Print

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

[Histidine]

Just occurred to me while going over the old blog posts:

What if whether a fleet decides to intervene for/against the player is based on the fleet commander's relationship with the player, rather than the faction's?
Is that already the case, and if not, is it desirable?

[Clockwork Owl]

Well... Seems deciding to intervene when he/she isn't supposed to is not so desirable lore-wise Deciding not to intervene, however, would make perfect sense. Looking the other way for either reasons, you know.

[CrashToDesktop]

Just occurred to me while going over the old blog posts:

What if whether a fleet decides to intervene for/against the player is based on the fleet commander's relationship with the player, rather than the faction's?
Is that already the case, and if not, is it desirable?

Actually, that would sound perfectly reasonable.  The relationship to an individual commander / NPC is not affeected much by the overall faction's attitude towards the play, so it would seem perfectly fine for one that you have a good relationship with to simply "miss" you.

[Clockwork Owl]

Just occurred to me while going over the old blog posts:

What if whether a fleet decides to intervene for/against the player is based on the fleet commander's relationship with the player, rather than the faction's?
Is that already the case, and if not, is it desirable?

Actually, that would sound perfectly reasonable.  The relationship to an individual commander / NPC is not affeected much by the overall faction's attitude towards the play, so it would seem perfectly fine for one that you have a good relationship with to simple "miss" you.

Yep looking the other way is fine. Whether he/she doesn't want to help you when they normally would, or doesn't want to fight you when they're supposed to.
Opening fire for personal reason, however, is not, I suppose...

[Sy]

Yep looking the other way is fine. Whether he/she doesn't want to help you when they normally would, or doesn't want to fight you when they're supposed to.
Opening fire for personal reason, however, is not, I suppose...

it would probably depend on which faction that commander belongs to: it would make sense for a pirate or mercenary to attack the player due to a personal grudge, even if the player has a good reputation with Pirates / Independents as a whole. but i doubt Tri-Tachyon or Hegemony authorities would be happy with one of their fleet commanders wasting precious resources on a personal vendetta.

i agree that not attacking for personal reasons would be more believable, even for factions with a clear hierachy.

[Clockwork Owl]

Ah, yes. Forgot pirates and indies. They lack commanding hierachy right?

[gruberscomplete]

You mean they would ask you for a hefty sum of money, as in a cargo inspection? And if you run away, they ask their friends to help hunt you down?

[Aeson]

Ah, yes. Forgot pirates and indies. They lack commanding hierachy right?

As a collective group, yes, pirates and independents lack a unified command hierarchy. However, that does not preclude the existence of command hierarchies within "independents" and "pirates." "Independents" as a group include anarchic, lawless hellholes like Maxios, but they also include relatively organized, reasonably stable polities like New Maxios (which explicitly has its own militia-navy, which presumably has some form of hierarchical command structure); it is not that likely that an officer of the New Maxios militia-navy is going to be as free to attack you on the grounds of personal dislike as some mercenary who operates out of Maxios, and yet both are probably classed as "independents." It's also conceivable for there to be a number of variably-sized, variably-organized cartels, gangs, mafias, whatever, all grouped under "pirates," and at least some of these could have relatively well-defined hierarchies in which the lower-ranked members of the organization would be ill-advised to go against the wishes of the higher-ups without (and possibly even with) good reason. Similarly, whatever groups control the pirate stations could exert some influence; it's unlikely that it'd be advisable for anyone who wants to do business at or operate out of Kanta's Den to attack Kanta's friends, at least not where Kanta is likely to hear about it, for instance.

[SafariJohn]

Ah, yes. Forgot pirates and indies. They lack commanding hierachy right?

As a collective group, yes, pirates and independents lack a unified command hierarchy. However, that does not preclude the existence of command hierarchies within "independents" and "pirates." "Independents" as a group include anarchic, lawless hellholes like Maxios, but they also include relatively organized, reasonably stable polities like New Maxios (which explicitly has its own militia-navy, which presumably has some form of hierarchical command structure); it is not that likely that an officer of the New Maxios militia-navy is going to be as free to attack you on the grounds of personal dislike as some mercenary who operates out of Maxios, and yet both are probably classed as "independents." It's also conceivable for there to be a number of variably-sized, variably-organized cartels, gangs, mafias, whatever, all grouped under "pirates," and at least some of these could have relatively well-defined hierarchies in which the lower-ranked members of the organization would be ill-advised to go against the wishes of the higher-ups without (and possibly even with) good reason. Similarly, whatever groups control the pirate stations could exert some influence; it's unlikely that it'd be advisable for anyone who wants to do business at or operate out of Kanta's Den to attack Kanta's friends, at least not where Kanta is likely to hear about it, for instance.

This is precisely the kind of stuff why I made that "Factions Fractions" suggestion a few months ago. I would love to see these kinds of distinctions.

[Adraius]

This is precisely the kind of stuff why I made that "Factions Fractions" suggestion a few months ago. I would love to see these kinds of distinctions.

I know we're getting a bit off base with this, but I've LOVE to see subfactions and subfaction relations be the next major way the game expands beyond 0.7.

[gruberscomplete]

This is precisely the kind of stuff why I made that "Factions Fractions" suggestion a few months ago. I would love to see these kinds of distinctions.

I know we're getting a bit off base with this, but I've LOVE to see subfactions and subfaction relations be the next major way the game expands beyond 0.7.

Yes. I kind of agree.

Personally, I would like to be an official soldier in the Hegemony military. Or be one of those guys that collects taxes from trade fleets.

Or instead of starting a new faction, conquer a hostile world in the name of the Hegemony, and be its Governor, while still being allied to Hegemony, and then if you wanted, split into a separate faction at any time.

And then build factories and the planet's industry, the type of fleets they use, the ships they build, the weapons they make.

Tax collecting, exploration, patrols, defense fleet organization.

Officers for Industry, Leadership, Technology, assigned to certain capital ships in your fleet that will benefit the entire fleet.

[SpacePoliticianAndaZealot]

This may have already been answered but I couldn't find it anywhere:
Could you clarifiy the matter on reputation affecting which side you can join? Specifically, could you join Pirates in a Pirates vs Hegemony battle if you are Hostile to Hegemony, but Inhospitable to Pirates?