Species Opinion System 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
labgnome
Juggernaut
Posts: 833
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Species Opinion System Discussion

#16 Post by labgnome »

The Silent One wrote: Sun Jul 21, 2019 5:40 pmI wasn't following the opinion discussion closely, and unaware that a final decision has been made. If that's so, that's that.
Not to be rude: but if you're going to try to argue against the basic idea,then you should at least go over the topic it came out of. I don't want to have to go over everything again for you, just because you don't want to go over it again yourself. I think most of us were under the impression that a general consensus had been reached.
But: species-empire relations seem like a bad idea to me. Probably the worst mistake of MoO3 was that little of the player's actions seemed to have any effect on the game, and I'm doubtful it will be different with the SER. I really have difficulties to imagine how this abstract and simulation-like concept will turn into something fun, where the player has to make significant decision that have a noticable impact.
One of the points of this is so that player actions have impact, and more interesting and varied ones than they currently do now. I know you might not find it interesting, but try to understand that other people do.
If someone can explain to me how strategies around SER might look, how they envision how SER will add to the gameplay, please do.
Strategies around SER have been brought up in other threads before, please actually read through them. At this point I am having difficulty telling if you are being genuine right now or just obstinate.
(Much rather, we should have empire-empire relations at some point.)
While I agree that we should have empire-empire relations, I don't think that it's an either-or situation.
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
The Silent One
Graphics
Posts: 1129
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 8:27 pm

Re: Species Opinion System Discussion

#17 Post by The Silent One »

Vezzra wrote:This really comes totally out of the blue for me - did I miss some important discussion and change of design decisions...? :?
Maybe I should've spoken up earlier, but it went past me that we had reached a (final) design consensus.
labgnome wrote: Sun Jul 21, 2019 6:13 pmNot to be rude: but if you're going to try to argue against the basic idea,then you should at least go over the topic it came out of. I don't want to have to go over everything again for you, just because you don't want to go over it again yourself. I think most of us were under the impression that a general consensus had been reached.
For a design decision like that, there should definitely be some form of summary or design document. Saying "just read through all the discussion" is imho lazy on part of the designer of the mechanic; just because a developer doesn't have the time to read though lengthy discussions he is excluded from the decision? Also, like I said before, if there really has been a final consensus, I will accept that with some measure of reluctance.
labgone wrote:One of the points of this is so that player actions have impact, and more interesting and varied ones than they currently do now. I know you might not find it interesting, but try to understand that other people do.
Then, please do explain how you imagine species-empire relations will improve gameplay, because I honestly can't imagine it. What is your vision?

Also, frankly: we do currently lack, with exception of Vezzra, experienced developers who supervise what's going on. The current proposal for influence, apart that I'm uncertain about its vision and gameplay value, strikes me as very, if not overly ambitious. Which I think I have expressed on occasion, and which is the reason I didn't feel motivated to dig into the presented ideas. So design concerns aside, I have doubts if there's currently enough manpower around to handle it. Something more simple may be more realisticly achievable, and more fun too.

Labgnome, I do value your enthusiams and devotion to FO game design, and I do not wish to get into an emotional confrontation about this. Which is why I've asked for examples how SER will be fun. If I can share your vision, get a feel for it, then I'll help.
If I provided any images, code, scripts or other content here, it's released under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0.

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

Re: Species Opinion System Discussion

#18 Post by labgnome »

