Main Battles Moving Forward

[Green Ranger]

Main Battles: Rules Moving Forward​

On Monday, we announced the basic plot of the next timeline, called Star Wars: Dawn of the Republic. We are thrilled with the unanimously positive response so far! I think I speak for everyone when I say that the new timeline has a lot of exciting potential, and as we move into the epic conclusion of Star Wars Legacies, I can't wait to see what Dawn of the Republic brings next.

This process is going to last around a month or so, and we're going to bring you regular updates not just on what the story of the timeline is, but what the rules of the site will look like too. It should come as no surprise to anyone that the site rules are incredibly out of date. After all, for years now, we've had a disclaimer in the rules thread saying that they're out of date. We've just never really set out to update them. It's time for that to change. With the timeline offering a fresh restart, we're going to update those rules to reflect how the site has changed over the years, and we're committed to letting you know about all of the important changes before the new timeline starts. That way, you're not suddenly confronted with a whole new way of doing things without any time to adjust.

Previously, we covered the new rules regarding Character Limits and Faction membership, an announcement that was again met with overwhelmingly positive feedback, which is always great for us to hear - it means we're headed in the right direction in terms of the way the next timeline is structured, and it's really important to us that you all enjoy the setting and rules of the story that you'll all be a part of.

This next announcement is probably going to be less of a surprise to many, because I'm sure a lot of you already suspected that this was something we were going to implement. However, I want to take a minute to explain these rules more fully, and in general take some time to explain why we feel this is for the best as we move forward into Dawn of the Republic.

First, a little bit of history!​

In the ten years of TheStarWarsRP.com's story, battle have undergone a significant evolution. Some of our long term members will attest to the fact that once upon a time, battles were fast paced, high action scenarios that involved raw combat and prioritized tactical skill and writing quality above all else. For many newer members, evidence of this has been lacking until recently - battles have become heavily bogged down in Out of Character (OOC) bickering, with many battles having up to and in excess of ten OOC posts for every In Character, or IC posts. You'll often see members reference the Battle of Fondor as an example of this - while it's not the most recent example, or even the worst, it's a good testimony to just how far the combat culture has shifted on the site. This absolutely needs to change.

We've made good headway in this regard - the Battle of Manaan introduced a ruleset specific to those series of battles that afterwards became known as the Manaan Rules. These rules have been incredibly effective in streamlining these battle threads and refocusing combat around writing skill. I don't know about the other admins, but for me personally this was actually something of a rude awakening, in that it proved that we could do battles so much better than we have been.

What are 'Manaan Rules'?

The Manaan Rules, as they currently stand, are quite simple, and that simplicity is part of the key to their success. Every battle has two time limits imposed upon them, one for the overall length of the battle, and another for the duration allowed between posts before the thread moves on. The current Manaan Rules state that when a members posts their turn, the next member has a limit of 48 hours in which to make their own post. If this deadline passes and the member has not posted, then they forfeit their turn to post, their combat round is effectively considered a 'pass' where their character does nothing in that turn, and the next member in the posting order is invited to post.

Before the Manaan Rules, this limit was a week and was only loosely enforced, with some rounds taking near two weeks before a member posted. As I'm sure you can appreciate, this kind of excessive duration not only slows the battle down to a crawl, but effectively confines the characters to limbo as this battle goes on.

The second time limit imposed is an overall maximum duration for a battle. Before Manaan, battle threads were able to continue for literally months on end with no clear resolution. I don't need to tell you how ridiculous this is, because it's every bit as ludicrous as it sounds. The Manaan Rules imposed a maximum duration of a battle to be two weeks.

These two rules combined have created a highly effective system that many members have endorsed and thoroughly enjoyed. For this reason, we are going to make the Manaan Rules the official battle rules of Dawn of the Republic. However, we are making some slight alterations.

Manaan Rules 2.0: The Details (or 'the tl;dr stuff'):

Moving forward into Dawn of the Republic, we will be implementing slightly altered versions of the Manaan Rules as the standard ruleset all battles are expected to use. These rules are as follows:

1) All battles are to have a pre-determined absolute deadline date - that is, a date at which the battle will conclude regardless of posting activity or content of the thread. If a thread meets this deadline before the battle is concluded, then the battle is to be reported to the staff via the 'report post' feature. The admin will then rule on the outcome of the battle.

