Trading too powerful?

[BobTheJanitor]

I think anything that has to fall back on running dispatch missions on fast forward is the least desirable solution. I don't mind doing that from time to time, but that should be the last option when you've painted yourself into a corner, or something to use when you're just 5 or so points off and want to brute force it past the finish line. Otherwise, ideally there would always be something better to do.

If we do put an upper limit on trade, I'd rather it be a soft cap, where you still get something out of it, just diminishing returns after a point. Simply because arbitrary numerical limits seem weird from a game world perspective. "This is the last crate of cargo that I will like you for, from now on it's purely business." And also to avoid min-max scenarios where players are juggling breaking off trade routes and reforming them with a different race as soon as they hit the limit. Not even sure if a soft cap would avoid that problem though.

But still, I think the problem isn't so much anything to do with trade, as much as it is the lack of options. Leave trade in, but add diplomatic options. Add joint research projects. Add joint construction projects. Maybe a joint exploration where the races send a combined fleet off into the unknown for X months and then they come back with goodies for the race and for the player, who presumably helps bankroll the mission.

Really just think of anything that countries do right now, or throughout human history, to work together for mutual benefit and then slap some robots and space pigs on it.

[eRe4s3r]

I agree with BobTheJanitor And I am gonna write a lengthy sort of-rant now...

Currently trade is by FAR the strongest and easiest way to create inter-racial +like and it's incredibly easy to setup and maintain (in fact, trade is never disrupted much, pirates play a role here, but pirates are WAY too weak, strategically (not combat)) I would go so far as to say that aside from Trade/Smuggling and Combat no other part of the gameplay is currently relevant, nor properly connected. Pirates are a good example, easy loot bringers, otherwise irrelevant. Prisoners are another example, exchange for influence or money... wee.

Imo each race needs at least 1 global (hard) way to get another race to like them and another 2 ways to create positive vibes at other races. This should require some stuff the player does. Optimally it should also require some roleplaying, and dynamic events between races, immigration, interracial synergies etc.

But here is the main problem. Player only has credits. Credits are gained by combat (efficiently) and by dispatch (very inefficiently) there is also resources, but mining is horribly inefficent -> Influence is gained by only credits and combat and Mining only sort-of-relates to credits. In essence, mining is pointless.

This essentially means the following. The player is currently disconnected from at least half a dozen gameplay systems where we absolutely have no way to have any influence on them besides spending credits.  And thus no way to create any ways to make races like each other without spending credits (and thus, this creates a situation where there is always -1- way to increase influence across races that's the best, and optimal way)

What I am saying here is, each race should have 3+ ways to improve relations and 2 of them should be required to get to 80. A quest or specific event should get 2 races to 90+. After that quest, both trade and the other 2 ways can increase influence between races beyond 90.

I am also not really happy that we can't interact with hostile alliances aside from fighting them. Which is another issue.. for another topic ;P

Currently, any change to trade would break the game by the way. As there is literally no way to get some races to like others without it. Like bob says, the problem is a lack of choices the player has currently to increase relations (as opposed to influence).

And as added problem. The black market.. seriously, the black market should not exist in this game. It's a credit sink that short-circuits HALF THE GAME. Hydral tech should be super rare, it should be hard to get, and it should require a race or 2 to interact with each other. Creating a federation should also give us a new way to gain technologies and interact with the federation as such, not just with 1 race. There is an entire political element missing here Which makes the game basically COMBAT focused with a pinch of credit spending.

We are still far away from a complex deep strategic experience imo. The game needs, aside from a diplomatic overhaul and a balance pass, also a way to slow-the-entire-thing-down. Research should be RARE. And it should not be linear nor should 2 drastically different races have the same research paths and items... ;P

So yeah, trading is too powerful, but because the game lacks alternative ways to increase relations changing it like the mantis post says would require far reaching changes to every single element of the game.

[casualsax]

I think we're all on the same page.  Going back through the thread, I've picked out the solid concepts and ideas to base changes on so we can get this into Mantis in some sort of organized fashion.

