Hi team, dynamic relations can be hilarious at times

[Thurak]

I am late to the party and so I haven't read all six pages here, please forgive me if I don't contribute anything new...

I just want to say that the dynamic relations in this form will probably drive me away from a game I otherwise enjoy very much (great work!).

As a Boron I want to be able to be friends with everyone.

I don't think a negative impact on Split relations should happen at all when I transported a Boron dude around half a galaxy away.

I am not opposed to a bit of juggling relations, but at the end I need a way to do missions and also have positive relations with all major races. It's really not optional for my enjoyment of the game.

[chip56]

Right now i am trying with modding it myself to half the rep malus for enemies. That feels better. With most of the missions giving reasonable notoriety in 1.1 it feels like a bit of work to juggle but doable.

[Snafu_X3]

It has been stated several times by DEVs that the relationship gains/losses will be tuned for better gameplay in forthcoming patches, including the imminent next one

[Korventh]

Please, devs, make this dynamic relations thing OPTIONAL. It's really frustrating to no end to play like this.

Also until the patch arrives, if anyone wants, here is my modified Globals file - it disables dynamic relations so you can enjoy the game as a pacifist.
https://pastebin.com/qW6cAYfD

[Ramdat]

I modded my game and I can't earn achievements now which also sucks.

You could use Steam Achievement Manager to unlock the achievements in Steam at the same time they are unlocked in-game. It would be fairly troublesome though, and a real shame that such a thing is needed. I don't understand the decision to prevent achievements from modified games, especially considering they've made a big effort to improve modding support, it is easy to cheat achievements, and this is a singleplayer game.

[Korventh]

[quote=Ramdat post_id=5054476 time=1621124529 user_id=469984]You could use Steam Achievement Manager to unlock the achievements in Steam at the same time they are unlocked in-game. It's fairly troublesome though, and a real shame that such a thing is needed. I don't understand the decision to prevent achievements from modified games, especially considering it is easy to cheat achievements, this is a singleplayer game, and they've made a big effort to improve modding support.[/quote]

I wouldn't want to mess with tools like that as they seem to be in the grey area like that card farming bot. Basically, you risk your steam account using stuff like that.

[Ramdat]

I wouldn't want to mess with tools like that as they seem to be in the grey area like that card farming bot. Basically, you risk your steam account using stuff like that.

Yeah, I didn't either. But, it's an unfortunate reality that external tools like that are the only viable method to get achievements if you've modded a singleplayer game that specifically added extra modding support.

They added in-game achievement tracking to FL, but it is missing the point of achievements. They are saved in-game, per-instance, and thus they are more difficult for the player to track/remember, and lack the permanence and community of Steam's achievements.

[Thurak]

Please, devs, make this dynamic relations thing OPTIONAL. It's really frustrating to no end to play like this

I am totally frustrated as well, but I don't think they need to throw out everything here. If they would more the negative impact away from ranks, but move it over (more) to missions that would help a ton, imo. Why? They then could make peaceful missions have no impact at all (what you want), while for example a soldier transport mission might actually hurt relations with the enemy a bit. That would be okay for me as long as I can become friendly with everyone mid and long term. And would be informed about the negative impact on the mission screen (similar to how you can see the enemy faction for fight missions).

[tim-ski]

After much experimentation, I've reached the conclusion that the "98%" reputation caps are the root cause of much reputational instability:

For example, while my Argon rep was +4, Split rep was capped at +6, and Split missions could be taken with minimal impact on Argon rep. However when my Argon rep dropped to +3, my Split rep reached +7 with the next Split mission. One more Argon mission recovered Argon rep to +4 Argon without reducing the Split rep back below its previous cap. The next Split mission then dropped Argon rep dramatically, to -3.

So in this example, the dramatic adjustment in Argon reputation is a function of an earlier un-capping Split reputation, and not specifically the mission I just completed. This is why it is almost impossible for anyone to explain why taking a given mission caused a sudden reputation reduction, because invariably such a mission is just the first chance the game had to adjust to an earlier rebalancing.

The relationship between reputation caps is still confusing, and presumably can be gamed: Having uncapped Split +6 by reducing Argon rep, I can recover at least the Argon rep I had before without re-capping the Split, and thus the net impact is +1 Split above what had been a cap. Ergo there is no fixed relationship between the two reputations, and likely extremely careful manipulation of reputational changes and caps can allow very high reputations to be maintained between enemies.