The standard deadline of a battle thread (or the deadline to be used if not otherwise stated) will be two weeks. However, if both Faction Leaders involved in the thread (or, in a circumstance where a Faction Leader does not apply, Independant Faction Leader and/or thread participants) can come to an agreement prior to the start of the thread, this overall deadline can be negotiated. However, the absolute maximum length any battle is allowed to take is three weeks.

2) All members are expected to post in battles quickly and efficiently. For this reason, if a participant is due to post (ie it is their 'turn' to post) and fails to do so within 48 hours, their turn will be considered a 'pass' where their character does nothing for the duration of the round. The next member due to post will then have 48 hours to post from the time that the previous member's round duration expired. This 48 hour period can be negotiated as above, however, the absolute maximum time allowed between posts will be 72 hours.

But What About Space Battles?

Another problem we've discovered in terms of Main Battles is the idea of space battles in general. Fondor is an excellent example of the kinds of issues that are deeply ingrained in space battles, in that so often tactical and strategic deployment, clever maneuvers and smart thinking are often secondary to OOC arguments over technology - and while this is one of the more recent examples, it's important to note that this has been a significant issue for literally years.

When we introduced the Technology board, the last thing we envisioned was a means by which players would use technology to give themselves massive advantages in lieu of writing skills and tactical awareness. Space Battles are especially vulnerable to these types of OOC bickering because so much of what happens is reliant on technology submissions. Not only does this fly in the face of the freeform RP advocated on TheStarWarsRP.com, but it almost encourages OOC arguments, and also favors those with an avid passion for intricate and oftentimes convoluted technology submissions. That's not to say that we want to discourage members who are passionate about such things, but we also don't want to advocate the way technology is used to win fights in lieu of clever writing, either. As a result, the way we will be handling technology will be a major part of the think tank process that we will be announcing shortly - more on that soon, but for now, let's focus on space battles.

To make a long story short, we want to move away from technological advantages trumping writing skill - we want space battles to be fairer and more inviting to all members, and we want to bring the focus back to writing in general. As a result, moving forward we will be considering space battles based on tactical and strategic maneuvers, rather than intricate technology submissions. Ships will still be needed to be submitted to the Technology board or pulled from faction Technology lists, but rather than assessing the combat capabilities of one fleet vs another based on their write-ups, instead battles will focus on strategic and tactical maneuvers and the advantages and disadvantages that stem from each action. OOC discussions of 'x tech is better than y tech for reasons' will not be considered, and all ships of equivalent classes and sizes will be rated as more or less equal to one another. You will have to out-think, and outmaneuver your opponent, instead of relying on the quality of any specific write-ups.

We will go into more detail about technology in general at a later date once the Think Tank is assembled and sink their teeth into it, but this emphasis of writing taking priority over the specifics of technology submissions is something that we are going to be introducing to tech in general, and so I felt that you should be aware of this before we go any further.

Anyway, as always, feel free to ask questions or comment below. Please note, however, that we will most likely not answer any specific question relating to technology rules at this point in time, as we are planning on developing the specifics as a part of the Think Tank. Thanks!

floop

 

[Andreus Makaryk]

What about battles that end with an obvious outcome before or at the two week limit? Will these still require admin rulings under Manaan rules?

For example, I RP a diversionary attack and RP withdrawing from combat. My opponent RPs watching my ship fly away and burn for space in the next post. The outcome would be obvious--I lost the duel and withdrew to fight another day.

Or for an even more blunt example, what if I RP my character's death in a duel? Does it literally require an admin ruling to give me a death certificate?

Or is the admin ruling rule only for those RPs where the outcome is in doubt?

 

[Green Ranger]

We won't be assessing threads that reach a natural conclusion, no. It's only for if the deadline is reached and the battle hasn't completed.

 

[Raydo]

I will say as someone who has organized several battles under these rules, they have been really good.

