135 replies to this topic

[Zark]

I'm so tempted to just keep watching things burn, but I'll be a productive community member I guess.

 

These points have been gone over nearly to death but I don't think its been argued as well as it could have been cause I have a huge ego so here we go.

 

The current invasions are purely the result of OOC animosity/the current invasions constitute bullying.

 

I don't believe the writers in support of this perspective have proved their case here, which is not the same as saying that the OOC animosity doesn't exist. The people in this thread suggesting there is no bad blood are foolish. IMO some of it is very justified, but just because it is there does not mean it is dictating people's actions. Read the threads of the factions involved before you claim zero IC justification.

 

I would be very careful about throwing around words like 'harassment', because from my point of view starting a status update war followed by a six page suggestion thread because your friends are having a bad week sounds a little like bully behavior to me. Declaring 'bullies' does not make it so, and doing it because you're upset with how a situation has played out could be seen as a form of harassment to get your own way.

 

There is no reason for simultaneous OOC invasions other than to burn writers out/frustate them.

 

There may be some truth to this, but if so the threshold should be much higher than two or three invasions. Like it or not, cloud breaks are a thing, strategic assaults are a thing. So it should only be IC, sure, then maybe we should reevaluate the rules about launching consecutive invasions between judgments, or the amount of territory conquerable per month, or re-dominioning lost hexes. As it stands right now most factions are unkillable, multiple invasions are the only way to raise the stakes. Is it poodooty? Maybe, but this is what the community asked for. People don't want to lose their sand castles, so now the only way to defeat your opponent is if you break their morale. Democracy in action.

 

It is true that some factions are less predisposed towards pvp than other factions. Should they be rewarded for this? If they are on the map, no. The map is for pvp. There is no mechanic on Chaos that allows a group of writers to squat on territory with no risk to themselves. Good. This is working as intended.

 

Simultaneous IC invasions should take place at different times OOC.

 

In a perfect world this might be a perfect solution, but as it stands coordinating schedules are so complex that the site only gets a few months of viable invasion season per year. If a single faction pisses off half the site IC, we are not going to take turns socking them in the face like olde timey boxers. That is an unfair expectation to place on other factions to pay the price for that single faction's leadership/activity problems.

 

The rules shouldn't change simply because two factions who are not even adjacent to the hexes they are attacking declared at a bad time. People are asking for an overhaul of the entire invasion system because of a potential month's lost work.

 

Since it's easy to snipe at people from the back of the class but much more difficult to come up with productive suggestions or contributions, here is my take on a fix through mandate:

 

Defendable Space

Strength: The Major Faction cannot be invaded by multiple factions simultaneously.

Weakness: The Major Faction cannot invade a faction at the same time as another Major Faction or sign up as allies.

 

If you don't like the ally game, you don't like the ally game. Fine. But you shouldn't get to profit off it.

Edited by Zark, 05 July 2019 - 10:41 AM.

[Siobhan Kerrigan]

As it stands right now most factions are unkillable, multiple invasions are the only way to raise the stakes.

 

This is quite pertinent. Presently, Dominions are very cheap, as 50 posts suffice to get a hex. You can dom a lot faster than you can invade.

 

So, to put it plainly, you need simultaneous invasions to actually put a dent in someone's sphere, unless they throw the towel and commit state suicide for other reasons or their activity is real low, in which case they'll probably not come far on the map anyway.

Edited by Siobhan Kerrigan, 05 July 2019 - 10:41 AM.

[Tathra Khaeus]

Zark

 

That seems like a good idea to me, tbh.

 

Whatever form it takes, I'm game.

Edited by Tathra Khaeus, 05 July 2019 - 10:46 AM.

[RC 212]

Kor Vexen

 

It wasn't that bad Mirial.

 

It at least made an interesting story IC and set up RC as a Villainous cur.

[Kahlil Zambrano]

Zark

 

It's a good way to use the mandates, but it has been said prior that any mandate suggestion should be placed in the thread for them or have a new one made about it. Just as a heads up. It got lost in the seven pages now of posts.

