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!
Plz Buff Rebellions
- Thread starter Lok Xiangu
- Start date
-
- Tags
- suggestion
Bunker-level Normal
[member="Lily Kuhn"]
You make valid critiques, and I respect your cautious approach here. For the record, no, I wasn't around when Rebellions were introduced and so I don't remember the events that transpired shortly afterward to cause them to be reworked. Ultimately, I couldn't find exactly where they were reintroduced, but by early 2016 the rules had largely returned. They took various other forms over the years before arriving at the rules we all know today. Links provided to all the relevant announcement posts I could find above, feel free to check my reading comprehension here.
So, it's clear that the original rules were a pretty wild notion, and it's likely that many of the modern rules exist now to address problems raised there. Such as the ability for those rebellions to take anywhere from 21 to 46 days (whew!), be started by Major Factions (wut?) or others. However, there seem to be some elements that didn't survive past version 1.0 which may help alleviate these concerns.
Here's some notable ones:
* Rebels must have a minimum of 50 posts and have what can be defined as "moderate" activity within the target Major Faction for a minimum of 14 days prior to joining their Rebel Faction's Rebellion thread.
* Rebel Faction Administrators may not apply for or be a member of the Star Wars RP: Chaos Staff Team.
* Rebel Factions must be rebelling against a single Major Faction.
* If the Rebellion fails, then the Rebel Faction is to not perform a Rebellion for 30 days and will need re-approval before relaunching their Rebellion.
* If the target Major Faction believes that a specific group of Writers have attempted to circumvent the 30 day rule, privately contact a Roleplay Judge.
Take ideas from these as you will, but I think the first rule I quoted may be the most critical for restoring a semblance of balance. It would restrict rebellions only to minor factions that are actually active (though that definition may need some serious work) and have some established RP already. That would alleviate some of the obvious critiques about dogpiling rebellions and someone creating multiple minor factions to use as a revolving door of rebellion forces.
Will there ever be direct consequences for minors? Not really, because minor factions don't really have anything of consequence. They have members, a faction board and (probably) RP threads, all of which are mutable and could be moved around. They may have Factory/Codex subs which could be resubmitted or used by a successor state without any problems. They don't have territory, SSDs or other defined assets, locations or similar prizes to take away.
But that's okay.
Rebellions exist as a check on major factions. The rules should not be written to be punitive to minors who may try and fail, only to curb any likely abuses of the system. The best checks have been suggested already, to require minor factions to wait for a cooldown period before they can rebel again, or by the original suggestion that only one rebellion can hit a major faction per month.
Hopefully this post can help address your concerns, and anyone else's about the history of rebellion rules and how they can inform on the present.
You make valid critiques, and I respect your cautious approach here. For the record, no, I wasn't around when Rebellions were introduced and so I don't remember the events that transpired shortly afterward to cause them to be reworked. Ultimately, I couldn't find exactly where they were reintroduced, but by early 2016 the rules had largely returned. They took various other forms over the years before arriving at the rules we all know today. Links provided to all the relevant announcement posts I could find above, feel free to check my reading comprehension here.
So, it's clear that the original rules were a pretty wild notion, and it's likely that many of the modern rules exist now to address problems raised there. Such as the ability for those rebellions to take anywhere from 21 to 46 days (whew!), be started by Major Factions (wut?) or others. However, there seem to be some elements that didn't survive past version 1.0 which may help alleviate these concerns.
Here's some notable ones:
* Rebels must have a minimum of 50 posts and have what can be defined as "moderate" activity within the target Major Faction for a minimum of 14 days prior to joining their Rebel Faction's Rebellion thread.
* Rebel Faction Administrators may not apply for or be a member of the Star Wars RP: Chaos Staff Team.
* Rebel Factions must be rebelling against a single Major Faction.
* If the Rebellion fails, then the Rebel Faction is to not perform a Rebellion for 30 days and will need re-approval before relaunching their Rebellion.
* If the target Major Faction believes that a specific group of Writers have attempted to circumvent the 30 day rule, privately contact a Roleplay Judge.
Take ideas from these as you will, but I think the first rule I quoted may be the most critical for restoring a semblance of balance. It would restrict rebellions only to minor factions that are actually active (though that definition may need some serious work) and have some established RP already. That would alleviate some of the obvious critiques about dogpiling rebellions and someone creating multiple minor factions to use as a revolving door of rebellion forces.
Will there ever be direct consequences for minors? Not really, because minor factions don't really have anything of consequence. They have members, a faction board and (probably) RP threads, all of which are mutable and could be moved around. They may have Factory/Codex subs which could be resubmitted or used by a successor state without any problems. They don't have territory, SSDs or other defined assets, locations or similar prizes to take away.
But that's okay.
Rebellions exist as a check on major factions. The rules should not be written to be punitive to minors who may try and fail, only to curb any likely abuses of the system. The best checks have been suggested already, to require minor factions to wait for a cooldown period before they can rebel again, or by the original suggestion that only one rebellion can hit a major faction per month.
Hopefully this post can help address your concerns, and anyone else's about the history of rebellion rules and how they can inform on the present.
