What happens if you lose a fight with a faction? Will your relation with them still go down?
On a related note: I think that if a faction is Vengeful, then you should be able to raise it back up to Hostile if you lose in battle to their fleets*. I mean, at that point they are thoroughly avenged, right?
*Obvious rule patch: you'd have to base the reputation gain on what all the player lost, otherwise we'd be able to stop by the Abandoned Storage Facility to drop down to a Hound and go death-hunting.
Now this should lead to some interesting things to play with with faction relationships in the upcoming release. Definitely getting hyped up, yeah.
You're killin' me, Alex! I can't deal with this teasing!!!!!
imo losing a fight vs a faction (assuming they're the aggressors) shouldn't change relations one way or another. I mean, the assumption is you escaped with your life, and thus they're still just as hostile towards you as ever. If you lose a fight as the aggressor, relations should go down depending on losses inflicted (if no losses, it should go down a trivial amount since it's little more than a misunderstanding/harmless harassment)
Vengeful, imo, shouldn't be able to be negated barring VERY special events, off of the top of my head, here are a few possibilities:
-Formal declaration of surrender including massive war reparations and likely loss of planets/outposts
-Armistice/peace treaty signed
-Special pardon from leader of faction, likely result of display of heroism in battle (ofc, this would require the faction to be desperate enough to let you fight for them in the first place)
-Change of faction leadership, likely result of the death of the current leader or the utter defeat and subsequent splintering of the faction
And even then, for the most part the most you'll be able to raise it up to is suspicious
Sounds like a near perfect framework for these things. One thing i wonder about is why "independents" have a unified rating at all, though.
Also, how moddable do you think the specific actions and effects of relations will be?
Weapon unlocks are now my favorite upcoming feature. I want to earn my giant fleet of murder-ships. :)
Hey, I'm seeing some improved Market Conditions icons (albeit, not all of them). Might want to hack away at those. :D
Weapon unlocks are now my favorite upcoming feature. I want to earn my giant fleet of murder-ships. :)
That reminds me - something I wanted to talk about in the blog post but didn't really get to is how the weapons for sale are generated. What it does is takes the ships this market would generate, and then looks at the weapons on those. So, it's a generic algorithm that takes into account the faction-specific fleet compositions and the market stability, which results in higher "quality" ships being picked. The nice thing is there's no need to update some kind of weapon list every time fleet compositions change, it's just naturally all linked. Not a major thing, I just think it's neat :)
If ships for sale end up being generated the same way, this would also make sure that the market naturally has the right kinds of weapons to slot in.
(It also sprinkles in some random weapons, btw.)
Vengeful, imo, shouldn't be able to be negated barring VERY special events, off of the top of my head, here are a few possibilities:
-Formal declaration of surrender including massive war reparations and likely loss of planets/outposts
-Armistice/peace treaty signed
-Special pardon from leader of faction, likely result of display of heroism in battle (ofc, this would require the faction to be desperate enough to let you fight for them in the first place)
-Change of faction leadership, likely result of the death of the current leader or the utter defeat and subsequent splintering of the faction
And even then, for the most part the most you'll be able to raise it up to is suspicious
Yep, generally on the same page here.
I hope the rewards for higher tiers of friendship isn't only bigger ships/weapons. What I mean by this is that if the player goes out of his way to max a friendship status with a faction, say a faction that is very hard to please even, then the reward should be very rewarding. So far from the mods and from the game I've been seeing a lot of people trying to balance the game so no ship would be inherently OP, which is fine, but if we're going to introduce a progression system into the game then I hope the ships/weapons/etc we get from this are actually better than the stuff you can find elsewhere. They should still be very expensive, but maybe they are a little better than the other ships when it comes to the Supply/Power ratio or have an unique ability that makes them special while using them in combat or very useful.
How is the reputation required to buy a good determined?
I feel like it would be cool if the black market offered a way to buy fancier weapons/ships than a faction is otherwise willing to sell you (equal to a reputation boost of x amount). Prices for weapons would generally be higher than legally acquired ones, and you might take a small relations hit if caught. More hostile factions might impound your ships until you pay a certain fee... could be an interesting way to lose ships/money when you get caught smuggling. Outright hostile factions will try to impound your ships/not let you dock regardless of whether you're dealing on the black market or not.