[Jay Scott Clark]

This is quite pertinent. Presently, Dominions are very cheap, as 50 posts suffice to get a hex. You can dom a lot faster than you can invade. So, to put it plainly, you need simultaneous invasions to actually put a dent in someone's sphere, unless they throw the towel and commit state suicide for other reasons or their activity is real low, in which case they'll probably not come far on the map anyway.

 

Doms being more profitable than Invasions, in regards to territory conservation, has been the status quo for quite some time. I remember well being Staff for the Republic and commenting about this during Invasion planning, years ago.

 

Of course. Personally. I never had a problem with it as; moral, activity, popularity, and perception always seemed to have a much bigger impact on the success or failure of a faction than straight territory concerns. And, again. Just me. But I don't think frequent dominions warrant much conversation here. Though, you and Zark are right about their unique relationship with making frequent Invasions more potent.

Edited by Jay Scott Clark, 05 July 2019 - 02:55 PM.

[Ryssa Yvarro]

Zark

 

Love the mandate, we can modify that into this:

 

Hermit Kingdom
Strength: Hexes this Major Faction owns may not be the target of Rebellions or Flashpoints.
Weakness: This Major Faction may only claim one Dominion per month.

[Jyoti Nooran]

Kahlil Zambrano

It wasn't always this way. In the past, the map itself offered a buffer. You could choose to start in an empty corner of the map, then build yourself up while avoiding invasions (but still be open to poking via skirmishes, rebellions, and other shenanigans). From there you could choose to expand at the risk of exposure to potentially hostile neighbors. Most of the current factions on the map got their start in that environment. 

Then there was a paradigm shift about a couple years ago when invasions across the map and simultaneous invasions against single targets became normalized*. Historically a Major may be in close proximity to one or two neighbors that could invade, but now they can be attacked by anyone at anytime. (More) Anarchy basically. 

So the map game has become more of a popularity contest as Tathra has suggested. Strategic expansion on the map has become a secondary consideration to building or maintaining personal clout offsite on Discord. The social game has always been an important aspect of the map game (it's never a bad thing to be on good relations as writers), but I feel right now it has too much sway on what happens on the board. The game has become pretty stale as result. Right now most of the board is bunched up in one super alliance, with one or two small independent factions outside of said alliance that are just kind of limping along. 

Some folks have suggested new or revised Mandates to create a new buffer, which I think that's a good start. I'd also suggest some sort of cooldown period on these crossmap invasions too. ICily it can be justified by the logistical requirements needed for major military expeditions abroad. Maybe like a month or two. Otherwise Majors would still be able to invade nearby neighbors in adjacent hexes as much as they like without a cooldown. 

Alternatively, crossmap invasions become a Mandate. Relentless Horde could be retooled for this purpose. 

*I know it was always possible to do this, but it wasn't the norm.  

[Valiens Nantaris]

Defendable Space Strength: The Major Faction cannot be invaded by multiple factions simultaneously. Weakness: The Major Faction cannot invade a faction at the same time as another Major Faction or sign up as allies.

 

Now we're talking.

 

Good timing too as I will be unveiling Mandate changes very soon.

 

 

[Dondagora]

Too long, not reading the last three pages. I'm a new player, but would like to throw out a potential solution that I believe won't ruin the competitive nature of the Map Game while also providing the defense to not be overwhelmed IRL with the time they would need to put in to keep up with multiple invasions. But first, some context to this solution (which will be a second-hand account I received, to be clear):

 

Shadowbane was a highly competitive/hardcore PVP-oriented MMO where players could build cities on a map and other players could declare war, siege, steal, and so forth. Now the question this game struggled with was how to keep the game "fun" for players without bogging their base down with rules of what they can and cannot do, or else defeating the purpose. They isolated the experience they wanted players to have, and built around that instead of a concept. That experience is "PvP", the experience of fighting other players. The issue they were seeing was much like one we are seeing some people have, which is the OOC making the IC experience less fulfilling, AKA if cities were always siegable then enemy players would wait until a city's players were asleep and then destroy their stuff. Now, some cried fair play, that the city players simply did not commit enough, they should have had overnight watchers so such surprise sieges would not be possible. Now the city players could do that, but the devs saw the night sieges as a much more fundemental problem: by allowing it, it made the game not about PvP, but about avoiding PvP, finding times when players wouldn't be around to defend their stuff and destroying their stuff. In essence, it wasn't about whether it was fair or not, whether it was good sportsmanship or not, whether the other players should just step up or not. It was about the experience being delivered not the experience the game was meant to give.

