Forums » Suggestions
Faction/Standing Ideas
I know that we’re getting a new faction system at some point in the future. I have a few ideas I'd like to get feedback on, or even just some “yea, that’s what we have planned anyway”. Some of this might be obvious and already discussed, but I couldn't find a thread with a good summary. My discussion will mostly concern the relationship between Corvus and the UIT corporations.
Standing should be complementary. In other words, the higher your Serco standing is, the lower your Itani will drop. You can tank them both, but in order for one to be high the other must be low. I'd say that Serco and Itani should be exactly inverse so that +500 Itani would require -500 (or less) Serco and vice versa.
UIT standing would be mostly independent from Serco and Itani. However, the UIT corporations would have faction relations between each other. Most notably, increased Corvus standing would directly hurt your standing with most of the UIT corps to varying degrees. For instance, Corvus might be inverse to UIT, Orion, TPG, and a few others. This would work both ways, so that if you built up your TPG standing to +700, your Corvus would decrease to -700 or lower. Some of the other factions might suffer from increased Corvus standing, but not as severely. Maybe +999 BioCom standing would make your Corvus standing -200 or less. Basically, the relationships could have different levels of contrast. Corvus would have a slight negative relationship with Serco and Itani. Maybe +999 Corvus would force -400 for both Itani and Serco.
My main point is that Corvus should be a serious faction in the way that Itani, Serco, and UIT are. It’s Itani vs. Serco, and I think it should be UIT vs. Corvus. I might even add Corvus to the main 3 factions you can see on other players’ info screens. I think that that dynamic could really balance the game and bring UIT into the fold better.
Everyone should start with low Corvus standing, -600 or whatever is the requirement for not being able to dock. You would have to build it up. Corvus doesn't trust anyone unless they earn it. These are criminals. The way to earn Corvus' trust should be through Xang Xi.
Xang Xi will be mostly independent from the other factions in terms of standing. They are unofficially affiliated with Corvus, so they should offer a mission tree that slowly weaves you into doing a mission for Corvus. Start with one mission that seemingly has nothing to do with Corvus at all, but its completion will open another that maybe hints at it. Then have a 3rd or 4th mission grant you temporary dock-able status with Corvus, ask you to deliver some stuff there, and strongly hint at some illegal activity. Finish the tree with a mission that plainly presents Xang Xi's secret affiliation with Corvus and asks you to do something obviously illegal. On completion of that mission, your Corvus standing will be increased to -500 (or whatever will allow you to dock there). Then you can build up your Corvus standing with whatever missions they offer at their own stations. Now you've intentionally worked your way into the criminal underworld.
The most important part of this entire suggestion is that you need to make Corvus desirable to pirates. Otherwise, no one would ever build up Corvus standing at the expense of almost everything else. Give Corvus items and privileges that every pirate would want badly, and would essentially need in order to be a serious pirate. The first thing should be immunity from the pirate unbots. They should also have several pieces of equipment that can only be bought at Corvus because they are illegal. These things have been mentioned before, but I'll list a few for reference.
1.) Warp/Jump Disrupter
2.) Cargo Scanner
3.) Cloaking Device
4.) Mine Countermeasure
It’s good to have to make hard choices about whom you are as a character and who you are affiliated with. You shouldn’t be able to have everything and be friends with everyone. Hard choices make for fun game-play.
Related Threads/Posts:
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/10983
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/15149#190628
Standing should be complementary. In other words, the higher your Serco standing is, the lower your Itani will drop. You can tank them both, but in order for one to be high the other must be low. I'd say that Serco and Itani should be exactly inverse so that +500 Itani would require -500 (or less) Serco and vice versa.
UIT standing would be mostly independent from Serco and Itani. However, the UIT corporations would have faction relations between each other. Most notably, increased Corvus standing would directly hurt your standing with most of the UIT corps to varying degrees. For instance, Corvus might be inverse to UIT, Orion, TPG, and a few others. This would work both ways, so that if you built up your TPG standing to +700, your Corvus would decrease to -700 or lower. Some of the other factions might suffer from increased Corvus standing, but not as severely. Maybe +999 BioCom standing would make your Corvus standing -200 or less. Basically, the relationships could have different levels of contrast. Corvus would have a slight negative relationship with Serco and Itani. Maybe +999 Corvus would force -400 for both Itani and Serco.
