Plz Buff Rebellions

[Shattered_Mirror]

As I've mentioned in a few chats currently brimming with excitement over this suggestion, I'd heavily suggest altering the terminology used if the Minor Faction loses. Dispersed or Depleted would be less of a slap in the face, than having your Minor faction "deleted" or outright "destroyed." Yes, I know there are some factions that were made in a hot second and could theoretically revive themselves the next day - but there are some that are heavily story-driven and would it'd be a shame to see their effort stamped out because of One loss.

Addendum: I'd totally be cool with a "Cooldown" period, to have an OOC representation of the IC ramifications of losing. Basically a "Regrouping" period that could range from 30 to 60 --- hell even 90 days.

 

[Coren Starchaser]

Just remind minors they're a minor. Works for wins or losses

 

[Scherezade deWinter]

Minor Factions that lose can be forbidden from applying for Major Factions for the duration of three months.

Problem solved for those who want them to lose something.

 

[Lok Xiangu]

[member="Rolf Amsel"]

Yes, thank you for reminding us the difference between major and minor factions. And as much as you argue that minors don't have a role on the map (I agree they don't have their own colored blob), rebellions would differ with you as they can rebel dominions on the map.

The rebellion rules aren't bad, but in terms of trying to start one they are. The judging criteria doesn't need any change. What does need change is that minor factions don't need to wait for the third rebellion to start one.

 

[Mishel Kryze]

May I suggest as a consequence, as it were.

Minor Faction has lost the rebellion, and their members have dispersed. In character they need time to recover people and assets, and require x amount of ooc time to do this. During this 'cooldown' they cannot rebel again until their cooldown is up.

 

[Jsc]

You're right - they don't. Because they weren't ever supposed to. As designed, minor factions don't have a say on the map because they're minor. That's the draw in having and maintaining a major faction, is to command map space (In it's simplest form. There are many reasons for major factions but that's the primary difference between the two.).

Rebellions don't need buffing, and the rebellion rules aren't inherently bad. What I would say is that if rebellions seem to be lacking in motivation (Or people don't want to do them) change something about the judging criteria for them rather than changing Rebellions as a dynamic.

Rolf gets it and I support this design philosophy. The less minor faction's impact the map, the better. As such, I mildly disagree with Lok's suggestion that Rebellions need love. Or anybody who believes minor factions need more map impact, for that matter. Because they don't and they shouldn't. The map is for majors.

Go major or go home.

 

[Laira Darkhold]

[member="Lucius Varad"]

That's not a bad idea. It's a solid compromise. Since Minor Factions have to have existed for 30 days before they can rebel a target, I think it'd be fine to say that after a loss they couldn't launch another Rebellion for 30 days.

 

[Captain Jordan]

[member="Rolf Amsel"] [member="Jsc"]

Majors need something to challenge them. Otherwise they get big, get stale, and get recalled. The ones who don't are the exception.

Since the site has been lean on invasions as of late, and the only ones planned are targeting a brand new major, there's still no incentive for the big behemoths of the map to feel anything but comfortable in their territory.

They shouldn't feel comfortable. Being a major faction itself should be a risk, and rebellions are a good source of portraying this in story. As the rules currently stand, it's too easy for major factions to avoid discomfort, and so the rules should be changed.

 

[Mishel Kryze]

 

[Gilamar Skirata]

Yes please and thank you.

 

[Jsc]

As the rules currently stand, it's too easy for major factions to avoid discomfort, and so the rules should be changed.

Nah. You're looking at the map and the meta as it exists entirely right now-right now and making a universal call. I would contest that things are just slow and the rules are not the problem. No "fixes" or "buffs" or "redesigns" are necessary.

2 cents.

 

[Coren Starchaser]

[member="Gilamar Skirata"]
To what part, this is page 2

 

[Enyo Typhos]

I dig it. There are Mandates (Benevolent Dictator, Hermit Kingdom, and Frontier Exploration) if you don't wanna be Rebelled, plus it'll make Hermit Kingdom relevant since its benefit is the inherent benefit of its detriment, meaning its currently worthless. Also gives Minors more options for targets to rebel, but keeps big Majors like CIS and TSE who can actually do the 3 per month from being swamped with a bunch of rebellions. Full Support.

I agree.


For me personally the 'map game' is at present terribly dull. Simply grinding through Dominions to get a big ship that will probably never see any use and just be a status symbol for a faction does not interest me. Ergo I support suggestions intended to produce more IC conflict.


I'd be against deleting minors that lose a rebellion.

 

[Mishel Kryze]

No delete minor, no that's a big slap in the face to work some folk put into their minor factions.

Just be like, ok, got your poodoo kicked in whatever take so much time to 'rebuild' so to speak then come back at it.

 

[Coren Starchaser]

DELETE THE MINORS!

 

[Varian Alaric]

I agree with this wholeheartedly. As it stands right now, rebellions are in a sense 'useless' because of how infrequently they happen and how hard it is to get the requirements to enact a rebellion in the first place. Setting the number of required doms to two can be very beneficial to the future of rebellions to help minor factions as a whole. If a faction doesn't want to have a dominion rebel, they just need to do one dominion a month which will be especially helpful for new major factions and it will also help to keep them on their toes if they want the extra challenge of doing two and/or three dominions in a month.

For large and very active major factions such as TSE for example, this type of rule change will give these thriving major factions an actual challenge besides a plethora of invasions with one another which. At the moment for invasions, there are very few and they are very far between one another, causing the whole 'map game' to be more stagnant, unpredictable, and well...boring so to speak. Allowing rebellions to happen after a major faction's second dominion in a month will add a possibility of danger to doing more than one dominion in a month, and it would help to make the map game less stagnant, linear, and boring as it stands as of right now. Dominions are grindy and boring as they stand right now, but that is more of my own personal bias on the idea. More frequent rebellions will offer actual excitement in the map game from where, in recent time, there had been little excitement or enjoyment from gaining another hex.

 

[Ellie Mors]

Minor factions have the arbitrary third dominion rule precisely because they are immune to any and all retaliation. They can't be invaded, they don't lose anything even if they lose a rebellion, they exist forever, they can be anywhere "on the map" whenever they want, they can hit and gain space anywhere that a third dominion occurs with zero repercussions.

All this would do is give minor factions even more leeway in their purposefully untouchable state. Maybe everyone else has conveniently forgotten the 5-6 rebellions in the span of a couple months in the original return of rebellions, but the limitations were placed on them because being able to rebel at any given point or on any given dominion gave them the ability to be used like a major faction that can't be retaliated against or harmed.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

Staff is very interested in this thread and we will be discussing it based on what ideas are brought up here.

 

[RC 212]

Totally support.

Map game is boring. Shake it up. Force Major Factions to RP with folks outside their normal social circle.

 

[Reverance]

[member="Lily Kuhn"]

Your comment exists in the vacuum of minors being ethereal and existing without desire to hold a planetary stake - they can be railroaded in the map game and if they desire to have any realistic or pragmatic tie to the universe, they take that into account (don't support the inverse of this, it's a poor form of roleplaying the promotes the multiverse of sandboxes that are going on here). [member="Rolf Amsel"] and [member="Jsc"], we get it - this is when you butt in and say that if Minor's wanted a say, they should go Major. We understand your point, it's overplayed, we get it.

I'm all for this. Anyone defending the ways things are, because that's the way they are, is simply appealing to tradition. And as far as logical fallacies go, that's about the oldest in the book.

Or do what [member="Coren Starchaser"] said...delete all the minors. They don't mean anything right now, anyway, right?