 

So they made cities unattainable except during a siege window that is declared and known to both the attackers and defenders so that they could be on at the same time. Now, we have something similar, where you can't just take a hex, you have to declare the invasion. However, Shadowbane went further since this still allowed attackers to choose off-hours when they knew the defenders would be the weakest, again avoiding PvP. To counter this, they made a new system: Attackers would declare a siege, and the defenders would pick the time it starts within a given timeframe (choosing the hour of the siege within the week it was declared). Sure, the defender could pick a bad time for attackers, but in that same sense the attackers could choose a week that they're more flexible.

 

Now I feel we should also adopt this rule of "Defender's Right" where the Defender of an Invasion is the one allowed to choose the start time. As I'm told, Invasions last about 2 weeks, so the Defender could (for example) choose a time within a month, or four weeks. This way, should a faction be invaded by 3 other factions at once, the Defending Faction may spread out the invasions they're dealing with. They cannot postpone beyond the month (should they not declare a time within the month, the Defender loses the hex by default) and there is still no 'consenting' out of being invaded, both of which would ruin the competitive nature of the game and be insulting to the Attackers who instigated the invasion.

 

To those who say that such a policy would ruin the Attackers' initiative, I say "yes, it might". But that really shouldn't make a difference in the context of RP, I think. The Attackers still control the narrative of the invasion, the Attackers still instigate the invasion. the only thing they don't have is saying "this is starting right now!", and the only benefit I see in that is where Defenders will have to contend with multiple simultaneous invasions, wearing them out and mentally fatiguing them until they're tired of RP.

 

Now, to bring it back to the idea of "What experience do you want the game to provide?", I'll propose this as the experience I would assume people want in an invasion: To tell a massive and encompassing story with multiple writers. Now, the actual experience in these situations, as I see it, is anything but.

 

Defenders experience writing so much to keep their lot that they're worn down

Attackers experience writing with worn out writers

Neither of these experiences should be what people want. Attackers should want to write with Defenders who have the time and energy to write stories with enthusiasm, or else it's just cheapening the experience for both sides.

 

So I suppose the question of whether this solution is good is whether you'd rather be sieging an empty castle or you'd rather encounter and battle with present players.

[Khonsu Amon]

Valiens Nantaris Personally, I'm not a fan of the name. While I understand what the mandate's trying to point out, to me - at least - it implies that everyone who doesn't have this mandate isn't defending their space. I'd rather see this awesome mandate Zark made replace Defensive Stronghold's strength and cons section, as that would make more sense than unlimited allies. That's just my two cents on the matter, so feel free to ignore it at your leisure.

[Jay Scott Clark]

Now I feel we should also adopt this rule of "Defender's Right" where the Defender of an Invasion is the one allowed to choose the start time. As I'm told, Invasions last about 2 weeks, so the Defender could (for example) choose a time within a month, or four weeks. This way, should a faction be invaded by 3 other factions at once, the Defending Faction may spread out the invasions they're dealing with. They cannot postpone beyond the month (should they not declare a time within the month, the Defender loses the hex by default) and there is still no 'consenting' out of being invaded, both of which would ruin the competitive nature of the game and be insulting to the Attackers who instigated the invasion.

 

This might make a good Mandate with some balancing.

[Valiens Nantaris]

Khonsu Amon

Oh yes, the name and details are subject to change, but it's a good start.

[Zark]

Valiens Nantaris Khonsu Amon

 

I could care less about the name, I thought it up in 10 seconds. Although careful casting stones Mr. "Voidborne" Crusaders snort

 

You have my blessing to rework it however you deem fit.

Edited by Zark, 06 July 2019 - 01:44 AM.

[Khonsu Amon]

Zark - Who says I was casting stones?  

 

Besides, I hear that's terrible to do in glass houses.

[Runi Verin]

Zark Khonsu Amon

Lads, do I need to sub a nanometer ruler for this contest? Play nice. You're both prett-- er, present.