Discussion in 'OOC' started by hortanium, Jul 25, 2018.
How does that contradict what I said?
You either implied that Ariadna didn't offer an alliance to NA2,which they did, which is the contradiction I was talking about, or you implied that I called them stupid because other factions decided to pick a fight with them, which means you didn't read/understand what I wrote....either way...
But enough of this nonsensical arguments, we're way off-topic already. This is about making CA a threat, not about Ariadna decisions or whatever.
No, what he said was the other way around, that NA2 was never going to accept any offer Ariadna made(which to be honest we suspected before we offered, but it would have been rude not to...).
The best way to make any and every faction matter is the points bonus, but instead of guessing who is the smallest or largest wait, then apply the bonus points every 24 hours, along with any points from completing objectives etc. That way the people who earn glory, as well as the people who need help both get it.
Yeah, I think what he was saying is that "in the end, NA2 was never going to accept an offer" not that "Clearly to anybody who knew anything, NA2 was never going to accept an offer." /shrug. I will give NA2 credit, they went bold in the first phase and as a player, I would much rather go big and possibly lose than simply turtle up and not lose big.
As for what Cazboab suggests, I mostly agree. The only thing I might change would be to simply apply the points bonus at the end of each phase (and then rework them for future phases). This would help to prevent any sandbagging and encourage players to simply keep reporting. Sure, it makes it harder for the High Commands to see how well they are doing, but you could still get a general feel for the situation. (i.e. Tohaa doesn't seem to be submitting a ton of reports but they are all being submitted at Lafayette, so its probably, at best, close there).
As for the JSA Exclusives, I too agree that it was handled poorly, both in terms of the contradictions in the materials and just the fact that there were exclusives period. I understand their desire to make sure that JSA kept a foothold on Novvy, but there was a much easier way to do that. Have the fluff be "During the Uprising, the JSA seized and secured the TSA. In the weeks following, they have pushed further and have now secured the port of the USF and another base nearby." They could then make USF and the nearby base up for grabs while simply keeping the first one off the board. It would be very similar then (albeit on a smaller scale) to what Ariadna was facing in the campaign. Had Ariadna been "wiped off the map" it would not have meant that Dawn was conquered by the foreign invaders. It simply would have meant that Ariadna still did not have a presence on Novvy, but worse, almost every other faction did.
@Yasashii As for the decision of NA2 to simply follow the prewritten fluff of "stay allied to PanO at all costs" I can certainly understand that, even if they kind of hung NA2 out to dry in Phase 1. What I don't get is the irritation then when Ariadna players in the buildup responded exactly as the fluff would suggest they should (i.e. Dawn Is Ours!). Seems like you were arguing both ends there, though its certainly possible I misunderstood, in which case, I apologize. For me, the idea that intrigued me about a narrative campaign is the idea that we, the players, could potentially influence the overall fluff, even if just a tiny bit. I mean obviously the scope of the campaign will be limited. Nobody ever thought the campaign would result in the elimination of Ariadna, or JSA, or CA, etc. However, it does seem like there should at least be potential to create stories within the established framework. As an earlier poster said, the alliance between NA2 and Ariadna could have resulted in "JSA gets a secured foothold on Novvy with a friendly Ariadna neighbor/partner/whatever. In exchange Ariadna gets a bit of a tech upgrade from the JSA scientists, etc." All of that could have been done too without JSA attacking PanO, which as I understand, was the plan for the offer anyway. JSA could focus on YJ while Ariadna could focus on PanO.
Just to be clear though, I'm not saying that what NA2 did was wrong. There's no "one correct way" to play. The decisions made by NA2 were perfectly fine, they just backfired a bit. Plus, as I said, as a player, I would much rather swing for the fences and possibly miss, than simply play safe and know that I won't come out either on top or on bottom.
As for CA, it does seem as though their turnout this year was lower than expected, and I think that is why @cazboab has a good framework for a solution. The varied point values for wins definitely was a good thing, even if the execution turned out to not quite be perfect.
How would this handle a faction hoarding a bunch of results and then dumping them all at once, getting the maximum possible return when their "population" was still considered to be quite low?
Coming fresh off the Uprising fluff, it's no surprise that JSA players had a sense of entitlement about what their faction deserved.
Ideally it would account for the population per day, Hoarded reports in this case would mean that the 'smaller' faction would lose out on their bonus because they had a higher population that day. Alternatively, possibly additionally factions could have a 'momentum' state that earns a bonus after a few days if they're posting close to a set percentage of their potential total, thus encouraging regular reports over the campaign phases rather than the last minute surge.
Why not just use a system that continuously adjusts for population rather than making it granular for each day?
That would encourage posting last, and if a faction is hoarding it means that the first few of their reports gain a bonus that they don't need.
What I meant was, reports posted earlier in a campaign become worth less as theit faction posts more batreps.
Not sure why you'd think that...
That comment was in reference to my earlier comment about calculating unit faction offsets "continuously."
What you want that to happen? No, the points should stay the same once they're earned, taking them away retroactively is only going to create bad feeling and resentment.