I suspect the reputation system is trying to operate on too many dimensions at once - potentially allowing gains with one formula, while calculating loses from another formula. That's improbable to balance, and far more likely to confuse than to feel dynamic. The solution logically lay in abandoning the hard caps completely, and simply relying on the fact that an action for an enemy will always cause in a small negative rep, making it hard to maintain the highest rep with everyone. But I'm unsure how well that plays for factions with many enemies.

[blazenclaw]

For example, while my Argon rep was +4, Split rep was capped at +6, and Split missions could be taken with minimal impact on Argon rep. However when my Argon rep dropped to +3, my Split rep reached +7 with the next Split mission. One more Argon mission recovered Argon rep to +4 Argon without reducing the Split rep back below its previous cap. The next Split mission then dropped Argon rep dramatically, to -3.

So if I'm reading this right, the caps are not symmetric? If having Argon 4 prevents Split 7, then one would imagine S7 should prevent A4, but you found it does not. That's... interesting. Was this on 1.0 or 1.1 beta?

Edit: Either that, or as the OP of this thread said, it could well be that the mission reward while at Split 7 returns a far greater magnitude than at Split 6. If you still have a save, test what happens when you're at Split +7 / Argon +3, then do the mission for Split; does that drop your Argon rep down to -3 as well?

[tim-ski]

As I understand it, the caps are not symmetric because the logic is based on whether it is possible to exceed a cap. That test can be passed by different amounts of actual reputation, and thus a shift in one direction is not automatically matched by a shift in the other.

Release version 1.0. Unfortunately I don't have the +7/+3 state anymore, since I'm now working solely on Argon reputation, to discover if there comes a point where I can take another Split mission without significant reputation damage.

[Thurak]

The solution logically lay in abandoning the hard caps completely, and simply relying on the fact that an action for an enemy will always cause in a small negative rep, making it hard to maintain the highest rep with everyone. But I'm unsure how well that plays for factions with many enemies.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

Remove any caps like you suggest.

Remove a hard binding of rep gain for one faction with rep losses with their enemies.

Move those losses over to missions directly (and inform users!). Especially the fighting missions could even get an additional penalty, not just destroyed ships, and some other missions might also gain a direct penalty (moving soldiers around for the enemy, for example). But many missions should just not have a penalty, because playing taxi for a civilian should not really bother anyone, imo.

I think there is a lot of good in the general system. Despite the outcries here (including my own) it is definitely repairable.

[Klord]

Yeah, that sounds about right.

Remove any caps like you suggest.

Remove a hard binding of rep gain for one faction with rep losses with their enemies.

Move those losses over to missions directly (and inform users!). Especially the fighting missions could even get an additional penalty, not just destroyed ships, and some other missions might also gain a direct penalty (moving soldiers around for the enemy, for example). But many missions should just not have a penalty, because playing taxi for a civilian should not really bother anyone, imo.

I think there is a lot of good in the general system. Despite the outcries here (including my own) it is definitely repairable.

If fighting missions are to be incurred an additional rep penelty, the reward should be enhanced. Otherwise Combat vs Trade aspects of the game will be imbalanced.

[Psynix]

Yeah, that sounds about right.

Remove any caps like you suggest.

Remove a hard binding of rep gain for one faction with rep losses with their enemies.

Move those losses over to missions directly (and inform users!). Especially the fighting missions could even get an additional penalty, not just destroyed ships, and some other missions might also gain a direct penalty (moving soldiers around for the enemy, for example). But many missions should just not have a penalty, because playing taxi for a civilian should not really bother anyone, imo.

I think there is a lot of good in the general system. Despite the outcries here (including my own) it is definitely repairable.

If fighting missions are to be incurred an additional rep penelty, the reward should be enhanced. Otherwise Combat vs Trade aspects of the game will be imbalanced.

