Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Simulator Enhancements (03/13/24)

Author Topic: Logarithmic Reputation Scaling Overhaul  (Read 3511 times)

Deshara

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1578
  • Suggestion Writer
    • View Profile
Logarithmic Reputation Scaling Overhaul
« on: December 11, 2018, 01:15:12 AM »

Will result in a 5-point reputation penalty when the expedition starts
         And a 5-point penalty when it arrives in system
         No reputation penalty for fighting the expedition's fleets
         Reputation cost to avert reduced to 20 points
      Takes roughly twice as long for factions to build up towards sending an expedition
      After 2-3 expeditions are sent (total, by all factions), no expeditions will be sent for 6 to 12 months

So if you use a synchrotron you'll be at war with Syndria within a year, and the only way to prevent it is to cause hostilities with other factions so they'll max out your expeditions first?
... I'm starting to feel like it's about time for a reputation rework. I think the only major mechanic left that'll interact with it is here now and said new mechanic is getting the most weirdness from it. Maybe reputation should be made logarithmic like production & population is

What if reputation worked on a averaged Scales of Kind system the way economic production and population did, instead of a linear addition system that makes international relations weirdly arithmetic?
So your reputation with a faction works on a twenty point scale (max 10 min -10, 0 neutral) instead of a two hundred point scale, with your interactions with a faction having a pre-determined place on said scale and each point of difference on said scale being ten times difference. After ten stacks of "did ___", they get combined into a stack one "does ___" stack of the next scale up. Instead of just reputation changes bumping your reputation score in a direction, your score is instead an average of all your reputation affects made in the last month (including a saved value of your last month's final reputation that this month's works off of)

So if you start off neutral at 0 reputation with a faction, running with a transponder off & needing to be dinged for it by traffic cops gives you a "caught not using transponder" status effect with a value of -1, giving you an average reputation of -1 (inhospitable) (-1/1) for the time being. If you get hit again for running with your transponder off in a different system by the same faction, you get another "caught not using the transponder" -1 status effect in the reputation screen, which means your reputation is still a total of -1 (-1 + -1)/2 = -1) because you're still just a miscreant who doesn't follow traffic rules. If you then hit your transponder and show up to help a patrol of said faction run down pirates, you get a "aided a patrol" +2 reputation affect, which puts you at +2 total reputation because each +2 (and -2) counts as ten +1 (and -1) actions so now the average is 2 ((-1x2 + 2x10)/12) because aiding a patrol in running down pirates is way more notable than being reminded to keep your transponder on, twice.

If you get tagged for your transponder ten more times after those first two, however, somehow managing to get let off each time by doing it in a different system to a total of 12 transponder hits in one month the games takes your ten stacks of the same -1 reputation and combines them into a single -2 "refuses to use their transponder" hit, so now the reputation is -1 (-1x2 + (2x10) + (-2x10)/22) because you gaining a reputation for willfully defying their laws negates the goodwill of helping a patrol do what it was already gonna do anyway, leaving your un-negated "is still breaking traffic laws" -1's to be the remaining deciding factor.
The point here; Lets assume you hadn't helped out that patrol and your reputation is at -2 bc of your refusal to use your transponder (-1x2 + -2x10)/12). If you then get tagged by the same fleet a second time for the transponder and they go weapons hot causing you to flee without casualty giving you a -2 "fled an inspection" hit, the game doesn't drop you down to -4 (twice the actual reputation loss for fleeing an inspection, which is thus far your vastly largest interaction with the faction); you stay at -2 because your fleeing an inspection merely cements your reputation you already had as a harmless miscreant who disrespects traffic law.

