Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Killer of Fate]

I dunno about Diktat. I assume it's an alien to us word that means something else in Starsector universe.

But if it comes to Hegemony, it's a reference to how Ancient Greece functioned or something
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemony

It's about the fact that the Persean Sector is a bunch of city-states. Or planet-states. Because of how small populations of such planets are. And Chicomoztoc is basically coming around and telling these states what to do. And who they work for.
Hence the name Hegemony.

I guess an appropriate name that would suit you would be the Hegemony of Chicomoztoc, but that is too long probably for Starsector standards.

tl;dr Hegemony in this case I assume doesn't refer to the general concept of a majority enforcing their rule. But the political system used in Ancient Greece when city-states existed instead of proper modern large countries. Or something...

...and to continue. The reason why populations in Starsector are so small. Is because Domain has most likely engineered the society to work in a way that makes it impossible to be self-sustainable. Industries operate in extremely specialised ways to prevent secession among planets. And this is why Luddic Church exists. Because it figured out Domain is evil... Etc. I'm simplifying. But I'm trying to imply that there is logic here. The game is just very vague. So you have to fill them in yourself.

At least lore-wise.

Gameplay-wise things don't really make much sense in my opinion 
Like why are Furies not 15 DP? CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN THAT TO ME!?
They used to be 
Though writing lore is definitely easier than designing balance, at least long-term.
Write a lore and you're done. You can move on. As long as you're good at it.
Write balancing. And it's only a matter of time before it breaks open and you'll have to start all over.

[SCC]

(i.e. it is impossible for any faction to act in the player's system without any kind of reaction from the other factions).

Unless, of course, they want someone else to push around an upstart for them… It's only really an issue for the PL crisis, since Hegemony spent a lot of effort trying to prevent the League from growing larger.

It doesn't make sense for the Persian sector, with all its limitations, to have factions with multiple large, well-equipped fleets. This is especially annoying when it comes to factions without the slightest ability to produce and maintain such fleets (cof! cof! PIRATES and PATHERS).

Are you sure "there shouldn't be large fleets in a universe where you can build a battleship in a month" is a good argument? I can agree somewhat that pirates are sometimes too big, but I would say it's fun to bash a lot of trash once in a while.

5. Faction names
I don't think what I'm going to suggest now is anything new, but it hurts me to see faction names like “hegemony”, or “Diktat”. In themselves, these names don't make any sense, they describe a state of affairs, not the name of a State*. I'm sure the game's developers have the ability to rethink imaginative names that are better integrated with the game and its universe.

It is pretty useful for the players to orient themselves quickly. It helps that the game isn't based on any real culture, so it isn't that jarring. By the way, I think you forgot to explain the asterisk at "the name of a State*".

The problem is that it's way too easy to become non-hostile with Pirates by running missions for them(Dead Drop can literally be done in a single Hermes, and in fact it's easier to do this way) which almost completely removes the threat of combat from the game because Pirates are supposed to be the main early and mid-game enemy.

I won't say splitting Pirates into clans is the answer, but at least they should be made impossible to make neutral to properly represent their PIRATE nature.

One solution Alex mentioned as something he would do if he really had to is just making pirates permanently hostile.

I believe that subdividing the pirate faction into smaller groupings serves both the purpose of making the game's mechanics more compatible with its canon

"Canon"? Heh. It reminds me of the game's writer regretting posting his notes on lore in a blogpost, as now people treat it too seriously.

as well as improving the mechanics themselves with pirate factions with different affiliations and hostilities.

Wouldn't this argument better work for increasing the number of factions in general? Why focus so much on criminals and outcasts? Why limit the politics of new factions you're adding to the game?

I'd like to add that yes, this would benefit the game greatly, just look at how many mods exist precisely to add new factions to the game. If these mods are so successful, even though 90% of them aren't really compatible with the game's lore, why wouldn't new factions (or sub-factions, whichever you prefer) add to the gaming experience?

