n18991c wrote:
[...]



Forget hollywood. Welcome to the horrible realities of the real world

Oh how I love my horrible reality! Yeah ok I missunderstood you - or perhaps didn't pay enough attention. Perhaps I am just tired of seeing this worldperception over and over again in movies and some games.

No, your idea is very good and I like it. The diffrence of species and the "first-contact-fears" are already implemented a bit in the game. If you look at the diplomacy-science-tree, you will see that many of the improvements deal with the fact of foreigness (alianess?) of diffrent species. The research of this scienceses increases the communication and understanding between the species. But I guess you already know this as I can see at your number of posts.

But besides that you are right. There could be some more additions and some more boni/mali to diplomacy and trade. I still fail to feel IT.

Perhaps we need some slave-miners as you said from raided Planets or so Buy-Outs in Trade-Agreements. Perhaps we need some Assimilationprocess (a forcefull pacification by the Amoebea) or some Conversion or Reprogramming? It would be cool to have for every faction a unique way to deal with other factions. Somehow I miss this from Sins of a Solar Empire: The Influence of your Empire on others. What could be more fiercefull than to know that the Cravers use your captured people to create a slave-army or boost their industry? That the Hisso don't leave no survivers (lowering the for your empire for any system within a special range)? That the Sowers use the corpses of the fallen to seed their crop or turn captives into living batteries like in Matrix? What could be more intimidating like a United Empire which buys out any greater Industries and Mercenaries, just BUYING enemy or even allied systems with dust? And how do you beat an enemy like the Sophons when they convert your own people against you?

Yes, that would indeed be a good addition to fluff and raise fun!

Troodon wrote:
Adding onto this idea, I think these "choices" should be faction specific.



Eg, for the United Empire, it might look like this.

A group of citizens on [insertplanethere] are protesting against their corporate overseers, complaining of corporeal abuse, unsafe environments, and excessively long work hours. How do you respond?

A. Side with the people. (+25 happiness, -30% industry.

B. Gun them down in the name of the Emperor and let the citizens know that they must do their duty OR ELSE. (-30 happiness, +15% industry)



For the Sophons, it might look like this:

A group of scientists wants to conduct experiments regarding large-scale anti-matter weaponry on [insertplanet]. There are some concerns about the safety of the world's inhabitants, but the rewards in knowledge will be great. Do you accept?

A. Reject offer. (nothing happens)

B. "Sure, go ahead." (70% chance of a research discount for "galactic warfare" tech tree, 30% chance of planet being instantly "terraformed" into barren or lava world with a 50% population drop.)



Also, this doesn't necessarily have to be about good and bad. The decisions could be more of "ethics vs realpolitik."

Love it, Troodon, some good ideas there, that's heading in a good direction! Mind you though, creating individual scenarios for each species and then also creating so many varied possibilities to ensure that this adds a unique spin on your faction (depending on what decisions you make) could turn out to be too much work.



Perhaps the dynamic events should be similar or even the same for each faction, yet challenging enough to steer the faction in a specific direction. Some species, however, such as the Cravers, would likely have to be excluded, since they would act neither in a "good" manner i.e. help members of an alien crew whose ship is stranded in their space nor would they act in an "evil" fashion since to them it's simply food. Something to think about there.



Also, I can see that whole idea actually tying into the diplomacy panel/aspect, along the lines of benefits and penalties also affecting a faction's diplomatic reputation and standing...

raccoon_tof wrote:
Even a dynamic system is still a "forced alignment system" regardless of it not being "fixed" at the start. Random events with multiple-choice options = good. Those same events being used to create a "good/evil" alignment of your faction in game = bad. The main issue is that in order to create a system with enough "grey area" and uniqueness, will render the effectiveness of it incomplete or inappropriate for the AI responses, while making a more "finite" system (say similar to the various star wars "light side/dark side" points systems, or the "trinity" alignment system (lawful vs chaotic, good vs evil, and the various combinations thereof including 'neutral') ends up being far too limiting when being used to represent a galaxy-spanning civilization. And no amount of "alignment dickering" would change the fact that different human players will react entirely in different ways to various events done by other human players...

It would be a "forced alignment system" along the lines of you having to make a decision, but it wouldn't be as forced as, say, a pre-determined set of fixed affinities etc as currently is the case. So in that sense, it would be permitting a lot of freedom for the individual players to steer the destiny of their factions.