Analysis:

• Trade is really, really strong compared to other options for getting races to like each other.
• Reducing trade effectiveness would make it too hard to create a federation
  
• Using 90 as the limit to create a federation is arbitrary and not in line with other numbers used in the game.
• RCI relationship bonus needs to be more apparent.
• Creating relationships with the the Burlusts and Boarines is difficult, as they don't trade.  This also makes founding the Strong Alliance really difficult.
• Dispatch missions for relations should be a last resort, as they have the lowest risk (and also are the least interesting).
• Getting race relations high enough to form a federation should take at least two methods.

Recommendations:

• Trade bonuses should be soft capped.
• Other options need to be increased, both to bring them in line with trading and to fill the gap that reduced trading impact leaves.
• Increase the relationship of bonus for sharing tech.
• Rescaling relationships to allow federations to start at 50 would be more friendly to new users.
• Pirates could target trade routes.
• Races should harass enemy race trade routes, perhaps via mission.
• Allow a race to establish an embassy with another race at the behest of the Hydral for credits after a certain relationship threshold.  This would provide a trickle of goodwill between races.
• Dispatch missions to improve race relations should be soft capped after 50 to allow some option for grinding for a few needed points at high levels. They should also get a bonus for improving race relations below zero.
• Create an optional interim step between independent race and federation status called a coalition between two races.  The coalition would be based on trade, military, or or scientific, and would increase the relationships over time.  The coalition would be broken up if the reason for founding was destroyed (loss of resources for trade, loss of military strength, loss of research labs).  This is a big feature that could be expanded upon in a lot of ways.
• More clearly indicate the player's current options for improving relations between two races.

[kasnavada]

About credits, the amount given by pacifying AFA is ridiculous.

I won a game last night... by the time I created the federation I must have had 30000 total. I pacified some AFA later, I won 30000.

Duh.

Either we need more money before or less money with AFA. Then again, the amount of money needed to research late tech is also kindof ridiculous, so, maybe it's (somewhat) intended... but there should be other way to make money. And money gains should somewhat scale with money needs...


PS : if you check the patch notes, there is some kind of federation point mechanic... we will have to see how that works.

[Billick]

I think the relations bonus for trading needs to be nerfed, and then maybe make it have a significant bonus to economic RCI values.  To make up for it, I think there needs to be some alternative ways to build race relations.

[ObliqueFault]

I agree with the conclusions of this thread. Casual's synopsis is good, I'd be fine with adding it to Mantis.

[windgen]

I think we're all on the same page.  Going back through the thread, I've picked out the solid concepts and ideas to base changes on so we can get this into Mantis in some sort of organized fashion.

To this, I would add

Recomendation

• More clearly indicate the player's current options for improving relations between two races.

[casualsax]

To this, I would add

Recomendation

• More clearly indicate the player's current options for improving relations between two races.

Agreed and added.  I see that we have 0014574: Trade makes Federating trivial and 0014621: Player needs tools other than trade to build relationships between races in Mantis.  I'll add the big list as a comment for the second.

[ptarth]

To add to the discussion I present a proposal to extend the idea of revamping how relationships between races are modified.

In general

• The races do not develop relationships in a useful way. Trade is the major factor in quickly adjusting (ignoring Boarines) race relationships. However, it doesn't function well for this. Alternatives are desired.

Revamped Trade
Each race can have a number (depending on the Race) of trade treaties with other races. These trade treaties have a budget cost and return benefits based upon the type, strength, and trading partner. Some races will be better partners for some types of trades (e.g., science with Skylaxians). However, trade works both ways, so both races must justify an increase in the trading situation between the races. The number, type, and strength of the trade treaties increase the relationship between the races.

The Hydra player can subsidize the trade between two races to encourage them to develop a route and then make periodic checks to either increase the route value aggressively (by paying to subsidize the increase) or to maintain routes that are not profitable (again, by paying the subsidy). Pirates raid the routes, taking the gains for a raided trip and then use that for their own nefarious needs. Tariffs decrease the cost of a route to the Tariff employer, but the other party will not care for it.

Type of Trade Treaties

• Research - A modifier to the Research and Medical RCI
• Economic - A modifier to your Economy RCI and trade of excess resources (what we have now)
• Commercial Goods - A modifier to Public Order and Economy RCI

Political Agenda Initiatives
A Race (possibly motivated by the Hydra Player) may be interested in improving or lowering relationships with another race. This would provide a small monthly trend.

