Faction Presence
Idea to solidify what it is to be a faction.
In SE1 NPC faction presence is temporary and player factions are formed on the fly.
Could it be that forming a faction required a unifying body such as a fixed base or large vessel. It has to exist somewhere in the system, be of reasonable size and always operational. Should the faction base be destroyed then the faction would be considered as defeated and its members disbanded. Any remote remaining faction outpost would be available to the disbanded members to create and form a new faction or factions.
Factions could develop in scale tiers so the their presence level would be known.
Details could include fleet size, number and scale of bases, economy, operational bias.
Any player not in a faction can be either a rōnin or a company with max 5 members.
Both rōnin and companies are not bound by loyalties to any faction can gain or loose reputation for the work they do, but not gain or loose reputation indirectly with other factions.
A players status would affect their trading terms.
Faction member would get full discounts and freebies within the faction, and discounts with allies. Access to faction contracts.
Company member would get trade discounts anywhere and temporary faction discount at one docked base on completion of a contract mission, until undocked. Access to company contracts.
A rōnin would get no discount. Access to rōnin contracts.
If a rōnin or company build a sizeable base or vessel they can apply for Faction status.
Benefits of being a faction.
A faction can :
Make territorial claims.
Diplomatically engage with other factions.(or declare war or isolation)
Appear on the faction empire leader board.
Declare a company as pirates.
Offer bounties on rōnin.
Create contracts.
Have access to advanced technologies.
There is bound to be holes in my thinking, if you find one could you also think of a way that it could work.
I like this feedback
I know that in SE1 entities singular or grouped were considered factions, I am proposing that a status be given to the entities that indicate the size of the entities presence and capability. This will give the player information on the likely outcomes of any encounter with another entity. It may allow the player to think twice before putting a bounty on their heads.
My use of the word rōnin is arbitrary as I could not think of another name a the time that would express the idea.
The other aspect of this is to create more organised NPC presence, one that can be viewed as a continuing challenge and one where a faction could have an end game. Although victory over a faction may be obtained there will always be more factions.
I know that in SE1 entities singular or grouped were considered factions, I am proposing that a status be given to the entities that indicate the size of the entities presence and capability. This will give the player information on the likely outcomes of any encounter with another entity. It may allow the player to think twice before putting a bounty on their heads.
My use of the word rōnin is arbitrary as I could not think of another name a the time that would express the idea.
The other aspect of this is to create more organised NPC presence, one that can be viewed as a continuing challenge and one where a faction could have an end game. Although victory over a faction may be obtained there will always be more factions.
I'm all for giving people more stuff they can do, but this aint it and would not only punish people potentially who have no desire to join a faction but lead to massive exploiting and cheese with how you've structured it here. There's way too many open ended things you've suggested with this that respectfully you clearly haven't thought out at all. These may not be in order as I address them.
First off, if I want to form a faction, tribe, clan or whatever you want to call it in game, why should I have to keep some kind of structure on the map to be considered part of said faction when that's never been a thing before? And why should I have to worry that my faction is going to be forcibly disbanded because the "heart" of the faction was destroyed? This just incentivizes people to attack the magic grid/item instead of outright going against the faction directly. If I want to get a group together and play with friends, I should be allowed to do so without having to constantly worry about the game forcibly disbanding our clan and then going through the headache of redoing it every single time. That's just moronic.
"Any remote remaining faction outpost would be available to the disbanded members to create and form a new faction or factions."
This would need to be far enough away from other players that they can just cheese this to spawn on top of people.
"Factions could develop in scale tiers so the their presence level would be known.
Details could include fleet size, number and scale of bases, economy, operational bias."
Pardon my french but this is an automatic hell no. If they want this information they can find it out the old fashioned way of trying to coax it out, doing ye old espionage, or so on. This is basically giving away intel for free and this is a steaming stinking 2 billion pounds of nope in a 2 pound bag. They do not need to know every single asset I have nor should they without putting in the work to find out on their own. This is like playing a card game such as MTG and then immediately wanting to know colors are in the person's hand, how good the cards of his hand are, and what kind of deck it is. Just no. You want that info, earn it.
"Any player not in a faction can be either a rōnin or a company with max 5 members."
This is just factions-lite and you my as well just call it another type of faction but one with limited size.
