Player Balance in faction relations

[jmrc]

One thing that I'd like to see changed is the player's balance Relations among the factions: as you gain Relation with a faction, you lose Relation with its enemies. The end result is that the player will never be able to be Friend with all main factions and most probably will be Enemy with a few. This opens up the situations where trade/mining ships have to be escorted even in friendly sectors, many sectors will be very dangerous to traverse, diplomacy actions get more dangerous when dealing with those enemy factions, etc.

I know this has been discussed many times before but I haven't seen an acceptable answer about why this is not a standard feature in the game.

[decifer]

I haven't seen an acceptable answer about why this is not a standard feature in the game.

Because some players want to be friends with everyone, or at least decide on their own when and with whom they want to go to war. And the devs - probably - want to support that playstyle.
This is not a competitive game. If someone wants to play peaceful, let them. That doesn't stop you from playing your way - everyone wins.

[jmrc]

That doesn't stop you from playing your way - everyone wins.

X4 tries to be immersive and being Friends with enemy factions is not realistic. Missions and some mechanics (ex: Diplomacy) could be used to offset negative relations and get them at least to low negatives, allowing for trade. Or, the player would have to strive to keep Neutral towards everyone, by engaging in balanced trade with all factions. By adding this kind of challenge, the game can be rewarding for those who favour a peaceful approach and those who favour a more realistic/challenging approach.

[decifer]

X4 tries to be immersive and being Friends with enemy factions is not realistic.

Immersive and realistic are different things.
Nothing in X4 is realistic. You get to the power level of a galactic nation in weeks. Nothing would stop any other individual in this setting to do the same. The universe should be full individual empires. The whole relationship part is not realistic. You get access to the highest state secrets and military resources just for killing some random criminals without due process or care for innocent casualties (who tells you there's no baby on board that criminal tour bus). You can eradicate whole sectors and then become a friend again just by doing some easy jobs and even get paid for it.
Realism really isn't a good argument.

But also, what I said before. Right now, everyone can play as they like. Nothing wrong with that. Your proposal wouldn't add challenge, only micro management when you constantly need to offset every reputation gained by trades or missions. There's no rewarding gameplay with that, only restrictions in a sandbox.

[Blaze1st]

This is already the case depending on how you build your rep. If you do combat missions or activities there is the opposing faction rep impact exactly as you describe if you are actively destroying stuff.

It would really, really annoy me if it worked the way you suggested in all cases. It would mean that I am unable to tread the line of neutrality and build relations with both sides in non-combatative ways.

I would consider this an unnecessary limitation serving only to frustrate player agency and intent.

[jlehtone]

Doesn't X3FL offer you this -- I would not call "balance", perhaps "0-sum" game? Is that game hugely popular?

There is already some: kill ARG near HOP and you will lose rep with ARG and gain rep with HOP.
Yes, that is not same as "if ARG rep is high for whatever reasons, then HOP rep is automatically low".

These are totally different things though. The first is an action and it does not affect HOP rep if you don't do it near HOP.
The other is not about actions, but what rep you have. If you live in 11th Hour and trade with ARG, then how will the HOP, who are nowhere near, know to hate you?


We have now diplomacy. We could force peace and alliance to all factions (sans Kha'ak and Xenon). Then we could be best friend of everybody (and quite easily, because if we befriend one then surely all its allies love us too)? Peace and happiness for all (except for the dead).
That sounds like "the one and only path".

[jmrc]

Maybe realistic is not the correct word here, but Simulation is the right one. And as a Simulation, it should have as much common-sense behavior as possible. The notion that you wipe out entire sectors of faction X and a few hours later you get to be Friends because you eliminated some criminal traffic is completely wrong and should be changed as well.

Because there is no concept for true Relations, where if you are Friend with X and X is in war with Y, then you shouldn't get to be Friend with Y, the whole point of Diplomacy DLC gets almost moot. You can influence X to be at war with Y or you can influence to make them Friends, but that doesn't change your Relations to either. On the contrary, if you had the above rule implemented, it would make worthwhile to get them to stop the war, since it would allow the player to reach Neutral and even Friend with both.

In my view, the goal of the Diplomacy DLC should not be the outcome of relations between factions but the impact of the influencing actions on the player itself. The player pulls the strings not because he wants to see war between X and Y but because he wants to take advantage of that war. With no true Relations, Diplomacy DLC doesn't get as much relevant as it would.