You could even have a skill in the "industry" category that give bonuses to black market trades. Each rank in the skill is equivalent to +10 faction relationship for the purposes of black market trading and reduces the chances and consequences of getting caught. Ranks of the skill would also improve your ability to sell weapons/ships/cargo on the black market and increase your selling price (factions might not buy weapons from you if they don't trust you). Likewise, just being outright friendly with a faction gives you opportunities for better deals and other side missions.
The logos for the Ludd factions/Diktat seem a little uninteresting. The Hegemony and Tri-Tachyon logos, on the other hand are rather fabulous and spiffy (OMFG I LOVE THE HEGEMONY ONE).
Also not sure how I feel about having 3 very closely related factions all with "Ludd" in the name. They might feel a little more different if the names were changed so that only one of them was the "Ludd faction" and they had different colors/insignia.
re: 3 ludd factions
would it be cleaner to have them sorted by alliances? Like having a "Luddite" alliance for these 3, then the "star patrol" (mentioned somewhere in the lore) being rolled together with the Hegemony, along with whatever allies or vassals they might have. That could get messy if really complicated faction relation webs start forming though....
Have you thought about placing a few procedural worlds on the fringes? I know a while back you wanted to do a core of hand made content and a few procedural worlds to fill it out - it might make the next version really interesting to have just a few worlds subtly changing the trade relationships for each playthrough. Might become a balancing nightmare though, and I wouldn't want to push back the release! ;)
Question: does attacking enemies of a faction improve your rating with them? Or would they have to 'authorize' you first? Maybe one way of being bumped up to cooperative is if your faction relationships match that of the faction (the Hegemony only really trusts you once you've well and truly shown that you are anti-trytach... and back if up with battles/destabilizing smuggling).
I feel like it would be cool if the black market offered a way to buy fancier weapons/ships than a faction is otherwise willing to sell you (equal to a reputation boost of x amount). Prices for weapons would generally be higher than legally acquired ones, and you might take a small relations hit if caught. More hostile factions might impound your ships until you pay a certain fee... could be an interesting way to lose ships/money when you get caught smuggling. Outright hostile factions will try to impound your ships/not let you dock regardless of whether you're dealing on the black market or not.
Kind of how it works, actually - the black market gets fewer weapons, but they aren't tier-restricted. As far as prices, they're actually lower on the black market because there's no tariff; the standard tariff elsewhere is 30%. The idea behind no tariffs on the black market is to encourage the player to smuggle/offset its risks. Weapons don't participate in that at the moment, but they probably will eventually, so it might not work out. Hmm. Let me write this down and take a look. The idea of "higher prices for weapons on the black market" makes sense, just need to think through how it works with everything and make sure there isn't some giant loophole where it results in free money. And also if it's easy to make work that way.
Could this be done by the player? I would LOVE to do this~ *rubs my paws together evilly*Vengeful, imo, shouldn't be able to be negated barring VERY special events, off of the top of my head, here are a few possibilities:Yep, generally on the same page here.
-Change of faction leadership, likely result of the death of the current leader or the utter defeat and subsequent splintering of the faction
vs ONE faction, that's hardly game over......Yeah I ws talking about everyone, not just one faction
if anything, I like the consequence introduced by this mechanic
Raising relationship to cooperative...I wish! I would go NUTS if this were true!
Multi fleet engagements!
Say, defending a mining fleet from pirates.
Or participate in a war effort in faction vs faction.
;D
Quote from: Thaago on August 12, 2014, 08:31:06 PM
Question: does attacking enemies of a faction improve your rating with them? Or would they have to 'authorize' you first? Maybe one way of being bumped up to cooperative is if your faction relationships match that of the faction (the Hegemony only really trusts you once you've well and truly shown that you are anti-trytach... and back if up with battles/destabilizing smuggling).
Not unless there's a bounty out. Been thinking about that too, though, so that's not set in stone.
Very interesting idea re: needing similar relationships. I'm not sure that's something that's easy to express using the current mechanics, but could see this playing a part in, say, doing missions for faction higher-ups - which might, in turn, be eventually be the only way to get up to "cooperative". It might even be a requirement for getting such missions to begin with.
the first few trade-reputation points with a faction are easier to gain, and then it levels out. ... those first points let the player know quickly that trade has this effect, and the gain is distributed more evenly as the player levels up, instead of back-loading all of it to when the player has the capacity to trade in bulk.
I would say it would make sense for bottom tier weapons to come at some discount, sliding to a hefty markup for top tier.
I'd imagine getting (irl) some surplus issue rifles/pistols would probably be pretty cheap, while getting hold of, say, an aa missile battery of the latest design would come at considerable cost. After all, the final cost in the black market had to include the risks nefarious individuals took to get them to the market.
It also keeps buying basic weapons there attractive gameplay wise, because "we can get you boxes of ak's, cheap"
As far as money loopholes - well, illegal weapons trading is a profitable business, and the player oughto be able to get in that - so long add the appropriate risks are present :)
Buying good weapons to sell to the black market at profit sounds cool if I risk massive reputation loss etc.
Nice post, Alex. Your blog is always a good read these days.
A quick questions - I suppose that all stances can be easily modded and their effects adjusted? And I have no doubt that these stances can be either 'called' by the exact number or it`s ID should I need them anywhere in the scripts?
Another question - you said that trading with someone will have a negative impact on relations with their enemies. Is it automated or do we (modders) need to specifically adjust it somewhere?
And how these enemies will actually understand that you are doing that?
Smuggling... How about unauthorized, but also undetected docking? I mean, when there are a lot of ships around station it gets tricky to track them all, so one or two ships can get past. Something like... 1/number of ships orbiting or near station * number of player's ships = chance of getting caught on radar (though the number of player's ships compared to others' should also count). That would force player to wait until there is a lot of ships (in worst cause, hostile) and to try then to smuggle goods. Unsuccesfull try would worsen relationship with station's owner.
Man, this is gonna be a grand update. :)
The relation system seems pretty straightforward, but I really like the twist with the limits, should make for a more authentic behavior. Just don't forget do communicate clearly when and why an action has no or reduced influence on standing.
Are faction relations interconnected? E.G. does improving your standing with one faction beyond a certain threshold automatically impact your relation with enemies or friends of that faction?
It might be worth a thought to display these early bonuses as such, i.e. make it 5+3 in the beginning, dropping to 5, instead of 8 and dropping to 5. Otherwise players might feel as if you are taking something away from them later (instead of feeling like getting a bonus early on).
But I have to raise the question of whether you'll implement in-campaign missions, longer 'crusades' of fighting or even the possibility to come to someone's aid
(for instance a three-way battle with options attack A, B or both, or even wait it out and attack the winner)?
On the other hand, I'm also curious as to if better standings will give you markdowns on equipment/ships or if you can, say, trade some influence, as it were, for a selection of ships/crew, later down the line. Those kinda things.
Maybe make it somewhat like this: When you unlock the next "tier" of weapons, the previous tiers get a slight discount. IE at the Cooperative level, the discounts would go like this: 9%, 6%, 3%, 0% with the first being the lowest tier weaponsOn the other hand, I'm also curious as to if better standings will give you markdowns on equipment/ships or if you can, say, trade some influence, as it were, for a selection of ships/crew, later down the line. Those kinda things.
Maybe? I mean, with these types of ideas, it's just a question of picking a set of them that works well together and does the job it needs to go, design-wise. More isn't better, especially when you consider that everything needs to be explained to the player somehow, so it can't just be "oh hey, the price is less here and nobody knows why".
For example, with faction standing already giving you access to better weapons, does it add much if those weapons are also cheaper? It might or it might not, depending on how other mechanics interact (e.g., if these same weapons are available elsewhere, with different requirements etc). It'd have to pull its weight to be added.
