Discontent

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

Moderator: Oberlus

Post Reply
Message
Author
Ablaze
Creative Contributor
Posts: 314
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2003 6:10 pm
Location: Amidst the Inferno.

Discontent

#1 Post by Ablaze »

Here’s an interesting feature from my notes which could be applied here as well:

I was thinking that every empire could start with a basic modifier for morale and the efficiency of their empire. At the beginning of the game you could have a multiplier for efficiency (less then one), and every time you made contact with another race your multiplier would approach 1. Efficiency would affect your income, the speed of builds, ect. Something like the following:

In contact with 0 other races = 1/4 multiplier to efficiency.
1 other race = 1/2 multiplier
2 races = 2/3
3 = 3/4
4 = 4/5
5 = 5/6
6+ = 1

This would actually encourage people to go out and find other races and would balance the advantage to an empire when that empire is on one side of the map and all the others are on the other side.
Time flies like the wind, fruit flies like bananas.

Marijn
Space Squid
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 10:26 am
Location: Nijmegen (NL)

#2 Post by Marijn »

But ehhm, what is the logic behind this? Races are really divided and undisciplined until faced with external threat? 1/4 as a starting value seems way too harsh to me, but maybe something less drastic would work. Maybe it should not depend on the number of races but on the threat those races present - when they are big and scary and hostile they could unite the populations, while weak races that are at peace with you have no effect.

luckless666
Pupating Mass
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2003 3:16 am
Location: West Sussex, United Kingdom

#3 Post by luckless666 »

Marijn wrote:But ehhm, what is the logic behind this? Races are really divided and undisciplined until faced with external threat? 1/4 as a starting value seems way too harsh to me, but maybe something less drastic would work. Maybe it should not depend on the number of races but on the threat those races present - when they are big and scary and hostile they could unite the populations, while weak races that are at peace with you have no effect.
I agree with this. 1/4 is a little to harsh, maybe the values should be more tightly packed together. Also, this doesnt really serve much purpose. Maybe if it was connected to rebellions (see two threads down from this one at time of posting) which affect production, and just make rebellions less likely the more external threats there are (or more likely, depending on the extent of the discontent)
Chris Walker
| c.walker (at) mgt.hull.ac.uk |

WorldForge.org

Marijn
Space Squid
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 10:26 am
Location: Nijmegen (NL)

#4 Post by Marijn »

luckless666 wrote:and just make rebellions less likely the more external threats there are (or more likely, depending on the extent of the discontent)
Yeah! A curve kind of thing, when there's no threat your population is kind of decadent, worrying about absurd things like civic liberties and political freedom, then when there is trouble they band together, but when the empire is doing very poorly, and there's big aliens attacking, some planets will just go "I, for one, welcome our new [insert alien name here] overlords." and defect.

This might be a bit too annoying though, when you are already doing poorly there should not be any extra rules bringing you down - that would make outcomes too predictable.

Ablaze
Creative Contributor
Posts: 314
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2003 6:10 pm
Location: Amidst the Inferno.

#5 Post by Ablaze »

Yes, 1/4 would be a little harsh by itself, that is if buildings took 4 times as long to build. The numbers, of course, would have to be balanced. I was thinking of only a certain portion of your production (somewhere around 20%) would be affected by inefficiency. I put the numbers in more to show the curve then as a specific multiplier.

The reason why the lowest multiplier is 1/4 is so that racial picks can be used to increase or decrease that multiplier even more.

The point is to balance out the effect of starting with a close neighbor. Normally when you encounter another race early on that race becomes a wall that you can’t expand beyond. A truly good start is one in which you have plenty of room to expand on all sides while every other race is compressed on one side of the map. With discontent in the picture this becomes merely a mediocre start. Sure you get your pick of the planets on this side of the map, but you can’t expand as fast as the races who are all competing.

