0014621: Player needs tools other than trade to build relationships between races - Arcen Idea Tracker (Bugs and Features)

ID	Project	Category		Date Submitted	Last Update

0014621	The Last Federation	Balance Issue		Apr 25, 2014 3:08 pm	Jan 25, 2015 5:18 am

Reporter	windgen	Assigned To	Chris_McElligottPark
Severity	major
Status	feedback	Resolution	open
Product Version	1.004 (x64 Linux Build)

Summary	0014621: Player needs tools other than trade to build relationships between races
Description	This is one of several tickets based on this forum thread: http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,15399.msg170243.html#msg170243 The biggest balance problem with the game at this point is that trade is by far the most effective tool for improving relations between races. This ticket is supposed to get the developers thinking about all the systems already exist for improving relationships between races. Players' consensus is that all of these systems, except for trade, are currently ineffective. For each system for improving relationships between races, we should ask: Is this system too difficult for the player to get feedback on? Too difficult for the player to directly affect? Does it have miniscule gains compared to trade and need its effectiveness buffed? I'll make other tickets for specific suggestions other players have come up with along these lines. This is to get the developers thinking in this general direction, on the grounds that the developers may be aware of systems that are already in the code and could easily be improved along these lines, but have somehow escaped the players' discussion. Contributions to this idea go to Faulty Logic, BobTheJanitor, casualsax, myself, and many others.
Tags	No tags attached.

Internal Weight

casualsax Apr 25, 2014 3:18 pm reporter ~0036788 Last edited: Apr 25, 2014 3:19 pm	Pulled from the trade analysis thread, a combination of ideas from the people wingden mentions: 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. - Re-scaling 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.

GC13 Apr 25, 2014 3:23 pm reporter ~0036789	The most important thing is that there need to be a few different ways to build up opinion, and they all have to have tradeoffs. Right now our big two are the dispatch mission, with the tradeoff of being slow, and the trade routes with no tradeoff. I suppose war also helps, if they're on the right side. If trade has no tradeoffs, then it needs to be de-emphasized while other stuff is adding. I like joint military options against pirates, with the tradeoff that the race whose pirates are being killed likes them both less, and a research co-op agreement, which would probably have the tradeoff that their techs are easier for others to steal.

Chris_McElligottPark May 5, 2014 11:51 am administrator ~0037421	Should basically have been fixed in later versions, but let me know your feelings for sure.

Karrade Jan 25, 2015 5:18 am reporter ~0039889 Last edited: Jan 25, 2015 5:19 am	I wish there was some competing organisation that tried to get trade routes with the planets, or meant you had to monitor those you setup. The pirates are a great idea, and already in, but pirates are easy to destroy. 1) Pirates armadas from bases if they exist. 2) Lone Raiders occasionally if they don't (not as powerful). 3) The floating fleet group idea I had could fit this too, taking the trade routes and resources for themselves. - Or just Independent traders bidding for those resources, some of those galactic companies doing so through hiring mercs to attack standard routes. 4) Balancing - In another thread I had an idea about a static negative modifier for holding a neutral super planet, that everyone wanted. These negative modifiers could exist for other things too, having the best economy angers one or two races, being involved in three wars, angers one or two races, trading with the enemy angers one or two races. You get the idea, based on their personalities. 5) Enemy races should try to establish their OWN routes, which you can attack, buyout or harass. They can do the same to yours.

Date Modified	Username	Field	Change
Apr 25, 2014 3:08 pm	windgen	New Issue
Apr 25, 2014 3:09 pm	windgen	Relationship added	related to 0014574
Apr 25, 2014 3:17 pm	windgen	Relationship added	related to 0014622
Apr 25, 2014 3:18 pm	casualsax	Note Added: 0036788
Apr 25, 2014 3:19 pm	casualsax	Note Edited: 0036788
Apr 25, 2014 3:23 pm	GC13	Note Added: 0036789
Apr 25, 2014 3:35 pm	windgen	Relationship added	related to 0014625
May 5, 2014 11:51 am	Chris_McElligottPark	Note Added: 0037421
May 5, 2014 11:51 am	Chris_McElligottPark	Assigned To	=> Chris_McElligottPark
May 5, 2014 11:51 am	Chris_McElligottPark	Status	new => feedback
Jan 25, 2015 5:18 am	Karrade	Note Added: 0039889
Jan 25, 2015 5:19 am	Karrade	Note Edited: 0039889