Species Values Discussion

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

Moderators: Oberlus, Oberlus

Message
Author
User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1290
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Species Values Discussion

#31 Post by Oberlus » Tue May 07, 2019 6:25 am

"Supply proximity <> species proximity"
Yeah, sorry, I saw that too late.

And what about the species-empires (or colonies-empire) opinion modifiers. How does the actions of the empires affect the opinion of species having each of these values?

User avatar
labgnome
Psionic Snowflake
Posts: 469
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Species Values Discussion

#32 Post by labgnome » Tue May 07, 2019 6:58 am

Oberlus wrote:
Tue May 07, 2019 6:25 am
"Supply proximity <> species proximity"
Yeah, sorry, I saw that too late.

And what about the species-empires (or colonies-empire) opinion modifiers. How does the actions of the empires affect the opinion of species having each of these values?
The most strait-forward way is that there will be an opinion modifier for the species in an empire based on the values those species have. I have some thoughts about governments and policies incoming. Actually writing it out in another post for this topic right now.
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
Psionic Snowflake
Posts: 469
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Species Values Discussion

#33 Post by labgnome » Tue May 07, 2019 7:02 am

So one thing we still have to consider is how values and opinion will interact with governments and policies.

I think that one way to handle this in a simple way is to have each one have a unique "preferred" policy, which will generate positive opinion of any that has the policy active. Now in a situation with each value having an opposite value their "rejected" policy should be the favorite policy of the opposite value. This rejected policy would generate negative opinion of any empire that has it active. With species having multiple values it will be challenging to have high opinion from all species in your empire.

Most values should also have a preferred and rejected government type. However as there will be fewer governments than policies this will be non-unique.
There may also be values that have no preferred government. How this will work will depend a lot on how governments wind up being handles in Free Orion. Weather or not there governments are in any way grouped together and particularly weather or not any of the governments qualify as "more advanced" versions of other governments. If this is the case values should follow the "development path" of governments, preferring all governments in the same path. Similarly to policies rejected governments should follow the preference of the opposite value.
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: 1290
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Species Values Discussion

#34 Post by Oberlus » Tue May 07, 2019 7:47 am

labgnome wrote:
Tue May 07, 2019 6:58 am
The most strait-forward way is that there will be an opinion modifier for the species in an empire based on the values those species have.
I'm looking forward for your proposal. Ideally, unless I'm missing the point, each species should have reactions (changes of opinion) to actions of each empire. And with actions I mean things the empire do (not just having species in the empire). Examples:
- I exterminate those useless Silexian in that Terran world I want for someone else, then xenophilic species lower their opinion on me, xenophobic species rises it.
- I conquer that colony with my troops: then pacifist species lower their opinion on me, warlike species rises it (they like military might).
That sort of things. That's not gathered in your proposal as for now.

The idea of calculating the opinion on my empire of each species depending on the mix of species I have in the empire seems... I don't know, I think I don't understand it, and because of that it seems rather complicated and hard to follow. Edit: Nah, I misread you.
So one thing we still have to consider is how values and opinion will interact with governments and policies.
Policies: a policy about encouraging war will piss off pacifists and content warlikers. Etc.
Governments: no idea how are going to be governments. Maybe the governments will be a gateway to unlock policy slots and policies, and then the government type will be defined by the policies they apply. A democracy (or whatever) could be promoting war or promoting peace (or hierarchical/flat social organisation, or openminded/dogmatic science, etc.) but still be a democracy.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 1290
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Species Values Discussion