My main point is that Corvus should be a serious faction in the way that Itani, Serco, and UIT are. It’s Itani vs. Serco, and I think it should be UIT vs. Corvus. I might even add Corvus to the main 3 factions you can see on other players’ info screens. I think that that dynamic could really balance the game and bring UIT into the fold better.
Everyone should start with low Corvus standing, -600 or whatever is the requirement for not being able to dock. You would have to build it up. Corvus doesn't trust anyone unless they earn it. These are criminals. The way to earn Corvus' trust should be through Xang Xi.
Xang Xi will be mostly independent from the other factions in terms of standing. They are unofficially affiliated with Corvus, so they should offer a mission tree that slowly weaves you into doing a mission for Corvus. Start with one mission that seemingly has nothing to do with Corvus at all, but its completion will open another that maybe hints at it. Then have a 3rd or 4th mission grant you temporary dock-able status with Corvus, ask you to deliver some stuff there, and strongly hint at some illegal activity. Finish the tree with a mission that plainly presents Xang Xi's secret affiliation with Corvus and asks you to do something obviously illegal. On completion of that mission, your Corvus standing will be increased to -500 (or whatever will allow you to dock there). Then you can build up your Corvus standing with whatever missions they offer at their own stations. Now you've intentionally worked your way into the criminal underworld.
The most important part of this entire suggestion is that you need to make Corvus desirable to pirates. Otherwise, no one would ever build up Corvus standing at the expense of almost everything else. Give Corvus items and privileges that every pirate would want badly, and would essentially need in order to be a serious pirate. The first thing should be immunity from the pirate unbots. They should also have several pieces of equipment that can only be bought at Corvus because they are illegal. These things have been mentioned before, but I'll list a few for reference.
1.) Warp/Jump Disrupter
2.) Cargo Scanner
3.) Cloaking Device
4.) Mine Countermeasure
It’s good to have to make hard choices about whom you are as a character and who you are affiliated with. You shouldn’t be able to have everything and be friends with everyone. Hard choices make for fun game-play.
Related Threads/Posts:
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/10983
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/15149#190628
I like many of these ideas strat, however, isn't corvus supposed to be where you can dock regardless of what friends you have? I thought the whole point of corvus was supposed to be that everyone can go there. We need a place with stations where players can kill each other, take that away and we will be a very sad group of alts :(
Anyhow, I do like the idea of having corvus be friendly only to pir rats and other sorts of outlaws. Of the 4 items you mentions as being covrus purchasable only,
1.) Warp/Jump Disrupter (I would like the wh stations to have these as well, this way you need to destroy the disrupter to leave the sector, if you're not friends with the faction of course ;))
2.) Cargo Scanner (stations guards would need this to scan for illegal goods?)
3.) Cloaking Device (the backstory tells of the serco having cloaking no?)
4.) Mine Countermeasure (what of the mines that pie rats lay to trap helpless traders? do the traders not need these just as much of even more?)
Anyhow, I do like the idea of having corvus be friendly only to pir rats and other sorts of outlaws. Of the 4 items you mentions as being covrus purchasable only,
1.) Warp/Jump Disrupter (I would like the wh stations to have these as well, this way you need to destroy the disrupter to leave the sector, if you're not friends with the faction of course ;))
2.) Cargo Scanner (stations guards would need this to scan for illegal goods?)
3.) Cloaking Device (the backstory tells of the serco having cloaking no?)
4.) Mine Countermeasure (what of the mines that pie rats lay to trap helpless traders? do the traders not need these just as much of even more?)
13-dimentional faction Standing Hypercube!
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/11492?page=2#137140
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/11492?page=2#137140
What do you think about player to player standings?
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/15521#195961
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/15521?page=2#196069
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/15521#195961
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/15521?page=2#196069
The hypercube is funny. The system for balancing the different relations between the factions wouldn't have to be that complicated though.