Carbon
CT-00001
Reverance said:
how can you just attack me outright like this
B E A C O N
Captain Jordan said:
These are two things I see being a proper working balance. Someone else mentioned something about only one dominion by a major faction being rebelled each month, which combined with those two would probably work. I just don't think, based on the last several months of seeing factions with three dominions completed each month, that just making it easier to rebel is going to see that many more rebellions when they already don't happen.Captain Jordan said:
Bunker-level Normal
[member="Lily Kuhn"]
Yeah, those sound reasonable to me.
Yeah, those sound reasonable to me.
S O V E R E I G N
The one nitpick I see with this, is that the massive major factions that already have numerous SSD's, and have been pushing out 3 doms per month for almost the past year. (CIS is one that comes to mind) Any minor faction would be absolutely stupid(Really dumb) to go toe to toe with these guys. They happen to whip out one of their big bad boys onto the table and make the Rebel's have to deal with it? Yes that is fine and all, but for those larger factions like the CIS, Sith Empire, SJO, and FO that have such a massive space, I propose something else.
The larger the faction that a Minor faction takes on, Either they can gain a nearby hex with the one they rebel *Cannot be within the space of the opposing side* OR they get to claim an SSD of their own. *these are subject to change* but the idea is that the larger factions can still be hit. and BECAUSE they are so massive and have huge member bases and the like, then the Rebel team just get more incentive. While the consequences for the Major faction stay the same.
Now, if a rebel faction attacks a brand new, or smaller one, then all they would get, is the hex that they are after.
Just an idea to throw around so there is a better chance for the Major factions that have been in their "comfort zones" to have the fear of god put in them.
The larger the faction that a Minor faction takes on, Either they can gain a nearby hex with the one they rebel *Cannot be within the space of the opposing side* OR they get to claim an SSD of their own. *these are subject to change* but the idea is that the larger factions can still be hit. and BECAUSE they are so massive and have huge member bases and the like, then the Rebel team just get more incentive. While the consequences for the Major faction stay the same.
Now, if a rebel faction attacks a brand new, or smaller one, then all they would get, is the hex that they are after.
Just an idea to throw around so there is a better chance for the Major factions that have been in their "comfort zones" to have the fear of god put in them.
The Blood Hound
[member="gdsryrox"] It's valid. Post it. Or remain silent forever.
S O V E R E I G N
That is very much a necessity. Just saying if you are willing to take on a faction that is larger, you get more rewards for attacking a larger, more active faction.Kaine Australis said:
The Blood Hound
Why are we pretending that SSD's affect an invasion or rebellion's win in any way? They're a story element. The outcome of PvP has no bearing on winning or losing.
A P E X
Everyone's arguing about buffing Rebellions, but all I want for Christmas is for PvP to matter.
(Do whatever to Rebellions, I'm down for some fun!)
(Also, SSDs are cool but ultimately don't matter.)
(Y'know what should matter? Being able to out write an opponent #MakePvPGreatAgain)
(Do whatever to Rebellions, I'm down for some fun!)
(Also, SSDs are cool but ultimately don't matter.)
(Y'know what should matter? Being able to out write an opponent #MakePvPGreatAgain)
The Blood Hound
Cool, so can I permanently sink the Fortressa?Darth Metus said:
A P E X
[member="Scherezade deWinter"]
Just because you asked?
No.
Just because you asked?
No.
The Blood Hound
[member="Darth Metus"]
Enyo Typhos
Control
Scherezade deWinter said:
SSDs are like the Kaiser's High Seas Fleet. Status symbols that look big and fancy, but do little, spend most of their time away from danger and are ultimately frivolous vanity projects.
And, yes, PvP should matter, but that's best kept as a topic for a different thread. Especially since it would require a rather comprehensive overhaul of present rules.
Lok Xiangu
Sweet Leaf
[member="Auberon"] [member="Kaine Australis"]
Like Sherezade said, numbers and awesome, fancy toys such as SSDs don’t really weigh in too much on the judging of a Rebellion. Your minor faction can be outnumbered, but you can manage a win by how you write the story and the judging criteria of the Rebellion. And no, I don’t think Minor factions should be given more rewards if they rebel against a large faction like the CIS or the Sith Empire.
Like Sherezade said, numbers and awesome, fancy toys such as SSDs don’t really weigh in too much on the judging of a Rebellion. Your minor faction can be outnumbered, but you can manage a win by how you write the story and the judging criteria of the Rebellion. And no, I don’t think Minor factions should be given more rewards if they rebel against a large faction like the CIS or the Sith Empire.
Moonage Daydream
I don't think Minors should get any more reward than looking at hte map and being 'hey, we made that remain neutral' after a successful rebellion. Anything they create from that, stolen goods, or ships, or what not, is just a perk. They're minors, we fly corvettes and a handful of cruisers, and fight the big ones down.
That being said, I'm A-OK with putting 'you get a rebellion once per month. you can not rebellion the same major two months in a row, and if you lose, you go to rebellion jail for like 3 months'
Its as balances as you're gonna get, and everyone always says 'going major is a risk.' Well, now you can get more than just invaded, you can get rebellioned, and guess what, like any small group, they don't have a place to hit back aside from in a story.'
