| Diplomatic restraints |
Mon, 03 August 2009 19:51  |
|
|
|
Since the I got backstabbed thread came up again I've been pondering and come to the conclusion that the issue is really just a difference of "playstyle" between players. Were Stars far more ubiquitous and played in a school yard I rather suspect the problem would sort itself out by people simply playing with those of similar styles(or morals) ie their friends.
To cut a long rant short. I'd like to suggest that a Stars! clone include the option(and probably combined with a whole page of suboptions) of diplomatic restraints. By which I mean something similar to Civilization where, once a NAP is agreed between players, agressive actions become impossible to perform or get accompanied by a warning.
Personally I suspect I'd rather have such options turned off as its deliberately unrealistic(as opposed to deliberately fantastic) and unless a lot of other features are included, eg own mine clearing & tech trading, would interfere with all those times when agressive acts are agreed to happen. But if the suboptions were crafted carefully and desgined well, they may be able to be made into a system that prevents accidents while still allowing backstabs.
[Updated on: Mon, 03 August 2009 19:52] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Diplomatic restraints |
Mon, 03 August 2009 21:17  |
|
|
|
I don't see how this could be worth the effort of coding in. A tech-trading system I could agree with since it's relatively simple, but "diplomatic restraints" could get really complicated. And it still doesn't prevent people from doing subtle things to get around the restraints (eg, instead of attacking someone directly - send information, minerals and tech to their enemies).
My feeling on diplomacy is that you can trust exactly those players who have more to gain by cooperating with you than fighting you. If you want friends you can trust, it's your responsibility to give them reasons to be trustworthy.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Diplomatic restraints |
Mon, 03 August 2009 22:38 |
|
 Hilton |
 | Crewman 1st Class |
Messages: 28
Registered: February 2005
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada | |
|
This is already a planned (optional) feature in my project. If you really dedicate a few iotas of brain power to it, you'd realize the "coding effort" isn't very much - just a few checks and a couple extra dialogs.
When orders are placed to initiate a battle, check diplomatic status and issue a continue/stop warning. At turn generation, treaties will be cancelled (w/ any agreed upon penalties taken). Do it at generation rather than immediately in case the user takes back their actions.
Same goes for when orders are placed for mineral packet routing, if the destination allied base has no known driver.
Tech sharing is obviously easy, as is partial or full map data sharing, and partial or full scanner sharing (partial would be revealing where mutual enemy fleets are, but not revealing the allies own fleets)
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Diplomatic restraints |
Tue, 04 August 2009 18:47 |
|
|
|
I just don't like the idea of diplomacy being something coded into the game. The one thing I would like to see in this area is more flexible "friend" permissions for stargates, minefields, et cetera, so for instance you could allow someone to pass through your mines but not use your gates, or only to refuel at your docks.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Diplomatic restraints |
Wed, 05 August 2009 08:07 |
|
|
|
I'm liking the idea of 'friend' status being broken down into more specific parts.
It'd get really interesting if as well as 'share fleet scans' and 'share own fleet positions', you could toggle this at an even finer level - you could choose to show/hide certain of your own fleets. you'd have to implement a way of telling if something you see wasn't included in a 'friend report' that you spotted with your own scanners. Perhaps just through a message event.
Also the chance to enable travel through specific minefields - create corridors where an untrusted ally, or neutral, can pass, without giving them free rein to your whole territory.
Going even further, you could even include the option to add fake data to info you share 
I doubt I'd personally make use of these things... But one thing has always struck me about alliances where .m files are shared, is that it becomes another disincentive to change the diplomatic landscape by invoking whatever NAP exit you decided - since they'd see any build up that you did prior to then (to get a lead in the inevitable arms race while you wait for the NAP to time out,) and they'd also have so much info about your econ that you probably never really wanted to share - so they know your softest, juiciest spots without needing to have actually done any work to figure it out.
So being able to share similar amounts of data, but have it not be 100% trustworthy, would add a little more of the paranoid 'looking over your shoulder' that I don't think happens enough in Stars! (Backstabs can really ruin games, but at the other end of the scale, so can alliances where the 2nd player doesn't even consider trying to win.)
I'm in two minds about having game options for enforcing 'good relations'.
Warnings when doing stuff like queuing up mineral packets to allied planets where you don't see a suitable mass driver would be nice, but might just lull people into a false sense of security and actually cause accidents (like assuming that orbital with the mass driver is still there 20 years after your last visit, instead of asking.)
[Updated on: Wed, 05 August 2009 08:12] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Diplomatic restraints |
Wed, 05 August 2009 17:37 |
|
|
|
The "info concealment" and "fake info" sound like potential SS bonuses to me.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
In the real world countries spy on their "friends" all the time, in war and peace. No security blunders or lost battle orders in Stars! 