Racial Preferences (some function of these is already present)

• Some Races just like certain other Races and dislike others
• Skylaxians like Races with high Science, e.g., Evux, Andor
• Burlucks like militaristic races and dislike the weak
• Burlucks like races with high Public Order

Government Preferences (some function of these is already present)

• In general, all races have tendencies to like and dislike certain qualities based upon how the other races are doing
  
• dislike weak Races (easy prey)
• like strong Races (befriend the strong)
• dislike too strong Races (wary of the leaders)
• like allies (build relationships with your friends)
• like if your friends are my friends
• dislike if your friends are my enemies
• like if you have positive RCIs

Government Pacts
The Races will have various pact levels with other races. The type of the relationship provides a relationship modifier.

• War - Full armed conflict
• Cease Fire - Half-hearted Raiding, but not to the death
• Neutral - Aggressive races raid, but others ignore you
• No Raiding - No conflict
• Defensive Alliance - We work with you in defensive wars
• Offensive Alliance - We work with you when you declare war
• Federation ....

Pirates
They raid trade, weaker empires & rich trade routes are prefered. Trade vessels that are lost, don't provide any benefit to the owners. They still lose the invested resources. Trade routes that are too unprofitable are reduced. Races get increasingly angry at the pirates and will try to deal with them on their own. The Hydra Player can work within this system. Possibly include a way to ambush trade routes without the owning Race knowing about it (they blame it on pirates). There are two types of pirates, Independent Pirates and Funded Pirates. Independents work for themselves. They build pirate bases and the profits from raiding go to increasing their fleet power. Funded Pirates funnel their funds back to the Race (or Hydra) that funds them. They don't naturally grow in size, they have to be funded (again or more) to grow in power.

Rescued Pilots

• Pilots are now differentiated between Pirates and Loyalist Pilots.
• All Races will now buy back their own Loyalist Pilots for a price regardless of your own Influence with the race.
• Each race has their own value for Loyalist Pilots, but only 1. You can't choose to cash them in for influence or credits. You get both (or neither, or proxies, or etc).
• Some Races will buy Pirates (for execution or employment) for some price (possibly the same as for Loyalist Pirates).
• You can sell Pirates as slaves with less (or no difficulties) compared to Loyalist Pilots. The influence modifier for this is reduced from the levels it is currently.

[casualsax]

Some good thoughts ptarth, here's what I think:

- I like the idea of different pacts between races that effect research and economics.  I would change "Commercial Goods" to "Mutual Security."

- I'd drop calling them all trade treaties and just call them pacts, and keep trade its own thing.  I don't think its necessary to limit the number of treaties a race can have.  As long as we make the restrictions tough enough, it should be self limiting.

- Treaties shouldn't cost the races anything.  I as a player don't want to stop to calculate whether two races would benefit or not, and it needs to be pretty straight forward whether they will help each other or not.  I would say make it so that if they both like each other, and they both have the same strength in a subject, they will agree to work together.  The more they like each other, the less close they need to be in the subject matter.  The reasoning goes: "We get along just okay with Thoraxians, but we are both waay behind in Tech, lets work together to try and catch up to the Skylaxians."  Or "Wow, we Skylaxians are so far ahead of the Thoraxians, but man they've been so nice to us, we'd be glad to enter a research pact."

- I like the idea of Political agendas.  I think this should be kept to leaders, as one leader might love everyone else who loves technology, while another might be threatened by another race with strong tech.  This already exists, but it should definitely carry more over to the race relations more.  The pacts system would help enable this.

- On Government Pacts, the current system does have various stages of relationships, but all we see in the end is either war, neutral, actively allied.  Creating a negative stepping stone to war, like raiding, would be nice.  Pacts would be the stepping stone to alliance.

- Giving races a way to fund pirates would be nice.  Pirates should be more visible in the game, both from an affect and a UI standpoint.   Right now they are too easily ignored.  I like adding a new class of rescued pilots for pirates, as races wouldn't be as interested in getting them back.  These pirates could be turned into slaves without races caring as much, or converted into goons.  I think creating loyalist/pirate pilots for each race creates too many types of pilots. 

[chemical_art]

...
Thoughts?

I think that, as others have said, the "playbook" of increasing reputation increase then things will be much easier to balance.