Every time you did something that increased your standing with one faction, any standing you have with other factions with a negative relationship to that faction would be reduced. If you lost standing by doing something bad, none of your other standings would be affected. It's only if you gain standing by doing something good for a faction that others are affected.
Every time you gained 10 faction points with Serco, you'd lose 10 with Itani. Maybe every time you gained 10 standing points with a UIT corp, you'd lose 2 with a competing corp. Losing standing by killing a station guard or something would never affect any of your other standings. In other words, you could easily obtain -999 standing with everyone, but would never be able to obtain +999 with everyone.
It seems pretty simple to me. We have what, about 13 factions? That would make 169 relationships that would need to be defined. There could be maybe just 4 types of possible relationships between the factions:
1.) No Relationship (your standing with the faction has no affect on your standing with the other faction)
2.) Slightly Negative (+10 in one means -2 in the other)
3.) More Negative (+10 in one means -6 in the other)
4.) Inverse (+10 in one means -10 in the other)
In any relationship other than the inverse one, you could go back and forth and slowly work 2 contrasting factions up so they are both high. However, this would require a lot of work, would not be possible with relationship #4 (inverse), and would be difficult to maintain.
Does that make sense? I don't see any obvious problems with it, but I suppose I might be missing something.
Every time you did something that increased your standing with one faction, any standing you have with other factions with a negative relationship to that faction would be reduced. If you lost standing by doing something bad, none of your other standings would be affected. It's only if you gain standing by doing something good for a faction that others are affected.
Every time you gained 10 faction points with Serco, you'd lose 10 with Itani. Maybe every time you gained 10 standing points with a UIT corp, you'd lose 2 with a competing corp. Losing standing by killing a station guard or something would never affect any of your other standings. In other words, you could easily obtain -999 standing with everyone, but would never be able to obtain +999 with everyone.
It seems pretty simple to me. We have what, about 13 factions? That would make 169 relationships that would need to be defined. There could be maybe just 4 types of possible relationships between the factions:
1.) No Relationship (your standing with the faction has no affect on your standing with the other faction)
2.) Slightly Negative (+10 in one means -2 in the other)
3.) More Negative (+10 in one means -6 in the other)
4.) Inverse (+10 in one means -10 in the other)
In any relationship other than the inverse one, you could go back and forth and slowly work 2 contrasting factions up so they are both high. However, this would require a lot of work, would not be possible with relationship #4 (inverse), and would be difficult to maintain.
Does that make sense? I don't see any obvious problems with it, but I suppose I might be missing something.
That makes sense, FS85, in fact, I think I proposed something even more involved in one of those long-lost threads, namely:
Further down the road, if players are ever able to be something "other" than Itani, UIT, or Serco, then their actions would drive the faction-standings; the faction system is always in flux.
For example, say a group of Tunguska players go and shoot up the Station Guards at an Orion station. Their actions can adjust the "POS/admire/liked/neutral/dislike/hate/KOS" standing between those two factions. So that every Tunguska player's standing with Orion will "drop" because of their actions. (Actually the "like" standing became more difficult to achieve for Tunguska players, say, rose to +610 from +600)
I was thinking along the lines that these changes would be very slight, but noticeable. So, say that 10 Tunguska players did this every day for a year, Orion and Tunguska would essentially become polarized as much as Itani vs. Serco.
But, that was kind of where I was going with my post. Does THAT make sense?
Further down the road, if players are ever able to be something "other" than Itani, UIT, or Serco, then their actions would drive the faction-standings; the faction system is always in flux.
For example, say a group of Tunguska players go and shoot up the Station Guards at an Orion station. Their actions can adjust the "POS/admire/liked/neutral/dislike/hate/KOS" standing between those two factions. So that every Tunguska player's standing with Orion will "drop" because of their actions. (Actually the "like" standing became more difficult to achieve for Tunguska players, say, rose to +610 from +600)
I was thinking along the lines that these changes would be very slight, but noticeable. So, say that 10 Tunguska players did this every day for a year, Orion and Tunguska would essentially become polarized as much as Itani vs. Serco.