My only concern is when there are 2v2 battles it doesn't not leave a ton of time for post if people take their whole 48 hours. Hopefully my math isn't too far off, but it would be somewhere in the ball park of three post per writer, with the first post almost always containing no combat. This , to me, is not enough to go on when deciding the outcome of a battle. With the addition of the third week you gain one additional post per writer. If we extended the time limit one additional week to a month, it would bring those battles in line post count wise with the 1v1 rules.

I only bring up 2v2 battles becuase anything above that gets to ridiculous. Just my thoughts!

 

[Marf]

I agree with @Raydo. I also believe that if these rules are going to be implemented, there should be far less expectation or pressure on everyone to partake in main battles. Many people, such as myself, are simply slow posters. I like to take my time and put substance and artistry into each post, that's why I usually dislike PvP. While I most likely won't be partaking in main battles because of this rule, I am still looking forward to creating off-shoot combat threads.

I'm also a person who really dislikes fast-paced threads. They're not fun, only stressful. I think a month to complete a battle is a happy medium.

 

[Necris]

So with the issues for 2v2 etc on post counts etc it would be a good idea to post a lead up post that allows for the non combat element the starting up a combat thread

 

[Green Ranger]

I will say as someone who has organized several battles under these rules, they have been really good.

My only concern is when there are 2v2 battles it doesn't not leave a ton of time for post if people take their whole 48 hours. Hopefully my math isn't too far off, but it would be somewhere in the ball park of three post per writer, with the first post almost always containing no combat. This , to me, is not enough to go on when deciding the outcome of a battle. With the addition of the third week you gain one additional post per writer. If we extended the time limit one additional week to a month, it would bring those battles in line post count wise with the 1v1 rules.

I only bring up 2v2 battles becuase anything above that gets to ridiculous. Just my thoughts!

The example that you use is an example where every member is using a full 48 hours in order to post, every single round. I think it's important to mention this, because most battles under the current system don't use the full time and often progress much more quickly than this, so we're already looking at an example that's stretching the duration to the maximum.

I absolutely understand your concern, but conversely, the way I personally look at that particular scenario is this: if every participant is taking a full 48 hours to post, every single round, then there is a good chance that a) the thread will drag on unnecessarily, since it's fairly clear the members are posting only to keep things moving, not necessarily because they are self motivated, and b) it a thread with that kind of pace probably needs to just be ruled on sooner rather than later anyway.

 

[Kiro]

So, you're keeping the 48 hour post deadline.

Well, looks like I won't be participating in any battles for the foreseeable future. Thanks for that.

 

[Raydo]

The example that you use is an example where every member is using a full 48 hours in order to post, every single round. I think it's important to mention this, because most battles under the current system don't use the full time and often progress much more quickly than this, so we're already looking at an example that's stretching the duration to the maximum.

I absolutely understand your concern, but conversely, the way I personally look at that particular scenario is this: if every participant is taking a full 48 hours to post, every single round, then there is a good chance that a) the thread will drag on unnecessarily, since it's fairly clear the members are posting only to keep things moving, not necessarily because they are self motivated, and b) it a thread with that kind of pace probably needs to just be ruled on sooner rather than later anyway.

I can agree with this, but to me, it only seems logical that if you double the amount of participants you need to double the time given if you want to get the same results.

**

As far as concerns about the 48 hour posts. I think if we are all honest with ourselves we all spend at least 20-30 minutes on the site within that period of time (With the vast majority spending MUCH more than that). A solid post in your average battle is not that long, a couple paragraphs and doesn't have to contain the flowery or artistic flow that one may normally post, in fact, I think it can some times bog down a thread. Its a simple reaction and action response to your opponent.

These rules push the story forward and sure that your opponents are sitting around for potentially months waiting on the outcome of a thread as a character can't just assume they live through such a thread. As a slow poster myself, I understand that the want to take one's time and post as it comes to you, but when that gets applied to battle threads, it quickly leads to stagnation.

 

[TAC]

PvP has never been something I have enjoyed on this site, although I think I am in the minority. While I encourage those who do enjoy it to take on the challenge, it seems like for most people its a game of checkers where you go forward every turn, one-uping your fellow writer with 'strategy' being predictable.... make what they said not matter and then do something cooler. Which is really just a 'my character is cooler than yours' which often devolves into 'mine is bigger than yours.'

