Invasion Poll

[Valiens Nantaris]

[member="Kezeroth the Beholder"]
Just as well that's not what this poll is about then, eh?

 

[Ali Hadrix]

OTHER:

Terms of victory should be decided by both parties.

That way we don't have invasions being started solely with the intention of playing to a single side's strengths. Each side gets a chance to fight for terms that suit them well, and through negotiation a middle-ground is reached.

 

[Condor]

I entirely agree with [member="Reshmar"] and think that this change would be great for invasions. The fact that 1v1s, something so inconsequential to any invasion, is held as the golden standard for determining the victor in some cases is absolutely laughable. Space superiority and ground forces are vital for conquering planets, but they hardly seem to have an effect. This change would go a long way for helping to balance invasions

 

[Ordo]

Opposing sides should have a champion verses champion pvp while the rest of the faction engage in a battle of insults and "yo mama" jokes.


You're welcome.

 

[Soeht]

I believe Invasions should revolve around the fact that one Faction is trying to conquer another world.

Thus, the core question of "Who won?" should be based on the story of the Invasion. Did any side call for a retreat? Did someone win over the government? Was the "ultimate weapon" of one side destroyed, thus leaving them powerless? What was the ending of the thread like?

I've seen threads where one person won a planet due to the fact that he was the only one to interact with the planet's government from the very beginning to the very end - and thus the story ended with the planet's government declaring him king and pledging full support to his chosen side. I've seen threads where the attackers had a secret but logically important objective, and dragged the enemy away to a meaningless ground battle to keep the enemy away from the true objective.

Throughout these threads, player's characters fighting among each other remain relevant to the core experience. It's inevitable in any Invasion that it happens. Star Wars heavily features major characters fights and conflicts. Yet, there's always a point to the battles that goes beyond the fights of individuals - to the point that a character losing their fight could lead to his Faction logically gaining tons. A Jedi Knight that falls to a Sith Lord might have given the Republic a great advantage if it meant that Sith Lord couldn't stop the Republic from rescuing the local planet's VIPs. A soldier wounded by the enemy could give his life by blowing himself up with a planetary generator - netting huge benefits to the Faction.

Thus, I believe "PVP" is merely a vehicle for Invasions to use in reaching its conclusion - not the be, all end all as a means to deciding the victor.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

I think people are a bit confused as to the purpose of this thread.

I am not proposing the rules change to whichever gets the most votes. Factions can run invasions however they want. This is an opinion poll on how individuals prefer them to run. IE, what would you prefer if you had the choice. This can then be passed on to their faction leaders or not as they choose.

 

[Alric Kuhn]

I much agree with the method that [member="Bestala Vizsla"] stated. This was mostly how the outcome of my favorite invasions were decided. There weren't any additional rules or limitations, and in the end victory was decided by the overarching "story" of the invasion. Coruscant, Junction, Concord Dawn, to list a few were all run like this.

 

[Grrwunhoooll Agaburry]

I like to think of Invasions as an animal and any changes or simplifying added to it only restricts it in my opinion. Hence you cant cage a Rancor thingy [member="Valiens Nantaris"]

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

[member="Kezeroth the Beholder"]
Yeah, but I'm not advocating changing the rules....

 

[sabrina]

I believe all three in separate threads

1 people can keep track of what happening in their area easily.
2 what is point of making ships and units, if they are just background noise.
3 realism it takes army to control people, not 30 odd people. As that in reality is just a small gang
4 as mace windu said the Jedi are just guardians of peace, there's not enough of them to fight a war.

 

[Noah Corek]

Personally I like the idea of keeping PVP and fleeting/grounding away from each and I like what [member="Bestala Vizsla"] BUT, I feel like in Invasion people always over-look the tiny little x-factors that would make a battle swing one way on another. These things range from tech to experience. Now let me give you an example. Say Hypori is being invaded by the Hutt Cartel and the Omega Pyre has been hired by whomever controls Hypori to defend it. The Hutt Cartel sends five-hundred mercs to kill the five hundred contractors that the Pyre has stationed there. Now lets take a look at these two forces individually. First you have the Omega Pyre, a very well known PMC that hires former Republic Commandos, Jedi-trained HK droids, Telekinetic Masters, Master Strategists and some of the most deadly people in the galaxy and combine that with the fact that the standard OP grunt has seen multiple campaigns, from the Bando Gora, multiple invasions and multiple skirmishes. Combine that with top of the line armor and weapons as well as probably armored vehicle support and close air support and you have a pretty intimidating force. Now compare that with the Hutt Cartel forces. Who would the Hutt's send? Criminals with no experience in battle unless they are mercs and bounty hunters with military backgrounds but even then their leadership abilities would be questionable. Now the stand Hutt merc? A soldier who fights for himself and is only in it for the credits, most likely to abandon the field when he see's that he/she is fighting a far more superior and advanced force. Combine that with the fact that the mercs would have to pay outta pocket for their own gear that would have second rate armor and weapons and severely underclassed, if any, armored vehicles or close air support.

Well my rant it over.

 

[Arage Bao]

PVP or go home.

Seriously though, I think it all depends on the circumstance, the planet, the two factions and all that stuff. There ain't no golden standard for invasions when factors change case by case... though I do like the stuff [member="Bestala Vizsla"] and [member="Alric Kuhn"] just described.

Because in the end we ain't here playing a game of risk, we are writers writing a story - or at least that's my take on it.

 

[Captain Larraq]

I’ve recently been looking at the merits of having the fleeting and grounding sides of the invasion in a separate thread from the PVP. That way it won’t get lost in the flood, but can still be somewhat relevant.

