Influence Discussion

For what's not in 'Top Priority Game Design'. Post your ideas, visions, suggestions for the game, rules, modifications, etc.

Moderator: Oberlus

Message
Author
User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 3161
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Influence Discussion

#61 Post by Oberlus »

labgnome wrote: Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:17 pm I do have thoughts on an opinion mechanic which I might share.
Please do so. I also think Krikkitone's proposal is interesting and versatile, and probably the way to go, but (apparently) rather complex.

User avatar
labgnome
Juggernaut
Posts: 833
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Influence Discussion

#62 Post by labgnome »

Opinion System Model
Opinion would range from 100 (completely loves) to -100 (completely hates), opinion grows by the lower amount listed, unless it's the direct effect of an influence project. Negative opinion in addition to low happiness should generate rebels.

Each empire gets an opinion of each other empire.
This will be based on the following:
  • in alliance with empire (+20)
  • has the same government (+10)
  • has the same policies (+5 per policy)
  • turns since contact with empire (+0.5 per turn, max 50)
  • turns since Foreign Embassy project (+1 per turn, max 100)
  • at war with empire (-20)
  • turns since last battle (+0.2 per turn, max 0)
  • has xenophobic species (-0.5 per turn, min -50)
  • has different government (-10)
  • has different policies (-5 per policy)
  • known to have been targeted by espionage project (-40)
  • turns since targeted by espionage project (+0.2 per turn, max 0)
  • known to have been targeted by terror project (-60)
  • turns since targeted by terror project (+0.1 per turn, max 0)
  • known to have been targeted by propaganda project (-20)
  • turns since targeted by propaganda project (+0.2 per turn, max 0)
Empires will require positive opinions of each other to make treaties or engage in trade. If their opinion becomes negative they will break their treaties or trade agreements. If their opinion grows over 50 they will ask for an alliance. If their opinion drops below -50 thy will want to go to war.

Each planet gets an opinion of each known empire.
This will be based on the following:
  • 25% of the owning empire's opinion (if a foreign empire)
  • weather or not the planet was acquired diplomatically by the empire (+30)
  • weather or not the species was acquired diplomatically by the empire(+20)
  • number of other planets with the same species in the empire (5 per colony, max 75)
  • number of turns since the planet was targeted by a propaganda project by the empire (+1 per turn, per project, max 100)
  • weather or not the planet was invaded by that empire (-30)
  • turns since the planet was invaded by that empire (+0.2 per turn, max 0)
  • weather or not the species has been invaded by the empire (-20)
  • turns since the species was invaded by that empire (+0.2 per turn, max 0)
  • weather or not the planet was attacked by that empire (-20)
  • turns since the planet was attacked by the empire (+0.5 per turn, max 0)
  • weather or not the planet was bombarded by the empire (-40)
  • turns since the planet was bombarded by the empire (+0.1 per turn, max 0)
  • weather or not the planet has a concentration camp by the empire (-60)
  • turns since the planet has had a concentration camp by the empire (+0.1 per turn, max 0)
  • weather or not a concentration camp has been used on the species by the empire (-40)
  • turns since a concentration camp has been used on the species by the empire (+0.1 per turn, max 0)
  • weather or not the planet is known to be was targeted by a terror project by the empire (-60)
  • turns since the planet was known to be was targeted by a terror project by the empire (+0.1 per turn, max 0)
  • turns since max opinion (start 100, -0.1 per turn, min 50)
If a planet has an opinion of a foreign empire greater than 50 and it's greater then their current opinion of the owning empire the planet will switch ownership.
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.

User avatar
Krikkitone
Creative Contributor
Posts: 1540
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm

Re: Influence Discussion

#63 Post by Krikkitone »

Oberlus wrote: Tue Apr 30, 2019 8:42 am
Krikkitone wrote: Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:45 pm2. Each Species has an Allegiance/Opinion of Each Empire in the game (as a way for a “memory” of what an empire did on a world before the last ownership change)
World = species? I mean, is the allegiance bound to the species (in the galaxy) or to the planet (that can change species)?
Allegiance bound to Species in the Galaxy.
(this is simpler + easier to display than every world having an allegiance for every empire)

Instead there is
Species allegiance for every empire
and
Happiness only for the current owner

It leads to some things that are weird on conquest, but avoids some particular complications



(yes IOU = I owe you)
labgnome wrote: Tue Apr 30, 2019 1:42 pm
Diplomatic Happiness: given to all the other empires planets
To Allies: Happiness=My Strength v. them
To Peace: Happiness=My Strength v. them – ½ their Strength v. me(minimum 0)
To Enemies (at War): Unhappiness=My Strength v. them – Their Strength v. me (minimum 0)
Based on IOUs:
(they’ve given to me) Happiness=IOUs (My Strength v. them –Their Strength v. me) (minimum 0)
(I’ve given to them) Unhappiness=IOUs (My Strength v. them –Their Strength v. me) (minimum 0)
Allow for third party effects as well…with projects I can cause diplo Happy/Unhappiness if they are/are not at War/Peace with a third party

Should be strong enough to make it worth investing in Diplomatic Strength, but allow you do not do so much and handle the situation with defensive internal happiness.
I would not make happiness competitive between allies. Alliance should be for cooperation and allies should not be competing by default. I also don't know if we want to be tracking a bunch of diplomatic IOU's.

Personally I think an Opinion system would be simpler than having to do allegiance and a separate diplomatic strength, and diplomatic happiness.
Happiness Isn't competitive between Allies, let me give an example (maybe instead of v. I should use towards)

Empire A has 60 strength -> Empire B
Empire B has 40 Strength -> Empire A

If they are Allies
A gets 40 Happiness (B's Strength), B gets 60 Happiness (A's Strength)

If they are at Peace
A gets 10 Happiness (40-60/2), B Gets 40 Happiness (60-40/2)

If they are at War
A gets 0 Unhappiness (40-60..minimum 0), B gets 20 Unhappiness (60-40)


So
if you want someone to be your Ally, build up a massive Diplo Strength v. Them (so they will get happiness)
if you want to go to war with them, build up a massive Diplo Strength v. Them (so you won't/they will get unhappy)

User avatar
Krikkitone
Creative Contributor
Posts: 1540
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm

Re: Influence Discussion

#64 Post by Krikkitone »

labgnome wrote: Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:48 pm Opinion System Model
Opinion would range from 100 (completely loves) to -100 (completely hates), opinion grows by the lower amount listed, unless it's the direct effect of an influence project. Negative opinion in addition to low happiness should generate rebels.
]

Empires will require positive opinions of each other to make treaties or engage in trade. If their opinion becomes negative they will break their treaties or trade agreements. If their opinion grows over 50 they will ask for an alliance. If their opinion drops below -50 thy will want to go to war.
Is the bolded part something the human player will be forced to do/encouraged to do/or does not apply to the human player?

I think it would work with the following model

Additional factors Opinion of Owning Empire on a planet
+ Planet's opinion of its Owning Empire's Allies
- Planet's opinion of its Owning Empire's "War partners"

So
if you are at War with someone your planets have a High/Low Opinion of, they Lose/Gain Opinion of you
if you are Allied to someone your planets have a High/Low Opinion of, they Gain/Lose Opinion of you

[This only applies to the Owner's diplomatic relationships to stop feedback loops]


OK, if we want to have a opinion per empire for each world.... [that simplifies the model but makes it harder to present to the players.... because the opinion of each empire on every world is useful information.. so it would need to be presented in a comprehensible form]

Opinion Model

Each world has an Opinion of every empire (a simple number)
Each empire has a "Relationship Number" with every other empire (simple number affected solely by agreements they have made Alliance large, War= Negative, Peace=Small, with bonuses from every agreement/exchange)
Each species has unchanging 'values' based on what they want, each empire has fluctuating 'values' based on what they do

Opinion effect... primary opinion effect, if a world's opinion of its owner is too low it revolts/can't build ships (may also affect espionage, etc.)

World Opinion of Empire X determined by
1. Good/Bad things Empire X has done to this world
2. Good/Bad things Empire X has done to this world's Species
3. Empire X 'values' v. this world's Species 'values'
4. IF Empire X is the Owner, unpaid maintenance/policies/governments can have a direct opinion effect
5. IF Empire X is the Owner, World opinion of empire X is affected by World opinion of Empire X's relationships (Empire X gets a bonus/penalty = Relationship with Empire Y * world opinion of Empire Y)*
6. Influence Projects, mostly targeted v. Empire or Species

*Wars and Alliance should probably give some amount of Default Unhappiness, so they are hard to maintain, peace should give only a small amount, and a small like/unlike give you benefits/problems


So...influence projects you should do

To maintain Stable Empire (basic Propaganda)
Boost Your world's opinion of you

You want an ally
Boost your ally's worlds opinion of you (so the other player will want the alliance) AND Boost your world's opinions of the ally (so your citizens won't revolt at the idea)
It'll be easiest with an empire that matches with your species values

You want a war
Lower your world's opinion of the enemy (so they will be happy with the war) AND Boost your enemy's worlds opinion of you (so their people will revolt..or accept you as a liberating hero)
it'll be easiest with an empire that clashes with your species values


Diplomacy influence Projects would be Spending to influence Opinion of Empire X in Worlds Owned by Empire Y (by Empire X, Empire Y or Empire Z..if they wanted to broker Peace or broker a War)

User avatar
labgnome
Juggernaut
Posts: 833
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Influence Discussion

#65 Post by labgnome »

Krikkitone wrote: Tue Apr 30, 2019 5:13 pm
labgnome wrote: Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:48 pm Opinion System Model
Opinion would range from 100 (completely loves) to -100 (completely hates), opinion grows by the lower amount listed, unless it's the direct effect of an influence project. Negative opinion in addition to low happiness should generate rebels.

Empires will require positive opinions of each other to make treaties or engage in trade. If their opinion becomes negative they will break their treaties or trade agreements. If their opinion grows over 50 they will ask for an alliance. If their opinion drops below -50 thy will want to go to war.
Is the bolded part something the human player will be forced to do/encouraged to do/or does not apply to the human player?

You're phrasing is a bit awkward so I guess yes and no? I mostly see this as the guideline for AI behavior. That way knowing their opinion will let you know how they are going to act.

At some point I am thinking there should be a happiness malus if the player goes outside of these bounds. IE: if you have negative opinion your population will be unhappy about treaties; if you have > -50 opinion they will be unhappy about the war; if you have < +50 opinion they will be unhappy about the alliance. However I don't see that as being absolutely necessary to implement for the human player right away.
OK, if we want to have a opinion per empire for each world.... [that simplifies the model but makes it harder to present to the players.... because the opinion of each empire on every world is useful information.. so it would need to be presented in a comprehensible form]
I was thinking that there would be separate empire opinion and planet opinion. However, if we are going to do a strait planet-based opinion, you could just average the opinion of all the planets in the empire, for the empire opinion.
Each world has an Opinion of every empire (a simple number)
Each empire has a "Relationship Number" with every other empire (simple number affected solely by agreements they have made Alliance large, War= Negative, Peace=Small, with bonuses from every agreement/exchange)
It would probably be simpler to just have the diplomatic state to cause the opinion to grow over time by a set amount, to a pre-set maximum, rather than having to keep track of a separate relationship number.
Each species has unchanging 'values' based on what they want, each empire has fluctuating 'values' based on what they do
I do have some thoughts on potential species values and how those could work.

Basically each species will have one or more values. Each value will come with a corresponding opposite value that will produce opposite effects. Sharing an empire with species of opposite values should produce unhappiness.

Proposed Values With possible effects:
  • Gregarious: the opposite of Xenophobic. Produces happiness on surrounding worlds of different species. Maybe fluff about some kind of tourism?
  • Pacifist: the opposite of Warrior. Produces unhappiness for each troop on a planet and during wars.
  • Warrior: the opposite of Pacifist. Produces happiness for each troop on a planet and during wars.
  • Isolationist: the opposite of Cosmopolitan. Produces unhappiness during alliances
  • Cosmopolitan: the opposite of Isolationist. Produces happiness during alliances.
  • Unified: produces unhappiness based on distances between colonies of the same species.
  • Tribal: produces happiness based on distances between colonies of the same species.
Opinion effect... primary opinion effect, if a world's opinion of its owner is too low it revolts/can't build ships (may also affect espionage, etc.)
I am thinking that negative opinion should generate 1 rebel per turn, while *low happiness should reduce troops. For building ships I am thinking it should be a function of happiness.

*I am wondering what kind of range we should give happiness. Maybe 0 to 100?
*Wars and Alliance should probably give some amount of Default Unhappiness, so they are hard to maintain, peace should give only a small amount, and a small like/unlike give you benefits/problems
Instead of directly generating unhappiness, I am thinking that they should cost influence to maintain, with peach being the default "free" status. I am thinking that maybe costs should be factored in both cases by a factor of X^2 for the number of empire's you are allied or at war with. I am also seeing wars having an increasing cost over the number of turns, maybe also calculated on a factor of X^2/(relative fleet strength)? That way you can accumulate an influence deficit for long running wars, but not necessarily for long-running alliances.
Diplomacy influence Projects would be Spending to influence Opinion of Empire X in Worlds Owned by Empire Y (by Empire X, Empire Y or Empire Z..if they wanted to broker Peace or broker a War)
I think diplomacy projects are nicely already covered under the propaganda category.
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.

User avatar
Vezzra
Release Manager, Design
Posts: 5445
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

Re: Influence Discussion

#66 Post by Vezzra »

labgnome wrote: Wed Apr 24, 2019 3:32 amwe will need a rebellion mechanic in place to make running out of influence meaningful. Maybe allow influence to create a deficit, and when you go into the negative happiness starts to drop on all planets with rebels eventually being generated.
Something along these lines is the general idea. If you can't pay the "influence upkeep" for your empire (which consists of the upkeep you need to pay for your colonies, ships, maybe buildings... nothing set in stone yet), you start suffering from negative effects. These effects should come with a certain delay, so going into deficit wouldn't result in your ships to mutiny the next turn. A mechanic where insufficient influence spending leads to decreasing happiness (stability?), and the decreasing happiness leading to unrest/revolts on your colonies is an obvious approach.

Another thing, because that has been discussed in length here, regarding an "opinion mechanic": this is actually something where we have already reached certain basic decisions long ago, there is even a rudimentary framework already implemented (by Geoff, IIRC). Opinion will be tracked between species and empires: each species has an "opinion" of all other species (species-species relations) as well as of all empires (species-empire relations).

How these opinions are going to be calculated/what factors will affect them and how much hasn't been determined yet. Regarding this there are a lot of interesting ideas in this thread. I especially like the idea of species having a certain set of "values" which affect their opinion of other species, as well as how the actions of empires affect the opinion of species of them. So if you are playing an empire focused on research and peaceful coexistence, keeping that bloodthirsty warrior species happy with you is going to be quite the challenge... :D

User avatar
labgnome
Juggernaut
Posts: 833
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Influence Discussion

#67 Post by labgnome »

Vezzra wrote: Wed May 01, 2019 3:05 pm
labgnome wrote: Wed Apr 24, 2019 3:32 amwe will need a rebellion mechanic in place to make running out of influence meaningful. Maybe allow influence to create a deficit, and when you go into the negative happiness starts to drop on all planets with rebels eventually being generated.
Something along these lines is the general idea. If you can't pay the "influence upkeep" for your empire (which consists of the upkeep you need to pay for your colonies, ships, maybe buildings... nothing set in stone yet), you start suffering from negative effects. These effects should come with a certain delay, so going into deficit wouldn't result in your ships to mutiny the next turn. A mechanic where insufficient influence spending leads to decreasing happiness (stability?), and the decreasing happiness leading to unrest/revolts on your colonies is an obvious approach.
I think just about everyone is on the same page on this idea. The idea of unhappiness generating rebels seems to be pretty well thought out already, somaybe take that as a starting point. One thought that occurs to me would be to give fleets a happiness meter too. That way their happiness could decay too, and they defect when it reaches 0.
Another thing, because that has been discussed in length here, regarding an "opinion mechanic": this is actually something where we have already reached certain basic decisions long ago, there is even a rudimentary framework already implemented (by Geoff, IIRC). Opinion will be tracked between species and empires: each species has an "opinion" of all other species (species-species relations) as well as of all empires (species-empire relations).
That's good to know. I was thinking of there being a planet-level opinion mechanic. How much more difficult would it be to do opinion on a planet level? I wouldn't want to step on too many toes if another framework is already in place.
How these opinions are going to be calculated/what factors will affect them and how much hasn't been determined yet. Regarding this there are a lot of interesting ideas in this thread. I especially like the idea of species having a certain set of "values" which affect their opinion of other species, as well as how the actions of empires affect the opinion of species of them. So if you are playing an empire focused on research and peaceful coexistence, keeping that bloodthirsty warrior species happy with you is going to be quite the challenge... :D
That's something I like too. It definitely makes your choice of species much more strategic.
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.

User avatar
Krikkitone
Creative Contributor
Posts: 1540
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm

Re: Influence Discussion

#68 Post by Krikkitone »

So it seems we agree on

1. Each Colony should have an "Opinion of its Owner" or "Happiness" number, which if low enough leads to revolt (whether the Colony has opinions of other empires is a different issue)
Based on what the Owner has done to the colony, and that colony's species (possibly working through a species "Opinion")

2. Species should have "values", the values of a species & actions of the empire a colony is owned by will affect the "Happiness" of a planet
(I really like labgnome's list..although the Unity/Tribal ..along with an Equal/Elite would probably fit in better once we have governments)

3. Unpaid 'empire' maintenance will affect the "Happiness" of a colony (negatively)
Empire Maintenance costs influence and rises faster than proportional to empire total size (whether systems, colony, or population)

4. Either Species OR colony should have an "Opinion" of all empires in the game.(that they have met)
Based on values & what the empires have done to that particular species/colony

5. Influence "Projects"/policy cards/governments techs, etc. can provide additional "Happiness" within your empire to your colony


I think with those agreed for an internal model, then we come to diplomacy
For us to have a diplomacy mechanic,

1. There should be a way to "invest in diplomacy"
2. There should be rewards for diplomacy
3. Diplomacy should work in the game as a game

#1 is particularly important, because diplomacy comes from other players, so "investing in diplomacy" is investing in changing the behavior of other players
For this there are a few approaches
-Diplomacy mechanic only affects AI players (makes diplomacy and AIs seem bad)
-Diplomacy mechanic controls the options of human players (VERY frustrating)
-Diplomacy mechanic gives carrots/sticks to players that behave the way you want***
***This is what I favor, and Happiness seems like the carrot/stick that seems the best

#2 Rewards from diplomacy are rewards you get from other players (similar to conquest)
However, in diplomacy those rewards shouldn't always* hurt the other player (unlike conquest)
*If another player gives me a nontech gift it hurts them but helps me, but is still their choice

#3 diplomacy working in the game "as a game" means I don't make a 300 turn alliance just to wipe out my ally because I have to win the game/he is about to transcend
So this means that There should be a true "Win-Win" mechanic...but it should be difficult (so that we don't just all immediately ally and become unified once we meet)
For it to work inside the game, Making an 'Sharesd Victory' ally should have a similar cost and similar benefit to conquering them (ie access to resources, etc.)

So to put those in place

#1 You invest in diplomacy by spending influence to increase your "Diplomatic Level" toward a certain player (they have a separate "Diplomatic Level" towards you)
"Diplomatic Level" would tend to fall (or fall faster) if you are at war, and is cheaper to build the more agreements you have

#2
My "Diplomatic Level" towards a player would give their worlds happiness/unhappiness if they do good/bad things for my empire
My "Diplomatic Level" towards a player would reduce any unhappiness they give me because I am doing "bad" things to them
OUR "Diplomatic Levels" combined would be required for certain win-no lose Agreements (War/Peace are always possible) [which ideally I could make one sided, ie I make a trade agreement that gives me trade, if they want any benefit, they need to invest in their own agreement)

One of the "bad" things another empire can do to me is accept a gift/unbalanced exchange (of course that is a "good" thing I do to them)

#3 at the highest levels of agreement, it should be as if we are one empire (all shared research, shared supply, metabolic bonuses, can build colonies of their species, etc. mutual wars [or alliance begins to degrade..because that can't be forced])
Last edited by Krikkitone on Thu May 02, 2019 6:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 3161
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Influence Discussion

#69 Post by Oberlus »

Krikkitone wrote: Wed May 01, 2019 6:38 pm1. Each planet should have an "Opinion of its Owner" or "Happiness" number, which if low enough leads to revolt (whether the planet has opinions of other empires is a different issue)
Based on what the Owner has done to the planet, and that planets species (possibly working through a species "Opinion")
To avoid ambiguity, I recommend the term Colony (for a planet with a species population) unless we are going to have opinions and happiness in Outposts.
4. Either Species OR Planets should have an "Opinion" of all empires in the game.(that they have met)
Based on values & what the empires have done to that particular species/planet
My choice would be that Colonies AND Species should have opinions of every empire (player), but if that is not accepted then Colonies.
Acting on a colony inhabited by a communal-vision(*) species would affect all colonies with that species, while acting on a regular species would only affect the opinion of that colony.
(*) Non-communal-vision species could get that condition, or a similar one, through special techs like Unified Consciousness.
"investing in diplomacy" is investing in changing the behavior of other players
I'd say "influencing the interests of other players". Whether the player (human or AI) allow/accept that influence and do what you'd expect from your influence or not should not be completely determined by the diplomacy investment. To be more clear: if you invest on giving me happiness (or anything else) to rise my opinion or my colonies' opinions on you, I can accept that and answer accordingly to improve our relations because I also want to befriend you, or I can initiate a counter-campaign against yours in order to ease my future war declaration on you because I don't want to be your ally/friend.
-Diplomacy mechanic gives carrots/sticks to players that behave the way you want***
***This is what I favor, and Happiness seems like the carrot/stick that seems the best
Yes, please.
Give incentives to both AI and human players, but do not impose hard restrictions on their behaviour. I want that an AI I'm investing on can change its mind (using stochastic decision-making) and turn against me (in fact, they better do, because I'm a sneaky bastard that will stab them in the back; I've never finished a MoO2 game in which I wasn't the only empire in the galaxy, regardless of me abusing or not diplomacy). This is (should be) compatible with what you say in your first point #3 (i.e. players should be able to be good allies till the end and feel they are winning the game).
#3 at the highest levels of agreement, it should be as if we are one empire (all shared research, shared supply, metabolic bonuses, can build colonies of their species, etc. mutual wars [or alliance begins to degrade..because that can't be forced])
Problem: single research/production/influence queue? and then who decides what to research/build/whatever next? Or each one has its own queue of whatever and then who gets to spend the shared RPs/PPs/IPs?

User avatar
labgnome
Juggernaut
Posts: 833
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Influence Discussion

#70 Post by labgnome »

Krikkitone wrote: Wed May 01, 2019 6:38 pm So it seems we agree on
Yes, it seems so.
#1 is particularly important, because diplomacy comes from other players, so "investing in diplomacy" is investing in changing the behavior of other players
For this there are a few approaches
-Diplomacy mechanic only affects AI players (makes diplomacy and AIs seem bad)
-Diplomacy mechanic controls the options of human players (VERY frustrating)
-Diplomacy mechanic gives carrots/sticks to players that behave the way you want***
***This is what I favor, and Happiness seems like the carrot/stick that seems the best
I would favor the carrot and stick approach too. However I would accept a "diplomacy only affects AI players" system if it's significantly easier or simpler to do.
#2 Rewards from diplomacy are rewards you get from other players (similar to conquest)
However, in diplomacy those rewards shouldn't always* hurt the other player (unlike conquest)
*If another player gives me a nontech gift it hurts them but helps me, but is still their choice
Stellaris' trade mechanic (separate from the market) basically allows you to offer various combinations of in-game objects for various other combinations, with the opinion modifying how "good" you have to make the deal for the AI player. The benefit of the trade then modifies the opinion of the empire, which can be a good way to convince them to join an alliance or sign a treaty. So long as both sides are getting something out of the exchange I think such trades can be incentivized, especially if opinion modifiers are considered. Idon't think all exchanges need to be perfectly balanced, but I do think we can incentivize most trades.

#1 You invest in diplomacy by spending influence to increase your "Diplomatic Level" toward a certain player (they have a separate "Diplomatic Level" towards you)
"Diplomatic Level" would tend to fall (or fall faster) if you are at war, and is cheaper to build the more agreements you have
So right now there is the Foreign Embassy project, but I am thinking that maybe we could use some more.

Firstly: I am thinking of maybe some "Trade Mission" projects that would boost opinion and also take from your stockpile and add to their stockpile, and also boost their opinion of you.

Secondly: I am thinking of maybe some "Foreign Consulate" project, that would require the Foreign Embassy project to be done first, but would be repeatable (whereas you only do the Foreign Embassy once). The consulates, being repeatable would provide a smaller opinion boost than the Foreign Embassy. I am wondering if these should generate buildings, but I don't know if it's feasible for you to own buildings on someone else's planets.

So this sounds a lot like the "attitude" mechanic that Stellaris (again) has, which basically interacts with the opinion mechanic to determine what sorts of deals the AI will accept. I have some thoughts on how opinion and diplomatic state could combine to create something like these diplomatic levels. I have split opinion into five levels: bad (-100 to -51), negative (-50 to -1), neutral (0), positive (1 to 50) and good (51 to 100)

Proposed Diplomatic Levels
  • good opinion and alliance: Highly Supported. Beneficial influence projects increase happiness, harmful influence projects decrease happiness.
  • good opinion and neutral: Highly Trusted. Beneficial influence projects increase happiness.
  • good opinion and war: Highly Respected. Unsuccessful battles and invasions decrease happiness.
  • positive opinion and alliance: Supported. Beneficial influence projects increase happiness, harmful influence projects decrease happiness.
  • positive opinion and peace: Trusted. Beneficial influence projects increase happiness.
  • positive opinion and war: Respected. Unsuccessful battles and invasions decrease happiness.
  • neutral opinion and alliance: Hopeful. Beneficial influence projects increase happiness.
  • neutral opinion and peace: Indifferent. No happiness effects.
  • neutral opinion war: Fearful. Successful battles and invasions increase happiness.
  • negative opinion and alliance: Distrusted. Beneficial influence projects decrease happiness.
  • negative opinion and peace: Rivaled. Harmful influence projects increase happiness, beneficial influence projects decrease happiness.
  • negative opinion and war: Opposed. Successful battles and invasions increase happiness.
  • bad opinion and alliance: Highly Distrusted. Beneficial influence projects decrease happiness.
  • bad opinion and peace: Highly Rivaled. Harmful influence projects increase happiness, beneficial influence projects decrease happiness.
  • bad opinion and war: Highly Opposed. Successful battles and invasions increase happiness.
Mutually Respected and Highly Respected empires at war should be encouraged to make peace.
One of the "bad" things another empire can do to me is accept a gift/unbalanced exchange (of course that is a "good" thing I do to them)
I don't think that gifts should hurt your diplomatic level. I think Diplomacy should be a non-zero sum game. So that just because something isn't helping you shouldn't make it hurt you by default. I think that the opinion mechanic should be set up to do a good enough to help balance asymmetrical exchanges. However I do think that things like espionage and terror should definitely hurt any sort of diplomatic level.
#3 at the highest levels of agreement, it should be as if we are one empire (all shared research, shared supply, metabolic bonuses, can build colonies of their species, etc. mutual wars [or alliance begins to degrade..because that can't be forced])
This sounds like the Federation mechanic that Stellaris (yet again) has. I have posted some thoughts about this before and how it could relate to a diplomatic victory. We probably also need to think about treaties. These could be used to "merge" or "federate" your empires. Maybe a point where you can have shared alliance-level policy slots?

I am enjoying this discussion but I think it might be getting a little derailed. Maybe we should start a Diplomacy topic?
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.

User avatar
labgnome
Juggernaut
Posts: 833
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Influence Discussion

#71 Post by labgnome »

Oberlus wrote: Wed May 01, 2019 7:45 pm
Krikkitone wrote: Wed May 01, 2019 6:38 pm1. Each planet should have an "Opinion of its Owner" or "Happiness" number, which if low enough leads to revolt (whether the planet has opinions of other empires is a different issue)
Based on what the Owner has done to the planet, and that planets species (possibly working through a species "Opinion")
To avoid ambiguity, I recommend the term Colony (for a planet with a species population) unless we are going to have opinions and happiness in Outposts.
Yeah, it should definitely be colonies.
4. Either Species OR Planets should have an "Opinion" of all empires in the game.(that they have met)
Based on values & what the empires have done to that particular species/planet
My choice would be that Colonies AND Species should have opinions of every empire (player), but if that is not accepted then Colonies.
Acting on a colony inhabited by a communal-vision(*) species would affect all colonies with that species, while acting on a regular species would only affect the opinion of that colony.
(*) Non-communal-vision species could get that condition, or a similar one, through special techs like Unified Consciousness.
I like this idea. If we can do it I would like to see it.
Problem: single research/production/influence queue? and then who decides what to research/build/whatever next? Or each one has its own queue of whatever and then who gets to spend the shared RPs/PPs/IPs?
So I am thinking that you could also be able to get an arrangement where you can see each other's queue. This has kind-of been proposed as an espionage project. So we can probably have some kind of treaty where both parties get to see each other's queue's in each one.

For production we could do a shared stockpile and shared supply network instead of directly shared PP and production queue. Both of these could even be separate treaties. This might be less confusing.

For research we could just use a visible queue and have that both get the same technologies. I don't know how much work it would be to get the AI to not just research the same things you do, but maybe the simplest would be if there was some way to have it just let you take the lead, and research what it wants that you aren't researching. Human players can more easily coordinate and discuss what each one should research.

For influence projects we could also do the visible queue and have "internal" alliance influence projects that would effect all alliance members simultaneously.
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 3161
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Influence Discussion

#72 Post by Oberlus »

labgnome wrote: Wed May 01, 2019 2:18 pmProposed Values With possible effects:
  • Gregarious: the opposite of Xenophobic. Produces happiness on surrounding worlds of different species. Maybe fluff about some kind of tourism?
  • Pacifist: the opposite of Warrior. Produces unhappiness for each troop on a planet and during wars.
  • Warrior: the opposite of Pacifist. Produces happiness for each troop on a planet and during wars.
  • Isolationist: the opposite of Cosmopolitan. Produces unhappiness during alliances
  • Cosmopolitan: the opposite of Isolationist. Produces happiness during alliances.
  • Unified: produces unhappiness based on distances between colonies of the same species.
  • Tribal: produces happiness based on distances between colonies of the same species.
I just found this: https://www.freeorion.org/index.php/Use ... ti-Species
We can discuss what values we want, based on the gameplay effects we expect them to have, on a new thread, because I think it will require a few pages of discussion and this thread is already growing fast without the specifics of species values.

User avatar
Vezzra
Release Manager, Design
Posts: 5445
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

Re: Influence Discussion

#73 Post by Vezzra »

labgnome wrote: Wed May 01, 2019 4:21 pmI was thinking of there being a planet-level opinion mechanic. How much more difficult would it be to do opinion on a planet level?
I think the actual challenge wouldn't be the technical implementation, but the complexity of the resulting game mechanics. Currently we have (or have planned to have) influence, happiness, species-species relations and species-empire relations (also referred to as "allegiance"), with each of these elements/mechanics affecting/working on each other. Judging by past design discussions getting this interdependent elements working together in a meaningful, yet not too compicated way is already very difficult. Adding yet another layer/element to the mix (colony-empire releations) will increase the complexity of the entire thing exponentially (because of the everything affects everything stuff we've got going here).

While I do see the allure of the idea, I doubt we will be able to pull that off without throwing KISS out of the window. Which means we basically have three options:
  1. No species-empire relations mechanic, but a colony-empire relations mechanic. This creates the silliness that you can cheerfully butcher species A on one colony, while other colonies of the same species in your empire still sing your praises (unless you decide to butcher them too of course). Meh.
  2. No colony-empire relations mechanic, but a species-empire relations mechanic. This creates the silliness that when you decide to cheerfully butcher species A on one of your colonies, all colonies of that species, even those in empires on the other end of the galaxy, will equally hate your guts. Um... yeah.
  3. Have both species-empire and colony-empire mechanics. Prevents the sillinesses of 1) and 2) and will allow for far more fine-grained modelling of an empire subjects opinions, but we'd have to deal with the resulting enormous complexity, and most likely have to abandon any claims to KISS.
Unless we can figure out how to pull off 3) without things becoming too complex, I strongly prefer 2). Simply because the consequences of mistreating a colony would be much more severe than with only colony-empire relations. 1) would allow to contain negative consequences strictly locally. Without species-empire relations there is no allegiance of ship crews (unless you'd want to introduce ship-empire relations too, but I don't think we'd want to seriously consider going down that road!!!), something I hope we can all agree we definitely need to keep.

Also, the silliness of 2), while still somewhat silly, bothers me much less than the silliness of 1), but that's of course a personal preference.

User avatar
Vezzra
Release Manager, Design
Posts: 5445
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

Re: Influence Discussion

#74 Post by Vezzra »

Krikkitone wrote: Wed May 01, 2019 6:38 pm1. Each Colony should have an "Opinion of its Owner" or "Happiness" number, which if low enough leads to revolt (whether the Colony has opinions of other empires is a different issue)
Unless you want to have colony-empire relations in addition to species-empire relations (the difficulty of which I tried to point out in my previous post above), this should be a "Happiness" meter/value, which affects/is affected by the colonies species opinion of the owner empire.

User avatar
Vezzra
Release Manager, Design
Posts: 5445
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

Re: Influence Discussion

#75 Post by Vezzra »

Krikkitone wrote: Wed May 01, 2019 6:38 pm#1 is particularly important, because diplomacy comes from other players, so "investing in diplomacy" is investing in changing the behavior of other players
For this there are a few approaches
-Diplomacy mechanic only affects AI players (makes diplomacy and AIs seem bad)
-Diplomacy mechanic controls the options of human players (VERY frustrating)
-Diplomacy mechanic gives carrots/sticks to players that behave the way you want***
***This is what I favor, and Happiness seems like the carrot/stick that seems the best
Your third option is the only one which is actually open to discussion anyway.

The first is a no-go, as it goes against our design philosophy. Human and AI players are to be treated absolutely equally by all game mechanics, which rules out e.g. a cheating AI, and also the possibility to "buy" an AI's good opinion/loyalty/whatever with dedicated in-game resources like influence. Investing in diplomacy has to work the exact same way towards/against human and AI players.

The second approach, as you noted, sounds very frustrating and non-fun, so I think we all agree this is a no-go too.

Just for the records, as everyone seems to prefer the third approach anyway. ;)

Post Reply