The idea, or at least my idea, would be to offer dynamic events which would comprise, in very rough terms, the options yes/agree, no/disagree and ignore. Depending on the player's choices and decisions, this would then impact the direction in which the player's faction in developing.



"Good" and "bad", "cruel" and "compassionate", as they have been used in this thread up until now, are obviously very loose terms: good and bad etc obviously depend on the faction e.g. the Cravers could, for example, be classified as cruel because they destroy other life; however, they are neither really good nor bad since they don't behave the way they do merely for pleasure (like maybe slave traders, xenophobes etc.) but rather because they see life as being merely food to be consumed.



So in fact we should probably be talking about dynamic options and events which are meant to add "colour" to one's faction. And, as said already above, perhaps this could even be used to enhace the diplomacy aspects of ES.

nolan85 wrote:
Good ideas here... but I'm still terrified of Cravers. The fact that they can't be reasoned with and only know war is pretty scary to me, and makes for some tense moments in my games.

Yep, if all the other factions would have an similar "outstanding" feature- it could work to improve the "deepness" of ES

Good ideas here... but I'm still terrified of Cravers. The fact that they can't be reasoned with and only know war is pretty scary to me, and makes for some tense moments in my games.

Even a dynamic system is still a "forced alignment system" regardless of it not being "fixed" at the start. Random events with multiple-choice options = good. Those same events being used to create a "good/evil" alignment of your faction in game = bad. The main issue is that in order to create a system with enough "grey area" and uniqueness, will render the effectiveness of it incomplete or inappropriate for the AI responses, while making a more "finite" system (say similar to the various star wars "light side/dark side" points systems, or the "trinity" alignment system (lawful vs chaotic, good vs evil, and the various combinations thereof including 'neutral') ends up being far too limiting when being used to represent a galaxy-spanning civilization. And no amount of "alignment dickering" would change the fact that different human players will react entirely in different ways to various events done by other human players...

Adding onto this idea, I think these "choices" should be faction specific.



Eg, for the United Empire, it might look like this.

A group of citizens on [insertplanethere] are protesting against their corporate overseers, complaining of corporeal abuse, unsafe environments, and excessively long work hours. How do you respond?

A. Side with the people. (+25 happiness, -30% industry.

B. Gun them down in the name of the Emperor and let the citizens know that they must do their duty OR ELSE. (-30 happiness, +15% industry)



For the Sophons, it might look like this:

A group of scientists wants to conduct experiments regarding large-scale anti-matter weaponry on [insertplanet]. There are some concerns about the safety of the world's inhabitants, but the rewards in knowledge will be great. Do you accept?

A. Reject offer. (nothing happens)

B. "Sure, go ahead." (70% chance of a research discount for "galactic warfare" tech tree, 30% chance of planet being instantly "terraformed" into barren or lava world with a 50% population drop.)



Also, this doesn't necessarily have to be about good and bad. The decisions could be more of "ethics vs realpolitik."

The idea isn't to have any "forced alignment system" as you called it but rather to offer the player a dynamic game environment in which the player is left to decide in which direction he wants his faction to develop.



Imagine being at various points of the game challenged to make a decision of some sort or other. Depending on what you decide, this will send you down a path which may be good or evil, depending on the nature of your decisions. So whether your faction is renowned for brutality or compassion would entirely be up to you!



So not at all like anything fixed along good/evil or affinity, but rather dynamic events which let you guide your faction's destiny...

I am actually glad that the only real "good/evil" dynamic in the game is show in the AI diplomacy factors. I'd like to see those be "choosable" when creating custom factions (or generated based on trait choices - for example, if you make a warlike conquest-minded faction using the Sophons affinity, the AI should still see you as a military threat, not a "peaceful scientific race" as they do now...) but overall, I don't want to see any "forced" alignment system in place that has any effects outside of the AI diplomatic sphere (and diplomacy with other players is already unaffected by fixed alignments, which is also good ) That said, with the "stock" factions, there is already a bit of the "fear" effect the first post mentions - if you see Cravers beside you, you know you aren't going to be carrying on peaceful diplomatic relations and trying to build up an alliance, but rather you need to start getting some frontier fleets together ASAP. Hissho on your borders usually signals early conflict as well, although less so since the AI is in general less likely to start wars if you put even just a little effort into diplomatic relations...even if it hurts them more in the long run by negating their entire affinity :P

That's right, an automatic alignment system would be a mistake since no one likes clicking through event messages etc the outcome of which cannot be influenced and therefore is of no consequence/interest.



Devs should definitely implement dynamic events etc...

I would -love- random events of some sort, but an alignment system would come off as stale.

Igncom1 wrote:
Not to mention devising civilizations and choices into good/neutral/evil is incredibly boring, as the player should be the judge of what is good and bad, not the game.

Exactly. Granted, the Cravers will probably never manage to come across as pleasant or nice, but in essence what the game needs is to force the player to make decisions, such as engaging events etc, which influence the player's factions, thus leaving it up to the player to control his faction's destiny and, perhaps, have the, become a force for good (either loved by the rest or despised for that) or a force of evil (either feared by the rest or attacked because of that).



Make the game more engaging!

Not to mention devising civilizations and choices into good/neutral/evil is incredibly boring, as the player should be the judge of what is good and bad, not the game.

Fritzworth wrote:
This is exactly what Galactic Civilizations 2 did. [...]

Well than I would suggest that we look forward to improve this idea and make something new out of it or at least not just the same. I'm pretty sure no one want's to make just a copy-cat.

Toasty wrote:
Hmm, Good thought here, I like your idea about dark and light side. For example, depending on what you chose in certain multiple choice events will give your empire like a reputation and their alignment.

This is exactly what Galactic Civilizations 2 did. You had good, neutral, and evil alignment and could work towards one or the other by your response to multiple choice events. There came a point in working up the tech tree where you had to declare your alignment; the one that you were closest to was free, while the others cost significant money to select. That part of the tech tree changed depending upon your declared alignment; also, your relationship with other factions was impact on your alignment and theirs. ..fritz..



Link: http://galciv.wikia.com/wiki/Alignment

n18991c wrote:
Nats, what happened? Not long ago you were active here and there and everywhere, which just shows when looking at the number of posts you made. What happened?



I admit that much of the stuff discussed in depth has not been implemented and I was hoping, in fact, that the G2G vote is more for things to be implemented first, as in priority, but with all the other stuff being voted on eventually being implemented also. And, like you, I have great hopes for the modding community, so perhaps this will all work out after all, just give it some time (and hope as hell!)

Got bored of waiting for a better game. I played my share of the game on offer but I've moved onto Empire and Napoleon Total Wars now (and will soon be moving onto XCOM Enemy Unknown possibly). The game that I want to play further just isn't there - I played one full game saw everything there is to see, no point in hangin' around when you are bored. If they ever release a decent patch I might start playing the game again. But no point repeating and discussing all the things the game need over and over when the Devs obviously have very little intention to implement any of it. Just too small a team I guess. Really do need some decent help with this game though - getting some good modeers on it would help loads I think.



I keep looking in on the forum from time to time to see if anything is going on as this is a nice little community.

Is there room for compassion and brutality, fear and hope in ES?



... And could this help improve in-game atmosphere?





I have noticed throughout the forums that there are many topics of debate regarding the creation of a deeper atmosphere in ES. Fairly regularly discussed are notions such as simply implementing more event messages or, more complex, to get players more involved via the provision of game events which require a decision and thus determine the way the player advances in the game and how other factions will view him/her. Another idea I've seen and which I liked was suggested by Znork, whose idea it was to maybe add soul to the game via special planets, ships, resources, event movies etc HERE.



My own take on this is that, additionally, there could be a bit of a good versus evil thing added to the game. So far there are no major evil factions in the game even though there are, for example, the Cravers who tend to want to eat everyone else - yet despite this, the Cravers don't FEEL threatening. They're just there if you know what I'm saying. In theory we have a good faction here which should terrify others, with a player upon realizing that his/her border is shared with the Cravers almost wetting himself/herself thinking "oh my lord, the Cravers, I'm doomed!". But this doesn't yet happen, which is why I think it could be helpful for the in-game atmosphere of ES if things which inspired fear, terror, but also hope and freedom etc were added to the game. After all, some factions such as the Cravers one would in reality fear, just like one would fear a brutal faction which decides to enslave or eradicate the population of a conquered system. And just like one would love a faction which provides hope via compassionate actions...



It's not about cliche hollywood good and bad, black and white. It's about a realistic real-world attitude and that species should be terrified by others, particularly by that which is different. But humans should be scared of Cravers etc., despite the Cravers viewing themselves as normal or good, and that doesn't come across in ES!



Perhaps one could expand on the citizen rights improvement and so create more notions of compassion, where a player is offered to make decisions etc. which elevate him to be a force for good or, should he prefer the "dark side", a force of evil.



I don't actually have any set ideas as to how to implement this, it could be done via lore and event notifications or via built in options for the player to make decisions or simply via improvements, such as an improvement which increase inductrial output but relies on slave labour (perhaps an improvement called "slave mining" or something like that?)....



I'm open for any ideas and suggestions, I'm just playing with an idea here...





EDIT: in hindsight the terms "bruatlity" and "fear" may have been a little drastic - my apologies, I should have picked a lighter wording...

nats wrote:
[...] The devs arent listening to requests for this stuff [...] simply because it would cost them some a lot of time and money to look into these things and they wont get anything back from doing it because ultimately this sort of stuff isnt very interesting to the majority of gamers who want fast exciting colourful battles [...] They are still looking more at pulling in new money from gamers, than providing what the present owners of their game really want which is more fluff and atmosphere, more things to think about, more things going on generally [...] Like has happened to so many games before this, with so many promises made prior to release, Amplitude have subsequently diluted their promises down to nothing once they have got their money - espionage, diplomacy, carriers and fighters, playable pirates, invasion graphics, AI improvements, atmosphere - where have all these requests been left by the devs now?

And the G2G thing has proved to be nothing more than a gimmick, like I suspected - with no user input on voting choices and very pitiful choices to vote on. Poor show in my view. This isnt the game I thought I was going to be left to play when I preordered it, I am not interested in much of the future plans for the game, and I havent played this game in weeks because its just too basic after you have played it once and seen practically everything. [...] So, to date, ES has proved to be ultimately another duff 4x game release for me, it's sad for me to say.

Nats, what happened? Not long ago you were active here and there and everywhere, which just shows when looking at the number of posts you made. What happened?



I admit that much of the stuff discussed in depth has not been implemented and I was hoping, in fact, that the G2G vote is more for things to be implemented first, as in priority, but with all the other stuff being voted on eventually being implemented also. And, like you, I have great hopes for the modding community, so perhaps this will all work out after all, just give it some time (and hope as hell!)

@Codename_Veers: you misunderstand my intention, perhaps I should have made that clearer in my first post:



obviously the Cravers wouldn't perceive themselves as EVIL, nor would any other species; each species naturally believes they're the good guys because they're doing what is best for their people and species.



It's about perceptions, namely that other species such as the Sophons should be terrified by the brutal feeding on lifefos that the Cravers practice. And the UE should fear the Hissho warrior life. And the UE should be feared for their corporate greed which values the empire and industry more than people's lives. And so on and so forth.



It's not about cliche hollywood good and bad, black and white. It's about a realistic real-world attitude and that species should be terrified by others, particularly by that which is different. But humans should be scared of Cravers etc., despite the Cravers viewing themselves as normal or good, and that doesn't come across in ES!



Forget hollywood. Welcome to the horrible realities of the real world

[QUOTEusername=nats;94287[...]



The devs arent listening to requests for this stuff, along with improvements to the AI - which has also been requested a heck of a lot before now - simply because it would cost them some a lot of time and money to look into these things and they wont get anything back from doing it because ultimately this sort of stuff isnt very interesting to the majority of gamers who want fast exciting colourful battles. So the devs are looking into battle improvements because this would be the most noticeable and exciting change to the game for their future magazine coverage of their expansion pack. They are still looking more at pulling in new money from gamers, than providing what the present owners of their game really want which is more fluff and atmosphere, more things to think about, more things going on generally.

[...].[/QUOTE]



Well, actually there ARE two options in the g2g-vote that should help with more fluff by integrating unique Planets and Events you get decisions to make! Sure it is not what a part of the community asks for, but it's like in politics: There are allways people dissatisfied with your decisions. The improvement take time - perhaps even a Endless Space 2 - bevore the game can reach a very sattisfiyng level. Right now, they add tool after tool, completing the game in chunks because they just didn't have the ressources.

As in other games, it sometimes needs several years to get the game to a really high, sattisfying level.



I.e.: See "Battle for Middleearth". The first Game was really basic and can't compete with the second game with expansionpack.



But with help and critique from the community, the game sure evolves faster, than with no community at all, just by the selling-numbers.



