There is no diplomacy? We have a New Endgame Crises but no diplomacy??? :Poll

[PersonyPerson]

If we're really going to add more diplomacy to the game, then it needs to be limited in scope and lore friendly.

It's not going to make sense for example, if ARG/ANT or ARG/BOR suddenly turn on each other without a valid reason. I could see several potential causes of conflict between both MIN/TEL and TER/PIO, but that should be for future plots to explore and expand upon, not via a generic random/dynamic diplomacy mechanic.

What does make sense however, is the idea of "Coalitions" and "Ceasefires". If one faction (which in most cases is likely to be either the player or the Xenon) starts to get too big at the expense of two other factions that are warring against each other, such as ARG/ZYA, then they should put their differences aside to work against the the larger threat. If the threat has been neutered, then hostilities could resume.

I'd also like it if for example, an aggressive faction such as ZYA, accomplishes its main goals (killing the North Xenon cluster and wiping out the NE ARG cluster). Then they shouldn't just stop there (due to the way they're written) and do something like breaking the Heretic's End MoU or declare war on PAR or TEL for even further expansion.

Next section contains spoilers:

Spoiler

Show

If TER conquers either Antigone Memorial or Argon Prime. This should be a call to action by the rest of the gate network to form a coalition with any ARG/ANT remnants to join the fight against them.

That would be the ideal diplomacy additions for me in theory. But then you'd also have to consider what happens if multiple of these scenarios happen at once. What happens if there's a Mega-ZYA, a war-mongering TRI and victorious TER all happening simultaneously? Does TRI cease it's war with ZYA to deal with TER? What happens if TER does its win first before TRI forms? If the player chooses ANT/ARG to hate each other in the TER plot, does that then prevent them from joining coalitions with each other? It's difficult to add in practice.

There's so many scenarios to think about. A good diplomacy system is NOT easy to implement. There are many ways it can go wrong and many paths it can take which will not make any logical sense. This is why I like the plots that end up making diplomacy choices because they give the player the rationale for it to happen. I only wish that there was more options for diplomacy changes when certain events occur. Here's a few ideas:

• Option for ZYA to declare war on PAR and/or TEL once they've beaten both the ARG/Xenon clusters (can be limited to "Spear of Patriarch" start).
• Option to dob in PIO to TER over their AGI usage in the PIO plot that could lead to two paths to cause a direct annexation of PIO by TER or a war of independence for PIO against TER. This should come with the ramifications of slowing or disabling the terraforming mechanic.
• A mini-plot offered by either ARG or ANT to expand the fractures caused by TER in the ARG/ANT relationship that could escalate into full-scale war.
• New plot involving MIN focussing on their militarisation and expanding cultural differences between them and the rest of TEL. This should result in MIN seizing some TEL territory near their shipyard and declaring war on them.
• Option for a liberated YAK to join the war against TER on the side of ARG/BOR/ANT before the player completes the "Covert Operations" plot.
• Option for CUB to declare war on TEL once they have fully defeated ZYA. They are still war-mongering slavers after all.
• Option to dob in HAT to ARG, which can lead to ARG annexing Hatikvah's Choice I, forcing the rest of HAT to return to their pirate ways. Dal Busta can still end up with the player. This disables the sub-mission for BOR to give HAT fighters.
• A mechanism for the Heretic's End neutrality to end without player intervention.

[hebrux]

NPC factions do not trade "stations and sectors" with other NPC factions. Why should there be one different faction?

It was just an idea. And just cause that functionality doesn't exist now doesn't mean it won't exist in the future

[hebrux]

If we're really going to add more diplomacy to the game, then it needs to be limited in scope and lore friendly.

It's not going to make sense for example, if ARG/ANT or ARG/BOR suddenly turn on each other without a valid reason. I could see several potential causes of conflict between both MIN/TEL and TER/PIO, but that should be for future plots to explore and expand upon, not via a generic random/dynamic diplomacy mechanic.

What does make sense however, is the idea of "Coalitions" and "Ceasefires". If one faction (which in most cases is likely to be either the player or the Xenon) starts to get too big at the expense of two other factions that are warring against each other, such as ARG/ZYA, then they should put their differences aside to work against the the larger threat. If the threat has been neutered, then hostilities could resume.

I'd also like it if for example, an aggressive faction such as ZYA, accomplishes its main goals (killing the North Xenon cluster and wiping out the NE ARG cluster). Then they shouldn't just stop there (due to the way they're written) and do something like breaking the Heretic's End MoU or declare war on PAR or TEL for even further expansion.

Next section contains spoilers:

Spoiler

Show

If TER conquers either Antigone Memorial or Argon Prime. This should be a call to action by the rest of the gate network to form a coalition with any ARG/ANT remnants to join the fight against them.

That would be the ideal diplomacy additions for me in theory. But then you'd also have to consider what happens if multiple of these scenarios happen at once. What happens if there's a Mega-ZYA, a war-mongering TRI and victorious TER all happening simultaneously? Does TRI cease it's war with ZYA to deal with TER? What happens if TER does its win first before TRI forms? If the player chooses ANT/ARG to hate each other in the TER plot, does that then prevent them from joining coalitions with each other? It's difficult to add in practice.

There's so many scenarios to think about. A good diplomacy system is NOT easy to implement. There are many ways it can go wrong and many paths it can take which will not make any logical sense. This is why I like the plots that end up making diplomacy choices because they give the player the rationale for it to happen. I only wish that there was more options for diplomacy changes when certain events occur. Here's a few ideas:

• Option for ZYA to declare war on PAR and/or TEL once they've beaten both the ARG/Xenon clusters (can be limited to "Spear of Patriarch" start).
• Option to dob in PIO to TER over their AGI usage in the PIO plot that could lead to two paths to cause a direct annexation of PIO by TER or a war of independence for PIO against TER. This should come with the ramifications of slowing or disabling the terraforming mechanic.
• A mini-plot offered by either ARG or ANT to expand the fractures caused by TER in the ARG/ANT relationship that could escalate into full-scale war.
• New plot involving MIN focussing on their militarisation and expanding cultural differences between them and the rest of TEL. This should result in MIN seizing some TEL territory near their shipyard and declaring war on them.
• Option for a liberated YAK to join the war against TER on the side of ARG/BOR/ANT before the player completes the "Covert Operations" plot.
• Option for CUB to declare war on TEL once they have fully defeated ZYA. They are still war-mongering slavers after all.
• Option to dob in HAT to ARG, which can lead to ARG annexing Hatikvah's Choice I, forcing the rest of HAT to return to their pirate ways. Dal Busta can still end up with the player. This disables the sub-mission for BOR to give HAT fighters.
• A mechanism for the Heretic's End neutrality to end without player intervention.

Interesting. The arg and ant can start as allies and may break apart if some incident happens

[jlehtone]

just cause that functionality doesn't exist now doesn't mean it won't exist in the future

Exactly. My point is that when we desire "just X", it should also cover Y and Z in order to be "proper" -- nobody seems to enjoy "copy-pasted additions" -- and quickly there is a whole alphabet soup that is not "just X". It may seem a small step for a user, but would be a huge leap for the dev team. Would it be worth the effort? Hard to judge.

[hebrux]

just cause that functionality doesn't exist now doesn't mean it won't exist in the future

Exactly. My point is that when we desire "just X", it should also cover Y and Z in order to be "proper" -- nobody seems to enjoy "copy-pasted additions" -- and quickly there is a whole alphabet soup that is not "just X". It may seem a small step for a user, but would be a huge leap for the dev team. Would it be worth the effort? Hard to judge.

I think Diplomacy would be a major upgrade for the game. There's been lots of updates but not much for the Empire level roleplaying. This would be an update for the empire level meaning not all players would go to that stage but those that do, will enjoy being on the same footing as the other empires

[jlehtone]

... not all players would go to that stage ...

That does not sell idea as worth implementing.

being on the same footing as the other empires

Currently we can render "the other empires" into stardust. Would the "diplomacy" prevent that? If it does, then what say the steamroller captains?

[birdtable]

Yes Yes Yes ,,,, To full active diplomacy interaction in a true sandbox mode.... Loved it in Farnhams Legacy .. Would open up a great tactical experience bringing back the " THINK" part that is missing from X4.

[Karvat]

The entire community has been wanting a decent diplomacy system for years.

Now, please tell me that reworking the diplomacy system had less development time priority than creating those useless, absolutely useless and frustrating scenarios.

How do we want this diplomacy system?

LIKE THIS:
- NPC X owns its own assets, Y (a ship) and Z (a station).
- Is part of the Antigone Republic.
- Which is part of the Argon race.

Attacking NPC X results in:
- A considerable loss of reputation with character X.
- A moderate loss of reputation with its assets (ships and stations that belong to X and their respective captains Y and managers Z)
- A small loss of reputation with all characters belonging to its faction (Antigone)
- A minimal loss of reputation with all factions part of the Argon race (e.g. the Argon Federation)

Reputation gain should work in the other way around as well.

IT"S CONCEPTUALLY SIMPLER and more ENJOYABLE than those ATROCIUS MISSIONS.

[hebrux]

... not all players would go to that stage ...

That does not sell idea as worth implementing.

being on the same footing as the other empires

Currently we can render "the other empires" into stardust. Would the "diplomacy" prevent that? If it does, then what say the steamroller captains?

@"That does not sell idea as worth implementing."
The game is a sandbox. Just cause everyone isn't playing as a merchant or miner doesn't mean the developers won't give you the ability to.
Not all players will go exploring for lootboxes but the developers still developed that feature
Not all players will start empires, building their own production lines and their own ships, but the Developers still gave us that feature
>In Conclusion, that is why I said "Not all players would go to that stage" because X4 is a sandbox and you can play it anyway you see fit. Not everyone will roleplay as an Empire who is acknolodged by others as a "Major/Minor Faction", opening up direct diplomacy options with the other Major/Minor factions


@"Currently we can render "the other empires" into stardust. Would the "diplomacy" prevent that? If it does, then what say the steamroller captains?"
Yet the rest of the universe sees you as a pilot. You may have 100 stations and 1000 military ships but when you greet the leader of the Argon, they say "Hello Pilot". You don't see anything wrong with this?
It's obvious you're just pretending to be an Empire when you're really just a super rich pilot with more military assets than the strongest Nations.
If the Red Cross had a larger military than the USA, shouldn't the USA acknowledge them as a major player? or should the USA ignore them saying "no that's just the Red Cross"..."Greetings Pilot"

[hebrux]

Yes Yes Yes ,,,, To full active diplomacy interaction in a true sandbox mode.... Loved it in Farnhams Legacy .. Would open up a great tactical experience bringing back the " THINK" part that is missing from X4.

+1

[Galdric]

Hi
Diplomacy is really what's missing in the game.
It would really contribute to a more dyamic universe and again create many options for lategame as well as midgame.

I would like to see a changing diplomatic world among the races and factions in X4 in general!
At the moment the X universe is still too static.

Diplomacy also plays a role in the economy...

Also, you could play more and more like a faction...a real sandbox that even simulates the rise and fall of your empire (or something). Doesn't that sound fantastic?

I hope Egosoft sees this!

[hebrux]

Hi
Diplomacy is really what's missing in the game.
It would really contribute to a more dyamic universe and again create many options for lategame as well as midgame.

I would like to see a changing diplomatic world among the races and factions in X4 in general!
At the moment the X universe is still too static.

Diplomacy also plays a role in the economy...

Also, you could play more and more like a faction...a real sandbox that even simulates the rise and fall of your empire (or something). Doesn't that sound fantastic?

I hope Egosoft sees this!

oh this would be sooo amazing! It would truly be a sandbox

[hebrux]

I hope Egosoft sees this!

Does anyone know a good point of contact to reach out to?

[Galdric]

Hi
Diplomacy is really what's missing in the game.
It would really contribute to a more dyamic universe and again create many options for lategame as well as midgame.

I would like to see a changing diplomatic world among the races and factions in X4 in general!
At the moment the X universe is still too static.

Diplomacy also plays a role in the economy...

Also, you could play more and more like a faction...a real sandbox that even simulates the rise and fall of your empire (or something). Doesn't that sound fantastic?

I hope Egosoft sees this!

oh this would be sooo amazing! It would truly be a sandbox

Exactly, then it would be an even better sandbox.
You could change so many things and Egosoft would have a lot of freedom.
If Egosoft does it right, then everyone would be happy and have more fun and content.

[Galdric]

I hope Egosoft sees this!

Does anyone know a good point of contact to reach out to?

No unfortunately not , who else? would be cool?

[alexthespaniard]

Providing a diplomatic system is not only necessary but mandatory. As many comments say, it doesn't make sense to have sectors without being considered a faction. Without being perceived as an entity to interact with.

It doesn't make sense for the AI not to perceive you as anything. Part of the faction? Mercenary? Faction partner? Nor does it make sense for it not to perceive your threat level or your capabilities.


For this, an interpretation of "reliability" as a parameter would be essential, along with an influence parameter. This would mean that if you have been somewhat piratical or disloyal, factions would find it harder to trust you. But with power or "influence," you could overcome this distrust through fear or interest. Perhaps separating commercial and military capacity would be a good way to address different issues.


I can understand limiting this diplomacy, as there are alliances that cannot be broken and enemies that are non-negotiable by nature. Therefore, implementing a system of wars and peace based on objectives and maximum acceptable losses would be a good idea.

Being able to levy taxes on goods is certainly a good idea. It incentivizes the desire to control sectors and adds the possibility of an element for piracy, such as evading these taxes. As a counterbalance, there would be risks of losing relations with the faction and having to pay fines.


Having the option for periods of peace opens the door to times of change and commercial prosperity (or the opposite), multiplying clients or competitors for limited times.

I think that if you want to be part of a faction, it would be very beneficial to add a system of "lords" or "ministers" that allows you to have great influence within the faction. Minister of Defense, Economy, Social Affairs, Foreign Affairs... each with a salary and missions related to the role. With the capability to become president or dictator, which would be the ultimate goal... again, depending on the faction, it would have a different name. In the case of creating your own faction, just as we have pilots with stars, the ministers would have effects on our empire.


I believe that the Egosoft team should have the highest ambition regarding this matter because, aside from optimization, the game's immersion in diplomacy will be the difference between a very good indie game and a legendary game with which no company could easily compete.


I believe these are key points to attract new players and solidify the current ones with dynamic and thrilling experiences.

[Don_Quijote]

This game does not need diplomacy as it described in the thread. It is a space sandbox simulator not a paradox-style game. Also players probably forget that by their own actions they change diplomatic landscape through peaceful trading with other factions or destroying their stations and capturing sectors thereby provoking other factions to respond adequately.

[Nedimar]

respond adequately

As in: not at all

[dayang]

Diplomacy would be nice, but I think everyone is over-amping this. There's no need to go full hog and I think reputation largely already covers this. If you want an empire management game, you can try Stellaris.

Me personally? I would just like to be able to have more realistic interactions with NPCs. I'd like to be able to wander about my ship fixing things or talking to crew.

Would I like to be able to negotiate trade deals and military alliances/contracts, this would be nice sure. Lets start small, egosoft are much more likely to implement small scale stuff that's popular than a wholesale format change.

[Don_Quijote]

respond adequately

As in: not at all

Can you explain more extensively what you meant?
At its current state the diplomacy feels good. If you read carefully in in-game "Factions and relations" tab what each diplomacy threshold unlocks (-30, -20, -10,0,10,20,30) and to this the fact that each faction has its own list of allies and enemies and player can change that list in a limited way via doing plots and tasks, all this as a whole forms a robust diplomacy system which is very suitable for this type of game. Some people could advocate for dynamic diplomacy as it was in X3.Farnham's Legacy, but speaking truthfully, it is very annoying.