Calico wrote:
all these things need to be interconnected

That's kind of my point with this thread. It's not about any single thing, but about a concept; a complex and organic approach to diplomacy as a whole. More than anything, I'm simply attempting to make a case for the strong merit of such an approach.



I mentioned a few specific things, but they're more examples than anything else. They're literary tools to (hopefully) get my overall point across. Though I guess given the presentation (I tend to be ranty and scattered), I could understand how one might miss the forest for the trees. This thread is not about any single one of the suggestions I mentioned, but about the complex web of diplomacy such things (and others, which I have not mentioned, or even imagined) could create, together.



I gave SMAC's Social Engineering choices as an example in my first post; this is echoed in the page you mention which speaks of Government. As I said there:

ElegantCaveman wrote:
I'd prefer multiple policy choices (SMAC did it best, I find), but failing that, I'd still rather have "single governments" than none at all.

And having various choices to make in regards to how one deals with conquered races would be part of it, absolutely.



Basically, any new game of any genre will be compared to its predecessors; both positive and negative aspects. A game can be a lot of fun but not stand out or challenge the norm or status quo in any way.



I already see something kind of new in Endless Space with the heroes; off the top of my head, I can't think of any other 4x that have that. It's relatively rudimentary in its present state, but there's a lot of possibility with that for ES to define itself (speaking of interesting threads: here's one suggesting expanding the role of the Academy). Beyond this, though, I don't see much.



Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love the game, and it's only in alpha, it'll just get better.



But I see real potential for ES to separate itself from the pack by embracing a diplomatic path. They've created an interesting world with interesting lore; I think that could go far as a background for bringing their world to life. But without solid diplomacy, the different factions are little more than an amalgamation of bonuses and penalties. One of the reasons why I loved SMAC so much (again, here I go with SMAC...) was because of how alive the factions felt in that game, at least to me. I wasn't just playing/with against faceless drones with different stats, but I was waging a war of belief, first and foremost. And those I met on the battlefield were my brothers and sisters, as much as I may have disagreed with them. AIs can be people too!

ElegantCaveman wrote:
What does my signature have to do with Sophon ships...? o.O

oh, nothing really. Tundra Worlds are just fine.

Just don't bash Sophon Ships. Anywhere. Ever. I'm obviously still not over it that my Fiancée called them "beautiful dildos". I'll never will be the same after that day. *crazily laughes while bashing head on the table*

ElegantCaveman wrote:
Maybe not as off-topic as you might think:



I believe that the present state of the industry is precisely -why- we're asking for the things we are.



There is a lack of something, and there is a clear interest from gamers in having this thing we lack. If proper diplomacy was a more common occurence, we would not be so hungry for it.



There is a hole to be filled, and Endless Space has an opportunity to (attempt to) fill it.

Yeah, well that's true. Still, we got carried away a bit here.

Anyway, yes. I'm a Gamer since the mid-90s. And it somehow seems the pinnacle of Gaming is behind us, not in front of us. Games get dumbed down so much these days.. we have so much technology at our disposal, it should be possible to make games that ARE Complex and still somewhat easy to understand without a doctortitle.

pthmix wrote:
I like the suggestions of the OP. I myself haven't encountered a single game where I liked the diplomacy system. I know it is probably (usually?) a low priority feature because advertising it is harder than advertising good graphics and easy gameplay.



A good example for a bad implementation of a diplomacy system is Civ V. In that game your neighbours will always hate you and a consistent friendship is very hard to get (and has no benefits aside from more people hating you). Admittedly they seem to be trying improve it with Gods + Kings.

And that happend to the 5th Incarnation of the Civilization Series..... the original one practicly teached me english! And nowadays they can't even get diplomacy right without releasing DLC after more then a year.





So yes. I'm longing for a 4X Game with replayability, diplomacy and a lot of deepth without beeing overhelmely complex. It seems it's a lot to ask for these days, but pls amplitude, you can do it!