Because players want more ships to smash into one another in battles. And some want more campaign mechanics. I don't think these players particularly care about story integrity.

[Barba Negra]

To Mr. Killer of Fate;

My friend, with all due respect, you are profoundly mistaken.

“Hegemony” was never a system used in Ancient Greece, much less does it imply the rule of the majority. But then again, hegemony is about a certain situation of dominance of one group over others. For example, “the city state of Athens held hegemony in the Aegean Sea during the ....th century”. Hegemony here describes exactly this situation of dominance, as the wikipedia article itself denotes, without us having to resort to specialized political literature.

So, even if the Persian sector was a collection of city states (which is not the case with Hegemony and Ludd's church), the name Hegemony would still not make sense.

[Barba Negra]

To Mr. PlaceMcHolder;

First of all, I would like to thank you for the time and patience you devoted to replying to my post. Your text, therefore, deserves to be answered in detail, incurring the necessary risk of boring the other interlocutors.

About the pirates
When you classify the pirate faction as this loosely ideologically aligned alliance* we have serious narrative bottlenecks. Firstly, as I pointed out in my original post, why would the established factions allow this semi-unified group, hostile to everything and everyone, to exist in the core systems? Even with the collapse of the portals, the 1st and 2nd AI wars, the factions still have enough power and interest to cleanse the core systems of the presence of pirates.

The only plausible justification for this not happening yet is precisely that THE PIRATES ARE NOT A GROUP IN THEMSELVES, but a simplistic classification to designate a faction of "bad guys". It would be like grouping all the insurgents in the world today into a faction called "insurgents", because they oppose the established powers, have a political doctrine that adheres to the use of violence as a strategic way of seizing power and use asymmetric means to achieve their military objectives. This approach completely ignores the reality of the facts, whether an insurgent group is jihadist, or Marxist, whether a group is supported by country A, or country B etc. etc. etc. Let's take the example of Mexico, imagine how absurd it would be to put the Zapatistas and the cartels in the same political macro-group.

The example of Kanta's Den that you mentioned is particularly interesting, because it is the only pirate market that could function as a sort of representative of a pirate macro-faction in the core systems without this making the lore of the game and its mechanics incompatible. I say this because, at the end of the day, Kanta's Den functions as a territory dominated by organized crime (look up black spots and the concept of criminal insurgency) with tentacles throughout the Persian sector.

One possible solution would be to keep this generic pirate faction with only the Kanta's Den market within the core systems (which makes a lot of sense given that the Magec system is populated by smaller factions, such as independents and the Tri-Tachyon corporation.

The other pirate markets present in the core systems would either become other factions or be rewritten to once again make the lore compatible with the game's mechanics.

A quick note: One of my previous posts sheds some light on the pirate issue and another possible solution to the problem.

*"[...] described as being loosely ideologically aligned -- sharing a distaste for the systems of government established & upheld by the major factions, and being far more predatory than most Independent captains. That, coupled with their 'insatiable thirst for freedom and glory,' [sic.] makes it seem to me that Piracy is a distinct anarchic culture/ideology in the sector"

About the independents
I found your position that the independents would be a loosely aligned group, who try to position themselves equidistant between the major factions (Persian League and Hegemony) very interesting. In fact, that would be the solution I would adopt, expanding this with quest lines in the game. I even said in my original post that the independents sound to me like the movement of non-aligned countries during the cold war. The problem is that this isn't explored in the game and the independents end up being as generic as the pirates.

Regarding the technical problems of having too many factions in the game, I don't know if the cause of the problem is having multiple factions or new markets. Because the interaction between factions doesn't seem to be very heavy, but rather the monitoring of the movement of fleets and resources between many markets, which occurs when we put faction mods in the game and which differs from what I'm proposing.

On Fleet Strength and Colony Threats
Apparently we agree. There's not much to elaborate on here

About Faction Names
I've already written extensively on the subject in this thread. If you wish, please revisit my most recent posts.