#35 Post by Oberlus » Tue May 07, 2019 10:27 am

labgnome wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 6:43 pm
Gregarious
Can we call this Xenophilic?
Gregarious (gregario) in Spanish only means "tendency to form herds and to do whatever the others do". Also, gregarious in the sense of sociable might go well with xenophobic (i.e. Trith like to work with other Trith, because they are sociable, but not with different species, because they are racists), while Xenophilic is exactly the opposite of Xenophobic.
Coward and Explorer
Cowardly species fear the scientific advancements of other species around them and will disrupt their research,while explorers will share datat they have gathered in their explorations freely.
I don't see this, relating exploration/cowardice and research of others. I think this overcomplicates things. Plus does not make sense to me, shouldn't cowards be more afraif of military power than scientific advancements in (say) diplomacy or habitability?
Also, how will you measure that "Exploration of the galaxy"? You need to specify how the proposed effects will work.
I would remove this pair of values.
Warrior and Pacifist
Warrior species are always seeking out combat and will lend out mercenary services to other nearby species increasing their troops. Pacifist species will always do what they can to oppose militarization wherever they find it decreasing the troops of other species around them.
How would pacifists reduce troops of other colonies? That makes no sense to me, and it seems too meddler/coercive.
I would limit the effects of this pair of values (and of most of the other pair of values) to the species that have them (so that pacifists are better doing pacific stuff like diplomacy and warlikers would be better at warring).
Expansionist and Recluse
Expansionist species are always looking to grow and will give a bonus to other species stockpiling efforts. Reclusive species dislike the expansion of other species and will disrupt their stockpiling if they are nearby. [...]
bonus [and malus] from new colonies
Mixing expansionism and stockpiling does not make sense to me. I think my proposal about making expansion harder or easier makes much more sense for gameplay.
Also, what exactly means "bonus/malus from new colonies"? Bonus/malus to the new colony? To all colonies? Again, we need to be more specific on describing the effects.
Developed and Naturalist
Developed species are always looking for new supplies and will work with other species in these efforts. naturalist species prefer untamed natural space and are known to disrupt nearby infrastructure they deem environmentally unfriendly. [...]
bonus from number of buildings [...] bonus to other species supply
I don't like mixing supply (related to range and expansion) and development/naturalism (related to pollution and production).
Also, I don't like effects encouranging the spamming of buildings.
Secretive and Open
I like this one :)
Ecumenical and Proselytizing
I like this. To avoid confusion with the other meaning of ecumenical (i.e. that expands christianism, with is proselitistic on its own), I would use Eclectic/Open-minded and Prejudiced/Biased/Partial.
The effects on research overlaps with Scientific/Lowbrow, isn't it?
Honorable and Devious
Honorable species always keep their arrangements and often find themselves assisting the labors of other species around them. Devious species are known to engage in autonomous manor sabotage that disrupts the industry of other species.
I don't like mixing (lack of) honourability and production. I'd limit the effects of this values to keeping (or not) your word and public opinion regarding espionage/sabotage. Plus I would not give a bonus to happiness just for doing espionage/sabotage. Devious people does not get happy knowing that someone if being a dick, they just don't care.
Egalitarian and Hierarchical
Egalitarian species believe that everyone's voice is valuable and will promote the influence of other species around them. Hierarchical species consider themselves superior to other species around them and will often disrupt their influence.
Hierarchical, IMO, is about how the society within a species is organised. Also, I don't see how this relates to influence production.
Scientific and Lowbrow
I don't like mixing science and detection.
Also, for this and for anything related to happiness from the planetary focus, for simplicity, I would remove this kind of values and let it to the happiness bonus you get from setting the preferred focus.
Industrial and Conservationist
I don't like mixing industry and stockpiling.
Also conservationists seems related to nature (as well as art, antiquities, etc.) and not to stockpiling. I'd say, conceptually, this overlaps with development/nature.
Customary (formerly Conformist) and Deviant
I can't see the relation between disliking foreign customs and boosting/hindering supply. Conceptually this seem to overlap with Cosmopolitan/Isolationist. I would remove this pair.
Corrupt and Lawful
Conceptually overlaps with Honorable/Deviant. I would remove this pair.

User avatar
labgnome
Psionic Snowflake
Posts: 469
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Species Values Discussion

#36 Post by labgnome » Tue May 07, 2019 1:28 pm

Oberlus wrote:
Tue May 07, 2019 7:47 am
I'm looking forward for your proposal. Ideally, unless I'm missing the point, each species should have reactions (changes of opinion) to actions of each empire. And with actions I mean things the empire do (not just having species in the empire). Examples:
- I exterminate those useless Silexian in that Terran world I want for someone else, then xenophilic species lower their opinion on me, xenophobic species rises it.
- I conquer that colony with my troops: then pacifist species lower their opinion on me, warlike species rises it (they like military might).
That sort of things. That's not gathered in your proposal as for now.
So I was avoiding tracking those sorts of things just because it will get very complicated very quickly. I also wasn't sure about being able to come up with actions for each pair of values. You seem better than me at thinking of what kinds of actions will generate positive or negative opinion. Maybe come up with a list of actions that could effect opinion and some proposed value pairs that would match-up with them.
The idea of calculating the opinion on my empire of each species depending on the mix of species I have in the empire seems... I don't know, I think I don't understand it, and because of that it seems rather complicated and hard to follow. Edit: Nah, I misread you.
I don't think you misread me. That's what I meant. Or more specifically the values each species has in your empire. Species/species opinion is already planned on being tracked, so this just sums up the species in an empire and uses that to generate a baseline opinion. IE: pacifists will have a lower opinion of empire's that have warrior species in them. It strikes me as pretty strait-forward.

Governments: no idea how are going to be governments. Maybe the governments will be a gateway to unlock policy slots and policies, and then the government type will be defined by the policies they apply. A democracy (or whatever) could be promoting war or promoting peace (or hierarchical/flat social organisation, or openminded/dogmatic science, etc.) but still be a democracy.
So you are generally right from what I understand (assuming they are using the Civ VI model), each government will have a different combination of policy slots, with later game governments having more policy slots than earlier governments.
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: 1290
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Species Values Discussion

#37 Post by Oberlus » Tue May 07, 2019 1:37 pm

labgnome wrote:
Tue May 07, 2019 1:28 pm
So I was avoiding tracking those sorts of things just because it will get very complicated very quickly.
IMO, that sort of things are the most important, while other kinds of effects (on production, research, supply, etc.) are not. Modifying opinion is the prime reason to be of the Values.
IE: pacifists will have a lower opinion of empire's that have warrior species in them. It strikes me as pretty strait-forward.
That's a bad idea IMO. What if I have warlike species but I act peacefully? I'm against that approach.

User avatar
Krikkitone
Creative Contributor
Posts: 1488
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm

Re: Species Values Discussion

#38 Post by Krikkitone » Tue May 07, 2019 3:36 pm

labgnome wrote:
Tue May 07, 2019 6:18 am
Oberlus wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 7:03 pm
Regarding KISS, 214 pairs of values might be a bit too many?
Well the idea is that species will be taking multiple values, I am leaning towards a typical number being 3 to 4, maybe even more for some species. This easily allows us to go through a lot of species and have no repeat combinations. As far as concerns about simplicity I went for a large number of simple values, rather than a small number of more complex values.
Two thoughts as for combinations, if each species has 3 values, and there are N pairs of values available

that give 8 * N*(N-1)*(N-2) /6 possible combinations

or
N Combinations
3 8
4 32
5 80
6 160
7 280
8 448
9 672
10 960
11 1320
12 1760

So 6-8 should probably be fine

As for simple v. Complex That is why I think a "Empire alignment" factor might be good. ie lots of different things increase my "Unity v. Diversity" factor so I just look at that and I know how all the Diverse/Unity Species are affected by my actions/Policies, etc.

They should also very much limit their effects to the happiness/opinion of the species that has them.

User avatar
labgnome
Psionic Snowflake
Posts: 469
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Species Values Discussion

#39 Post by labgnome » Wed May 08, 2019 5:45 pm

Oberlus wrote:
Tue May 07, 2019 10:27 am
labgnome wrote:
Mon May 06, 2019 6:43 pm
Gregarious
Can we call this Xenophilic?
Gregarious (gregario) in Spanish only means "tendency to form herds and to do whatever the others do". Also, gregarious in the sense of sociable might go well with xenophobic (i.e. Trith like to work with other Trith, because they are sociable, but not with different species, because they are racists), while Xenophilic is exactly the opposite of Xenophobic.
I have been trying to avoid alliterative pairs, or pairs that are have an anit- or un- form of the other word, but I suppose it might be unavoidable here :(

Coward and Explorer
Cowardly species fear the scientific advancements of other species around them and will disrupt their research,while explorers will share datat they have gathered in their explorations freely.
I don't see this, relating exploration/cowardice and research of others. I think this overcomplicates things. Plus does not make sense to me, shouldn't cowards be more afraif of military power than scientific advancements in (say) diplomacy or habitability?
Also, how will you measure that "Exploration of the galaxy"? You need to specify how the proposed effects will work.
I would remove this pair of values.
There seems to be a lot of similar concerns to this one, so I will just address my collective thoughts here. Namely, that this only convinces me that the effects
of species values should be restricted to happiness and to opinion. I don't think there is going to be a way for us to arrive at a consensus for what kinds of effects should go with the different values. So I would also suggest that Xenophobic looses its industry malus to keep it consistent with the other values. That areally is far simpler of a solution, than anything else I think we could try to come up with here.
Corrupt and Lawful
Conceptually overlaps with Honorable/Deviant. I would remove this pair.
I would like to either have a different pair for each of the different kinds of influence projects, espionage, terror and propaganda; or just one pair for all of them, but I do not like the idea of one that covers two out of the three.

Over-all I like your feedback and think we are working toward something that can be applied to the game.
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: 1290
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Species Values Discussion

#40 Post by Oberlus » Wed May 08, 2019 6:16 pm

labgnome wrote:
Wed May 08, 2019 5:45 pm
I don't think there is going to be a way for us to arrive at a consensus for what kinds of effects should go with the different values.
Hmmm... Let's not throw in the towel yet ;)
But yes, at least for now, we could focus on just getting the "final" Values with their opinion and happiness effects.

I would like to either have a different pair for each of the different kinds of influence projects, espionage, terror and propaganda; or just one pair for all of them, but I do not like the idea of one that covers two out of the three.
Hmmm. I think I disagree. Just because these three are influence related it does not mean they must go together, the same than we will not put together anything related to industry (like expansion, war might, infrastructures and anything else that requires PPs to be built).
I really see a huge difference between telling people stuff to make them like you more and stealling/breaking/killing. The former is related to Diplomacy, the latter to Intelligence. So I am rather convinced that these should be considered in two separate Values.
Over-all I like your feedback and think we are working toward something that can be applied to the game.
In this we do agree!

User avatar
labgnome
Psionic Snowflake
Posts: 469
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Species Values Discussion

#41 Post by labgnome » Wed May 08, 2019 6:30 pm

Oberlus wrote:
Wed May 08, 2019 6:16 pm
I would like to either have a different pair for each of the different kinds of influence projects, espionage, terror and propaganda; or just one pair for all of them, but I do not like the idea of one that covers two out of the three.
Hmmm. I think I disagree. Just because these three are influence related it does not mean they must go together, the same than we will not put together anything related to industry (like expansion, war might, infrastructures and anything else that requires PPs to be built).
I really see a huge difference between telling people stuff to make them like you more and stealling/breaking/killing. The former is related to Diplomacy, the latter to Intelligence. So I am rather convinced that these should be considered in two separate Values.
If we are going to separate the propaganda stuff I think we should also separate the espionage stuff from the terror stuff. Just because a somone is willing to be sneaky about things doesn't mean they are willing to be violent or destructive, so that is why I would split Criminal/Lawful from Devious/Honorable.
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: 1290
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Species Values Discussion

#42 Post by Oberlus » Wed May 15, 2019 11:20 am

This: https://www.freeorion.org/index.php/Use ... Alignments

I already knew we were trying to reinvent the wheel. But now that I've got to page 23 of the Simulating Citizens thread, I doubt we can get to a better wheel model without actually going through all that's been done before.

User avatar
Krikkitone
Creative Contributor
Posts: 1488
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm

Re: Species Values Discussion

#43 Post by Krikkitone » Wed May 15, 2019 1:47 pm

That model is almost what I think is the best.
The only changes I would make
1. species can have more than 2 to make their "ethos"
2. Equality v. Elitism would not depend on Ruling v. Free v. Slave species but Capital v. Free v. Slave Worlds (all slave species worlds are slave worlds, but free/ruling species can also be on a slave world.)
3. A separate Xenophobic v. Xenophilic scale for status of species

User avatar
labgnome
Psionic Snowflake
Posts: 469
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Species Values Discussion

#44 Post by labgnome » Mon May 27, 2019 3:53 pm

Oberlus wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 11:20 am
This: https://www.freeorion.org/index.php/Use ... Alignments

I already knew we were trying to reinvent the wheel. But now that I've got to page 23 of the Simulating Citizens thread, I doubt we can get to a better wheel model without actually going through all that's been done before.
Firstly,I just now saw this re-reading over this thread because I was going to come back to it, taking some of you guy's feedback into account and feeling inspired. Secondly, I think we can make a simpler, more concise, and definitely more in-line with KISS system than what has been outlined there.
Krikkitone wrote:
Wed May 15, 2019 1:47 pm
That model is almost what I think is the best.
The only changes I would make
1. species can have more than 2 to make their "ethos"
2. Equality v. Elitism would not depend on Ruling v. Free v. Slave species but Capital v. Free v. Slave Worlds (all slave species worlds are slave worlds, but free/ruling species can also be on a slave world.)
3. A separate Xenophobic v. Xenophilic scale for status of species
Now having read through much of the article, I have to say I am actually not that fond of what @Bigjoe5 proposes. Firstly I think that like a lot of early proposals there are a lot of things that are too vague as far as game mechanics and even some that assume game mechanics that are no longer in use or that we seem to be moving in a different direction from.

