- Joined
- Apr 1, 2022
- Messages
- 105
- Reaction score
- 274
As mentioned in Empire chat, I've brainstormed some ideas about a planet rank or rather a score system that might help settle some issues about take-overs, invasions and pvps. As this is to be understood as a draft of an idea, specifications would follow if people would agree with such a system or would wish for a more elaborate explanation about how this could come into play.
My idea is based on the ooc confusions and disputes about what pvp 'wins' could entail, how successful invasions and sabotage plots could be and that a full blown war also comes with many questions.
In the past, characters have basically claimed neutral planets through a 20 to 60 post thread- for independent planets, this doesn't seem to cause many issues. When it comes to faction owned planets, it's been argued that a usually well defended planet with assets, a fleet, planetary defenses or whatsoever can't just turn to another faction through an invasion without any actual assets or an actual big fight. I agree with that, just as with the fact that some planets have extensive site lore and history and players put months of work and countless efforts into fleshing out stories around certain planets, that shouldn't just be negated or voided through a single thread.
My suggestion would thus be, that whenever a planet is 'under' a faction, before a pvp, invasion etc. happens (and someone else would oocly announce that prior to the invasion), people would have to check the planet's 'score' first. As there are countless planets on SWRP, I would never suggest that each and ever planet gets a score assigned, but contested territory could always end up with obtaining an official score and players could work on increasing a planet's score through role play, missions etc. Scores would need staff approval (or someone overseeing the score system), but the aim would be to developed a fair and balanced system that prevents lengthy ooc debates.
What would influence a score?
First of all, I'd suggest a system ranging from 0 to 10. 0 means we're talking about a desolate backwater planet without any name worthy resources or assets that could easily by 'won' by a single thread. 10 would mean it's a well established faction capitals (potentially with write ups, most certainly with thread or lore references and established assets) that would need multiple threads, fleet battles, many different fights, an actual multi step plan, prep work, inside knowledge and so on. If we're looking at an independent system with countless valuable resources (let's take Bacta as an example) or a massive shipyard, the score would definitely be higher as well.
Players could, as previously mentioned, improve a planet's score by doing missions, building/planing defenses, aiding the planet by fighting of a threat etc, gaining a solid footing with the government- basically everything is possible. On the contrary, players could also sabotage scores by hitting the planet's morale by attacks, sabotaging (e.g. classical espionage plots), blowing up shipyards and many more. Thread references could be used as justification, just as existing lore references.
Determining scores would be something criteria based - that means, a neutral judge could evaluate a planet's score after a writer showed interest in invading the planet or taking it over - existing scores would be maintained until scores would be altered by threads and so on.
The score could consists of categories like size (of the planet), population, fleet/military strength, resources, assets, the government/politics, the owning faction and previous history (site lore, threads on the planet, faction and war history).
It might sound like a lot, but as someone who constantly grades stuff according to set criteria, I can vouche for the following: If the criteria sheet is once established, evaluating might take a few minutes max and once a planet has been graded, it doesn't need to be altered unless people present deeds that would alter the score. If you want me to, I could present a rough draft of the criteria based evaluation system and assess some examples.
- Lady out
My idea is based on the ooc confusions and disputes about what pvp 'wins' could entail, how successful invasions and sabotage plots could be and that a full blown war also comes with many questions.
In the past, characters have basically claimed neutral planets through a 20 to 60 post thread- for independent planets, this doesn't seem to cause many issues. When it comes to faction owned planets, it's been argued that a usually well defended planet with assets, a fleet, planetary defenses or whatsoever can't just turn to another faction through an invasion without any actual assets or an actual big fight. I agree with that, just as with the fact that some planets have extensive site lore and history and players put months of work and countless efforts into fleshing out stories around certain planets, that shouldn't just be negated or voided through a single thread.
My suggestion would thus be, that whenever a planet is 'under' a faction, before a pvp, invasion etc. happens (and someone else would oocly announce that prior to the invasion), people would have to check the planet's 'score' first. As there are countless planets on SWRP, I would never suggest that each and ever planet gets a score assigned, but contested territory could always end up with obtaining an official score and players could work on increasing a planet's score through role play, missions etc. Scores would need staff approval (or someone overseeing the score system), but the aim would be to developed a fair and balanced system that prevents lengthy ooc debates.
What would influence a score?
First of all, I'd suggest a system ranging from 0 to 10. 0 means we're talking about a desolate backwater planet without any name worthy resources or assets that could easily by 'won' by a single thread. 10 would mean it's a well established faction capitals (potentially with write ups, most certainly with thread or lore references and established assets) that would need multiple threads, fleet battles, many different fights, an actual multi step plan, prep work, inside knowledge and so on. If we're looking at an independent system with countless valuable resources (let's take Bacta as an example) or a massive shipyard, the score would definitely be higher as well.
Players could, as previously mentioned, improve a planet's score by doing missions, building/planing defenses, aiding the planet by fighting of a threat etc, gaining a solid footing with the government- basically everything is possible. On the contrary, players could also sabotage scores by hitting the planet's morale by attacks, sabotaging (e.g. classical espionage plots), blowing up shipyards and many more. Thread references could be used as justification, just as existing lore references.
Determining scores would be something criteria based - that means, a neutral judge could evaluate a planet's score after a writer showed interest in invading the planet or taking it over - existing scores would be maintained until scores would be altered by threads and so on.
The score could consists of categories like size (of the planet), population, fleet/military strength, resources, assets, the government/politics, the owning faction and previous history (site lore, threads on the planet, faction and war history).
It might sound like a lot, but as someone who constantly grades stuff according to set criteria, I can vouche for the following: If the criteria sheet is once established, evaluating might take a few minutes max and once a planet has been graded, it doesn't need to be altered unless people present deeds that would alter the score. If you want me to, I could present a rough draft of the criteria based evaluation system and assess some examples.
- Lady out