[decifer]

Your proposal would require a full rework of the relation system, where long term reputation changes are more controlled and intentional. But just sticking it onto the current system wouldn't do any good.
I think, you'd need a targeted and controlled long term standing system that could include conflicting interests and a short term rep system, giving immediate but small benefits for direct and local action.

To my understanding, the diplomacy update was just the groundworks for more changes to the relations system to come. So I would wait for that.
I assume, the bugs in 9.0 related to factions fighting each other for no reason at the start of new games is atleast indication for changes under the hood to facilitate coming updates to that. Might be wrong though.

[jlehtone]

The notion that you wipe out entire sectors of faction X and a few hours later you get to be Friends because you eliminated some criminal traffic is completely wrong and should be changed as well.

Yes, that is a point too, but it is unrelated to how other factions feel about you. In current game it is totally unrelated.

How would it affect your proposal? If I wipe X, then Y -- the enemy of X -- will like me?
If I stop a Tour Bus at X station, then Y will declare me enemy?
Fine, but the X will still fail to remember what I did to X earlier. Forget and forgive, just like now.
Even worse, I don't need to find that Tour Bus at X, who is now out of stations; I can wipe sectors of Y to gain love from X.


The player is almost -- but not quite -- a faction like the other factions. What the player is not, is a member of a faction. We can roleplay as Teladi: support Teladi, use only Teladi gear, and fight enemies of Teladi. We will not be a Teladi though. To be a genuine member of a faction would be something new. You would have reputation as Teladi, and you could affect slightly the relationship between Teladi and other factions. That is, technically very different implementation for relationships.


I'm far out and encounter a ship. I oneshot them. How does the owner of the victim know that it was my doing?
The most obvious explanation is that I do report the kill, to improve my Fight Rank status.

... Diplomacy DLC ...

AFAIK, there is no indication that such DLC is in the making. There definitely has not been such DLC yet.
The base game did get diplomacy options in 8.0.

[jmrc]

How would it affect your proposal? If I wipe X, then Y -- the enemy of X -- will like me?

Well that would be a very good "nice to have". Optimally, it would be a recursive functionality, where the changes would propagate and get evaluated in ripples like a sonar, with higher impact in the factions directly involved and lower in their relations to other factions. That would be the principle of a responsive system, where the actions of the player have real impact.

But if it's complicated, then I'd be content with balance only among enemy factions.

I'm far out and encounter a ship. I oneshot them. How does the owner of the victim know that it was my doing?
The most obvious explanation is that I do report the kill, to improve my Fight Rank status.

This already happens in the game: your relation with that ship faction is unchanged because it wasn't able to sound the alarm. But if it send the distress beacon and you didn't destroy it, it will sound the alarm and you get a penalty score in the relation. That would trigger the balance algorithm.

The temporary relations that don't change the overall relation with the faction are irrelevant.

... Diplomacy DLC ...

AFAIK, there is no indication that such DLC is in the making. There definitely has not been such DLC yet.
The base game did get diplomacy options in 8.0.

Right. I called it DLC because it was featured by the time of the Envoy DLC. Technically, Diplomacy is not a DLC.

[Feloidea]

I wouldn't be opposed to it, in fact I think I'd very much enjoy it.

However it would need to be implemented in an opt-in fashion, either through the diplomacy feature or through a toggle on game start. The reason was already noted in previous comments with how some players simply wish to coexist in the universe without such railroaded conflict. Other gameplay features would also need be adjusted to make this happen without invariably locking players out of content without flip flopping faction relations around (which would become increasingly dangerous to outright impossible once players place down their own infrastructure which at sufficiently low reputation would simply get bombarded to oblivion; plus if these assets were defended create a runaway reputation loss reaction).

In short, if other game elements were accounted for and adjusted towards, I'd love to see an option for this. It is unlikely to happen but what are requests like this for if not wishlists for the devs to see and possibly consider.

[LameFox]

This seems like it would potentially break some plotlines. Notably both the Paranid and some parts of the Terran plots work precisely because the player can be friendly to both sides at once. For that reason alone I don't think you'd ever see it implemented.

[decifer]

This seems like it would potentially break some plotlines. Notably both the Paranid and some parts of the Terran plots work precisely because the player can be friendly to both sides at once. For that reason alone I don't think you'd ever see it implemented.

I think for the BUC (and maybe the BOR) plotline you even have to be at a certain rep with both paranid factions. Not sure, though.

[Blaze1st]

It's not unrealistic to be friends with two factions who are enemies. If it's not your fight it's not your fight, but that shouldn't mean you can't sell ballistic pesticide launchers and armoured tractors for agricultural use on the open market!