About other suggestions
If you wish, I can write about these other suggestions, although I don't have much time at the moment to develop all these ideas into text. If you'd like, I can talk to you by voice on discord about it, or we could leave it to discuss these ideas in text at some point in the future.

[David]

To give an "official" response to faction name stuff, FWIW, per a line you see after dealing with the Hegemony crisis, the Hegemony gets a full name of "Persean Hegemony of the Fourteenth Battlegroup, declared by the Eventide Diktat in cycle 49".

But that's now quite right, because obviously, citizen, what is commonly called "the Hegemony" is simply a local arm of The Human Domain with an unbroken chain of legitimacy and authority stretching back to its founding. COMSEC algorithms allow for more colloquial usage of various terms, but rest assured that discussion of subversive activity will be logged and reviewed.

Similarly, the Luddic Church is technically "The Church of Galactic Redemption". You'll see the "CGR" acronym before their ship names, for instance.

[Killer of Fate]

thank you, David...

[Barba Negra]

The give an "official" response to faction name stuff, FWIW, per a line you see after dealing with the Hegemony crisis, the Hegemony gets a full name of "Persean Hegemony of the Fourteenth Battlegroup, declared by the Eventide Diktat in cycle 49".

But that's now quite right, because obviously, citizen, what is commonly called "the Hegemony" is simply a local arm of The Human Domain with an unbroken chain of legitimacy and authority stretching back to its founding.

To Mr. David;

First of all, I'd like to thank you for your time and patience. After all, it's not everyone who would engage with players over such discussions. Secondly, i've always wondered why the Hegemony wasn't simply called "The Human Domain", or something like "The Neo-Domain" (in the factions tab by NPCs in general); or something related to the State institution that ruled the Persian Sector before the collapse.

Regarding the full name of the Hegemony... look, as a statement of intent, the “Persian Hegemony of the Fourteenth Battlegroup” is acceptable, what's bizarre is turning it into a faction name, for the reasons i've already discussed in previous posts. After all, the Hegemony is the successor State to the Domain; which intends to EXERCISE hegemony over the Persian sector.

[c plus one]

I dunno about Diktat. I assume it's an alien to us word that means something else in Starsector universe

Alien? On the contrary; it's an historical and well-established term.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diktat

[ithis]

Secondly, i've always wondered why the Hegemony wasn't simply called "The Human Domain", or something like "The Neo-Domain" (in the factions tab by NPCs in general); or something related to the State institution that ruled the Persian Sector before the collapse.

The Hegemony isn't called "the Domain" because, notably, not everyone agrees that it is the legitimate successor to the Domain (nor is everyone necessarily content with the idea of the Domain)! Plus, you'd be hard-press to actually equate it with the Domain on any level other than governmental or military - the Domain was quite literally a beacon of unimaginable exuberance, industry, and power compared to any polity in the extant Persean sector.

Regarding the full name of the Hegemony... look, as a statement of intent, the “Persian Hegemony of the Fourteenth Battlegroup” is acceptable, what's bizarre is turning it into a faction name, for the reasons i've already discussed in previous posts. After all, the Hegemony is the successor State to the Domain; which intends to EXERCISE hegemony over the Persian sector.

Because colloquialisms / neologisms don't care about getting it technically correct, and in reality "The Hegemony" is a perfectly concise and succinct name for it. I mean, hell, calling it "the Hegemony" is actually just metonymy, and so is "the Diktat", as metonymy only requires substitution of something closely associated with said thing. All this handwringing about the name is a non-issue and seems nitpicky to me.

[Killer of Fate]

I dunno about Diktat. I assume it's an alien to us word that means something else in Starsector universe

Alien? On the contrary; it's an historical and well-established term.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diktat

So the Sindrian Diktat means they're a minority imposing themselves on the majority, I suppose

[Barba Negra]

To Mr. ITHS

My friend, you don't seem to be arguing in good faith. While you try to justify the choice of the names being criticized, you conclude your arguments by belittling the discussion itself. But, although i'm short of time, I'm going to entertain these same arguments in order to clarify what still seems obscure to you.

