present a second draft once we have composed it.