I respect the nature of our free-form writing forum, but I am still extremely cautious about PvP and how it works. I havent participated in a Manaan-rule thread yet, and I look forward to seeing how it works and if there is a change, but I remain as I said... quite cautious.

 

[Rom]

I've participated in a fair few battles in my time on the site, and I find myself agreeing with pretty much every change the Manaan Rules impose. The fact that the 48 hour rule can be extended for up to 72 hours in the event of emergency covers my concern on any time management issue - the "New" tagging system on the forum makes it so communicating with your opponents and team members is nearly effortless so far as getting their attention quickly even if they just pop on for a minute or two so as long as we all communicate it should be simple.

The fact that space battles are based on tactics and not tech is wonderful. So often these fights came down to measuring a technological e-member rather than the merits of strategy. Hearty approval all around.

Will the practice of multi-stage leadups to big battles still continue, or will that be used for certain cases only? And if so, how can we go about ensuring that it's not just the same few people constantly taking part and allow a fair spread for all members who wish to participate?

 

[Kiro]

While I can certainly see and understand the merits of the Manaan system and the way it's done, I personally can't really endorse it, nor do I like that it's the new norm. I don't have the time to dedicate myself to it. Having to crank out a post, especially in threads involving high powered Force Sensetives which requires plenty of clever thinking, within 48 hours when you've got a busy schedule and RL commitments kinda hampers my ability to participate in PvP threads, and to contribute to a faction if said faction is conflict focused, which it seems will be the case with the majority of them for this new timeline.

I've already experienced the effects that had. Granted, I wasn't aware of the deadlines when I signed up, as it was explained rather poorly at the time (no, not butthurt at you, Boli), but it does feel rather... limiting, to those of us with a busy RL life.

 

[Kenico]

Since I went off the grid before this this set of rules went into effect I have no say but by the looks of the rule set it does look solid and something i appreciate. So I endorse and support this and look forward to exploiting it- iii i mean using it :p

 

[Marcus]

Since I went off the grid before this this set of rules went into effect I have no say but by the looks of the rule set it does look solid and something i appreciate. So I endorse and support this and look forward to exploiting it- iii i mean using it :p

Ditto!

 

[Green Ranger]

While I can certainly see and understand the merits of the Manaan system and the way it's done, I personally can't really endorse it, nor do I like that it's the new norm. I don't have the time to dedicate myself to it. Having to crank out a post, especially in threads involving high powered Force Sensetives which requires plenty of clever thinking, within 48 hours when you've got a busy schedule and RL commitments kinda hampers my ability to participate in PvP threads, and to contribute to a faction if said faction is conflict focused, which it seems will be the case with the majority of them for this new timeline.

I've already experienced the effects that had. Granted, I wasn't aware of the deadlines when I signed up, as it was explained rather poorly at the time (no, not butthurt at you, Boli), but it does feel rather... limiting, to those of us with a busy RL life.

While I can understand that for you personally the rules aren't suitable for your schedule, ultimately it is the job of the staff to look at what's best for the community as a whole. That inevitably means we're not going to be able to make everyone happy. For me personally, the decision to endorse the Manaan rules as the site standard was easier than a lot of other choices we've had to make, in that we actually have solid proof that it works - this is a system that we have the advantage of having seen it in practice beforehand, so there's less guesswork involved in speculating on the effectiveness of the rules.

I'm sure you'll find that most members - in particular the enthusiastic, motivated members who are eager to sign up for this sort of thing - have the time to dedicate to the battle, and to the faction, so its a very real way of faction involvement helping members who are interested in the war aspect of the story advance within their respective factions, which is incredibly important.

And, I apologize if I sound harsh here, but the truth of the matter is that if you or any other member don't have time to commit to writing a single post in a 48-72 hour timeframe - that is, if in a whole two to three full days they can't write one post - then really, regardless of whether these rules were in place, the harsh reality is that that member isn't ideally suited for battles anyway, because they don't have the availability to fully dedicate to the thread, which inevitably holds up events and slows down the RP. We absolutely cannot have battles that drag on for literally months, because the entire landscape of the story suffers horrendously from that lack of momentum.