When you say that “The Hegemony isn't called ‘the Domain’ because, notably, not everyone agrees that it is the legitimate successor to the Domain (nor is everyone necessarily content with the idea of the Domain)”, while finding the name “Hegemony” justifiable, we fall into the logical absurdity of believing that the other factions of the Persian Sector accept to qualify the Hegemony as such.

Continuing, I don't understand the terms discussed as metonymies, especially since I don't see which words replace others in this context (part for whole, container for content, symbol for meaning, etc.). Perhaps you are confusing metonymy with metaphor (a figure of speech that produces figurative meanings through comparisons). But in any case, with or without figures of speech, we're back to square one of my critique: “these names don't make any sense, they describe a state of affairs, not the name of a State”.

The only lifeline for the argument would be a semantic evolution of the names used. But then we run into another problem: given that players are not part of the game's society, changing the semantic content of words as important as the names of entire factions is more of a nuisance than a help.

Finally, I'm not bringing this discussion to the forum out of nitpicking, but because some of the faction names are really bad and, whenever I'm playing, I'm taken out of the immersion because of it. I think that players who value the RPG side of the game will feel the same way. Personally, starsector is one of the few games that has made me return to its universe every year since I bought it and my reviews are aimed at improving a game that is already very good.

Note: Due to lack of time, I will not engage in any new discussions regarding the names of the factions that repeat or ignore arguments that have already been made. If you wish to discuss other points suggested in my original post, please feel free.

[HiddenPorpoise]

It's just "the Hegemony" because that's the important information. Otherwise we'd be dealing with The Persean Hegemony, The Persean League, and The Persean Branch. Just like in the real world, people shorten overlapping parts of names.

[Barba Negra]

It's just "the Hegemony" because that's the important information. Otherwise we'd be dealing with The Persean Hegemony, The Persean League, and The Persean Branch. Just like in the real world, people shorten overlapping parts of names.

My friend... your argument is already covered by my original post. Have a nice day.

[Killer of Fate]

Have a nice day.

you too

[Pushover]

Regarding the full name of the Hegemony... look, as a statement of intent, the “Persian Hegemony of the Fourteenth Battlegroup” is acceptable, what's bizarre is turning it into a faction name, for the reasons i've already discussed in previous posts. After all, the Hegemony is the successor State to the Domain; which intends to EXERCISE hegemony over the Persian sector.

I don't think it's all that different from The United States of America as a name. We still use 'American' as an identifier to mean a person from the United States of America, even though it could also mean someone from the continents of North or South America. If someone says that they are from America, you generally know what they mean.

If you want to argue that the Hegemony does not accurately represent them as the clear hegemon of the sector, I would point out the number of countries with 'Democratic' in the official name that are not, in fact, very democratic, such as North Korea or Congo.

Maybe from another angle - Germany in the 1800s was more or less under the hegemony of Prussia - people could still say they were from Bavaria, but if Prussia rallies troops from Bavaria, everyone will still say that it's Prussia's army.
Is it more clear if the Hegemony was renamed to the XIV Battlegroup?

In this case, having the PL and the like call them The Hegemony is probably less legitimizing and easier than the full name - we don't generally call North Korea by the official name of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, we just call it North Korea and everyone knows what you are talking about.


Regarding other points:
I feel like independents are a faction largely for gameplay purposes - you can't just screw over one independent colony and suffer no repercussions from other factions, which would largely be the case if every independent planet was its own faction. There would need to be additional systems in place to prevent that sort of thing, which currently just don't exist.

I do think it would be more immersive if the various independent fleets had names - we only interact with Tristar as the mercenary company, but I think it would be cool if fleets were differently named, instead of "Mercenary Patrol", it could be "Tristar Mercenary Patrol" or "Ko Combine Salvage Fleet".