Invasions: Risk vs Reward

[The Noble Scoundrel]

Are we roleplaying here or are we playing some stupid map and number game?

The honest truth: we're doing exactly both. That's why there's competition and planning to begin with. People get more stoked about a competitive sport where the outcome is undetermined than putting up a story that no one but the people involved will read; especially since working together in a beneficial manner requires knowledge of how the story is going to proceed and end, completely removing the element of surprise and (for many people) a degree of fun.

A won invasion is one that is played fair, one that the invading and defending faction members enjoy equally, without caring who wins and who loses in the end.

Aside from the playing fair bit, this statement defies the spirit of competition. In terms of OOC relations, that's a good thing. However, when you put a map on the board and say, "Major factions can claim territory", then the fire's in the eyes. Anyone can manage to be a good sport about things (at least socially), but there will always be feelings attached to the position of winners and losers. That's human nature for you: the desire for the victorious rush of dopamine. Having winners and losers AND everyone happy is like saying, "equal, but not equal". Some people might be okay with it, but it's not the mainstream thought when you're willfully engaging in anything remotely competitive. Just because my little league team and I (back in 2001) would shake hands with the team that beat us after the game does not mean we were actually happy for them. You can probably imagine what it's like for major league games.

Most people are here to craft stories and invading planets has always been part of a good star wars story, as is losing a battle in some epic way.

Where they at, though?

[member="Vitha Sat-thuron"]

There are leader characters that engage in PvP through the use of fleets, platoons and other forms of writing that utilize many NPCs. For those characters to remain relevant in defending their faction's territory in an Invasion. If their forces are drastically reduced or even depleted, then they shouldn't have much to work with if they go on the Defense in an Invasion against them soon after their own Invasion ends. Maybe it would be a good thing if NPC and resource penalties were enforced for an unsuccessful Invader?

[member="Shuduc Macar"]

We need Tefka & Company to create an action/strategy game that allows us to resolve PvP situations. Much faster and more entertaining.

 

[Darth Abyss]

If you're not at least a bit happy about having fun in something, no matter the outcome, than what is the point? If I wanted to take part in a sports competition, I would take part in a sports competition and not roleplay on the internet.

This isn't some computer game, you are good at it if you write something compelling and interesting. That is even actually the thing that plays a main part in the decision who won and who lost an invasion. So going into one should mean that everyone tries to write a good story lol.

We have one real rule for pvp that is "be fair", and if we make this a pvp competition I can tell you now that many, many people will not play fair anymore. Trying to add more rules for all this that makes invasions even more about competition and tactics defies the whole spirit of Chaos in my opinion. It is like the never ending fleeting discussion. If people want to do it, they should, but don't make things mandatory that take away from the experience for many.

Also while I hate doing something so stupid as pointing out likes on posts, it helps to answer the question "Where they at, though?"

But whatever. Everyone has the right to an opinion, so we should probably just agree that we disagree in this topic lol.

[member="The Noble Scoundrel"]

 

[The Noble Scoundrel]

[member="Darth Abyss"]

Trying to add more rules for all this that makes invasions even more aboutcompetition and tactics defies the whole spirit of Chaos

As long as the rules are agreed upon by many people, then additional rules only serve to provide balance and order; refinement to a system. You can only go up when there is mass consent on new rules that enough people agreed to vote into effect.

Also while I hate doing something so stupid as pointing out likes on posts, it helps to answer the question "Where they at, though?"

Yes. Let's flex our "like popularity" muscles as a basis for credibility. I mean, people have liked my opening post. Is that supposed to mean I'm additionally correct or that people simply liked some aspect or all of what I said? For someone who doesn't like the idea of a number game on SWRP, you're suddenly going to point out a number of people liking your post? -_- Just because people like your post doesn't mean they are, by default, the target demographic we're talking about; the people who actively embrace and/or are currently embroiled in PvP conflict. Those people who liked your comment? I don't see most of them involved in the map game. Maybe that's my fallible perception as a singular human being on a huge site or maybe that's because they sincerely aren't involved in the map game. Correct me if I'm wrong, please. Regardless of 5 registered users out of 70 registered users (on the board in the past hour, that is; let alone how many active registered users there are altogether) and their approval of one piece or all of your previous post, the rest of the "unaccounted-for" playing the map game lead me to still ask you, "Where they at, though?"

If you're not at least a bit happy about having fun in something, no matter the outcome, than what is the point?

The Noble Scoundrel: "the desire for the victorious rush of dopamine."

I already answered that. There is plenty of happy to be had, regardless of if you're in it for the story telling or if you're in it for competition. I never said people weren't happy. If they weren't the least bit happy, then I'd agree with you: they definitely wouldn't see a point in being here.

It is absolutely feasible for someone to not be the least bit happy given certain circumstances, which is why you can't expect all people to remain happy and positive given any outcome. This is why the rule of "you're not allowed to kill someone's character without their permission" came into play. Naturally, happy circumstances lead to happiness. Getting your character killed against your wishes is another outcome that can and will make you the furthest thing from happy. That's why we instigated that rule. Not to complicate the system, but to refine it.

I don't care one way or another if people go with my idea or not. It was on my mind, I shared it and now I've infected your minds with my seeds it's up to y'all. Happy trails, bud.