 

[Kiro]

While I can understand that for you personally the rules aren't suitable for your schedule, ultimately it is the job of the staff to look at what's best for the community as a whole. That inevitably means we're not going to be able to make everyone happy. For me personally, the decision to endorse the Manaan rules as the site standard was easier than a lot of other choices we've had to make, in that we actually have solid proof that it works - this is a system that we have the advantage of having seen it in practice beforehand, so there's less guesswork involved in speculating on the effectiveness of the rules.

I'm sure you'll find that most members - in particular the enthusiastic, motivated members who are eager to sign up for this sort of thing - have the time to dedicate to the battle, and to the faction, so its a very real way of faction involvement helping members who are interested in the war aspect of the story advance within their respective factions, which is incredibly important.

And, I apologize if I sound harsh here, but the truth of the matter is that if you or any other member don't have time to commit to writing a single post in a 48-72 hour timeframe - that is, if in a whole two to three full days they can't write one post - then really, regardless of whether these rules were in place, the harsh reality is that that member isn't ideally suited for battles anyway, because they don't have the availability to fully dedicate to the thread, which inevitably holds up events and slows down the RP. We absolutely cannot have battles that drag on for literally months, because the entire landscape of the story suffers horrendously from that lack of momentum.

Don't worry, you're not coming off as harsh. In fact, I completely understand it. I did say that I saw the advantages of the Manaan system, and I recognize that the old system was flawed, and badly so. I'm just saying it kinda puts those of us that don't have as much time but still want to contribute on the back foot.

 

[Miz]

I think we have to keep in mind Bac's advice when concerned with PvP threads. Keep it simple and dumb (I think). I don't see the need to crank out five paragraph responses to two dudes swinging their glowing sticks at each other. With that said I think 48 hours is a good time limit for 2v2 battles. I think this site sets a bad standard where we value length of the post and not what actually happens within said post.

 

[Krajin]

I think we have to keep in mind Bac's advice when concerned with PvP threads. Keep it simple and dumb (I think). I don't see the need to crank out five paragraph responses to two dudes swinging their glowing sticks at each other. With that said I think 48 hours is a good time limit for 2v2 battles. I think this site sets a bad standard where we value length of the post and not what actually happens within said post.

Quality over quantity. There's only so many ways you can describe a room or a hangar loaded with crap before it gets stale as you hunt for someone or swing glowbats at each other. Its simple. A paragraph well worded does more than five of flowery Michael Bay. :P

Technology should play a role in battles, space or ground. But not be the deciding factor, after all. If you're an ewok going at a storm trooper your ass is going to be crispy. On the other hand though as shown in the movies with the Executor being blown up by an A-wing slamming into its bridge. If you pound on something with super advanced shields or armour long enough, its gonna break. Clone Wars showed a good even matched tech set up between the Clones and the CIS vessels. But if you're going against a group that has either Inferior or superior tech there might be an advantage no?

 

[Aleksandr]

To make a long story short, we want to move away from technological advantages trumping writing skill - we want space battles to be fairer and more inviting to all members, and we want to bring the focus back to writing in general. As a result, moving forward we will be considering space battles based on tactical and strategic maneuvers, rather than intricate technology submissions. Ships will still be needed to be submitted to the Technology board or pulled from faction Technology lists, but rather than assessing the combat capabilities of one fleet vs another based on their write-ups, instead battles will focus on strategic and tactical maneuvers and the advantages and disadvantages that stem from each action. OOC discussions of 'x tech is better than y tech for reasons' will not be considered, and all ships of equivalent classes and sizes will be rated as more or less equal to one another. You will have to out-think, and outmaneuver your opponent, instead of relying on the quality of any specific write-ups.

So, I just wanted to ask, does this mean there will be fleet battles now, such as between two officers commanding fleets? Or will space battles only be starfighter dogfights? Because throughout this current timeline (although I haven't been here for the entire duration of it, only for the later stages) it seems that space battles have only been dogfighting.

 

[Aurek]

Looks solid.

One thing I am concerned about however is NPC's. I believe I read sonewhere that, when Manaan rules are in effect, they are not to be used.

Is this true? Because 1v1 firefights don't sound particularly exciting.