The Silent One wrote: Sun Jul 21, 2019 7:09 pmFor a design decision like that, there should definitely be some form of summary or design document. Saying "just read through all the discussion" is imho lazy on part of the designer of the mechanic; just because a developer doesn't have the time to read though lengthy discussions he is excluded from the decision? Also, like I said before, if there really has been a final consensus, I will accept that with some measure of reluctance.
The design process for the mechanic is still ongoing, that's why I made this discussion topic. It's not laziness, I just don't see it as reasonable to be asked to go over all of that material again just because you don't want to go over it yourself.
Then, please do explain how you imagine species-empire relations will improve gameplay, because I honestly can't imagine it. What is your vision?
I suppose it's difficult for me to go into because I just can't see how someone wouldn't find it more interesting. Firstly it adds immersion and roleplay, something I like very much. Secondly it's vitally necessary for the peaceful acquisition of planets, unless we are going to go a completely different rout from influence projects. Even your own proposal included "loyalty points", which isn't different from having opinion or allegiance or whatever we want to call it. It makes a lot of your decisions more significant and strategic. This also goes into species values in addition to just opinion, but the two are tied together. But it introduces situations; like having to choose between a policy you might want and keeping the planets with a species that doesn't like it in your empire; or having to decide if you actually want to acquire a planet that has a species with values opposite those you already have or that will dislike your policies. I think all of that makes a more interesting game and makes your choices more significant and thus makes the game more fun. You might disagree.
Labgnome, I do value your enthusiams and devotion to FO game design, and I do not wish to get into an emotional confrontation about this. Which is why I've asked for examples how SER will be fun. If I can share your vision, get a feel for it, then I'll help.
I value your contributions too. I don't think there needs to be a confrontation. I'm honestly less frustrated with your opposition to the idea than I am by your opposition to reading through the discussion topics that got us to this point. I've been asked to do some heavy reading for my ideas and positions here, and I've done it, so I don't see why you shouldn't need to as well. I don't want this just to have it I want it because I think that it will add interesting new dimensions to Free Orion's gameplay.
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
The Silent One
Graphics
Posts: 1129
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 8:27 pm

Re: Species Opinion System Discussion

#19 Post by The Silent One »

labgnome wrote: Sun Jul 21, 2019 9:08 pmI'm honestly less frustrated with your opposition to the idea than I am by your opposition to reading through the discussion topics that got us to this point.
So I've read through the discussion. The main reasons for having species-empire-relations seem to be because:
  • tracking planet allegiance AND species-empire-relations together is too complicated
  • tracking individual ships allegiance is madness
Firstly: tracking planet allegiance alone is not complicated, but intuitive. Happiness alone would suffice.
Secondly: while I agree we don't want to track the allegiance of each individual ship, do we need to track of that at all? And, is reducing ship allegiance to species-empires relations such a good idea? Mutiny on 40% of your ships because you've conquered one Abbadoni world too much?

labgnome wrote:I would like planet level opinion, but I think that species-level would be okay.
So it seems SER is not your first choice as well.


The thread has lots of fun ideas for influence projects, and a great summary by Krikkitone about how influence may be consumed other than by influence projects, but not how species-empire relations are useful or fun. To have to keep track of each species "values" sounds irritating - are the Laenfa war-mongers or pacifist? I'll have to look it up in the pedia. If they're pacifist I can't attack the humans or my Laenfa worlds will revolt; so I'll keep my fleets grounded? If values belong into the game, they belong to empires, not species.

My opinion is to just stick with happiness. If happiness is 0 troops die, amount determined by missing influence or something alike. If happiness is 0 and all troops are dead the planet becomes neutral and can be taken over via IP.

Somewhat related, what I think needs serious consideration is how influence projects will be targetted and carried out. Selecting enemy planets or systems on the map and having sort of a "teleport effect" doesn't seem like gameplay to me. I think there should be influence units for that, in a similar fashion as the religious units in Civ. And there'd be way to deflect or fight them.

[Edit]Also, what I think should be discussed is how we to the huge influence task into manageable pieces.
If I provided any images, code, scripts or other content here, it's released under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0.

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

Re: Species Opinion System Discussion

#20 Post by labgnome »

