Factions and Production: The Methods for Leveling in Gameplay

Points and Levels Vs Resources and Tech

If the game progression is tied to getting 'points', as points rewarded by doing things such as exploring, finding unique encounters, finding ores, contracts, and those points are needed for unlocking blocks, or buffs to your stats, or access to unique gear... that all is a very different progression system than the building of production chains, gathering resources, or unlocking new tech by development.

Unlocking upgrades with points vs unlocking upgrades through building out capability, are two different systems that should be separated cleanly, one for faction advancement, and one for individual overall block/tech progression. Should a player with a higher level beat a player with a bigger ship?

The argument:

A 'level' is a rank in a group, and that group bestows upon you more perks the higher up you go. Think of an army, the higher rank you achieve, the more authority you get. The issue is, that your rank and authority are not your own, but rewarded to you from a higher authority. That key concept causes confusion for game systems that try to 'blur' the two concepts together, one benefits from a higher authority that can enforce them, the other are what resources or skills you develop individually, leading to poor gameplay.

The Problem

A level a character has is a common game concept, and draws inspiration from RPGs, and RPGs get their inspiration from wargaming, and wargaming gets it's inspiration from the military, which is rank based. What this means is that different units under your command have authority based on their unit and abilities. A 'level' is who tells who what to do, and what that level has access to from a faction's resources. When rpg's snagged that idea of levels...they applied it to their -whole- game world. Meaning the entire world is a giant 'faction', with every person born advancing along the world's rank and file, and the -world- giving you perks and resources over everyone else as you progress, whether they want to be in that faction or not.

This leads to intelligibility and arbitrary logical problems for their worlds. For example:

Arbitrary change: "I hit level 10 and got an extra 100 hitpoints!" "Why?" "Because I'm level 10!" "...oh."

Un-Intelligible result: "That level 10 farmboy just defeated that level 2 General in combat!" "Why?" "Because he is level 10!" "...oh."

Experience points are faction loyalty points. You do what they reward for, they give you points. Get enough, you advance. A resource gathering system, on the other hand, rewards you for what you actually do. You want a bakery? Get the money, buy the building, learn to bake, and sell. How well you do is based on your abilities.

Example 1

You have two people, one a Sergeant in the military, the other a local baker. The Sergeant has authority over everyone below him in his 'faction', as given by the military. The baker has what he individually managed to build up, and his skills. He relates to other people based on what he can individually do. Now...say the Sergeant lost all his money and was broke. Has he lost his granted authority? No, he is still a Sergeant. Now say the baker had a fire, and his building burnt down. Has he lost his current ability to bake? Yes, but not his skills. He could try to open another business, or go work for a restaurant. His skills and abilities he unlocked remain with him.

What does that mean for SE2? If block progression, and tech progression, and suit upgrades, and player's stats are tied to a 'level', then no matter what he actually does, as long as he hits those loyalty points, he will have authority(as in military) over every -other- player in the game world. It encourages a different type of progression, and discourages the player actually developing his resource base and personal skill. If those levels were tied to a in-game faction, then it would be fine. He can only do what they can enforce, which would make sense.

Example 2

You have a sergeant who gathers a lot of trade goods, but quits the military. Can he enforce his old authority over people still in the military? No. Can he enforce his military enforcement power over other normal people? No. He can only deal with situations as his personal skill and resources enable. What if the baker joins the military. Can he jump to a Sergeant because of his accomplishments as a baker? No, he starts from the bottom.

If there are different factions in SE2, then those factions can give different perks and resources to a player in that faction. That is a separate progression from general individual game progression, which is tech and block progression. We currently are part of a de-facto 'colonization' faction, and it is a combination of the two. All players -must- do it by points for overall advancement, as they are tied together. This would be like a Sergeant automatically becoming a better baker by becoming a Captain, or like a Baker becoming a Corporal by adding a second shop.

So, the question is:

In a world leveling system, if a player spends all his time earning 'loyalty' points to increase his level, by exploration, running contracts, finding random encounters, etc., while another player spends all his time developing his 'infrastructure', mining ore, building blocks, developing higher tech, and then the two come into conflict...which -should- win? The one who has nothing but a higher level, or the one with more resources?