It sounds to me like you’re asking about the real world component. This sort of thing is exactly what happens in the real world. For instance, there is a significant minority of the population here in the US who makes an effort to buy “American.” It’s a sort of us vs them philosophy that humans (and probably aliens) share. As it is we live on one planet, and if we considered the whole planet “us” there would be no “them.” If we ever do colonize other planets the difference between The US and Japan won’t seem so large, and nations will tend to work together a lot more. If we meet other races “us” will quickly turn into all humanity and “them” will be any form of life that hasn’t evolved on Earth.

Without other races to pit ourselves against there is really no way to achieve peace on Earth or a unified goal.
Time flies like the wind, fruit flies like bananas.

luckless666
Pupating Mass
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2003 3:16 am
Location: West Sussex, United Kingdom

#6 Post by luckless666 »

I see now what your getting at, though i dont think you would see such huge changes in efficency in the 'real' world. But from a gameplay point of view, this may be a good feature to include, theough the rebellion idea works just as well. If all the alien races on the other side of the galaxy are clumped together, they arent likely to be bogged down with rebellions and the inevitable piracy etc. that comes with it, whereas you will, which will weaken you enough (hopefully), that you'll be on an equal footing with any First Contacts
Chris Walker
| c.walker (at) mgt.hull.ac.uk |

WorldForge.org

krum
Creative Contributor
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 12:58 pm
Location: Bulgaria

#7 Post by krum »

To factor external threat in the discontent/morale calculation is a good idea. More factors and less randomisation is better, of course too much factors and eventually it becomes practically unperdictable. But external threat seems good to me.

That Guy
Dyson Forest
Posts: 227
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2003 6:36 am
Location: That Place

#8 Post by That Guy »

But the one thing that is unpredictable in this universe is human (or sentient) reaction to things. People will mass riot and become hysteric for no real reason, other then they are huge morons.
"The one perfect impossibility is perfection."

Aquitaine
Lead Designer Emeritus
Posts: 761
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 1:54 pm
Location: Austin, TX

#9 Post by Aquitaine »

People will mass riot and become hysteric for no real reason, other then they are huge morons.
The prosecution would like to offer as exhibit A 'Internet Forums.'
Surprise and Terror! I am greeted by the smooth and hostile face of our old enemy, the Hootmans! No... the Huge-glands, no, I remember, the Hunams!

Marijn
Space Squid
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 10:26 am
Location: Nijmegen (NL)

#10 Post by Marijn »

But the one thing that is unpredictable in this universe is human (or sentient) reaction to things. People will mass riot and become hysteric for no real reason, other then they are huge morons.
While I realize that discussion the nature of man is somewhat beyond the scope of this forum, I have to disagree here. Well, the moron part is right, but humans, as far as macro behaviour is concerned, really are quite predictable. People *never* mass riot for no real reason.

That Guy
Dyson Forest
Posts: 227
Joined: Sun Aug 17, 2003 6:36 am
Location: That Place

#11 Post by That Guy »

Well, when I so no "real" reason, I mean based on good facts. I mean, you tell and convince one person that the world will end, and give it about a week, then you get to see fun :) .
"The one perfect impossibility is perfection."

Paul1980au
Space Floater
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2004 8:08 pm
Location: Brisbane, australia

#12 Post by Paul1980au »

So youre saying hardcoded factors to determine morale and discontent - perhaps peaceful races would become unsettled with war and vise versa - you could also have a race trait of emotionless that they never rebel etc. This could perhaps reduce their research, intel and resource gathering potential as a trade off.

luckless666
Pupating Mass
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2003 3:16 am
Location: West Sussex, United Kingdom

#13 Post by luckless666 »

Paul1980au wrote:So youre saying hardcoded factors to determine morale and discontent - perhaps peaceful races would become unsettled with war and vise versa - you could also have a race trait of emotionless that they never rebel etc. This could perhaps reduce their research, intel and resource gathering potential as a trade off.
Yes. The reduction in intel etc. could be justified as as their emotionless, they arent enthuisastic about their work and so take those hits.
Chris Walker
| c.walker (at) mgt.hull.ac.uk |

WorldForge.org

Paul1980au
Space Floater
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2004 8:08 pm
Location: Brisbane, australia

#14 Post by Paul1980au »

So taking the hits as you say is the offset factor - yep it has certain direction.

Post Reply