Hmm... can't actually remember how the diplomacy was back in Alpha Centauri. It's been a few years since I had it out of the box last - thankfully it can run in full HD with a bit of patchwork



@phtmix: My biggest gripe with Civ V is that the AI handles Diplomacy entirely different than "you". If an AI starts rampagning the small city states, noone seems to care much. If the player as much as cough in the general direction of a city state you find yourself with world war in no time.



Not to mention the fact that every civ seems to be fond of backstabbing - initially worshipping the very ground you thread on, only to suddenly betray any agreement you've previously made for no apparant reason other than "Oh look - it's that time of the game again now"

I like the suggestions of the OP. I myself haven't encountered a single game where I liked the diplomacy system. I know it is probably (usually?) a low priority feature because advertising it is harder than advertising good graphics and easy gameplay.



A good example for a bad implementation of a diplomacy system is Civ V. In that game your neighbours will always hate you and a consistent friendship is very hard to get (and has no benefits aside from more people hating you). Admittedly they seem to be trying to improve it with Gods + Kings.

A lot of the stuff I've read here sounds like it would make for a fun/interesting game

Calico wrote:
P.S: I like your signature. but never ever bash against Sophon Ships. Sophon Battleship ftw!

What does my signature have to do with Sophon ships...? o.O

Calico wrote:
edit: we are sooooooo off-topic right now. sry for that.

Maybe not as off-topic as you might think:



I believe that the present state of the industry is precisely -why- we're asking for the things we are.



There is a lack of something, and there is a clear interest from gamers in having this thing we lack. If proper diplomacy was a more common occurence, we would not be so hungry for it.



There is a hole to be filled, and Endless Space has an opportunity to (attempt to) fill it.

Mansen wrote:
Too often it is nothing more than simple "Friends? Yup, Allies? Nope, Trade? Yup" responses.



I'd love to see the ability to form longterm strategies with an AI player - such as "I'll go for this constellation and leave you to expand into this one instead". Or "I am attacking this, that and that planet now - please go for these 3 on our common enemy".

Very true, yes. Even in games that offer these options in theory, it's pretty much never an actually workable strategy due to poor implementation. It's as if they include the options just to be able to pretend they're there, but they're not actually worked on properly or balanced, so they just end up wasting space.



The only game I've ever played that diplomacy actually offered something more than "Friends? Yup, Allies? Nope, Trade? Yup" was SMAC.



I remember forming alliances with similar-sized factions (usually, you can only get allies by giving way too much to tiny, meaningless factions), and actually -giving them bases- to help them out. I had a true feeling of having a friend in a harsh world.



I find it sad that in the ~12 years since SMAC's release, I've never seen any other game come even close to that; however imperfect SMAC's diplomacy system may have been, it was still in a class of its own compared to anything since (that I've seen).

thegreedyturtle wrote:
I'd like to see the ability to assign a hero to another faction as an ambassador.

I really like this idea! I find the heroes to be one of Endless Space's "distinguishing features", and I'd love to see a diplomatic aspect for them come into play. Even a diplomat class, maybe.

thegreedyturtle wrote:
Someone else mentioned a 'peace' option, so I also came up with an interesting idea with that in multiplayer. The 'respect' parameter is not the respect of the leader, but the respect of the people.

Interesting! This could allow for inter-faction relationships to remain (at least somewhat) relevant even in multiplayer.



Though in this case, I would see the need for both a "faction leaders relationship" and a "faction populace relationship". This would complicate things, but afford even greater depth.



This could even be integrated nicely with n18991c's idea of having to deal with the alien population of conquered systems.



Basically, it would be more of a "racial relationship" than a "citizens relationship". Or perhaps even have both.



So depending on the population types of your worlds, the population types of another faction's worlds, and your relationship with all of these, you would have various bonuses, penalties, opportunities and limitations to your available options.



This might be going too far, though... but just some food for thought.

thegreedyturtle wrote:
Same goes for deals offered.

Definitely. This is kind of the point of having a more complex diplomatic system; to have a larger variety of options beyond the typical binary system, affected (and affecting) your various relationships.