But now back to topic:

Even though I like the idea off fluff improvement as n18991c described it (yea, I really don't feel afraid of the cravers, they just annoy me by making other system uncolonializable!) there is one thing that would bore me more than non change at all:

The classic hollywood dark/light side thinking. What are we? American politicians seeing the world just in two shapes??? Please no more pathetic evil overlords, dressed in their cliché-Sith-Robe with their stereotype bad laughter and the wish to destroy the whole galaxy!!! Please no more white-dressed handsome Heros with blue eyes and a devotion for saving the galaxy just to save it! These days are OVER, even though hollywood doesn't seem to realise it!



There is nothing bad about slavery to a Craver who was raised with it and doesn't see other creatures as even - perhaps doesn't even understand the concept ot good and evil at all! There is nothing evil about exploiting a Planet and its population to a Hypercorp CEO when he saves billions of other systems by it. You don't feel like a Hero when you save the galaxy from the evil empire, just becaus you tried to save your own people! Or your own skin!

Religion and politics allways play a big role and allway justify any action somehow. And THAT should be a big improvement to make. Giving you the option to make decisions which could get back to you the one or other way and aren't just "good" or "evil". There is allways someone dissatisfied as I mentioned above and so any decision is "bad" and "good".



You could compensate this by giving decision-possibilities which are neutral or "good"/"bad" at first glance but strike back later in the game with new consequences. In the end, you just do what you have to do to leed your faction to superiority over the rest of the galaxy, because no matter how good friends you are with your neighbor - there will allways be some distrust. And THAT would bring some more fluff and tension into the game, not a kindergarden-good-and-bad thinking.



Didn't mean to offence though. I am just tired of these hollywood-clichés, and like those games and movies that deal with their subjects more realistic and adult. Like "Spec-Ops: The Line" (Game) for instance or "Watchmen" (Movie, yeah hollywood-like on the first glance but then...).



A good idea in the end. Just needs to be improved.

These things have been discussed so many times before on this forum, so many people want to see this stuff added to the game to give some atmosphere. But so far with no result whatsover regarding votes provided on G2G or intended future patches or even any mention of any of this being considered for an expansion pack.



The devs arent listening to requests for this stuff, along with improvements to the AI - which has also been requested a heck of a lot before now - simply because it would cost them some a lot of time and money to look into these things and they wont get anything back from doing it because ultimately this sort of stuff isnt very interesting to the majority of gamers who want fast exciting colourful battles. So the devs are looking into battle improvements because this would be the most noticeable and exciting change to the game for their future magazine coverage of their expansion pack. They are still looking more at pulling in new money from gamers, than providing what the present owners of their game really want which is more fluff and atmosphere, more things to think about, more things going on generally.



Like has happened to so many games before this, with so many promises made prior to release, Amplitude have subsequently diluted their promises down to nothing once they have got their money - espionage, diplomacy, carriers and fighters, playable pirates, invasion graphics, AI improvements, atmosphere - where have all these requests been left by the devs now?



And the G2G thing has proved to be nothing more than a gimmick, like I suspected - with no user input on voting choices and very pitiful choices to vote on. Poor show in my view. This isnt the game I thought I was going to be left to play when I preordered it, I am not interested in much of the future plans for the game, and I havent played this game in weeks because its just too basic after you have played it once and seen practically everything.



Maybe the modders will pull it around like so many games before, but there is so much that needs to be added into the game it could be years before this becomes the sort of game I was hoping it would be.



So, to date, ES has proved to be ultimately another duff 4x game release for me, it's sad for me to say.

I actually think that something like this would in some ways be better than the current affinities.



Perhaps build it into elements of diplomacy and happiness. In the fluff, pilgrims are not huge fans of the United Empire, so perhaps there should be a penalty to things like trade and happiness for border worlds. Not huge, you don't want it to be so significant that UE and Pilgrims are always at war, but enough that you might choose the sowers to enter into an agreement with first.



There is fluff(by which I mean backstory) for all of these races, it wouldn't be difficult to grow that into a general attitude alignment. You could even have positive effects when at war with a hated enemy for example. Perhaps even an underlying population attitude that changes throughout the game based on real and random factors. Thus you mihgt be politically in bed with the Sophons, but your people think they are a mob of arrogant nobs.



etc

I like the idea of more brutal empires as well as interactions with your empires people and a good/evil system. If the Cravers destroyed every system they conquered, converting all the material into an obscene boost in their production, you would be absolutely terrified of them. I also like the idea of being able to fund certain groups in your empire for increased gains at the cost of the disapproval of others.



Taking it one step further, rebellion shouldn't just be a level of approval, it should literally mean that there's a political upheaval and that if you don't fix it, there's going to be a revolutionary war and possibly a new rival empire.



Finally, with the (hopefully) upcoming interactive random events, there could be a whole new level of depth to the game where everything you do shifts your good/evil alignment, each with it's own rewards and consequences.

saj14saj wrote:
I am new to ES, but have been doing 4x since the beginning of PC gaming.



I don't have any objections to factions and events, but if they exist, they should have some strategic or tactical implication that is non-trivial. They should increase the depth of interesting choices. Otherwise, they become tedious interruptions to click past, since games of this type are played many times, until all of the content is memorized.

Well events are tipicly included to stire up trouble for the players who are winning thus preventing games that are decided in the first 30 turns.



Personally I love events that can win the game for themselves, nothing like a horrific space entity that eats stars eh?

I am new to ES, but have been doing 4x since the beginning of PC gaming.



I don't have any objections to factions and events, but if they exist, they should have some strategic or tactical implication that is non-trivial. They should increase the depth of interesting choices. Otherwise, they become tedious interruptions to click past, since games of this type are played many times, until all of the content is memorized.

@Igncom1 - nice example of a continuous dynamic event and quite befitting of the current real world financial economic crisis! haha lol. Back to your example: binding the player to previously made commitments is a really nice touch, especially if, in the long term, something can come back to bite you in the ***. Also, it would be a quite accurate reflection of the realities of life and maintaining an empire... btw, what was the price of profit? I reckon with every decision putting off wiping out the pirates oneself one just made it worse! lol



@Wenchbane and @VinceES - that's right, that was exactl what I was thinking. It's just whenever I play I get the feeling that I, in my role as the leader of an empire in ES, should be concerned, if not outright fearful, of species like the Cravers or the Hissho. But for some reason which puzzles me, I'm not. They're just there and I don't mind, which is odd and somehow, I feel, not the way it should be...

Hi !



This would be just great. I understand your feeling, and, on a web browser game created by a friend several years ago (Galaxia 3800), a race called the Spatterhyes, gave a quite big malus on populations depending on the range. This lead to an all out war just to create a no-spatterhye-land...

A part from that, I'm not fond of "good VS Evil". I don't think a specie would be really evil. It could be dangerous, attacking everyone in the universe, but because it experience a secret fear (have you read the books by David Weber about "Muniteer's Moon" serie ?). And I don't think an "Evil" specie would be able to conquer space one day...An evil specie would be a bit busy with itself...

@ n18991c



The idea is awesome! Totally understand the Craver concept, maybe add something that "unsettles" the fringe systems? After all who wants a swarm of crazy bio-mechanical food disintegraters sitting just a link away??



@ Igncom1



That oddly sounds similar to an idea I proposed a while back about events that "escalate" in severity and effect. Check that one out here and pop some ideas in, it would be much appreciated

here's the link: /#/endless-space/forum/28-game-design/thread/12521-suggestion-escalating-events



Am hoping with the new G2G vote that maybe the Devs might incorporate something from that thread...

Hmm, Good thought here, I like your idea about dark and light side. For example, depending on what you chose in certain multiple choice events will give your empire like a reputation and their alignment.

If I were to suggest, continuous dynamic events.



Say you get a event where bankers are asking for loans, if you give them money you get more dust per turn, and if you don't you increase the opinion of the population.



So you go ahead and give them loans, turns later another popup about an increase in piracy linked to the loans you put forward, you can curb the pirates to increase trade money, or you can fun them yourself for a large profit.



You curb stomp the pirates but this creates a number of pirate fleets throughout your territory, and during the fighting, the next event shows that the actions of the pirates has put the other empires on edge, you can put them at ease with a bribe, increasing relations or you can begin to force pirates into their territory causing more pirates to spawn in their systems.



You force the pirates into enemy territory and clean up your own problem, another even popups up showing that there is a pirate armada on its way from deep space to your empire, the armada is massive with up to 50 fleets, you can prepare your defenses and boost your production for a short time for a malus in growth and science, or you can pay a hefty fee and cause the armada to go for an empire of your choice.



You pay the fee and have the armada destroy an opposing empire, but now the pirates have conquered systems and are a new empire in the game, with a huge starting fleet.



Tell me, what was the price of profit?