Proposed Invasion Changes

[Lief]

Tegaea Alcori, on 02 Jan 2014 - 01:50, said: Invasion threads are decided by mutual consent between factions. Alternatively RPJs intervene if no agreement can be reached. This means that if one faction wants to invade, but the other doesn't want to be invaded, the defending faction can just say "Lol, no" and the invasion won't happen. This shoots realism in the foot and hurts the nature of "war." It means that when another faction is weaker and pounced upon by a stronger faction, the weaker faction can just say "No." You shouldn't be able to OOC filibuster an IC war. I disagree.

I think she means the outcome

 

[Lord Ghoul]

If so, that already happens with current invasions.

 

[Lief]

@[member="Mikhail Shorn"]
I think she's outlining what it would look like rule wise if the changes present were made.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

Actually, the lag is due to a lack of replies from the Mandalorians. Sith are waiting for replies, but the 72 hour deadline is coming up fast.




This makes it impossible for "Galactic War" and multiple factions invading. This sounds like it was brought on because of OP's nearly being invaded by the Axis powers: CIS, Atrisia, Empire, LotF. I disagree with the proposed change.



This means that if one faction wants to invade, but the other doesn't want to be invaded, the defending faction can just say "Lol, no" and the invasion won't happen. This shoots realism in the foot and hurts the nature of "war." It means that when another faction is weaker and pounced upon by a stronger faction, the weaker faction can just say "No." You shouldn't be able to OOC filibuster an IC war. I disagree.



Unpredictable invasions that can happen whenever as long as a faction decides to invade make a map unpredictable. Two factions always having to agree to invade the other before an invasion can start mean that territory is actually gridlocked as nobody invades except under mutual consent, which also eliminates the unpredictable nature of it.



This can already happen without the suggested changes.



Actually, I've personally found huge blobs are easier to join in, especially as a new member and have heard the same from other members. There's something for everyone in a big invasion, rather than multiple small invasions which are harder to keep track of.



Defending factions can already launch a counter-invasion as far as I understand. However, it doesn't make sense to have multiple invasions going on at once. I.E. a character should not be able to be in two different invasion threads that are both occurring simultaneously.




Invasions are fine as is.

• A very long 72 hours since the last post was on the 29th of December, by a Sith.
• As I said, I am entirely open to removing that clause, and if requested, I shall. It is mainly in there for testing.
• That's not what I mean at all. I mean the results of the individual invasions are decided like current invasions are. Or, if after over 100 posts attacker and defender can't decide who has won, they simply ask the RPJs for adjudication. No filibustering.
• You've gone off on a wrong tangent here. Mutual consent is only for individual threads.
• Since invasions are one big thread they can...but threads almost always come down to 1vs1 duels. Or at least, 90% of posts in the 6 invasions which have run their course in 9 months have been 1vs1 duels.
• We'll have to agree to disagree there. For me, there's nothing less fun than trying to browse through 10 pages of posts and try to find an entry into a battle almost resolved.
• Defending factions can in theory start another invasion, but don't because of the current way the rules prejudice them.
• Thank you for your opinion. I hope my reply has answered some of your questions.

 

[Garza]

Time limit can be agreed beforehand. If the attacker doesn't make any posts within 48 hours the thread is void. If the defender doesn't make any posts within 48 hours and the thread is over 100 posts the attackers win.

My only trouble is that 100 posts can go very fast sometimes. I have seen some factions do a dominion in less than 3 hours. (correct me if I am wrong). But to put that many posts out there within three hours and someone not see it until it is too late, people could bombard the thread to where the defending faction says that they have had enough of the bombing. if this was raised to 150 or even 200, it would allow for more story and keep the threads somewhat easy to control.

 

[Selena Halcyon]

The way I always invasion clause of having to tell the opposing faction's leader about it was to give them warning. They don't have to agree to it. They just have to know.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

@[member="Selena Halcyon"] Is correct here.

@[member="Morna Imura"] I understand your point, but Invasions tend to be slower since you are writing PVP. What are people's thoughts on this? My thinking is that multiple threads mean that raising the post limit would lead to less successfully completed threads. Thoughts?

 

[Garza]

Very true, most of it is PVP. My thought is that right from the get-go they bombard. They just rush it all the way, Even then, the Invasions that I have been in with many characters, The post count went into the good, 200-300 mark. So only judging the first 100 posts, (I'm assusing that is what is being judged) would mean for shorter threads all together. And for the people who join in at post 80 only get like 5 more posts in because it has reached the 100 mark. Making it harder for them to further their story rather than the two guys who are always on and have a fight that spans two pages.
@[member="Tegaea Alcori"]

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

@[member="Morna Imura"] No, 100 posts is the MINIMUM. So long as attacker and defender posts there's no upper limit. The thread could reach 500 posts in theory if people are still enjoying it.
It's just that a thread needs 100 posts to count, not that it's judged instantly at 100.

 

[Garza]

Alright that cleared things up for me. thank you.
@[member="Tegaea Alcori"]

 

[Akio Kahoshi]

Right now I think a problem is that two factions have to sit down and talk before it happens. I miss on the old Craftshop just starting an invasion and having it be a real surprise attack. The current method of deciding goals is certainly better for trying to determine a winner, but totally removes any "surprise attack" options.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

@[member="Akio Kahoshi"] They don't have to. You can declare war on someone without their input.