That makes sense - I bet nations do the same when selling weapons to "favoured trade partners" and other nations they are friendly/would like to have close strategic ties with. Probably true of PMCs too, and the player is (or will be, once we can own stations outside of exerelin) somehow between the two.Maybe make it somewhat like this: When you unlock the next "tier" of weapons, the previous tiers get a slight discount. IE at the Cooperative level, the discounts would go like this: 9%, 6%, 3%, 0% with the first being the lowest tier weaponsOn the other hand, I'm also curious as to if better standings will give you markdowns on equipment/ships or if you can, say, trade some influence, as it were, for a selection of ships/crew, later down the line. Those kinda things.
Maybe? I mean, with these types of ideas, it's just a question of picking a set of them that works well together and does the job it needs to go, design-wise. More isn't better, especially when you consider that everything needs to be explained to the player somehow, so it can't just be "oh hey, the price is less here and nobody knows why".
For example, with faction standing already giving you access to better weapons, does it add much if those weapons are also cheaper? It might or it might not, depending on how other mechanics interact (e.g., if these same weapons are available elsewhere, with different requirements etc). It'd have to pull its weight to be added.
I think the icons on the top right corner of the trader screen is way too complicated to show what each represents at a glance. Wouldn't a simple 2D design along the lines of our smartphone icons be way more intuitive?I'm pretty sure that Alex said that those are just placeholders for now. And if you look closely, you can see that there are many icons that are from hullmod icons
Sorry about being off tangent; I just really don't like overly complicated iconography. :P
I think the icons on the top right corner of the trader screen is way too complicated to show what each represents at a glance. Wouldn't a simple 2D design along the lines of our smartphone icons be way more intuitive?I'm pretty sure that Alex said that those are just placeholders for now. And if you look closely, you can see that there are many icons that are from hullmod icons
Sorry about being off tangent; I just really don't like overly complicated iconography. :P
Might be a good idea to send one last "didn't change" message and then stop, perhaps. Let me write that down.
[discussion of black market weapon prices]
Optimally "didn't change, and further action of this type will not change it". I'm pretty sure that otherwise there would be cases where (stubborn) players speculate that you now have to do 10 trade runs to get a relationship point, or test different amounts, or different merchandise...A good idea since other games can be cruel and have an event triggered by only one activity... at a low percentange chance. For example, kill the final boss for a chance of a top-tier item drop, but the chance of it dropping is only 0.1%. The remaining 99.9% drop is vendor trash.
Maybe make it somewhat like this: When you unlock the next "tier" of weapons, the previous tiers get a slight discount. IE at the Cooperative level, the discounts would go like this: 9%, 6%, 3%, 0% with the first being the lowest tier weaponsThat makes sense - I bet nations do the same when selling weapons to "favoured trade partners" and other nations they are friendly/would like to have close strategic ties with. Probably true of PMCs too, and the player is (or will be, once we can own stations outside of exerelin) somehow between the two.
I think the icons on the top right corner of the trader screen is way too complicated to show what each represents at a glance. Wouldn't a simple 2D design along the lines of our smartphone icons be way more intuitive?I'm pretty sure that Alex said that those are just placeholders for now. And if you look closely, you can see that there are many icons that are from hullmod icons
Sorry about being off tangent; I just really don't like overly complicated iconography. :P
Number 1,2,4,6,7 are new and, I believe, no placeholders. I agree that some of them appear pretty noisy and are not easy to identify. My hope is that they will make more sense once we know what they are supposed to display.
I'm not sure that simplifying them would help much. With smartphone icons we know what function hides behind them because we know what a smartphone can do, market conditions are mostly new concepts.
One question/suggestion: Will the standing you have with a faction be recognized by fleets not belonging to that faction? For example, an independent fleet (neutral to Hegemoney) might think twice about attacking you in a Hegemoney system if you are cooperative with the Hegemoney. Or a bounty hunter thinks it's the perfect opportunity to attack you when you pass through the Sindrian Diktat system, because you are hostile to the Sindrian Diktat and won't get support here.
By the way, will the dialog options get an overhaul for the next release?
