Suggestion Invasion System Revamp

[Siobhan Kerrigan]

This is my favourite suggestion on the Citadel.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

Ronan Vizsla
Was there a final proposal to come out of this thread, or is it more a statement of what you want to happen?

I like your ideas, we've just got to nail it down to something practical.

 

[Ronan Vizsla]

I honestly had 3 goals for this thread. Make sure I wasn't just seeing ghosts and people roughly agreed there is a problem. Get them to chat about it, start actual discussions. And if the first two went well set up a hard proposal, yeah. I really liked L Laira Darkhold 's suggestion, but after talking to some people and reading through discussions I managed to formulate one of my own as well. It comes in 3 parts, taking chunks from other people's thoughts and from the discussions I had.

INVASIONS

• Tie hex gain/loss to victory conditions. There are 4 criteria right now, each criteria affects 2 (or more, depends on what the community sees as reasonable) hexes. If the invader wins the invasion, and Story and Tension are their wins? They either gain 4 hexes or neutralize 4, if it's a long-distance invasion. The maximum hex gain/neutralization would be 8, if a Major Faction sweeps every victory criteria. This encourages people to focus solely on writing a great story and actually gives them a carrot for writing great stories, etc.
  • Defender wins... well, it could be possible to have the mirror version of the above. If they win, they can add the amount of hexes to their territory that they won in the criteria.
• Criteria revamp: Rebrand the Drama criteria into the Communication criteria. Do not penalize people for speaking their mind and being blunt, but give them points when they can point to clear situations where their side cooperated, communicated and tried to reach across the aisle to write a great story. This removes the incentive to 'screencap gather' and spy in Faction chats to find instances of salt. Instead it incentives actually cooperating OOCly to write stories.
• Additional optional suggestion: Remove 'Ties' from the victory condition outcomes. More often than not it is possible to determine a victor in each side and ties only muddy the water. This will also optimize the hex count being influenced.

DOMINIONS

• Monthly Dominion limit. Scrap the limit entirely and let Major Factions submit as many Dominions a month as they are capable of.
  • I don't particularly care one way or another what happens with SSDs. A limit of 1 SSD a month, or every 3th dominion gets a new one are two options. I don't think SSDs really matter one way or another. So I don't have a strong opinion on that.
• Criteria revamp: Remove the Effort criteria entirely. Instead of treating dominions as post sinks, focus on judging them on story completeness. Some stories don't need more than 20 posts. Some might go on for 60 posts. Maintain the 5 writer requirement and story completion criteria.

STRIKE // TERRITORY DISPUTE // INSERT CREATIVE NAME
After reading some posts and inspired by Laira's specifically I think it would be good to add a 3rd thread that influences the map game. The concept is simple: One Major Faction attacks another in a short thread that only spans one week. Contrary to an Invasion the amount of hexes in play is far more limited. Let's say 1 or 2. Furthermore, it is open to anyone who wishes to join. Minor Factions, companies, independent writers, they do not have to be invited and can join in on the madness for that week.

Below are the characteristics I have in mind.

• Duration: The thread spans a single week and no extension is possible. The thread can continue after this week, but further content won't be taken into account for judgement.
• Hex influence: A set amount of hexes, 1 or 2 (maybe more) that the attacker wins, if they win the invasion. If it's a long-distance one they neutralize the territory, if it's a border dispute they gain the territory.
  • Alternatively: I'd be okay with restricting the distance you can do this. Make it more a border dispute, but I am not solid on one way or the other here.
• Announcement period: None. Once the intent is posted, they can immediately start the IC thread much like a regular skirmish.
• Alt limit: One alt per writer, no double tapping with 5 characters per writer to buff one side.
• Criteria: The same as an invasion has.

I figure people can still discuss, but these are the ideas I have after going through this thread and discussion with others.

Valiens Nantaris

 

[Laira Darkhold]

After reading some posts and inspired by Laira's specifically

You are welcome, I will always be your muse if you but ask it of me.

All in all, good suggestions. Full support.

 

[Ariel Yvarro]

Ronan Vizsla | L Laira Darkhold why not turn that into skirmishes? Cause then they would finally actually mean something.

Edit: for the strike/territory dispute thing.

 

[Ronan Vizsla]

Ariel Yvarro

I considered that actually.

But I decided against it and opted for a new thread type, because I assume some people would miss having a no-stake conflict thread.

 

[Ariel Yvarro]

Wasn't there a border dispute thing specifically done in the past and it never took off? think

Conquests?