That wouldnt necessarily be the case since every rep penelty comes with a just as big of a rep bonus for the other side.
As long as they dont throw the rep balance like it is now completely over board it would just mean that for example a taxi mission wont get you (much) rep penelty - but it also wont get you (much) rep bonus for the side your doing it for.
A kill mission then would be the opposit - large penelty but also a large rep bonus.
Otherwise you could just do taxi missions the gain rep and never loose it which is obliviously not the dev's intentions.
I myself like the idea. It makes sense that no one would bat an eye if you give some Boron a ride. No matter if it is the Splitt Patriarch or Queen Atreus herself

[chip56]

That wouldnt necessarily be the case since every rep penelty comes with a just as big of a rep bonus for the other side.
As long as they dont throw the rep balance like it is now completely over board it would just mean that for example a taxi mission wont get you (much) rep penelty - but it also wont get you (much) rep bonus for the side your doing it for.
A kill mission then would be the opposit - large penelty but also a large rep bonus.
Otherwise you could just do taxi missions the gain rep and never loose it which is obliviously not the dev's intentions.
I myself like the idea. It makes sense that no one would bat an eye if you give some Boron a ride. No matter if it is the Splitt Patriarch or Queen Atreus herself

Not necassarily as big of a rep bonus as you lose since you get 100 for the main faction, -30% for any enemy and 15% for allies. Which means if you have done something for someone with lots of enemies you will have a net loss.
I think it would be more intersting to make each mission give a differing percentage instead of just different amount of rep.
That way you could have a Split assination against a boron: something like 100% rep gain split but -200% boron for very high ranking people. A Taxi mission could be 100 rep gain and only -5% rep loss.
Xenon defense mission: 100% rep gain, -1% rep loss since thats the one thing they all agree on: xenon are a danger and must be stopped.

[tim-ski]

Once my Argon rep had been worked up to +7, taking a Split mission (with Split still at +7) resulted in a modest 9% reduction in Argon reputation and a far greater gain in Split rep.

• That tends to support the original logic that enemies with low reputations are hit disproportionately when working for a faction at high reputation.
• It suggests that at higher reputation levels it is entirely possible to gain with both mutual enemy factions, simply by switching mission faction at the right moment.
• And in so far as reputation caps were supposed to limit that, they do not, because as shown here one can skip right past these caps with careful mission management.

Reputation caps are broken, both messing up base reputational mathematics, and probably as a consequence of having messed it up, then failing to definitively cap reputation.

[Psynix]

Not necassarily as big of a rep bonus as you lose since you get 100 for the main faction, -30% for any enemy and 15% for allies. Which means if you have done something for someone with lots of enemies you will have a net loss.
I think it would be more intersting to make each mission give a differing percentage instead of just different amount of rep.
That way you could have a Split assination against a boron: something like 100% rep gain split but -200% boron for very high ranking people. A Taxi mission could be 100 rep gain and only -5% rep loss.
Xenon defense mission: 100% rep gain, -1% rep loss since thats the one thing they all agree on: xenon are a danger and must be stopped.

I too would like that since it would make it again possible to have good relations with everyone. But it sounded more like that's exactly what the dev's didn't want.
Well i guess we will have to wait till we find out

[blazenclaw]

Not necassarily as big of a rep bonus as you lose since you get 100 for the main faction, -30% for any enemy and 15% for allies.

Is it -30% for both "Hostile" and "Enemy" relation and +15% for both Ally/Friend, or some other mix?

[chip56]

Is it -30% for both "Hostile" and "Enemy" relation and +15% for both Ally/Friend, or some other mix?

The globals file has the follwoing values:
SG_DYNRACE_FRIEND_ALLY;15;
SG_DYNRACE_FRIEND_HERO;10;
SG_DYNRACE_FRIEND_KNIGHT;5;
SG_DYNRACE_ENEMY;30;
SG_DYNRACE_ENEMY_MAIN;15;
SG_DYNRACE_MAXENEMYNOTO;33333;

Though i didnt manage to find out what hero, knight and enemy_main are supposed to be exactly. Guess one of the devs would have to explain that in more detail.
All i can say is that reducing the SG_DYNRACE_ENEMY makes it quite a bit of work to get positive rep with multiple factions but at least for the main factions actually possible. Which i feel is a bit more right: you can get to a good rank (but not max) rank with multiple factions if you actually do something for one side, than the other and so on. But as soon as you focus on one side the others drop actually.

[X2-Illuminatus]

Though i didnt manage to find out what hero, knight and enemy_main are supposed to be exactly. Guess one of the devs would have to explain that in more detail.

A short explanation of the global values is given in the Survival Guide. Feel free to ask for more pointers in the X3FL Scripts and Modding Forum.