I'd like to see the ability to assign a hero to another faction as an ambassador. Each turn they are there, the faction's respect increases, along with the bonuses that respect brings-I don't know if respect increases trade volume or not, but it probably should. Of course, if war is declared, the hero is wounded.



Someone else mentioned a 'peace' option, so I also came up with an interesting idea with that in multiplayer. The 'respect' parameter is not the respect of the leader, but the respect of the people. This can cause problems for human and AI leaders sometimes, because their options will become limited on both ends of the respect spectrum. (Respectrum?) On one end, all you can do is declare war, but on the other end, you can't declare war on a respected faction without losing major happiness from the population.



Same goes for deals offered. The highly respected faction's (good) deals come with a rejection price: the loss of happiness from your own people. This will make certain decisions more difficult, such as the classic deal response: You're winning so suck it, which severely limits winning via diplomatic/peaceful means. Of course, none of this would apply to crappy deals, and spamming deals to an opponent would start having the opposite effect on the opponent's population happiness. Related to how much the population's 'nationalist' standing, for example, Cravers are never going to be upset that you rejected a deal. But a more friendly type of people will be upset you reject a deal the first few times, and then they start thinking 'why do they keep bothering us'?





Certain deals would probably have to be left off the happiness index table, such as major tactical requests like star maps and open borders.

I can sign off on this suggestions thread any time. I always sit and think "Gosh wouldn't it be nice if I could do more with the AI diplomacy here" in most "grand strategy" games I play. Too often it is nothing more than simple "Friends? Yup, Allies? Nope, Trade? Yup" responses.



I'd love to see the ability to form longterm strategies with an AI player - such as "I'll go for this constellation and leave you to expand into this one instead". Or "I am attacking this, that and that planet now - please go for these 3 on our common enemy".



Also I'd like to see thosewormhole/link penalties turned into bonuses slowly as the "peace" bonus begins - surely you'd like close borders with your close friends so that they can assist quickly.

ElegantCaveman wrote:
Sad but true, and by no means something that only affects 4x (not that I'm teaching anyone anything new with that statement...).

True, the Gaming Industry as a whole is stagnant... From 4x over Simulations to MMO's. Everywhere you look, nothing really new happens. Which is frustrating... I mean, we have all this Technology at our disposal that we didn't had 10-15 years ago. Still if we have to name a game that was truly inspiring, we fall back to Civ IV, Ascendancy, MOO2 or Alpha Centauri. Titles that are so old you could literally have raised a child up in that time. Well, almost. When i bought this Game, i didn't do it because of the shiny Graphics, i did it cause of the promise of a almost endless replayability. And ofc because any indie studio trying to make a change deservers help. If they allow me to give some input into their Game, the better.

ElegantCaveman wrote:
Another reason, I think, is that it's a massive wall of text, and it may be passionate, but it's not quite as clear and concise as it could be. Some people don't mind reading, but a lot do.



I remember seeing someone give a couple-of-words tl;dr to a two-sentence post in another forum somewhere. The thought that they considered two sentences too long to read gave me chills. I'd like to believe that this was an extreme case, but it still kind of proves my point.



A third might be that I'm advocating something vague and nebulous: a concept; an ideal. It's much easier for people to get behind something simple and concrete than something that's hard to define.

Well, i don't mind reading.

And sure, keeping things "simple" tends to draw a lot bigger audience. Still, good ideas and passioniate posts deserve some attention. Way to many posts around here that either include several hugely different ideas within a few short sentences without explaining anything. Serious concepts tend to need more space then a sentence or two.



P.S: I like your signature. but never ever bash against Sophon Ships. Sophon Battleship ftw!



edit: we are sooooooo off-topic right now. sry for that.

I like the idea a lot. Some of the major problems in other games is diplomacy. The reason that this is perhaps one of the most important aspects, because it gives factions character. And enables them to become some other form life, that just eventually needs to be put down.



Also nice to see responses from the dev. team.

Have to say I agree with the OP and really long for such a diplomacy system... Thus, the Dev post makes me a very happy pilgrim.

Calico wrote:
It's also true that the 4x Genre lacks progress. It's easier just make a a Game with a number behind it, dumped down so that it reaches more consumers.

Sad but true, and by no means something that only affects 4x (not that I'm teaching anyone anything new with that statement...).



As production costs go up, so does the "need" for profit, hence biggers studios become more and more reticent to take chances. As you said, slap a number on a known name, and you're pretty much assured sales. But at what costs?



4x, though, is a genre that is particularly affected by this, I believe, due to its inherently complex (ideal) nature, which goes against the zeitgeist.



Another reason why I feel as strongly as I do about all this is because I feel that indie games and indie developers are probably the best hope for the industry and the "unpleasant" (imho, of course) direction it's heading in.



Especially when it comes to alphas and betas with great community involvement like this.



You could go rant on the EA boards all you want, give them the best ideas in the world... it wouldn't change much.



But here? Ideas matter. That's not to say, of course, that the devs will implement everything we tell them to. It's still their game, after all. But they're kind enough to care about our input, and with a lively community, things take on a life of their own.



It can be hard to separate the signal from the noise, but the better ideas tend to rise to the top (sadly, it's also true that some fall through the cracks... but I guess you can't have everything). In the end, even if we can influence development just a little bit (and Amplitude has already shown that we can do a lot more than that), I think it's worth it.

Calico wrote:
Too many good ideas and concepts get burried under the massive postings of new and old ideas. Only way to unburry them is to make yourself aware that there is good stuff on the 2 and 3rd page as well.

All too true. There's already quite a few threads/topic that caught my eye which I told myself I'd look into later but have already forgotten about. There's an incredible amount of activity in these forums, and it's hard to keep up. Bit by bit, though, things coalesce. And I have to trust that I'm not alone and others are also bringing all sorts of wonderful ideas to the table I'm not aware of. I do go back and take a look beyond page 1 at times, but not as much as I'd like to or feel I should.

Calico wrote:
In case of this thread you actually received a reaction on the first page, i wondered how it got burried sooo fast.

I did, but I think that was part of the reason. SpaceTroll's post could be taken, depending on how you look at it, as basically saying "Yup, already working on it. Thread over".



Another reason, I think, is that it's a massive wall of text, and it may be passionate, but it's not quite as clear and concise as it could be. Some people don't mind reading, but a lot do.



I remember seeing someone give a couple-of-words tl;dr to a two-sentence post in another forum somewhere. The thought that they considered two sentences too long to read gave me chills. I'd like to believe that this was an extreme case, but it still kind of proves my point.



A third might be that I'm advocating something vague and nebulous: a concept; an ideal. It's much easier for people to get behind something simple and concrete than something that's hard to define.

ElegantCaveman wrote:
I'm keeping my fingers crossed! The potential is there...



I guess this is why I feel so strongly about this.



All the best 4x are around a decade old; with the newer stuff, there tends to be a tendency towards dumbing-down and over-simplification. This makes me sad.

I agree, this game has potential.... and let me asure you, you are not alone with strong feelings. It's also true that the 4x Genre lacks progress. It's easier just make a a Game with a number behind it, dumped down so that it reaches more consumers.

Civ 5 as example.

ElegantCaveman wrote:
The more people post, even if it's just to say they've read and agree, the more likely the devs are to take the idea seriously.

Too many good ideas and concepts get burried under the massive postings of new and old ideas. Only way to unburry them is to make yourself aware that there is good stuff on the 2 and 3rd page as well.



And yeah, the more ppl post, the more likely that the Devs see this. In case of this thread you actually received a reaction on the first page, i wondered how it got burried sooo fast.

Dr_Mox wrote:
[...] ES will be able to sweep past her rivals and set a benchmark for 4X [...]

I'm keeping my fingers crossed! The potential is there...



I guess this is why I feel so strongly about this.



All the best 4x are around a decade old; with the newer stuff, there tends to be a tendency towards dumbing-down and over-simplification. This makes me sad.



On the other end of the spectrum, we still get some indie/pseudo-indie super-complex stuff, especially in the realm of Grand Strategy (Paradox... HoI... I'm thinking of you...), but I'm hoping for something in the middle: complexity without the need to go back to school for a degree just so I can play (I'm a bit slow and simple... so sue me).



In ES, I'm seeing the potential for that juicy middle.

beaker wrote:
Super wall of text attack! Anyway, really well written, i agree about everything, and most important i've seen also dev team does! Can't wait to test beta improvements!!!

Thank you! Your support is appreciated!



The more people post, even if it's just to say they've read and agree, the more likely the devs are to take the idea seriously.

Super wall of text attack! Anyway, really well written, i agree about everything, and most important i've seen also dev team does! Can't wait to test beta improvements!!!

ElegantCaveman wrote:
But without solid diplomacy, the different factions are little more than an amalgamation of bonuses and penalties.

I totally agree, the more interraction between the factions in-game, in the form of a robust Diplomacy system ontop of other things like interractive events and the Hero/Academy feature , the more ES will be able to sweep past her rivals and set a benchmark for 4X beyond all the clones out there and long-in-the-tooth predecessors.



Looking forward to seeing what future builds develop in this field.

[SkiptothethirdpostfortheTL;DRversion]



I have a request. But before I get to that, I need to give you a bit of background so that you can understand where I'm coming from. Also, I do apologize in advance for this monster.



My first 4x was Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, what seems like a lifetime ago. I still remember randomly stumbling onto the demo and being completely blown away. I also remember calling every local store I could find to see if they had a copy I could buy (I only had a Mac at that time, which made it that much harder to find, and it was a few years after it had come out, which made it nearly impossible--it was nearly out of print at the time).



Finally, I found one. I think they had one copy left. Maybe two or three, but whatever the case, not many. I couldn't believe my luck.



To this day, SMAC remains, arguably, my favorite video game of all time (and this across all genres, not just 4x), especially when including the Alien Crossfire expansion.



Over the years since, I've played various others, all of which I loved to various degrees, but none ever recaptured that same magic. In a way, I find it sad that a game that's over 12 years old is still superior in most ways (if not all--not counting graphics) to anything that's come after.



What I'd probably call my second favorite in the genre would the the Final Frontier full conversion mod that comes bundled with Civ IV's Beyond the Sword expansion (if you haven't tried it, do). As good as it is, though, it doesn't hold a candle to SMAC.



There are many things that made SMAC great, but one of them (and the most relevant to the topic at hand) is how it handled diplomacy. It was far from perfect, but it's still the best and most complex implementation of it I've seen in such a game.



Diplomacy, in some shape or form, is a staple of the 4x genre, of course. But unfortunately, it rarely amounts to little more than--at best--placating potential foes with bribes for as long as possible until they, sooner or later, declare war on you. There are exceptions, naturally, but this is how it usually goes down.



Though alliances and cooperation between factions is, at least in theory, a possibility in these games, it's rarely a truly viable option. Usually, if you're lucky, you might get to trade a bit of tech, maybe some maps, bribe someone into not attacking you if you're not ready (often with an all-too-high and unreasonable price).



I never cease to be infuriated by factions with whom you have good relations that are constantly begging for handouts, then get pissed off when you refuse (when, of course, they would never possibly agree to any such requests you made of them). This has often resulted in my waging genocidal wars out of sheer frustration and annoyance at the offending parties.



SMAC is, from what I can remember, the only game in which one could actually have something like a working alliance between equals (in other games, usually, the only time another faction agrees to an alliance is when they're far away and too small to be of any significance).



And so to my humble request:



Not just "fix" diplomacy, but make it so that a diplomatic and peaceful approach is a viable strategy for victory.



I realize that this is far from easy, and may not even be possible (especially in terms of balancing), but it would be an admirable goal to strive for. I implore you to at least try.



By this, I mean more than just trade routes, tech exchange and alliances. But extensive diplomatic options which would allow one to strive for a peaceful victory and management of one's potential foes.



We already have an ability to trade systems in the diplomacy menu; I admit I haven't experimented with this yet. But my experience with all other 4x that offered the option is that it's always been a completely useless waste of time (except for--you guessed it--SMAC; I've actually used it successfully there). Understandably, AI factions don't like trading their cities/planets/whatever (depending on the game), but I've tried offering decent bases in other games for utterly crappy ones and still been refused.



A proper implementation of this would be wonderful, though I understand that can be tricky to work out (especially in designing the AI to recognize fair deals, as so many variables come into play).



Let us give a star system to a faction we're on neutral terms with, make it so that even with poor relations, a gift of a system (even if small), an offer of cooperation or friendship is accepted, for example. Let that gift of a system give a permanent bonus to our relationship (perhaps one that starts big but which decreases with time, though never completely goes away).



Allow us to help weaker factions we have a good relationship with.



All too often, when I succeed making an alliance with another faction (in other games), it's because they're weak and useless. Let us help our friends. We already have Dust and Science exchanges through trade-routes, perhaps offer some way to share Industry. For example, I already look at the "Industry to Dust" conversion as a means of transfering industry points from my bigger systems to my new colonies (in the sense that I use the extra cash from them to rush production on basic facilities).



Simply giving allies cash, though, is not enough, as who knows how they'll use it (probably terribly). It would be nice to specify that the cash can only be used for infrastucture rushing, and that you could specify which system gets to use it. Better yet, allow us to send them Industry points directly.



For example, say an ally has a new colony in a system with harsh conditions, you could help them out in that system specifically to help them get off the ground.



Another thing I liked about SMAC is that, under the right circumstances, you could ask/convince your friends to change their stances on certain things to something else. I speak of the Social Engineering "approaches/philosophies" (Politics, Economics, Values and Future Society). Each faction had certain "favorites" (though this could be randomized at game start, as an option) which they tended to go for once available (everybody started with the same defaults and certain techs unlocked certain choices).



Now, this, in itself, is not something never seen anywhere else (Civilization games also have something similar, for example), but I've never seen it done better (again... sorry, you must be tired of me comparing everything to SMAC). Such "society" choices, in games that have them, usually affect how other factions look at you (bonuses or penalties to your relationship, depending on your stances), but even when given the option to do so, in most cases, it's all but impossible to get another faction to switch to something you suggest.



SMAC was the exception, though. I very much appreciated the ability to influence my allies' politics in this way.



(cont.)

After reading every line of text from Caveman i gotta say: I fully, totally agree with you. Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri was a great Game, with a highly developed AI that was actually able to make significant choices. Another good example was Civ IV, especially the Fall from Heaven II mod. If you still have a copy flying around, give it a try, it's worth it. But talking of them makes me realise that the AI in those Games was also easier to influence.... or not influence but you had the choice of deciding to do things like the AI wanted (social policies) which made decision finding a lot easier.



In other, i believe very interesting threads, there is talk about Governments and how to handle conquered alien populations... Too make that clear, all these things need to be interconnected. Your Goverment Type may influence who likes you or not... as does your actions towards conquered Alien Civs may. Bombarding every System with Mass Drivers might make invasions easier, but likely will annihilate all chances for peacetalks.



Hopefully both make it into the game together with your idea of a more meainingful diplomacy system. Maybe not on release, but later on. I really like the alpha so far, with all it's short comings. But to be truly good, this game needs to step forward in some departments. Two Steps forward and it very well might outshine our memories of SMAC, CIV IV or other 4x games of the past.



P.S: on page 3 after 2 days.... i guess thats the way most good posts go around here lately.

I love the idea of winning the game without firing a shot a lot, especially with the Horatios. Who wouldn't want to be ruled by someone so beautiful?

Excellent point about erratic vs. logical actions. Taking the example of the Hissho, he's doing what he's "supposed" to do (or, at least, being true to his "nature"), hence the boost in trust. If that Hissho starts being all nice all of a sudden, even if consistently, then you might suspect something's up...



As for consistency, another excellent point, and pretty much what I meant about trust being a short-term factor but which builds up over time (whether that build-up is positive or negative).



And I would totally trust Wimpy to be consistent in his love of burgers...