My personal preference is that PVP and NPC combat take place in the same location, at the same time, but with deference to one another.

You have a handful of writers on one side and a handful of writers on the other side.
Both teams of writers are moving NPC units around like a strategy game, shooting at one another and adjusting the flow of the battlefield.


Individual PC's exist within the chaos of the battle line.
Individual PC's do not effect the NPC armies fighting one another.
the NPC armies to not directly engage individual PC's.

PC's fight PC's in one vs one combat, 2v1 combat, 2v2 combat, 3v2 combat, and 3v3 combat.



If you don't enjoy doing battlefield tactics and operating as a part of an army, then don't participate in that portion of the story and do not ruin it for anyone else.
A writer's army of NPC's shouldn't be used to single out and target a single person's character.
And a single character shouldn't be wiping away another writer's army of NPC's with wide-scale attacks like EMP's, Force Abilities, Gas Attacks, exc.

Let the NPC commanders duke it out the same way a pair of dueling PC's would want to be allowed to fight one another without outside interference.



Same thing goes for Captains and Naval Commanders. For the most part, they stick to their own fight and leave the PVP and NPC battles alone.

If someone needs help dealing with a Rancor or a unit of Tanks, they can call in for an orbital strike and point a laser at the target.
The Naval Commander can choose to provide support or not... But providing support leaves a ship vulnerable to counter-attack.
Maybe. Even then, it should be avoided.





The only real grey area here is Starfighter Pilots.
Technically, they are Player Characters, but they fit in with Naval Combat, Battlefield Combat, and PC combat.
They can swoop between capital ships just as easily as they can fly over battlefields.

They can launch missiles and drop bombs on tanks and infantry just as easily as they can open up on crazy powerful PC's or other starfighters.

 

[Captain Larraq]

[member="Adekos"]
This has potential, but unfortunately having the fleeting decide whether the invasion takes place isn’t viable here.

If we had a victory points system for determining the winner we could have that play a part there. Remember though, only about 10% of writers fleet, so this has to be borne in mind.

I still think it's odd that people hear Naval Combat and automatically think of Admirals, not Captains and Starfighter Pilots.

Even when both sides of a fight have the same total length in ships, knowing that one side has 1-2 extra Frigate/Corvette Captains and 1-3 extra Starfighter Pilots can be an incredible factor in how the battle progresses.

 

[sabrina]

I fleet but not as an admiral as I am not good enough yet
[member="Captain Larraq"]

 

[Chiasa Kritivaas]

Full disclosure; I didn't read anyone elses answers in case they vexed me.

I reckon both have their place, depending on the factions involved it might be easier to have them in separate threads. The Invasions that suddenly explode to 400+ posts get a bit hard to follow, and it's not like people can't hop between threads.

THAT SAID.

I would really like to see who wrote the better story have more of an effect on which side wins the invasion rather than just who had the most 'wins'.

IE; there are 10 duels going on. Be they in starfighters or on the ground. One side refuses to take hits and has stupid gear and stupid abilities and are basically all unbeatable. The other side is just trying to write a good story and takes hits, only does what their character could believable do etc, and so they eventually lose. They could report and perpetuate the 'Can you edit' mentality, but maybe they don't want to start a fight, maybe they just want to write. So they lose.

I reckon they should still win for being better sports.

That's my main current wouldn't it be karking fantastic if.

I'd also love to see actual tactics come into play. Where did you place those defences? Are you just throwing your armies headfirst into the oppositions fire? Do your objectives actually have anything to do with taking over a planet or kicking out an entire factions worth of people or are those ten dudes going to fight and you honestly think that makes a difference on a global scale? Are you ignoring my awesome defense satellites I put up there for the express purpose of shooting people doing that exact thing that's you're doing?

This seems unlikely, but in my happy place I pretend it will happen on day.

 

[Ryan]

 

[Asemir]

My opinion:

You're invading enemy territory. Unless you're fighting some ritualistic style of warfare (I'm looking at you Children of Kerensky), you aren't going to win a planet via a few duels. Air and ground troops are needed to secure and hold the planet.

If I go in and beat up Valiens, I don't automatically win the planet. The people are not going to bow to me, the troops are not going to swear allegiance to me. Beating up Valiens is called a duel. A fight. A challenge. It's not an invasion.

Now, if I were backed by a few Galaxies or Clusters of troops, and they dominate the local garrison forces, conquer the skies, and initiate a blockade to fend off any reinforcements, now, that's an invasion. That's winning a planet.

Of course, the PVE components can be done in the background, away from the spotlight. But PVE actions, background attacks, they have to play into the decision at the end of who wins the invasion. A few duels, sure, they're nice, but if the attacking army doesn't dominate the defending forces, that doesn't work to conquer a planet.

My two credits.

 

[Raziel]

It should vary depending on the two factions.

If fleeting is give equal footing to PvP, and yet 1/20 participants from each side is a fleeter, the tail is wagging the dog. I don't care about realism at that point, you're not letting the broad member base have their actions be important enough in the scheme of the invasion.

Whilst I really do enjoy fleeting, I've come to the conclusion that ground based NPC fights are a massive waste of time. I've yet to see one that was meaningful, balanced, coherent and with a clear outcome.


The bigger the invasion, the more separate threads should come into play. I'm currently having trouble following the fleeting in the Ord Mirit invasion!

 

[Raziel]

I would love to see invasions decided in a civil manner by both sets of Faction admins taking into account the story, and giving some account of fair play by each side.

I have a feeling this is an unrealistic objective in many invasion, but I think it should still be the ideal outcome.