The pro of this system; you can't make a faction go to war with you just by not using your transponder. You can make patrols attack you, but if you always disengage without casualty then the worst you can get is a -3 reputation from combining10 stacks of the "fled an inspection" to get one stack of "flees inspections" reputation hit. If you kill an inspection (bc your fleet is too big to flee without incident, say) but let them flee, you get a -3 reputation for it and if you keep doing it it gets rolled up into a -4 which is almost war. Which, I think, feels right; if you make the Suspicious reputation status of -4 make patrol fleets who spot you treat you as if you're hostile but the rest of the faction not unless a patrol asks them for assistance against a much larger Suspicious fleet (for example, if they tag you for transponder and then realize who you are and that you will definitely murder them without a functioning reputation loss (IE no reason not), they disengage then maintain contact with your fleet while calling for backup from a nearby larger-than-patrol military fleet to come help them with an inspection check at a much larger scale) it would work really well.
Also; engaging a faction in the warfare they throw at you doesn't flush your reputation down to the worst possible because you don't get linearly added reputation hits for each battle, without needing to contrive exceptions for it. Defending yourself from an unjustified attack could have one more reputation hit than resisting an inspection, of -4, so that doing so won't trigger a war while still affecting your reputation with that faction (because you did kill thousands of souls, regardless of whether it was technically your fault), but putting yourself into a position where you'll get unjustly attacked repeatedly (say, by contesting Syndria's fuel monopoly) and rolling a stack of "killed an expedition fleet" -4's into a stack of "kills expedition fleets" which, unless you're doing stuff to get onto Syndria's good side gives them enough excuse they need to mobilize a military offensive at your faction. And, because there's a lot more context baked into this system, instead of war just being infinite hostility forever it can be one month (at minimum) of said faction no longer needing to warn you in the intel screen that they're going to send hostile fleets your way because mobilizing a warfleet against a colony they've declared war on generates way less news coverage than mobilizing a warfleet against a colony they're at peace with -- so now instead of hitting -50 reputation being them declaring infinite all-out war forever everywhere it now feels like the faction getting *** off and mobilizing a more official version of what expeditions already are -- like Syndrian High Command gets sick of having to hear that wayward admirals went off into the outter rim and lost a whole battlefleet to a fuel-competing colony repeatedly so they took the excuse (once given it) to step in and try to remove what was causing their admirals to run off and die to stop it from happening.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2018, 01:16:46 AM by Deshara »
Logged
Quote from: Deshara
I cant be blamed for what I said 5 minutes ago. I was a different person back then

nomadic_leader

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 725
    • View Profile
Re: Logarithmic Reputation Scaling Overhaul
« Reply #1 on: December 11, 2018, 08:39:15 AM »

I like what you're trying to do because there are problems with rep, but it's just too complicated as described. Don't think we need another confusing exponential/logarithmic thing  players need to grapple with (majority of whom probably not too familiar with logarithms).

The -100 to 100 arithmetic system can be understood immediately, and should be fine. It's the developer's choices of when and how the values change that needs to be tweaked. This can easily be changed while keeping the arithmetic system.

e.g. Just change the transponder functions in the API so that it doesn't keep decreasing/increasing your rep more if your rep is already below/above certain thresholds, etc.

Another exapmle, what the heck is this:
Will result in a 5-point reputation penalty when the expedition starts
         And a 5-point penalty when it arrives in system
         No reputation penalty for fighting the expedition's fleets
         Reputation cost to avert reduced to 20 points
      Takes roughly twice as long for factions to build up towards sending an expedition
      After 2-3 expeditions are sent (total, by all factions), no expeditions will be sent for 6 to 12 months

So if I understand correctly:
If you fight, you lose 10 points only.
If you go diplomatic with them (avert), you lose the same 10 points, but ALSO another 20 points?

So it pisses them off more if you don't fight them, than if you do fight them.

Totally illogical. Just make the current system use values that make sense, and things would be greatly improved without going logarithmic
Logged

SCC

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4112
    • View Profile
Re: Logarithmic Reputation Scaling Overhaul
« Reply #2 on: December 11, 2018, 08:59:03 AM »

So if I understand correctly:
If you fight, you lose 10 points only.
If you go diplomatic with them (avert), you lose the same 10 points, but ALSO another 20 points?
How can the expedition start if you avert it? But besides that, it's still 5 or 10 points for fighting them and 20 for not fighting. Presumably Alex intends the latter option to be merely a stop gap before you can defend your colonies.
I think that the biggest issue is that you can lose reputation passively, but can't gain it that way. I suspect that this is less intended and more of a stop gap before the colonies become more involved or slower to give you mad dosh.

...By the way, economy is only partially exponential, in the way that's least useful to the player.

Grievous69

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2980
    • View Profile
Re: Logarithmic Reputation Scaling Overhaul
« Reply #3 on: December 11, 2018, 09:07:17 AM »

Hmm, you know, it might make sense to just move the entire reputation penalty to "when the expedition fails". That way you can avoid the penalty with bribes, and if the expedition succeeds, at least there's a slight silver lining.

Just copying this here for clarification. But yea, it still makes no sense that you're gonna be constantly losing reputation with factions even without possibly never directly attacking them or *** them off in a similar way. Tbh why not just make expeditions special so that you don't lose reputation when you fight them. It's not like we're killing them for fun, doesn't make sense that we get punished for defending. It basically boils down to what Megas has said, don't put up a colony before you have a death fleet and factions are no longer a threat. But by that point you're in late game and defeat almost the whole purpose of colonies.
Logged
Please don't take me too seriously.

Torch

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 64
  • Long-time lurker and space RPG fan, neutral good
    • View Profile
Re: Logarithmic Reputation Scaling Overhaul
« Reply #4 on: December 11, 2018, 09:48:10 AM »

What I don't get is why reputation with a faction would drop without the player having done anything to them other than exist. Fighting them, sure, using diplomacy to avert it, go ahead because you can only pull so many favors from good standing. But losing rep when they launch an attack? When they enter your system?  That's like losing rep with a faction when you approach their station because you planned on attacking them, before you even do anything. Factions shouldn't be instigating open hostilities with the player for no reason, anyway. Not unless they're going to do the same thing to each other.
Logged

SCC

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4112
    • View Profile
Re: Logarithmic Reputation Scaling Overhaul
« Reply #5 on: December 11, 2018, 10:02:50 AM »

That's like losing rep with a faction when you approach their station because you planned on attacking them, before you even do anything. Factions shouldn't be instigating open hostilities with the player for no reason, anyway.
There is a reason, politics. Factions are currently in a happy agreement that everybody outside them and existing independent colonies is allowed to do their own thing. Pirates have their own uses as well. The transgression is the player's rise to the power itself - if they don't gain anything in that, nobody can. It's not supposed to be fair, you're going against a military junta, a totalitarian dictatorship, a ruthless megacorporation, religious zealots and loose alliance of self-serving polities after all.
I can see this as sudden to the players that don't think about their colonies in political scope, though.

Torch

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 64
  • Long-time lurker and space RPG fan, neutral good
    • View Profile
Re: Logarithmic Reputation Scaling Overhaul
« Reply #6 on: December 11, 2018, 11:07:07 AM »

There is a reason, politics. Factions are currently in a happy agreement that everybody outside them and existing independent colonies is allowed to do their own thing. Pirates have their own uses as well. The transgression is the player's rise to the power itself - if they don't gain anything in that, nobody can. It's not supposed to be fair, you're going against a military junta, a totalitarian dictatorship, a ruthless megacorporation, religious zealots and loose alliance of self-serving polities after all.
I can see this as sudden to the players that don't think about their colonies in political scope, though.

That definitely makes a lot more sense than what I assumed. Is this going to be made more clear in the future? I find that it would be a lot less annoying if I knew why the factions behave the way they do. It feels a lot more fair when NPCs behave in a way that makes sense in the context of the lore.
Logged

Deshara

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1578
  • Suggestion Writer
    • View Profile
Re: Logarithmic Reputation Scaling Overhaul
« Reply #7 on: December 11, 2018, 09:40:10 PM »

There is a reason, politics. Factions are currently in a happy agreement that everybody outside them and existing independent colonies is allowed to do their own thing. Pirates have their own uses as well. The transgression is the player's rise to the power itself - if they don't gain anything in that, nobody can. It's not supposed to be fair, you're going against a military junta, a totalitarian dictatorship, a ruthless megacorporation, religious zealots and loose alliance of self-serving polities after all.
I can see this as sudden to the players that don't think about their colonies in political scope, though.

That definitely makes a lot more sense than what I assumed. Is this going to be made more clear in the future? I find that it would be a lot less annoying if I knew why the factions behave the way they do. It feels a lot more fair when NPCs behave in a way that makes sense in the context of the lore.