But, that was kind of where I was going with my post. Does THAT make sense?
Please explain _why_ you want to make it so.
Strat, you left out the `positive relationship`, like +10 towards X means also +5 towards Y (and the `more positive` +10/+10 one). Since a relationship between a player and a faction is always at least half-way personal, there must also be ways to change the type of a relationship (from `Inverse` to `Positive`, for example). Factions may choose to cooperate, even if only for a limited amount of time.
Lexicon, at least with player owned stations, it comes down to player-to-player standings. What about Guild-to-Guild, Guild-to-Faction and Guild-to-player standings?
It`s complicated, but when there`s basically PTP-standings that are dynamically networked, it`s more easy to handle. Things of interest from the point of view of a player seem to be only standings like
his <-> a particular station
his <-> a particular player
his <-> a particular guild
and eventually the standing of his guild to another one --- plus what that actually means to him. But no more.
Strat, you left out the `positive relationship`, like +10 towards X means also +5 towards Y (and the `more positive` +10/+10 one). Since a relationship between a player and a faction is always at least half-way personal, there must also be ways to change the type of a relationship (from `Inverse` to `Positive`, for example). Factions may choose to cooperate, even if only for a limited amount of time.
Lexicon, at least with player owned stations, it comes down to player-to-player standings. What about Guild-to-Guild, Guild-to-Faction and Guild-to-player standings?
It`s complicated, but when there`s basically PTP-standings that are dynamically networked, it`s more easy to handle. Things of interest from the point of view of a player seem to be only standings like
his <-> a particular station
his <-> a particular player
his <-> a particular guild
and eventually the standing of his guild to another one --- plus what that actually means to him. But no more.
Because at the moment we don't have any effect on the universe. That's why.
There are player owned stations? Sorry, im a noob
Soon™
Any idea more or less as too how long, ive only been here a couple of days and my only gripe is players dont have enough control on the universe and the small playerbase, but looks like things are looking up :)
Bleh, I`m so stupid, sorry. So the idea is to use standing as a means to make factions more important.
SMM has made some excellent points to this like:
"Governmental structures are in effect. Right now they're limited to pretty much guilds, and they're sure as don't necessitate an implementation of social structures. Look, the beauty of living life is that it *is* on a 'player to player' basis. Every time you clump people into groups, you fail to notice a piece of each person's individuality. It can make things easier, but it's called discrimination, and has a nasty reputation for making life suck for everyone."[1]
Using standing to make factions more important is maybe not the way to go. It`s a political thing which _is_ on a `player to player` basis. This is all the more true once the great majority of, or even all, stations are run by players. Some stations may have to be run in accordance with the rules of the faction that issued them and maybe protects them, others could be actually owned and be run by players and guilds. Stations are what seems comes closest to what `claiming a territory` is, so that there be something, and means to, enforce the rules. Let the players decide, not the numbers. The outcome will be interesting.
[1]: http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/15521?page=2#195999
SMM has made some excellent points to this like:
"Governmental structures are in effect. Right now they're limited to pretty much guilds, and they're sure as don't necessitate an implementation of social structures. Look, the beauty of living life is that it *is* on a 'player to player' basis. Every time you clump people into groups, you fail to notice a piece of each person's individuality. It can make things easier, but it's called discrimination, and has a nasty reputation for making life suck for everyone."[1]
Using standing to make factions more important is maybe not the way to go. It`s a political thing which _is_ on a `player to player` basis. This is all the more true once the great majority of, or even all, stations are run by players. Some stations may have to be run in accordance with the rules of the faction that issued them and maybe protects them, others could be actually owned and be run by players and guilds. Stations are what seems comes closest to what `claiming a territory` is, so that there be something, and means to, enforce the rules. Let the players decide, not the numbers. The outcome will be interesting.
[1]: http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/15521?page=2#195999
Leeyun, we don't need player-to-player faction standing, we all know how we feel about each other. Don't need numbers to rate it. That path leads to the dark side.