The Silent One wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2019 1:25 pmFirstly: tracking planet allegiance alone is not complicated, but intuitive. Happiness alone would suffice.
You still require another meter just to track who a planet goes to with competing influence projects.
Secondly: while I agree we don't want to track the allegiance of each individual ship, do we need to track of that at all? And, is reducing ship allegiance to species-empires relations such a good idea? Mutiny on 40% of your ships because you've conquered one Abbadoni world too much?
I mean there seems to be several people who like the idea of there being a "mutiny" mechanic in the game. The species level seems to be the only sane way to do this at all. I am personally indifferent to the idea.
labgnome wrote:I would like planet level opinion, but I think that species-level would be okay.
So it seems SER is not your first choice as well.
I mean on some level I would have liked tracking both, but I think that species level opinion works. I wouldn't choose planet level opinion over species level opinion, and I still think some kind of opinion system is necessary.
The thread has lots of fun ideas for influence projects, and a great summary by Krikkitone about how influence may be consumed other than by influence projects, but not how species-empire relations are useful or fun. To have to keep track of each species "values" sounds irritating - are the Laenfa war-mongers or pacifist? I'll have to look it up in the pedia. If they're pacifist I can't attack the humans or my Laenfa worlds will revolt; so I'll keep my fleets grounded? If values belong into the game, they belong to empires, not species.
See keeping track of species values sounds interesting to me. Also in the latest iteration of the proposal values would deal primarily with policies. I personally don't see a way to track values on an empire level, as we don't have multiple different governments or anything like that.
My opinion is to just stick with happiness. If happiness is 0 troops die, amount determined by missing influence or something alike. If happiness is 0 and all troops are dead the planet becomes neutral and can be taken over via IP.
See I want influence projects to be able to give you a planet will full happiness. There should be some advantage to gaining planets peacefully.
Somewhat related, what I think needs serious consideration is how influence projects will be targetted and carried out. Selecting enemy planets or systems on the map and having sort of a "teleport effect" doesn't seem like gameplay to me. I think there should be influence units for that, in a similar fashion as the religious units in Civ. And there'd be way to deflect or fight them.
Firstly, that mechanic sounds overly-complicated for implementation in Free Orion. Secondly, it's been agreed that influence should have a range, and my thoughts are to tie it to either supply or detection range. Thirdly this is off-topic and should probably be brought-up in the Influence Discussion topic or it's own topic.

I did suggest something similar a while back in this topic here but it was shot down for a number of reasons.
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: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Species Opinion System Discussion

#21 Post by Oberlus »

labgnome wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2019 4:23 pm
The Silent One wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2019 1:25 pmFirstly: tracking planet allegiance alone is not complicated, but intuitive. Happiness alone would suffice.
You still require another meter just to track who a planet goes to with competing influence projects.
That's not true, unless you force it that way. That's been said before in the linked discussion threads.

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

Re: Species Opinion System Discussion

#22 Post by labgnome »

Oberlus wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2019 5:00 pm
labgnome wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2019 4:23 pm
The Silent One wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2019 1:25 pmFirstly: tracking planet allegiance alone is not complicated, but intuitive. Happiness alone would suffice.
You still require another meter just to track who a planet goes to with competing influence projects.
That's not true, unless you force it that way. That's been said before in the linked discussion threads.
Then how would you do it? Because I must have missed something in those discussions myself.
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: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Species Opinion System Discussion

#23 Post by Oberlus »

labgnome wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2019 7:01 pm Then how would you do it? Because I must have missed something in those discussions myself.
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=11258&start=45#p95464
Also related: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=11272&p=95917#p95917
I find a bit ironic that you were telling off The Silent One for not having read three lengthy threads (BTW, a summary of the decisions made there would be certainly welcome) while you had missed some of the points there, and when these points are mentioned you didn't get the time to review such threads yourself and wait for the others to find the relevant posts for you. Double standard? :wink:

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

Re: Species Opinion System Discussion

#24 Post by labgnome »

Oberlus wrote: Tue Jul 23, 2019 7:42 am
labgnome wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2019 7:01 pm Then how would you do it? Because I must have missed something in those discussions myself.
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=11258&start=45#p95464
Also related: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=11272&p=95917#p95917
I find a bit ironic that you were telling off The Silent One for not having read three lengthy threads (BTW, a summary of the decisions made there would be certainly welcome) while you had missed some of the points there, and when these points are mentioned you didn't get the time to review such threads yourself and wait for the others to find the relevant posts for you. Double standard? :wink:
IMO having the colony stay in limbo until one of the competitors gives up is not a solution. I find the idea uninteresting and it sounds not fun at all and just frustrating to me.

Your other includes a separate loyalty meter, which again doesn't accomplish the goal with stability alone. Thought you do mention the idea of using stability alone you don't elaborate on it.

This also doesn't handle species liking or disliking certain empire actions, something quite a few people seem interested in including. Something also I think would be fun and interesting. I don't think that it should be rejected outright, just because it might not be easy to bring it in-line with design principles and that finding a simple solution to the idea is worth-while.
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
The Silent One
Graphics
Posts: 1129
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 8:27 pm

Re: Species Opinion System Discussion

#25 Post by The Silent One »

labgnome wrote: Tue Jul 23, 2019 1:42 pmIMO having the colony stay in limbo until one of the competitors gives up is not a solution. I find the idea uninteresting and it sounds not fun at all and just frustrating to me.
Again, I think the problem here lies not with not having enough meters, but with the teleporty nature of influence projects. With a influence unit solution, the units would battle at the system and whoever is left can do projects there.
If I provided any images, code, scripts or other content here, it's released under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Species Opinion System Discussion

#26 Post by Oberlus »

labgnome wrote: Tue Jul 23, 2019 1:42 pmIMO having the colony stay in limbo until one of the competitors gives up is not a solution.
I'm sure that suggestion can be improved. Let's try? If it's only me who has to try and figure out a way that you like more, I'll need some time.
But what I meant for sure pointing out this is that we don't need one meter for each empire in order to work out influence conquest.
This also doesn't handle species liking or disliking certain empire actions
Because those are related but independent mechanics, or I'm confused here (in that case, I'm sorry).
One thing is acquiring a single planet through peaceful means (influence conquest) and another one is tracking general species-empire opinion (and prompting special behaviours for very happy/unhappy species).
If the species on the planet you are influencing does like you, it should be easier/cheaper to influence them (or harder to counter your influence, or both), but the system could work just fine without (or until we get) species-empire opinion meters.

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

Re: Species Opinion System Discussion

#27 Post by labgnome »

The Silent One wrote: Tue Jul 23, 2019 4:57 pmAgain, I think the problem here lies not with not having enough meters, but with the teleporty nature of influence projects. With a influence unit solution, the units would battle at the system and whoever is left can do projects there.
I have a number of things I dislike about this idea, but I don't want to address them here as this has already veered far enough off of the original topic. I'd be interested to discuss my concerns in a separate topic, maybe the Influence Discussion topic or a new one if you want to start it.
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: Species Opinion System Discussion

#28 Post by labgnome »

Oberlus wrote: Tue Jul 23, 2019 7:19 pmI'm sure that suggestion can be improved. Let's try? If it's only me who has to try and figure out a way that you like more, I'll need some time.
That's a fair proposal, but I honestly think we've veered nearly completely off-topic now.
Because those are related but independent mechanics, or I'm confused here (in that case, I'm sorry).
One thing is acquiring a single planet through peaceful means (influence conquest) and another one is tracking general species-empire opinion (and prompting special behaviours for very happy/unhappy species).
Which is why I like the idea of an opinion mechanic. It can cover multiple aspects of gameplay.
If the species on the planet you are influencing does like you, it should be easier/cheaper to influence them (or harder to counter your influence, or both), but the system could work just fine without (or until we get) species-empire opinion meters.
I would agree that opinion should effect the cost of influence projects. Another area opinion can cover. This is why I think opinion is a good idea.
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: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Species Opinion System Discussion

#29 Post by Oberlus »

Getting back to OP's subject.
labgnome wrote: Fri Jul 19, 2019 2:43 pmI actually like this better. However I wanted to keep it consistent with the other meters in Free Orion that are all positive. I really would rather have -100 to +100, with bad opinion being negative and neutral opinion being 0.
I think this meter deserves it. Meters like production, research and stockpile have no meaning when negative (unless we talk about upkeep, but we don't have research or production upkeep). Others like Stability/Happiness could use or not negative numbers, they have sense either way. Opinion, IMO, is the one that gets the most from using a range with negative numbers. But this is a minor question.
I don't know that warlike species should automatically like having their own planets invaded. This is about opinion about their own planets, not other species planets.
Yo mean "Species Opinion System" is only about opinion about their own planets, or that this particular question about planet conquest is only about conquest of their own planets?
I disagree with both interpretations.
In general, we (you, I and others) have expressed their interest on making military conquest affect species opinion (you know, warlikers and pacifists, Species Values, etc.).
So I would expect that a thread called "Species Opinion System" would take that into account, otherwise I don't know what is this thread about.
Yes, this about Opinion. Basically, opinion before other other opinion effects are applied.
This I don't understand.
What is "Opinion before other opinion effect are applied"? You mean Base Opinion (a constant, immutable value that is the value you give to all Opinion meters at start of game) or something different?
Target Opinion, not Opinion. So, harassment/assistance has an slow but deep effect: starting at Opinion=TargetOpinion=50, after 5 turns of harassment we will have Opinion=49.5 and TargetOpinion=0. If that is right, then that Empire won't be able to be liked by that species unless it is able to stop harassment and apply some assistance or propaganda for 10 turns to move TargetOpinion to 100, and apply a policy that they like to get +5 per turn to Opinion.
So starting at Opinion=TargetOpinion=50, after 5 turns of harassment, you would have Opinion=49.5 and TargetOpinion=40. Harassment and assistance will come form species traits. So for instance Eaxaw will generate economic harassment, and each planet within 5 jumps counts as 1 instance of harassment. So having 1 Eaxaw planet within 5 jumps would produce the effect as above, while having 2 Eaxaw planets within range will give you TargetOpinion=30. You could move a species that generates assistance (let's say we give that trait to Cray) and so having 1 Cray planet in range and 1 Eaxaw planet in range would give you TargetOpinion = 50. If you wanted to raise target opinion more you could institute a propaganda influence project and raise to TargetOpinion=60 or whatever the project raises it to.
Completely at a loss here. Have you suggested here changes in the line of what I suggested or this is a different interpretation of the same rules in the OP's? I don't know how you get those numbers.
Up to here, this systems seems to me rather broken, mostly because of that TargetOpinion being so easily and deeply modified by small actions.
Well then let's try and fix it.
Right, that's why I suggested the following:
What about keeping TargetOpinion=BaseOpinion=0 (or 50 in a 0..100 range) and only work on Opinion?
I can see that. However if we are going to work out an opinion system we need to work out how it effects stability/happiness.
I'm very confused. One thing is independent of the other, so dunno why you quote that chunk to talk about opinion-stability relationships. I'm sure we can work out those later (and then adjust opinion mechanics if needed).
What I was pointing out is that your system that causes steep changes on TargetOpinion and small changes on CurrentOpinion (lets call it that way for now?) seems broken.

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

Re: Species Opinion System Discussion

#30 Post by labgnome »

Oberlus wrote: Wed Jul 24, 2019 6:57 amI think this meter deserves it. Meters like production, research and stockpile have no meaning when negative (unless we talk about upkeep, but we don't have research or production upkeep). Others like Stability/Happiness could use or not negative numbers, they have sense either way. Opinion, IMO, is the one that gets the most from using a range with negative numbers. But this is a minor question.
So a -100 to 100 range it is.
Yo mean "Species Opinion System" is only about opinion about their own planets, or that this particular question about planet conquest is only about conquest of their own planets?
This particular question question about conquest. I was namely trying to flesh out universal rules for the opinion system. Especially if stability/happiness is going to also be lowered in influence acquired planets. Species could definitely have different opinions about other planets being conquered or acquired peacefully.

In general, we (you, I and others) have expressed their interest on making military conquest affect species opinion (you know, warlikers and pacifists, Species Values, etc.).
I would like that too. However I wanted to focus on values and their interactions with policies first. I think that value-policy interaction is the the most KISS thing to structure values around.

Yes, this about Opinion. Basically, opinion before other other opinion effects are applied.
This I don't understand.
What is "Opinion before other opinion effect are applied"? You mean Base Opinion (a constant, immutable value that is the value you give to all Opinion meters at start of game) or something different?
I suppose if BaseOpinion is supposed to be a constant set at the beginning I mean something different? I suppose to borrow your terminology, acquiring a planet directly sets CurrentOpinion by +10 or -10 per planet immediately, while TargetOpinion stays the same.

Completely at a loss here. Have you suggested here changes in the line of what I suggested or this is a different interpretation of the same rules in the OP's? I don't know how you get those numbers.
This is a different interpretation of the same rules in the OP.

What I was pointing out is that your system that causes steep changes on TargetOpinion and small changes on CurrentOpinion (lets call it that way for now?) seems broken.
So CurrentOpinion should change more, and TargetOpinion should change less I take it? That's good feedback to have. Maybe have Opinion change by 1 per turn.
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.

Post Reply