The wording is vague, but they don't have to agree on a time. It would be nice if notice was given and a time limit agreed to the overall campaign, but it's not required.

My question relates to how long this war takes. You'll notice it's fairly open ended. In theory it could last forever...but we don't want it.

 

[Akio Kahoshi]

Or we do. Every war on this board has ended in good time, eventually peace terms arise. Don't really see a need to have rules for that personally.

And I meant individual invasions not the war itself.

 

[Selena Halcyon]

Wars can last forever... I see no over all issue with that. They can go cold and get hot.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

*Nods*

I'm thinking rather than war we could use the term 'campaign' to denote a series of invasions. It sounds better than war to me, but not too fussed if people prefer war instead.

OK well I might take advantage of the polling system here to put several poll questions together in one thread and tailor an updated proposal from there. The questions I thought of are:

• Do you believe that the current Invasion rules need changing? (Yes/No) If yes go to the following questions.
• Should factions have to agree beforehand on the timing/conditions for beginning a campaign? (Yes/No)
• Should one faction be able to be targeted by several factions? (Yes, if allied/Yes, always/No)
• Should individual characters be able to participate in more than one invasion at a time? (Yes/No)
• What should be the minimum posts required to claim victory in an invasion? (Less than 100/100/125/150+)
• Should there be a time limit on individual invasions? (1 week/1 month/No limit)
• Should there be a time limit on how long a war/campaign can last? (Yes/No)

Any other questions spring to mind or ones here that need revising?

 

[Darth Voracitos]

If anyone asks, I don't exist. I'm not supposed to be on here, and I will get in trouble if I'm caught being on here. However, I saw this and had to join in if only for a post to pitch in my two cents. In my reign as Emperor of the Sith (disregarding my inability to rule effectively due to outside forces) I found it very difficult to find the motivation to engage in an Invasion. I always found them messy and slightly irritating rather than fun and organized and comprehensible; and especially in the beginning it seemed lopsided somehow lacking significant reward. At first I was all down with every Tegeae said, but Mikhail did bring in some interesting points. To organize my thoughts I go through your poll system... thingy.

• Do you believe that the current Invasion rules need changing? Yes
• Should factions have to agree beforehand on the timing/conditions for beginning a campaign? Yes
• Should one faction be able to be targeted by several factions? Yes, every nation should be able to bring along his buddies, but I think there should be a traveling period or a set up before allies can come in. Perhaps an Invasion should have a 20 post travelling period where all the factions converge in their corresponding parts before all out war. Or maybe the two should come up with a scenario of how everyone gets where. Factions should only be allowed to join in before the Invasion starts, as in they are part of the war discussion to set the Invasion up, rather than jumping in randomly.
• Should individual characters be able to participate in more than one invasion at a time? No, unless it is precisely specified that the Invasions are happening at two different times.
• What should be the minimum posts required to claim victory in an invasion? 100
• Should there be a time limit on individual invasions? Between a week and a month. Perhaps a week for a blitzkrieg and a month for a siege.
• Should there be a time limit on how long a war/campaign can last? I'm leaning towards no, but we have to consider a factions resources after a certain period of time in order to maintain war.

Basically my big issue is organizing something. Currently, both factions require consent. I don't like that. The other factions should definitely be contacted OOC, however I don't think the defending party should be able to reject the invasion at all. I think the two should work together OOC to generate an IC scenario. I feel like a campaign should be a gamble, because after all war is a type of gambling, you're betting that your army is superior and capable of claiming the enemy's land, but that might not happen.

I think that Campaigns should be driven by areas, and those areas should be composed of both enemy and friendly territory of near-equal size. So if you want to take over three planets you have to be willing to lose three planets if you fail. This would also open up lots of flexibility, because: several different locations to choose from, nice spread out time period both OOC and IC, and the gamble is more realistic. If you get crushed attacking the enemy there is high chance you'll suck at holding them off. However, if both sides persist by the time the campaign OOC is over, they could either choose to extend the time period and increase the the area size, or they could call a stalemate and start setting up IC negotiations for a peace accord.

Negotions taking place during a campaign could be the defending party attempting to surrender by bribing them with something of worth of value. Currently the only "valuable" item for factions is planets. But perhaps we could find something else that could boost Faction stats that they could trade around in order to bargain with other Factions.


Anyway, happy new year! Haven't seen you guys in a long time.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

@[member="Darth Voracitos"] Nice to see you again!

I proposed in staff a more complex approach similar to what Voractios said above, in regards to deciding a certain number of worlds to fight over, limiting allies and characters and so on.
While I think that would work, it is also much more complex. With a few tweaks we can reduce the overall complexity of the invasion system. I fear adding too much IC wrangling will add to the complexity and make things even less desirable than they are at present.

I do agree that the defender does not get a veto though. That's not how it works. I do think defining with the opposition what the scale of the campaign is would be helpful.
I'm going to post up a poll with all of the above questions so people can decide on what they think is best.

Thanks for your post Fatty! Hope to see you back here again soon!