 

[Laira Darkhold]

Ariel Yvarro

Invasions should be quicker, easier chunks

Eh, Invasions are the biggest threads on the site. They should be baller and be big.​

​

So, to make an alternative easy breezy beautiful cover girl. Hex gains (not swapping like invasions) with skirmishes perhaps? Kinda like the original idea with Conquests but make them more cooperative by allowing the Majors involved to squabble over them in nice bite sized skirmishes and each walk away with it like a Dom? Mutually Beneficial skirmishes maybe? IDK here, but its a thought.​

I thought about that too, I wouldn't mind both suggestions being a thing

Conquests (Mutual Gain Faction vs Faction threads) and Micro-Invasions. I'm digging on mutual gain for Conquests, because it could encourage more War RP that isn't tied to one side Losing Hexes. Might lead to some more communication and more unique moments since neither side would be worried about losing something.

Also Campaigns, god would I love a more organized Faction vs Faction campaign involving Invasions, Strikes, Conquests, Skirmishes, and Dominions.

#Wishlisted

I agree with leaving Skirmishes as they are, no-stakes, no map jankiness, just fun RP.

 

[Ariel Yvarro]

Actually, while we're at it, can we restrict invasions to one character, per writer*?

 

[Cassandra Paige]

From one of the forum ghosts, take this with a grain of salt because let's be real, this doesn't impact me much as someone who isn't currently active here (ilu all, but holy cow busy)


Criteria revamp: Rebrand the Drama criteria into the Communication
criteria. Do not penalize people for speaking their mind and being blunt, but give them points when they can point to clear situations where their side cooperated, communicated and tried to reach across the aisle to write a great story. This removes the incentive to 'screencap gather' and spy in Faction chats to find instances of salt. Instead it incentives actually cooperating OOCly to write stories.

I think this in particular is a super suggestion. The drama category is an anomaly- it's the only category that judges on the LACK of something. Flipping it to judge on seeing attempts at communication and and cooperation, rather than a lack of salt, actually puts it in line with something people can work toward, rather than just a silencing tactic that, ime, encouraged secret salt channels (won't say caused, there were always going to be these, but this actively encouraged places for people to complain).

Hard feelings and even grumpy comments happen. But it's what people DO with them that we can give them a chance to actually judge and get past them, rather than trying to hide it in PMs and secret channels.

 

[Tathra Khaeus]

^ This. ^

 

[Republic Engineering]

Miscommunication and backchannel toxicity is one of the major issues with Chaos, and some Invasions in general. So, I have to agree with the sentiment that the judging category should be changed to Communication, rather than remaining as Drama. It won't fix the issues that've been touched on in the myriad of suggestion threads that have cropped up over the last week, but it's a positive step in the right direction. Not everyone's going to be happy with what's written - we all like to powergame in some fashion or another, or see our NPC's dominate the battlefield against someone else's. Etc, etc.

So, actively going out of one's way to publicly address the problem would - in a way - fall into the self-policing factor that Chaos likes to pride itself on.

The responses don't have to be all sunshine and roses, either. If you're unhappy, you're unhappy. However, one should always be respectful and cordial in making their responses as there is a person on the other side of the screen. If the intent of your message was misconstrued because of how you've written it - the situation would likely escalate far beyond what it should've. Take a breather, or take a walk to clear your mind before writing down your thoughts and concerns about someone's post.

Who knows, it might change the negative stigmas that have clung to many invasions of the past, and encourage more people to jump into the newer one's for a spell.

Also, since I've basically become a Parrot at this point, I'd like my saltine now, please.

 

[The End Narrator]

#MakePVPGreatAgain

 

[Jsc]

Rebrand the Drama criteria into the Communication criteria. Do not penalize people for speaking their mind and being blunt, but give them points when they can point to clear situations where their side cooperated, communicated and tried to reach across the aisle to write a great story.

Just a side note here.

No real evidence has currently been submitted in this discussion that points to anybody being penalized for speaking their mind or being blunt in an Invasion. Rather, at his point it has strongly been suggested, that what constitutes drama is actually subjective and open to the interpretation of the Judge(s) involved in the Invasion. Which then, according to their own judgement, may be cause for a penalty. So, it's not actually a terribly concrete thing at this point in our communal thought process.

That said. I'd also caution that removing the stick, and adding a carrot might work well with horses. But not necessarily with people. Especially mischievous, people. Lol. However! Adding the carrot AND keeping the stick? That could be a recipe that works with horses and people.

2 cents. Love the idea. But by way of invitation, (because your idea is awesome and deserves some thought and text here,) personally I'd just keep the drama section and maybe think about ADDING a communication section.

<3

 

[Ellie Mors]

Jsc
The criteria wasn't created with the intention to silence disagreements or pointing out issues, it has just been extrapolated to also cover that. I'm not an RPJ or on staff anymore, so I can't speak on whether staff actually does do this or not, but the average member who has this view shaped it from reading a little too into the intentionally vague wording of the criteria. I actually have never been a part of an invasion where any faction lost drama, except for the single time I was allying with the Galactic Empire, and that was because the faction owner of that group had created a "hitler reacts" meme video about the other side. Which is, uh, kind of the point of the drama criterium.