The Map Game, for what it is, is the major story of the board (Endgame comes to mind as a major IC event because of the map). But guess what, the site has more than just major factions. Let everyone shake it up a bit.
That being said, I'm A-OK with putting 'you get a rebellion once per month. you can not rebellion the same major two months in a row, and if you lose, you go to rebellion jail for like 3 months'
Its as balances as you're gonna get, and everyone always says 'going major is a risk.' Well, now you can get more than just invaded, you can get rebellioned, and guess what, like any small group, they don't have a place to hit back aside from in a story.'
The Map Game, for what it is, is the major story of the board (Endgame comes to mind as a major IC event because of the map). But guess what, the site has more than just major factions. Let everyone shake it up a bit.
The Golden Rule
[member="Lok Munin"]
Full disclosure, I'm mostly responding to the OP, having only skimmed through the responses.
I don't think most people are afraid of doing more than three doms per month, but simply don't have the interest or activity for it. Currently, there's only one faction on track to complete three doms (launched in December) this month. Since the reworked map came out, there have been plenty of opportunities to launch Rebellions (Most Majors have acquired SSDs), but few have been launched.
I take it that this suggestion is part of an effort to spice up the map game, but it's probably going to have an opposite effect and just make most Majors, especially those more PvE focused, even more tepid and discourage new Majors forming.
I think the central issue with the map game isn't the lack of mechanics or avenues for PvP, but a matter of culture.
Right now, there only seems to be only two modes when it comes to Major interactions: 1) ignore or 2) beat into a bloody pulp. In the latter case, this often leads to the employment of various underhanded tactics and collusion. Whatever it takes to win. Rebellions, in particular, were reworked in part because they were being used as vehicles for Majors to troll each other and wear them down through attrition.
A lot of people invested in the map game like to treat it like they're in a real total war. This inevitably leads to toxicity between groups, and then they don't want anything to do with each other lest they (re)open that can of worms. For instance, Conquests were launched over a year ago as a low pressure means for some kind of meaningful PvP, but all Majors declined to do anything with it.
I think if Majors and other groups acted a little more chill toward each other and didn't immediately ramp up aggression to level 11, then you might see a spark of activity. We can all hate each other IC, but I don't see why we can't aim for more collaborative experiences and accept that we can't always come out on top in a story.
On our current trajectory, I just see more and more people checking out of the map game (at least PvP) and retreating to their own little islands unless we change our attitudes.
Full disclosure, I'm mostly responding to the OP, having only skimmed through the responses.
Lok Munin said:
I don't think most people are afraid of doing more than three doms per month, but simply don't have the interest or activity for it. Currently, there's only one faction on track to complete three doms (launched in December) this month. Since the reworked map came out, there have been plenty of opportunities to launch Rebellions (Most Majors have acquired SSDs), but few have been launched.
I take it that this suggestion is part of an effort to spice up the map game, but it's probably going to have an opposite effect and just make most Majors, especially those more PvE focused, even more tepid and discourage new Majors forming.
I think the central issue with the map game isn't the lack of mechanics or avenues for PvP, but a matter of culture.
Right now, there only seems to be only two modes when it comes to Major interactions: 1) ignore or 2) beat into a bloody pulp. In the latter case, this often leads to the employment of various underhanded tactics and collusion. Whatever it takes to win. Rebellions, in particular, were reworked in part because they were being used as vehicles for Majors to troll each other and wear them down through attrition.
A lot of people invested in the map game like to treat it like they're in a real total war. This inevitably leads to toxicity between groups, and then they don't want anything to do with each other lest they (re)open that can of worms. For instance, Conquests were launched over a year ago as a low pressure means for some kind of meaningful PvP, but all Majors declined to do anything with it.
I think if Majors and other groups acted a little more chill toward each other and didn't immediately ramp up aggression to level 11, then you might see a spark of activity. We can all hate each other IC, but I don't see why we can't aim for more collaborative experiences and accept that we can't always come out on top in a story.
On our current trajectory, I just see more and more people checking out of the map game (at least PvP) and retreating to their own little islands unless we change our attitudes.
Eternal Father
Jyoti Nooran said:
Careful in that glass house of yours.
For Honor
I don't see this as a huge problem. On Chaos we have a particularly bad habit of re-creating the wheel over and over again simply because we didn't make it ourselves. If this somehow discourages people to make new major factions and instead encourages people to just jump on the ride of already large and established factions I say great. Less map bloat, less factory bloat, and less people just jumping into hot pan factions. I also see this as a way to encourage more developed, active, and driven minor factions so that's also a plus.Jyoti Nooran said:
Jyoti Nooran said:
That's what war and inter-faction politics, though I wouldn't go as far as to call cooperation between two factions to see a mutual enemy fall as collusion. That's just cooperation against a mutual enemy.
The suggestions throughout this thread are trying to give more incentives for this to happen.Jyoti Nooran said: