A proposal aside to the rework of policies I'm working on, but very related, although not for current target release version:
Assign Values (Warlike/Peaceful, Devious/Honorable, Individualist/Communal...) to species and...
(simple version, less versatile for species design and balance)
...to policies, buildings and actions (invade a planet, colonize a planet, declare war, enter alliance, build a warship...).
Target stability of species is increased when having buildings or adopting policies with their values, or decreased with policies/buildings that have the opposite value (for binary values at least); actions would give temporal boosts or nerfs to current stability (this thing about "actions" has no backend support of any kind AFAIK, but makes sense to suggest it together with this).
(not so simple version, but mostly because implementation seems more complex; my preferred choice)
...pro-Values (proWarlike, proPeaceful) and anti-Values (antiWarlike, antiPeaceful) to policies, buildings and actions (invade a planet, colonize a planet, declare war, enter alliance, build a warship...).
Target stability of species is increased when having buildings or adopting policies in pro of their values, or decreased with policies/buildings that go against their values; actions would give temporal boosts or nerfs to current stability.
I don't know about the implementation details. I guess this would require backend changes.
The main advantages are that adding or removing a policy doesn't require to edit the files of every species that (has to) like or dislike the policy, and that species design becomes easier (no need to go through all the policies list to check out what should be liked or disliked, just think of the social values of the species) and less prone to create weird combinations of likes and dislikes. The main disadvantage is that it has less flexibility to balance species, but I don't know if this is an actual concern.
Bonus track:
Stability of species in the empire is affected by having other species in the empire with same or opposite values.
For each value of a species, the species get -3*pop_that_have_anti_value/total_pop_empire and +1*pop_that_have_value/total_pop_empire (maybe better planets instead of total pop, but should be similar).
The idea is that, if you add a colony of a new species that is incompatible with the values of most of the population in the empire, the new colony get most of the malus. If the malus is big enough, the new species won't be able to build ships, which is good to make harder to add good pilot species like Misiorla or Mu Ursh to an empire just to build all ships in one planet. I think the formula considering population or planets is better than considering number of species because of this.
Use species values instead of likes and dislikes for every policy
Moderator: Oberlus
Re: Use species values instead of likes and dislikes for every policy
I don't have time now to carefully analyze all that your proposal entails, but we certainly need a way to make Species management intuitive.
Having to parse each Species' likes and dislikes and to check them each time one takes a decision is putting a heavy mental burden on most players for no real added value (compared to a general and easy to understand framework like you propose here).
Having to parse each Species' likes and dislikes and to check them each time one takes a decision is putting a heavy mental burden on most players for no real added value (compared to a general and easy to understand framework like you propose here).
Re: Use species values instead of likes and dislikes for every policy
I also think having something more intuitive would be good. I am not sure how much categorizing of species helps - or how much one has to dumb down the system in order for it to help.
I like the idea of likes/dislikes for actions (e.g. bombardment, influence projects) giving bonus/malus to current stability.
For such a clustering one does not need a new mechanic for implementing/prototyping. Make a list of categories, assign to species. Then in FOCS give the same likes/dislikes accordingly (probably using macros). Then maybe add a tag to the species for the category and have the fitting stringtable entry rendered in the species description.
I also have a feeling that a single species should not have more than three such values. But those values should be meaningful and defining the species. A species could have an extra like/dislike if that is really specific to them.
Or if you really like a matrix where every species has an entry for every value, make it 5 values at max; in order to simplify the system one needs to be able to remember what each value means.
I think less is more.
I think I do not like your bonus track idea because the bonus/malus is solely based on the existence of species in your empire.
Probably because it is basically making all species some kind of xenophobic.
With the likes/dislikes system it depends on what the empire does (policies, exploiting gas giants...) I like that more. If we want to make integration of new species more difficult/costly we can use the current mechanics (arrange species dislikes in a way that they are more exclusive) or find another mechanic.
One feature that bonus track mechanic has and what the current system does not support so much is having a memory; policies and their effects are mostly quick to change. The overpowered balance policy had some memory as it could give a huge bonus on the capital and it took many turns to grow the meter. Buildings are some kind of memory/investment but it does not feel there is so much choice there.
Maybe we could slow down growth and decline of stability for likes/dislikes so changing policies does have a kind of lag/echo. E.g. scaling up stability by two will take growth/decline also twice turns as long.
I like the idea of likes/dislikes for actions (e.g. bombardment, influence projects) giving bonus/malus to current stability.
For such a clustering one does not need a new mechanic for implementing/prototyping. Make a list of categories, assign to species. Then in FOCS give the same likes/dislikes accordingly (probably using macros). Then maybe add a tag to the species for the category and have the fitting stringtable entry rendered in the species description.
I also have a feeling that a single species should not have more than three such values. But those values should be meaningful and defining the species. A species could have an extra like/dislike if that is really specific to them.
Or if you really like a matrix where every species has an entry for every value, make it 5 values at max; in order to simplify the system one needs to be able to remember what each value means.
I think less is more.
I think I do not like your bonus track idea because the bonus/malus is solely based on the existence of species in your empire.
Probably because it is basically making all species some kind of xenophobic.
With the likes/dislikes system it depends on what the empire does (policies, exploiting gas giants...) I like that more. If we want to make integration of new species more difficult/costly we can use the current mechanics (arrange species dislikes in a way that they are more exclusive) or find another mechanic.
One feature that bonus track mechanic has and what the current system does not support so much is having a memory; policies and their effects are mostly quick to change. The overpowered balance policy had some memory as it could give a huge bonus on the capital and it took many turns to grow the meter. Buildings are some kind of memory/investment but it does not feel there is so much choice there.
Maybe we could slow down growth and decline of stability for likes/dislikes so changing policies does have a kind of lag/echo. E.g. scaling up stability by two will take growth/decline also twice turns as long.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.
Look, ma... four combat bouts!
Look, ma... four combat bouts!
- Geoff the Medio
- Programming, Design, Admin
- Posts: 13603
- Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
- Location: Munich
Re: Use species values instead of likes and dislikes for every policy
There have been various proposals for "ethos" or "alignments" or "values" or similar systems for categorizing species and various other content. It's difficult to pick a set of scales or traits that are satisfying and useful, particularly if they need to be +/- opposites or pairs, like "Warlike/Peaceful, Devious/Honorable, Individualist/Communal". It's also difficult to decide which traits get assigned to which species when they weren't designed / written with such traits in mind, and writing species specifically to target various combinations of traiits isn't especially interesting, and even if there are obvious traits for some species, you can easily end up with a very imbalanced distribution of traits and species. It's also difficult to assign lots of other types of content or events or player actions to a particular trait or to ensure there are reasonably balanced numbers of things for all traits. This sort of system also can easily get in the way of story-releated aspects of why a species might dislike or like things that don't neatly slot into one of the established traits...
Re: Use species values instead of likes and dislikes for every policy
There have, and I believe that the consensus is "we should do that".Geoff the Medio wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 1:29 pm There have been various proposals for "ethos" or "alignments" or "values" or similar systems for categorizing species and various other content.
It may be, that's why we need to put every idea on the table and take the time to find the best arrangement.Geoff the Medio wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 1:29 pm It's difficult to pick a set of scales or traits that are satisfying and useful, particularly if they need to be +/- opposites or pairs, like "Warlike/Peaceful, Devious/Honorable, Individualist/Communal".
Yes, but no more than the (nearly random) assignment of likes and dislikes that doesn't make much sense as of now. It's a work that needs to be made, and made by talented people in designing good stories, but it's not impossible.Geoff the Medio wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 1:29 pm It's also difficult to decide which traits get assigned to which species when they weren't designed / written with such traits in mind,
Probably, that'll need rebalance work. Good things we're on 0.5 only, then.Geoff the Medio wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 1:29 pm you can easily end up with a very imbalanced distribution of traits and species.
I'm not sure that such a global framework would/should entirely remove the possibility to have specific like and dislikes for story-related reasons ? There just would be much less of them...Geoff the Medio wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 1:29 pm This sort of system also can easily get in the way of story-releated aspects of why a species might dislike or like things that don't neatly slot into one of the established traits...
Re: Use species values instead of likes and dislikes for every policy
I mostly agree with all LienRag said here (I don't think current likes and dislikes are placed randomly, but they could use some love).
- Krikkitone
- Creative Contributor
- Posts: 1559
- Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm
Re: Use species values instead of likes and dislikes for every policy
Some ideas:
Some work with empire actions, others would only be affected by policies
War/Peace
Diplomatic Engage/Isolation
Xenophobe/Xenophile
Elite/Equality
Unity/Diversity
Throw in a few that are focus dependent (Research Influence Industry)
Some work with empire actions, others would only be affected by policies
War/Peace
Diplomatic Engage/Isolation
Xenophobe/Xenophile
Elite/Equality
Unity/Diversity
Throw in a few that are focus dependent (Research Influence Industry)