[jmrc]

Of course this would mean a refactoring of the plots that depend on positive Relations with both enemy factions. They don't make sense anyway: you get a good relation with both factions and in the end you "toss a coin" and decide which one to betray. And even after the betrayal, you still retain the Rep status... The obvious plot should be to get a very high Relation with the one you prefer and a very low Relation with the other, and then proceed to the plot ending with the chosen Rep consequences.

In my current playthrough in just a few hours I've achieved Friendly status with a third of the factions and now I'm attacking and capturing traders and destroyers of those I have better Relations because the Rep loss is quickly recovered after a few trade runs. As a simulation this doesn't sound reasonable. It can be done through mods, but then we can't be able to report problems.

[Blaze1st]

Of course this would mean a refactoring of the plots that depend on positive Relations with both enemy factions. They don't make sense anyway: you get a good relation with both factions and in the end you "toss a coin" and decide which one to betray. And even after the betrayal, you still retain the Rep status... The obvious plot should be to get a very high Relation with the one you prefer and a very low Relation with the other, and then proceed to the plot ending with the chosen Rep consequences.

In my current playthrough in just a few hours I've achieved Friendly status with a third of the factions and now I'm attacking and capturing traders and destroyers of those I have better Relations because the Rep loss is quickly recovered after a few trade runs. As a simulation this doesn't sound reasonable. It can be done through mods, but then we can't be able to report problems.

What you are doing there is called a clandestine activity. That's where you are not overtly hostile with someone but you are undermining them in a sneaky or covert manner. Happens all the time in the real world so not unrealistic I'd say... and is also the entire basis of my current long game where I am manipulating the AI factions to do my bidding without them realising it.

For example, ARG swarm almost as bad as the XEN. So despite 30 rep and good relations I want them to lose ships faster else they outproduce my other friends and upset the stable balance of power I am cultivating. So maybe I might "accidentally" nudge a destroyer or two of theirs a little closer to a defense station to slow them down, or set a passing fleet of theirs to hostile when I don't want them moving through my sector (I have no other way to tell them to leave my space than through violence).

Another example is TER Intervention Corps attacking my pet XEN sectors. Just 'cause they're allies doesn't mean I'm going to let them hunt as they please in my safari...

[jlehtone]

One has to also remember the "asymmetry of balance". That is, if implemented, it must be possible for everyone to hate you simultaneously, while OP main the goal was to prevent everyone from liking you simultaneously.

That is, one should be able to reach the rock bottom where the total sum of love is -1.
One could increase the sum to perhaps 0 (by keeping some enemies because one befriends others),
but definitely not to +1, where everyone names their offspring after you (like it is now).

Heck, why not "loyal citizen" mode, where reputation with at most one faction can be positive?

[jmrc]

Heck, why not "loyal citizen" mode, where reputation with at most one faction can be positive?

Yeah, that would be like the Corsairs who owed allegiance to a single nation while attacking all the others. HOP is nice to play that way because it's enemy with many factions, has a good economy to sell plundered goods and a few contested sectors with plenty of rich targets. With this balance, as we get higher Rep with HOP, we get lower Rep with its enemies and their friends, making piracy attacks harder around most sectors. I haven't thought about all implications but I think it would be a positive game changer.

[azaghal]

One thing that I'd like to see changed is the player's balance Relations among the factions: as you gain Relation with a faction, you lose Relation with its enemies. The end result is that the player will never be able to be Friend with all main factions and most probably will be Enemy with a few. This opens up the situations where trade/mining ships have to be escorted even in friendly sectors, many sectors will be very dangerous to traverse, diplomacy actions get more dangerous when dealing with those enemy factions, etc.

I know this has been discussed many times before but I haven't seen an acceptable answer about why this is not a standard feature in the game.

Back in the day when I tried doing a heavily modded playthrough (on version 6.20), I ran into this little gem - Reactive Factions Retribution, which basically seems to implement what you are wishing for. I have not touched it since then, but maybe it still works fine (seems to be kept up-to-date at least), and you might want to give it a go.

On a somewhat (un)related note, this one paired really well with DeadAir Dynamic Wars. The Dynamic Wars thing also allowed you to alter relationships between factions by spending credits (in addition to making the relationships between different factions a bit more dynamic). In fact, when the diplomacy update was first announced, I was really expecting to see some sort of combination of features form these two mods instead of the crappy clicky busybody minigame in a window they ended up implementing.