 

[Jsc]

Ellie Mors - Sure. Though, I guess it all depends on how you gauge the success or failure of the drama condition from a community perspective.

Personally I consider it a success because I have first hand experience with how it has kept myself, and others, from stirring the pot and being a more respectable player online. Both in the IC threads and in the OOC and Discord conversations. The threat of losing the drama condition literally made people I know behave better everywhere because they didn't want other people from the faction blaming them for contributing to a loss. That's a win for everybody.

Now have some mischievous people attempted to weaponize that condition? Sure. But I'd say that isn't the drama conditions fault per se. I'd say it's a people problem. Not a rule problem. Just like people ignoring a bright red stop sign at a road intersection. It's not really the sign's fault. It's the drivers fault themselves for deciding to ignore that sign and negatively contributing to a more dangerous road environment. So I don't blame the rule nor would I tear out all the stop signs just because some people are abusing them. It's overkill for something that I, personally, see as a good moderating influence.

So again. I'm all for a grand round of discussions about adding a communications condition. I'm just wary of throwing away all the drama condition when I know from experience that it's actually doing it's job, most of the time.

 

[Ellie Mors]

Jsc I think you misunderstood me, I agree.

I also wrote it so there's a little bias there..

 

[Jsc]

Ellie Mors - Ah! Excellent! I wasn't sure really. It read like it could either way so I decided to double down. Lol.

Also, (Gods help us,) but we should probably make a new suggestion thread for the idea should it get any more traffic here. I hate distancing from post #45 all the way down here. It's so good.

 

[Ronan Vizsla]

I think it might be a fundamental difference between what we believe is good for the community in this instance.

I have read the sentiment a couple of times throughout this thread, but also in other threads that the Drama criteria is a success. Because it forces people to be on their best behavior in public and forces them to not act out in the ways that it used to be during the One Sith // Republic days. Sure, I can agree that this is the case.

But I think where we diverge on is if this is a good thing.

At its surface? Certainly. Less toxic behavior in public, people aren't salting it up in the OOC threads, sure. But I believe the idea behind the initial revamp of the Invasion victories (away from PVP counting towards what we have now) was to foster cooperation and story between factions.

Is that the case now?

I won't speak for everyone. I will just speak for myself, having been part of a lot of invasion judgements over the years, and I don't think anything fundamentally changed. A lot of factions are still insular, still us VS them'ing, still trying to force their story on the other side and the desire to truly cooperate is still on the low.

If the only metric we use is 'are factions playing nice in public' then the Drama criteria is a success. But I don't believe that the fake nice, gritted teeth, passive aggressive stuff we are getting right now is really worth calling it a success. In my opinion all it does it shift the problem away from the public, into the private, where people maximize the group think and nobody gets called out for chitty behavior. Is there a rule that can prevent this? No, I don't think so, because it's a deeply human behavior. But can we come up with a shift in the criteria, so people can be honest, even if that means they are being salty, while also boosting the behavior that we do want to see? I think so. I don't think the Drama criteria does that, however.

Instead of honesty and being blunt about our feelings, we shifted that to being Nice and Respectful in public, while salting it up in private chats.

I don't consider that a success. I consider that a failure where gaslighting each other has become the norm.

I don't know, maybe shifting it to the Communication criteria won't actually change anything, could be. But I don't think the stick approach has done Chaos any favors right now. But I also know I prefer things being out in the open, which means I also know some people prefer it being hidden away in private rooms where they don't have to read it.

That's why it's just a discussion though, staff is free to take it up or leave it at their leisure. And that is why I put it in the Invasion Revamp proposal, because I believe it's a fundamental need to shift the current climate of invasions. Just as much as dynamic map change is.

Jsc Ellie Mors Republic Engineering Cassandra Paige

 

[Jsc]

Ronan Vizsla - Well said. Impressively so. Indeed, it's just a difference of opinion. I prefer the drama kept to the dark private corners of the clubhouses. Not out in the open with only the report and block buttons to save us. Lol. But. Thats just two different ways to approach the nature in men's hearts. No biggie. Love everything you've said.

Anyway. More to seeking common ground then. And, forgive me for inquiring about this publicly, (this is just to sate my own curiosity and ego,) but what's your opinion Ronan on the current revisions draft to the Drama criteria worked up here? Do you think such word play in the revision of the current criteria will encourage better behavior and communication among the factions? Assuming, or not, that we add a communications criteria later down the line. Or, would you still prefer to scrap the drama section entirely, even with such revisions?

You don't have to answer here either. You can PM me, reply to the other thread, or whatever if it's complicated or what not. Thanks! Killing it.