Quote[discussion of black market weapon prices]
I like the idea of common weapons being cheap on the black market and rarer ones very expensive. Could it be linked to scarcity across the system? If legitimate merchants have a total of 50 Harpoons for sale, the black market might offer Harpoons that "fell off the truck" at a big discount—so the player will always be tempted to buy basic weapons illegally. If there isn't a single Tachyon Lance for sale anywhere in the system and a black marketeer gets his hands on one, he'll sell it at a 300% markup or something (and the player will be tempted for different reasons).
I have an idea on how to handle Independent relations.
Each Independent station is, of course, independent - its own entity. They decide their attitude toward you on their own, but are in a loose coalition, and attacking one independent fleet is the same as attacking them all - enough to have them all declare you a threat. Perhaps similarly, killing enough pirates might raise the collective opinion, but trading is more station-specific.
QuoteOptimally "didn't change, and further action of this type will not change it". I'm pretty sure that otherwise there would be cases where (stubborn) players speculate that you now have to do 10 trade runs to get a relationship point, or test different amounts, or different merchandise...A good idea since other games can be cruel and have an event triggered by only one activity... at a low percentange chance. For example, kill the final boss for a chance of a top-tier item drop, but the chance of it dropping is only 0.1%. The remaining 99.9% drop is vendor trash.
Players used to treadmill games (with bad drops and hideously slow level grinding) are amazingly stubborn or tenacious.
All I've gained from this blog post is that everyone's a circle in space. ;D Every single faction's banner is a circle in the middle except for pirates. Not complaining, just noticing. Also blah blah, great post, new stuff blah. I'm really excited about it, actually, just don't have much to add to the discussion.
However, I would like to say that the positive faction relation names are not as obvious to me as the negative ones.This merely expresses my opinion, and I am aware that I may be the only one who thinks this. Still, there may be others who were confused by the designations at first glance.
- Favorable - a good starting point.
- Welcoming - I find that to be a stronger term than friendly. I imagine a big welcoming hug as opposed to:
- Friendly - Simply being friendly, at least to me, means maybe a smile and a wave, maybe a little polite chat. Friendly =/= being friends.
- Cooperative - Not a measure of favor. I can cooperate with someone regardless of whether or not I like them.
Hussar polandball it is! :DAll I've gained from this blog post is that everyone's a circle in space. ;D Every single faction's banner is a circle in the middle except for pirates. Not complaining, just noticing. Also blah blah, great post, new stuff blah. I'm really excited about it, actually, just don't have much to add to the discussion.
Hah, hadn't realized. The Diktat isn't!
*something something* Perhaps Allies? Although, Close Allies *something something*I suppose that you aren't allied with them, rather a cooperative stance means that they will actually help you sometimes, instead of "meh" when you've gotten into some serious... stuff. Being allied with someone means that you have to help them and vice versa, and probably some other things (like making plans together). Alliances are rather faction thing, not player... But well, if the mechanics of building star empire work then it is possible to come back to this... But now? Nah, IMO it feels it's too early to talk about such stuff. Cooperative is better word for the stance.
By the way, will the dialog options get an overhaul for the next release?
Not sure which dialog options you mean, could you clarify?
Battles involving multiple fleets, though (but with only 2 sides), I do want to look at eventually.
I feel that cooperative has a negative connotation. Perhaps Allies? Although, Close Allies would better describe the willing ness to help, but it has TWO WORDS (it ruins the simplicity/unified feel IMO)!
Mh, cooperative reminds me indeed mostly of law enforcement. How about "Supportive"? That's a nicer word, also emphasizing action. Or "Solidary" would fit very well, too.
Welcoming isn't perfect either, but better than cooperative. Wouldn't mind it staying. Alternatives might be "Obliging" or "Amicable".
allied implies some kind of formal treaty
But anyway, it doesn't matter much. The game itself can set these definitions. When you play the game and see how the words are used, you will fit the words to the definitions the game provides, as long as it isn't too much of a stretch.
Not sure which dialog options you mean, could you clarify?
Just the standard fleet encounter dialog. Do the fleet commanders have different things to say, depending on your standing with their faction? Maybe they can even share real information with you (like market conditions, local threats...or whatever two fleet commanders might chat about). Just thought it might be good fit for this update.
The Sindrian Diktat sort of came outta nowhere, will there be other "minor" factions to spice up the setting?
SpoilerI find the relationship names "tolerable" :P, but I agree they could perhaps be improved. Right off-hand I can think of Civ4 that had pleased and friendly, but that doesn't seem like much help. I can't help but think Gothars' suggestion of Solidary is just way too close to "Solitary" to work.
Neutral->Favorable->Welcoming->Friendly->Cooperative Hmm... Have to keep it in context. Space factions in desperate times where many resources are scarce. Well, something to keep in mind is that these terms should work for both when you are a single fleet, and when you are running a faction yourself.
Some brainstorming later...
Perhaps flipping favorable and cooperative?
Cooperative->Welcoming->Friendly->Favorable
That would put Cooperative and Suspicious opposite one another, which I think fits. Welcoming-Inhospitable and Friendly-Hostile also work as opposites, already. Favorable and Vengeful don't mesh so well... Holding judgment on Favorable for a sentence or three, perhaps Vengeful isn't a good choice? Hateful seems like a suitably strong word, but doesn't seem to quite fit the mold. Forsworn randomly popped into my head for some reason lol :D. Hmm... turning to Favorable, it just doesn't seem like a strong enough word to represent the final level of positive relation. I had "Close" flop into my head, but, like Hateful, it doesn't fit the form of the other relation levels. Allied has come up in this thread, but it doesn't seem like a state of relations that would come from anything less than joining the faction or some sort of treaty between your faction and theirs. I've been assuming the top relation level doesn't require practically or literally joining the faction to reach. If it does, though, then Aligned could be used.
Cooperative->Welcoming->Friendly->Aligned
Suspicious->Inhospitable->Hostile->Hateful
I guess Vengeful could work if it wasn't a level a faction would typically stay at if they got their revenge on you or whomever. ???[close]
This brings up a question... are the 4th relationship levels supposed to be ones that are easily maintained? E.g. once the 4th positive level is reached, you would have to actively work against them to lose it and the 4th negative would also require work by you to get rid of, or would they both "degrade" to the level below them given only time/actions of the faction in question? If the 4th levels are unstable, would the 3rd levels be stable?
I think we need more information from Alex to come up with the best names for the relationship levels.
Battles involving multiple fleets, though (but with only 2 sides), I do want to look at eventually.
I'm sure you've read my suggestion about non-"instant" battles in the suggestion forum, but simply didn't comment, but I hope you keep my suggestion in mind when you decide to work on this! Here's the thread if you haven't: http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=8143.0
...
All in all, i'd love for the sector map travel gameplay to be expanded.
Definitely seeing some inspiration from Mount & Blade here, haha. Looking forward to it, seems like it'd make for a more interesting game once again past the already amazing customization and combat. :)
Definitely seeing some inspiration from Mount & Blade here, haha. Looking forward to it, seems like it'd make for a more interesting game once again past the already amazing customization and combat. :)
How so? Oh, I guess the relationship level names - but those are the product of some time spent with a thesaurus, so that's more convergent evolution than inspiration :) As far as the mechanics, I don't think what M&B does is similar...
One thing i'd love to see emerge out of this is a change to aggro range. When you're vengeful to a faction, almost every fleet in half a sector should home in on you. When you're just hostile, maybe you have to get close enough to be called a danger and attacked.
This would tie into smuggling. Smuggling into vengeful factions territory should be a difficult feat of a fast ship, Millenium Falcon, some kind of heavily armored blockade runner that can tank encounters and evade or just a huge fleet that obliterates everything.. though in the latter its no longer smuggling but just.. agressively setting up a new trade route. :)
All in all, i'd love for the sector map travel gameplay to be expanded.
All I've gained from this blog post is that everyone's a circle in space. ;D Every single faction's banner is a circle in the middle except for pirates. Not complaining, just noticing. Also blah blah, great post, new stuff blah. I'm really excited about it, actually, just don't have much to add to the discussion.
Amazing stuff, love how the scope of the patch keeps growing. It makes the wait worth it.
The Sindrian Diktat sort of came outta nowhere, will there be other "minor" factions to spice up the setting?
I'm not really bothered by the abundance of circles, but it's bothering me a bit that the way the symbols are displayed seems to lack a formal standard (as of now). Makes them seem a bit thrown together, as a group.
or go with the thought that these factions are not using a shared graphics standards protocol /at all/ to reflect how different they are.
or go with the thought that these factions are not using a shared graphics standards protocol /at all/ to reflect how different they are.
I would hold against that approach that what are you seeing in the UI is supposedly not the raw data that the different factions are releasing. The menu, in my understanding, represents data that is preprocessed and streamlined for your chararacter. So it would make a lot of sense for wildly different symbols to have identical formatting, since that is choosen on the player (-sides) end.
@David
Actually it would be interesting to see what the old domain crest looks like, a bit of Lore. I can imagine there might be a few die hard 'the domain still exists' types hanging around.
or go with the thought that these factions are not using a shared graphics standards protocol /at all/ to reflect how different they are.
I would hold against that approach that what are you seeing in the UI is supposedly not the raw data that the different factions are releasing. The menu, in my understanding, represents data that is preprocessed and streamlined for your chararacter. So it would make a lot of sense for wildly different symbols to have identical formatting, since that is choosen on the player (-sides) end.
That's a good angle; I'm sure the TriPad uses a standard symbol set (contact your local TriTachyon franchise officer for licensing opportunities).
Just wondering when will this update be? ???
I like the X, although that could be mistaken for an error symbol. It is unexpected, simple, and seems original. That said, a good skull-and-crossbones is still a classic. (Or maybe hockey mask-and-crossbones... or hockey mask and double chainsaws.)
or go with the thought that these factions are not using a shared graphics standards protocol /at all/ to reflect how different they are.
I would hold against that approach that what are you seeing in the UI is supposedly not the raw data that the different factions are releasing. The menu, in my understanding, represents data that is preprocessed and streamlined for your chararacter. So it would make a lot of sense for wildly different symbols to have identical formatting, since that is choosen on the player (-sides) end.
That's a good angle; I'm sure the TriPad uses a standard symbol set (contact your local TriTachyon franchise officer for licensing opportunities).
Hmm. I can't imagine they'd use too different a set of symbols than the factions themselves use, though. It'd be like, "we helpfully normalized the flags for you so that they look nothing like the originals!" :) Also, it seems to me like stuff is easier to recognize at a glance when it has more unique shapes, especially when the flags are displayed in smaller sizes on buttons and such. I don't know how much of a concern that is, though, since the colors are distinct. Then again, that wouldn't help if someone is color-blind.
Thing is, it's not quite clear if we are seeing rectangular flags here, or symbols with a background. In the former case, it's all well, the factions make their flags as they like and the UI just shows them.
Haven't logged on in a while. Just read the update. Alex, you and your team are doing a wonderful job!
Hey, so I have a question, which may or may not have already been answered. (If it has been, I apologize, I haven't read this thread in a while)
So it's been established that there are a variety of ways for players to influence their own standing with a faction, but would it be possible for factions to have the same dynamic relationships with one another as they do with the player? The more I think about this question the more complicated it sounds coding wise, but I'm wondering if, say, at some point in my theoretical playthrough, the relationship between factions like Tri-Tachyon and the Hegemony would be friendly, or at least won't kill each other on sight, as drastic as that could sound. If yes, is there a way the player can at all influence these relationships?
Actually, on the topic of hypothetical faction stuff, I'm not entirely clear on one thing. If a planet or a station is destabilized, (I know it has effects such as smaller fleets) is there a system in place that a faction hostile to the planet or station suffering this destabilization crisis could swoop in and take over, eliminating the former faction from the area? Would it be possible to sort of launch a crusade to effectively wipe a faction from the face of the Sector, or is that not how it works?
Hey!
Patch notes looks really good and i look forward do it. I was just wondering if there will come new weapons and/or ships in some far future patch, or do you feel finished with that aspect?