The numbers only come into play when you're dealing with PC to NPC, or NPC to NPC. The NPC's need to know how to react to you, and how to react to each other. Not to say that there can't be a little randomizer in there somewhere, but generally, yeah, only NPC's need to be told how to treat others. Players can do whatever the hell they want, cause, we have, like, free will and stuff.
The numbers only come into play when you're dealing with PC to NPC, or NPC to NPC. The NPC's need to know how to react to you, and how to react to each other. Not to say that there can't be a little randomizer in there somewhere, but generally, yeah, only NPC's need to be told how to treat others. Players can do whatever the hell they want, cause, we have, like, free will and stuff.
Yes, that`s like what we said in `governmental structures`.
As a station owner, how do you tell your NPCs to treat a particular player? Should it be decided based on the standing to some faction, or on the standing between _you_ and that particular player?
Both of you may have good standing with the same faction, but maybe you hate each other ...
Maybe a guild decides to cooperate with another one, or they stop being aggressive against each other. How do they give their NPCs the new instructions?
How do you run your station when you`re offline and have your NPCs adjust to changeing relationships?
As a station owner, how do you tell your NPCs to treat a particular player? Should it be decided based on the standing to some faction, or on the standing between _you_ and that particular player?
Both of you may have good standing with the same faction, but maybe you hate each other ...
Maybe a guild decides to cooperate with another one, or they stop being aggressive against each other. How do they give their NPCs the new instructions?
How do you run your station when you`re offline and have your NPCs adjust to changeing relationships?
Hmm... I'm not sure about player-to-player standings. If that does come, I'm sure it will be after normal faction standings. It's not a bad idea though. However, it might better in a different thread.
As far as your comment about positive relationships; that makes it a lot more complicated. You start to get the 13D hypercube problem that was mentioned in another thread. Think about it. The problem is that your increasing other faction standings which have affects on other factions themselves, etc... It might cause conflicts between the faction relationships. Everything would be effected every time you did something, maybe even the thing you originally were getting standing for. It's confusing and I think unnecessary.
A nice 1 dimensional system, like the one I described, not only works fine to do what we want it to do, but is beautifully simple. It doesn't have any potential problems the way that having both positive and negative relationships could have.
Drazed, I think Corvus shouldn't be a place everyone is welcome at. I see it a bit like the mafia. Can you just walk into a mafia hangout? It's the criminal underground. I think you should have to work your way into their circle of trust. They're criminals, they have to be overly cautious to survive.
Magette212, I'd guess player-owned stations are at least a year away, maybe more.
As far as your comment about positive relationships; that makes it a lot more complicated. You start to get the 13D hypercube problem that was mentioned in another thread. Think about it. The problem is that your increasing other faction standings which have affects on other factions themselves, etc... It might cause conflicts between the faction relationships. Everything would be effected every time you did something, maybe even the thing you originally were getting standing for. It's confusing and I think unnecessary.
A nice 1 dimensional system, like the one I described, not only works fine to do what we want it to do, but is beautifully simple. It doesn't have any potential problems the way that having both positive and negative relationships could have.
Drazed, I think Corvus shouldn't be a place everyone is welcome at. I see it a bit like the mafia. Can you just walk into a mafia hangout? It's the criminal underground. I think you should have to work your way into their circle of trust. They're criminals, they have to be overly cautious to survive.
Magette212, I'd guess player-owned stations are at least a year away, maybe more.
> As far as your comment about positive relationships; that makes
> it a lot more complicated.
Yeah, I know. But except for the neutral #1, #2, #3 and #4 are all more or less negative. That`s already very complicated, even if you plan to have a static setup in which the type of relationship in a standing can never change to another type. Look at it:
---a.) With a static setup, your options would be predefined by what faction you choose when creating a character, no matter what you do or want to do later. The major trend in your standings would be a negative one, and unchangeably so. Is that reasonable?
---b.) A dynamic setup which would allow to change the type of relationship in a standing would be a lot more complicated than a.). Your types of relationships (and thus your standings) would depend on what you do. Still no matter what you do, the major trend in your standings would be a negative one, and unchangeably so. You might even happen to see very unwanted effects as a result of events you happen to get involved in, and unforeseen effects because you just overlooked some factor in the complicated relationships. Players might ask for a calculating tool to compute what effect something would have on their current standings and types of relationships. Is that reasonable?