I will say that I don't like the sliding scale of the system that seems to be proposed, as it will be a whole lot to keep track of. I also think that the "ethos" system as described would really only work for empires, no individual species as described, and seems to not really take into account native species, a fairly big part of the game now. I also dislike that while the ethos seem to be dynamic, in that you can increase and decrease your alignments during the game, it doesn't actually account for all possible combinations, instead focusing only on the "likely" combinations, and of that only 8 out of 24 possible combinations.
This means it's a very easy system to "break" by simply choosing a game-play style that gives you a combination of affiliations that falls into the unaccounted-for 2/3 of possible combinations. The system seems to be trying to do something similar to "personalities" in Stellaris, but with the huge gaps I don't think it's up to the job.

This system is very different form the values system we seem to be developing, which is static, has no sliding scale and takes native species into account; all things I would keep for the sake of simplicity. Similarly I would focus more on having unique combinations, rather than pre-set "ethos" or "personalities" that way we avoid the "planet of hats".
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: 1290
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Species Values Discussion

#45 Post by Oberlus » Mon May 27, 2019 5:20 pm

labgnome wrote:
Mon May 27, 2019 3:53 pm
I will say that I don't like the sliding scale of the system that seems to be proposed, as it will be a whole lot to keep track of.
You either keep track of the opinion of each species on each empire (the opinion is the "meter" affected by the actions of the corresponding empire based on the species values, that are fixed traits; you have Species X Empires meters) or keep track of the empires' alignments (the alignment is the "meter" affected by the empire's actions, the opinion of the species is calculated based on the empire's alignment and the species values; you have Values-pairs X Empires meters). I'm not sure one is better than the other in terms of number of things to keep track of (player-wise), but regarding the number of meters to be calculated, both are comparable but for big games with many species the one based on alignments uses less meters to be updated on every turn (although the GUI would be showing species-empire opinion values calculated on demand).
labgnome wrote:
Mon May 27, 2019 3:53 pm
I also think that the "ethos" system as described would really only work for empires, no individual species as described, and seems to not really take into account native species, a fairly big part of the game now.
I don't know why you say it would not work for species. Maybe you mean it would not record/represent the empires' actions on each species in particular? Like not differentiating between "this empire bombs enemies, he is cool (warlike species)" and "this empire boms enemies, that's cool, but this time this moron bomber us! (warlike species)". That is a drawback indeed, unless you add such distinctions to the opinion calculation (the same that you would do it in the system with species opinions as meters).
And native species are like other species. Do you think there is need to differentiate their mechanics in terms of values and the such?

labgnome wrote:
Mon May 27, 2019 3:53 pm
I also dislike that while the ethos seem to be dynamic, in that you can increase and decrease your alignments during the game, it doesn't actually account for all possible combinations, instead focusing only on the "likely" combinations, and of that only 8 out of 24 possible combinations.
He is supposed to have discarded the nonsensical or less interesting combinations. But I agree with you, I prefer something more free and flexible.
labgnome wrote:
Mon May 27, 2019 3:53 pm
This system is very different form the values system we seem to be developing, which is static, has no sliding scale and takes native species into account; all things I would keep for the sake of simplicity. Similarly I would focus more on having unique combinations, rather than pre-set "ethos" or "personalities" that way we avoid the "planet of hats".
Well, all this is a bit ambiguous. The "sliding scale" of alignments are the same than we would have with opinions (the slide from neutral to good or bad). The natives can be accounted for in BigJoe5's proposal (unless I missed something). The planet of hats I don't think is a problem here.

But for me the key point of that proposal is the listing of possible values.

Anyway, nothing from what we've been suggesting (including BigJoe5's and all other previous contributors) is simple enough for FO 1.0.

Post Reply