I feel like the problem with this behavior is that it feels like they should... get the message, when "let's roll this new guy into the dirt" doesn't work out for them.
Logged
Quote from: Deshara
I cant be blamed for what I said 5 minutes ago. I was a different person back then

TrashMan

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1325
    • View Profile
Re: Logarithmic Reputation Scaling Overhaul
« Reply #8 on: December 12, 2018, 02:41:53 AM »

That's like losing rep with a faction when you approach their station because you planned on attacking them, before you even do anything. Factions shouldn't be instigating open hostilities with the player for no reason, anyway.
There is a reason, politics. Factions are currently in a happy agreement that everybody outside them and existing independent colonies is allowed to do their own thing. Pirates have their own uses as well. The transgression is the player's rise to the power itself - if they don't gain anything in that, nobody can. It's not supposed to be fair, you're going against a military junta, a totalitarian dictatorship, a ruthless megacorporation, religious zealots and loose alliance of self-serving polities after all.
I can see this as sudden to the players that don't think about their colonies in political scope, though.

If you want to talk about Real Politics, in real politics there are also many ways to deal with this (and very few in the game) and the power play between the factions could lead to different outcomes.

A rising power is a threat to everyone? A single colony in the back end of nowhere? OK. But what if I was on real good terms with the military junta? Would they be OK with the religious zealots that are their enemy raiding my colony and stealign resources?
If every power has a vested interest in my colony, then it also stands to reason that their interests would conflict, and thus major power A might ***-block major power B because it's suits them.
As it is now, we're not palying politics, the player is just a punching bag.
Logged

Xan

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
Re: Logarithmic Reputation Scaling Overhaul
« Reply #9 on: December 13, 2018, 04:36:35 AM »

I like what you're trying to do because there are problems with rep, but it's just too complicated as described. Don't think we need another confusing exponential/logarithmic thing  players need to grapple with (majority of whom probably not too familiar with logarithms).

I wouldn't go that far, aren't most XP/leveling systems in games logarithmic?
Logged

Clockwork Owl

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 790
    • View Profile
    • Starsector South Korean Community
Re: Logarithmic Reputation Scaling Overhaul
« Reply #10 on: December 13, 2018, 06:04:57 AM »

Will result in a 5-point reputation penalty when the expedition starts
         And a 5-point penalty when it arrives in system
         No reputation penalty for fighting the expedition's fleets
         Reputation cost to avert reduced to 20 points
      Takes roughly twice as long for factions to build up towards sending an expedition
      After 2-3 expeditions are sent (total, by all factions), no expeditions will be sent for 6 to 12 months

So if I understand correctly:
If you fight, you lose 10 points only.
If you go diplomatic with them (avert), you lose the same 10 points, but ALSO another 20 points?
nope.

Averting an expedition causes them to not start at all. -20 rep.
If the expedition arrives and fails, -10 rep.
If you intercept the expedition fleet before it arrives, -5 rep.
If the expedition fleet fails to gather at all(happens sometimes), no rep penalty, plus your contribution(not sure what causes it, but I'm assuming it involves attacking fleets).
Logged

nomadic_leader

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 725
    • View Profile
Re: Logarithmic Reputation Scaling Overhaul
« Reply #11 on: December 13, 2018, 06:11:27 AM »

I like what you're trying to do because there are problems with rep, but it's just too complicated as described. Don't think we need another confusing exponential/logarithmic thing  players need to grapple with (majority of whom probably not too familiar with logarithms).

I wouldn't go that far, aren't most XP/leveling systems in games logarithmic?

But the XP isn't really something the player has to babysit like rep. Anyway with XP, you end up fighting more powerful enemies who give more XP, so the overall progression is closer to linear. (e.g. you level up once an hour until you hit the falloff point basically)

Look at all the responses in the thread: Everyone is vexed because factions do not behave and dole out rep values that makes sense. They aren't complaining that it's arithmetic. Nothing in the OP convinced me that log scale can do much that more thoughtful implementation of arithmatic couldn't do. It's not the system, it's the values put into it. Forcing people to do logs in their head all the time won't help.

But maybe if the OP could refine their ideas more I'd be convinced.


So if I understand correctly:
nope.

Averting an expedition causes them to not start at all. -20 rep.
If the expedition arrives and fails, -10 rep.
If you intercept the expedition fleet before it arrives, -5 rep.
If the expedition fleet fails to gather at all(happens sometimes), no rep penalty, plus your contribution(not sure what causes it, but I'm assuming it involves attacking fleets).

I think they posted that Alex changed all this. Anyway, it doesn't make sense that averting it costs more rep than actual war. Give me a break.
Logged