---c.) The same dynamic setup as in b.), but with additional types of relationships: `positive` and `more positive`. That would allow to eliminate the major trend of negativeness of relationships, but the rest of b.) applies as well. Is that reasonable?
---d.) A static setup as in a.), but with the additional types of relationships as in c.): predefinition applies as in a.), a negative trend _eventually_ applies as in a.). Is that reasonable?
The problem is that you would still have standings like there are now, but you make it much more complicated to maintain them in any case.
What do you achieve by that? In any case, you seem to make standings more important. With static setups, you venture to predetermine what characters/players can do by reducing their options.
At the same time, you`re saying that standings are more a means to guide NPCs than anything else. That would not justify predetermining players.
NPCs have no consideration about the importance of standings (yet?), but they can be made to act according to standings. Maybe leave the standings untouched for now and make the NPCs act more accordingly?
Something not to overlook is that remaining with standings bound to concrete factions, severly limits the versatility of the idea, and very much so in it`s application of guiding NPCs. As you said, NPCs need to decide how to react to each other and how to react to players. So if it`s _your_ NPC reacting to NPCs of others or to others, it`s _your_ standing to those others that shall guide them. Standing to factions doesn`t matter in that, unless NPCs owned by factions are concerned --- which can be as well be guided by the standings that apply.
I don`t dare say individual standings would be needed. It`s only something that I think could, on the long run, be more worthwhile to implement than sticking with faction-based standings and making them more complicated. Individual standings are more a shadow of the beauty of living life than faction-based standings are.
> it a lot more complicated.
Yeah, I know. But except for the neutral #1, #2, #3 and #4 are all more or less negative. That`s already very complicated, even if you plan to have a static setup in which the type of relationship in a standing can never change to another type. Look at it:
---a.) With a static setup, your options would be predefined by what faction you choose when creating a character, no matter what you do or want to do later. The major trend in your standings would be a negative one, and unchangeably so. Is that reasonable?
---b.) A dynamic setup which would allow to change the type of relationship in a standing would be a lot more complicated than a.). Your types of relationships (and thus your standings) would depend on what you do. Still no matter what you do, the major trend in your standings would be a negative one, and unchangeably so. You might even happen to see very unwanted effects as a result of events you happen to get involved in, and unforeseen effects because you just overlooked some factor in the complicated relationships. Players might ask for a calculating tool to compute what effect something would have on their current standings and types of relationships. Is that reasonable?
---c.) The same dynamic setup as in b.), but with additional types of relationships: `positive` and `more positive`. That would allow to eliminate the major trend of negativeness of relationships, but the rest of b.) applies as well. Is that reasonable?
---d.) A static setup as in a.), but with the additional types of relationships as in c.): predefinition applies as in a.), a negative trend _eventually_ applies as in a.). Is that reasonable?
The problem is that you would still have standings like there are now, but you make it much more complicated to maintain them in any case.
What do you achieve by that? In any case, you seem to make standings more important. With static setups, you venture to predetermine what characters/players can do by reducing their options.
At the same time, you`re saying that standings are more a means to guide NPCs than anything else. That would not justify predetermining players.
NPCs have no consideration about the importance of standings (yet?), but they can be made to act according to standings. Maybe leave the standings untouched for now and make the NPCs act more accordingly?
Something not to overlook is that remaining with standings bound to concrete factions, severly limits the versatility of the idea, and very much so in it`s application of guiding NPCs. As you said, NPCs need to decide how to react to each other and how to react to players. So if it`s _your_ NPC reacting to NPCs of others or to others, it`s _your_ standing to those others that shall guide them. Standing to factions doesn`t matter in that, unless NPCs owned by factions are concerned --- which can be as well be guided by the standings that apply.
I don`t dare say individual standings would be needed. It`s only something that I think could, on the long run, be more worthwhile to implement than sticking with faction-based standings and making them more complicated. Individual standings are more a shadow of the beauty of living life than faction-based standings are.