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

[jlehtone]

The second diplo feature i’d consider to be “viable for vanilla” is to give the player a reputation reset after he practically "defeated" a faction. Let’s be honest. They should just surrender and sue for peace. That's what everybody who is advocating for a diplo system actually wants. Make it possible for them to win a war and normalize relations without having to farm criminal mass traffic and they will be happy. Also nobody gets hurt and everything remains optional (which seems to be the holy grail for Egosoft)

I have a beef with this one.

Lets say that you live in USA. Putin sinks US Navy and nukes all large US cities.
You suggest that US surrenders unconditionally and then everybody lives happily ever after.
The current game demands "more". Putin has to shoot the school bus that has your kids in it, because it allegedly did not stop at red lights. Then everybody lives happily ever after.

Why do I expect you to hold a grudge a bit longer?


We can already modify our status within (most) factions. No NPC faction can do that. Not easy enough for that "everybody" subgroup?

that idea to temporarily “pause” certain lore based wars in case some bigger threat creeps up does sound absolutely viable for the vanilla game.

Agreed. Note that there is asymmetry: a truce would be possible, but no short conflict. (Current player has the other end of that stick: friendly fire incidents do not inspire cease fire.)

[Tilen]

The second diplo feature i’d consider to be “viable for vanilla” is to give the player a reputation reset after he practically "defeated" a faction. Let’s be honest. They should just surrender and sue for peace. That's what everybody who is advocating for a diplo system actually wants. Make it possible for them to win a war and normalize relations without having to farm criminal mass traffic and they will be happy. Also nobody gets hurt and everything remains optional (which seems to be the holy grail for Egosoft)

I have a beef with this one.

Lets say that you live in USA. Putin sinks US Navy and nukes all large US cities.
You suggest that US surrenders unconditionally and then everybody lives happily ever after.
The current game demands "more". Putin has to shoot the school bus that has your kids in it, because it allegedly did not stop at red lights. Then everybody lives happily ever after.

Why do I expect you to hold a grudge a bit longer?


We can already modify our status within (most) factions. No NPC faction can do that. Not easy enough for that "everybody" subgroup?

that idea to temporarily “pause” certain lore based wars in case some bigger threat creeps up does sound absolutely viable for the vanilla game.

Agreed. Note that there is asymmetry: a truce would be possible, but no short conflict. (Current player has the other end of that stick: friendly fire incidents do not inspire cease fire.)

As far as I know there is no such thing as a grudge in politics and economics.

What makes most sense (seems most rational) will be done. Excluding autocratic regimes.

[alexthespaniard]

The second diplo feature i’d consider to be “viable for vanilla” is to give the player a reputation reset after he practically "defeated" a faction. Let’s be honest. They should just surrender and sue for peace. That's what everybody who is advocating for a diplo system actually wants. Make it possible for them to win a war and normalize relations without having to farm criminal mass traffic and they will be happy. Also nobody gets hurt and everything remains optional (which seems to be the holy grail for Egosoft)

I have a beef with this one.

Lets say that you live in USA. Putin sinks US Navy and nukes all large US cities.
You suggest that US surrenders unconditionally and then everybody lives happily ever after.
The current game demands "more". Putin has to shoot the school bus that has your kids in it, because it allegedly did not stop at red lights. Then everybody lives happily ever after.

Why do I expect you to hold a grudge a bit longer?


We can already modify our status within (most) factions. No NPC faction can do that. Not easy enough for that "everybody" subgroup?

that idea to temporarily “pause” certain lore based wars in case some bigger threat creeps up does sound absolutely viable for the vanilla game.

Agreed. Note that there is asymmetry: a truce would be possible, but no short conflict. (Current player has the other end of that stick: friendly fire incidents do not inspire cease fire.)

As far as I know there is no such thing as a grudge in politics and economics.

What makes most sense (seems most rational) will be done. Excluding autocratic regimes.

Also, making resources more unique in certain regions would create a more interesting geopolitical need on the map.

For me, it feels like you can have everything everywhere (with some exceptions). The sectors are very large, and there is an excess of accessibility to resources.

[dayang]

...
In x4 you can EXterminate. Fight the Xenon, Fight other factions. Fight pirates...

Fight does not equal exterminate. In true 4X games, the main goal of the game is to conquer, and maybe exterminate, all of your opponents. That simply is not what X4 is about, although some players may like to do that. The player is not a political entity, and hence there's no need for diplomacy as practiced in true 4X games. Since there is no set endgame in the X games, it's up to the player to decide what constitutes the end of the game. X4 is a simulation, not a conquer the universe game.

While true in one sense... there's... not really much else to do in X4... research is painfully thin on the ground... growing colonies isn't a thin in any serious sense. Aside from blowing up your opponents the game gets old quite quickly.

As a simulation, X4 has yet to offer the complexity that would be required both from a Role-play point of view or from a space flight sim point of view. There are no 'orbital mechanics', traffic management is non-existent, the NPCs make No Mans Sky NPCs look like they've just come out of Baldur's Gate 2. You can't realistically interact/manage crew. Ship repair is no more than shine light at ship, piracy/boarding is cheesy with zero risk to the player (but that's also technically extermination). So you might say: Well trade is a big thing. Is it tho? I mean seriously look at the complexity of the trade especially in the Terran Sectors and in the end the economy is only excited by War which means destroying your opponents.

If X4 wants to become a 'simulation' it needs to add more complexity and realism for the player, more and better NPC interactions. More realistic spaceflight. Better default controls (shift + W, is quite uncomfortable). As it stands X4 *is* a 4x game, you Explore, Expand, Exploit and finally out of boredom, Exterminate your apparent opponents. Admittedly in X4 I explore, exploit, expand and then exterminate and I can do this in a few creative ways. (For example wiping out the southern xenon sectors and not helping ZYA).

[dayang]

...
You can ignore the matter if you want, but it's a 4X game, and you have 74% + 9% of the community desiring a deeper focus on this aspect. I think that's very compelling the community is very clear.

First of all, it's not, and never has been, a 4X game. Master of Orion is a 4X game; Space Empires is a 4X game. None of the X-Universe games are 4X games.
Second, your "community" is a very tiny subset of the total gamers playing X4, so I doubt the devs are going to base their decisions on those few gamers.

So, not really all that compelling, is it?

X4 might not be a 4X game per se (because it takes from so many different genres it's hard to properly classify). But as someone who's played a lot of 4X/Grand Strategy/RTS games, it does share some elements of one, especially when you're in the late game and conducting most of your orders via the map screen. If the player decides to go out and conquer the gate network for themselves, the game plays out as something akin to Sins of a Solar Empire, a 4X RTS.

Also, in the Timelines FAQ the devs acknowledged the rise of "4X players discovering X4" and used that as a reason for improving AI and fleet mechanics for versions 7.50 and 8.00.

However saying all that, I do agree with the premise of your point in that one poll on the forums is not representative of what the community wants. I didn't vote in the poll because, to me the poll is flawed (not a fan of yes/no polls for complex issues since 2016). Those in the "74%" have clearly shown on this thread that their ideas are vastly different from each other to the point in where they are mutually exclusive. If I'd have voted, I would have voted "Yes", but I don't want what the OP is suggesting. My ideas I listed on Pg.3 for example are not compatible with theirs.

Diplomacy should be expanded through the existing plot system and make certain criteria for coalitions and ceasefires to form in the face of very powerful opponents (player included). A full dynamic system would be a disaster.

Also those who are either not interested in diplomacy or don't care either way are going to be less likely to participate in this discussion or even click on the thread, so naturally the vote is going to be skewed towards "Yes".

The poll I think is simplified because this thread is not about advocating one idea over another simply that we would like or not like to see some elements of diplomacy in the game. Clearly 74% of people (small sample) want *something*, they might not know what it is they want yet which gives the devs freedom to experiment and figure what they would like to do.

It could be released as a 'DLC' to begin with introducing a few elements and see how players react. If players react positively, then we're likely to see more of that. If they respond negatively, then of course we won't see many feature updates in that area and could even see the DLC being removed.

[jlehtone]

You too have noticed that the X-games are very simple, not complex?

It could be released as a 'DLC' ...

The SV and CoH DLC's did include "plots" that affect some diplomatic status. No DLC adds mechanic, do they? That is all in the exe.

[hebrux]

First of all, it's not, and never has been, a 4X game. Master of Orion is a 4X game; Space Empires is a 4X game. None of the X-Universe games are 4X games.
Second, your "community" is a very tiny subset of the total gamers playing X4, so I doubt the devs are going to base their decisions on those few gamers.

So, not really all that compelling, is it?

X4 might not be a 4X game per se (because it takes from so many different genres it's hard to properly classify). But as someone who's played a lot of 4X/Grand Strategy/RTS games, it does share some elements of one, especially when you're in the late game and conducting most of your orders via the map screen. If the player decides to go out and conquer the gate network for themselves, the game plays out as something akin to Sins of a Solar Empire, a 4X RTS.

Also, in the Timelines FAQ the devs acknowledged the rise of "4X players discovering X4" and used that as a reason for improving AI and fleet mechanics for versions 7.50 and 8.00.

However saying all that, I do agree with the premise of your point in that one poll on the forums is not representative of what the community wants. I didn't vote in the poll because, to me the poll is flawed (not a fan of yes/no polls for complex issues since 2016). Those in the "74%" have clearly shown on this thread that their ideas are vastly different from each other to the point in where they are mutually exclusive. If I'd have voted, I would have voted "Yes", but I don't want what the OP is suggesting. My ideas I listed on Pg.3 for example are not compatible with theirs.

Diplomacy should be expanded through the existing plot system and make certain criteria for coalitions and ceasefires to form in the face of very powerful opponents (player included). A full dynamic system would be a disaster.

Also those who are either not interested in diplomacy or don't care either way are going to be less likely to participate in this discussion or even click on the thread, so naturally the vote is going to be skewed towards "Yes".

The poll I think is simplified because this thread is not about advocating one idea over another simply that we would like or not like to see some elements of diplomacy in the game. Clearly 74% of people (small sample) want *something*, they might not know what it is they want yet which gives the devs freedom to experiment and figure what they would like to do.

It could be released as a 'DLC' to begin with introducing a few elements and see how players react. If players react positively, then we're likely to see more of that. If they respond negatively, then of course we won't see many feature updates in that area and could even see the DLC being removed.

+1 I'm personally advocating for basic diplomacy as outline in my original post below the poll but I would hope the developers take the basic functionality and run with it in a way that stays true to the sandbox of X4

[dayang]

You too have noticed that the X-games are very simple, not complex?

It could be released as a 'DLC' ...

The SV and CoH DLC's did include "plots" that affect some diplomatic status. No DLC adds mechanic, do they? That is all in the exe.

As far as I'm aware this is 'true' so far. I'm unclear whether this needs to remain true, certainly for things that a sizeable portion of players would like and a sizeable portion of players that would be against or don't want.

Personally I can't see how X4 can be a 'simulation' with factions, without having the ability to 'negotiate', whether that's in terms of trade, military, territory or even protection rights. Factions are pretty cheesy tbh. I can kill a few criminals at a station 20 times to get my rep up to 20 (more or less), which is stupidly easy before pirating a ship or six and getting only a -6 rep (more or less), temporary -50 something of course.

[hebrux]

You too have noticed that the X-games are very simple, not complex?

It could be released as a 'DLC' ...

The SV and CoH DLC's did include "plots" that affect some diplomatic status. No DLC adds mechanic, do they? That is all in the exe.

As far as I'm aware this is 'true' so far. I'm unclear whether this needs to remain true, certainly for things that a sizeable portion of players would like and a sizeable portion of players that would be against or don't want.

Personally I can't see how X4 can be a 'simulation' with factions, without having the ability to 'negotiate', whether that's in terms of trade, military, territory or even protection rights.

Exactly. Or maybe negotiate a non-agressive pact that means that friendly fire is automatically nullified and an apology is sent (unless that agreement is broken, which will also give a diplomatic hit to the breaker of the agreement, especially if they declare war right after)

[jlehtone]

Out of curiosity, are the following two views agreeing or disagreeing?

Make it possible for them to win a war and normalize relations without having to farm criminal mass traffic and they will be happy.

Factions are pretty cheesy tbh. I can kill a few criminals at a station 20 times to get my rep up to 20 (more or less), which is stupidly easy before pirating a ship or six and getting only a -6 rep (more or less), temporary -50 something of course.

[dayang]

Out of curiosity, are the following two views agreeing or disagreeing?

Make it possible for them to win a war and normalize relations without having to farm criminal mass traffic and they will be happy.

Factions are pretty cheesy tbh. I can kill a few criminals at a station 20 times to get my rep up to 20 (more or less), which is stupidly easy before pirating a ship or six and getting only a -6 rep (more or less), temporary -50 something of course.

We're agreeing, we just having different views on how to solve the problem.

Hector0x appears to be suggesting to either add new reputation increasing features or to increase the rewards from other activities.

I'm suggesting to reduce the reward for criminal mass traffic.

I'm not particularly beholden to my view.

[jlehtone]

We're agreeing, we just having different views on how to solve the problem.

I.e. neither likes it as is. "Why" it is unlikable for each then leads to the different alternatives.

[Hector0x]

Out of curiosity, are the following two views agreeing or disagreeing?

Make it possible for them to win a war and normalize relations without having to farm criminal mass traffic and they will be happy.

Factions are pretty cheesy tbh. I can kill a few criminals at a station 20 times to get my rep up to 20 (more or less), which is stupidly easy before pirating a ship or six and getting only a -6 rep (more or less), temporary -50 something of course.

We're agreeing, we just having different views on how to solve the problem.

Hector0x appears to be suggesting to either add new reputation increasing features or to increase the rewards from other activities.

I'm suggesting to reduce the reward for criminal mass traffic.

I'm not particularly beholden to my view.

I actually believe that we've got opposite views here
To me your statement reads as "farming mass traffic is very easy and lost rep can be repaired quickly".

My statement is this:
- "farming mass traffic" is the only viable way to repair lost reputation
- nobody actually enjoys doing it so everybody just avoids to loose too much rep
- the Xenon end up being the player's only enemy.
- if the player could defeat a faction without having to farm mass traffic afterwards this would make the game more enjoyable. It shouldn't be necessary to farm (lots of) mass traffic at all. 2 or 3 is good. But the player spawn camps them and this feels like bad game design.

My thesis is that people who ask for diplomacy do so because they hate mass traffic farming.

[Captain_Canard]

I got sucked into this debate on Steam, here I'll just stick "to the facts" for the sake of any developer reading this. I'm personally not looking to become an empire like the OP - that's not how I play X4. It does sound like that the OP's idea would not force diplomacy on players like me, but rather that diplomacy would be "unlocked" once players own X amount of sectors and / or assets. If that's the case, I can't think of any reason to oppose it, as long as it's done right, doesn't introduce game-breaking bugs, and doesn't affect performance.

That said, there are diplomatic "features" that I would like to see added to the game. First one is to add more options to the custom save game when it comes to faction-to-faction relationships. Let me customize how each faction feels about another faction, including setting factions at war with another (TEL vs ZYA, VIG vs TEL & ARG, or even something less likely, like Argons vs Antigone). Along with this, allow me to set the "attitude" of each faction - peaceful, competitive, conquering, etc. I would love to take on the Split as the warlord conquerors that they're represented as in the books. I can do this now, to limited extend, by editing the save file, but it should just be an option in custom game.

My second request is that no matter how big I am as a "faction", I would like the ability to communicate to my close allies (20+ rep) that I need assistance and / or that their assets are under attack. It's very immersion-breaking when I'm in Second Contact defending allied stations from HOP, XEN, and TER attack fleets, all the while those allies (whose stations are at risk) are off in some corner of the sector flying in circles. This could be an extra option or two in the comm channel, things like "Requesting assistance" or "Enemy detected at my location". The game could be scripted to have the receiver of those comms (and any fleet they control) to "attack all enemies in area" where I'm at, which is a cheap way for the developers to add a bit more upper-level management (an "admiral AI" if you will) to the game.

I could see other options being added to the communication menu as well, as a form of very minor "diplomacy". The comms feature is underutilized as it currently is. I'll allow the imagination of others to fill in some of the things we could communicate to ships and stations that would change how our allies (and enemies) interact with their surroundings.

[Hector0x]

Calling for support is a very good idea actually. I'll keep this in mind. Should be relatively easy to implement since the faction logic already coordinates NPC patrol fleets based on reported enemy presence. It should be possible to log enemies near the player and put that report on high priority in the patrol investigation to do list (if player has good enough standing)

[Tilen]

Calling for support is a very good idea actually. I'll keep this in mind. Should be relatively easy to implement since the faction logic already coordinates NPC patrol fleets based on reported enemy presence. It should be possible to log enemies near the player and put that report on high priority in the patrol investigation to do list (if player has good enough standing)

Yes, yes and yes!!

I also have a semi-related idea: Mercenaries. What if the player could recruit mercenary captains (ships) for half the cost of purchasing the actual ship. The mercenary would not be controlled by the player, but it would join the player’s squad with a “attack with commander” command. It would be a nice credit sink.

[jlehtone]

It should be possible to log enemies near the player and put that report on high priority in the patrol investigation to do list (if player has good enough standing)

As long as it does not make it too easy to pull all sector defenders to chase far off "encounter" randoms (while our real attack fleet is on their doorsteps, ready to open fire without declaration of war^H^H^H "special operation").


Elon Musk or Kim Jong Un? Influential member of one faction or a de-facto faction? What would make the former a reality?

[hebrux]

I got sucked into this debate on Steam, here I'll just stick "to the facts" for the sake of any developer reading this. I'm personally not looking to become an empire like the OP - that's not how I play X4. It does sound like that the OP's idea would not force diplomacy on players like me, but rather that diplomacy would be "unlocked" once players own X amount of sectors and / or assets. If that's the case, I can't think of any reason to oppose it, as long as it's done right, doesn't introduce game-breaking bugs, and doesn't affect performance.

+1

[Old Drullo321]

In my opinion I don't need a complete revamp of the current (a bit stale) system because i think it is probably too costly in terms of development time.

However I would like to see improvements to the current systems in terms of some adjustments to existing plots plus possible choices in future free or DLC plots. Why?

Playing and developing a X4 savegame easily needs three digits hours to reach some goals, therefore you may not want to start anew so easily. A custom gamestart won't help here because either some lategame rewards aren't available as options (like terraforming, especially terraforming scale plate green is a game changer) or different outcomes won't solve the issues (e.g. choosing either side in PAR plot).

For example, in my current playthrough i completed every terraforming project but didn't touch the PAR and some other plots because the complete diplomatic results are not satisfying. If you choose TEM, there isn't any option ever to involve the TEL in any sort of conflict besides XEN. If you choose TRI -> War vs All, you lose access to half of the available guilds without any replacements, a crucial cut on money, nividium and mod parts.

Each major plot decision is for good or worse very impactful and will accompany you for the rest of your playthrough. That is tough for something you may complete in your first 25-50h of a 300h+ long savegame. And it isn't nice to see the TEL, even without any economical help, stomping the XEN out of existence 200h later into the game just because you made the wrong decision long time ago. If I buy the wrong upgrades in Brotato in wave 18 of 20, i wasted 20 minutes of my life, so what. If I do the same in X4, it isn't just easy to restart because there are so many things that just take hours to complete. Credits are the least issue. Some neccessary stations take ingame days to complete. Farming hundreds of purple mod component take ages. I just don't want to restart.

Therefore it would be really nice to expand on the current very static plot choice, even if it is only a bit. There is no need to go against any long lasting lore (like ARG-BOR peace) but something, where the player has the choice to influence some of their long lasting plot decisions.

[hebrux]

Calling for support is a very good idea actually. I'll keep this in mind. Should be relatively easy to implement since the faction logic already coordinates NPC patrol fleets based on reported enemy presence. It should be possible to log enemies near the player and put that report on high priority in the patrol investigation to do list (if player has good enough standing)

Yes, yes and yes!!

I also have a semi-related idea: Mercenaries. What if the player could recruit mercenary captains (ships) for half the cost of purchasing the actual ship. The mercenary would not be controlled by the player, but it would join the player’s squad with a “attack with commander” command. It would be a nice credit sink.

lol that sounds like a great mod idea but getting back to the basic diplomacy outlined in my OP, I feel like a Mod would do that functionality injustice. Once the modder decides to abandon the game or a new game update rolls out, the mod may be broken.

A longer term solution would be to have basic diplomacy based on faction level be a feature in the vanilla game