"Make territorial claims.
Appear on the faction empire leader board."
This age of empires or similar types of games where you control territory and so on. And unless they're adding a new pvp specific game mode where a leaderboard would be valid, we do NOT need stuff like this in game. Knowing your reputation or lack of with certain factions is one thing, but outside of dedicated game modes where a leader board makes sense this is a sandbox game and having a leaderboard makes no sense.
"Have access to advanced technologies."
Yeah no, just no. This punishes people who dare not join a faction and wish to play on their own or with one or two other people and essentially holds a gun to their head saying "join a faction or else" if they want to progress. When you lock content behind a clan system you may as well just auto-assign people to a "team" when they first join. And if you have to level up the faction through tiers as you mentioned before, something like this also incentivizes people to stick exclusively to the clans that already have everything done.
"It has to exist somewhere in the system, be of reasonable size and always operational."
I saved this one for last because while you may not intend it to come off as wanting to punish others for building "incorrectly" that's how it comes off to me. How are we defining what is "reasonable size" and what happens if I wish to build over/under said "reasonable size"? Are we going by grid weight, block count, or what? And if I want to shut down the grid temporarily to improve/expand on it, why should I not be allowed to? I already build on a large enough scale as is, and no on is going to dictate to me that I'm building "too big" just because they don't like it. That's a moment of them needing to stay in their own lane. Setting aside the other aspects of this saying that it "must be of reasonable size" implies there is an unreasonable size. If I'm able to build a giant Voth City ship and get it moving like a fighter, who the heck is anyone to tell me I shouldn't be allowed to do it?
If you actually want to give factions more purpose and stuff for them to do, this aint it.
I'm all for giving people more stuff they can do, but this aint it and would not only punish people potentially who have no desire to join a faction but lead to massive exploiting and cheese with how you've structured it here. There's way too many open ended things you've suggested with this that respectfully you clearly haven't thought out at all. These may not be in order as I address them.
First off, if I want to form a faction, tribe, clan or whatever you want to call it in game, why should I have to keep some kind of structure on the map to be considered part of said faction when that's never been a thing before? And why should I have to worry that my faction is going to be forcibly disbanded because the "heart" of the faction was destroyed? This just incentivizes people to attack the magic grid/item instead of outright going against the faction directly. If I want to get a group together and play with friends, I should be allowed to do so without having to constantly worry about the game forcibly disbanding our clan and then going through the headache of redoing it every single time. That's just moronic.
"Any remote remaining faction outpost would be available to the disbanded members to create and form a new faction or factions."
This would need to be far enough away from other players that they can just cheese this to spawn on top of people.
"Factions could develop in scale tiers so the their presence level would be known.
Details could include fleet size, number and scale of bases, economy, operational bias."
Pardon my french but this is an automatic hell no. If they want this information they can find it out the old fashioned way of trying to coax it out, doing ye old espionage, or so on. This is basically giving away intel for free and this is a steaming stinking 2 billion pounds of nope in a 2 pound bag. They do not need to know every single asset I have nor should they without putting in the work to find out on their own. This is like playing a card game such as MTG and then immediately wanting to know colors are in the person's hand, how good the cards of his hand are, and what kind of deck it is. Just no. You want that info, earn it.
"Any player not in a faction can be either a rōnin or a company with max 5 members."
This is just factions-lite and you my as well just call it another type of faction but one with limited size.
"Make territorial claims.
Appear on the faction empire leader board."
This age of empires or similar types of games where you control territory and so on. And unless they're adding a new pvp specific game mode where a leaderboard would be valid, we do NOT need stuff like this in game. Knowing your reputation or lack of with certain factions is one thing, but outside of dedicated game modes where a leader board makes sense this is a sandbox game and having a leaderboard makes no sense.
"Have access to advanced technologies."
Yeah no, just no. This punishes people who dare not join a faction and wish to play on their own or with one or two other people and essentially holds a gun to their head saying "join a faction or else" if they want to progress. When you lock content behind a clan system you may as well just auto-assign people to a "team" when they first join. And if you have to level up the faction through tiers as you mentioned before, something like this also incentivizes people to stick exclusively to the clans that already have everything done.
"It has to exist somewhere in the system, be of reasonable size and always operational."
I saved this one for last because while you may not intend it to come off as wanting to punish others for building "incorrectly" that's how it comes off to me. How are we defining what is "reasonable size" and what happens if I wish to build over/under said "reasonable size"? Are we going by grid weight, block count, or what? And if I want to shut down the grid temporarily to improve/expand on it, why should I not be allowed to? I already build on a large enough scale as is, and no on is going to dictate to me that I'm building "too big" just because they don't like it. That's a moment of them needing to stay in their own lane. Setting aside the other aspects of this saying that it "must be of reasonable size" implies there is an unreasonable size. If I'm able to build a giant Voth City ship and get it moving like a fighter, who the heck is anyone to tell me I shouldn't be allowed to do it?
If you actually want to give factions more purpose and stuff for them to do, this aint it.
I don't see the true Utility of this in terms of gameplay. It seems only to limit a player's (players') ability to play the game and tell the story they want to play. Besides that some of the functions you mention act to provide details to other factions and players they should not have unless they invest and risk to get them.
It also must be said this whole concept seems overwhelmingly focused on larger scale MP play. It offers little to solo or very small group play styles
I don't see the true Utility of this in terms of gameplay. It seems only to limit a player's (players') ability to play the game and tell the story they want to play. Besides that some of the functions you mention act to provide details to other factions and players they should not have unless they invest and risk to get them.
It also must be said this whole concept seems overwhelmingly focused on larger scale MP play. It offers little to solo or very small group play styles
Hi Blade, it is not my intention to raise your blood pressure, though I do worry sometimes, but it is good to have your input. My post is the essence of an idea, not its its final form, I was hoping that with input like yours and others it could be fashioned into something acceptable.
Welcome to some disorganised notes:
SE1 is an open ended sandbox, that can have campaigns that give completion, although the ability to create these campaigns requires both time and skill. For many players for SE1 sandbox experience does not always satisfy, other options are available, such as on MP servers, creative mode and gameplay with mods. I watched players create custom worlds with restrictions, and add mods that give a greater combat challenge, all to keep their interest in game play going. The creativity is brilliant!. For SE2 to give more in its sandbox experience and feel more alive, the presence of NPCs will need to be more tangible, have history, and status beyond reputation.
Part of my post is to address the single player experience, where an NPC faction presence has more game.
Exploitation and Cheese! - I am going to exploit a really good piece of Italian Provolone in a bit.
'Take it if you think you can.' Training and Kung Fu Panda (might be a misquote or it could be from an old Jackie Chan movie).
Why worry about protecting your faction base? Having something to protect extends your resource ops.
What is the point of experiencing a loss?- Everyone enjoys a come back, Rocky did it.
Territory - you only get to keep what you can police. All things can be contended, but it is good to know who's toes you are stepping on.
If you have a group that you wish to maintain, that should not be a problem. I can see no reason why you can not have your old faction in a new game. You could even have a re-establish faction option in the same game as you lost it. Your faction base can be a mothership, if you loose it your clan will be divided. Your options would be to remain as individual or form companies until you can re-establish a new mothership. Once this has been achieve you could re-establish the faction with one click from the clan leader, or their second. The previous members would be required to click on rejoin faction/clan, job done.
What is the point, everyone gets to see that you were publicly defeated. Think of the fall of the Roman empire, what happened to its outposts after the sacking of Rome.You will fight harder for it not to happen.
Faction details need not be specific but within group ranges, in fact it could even be misleading and not necessarily up to date. The idea is to inform other groups not to bite off more than you can chew. It also will encourage an arms race among those that wish to compete. Location data is not available.
Let us assume that a certain amount of information will be publicly available among the trading factions, you can not keep everything secret, but you can keep some.
If ship registration is a thing for 'free trade and peace of mind' ,then quite a few bits of information will be shared.
factions-lite, is a way of differentiating gameplay styles.
Full faction, company and rōnin each offer advantages and disadvantages. There are choices to be made, as a rōnin or company your operations would be much harder to pin down. It could be that a company has joined others in a cartel and together would have a force to reckoned with and mostly undocumented. There would be nothing to stop rōnin and companies from obtaining advanced tech from the factions that have it, by fair means or fowl.
A company size of 5 is just a guess, 5 people working together should not be too difficult. It will really depend on how SE2 multi-player turns out.
