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 Poll

What role should PVP and NPCs play in Invasions?


  • Total voters
    80
IC, it makes sense for fleeting and grounding to play a gigantic part in the outcome an invasion.

OOC, not so much. PvP is, in my opinion, the best way for every writer to get a chance to directly impact the battle without it boiling down to "who bothered the factory/codex the most before this thread".

Objectives add flavor, and I'm all for story, but at the end of the day I think PvP should decide all invasions.
 
I put the forth one but because of how it's worded. Fleeting/grounding should count towards invasions, just not be actually included in the invasion. I.e. Victory in a grounding based skirmish dictates a specific story based advantage in upcoming invasion.

Turn invasions into a multi-tiered system that is more than just 'arrival and fight.'

In any other respect, I believe PvP is king of invasions, for reasons already listed.
 
Raziel said:
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.
It is the ideal outcome. In fact, I would go further to say that the high-level outcome should be determined OOC and probably before the Invasion even begins. Story-focused, as you say.

It's also not unrealistic. The vast majority of PvP, Invasions, etc. I've participated in have been resolved in a civil manner. The participants all talked it out OOC. We spoke as writers, adults, storytellers, not as our characters. And it worked (most of the time). Of course, the primary reason why that worked is we all knew each other for many years and we all respected each other, and we wanted to advance the story, not our character/faction's power level. (Note that this tale comes from past experience in another RP community.)

It can work. It just takes a ton of maturity and communication.
 
Asemir Lor'kora said:
. Of course, the primary reason why that worked is we all knew each other for many years and we all respected each other, and we wanted to advance the story, not our character/faction's power level. (Note that this tale comes from past experience in another RP community.)It can work. It just takes a ton of maturity and communication.
Do you think that "primary reason" applies to the current community?
 
Raziel said:
Do you think that "primary reason" applies to the current community?
Do you mean for me personally or the community as a whole?

As a whole, I don't know if it applies in the same way. Chaos has a gigantic membership compared to the other place, with new users joining on a regular basis. The "forum" storyline is also handled differently from the other place. There's more focus on "game play". It's not an apples to apples comparison, but the general principle could work.

That said, maturity, treating others with respect, acting like adults, humility, all of these traits transcend demographic differences. Those traits can be applied here, yes.
 
I'm abstaining from voting because I don't actually have a strong opinion on how invasions should be conducted.

Faction Leaders from both sides sit down, discuss what their faction wants, and then they make it work. Some factions want epic stories, others want lots of fleeting and NPC ground battles, and maybe there are those who just want to focus on one specific type of objective. I don't really think it matters much how you conduct an invasion as long as it suits the interests of both factions.

There's no family plan for invasions, people go to different factions because they have different interests. If there's a small minority that wants to fleet, or do NPCs, nothing is stopping them from tossing up a separate thread even if it doesn't contribute to who wins the invasion.

I think people are just limiting themselves by assuming that everything has to contribute to the invasion in order to be doable and fun.
 
You already know where I stand on this, Valiens. Same place I always did in the warmonger discussions. I think it should all matter and invasions should be about realistic tactical combat, which leaves room for all types of RP. Full on establishing a beachhead after cracking the planets defensive force, and then going after major targets but having large groups of enemies in your way.

But I also see the plausibility of what I would call Black Ops incursions in which a small team infiltrates and takes down the current regime (Rogue Squadron and Coruscant).

I think invasions should be as realistic as possible otherwise they are just a farcical excuse for a combat tournament.
 

ADM. Reshmar

Directorate Officer Fleet Admiral SJC 3rd Fleet
Asemir Lor'kora said:
It is the ideal outcome. In fact, I would go further to say that the high-level outcome should be determined OOC and probably before the Invasion even begins. Story-focused, as you say.
This I have found settles a lot of arguments before they start. Sure Competitive writing is fun but knowing an agreed upon direction helps. On Other Boards I have writen on, this is the direction we ended up going after years of competitive ground battles and fleeting began to always break down. IM not sayin you go as far as to say "Hey IM winning this battle how do we get there." but disusing before hand the outcome does help. That being said you have to watch out for those planning threads becoming disillusioned and lagging on and holding up the battle. It is a fine line between constructive discussion and muttled static.

