Revised Invasion Rules Survey

[Valiens Nantaris]

Carrying over from the other thread: http://starwarsrp.net/topic/15953-proposed-invasion-changes/ There are some questions that need to be answered.

For your convenience, my proposed changes are listed below. The poll in this thread will define revisions and whether it goes ahead.

Please only vote with one alt.

• Two factions may declare they are going to war. From that point on they may both open simultaneous invasion threads against each other. Only these two factions can be targets of these invasions. A faction may only be at war with a single faction at once.
• Invasion threads must be at least 100 posts and 3 unique writers to count. Writers can be in multiple threads. Ally rules remain unchanged and do not count as unique writers.
• Invasion threads are decided by mutual consent between factions. Alternatively RPJs intervene if no agreement can be reached.
• 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.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

For the record I suggest 5 invasions per campaign is plenty enough, and would stretch the resources of any faction, especially if characters are to be limited to a single invasion.

 

[Judas of Vahl]

@[member="Tegaea Alcori"]

Say Faction X wages war against Faction Y, using this 5 invasion limit rule. Faction X wins 3/5 invasions. If Faction X wins the war, what rewards can be expected?

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

They win those three planets. It would be 5 each, for attacker and defender. So it's possible that both sides could end up winning planets.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

Thank you all for your input!

I will leave this open until Sunday then tally the results.

 

[Akio Kahoshi]

I think 75 posts minimum (given a lower character count of 3) and about 2 weeks length after the minimum 75 has been reached would make for more fluid invasions. Also, just a thought. I think that the goals should be determined only by the attacker. Hear me out on this one. The attacker sets 6 goals, 3 for each side. Every goal has to be a "destroy or capture" goal. I've noticed the defensive goals generally suck because it can last the entire thread where an offensive goal only has to last until you capture/destroy it (ignoring recapturing).

Now, there are advantages and disadvantages to this right off the bat, which need to be addressed. If the aggressor is making the goals, he can make his easy while making the defender's hard. This will require RPJ involvement, either before the attack or after the attack commences. Preferably a neutral RPJ. The point, is that this allows for true surprise attacks. The Mandos can attack Dromund Kaas without warning, and the sith have to try and rally a defense just like the real world. While still keeping things fair for both sides, and forcing the aggressors to work just a little bit harder for that surprise.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

True surprise attacks in the real world are very rare, and often due to mismanagement and error on the part of the defender. Pearl Harbour for instance was a surprise attack, but made worse by foolish decisions by the American defenders.

I think you could quite easily have ONE surprise attack, your first invasion of a campaign, which you could organise with an RPJ etc. Any more than that is stretching it.

 

[Akio Kahoshi]

This is Star Wars. You might be able to predict the next logical target, but once a fleet goes into hyperspace there is no way to know where it will emerge. It is easy to misdirect direction by adding one or two extra jumps into empty systems.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

That may be so, and leaving asidee hyperspace sensing technology and interdictor ships, surprise attacks are rarely that useful except as raids. The most important planets are always well defended, and the lesser planets which aren't aren't worth the trouble. If the surprise attack lasts too long reinforcements arrive etc.

I think one surprise attack to open proceedings would work.
Since I see the polls clearly show people want factions to agree on a start time and condition before the battle begins, my suggestion would be that faction's only have to specify a time, not the location of their invasions so as to give a bit more of a surprise value to them.

 

[Akio Kahoshi]

That would make sense.

Though I suspect in some cases it might become obvious lol.

 

[Selena Halcyon]

My thing is that there should be no cause for actual agreement on conditions, because really who gets to do that in reality? It can stall faction momentum on one end and that's just frustrating.

 

[Akio Kahoshi]

Like the two failed invasions of OP that failed due to OOC reasons?

 

[Selena Halcyon]

Yeah, I mean that just shouldn't happen.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

Perhaps I should define what I mean by 'conditions'. Mainly I meant 'rules of engagement' as in, is fleeting happening, use of NPCs in land battles and so on.

I don't want invasions to be held up for OOC reasons, but nor do I want OOC drama because people haven't communicated as they should.

 

[Jsc]

The Faction Admins were just supposed to agree on a few simple things.

• A time. (Ex: Monday Night around 8 Eastern. Tell your members.)
• A place. (Ex: We'll fight over Naboo. Space and Ground.)
• A fair fight. (Ex: 10,000 ships vs 12,000 ships. 10,000 soldiers vs 12,000 soldiers. etc. Give-and-take were expected here.)

Winning conditions were never even considered a priority. Probably because Invasions aren't (solely) about winning. PvP isn't (solely) about winning. FvF isn't (solely) about winning. It's all about creating an atmosphere where the members of your Faction can have some good clean head-smashing fun. Herp derp.

But yeah. A rule change is a good thing. Just thought I'd throw that out there for the million'th time.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

I can never tell when or if you're ever serious, JSC....

But his three things to agree on makes sense.

 

[Jsc]

It was the Superweapon and Orbital Bombardment talk from way back in the Staff Forum. Where this amendment got added to the Invasion Rules because I was ranting like a crazy-person:

• "Before an Invasion begins, Faction Leaders must convene to discuss how the Invasion will be handled by both sides to account for fairness and balance. If a compromise cannot be reached please consult a Role-play Judge."

It really wasn't meant to stall Invasions. Just to keep out ridiculous shows of force like: 8-1 NPC odds. Death Star Superweapons. Planet Glassing with PC's still fighting on the ground. Stealth Infiltration/Political Assassinations. etc. It really wasn't a hard idea to grasp back then. It was about creating a fun battleground where gibbing and ganking were kept to a minimum. Letting the Faction Leaders set the tone and get all the surprises out of the way before the first shot was ever fired.

I have no idea when Victory Conditions became a thing. *shrugs*

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

They became a thing because there's no easy way of determining a winner otherwise. And despite what you say...invasions are meant to have a winner.

 

[Jsc]

Ah yes. But remember. During that discussion, I myself was actually arguing in-favor of gimping, ganking, and powergaming back then. It was Staff who said that my attitude about, 'winning was all that matters', was not a good way to set the rules. Making sure everyone had a good time was leveled as more important than determining who won by overwhelming force.

Maybe that's changed? But I remember a time when 'compromising for the sake of fairness', was more important than determining who 'won'. *shrugs*

EDIT: Oh wait. You weren't disagreeing with me. And I agree that Invasion should have a winner. I'm an idoit. Nvm. Carry on! >.>''

 

[Kitt Solo]

Do we have rules on PC vs PC?

If not, I strongly suggest that.