If calling it a leader board is a problem, then call it something else like Corporate Trading Data or turn the system off in your game, just like you can do with the weather.
Entry level to Faction Status - base size.
I use words like 'reasonable' on purpose, I would like to think that it means from reason, in its old fashioned and honest form.
My initial take would be :
You will have maxed out your tech tree to just below that of a faction.
You have a base with a store of resources no less than 100 of each component type, some amount of ingots, raw materials, can minimally defend itself, has as least one functional block of each type excluding wheels, has a docking and fuelling facility, can keep itself powered for at least 10 days(can change), can optionally have a disco floor(will be shown on public data). (All values can nerfed into something that works.)
Progression in technology also needs more meaning.
Many players want more from the basic game, SE2 wants to be different from SE1, SE2 wants to be 10x, how will it get there?
I have probably missed something again, please tell me. You can come up with solutions too.
Hi Blade, it is not my intention to raise your blood pressure, though I do worry sometimes, but it is good to have your input. My post is the essence of an idea, not its its final form, I was hoping that with input like yours and others it could be fashioned into something acceptable.
Welcome to some disorganised notes:
SE1 is an open ended sandbox, that can have campaigns that give completion, although the ability to create these campaigns requires both time and skill. For many players for SE1 sandbox experience does not always satisfy, other options are available, such as on MP servers, creative mode and gameplay with mods. I watched players create custom worlds with restrictions, and add mods that give a greater combat challenge, all to keep their interest in game play going. The creativity is brilliant!. For SE2 to give more in its sandbox experience and feel more alive, the presence of NPCs will need to be more tangible, have history, and status beyond reputation.
Part of my post is to address the single player experience, where an NPC faction presence has more game.
Exploitation and Cheese! - I am going to exploit a really good piece of Italian Provolone in a bit.
'Take it if you think you can.' Training and Kung Fu Panda (might be a misquote or it could be from an old Jackie Chan movie).
Why worry about protecting your faction base? Having something to protect extends your resource ops.
What is the point of experiencing a loss?- Everyone enjoys a come back, Rocky did it.
Territory - you only get to keep what you can police. All things can be contended, but it is good to know who's toes you are stepping on.
If you have a group that you wish to maintain, that should not be a problem. I can see no reason why you can not have your old faction in a new game. You could even have a re-establish faction option in the same game as you lost it. Your faction base can be a mothership, if you loose it your clan will be divided. Your options would be to remain as individual or form companies until you can re-establish a new mothership. Once this has been achieve you could re-establish the faction with one click from the clan leader, or their second. The previous members would be required to click on rejoin faction/clan, job done.
What is the point, everyone gets to see that you were publicly defeated. Think of the fall of the Roman empire, what happened to its outposts after the sacking of Rome.You will fight harder for it not to happen.
Faction details need not be specific but within group ranges, in fact it could even be misleading and not necessarily up to date. The idea is to inform other groups not to bite off more than you can chew. It also will encourage an arms race among those that wish to compete. Location data is not available.
Let us assume that a certain amount of information will be publicly available among the trading factions, you can not keep everything secret, but you can keep some.
If ship registration is a thing for 'free trade and peace of mind' ,then quite a few bits of information will be shared.
factions-lite, is a way of differentiating gameplay styles.
Full faction, company and rōnin each offer advantages and disadvantages. There are choices to be made, as a rōnin or company your operations would be much harder to pin down. It could be that a company has joined others in a cartel and together would have a force to reckoned with and mostly undocumented. There would be nothing to stop rōnin and companies from obtaining advanced tech from the factions that have it, by fair means or fowl.
A company size of 5 is just a guess, 5 people working together should not be too difficult. It will really depend on how SE2 multi-player turns out.
If calling it a leader board is a problem, then call it something else like Corporate Trading Data or turn the system off in your game, just like you can do with the weather.
Entry level to Faction Status - base size.
I use words like 'reasonable' on purpose, I would like to think that it means from reason, in its old fashioned and honest form.
My initial take would be :
You will have maxed out your tech tree to just below that of a faction.
You have a base with a store of resources no less than 100 of each component type, some amount of ingots, raw materials, can minimally defend itself, has as least one functional block of each type excluding wheels, has a docking and fuelling facility, can keep itself powered for at least 10 days(can change), can optionally have a disco floor(will be shown on public data). (All values can nerfed into something that works.)
Progression in technology also needs more meaning.
Many players want more from the basic game, SE2 wants to be different from SE1, SE2 wants to be 10x, how will it get there?
I have probably missed something again, please tell me. You can come up with solutions too.
I will have to tackle objections in bits.
Your privacy should be respected, but when you go out and walk along the street people can see what you are wearing, what colour your hair is, how tall you are. You are not walking around in a large cardboard box. Many stores will now track your phone in store, your face is identified against known data bases, your payment card details and purchases are registered.
When you are a ship moving goods between countries, your route is known, you have a transponder letting other ships know where you are so as not to crash into them. When you get to port, the port authorities effectively take over your ship and pilot it into dock. Your full manifest will be available to them, they have the right whilst in port to inspect your vessel and hold it if it is at fault. If all is well, your cargo is unloaded, new cargo is added, you refuel and off you go. All vessels docking at major ports will be documented and details will be added to a database. If you fly under a flag, are owned by a corporation, and operate on normal trade routes your details will be known. The carry weight of the ship can roughly be gauged by its current draft.
I am not suggesting all of this be in SE, but as far as privacy is concerned you can not hide it all when you interact with other parties.
The rules of port procedures have evolved over centuries to protect the interests of the port and allow safe trading to take place, it still does not always work.
More to follow..
I will have to tackle objections in bits.
Your privacy should be respected, but when you go out and walk along the street people can see what you are wearing, what colour your hair is, how tall you are. You are not walking around in a large cardboard box. Many stores will now track your phone in store, your face is identified against known data bases, your payment card details and purchases are registered.
When you are a ship moving goods between countries, your route is known, you have a transponder letting other ships know where you are so as not to crash into them. When you get to port, the port authorities effectively take over your ship and pilot it into dock. Your full manifest will be available to them, they have the right whilst in port to inspect your vessel and hold it if it is at fault. If all is well, your cargo is unloaded, new cargo is added, you refuel and off you go. All vessels docking at major ports will be documented and details will be added to a database. If you fly under a flag, are owned by a corporation, and operate on normal trade routes your details will be known. The carry weight of the ship can roughly be gauged by its current draft.
I am not suggesting all of this be in SE, but as far as privacy is concerned you can not hide it all when you interact with other parties.
The rules of port procedures have evolved over centuries to protect the interests of the port and allow safe trading to take place, it still does not always work.
More to follow..
Another bit (02)
Rates of ore extraction would not be determined by your group status.
By 'extends your resource ops' I meant the distances on your supply lines, your fleet and personnel.
mtf.
Another bit (02)
Rates of ore extraction would not be determined by your group status.
By 'extends your resource ops' I meant the distances on your supply lines, your fleet and personnel.
mtf.
Another bit (03)
Player punishment - I am a little confused here and probably need some help.
Where does the challenge of the game end and the punishment start?
Another question would be, the value of grind?
When you put the work in, do you appreciate the end more? When is it no longer work, but grind, or hopelessness?
mtf.
Another bit (03)
Player punishment - I am a little confused here and probably need some help.
Where does the challenge of the game end and the punishment start?
Another question would be, the value of grind?
When you put the work in, do you appreciate the end more? When is it no longer work, but grind, or hopelessness?
mtf.
Another bit (04)
Gameplay - Keen has stated that they would like to attract new players to SE2 and would like to reduce the learning curve for them. They are looking to create the appearance of a living world for these new players to keep them interested whilst learning the ropes. Mods will not do this. Mods are great and really extend gameplay, but new players need a little more context, lore, and things going on that they can interact with, goals that they can set themselves to achieve. Some of the gameplay in other games could be relevant, not dismissed so easily, and still be used respectfully in the SE concept. Something familiar from other games may help new players to come over to SE2, this will require care and balance.
Too much caution makes nothing, too little makes a mess, happy that we are here to help each other.
mtf.
Another bit (04)
Gameplay - Keen has stated that they would like to attract new players to SE2 and would like to reduce the learning curve for them. They are looking to create the appearance of a living world for these new players to keep them interested whilst learning the ropes. Mods will not do this. Mods are great and really extend gameplay, but new players need a little more context, lore, and things going on that they can interact with, goals that they can set themselves to achieve. Some of the gameplay in other games could be relevant, not dismissed so easily, and still be used respectfully in the SE concept. Something familiar from other games may help new players to come over to SE2, this will require care and balance.
Too much caution makes nothing, too little makes a mess, happy that we are here to help each other.
mtf.
Territorial Claims -
They are just claims, you can have your map someone else can have theirs, they do not have be the same, but could cover the same area. Normally, territory requires a larger authority to maintain, mutual respect, and a consensus. Any of this could break down. As for Eve, I wanted to play Eve but decided that it looked too tedious and time consuming in a subservient state for the collective of a faction. I liked AoE until it started to look like a maths exercise chasing its own tail. Can not stand Risk. Never played Smite or LoL, I liked Snipe, Rogue, original Elite on a model A, Battle for Wesnoth, warzone2100, and early days Neverwinter when its economy was fun. I like SE the most.
My issue is with the vast empty openness of Carl Sagan's version of space with nothing in it and not much to do. If you see a claim on a rock somewhere, then their must be a someone and they must be somewhere, a presence, the imagination can do a lot of the rest, but helps even more if there is a someone and somewhere else.
I still like to boldly go where no man has gone before, to explore and discover, that means that something is out there in the emptiness.
mtf. maybe.
Territorial Claims -
They are just claims, you can have your map someone else can have theirs, they do not have be the same, but could cover the same area. Normally, territory requires a larger authority to maintain, mutual respect, and a consensus. Any of this could break down. As for Eve, I wanted to play Eve but decided that it looked too tedious and time consuming in a subservient state for the collective of a faction. I liked AoE until it started to look like a maths exercise chasing its own tail. Can not stand Risk. Never played Smite or LoL, I liked Snipe, Rogue, original Elite on a model A, Battle for Wesnoth, warzone2100, and early days Neverwinter when its economy was fun. I like SE the most.
My issue is with the vast empty openness of Carl Sagan's version of space with nothing in it and not much to do. If you see a claim on a rock somewhere, then their must be a someone and they must be somewhere, a presence, the imagination can do a lot of the rest, but helps even more if there is a someone and somewhere else.
I still like to boldly go where no man has gone before, to explore and discover, that means that something is out there in the emptiness.
mtf. maybe.
@G.J.
I was not really thinking much about multi-player, but would not wish to exclude them.
My hope is that the NPC character system would be such that you could join one of their factions or companies or vice versa.
I am not into restricting players unless it positively enhances gameplay. I am looking for ways things can work, the pitfalls that could be overcome and the things to drop. I can not foresee everyone's perspectives on this and appreciate the input.
I am now thinking that by trying to give greater structure to NPC faction presence, that the players may feel restricted by having have to operate under the same system. This is not my intention, so how to make this right?
I am now thinking about affiliated factions where there is an option to join the affiliation or not. Whereby your faction joining the affiliation you get to play by their rules and get the benefits offered. I imagine that this could be in the form of a trading alliance.
As for territory, if a stranded engineer, lost in space has a map of places to get assistance, not matter how far, then the engineer has hope.(Not ending up as Robinson Crusoe.) SE1 did this with a single location on a datapad. SE2 could do this better, having a map is not a new thing, but it is a commitment.
@G.J.
I was not really thinking much about multi-player, but would not wish to exclude them.
My hope is that the NPC character system would be such that you could join one of their factions or companies or vice versa.
I am not into restricting players unless it positively enhances gameplay. I am looking for ways things can work, the pitfalls that could be overcome and the things to drop. I can not foresee everyone's perspectives on this and appreciate the input.
I am now thinking that by trying to give greater structure to NPC faction presence, that the players may feel restricted by having have to operate under the same system. This is not my intention, so how to make this right?
I am now thinking about affiliated factions where there is an option to join the affiliation or not. Whereby your faction joining the affiliation you get to play by their rules and get the benefits offered. I imagine that this could be in the form of a trading alliance.
As for territory, if a stranded engineer, lost in space has a map of places to get assistance, not matter how far, then the engineer has hope.(Not ending up as Robinson Crusoe.) SE1 did this with a single location on a datapad. SE2 could do this better, having a map is not a new thing, but it is a commitment.
Replies have been locked on this page!