PVP should count more in a invasion. And this is coming from a Fleet/Ground battle only writer. We large scale npc writers Love out battles but in the grand scheme of things we are just tools for individual characters. A "good guy" wins and it can rally NCP armys or it can break morale. Some goes for if a "bad guy". Things like this can be ironed out in planning and fix alot of competitive arguing during the battle. But, a character can not get to said planet willy nilly and can not hold it by him/herself. Just an idea but when judging maybe something like a system where Character PC pvp counts as 2/3 and fleet and ground counts as 1/3 towards the outcome when both are present. This would not be a perfect systems. I mean if there is an amazing PVP that just stands out then by all means it should be given special credits towards the outcome.
 
[member="Reshmar"]
If it's not competitive you take away the point of the thread entirely. If everything is decided beforehand then nothing that's RPd really ends up mattering. The winning team could lose every fight and still win. Doesn't make much sense. Plus then you take the prospect of faction destruction away.

As a GR writer, for example, it is my goal/my characters goal to take down the OS as they are my enemy. If all invasion outcomes are pre-determined, it's impossible to whittle the OS down to nothing because they will always win some invasions and lose some invasions. That, to me, doesn't sound fun, it sounds hideously boring and would quite destroy my willingness to care about factions at all.

Sure there are arguments to deal with, but there are in anything that's competitive. That's the nature of competition. Take that away and you just have scripted RP. Boring.
 

ADM. Reshmar

Directorate Officer Fleet Admiral SJC 3rd Fleet
Forgive me, I understand the competitive part of PVP I see what you mean there. I should have cleared this up for myself beforehand. I was speaking from strictly A large scale NPC writing perspective. IN those its more about how you get to a point even knowing what it is.we deal in numbers where as PC pvp deals in writing. Sure we can be competitive and we have alot of props to use for this chore. We can kill off 10k people in an dreamtic and astounding fashion or write some crazy maneuver that is jawdropping without worrying about who wins, but knowing we will be the force to hold the planet after really does not take alot away from fleeting. As opposed to Character based pvp, and even ground battles to a point, I can see where they would be harmed by planned outcomes and directions. Like i said forgive me I do not think like in terms of PVP much.
 
I still disagrre. I enjoy fleeting myself. If the NPC outcome is decided beforehand there's still no real reason to RP the fight. No reason for spontaneity. You basically tell a fleeter that their RP doesn't matter. Yeah, the fleet of the winning side can still celebrate, but what motivates someone to be brilliant isn't a scripted outcome, but the danger of losing if you don't out think the other guy.
 

ADM. Reshmar

Directorate Officer Fleet Admiral SJC 3rd Fleet
The reason is to write good fiction. I understand your opinion and it is a valid one but sim writing is not always about winning or losing it is about having fun writing with good people. It is the journey, not the end that I enjoy. I Have written both ways and enjoy both. You guys do competitive writing here which is great it will be fun. I just enjoy the other way equally as well because Its about the substance of the text that matters to me not who wins.
 
I'm of the sound mind and opinion that there should be separate threads per objective. Why? I shall explain.

1. With three separate threads, each participant can easily track what is going on in their thread/objective without having to sift through posts that have no bearing on them or their current signed on objective.

2. Ruling/Judging. With three separate threads, I believe whole-heartily that it would assist, not hamper, those of us that need to judge the various ongoing activities in the thread, I.E. hits, hits taken.

3. Less clutter. Organization is the special of the day.

Now, as for fleeting....that is not my cup of tea. I know some people enjoy it when it actually does work, but some factions don't even have enough writers/characters to fleet or the interest to do so. However, combining fleeting and grounding into one is not good for business. They should be separated. I could explain why, but I'm sure most people can see the picture I'm painting on the canvas.
 
But who would decide who wins beforehand? I can't see a faction going "Yeah, I feel like it's a good idea if we lose this time!" before the thread is even up. Worse, I can't imagine a situation where I would want to participate in a pre-determined thread. If there's no suspense why bother?
It's like going to a football match knowing it's been rigged beforehand so one team wins. Why bother going?

The whole point about competition is that it creates uncertain outcomes.

Besides, since factions would only allow them to lose invasions on a tit-for-tat basis it would never decide anything. It would make invasions literally pointless since the status quo would always be maintained.
 

Jsc

Disney's Princess
I was actually kind of surprised when Tef drew up the Map Game in the first place. I thought for sure we'd have a status quo environment for the whole RP. Built per-packaged for the website and centered around just a few canon factions and skirmishes. So when the Map went up and people starting smashing heads without any sort of guidelines of how to win? It was an amazing rush and thrill. And has been for years. Heck, it was the entire storyline and development for my Grand Admiral. I was so surprised when an entire character could be fashioned just from FvF alone. In fact. Flint Pherson was literally my most authentic character I'd ever storied. Built solely from Map Fighting for the Republic. It was incredible. Truth,

I'll never look at character development the same way again. :D
 
[member="Valiens Nantaris"]
Exactly.

[member="Reshmar"]
RP is about competitive writing and spontaneity, just the same as tabletop. Scripted writing goes better in novel or short story form (I do both, as I have written a novel and love to RP). I don't want scripted when I'm here. I reserve that for my novels.


What I would like to see is Invasions start out one of two ways:
Option 1: The invasion starts with the attacker bringing in their naval fleet and assaulting the defending fleet of the objective planet. This is purely naval combat, though that might involve marines boarding ships. The outcome of the naval action determines whether a second thread would then be started or not. If the attacker wins the naval action, the defending navy must either land their remaining ships or retreat. The attacker then lands their troops on the battlefield and begins orbital bombardment. If the attacker loses, the invasion is over and the attacker loses. (Reasoning: Take a look at our wars here on Earth. Without the ability to dominate the sea between England and mainland Europe, the allies would not have been able to land at Normandy. If you don't own the sea, or space in this case, you can't land your troops. They'd just get shot out of the sky.
Option 2 (Only viable in certain situations): A small force of infiltration specialists lands on a planet and works to bring down the planetary defenses. Once the defenses are down, the attacking fleet arrives, engages the enemy fleet, and deploys drop ships at the same time. (Reasoning: Without either taking down planetary defenses or defeating the enemy fleet first, you cannot land troops without sustaining the kind of casualties that would end an invasion. Think about Normandy without the allied fleet shelling the coast. The allies lost a lot of troops even with the shelling.)


Just my two cents worth.
 

Jsc

Disney's Princess
[member="Norrin Fulk"]

I'd like to know your opinion on Planetary Defenses one of these days. The tech is so egregiously bad that I was tempted to quit Fleeting all together. Hyperspace mechanics, Layered Ray Shielding, Interdiction dynamics, Superweapon deployment, and Navy speed physics. Ridiculous drivel. Completely preposterous. Inconceivable, I say.

Give me handwavium and PvP any day as the deciding factor to war. Star Wars Fleeting makes no sense whatsoever. (Kinda like the genre as a whole.) Lol. :D :p
 
It's pretty simple, really. Shields. Weapons emplacements that fire slowly. Minefields. Those are planetary defenses, IMO.

Like all things, fleeting comes down to people writing fairly. You don't write fairly and you're out of the club!
 

Jsc

Disney's Princess
[member="Norrin Fulk"]

Bah. You've completely missed the part about multiple celestial vessels, (Stars, moons, planets, stations, asteroids, gas, etc,) and their physics in creating a three dimensional battlefield of infinite scope. All tethered to the conflicting accounts of how space battles actually function in this genre. Which, nobody I've ever talked to actually knows. We all just kind of agree like George Lucas to ignore the science in our science-fiction.

What I'm saying is that the ridiculousness to which we so often hold our Force Users to is completely mirrored in our Fleet sciences. Fleeting and battlefield expectations in this genre is nothing more than magical-unicorn-fun.

So let our shared battle cry into the future be: "Less logic plz. And Moar Xplosions!"

Erm, 2 cents. :p
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom