the idea here [ https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteAntal/comments/980krv/guardians_of_harmony/e5d5avj/?context=8&depth=9 ]
.
is one i've had before, and does seem SUITED, to different locations, where something just doesn't MAKE SENSE, when you look at it, especially when you're a new player, and you come across faction-behaviour - :S
and go,.. ooh yes! very-realistic! *scoff*, a... law-society, doing that! [blah]
or... a bunch of anarchists, giving a sphhhht! about that!
------------
and something just doesn't seem right - if TWO LEVELS, of alternative-markets , rather than one(BMs),
were suppositioned, inbetween some but not all behaviours of factions,..
(so one NEW one, i mean, not two new ones)
you (frontier) might be able to COMBINE OTHER GAME-DYNAMICS of their behaviours,..
WITH, a new option / combinant
(thing to combine-with)
------------
so for example ;
a indipendent faction inbetween a under Aisling control-sys bubble, and a torval control-sys bubble,
under both's bubbles, in bubble-overlap -
is 'deciding' (in the mission-generations / behaviour generation) ...
whether or not to create a lot of missions with a neighbouring faction, when two different ones, are BOTH in outbreak.[where is it]
one of the neighbours, is in ONLY within the Torval bubble, and is empire loyalist, but has REGULAR black markets in it's ports.
the other neighbour, is ONLY within the Aisling bubble, and is NOT empire loyalist, but only has REQs-BMs.
.
say the faction inbetween the two, fears empire factions using the BMs under the one in torval if it draws attention to itself,
however, it could get a better deal.
however, SINCE, it's current position,.. inf% position...
(relationships-with-other-factions-data? how surrounded by loyalist factions RATHER than indipendents it is... etc)
...is one where it does not WANT to end up in a fight with empire loyalist factions, not until it's GROWN ;
.
it goes the more expensive but less ATTRACTING aggression,
and creates missions with the more legitimate one, in the Aisling bubble.
.
.
or another example ;
say, an opportunity exists, for a faction inamongst all the change,
over Grom- / Hudson- space way...[where is it]
NEAR delaine/Kumo areas, but not actually IN, not actually UNDER Kumos,
.
has a choice when in BOOM state, to be making missions INTO hudson territory, or INTO Kumo territory.[where is it]
either, could attract attention.
.
say in one of two factions to choose from, the Kumos would buy something for a higher price, often with more spending money (higher ups, lower downs). but because of WHERE the mission is selling TO, a minor BMs bad-reputation effect would be added to the faction's history, or something (some new game-statistics dynamic i guess),
whereas in the Hudson option, there is a market also wanting to buy whatever is in surplus/boom,.. and it only has a REQs-BM, and there would be a neutral effect comparably (no, new-dynamic negative-reputation).
.
were the faction also, WANTing, to be sensitive like in the 1st example,..
it would choose the Hudson, and accept a lower price.
(just to be clear, i don't mean missions selling TO, black markets,.. i mean regular missions, but AT, a SYSTEM, that has BMs, compared to REQs-BMs)
.
but ; it's not CURRENTLY wanting to be sensitive :x, and it temporarily wanting a bit of spending money itself, to be able to try expanding into another system, so it chooses the Kumo.[money]
-------------
-------------
LIKE these examples, you could COMBINE, different conditions of behavioural choices, with a alternative, or a neutral effect, rather than [where is it] ONLY-negative, or ONLY-positive, soto speak,
as it is, they would combine ONLY, with a sys/port, with OR without,
a ALWAYS-negative.
no neutral-alternative, i mean. [blah]
.
were you to create a kind of deals-with BMs, reputation , or integrity, or something, number, you could do BOTH dynamics, instead of only all-black-markets-are-the-same,.. with no FLEXIBILITY. :O
ADDING, flexibility, would add an interesting combination, and could STABILISE or FACILITATE PROPORTION in some interplay between factions,
or REWARD, factions that should, logically, be able to maintain better relationships with others, compared to those that gamble too much by staying too negative from too much BM use.[yesnod]
DISTRUST / TRUST, would obviously be a significant part of the logical behaviours, and opportunity would then be more distinct/higher-gain.
.
.
ie, EACH faction has a (global) (invisible? ) reputation,.. integrity,.. something...
that is,
differentiated-between , reacted-to,
BY OTHER FACTIONS, and this COMBINES, with other game dynamics, in the mission-generations, and other behaviour ;
then ;
1 factions dealing with factions that run/maintain/install regular-BMs,..
ALSO, has a NEGative effect on one's own (which is attractive TO OTHER wanting, negative) [knocked out]
2 factions dealing with factions that close/disable regular-BMs,
ALSO, has a POSitive factions-rep effect (which is attractive TO OTHER wanting, positive) [heart]
whereas ;
3 factions dealing with factions that are running a REQs-BM ,
have a neutral OR positive/negative effect ; :|
depending on a COMBINATION, as i was suggesting...
and ALSO, depending on whether or not the goods are illegal under REGIONAL law, or inter-Galactic standards, etc [woah]
(so for example, REGULAR slaves, but not imperial, are ALWAYS going to cause a little negative) [down]
(or for example, dealing with one that runs a REQs-BM , when EXPORTING medicines, will always give them a positive) [heart]
.
with this, ONLY SOME, will always have a neg/pos , whereas for MOST PRAGMATIC ... water... metals,.. food...
the effect will USUALLY be neutral. DURING famine, food/water will become positive, etc, temporarily. [yesnod]
this should FAVOUR industrial, agricultural, and service, economies, i would imagine. [money]
.
.
like that,.. the STATE , changes food, normally neutral-effect, INTO positive,.. so there are COUNTER-BALANCING forces for good,..
as well as the interplay of self interest, in greed, in BMs.
there would be some room, for greed, combining with REQs-BMs,.. HOWEVER, it would be very heavily cropped, by the LEGAL CONSTRAINT, assumed.[yesnod]
were there not reliable legal-constraint, they would not be considered much different from regular BMs, so that would need to REMAIN.
so if this is recognised and gone ahead with, frontier,.. do not ignore this warning! [blah] a in-effect little-difference 'corrected'-situation, would RUIN the dynamic - it would be a waste of time, to create it, to then make them 'flexible' - if n00bs and whingers start complaining. don't! [down]
leave it that way, and make CLEAR, the difference between them and REGULAR BMs. [yesnod]
-------------
eh? eh? eh? eh?
how's that!!
for a privateer-old-school-gamers kind of thing? [money]
.
.
sounds too complicated? [haha]:S
well, before you shoot it down,.. consider that it could COMBINE, with existing faction-dynamics.
ie, MUCH if not MOST, of the hidden/invisible dynamics, might ALREADY be there, THE WORK ALREADY DONE...
in the game-engine, at least at the master-servers (each week) [woah]
.
much could remain invisible but we mercenaries/employEES (of factions employING, us) / opportunists, would only see the result.
(maybe not - perhaps such would be public knowledge, although a number is quite arbitrary. )
RELATIONSHIPS with different factions, could be nurtured, for both positive AND negative impact [woah][yesnod] - ie, pro-criminal players could deliberately nurture opportunism , whereas pro-constructionist players could nurture cooperation, etc.
Cmdr Vurrath
.
is one i've had before, and does seem SUITED, to different locations, where something just doesn't MAKE SENSE, when you look at it, especially when you're a new player, and you come across faction-behaviour - :S
and go,.. ooh yes! very-realistic! *scoff*, a... law-society, doing that! [blah]
or... a bunch of anarchists, giving a sphhhht! about that!
------------
and something just doesn't seem right - if TWO LEVELS, of alternative-markets , rather than one(BMs),
were suppositioned, inbetween some but not all behaviours of factions,..
(so one NEW one, i mean, not two new ones)
you (frontier) might be able to COMBINE OTHER GAME-DYNAMICS of their behaviours,..
WITH, a new option / combinant
(thing to combine-with)
------------
so for example ;
a indipendent faction inbetween a under Aisling control-sys bubble, and a torval control-sys bubble,
under both's bubbles, in bubble-overlap -
is 'deciding' (in the mission-generations / behaviour generation) ...
whether or not to create a lot of missions with a neighbouring faction, when two different ones, are BOTH in outbreak.[where is it]
one of the neighbours, is in ONLY within the Torval bubble, and is empire loyalist, but has REGULAR black markets in it's ports.
the other neighbour, is ONLY within the Aisling bubble, and is NOT empire loyalist, but only has REQs-BMs.
.
say the faction inbetween the two, fears empire factions using the BMs under the one in torval if it draws attention to itself,
however, it could get a better deal.
however, SINCE, it's current position,.. inf% position...
(relationships-with-other-factions-data? how surrounded by loyalist factions RATHER than indipendents it is... etc)
...is one where it does not WANT to end up in a fight with empire loyalist factions, not until it's GROWN ;
.
it goes the more expensive but less ATTRACTING aggression,
and creates missions with the more legitimate one, in the Aisling bubble.
.
.
or another example ;
say, an opportunity exists, for a faction inamongst all the change,
over Grom- / Hudson- space way...[where is it]
NEAR delaine/Kumo areas, but not actually IN, not actually UNDER Kumos,
.
has a choice when in BOOM state, to be making missions INTO hudson territory, or INTO Kumo territory.[where is it]
either, could attract attention.
.
say in one of two factions to choose from, the Kumos would buy something for a higher price, often with more spending money (higher ups, lower downs). but because of WHERE the mission is selling TO, a minor BMs bad-reputation effect would be added to the faction's history, or something (some new game-statistics dynamic i guess
),whereas in the Hudson option, there is a market also wanting to buy whatever is in surplus/boom,.. and it only has a REQs-BM, and there would be a neutral effect comparably (no, new-dynamic negative-reputation).
.
were the faction also, WANTing, to be sensitive like in the 1st example,..
it would choose the Hudson, and accept a lower price.
(just to be clear, i don't mean missions selling TO, black markets,.. i mean regular missions, but AT, a SYSTEM, that has BMs, compared to REQs-BMs)
.
but ; it's not CURRENTLY wanting to be sensitive :x, and it temporarily wanting a bit of spending money itself, to be able to try expanding into another system, so it chooses the Kumo.[money]
-------------
-------------
LIKE these examples, you could COMBINE, different conditions of behavioural choices, with a alternative, or a neutral effect, rather than [where is it] ONLY-negative, or ONLY-positive, soto speak,
as it is, they would combine ONLY, with a sys/port, with OR without,
a ALWAYS-negative.
no neutral-alternative, i mean. [blah]
.
were you to create a kind of deals-with BMs, reputation , or integrity, or something, number, you could do BOTH dynamics, instead of only all-black-markets-are-the-same,.. with no FLEXIBILITY. :O
ADDING, flexibility, would add an interesting combination, and could STABILISE or FACILITATE PROPORTION in some interplay between factions,
or REWARD, factions that should, logically, be able to maintain better relationships with others, compared to those that gamble too much by staying too negative from too much BM use.[yesnod]
DISTRUST / TRUST, would obviously be a significant part of the logical behaviours, and opportunity would then be more distinct/higher-gain.
.
.
ie, EACH faction has a (global) (invisible? ) reputation,.. integrity,.. something...
that is,
differentiated-between , reacted-to,
BY OTHER FACTIONS, and this COMBINES, with other game dynamics, in the mission-generations, and other behaviour ;
then ;
1 factions dealing with factions that run/maintain/install regular-BMs,..
ALSO, has a NEGative effect on one's own (which is attractive TO OTHER wanting, negative) [knocked out]
2 factions dealing with factions that close/disable regular-BMs,
ALSO, has a POSitive factions-rep effect (which is attractive TO OTHER wanting, positive) [heart]
whereas ;
3 factions dealing with factions that are running a REQs-BM ,
have a neutral OR positive/negative effect ; :|
depending on a COMBINATION, as i was suggesting...
and ALSO, depending on whether or not the goods are illegal under REGIONAL law, or inter-Galactic standards, etc [woah]
(so for example, REGULAR slaves, but not imperial, are ALWAYS going to cause a little negative) [down]
(or for example, dealing with one that runs a REQs-BM , when EXPORTING medicines, will always give them a positive) [heart]
.
with this, ONLY SOME, will always have a neg/pos , whereas for MOST PRAGMATIC ... water... metals,.. food...
the effect will USUALLY be neutral. DURING famine, food/water will become positive, etc, temporarily. [yesnod]
this should FAVOUR industrial, agricultural, and service, economies, i would imagine. [money]
.
.
like that,.. the STATE , changes food, normally neutral-effect, INTO positive,.. so there are COUNTER-BALANCING forces for good,..
as well as the interplay of self interest, in greed, in BMs.
there would be some room, for greed, combining with REQs-BMs,.. HOWEVER, it would be very heavily cropped, by the LEGAL CONSTRAINT, assumed.[yesnod]
were there not reliable legal-constraint, they would not be considered much different from regular BMs, so that would need to REMAIN.
so if this is recognised and gone ahead with, frontier,.. do not ignore this warning! [blah] a in-effect little-difference 'corrected'-situation, would RUIN the dynamic - it would be a waste of time, to create it, to then make them 'flexible' - if n00bs and whingers start complaining. don't! [down]
leave it that way, and make CLEAR, the difference between them and REGULAR BMs. [yesnod]
-------------
eh? eh? eh? eh?
how's that!!
for a privateer-old-school-gamers kind of thing? [money]
.
.
sounds too complicated? [haha]:S
well, before you shoot it down,.. consider that it could COMBINE, with existing faction-dynamics.
ie, MUCH if not MOST, of the hidden/invisible dynamics, might ALREADY be there, THE WORK ALREADY DONE...
in the game-engine
, at least at the master-servers (each week) [woah].
much could remain invisible but we mercenaries/employEES (of factions employING, us) / opportunists, would only see the result.
(maybe not - perhaps such would be public knowledge, although a number is quite arbitrary.
)RELATIONSHIPS with different factions, could be nurtured, for both positive AND negative impact [woah][yesnod] - ie, pro-criminal players could deliberately nurture opportunism , whereas pro-constructionist players could nurture cooperation, etc.
Cmdr Vurrath
Last edited: