I find that Reputation is trying to fulfil two roles. On one hand it’s like a ‘karma’ systems, where attacking weaker players is bad. On the other hand it’s trying to give an incentive for players to attack each other. As other have stated, the current system is open to abuse, and lowering the break-even point is only going to increase that problem. Also for new players, the way reputation affects your output is not very clear.
The Idea Basics:
Assuming a planet output that already has things like civ traits and loyalty factored in – the planet output could then be modified by: Corruption (based on the size of your empire) Reputation (based on how you’ve behaved throughout history) Event-Bonus (based on how much you’ve destroyed or had destroyed recently)
The Event-Bonus Idea:
If you blow up an enemy fleet, people celebrate, get more motivated, and production increases. An Event-Bonus would be much more potent than the effects of Corruption & Reputation, but the Event-Bonus fades over 100 turns (or some other length of time).
To get an Event-Bonus, you would need to destroy a portion of an enemy’s ‘Physical Power’. ‘Physical Power’ basically refers to the points you have from ships, facilities, troops, citizens, & planets, but I will refer to these things as ‘Items’, and score-from-Items as ‘Physical Power’ for simplicity. You could also get an Event-Bonus if an enemy destroys your Items (the desperation effect).
The Event Bonus would be there as an incentive to fight other players. An Event Bonus is ALWAYS positive, however, attacking larger empires yields far higher bonuses than attacking smaller empires. The fact that the bonus fades every turn means that any complacency is a loss.
Event-Bonus Percentage:
The Event Bonus percentage is applied directly to each planet’s output, so it’s really easy to see what kind of a benefit you would get.
The Base-Event-Bonus is simply based on the percentage of an ‘Physical Power’ that is destroyed / captured:
If an enemy has 10 identical planets (and no ships) and you take a planet, then you’ve ‘destroyed’ 10% of their ‘Physical Power’ so the Base-Event-Bonus is 10%.
The Base-Event-Bonus would then be altered based on the respective power of the players involved:
Modified-Event-Bonus = Base-Event-Bonus * (Enemy Score / Your Score) ^2
If their score is half yours, you get ¼. If their score is double yours, you get 4 times the bonus!
Note: The same formulae are be used for the Event-Bonus you get when you lose any Physical Power to an enemy. Since both the winner AND the loser get an Event-Bonus from a conflict it’s worth remembering that the modifier works backwards for your enemy, so if you’re the more powerful player they’re getting a better output bonus.
Final-Event-Bonus = Modified-Event-Bonus * ?
The final bonus (and number of turns the bonus lasts for) are important game variable that would need to be balanced. They would effect the pace of the game, so it could be a good custom galaxy option.
Reputation:
Reputation would be calculated for each and every event just like the Event-Bonus. It’s important that the effects of reputation are considerably less than that of Event-Bonuses because Reputation is permanent. Event-Bonuses are the short-term gains, Reputation is the long-term consequence.
You would gain a positive reputation for destroying Items of players more powerful than you, and negative reputation for destroying Items of weaker players. There is no break-even adjustment, the break-even point is your score.
Reputation-Direction = (Enemy Score - Your Score) / Your Score
Like the Event-Bonus, the size of the modifier is based on the size of the conflict:
The Final-Reputation-Modifier is the Reputation-Direction multiplied by Conflict-Size multiplied by a global reputation multiplier. The multiplier should be around 0.1 to keep the reputation’s immediate effect low compared to the Event-Bonus.
Final-Reputation-Modifier = Reputation-Direction * Conflict-Size * 0.1
If their score is half yours (-50%) then you would get 0.1 times that amount for destroying all of their power holdings – in this case –5%. If their score is 20% higher than yours (+20%), then you would gain +2% reputation.
Portrayal:
In the diplomacy screen you’d be given the kind of effects you could expect from destroying 1% of each player’s empires.
Player 1 (50% of your score)
per 1% destroyed: +0.25% Output Bonus, -0.05% reputation.
Player 2 (double your score)
per 1% destroyed: +4.00% Output Bonus, +0.20% reputation.
Player 3 (10% of your score)
per 1% destroyed: +0.01% Output Bonus, -0.09% reputation.
Putting it all together:
The planet output would be based on citizens, facilities etc.
Then the Planet’s loyalty would be applied:
If the planet’s loyalty is below 100: Output *= Planet-Loyalty
If the planet’s loyalty is above 100: Output *= 100% + (Planet-Loyalty - 100%)/10
Then the multipliers would be applied: Output *= Corruption * Reputation * Event-Bonuses * Civ-Traits
More ideas: Hostile [Diplomatic State]: While hostile, you have the ability to target enemy ships and fleets, but you cannot invade a planet. I think there are a lot of situations where a player would want to attack other player’s ships without resorting to all-out war (such as intercepting scouts & threatening fleets). Corrupted Loyalty: Corruption and Reputation could be applied to the planet’s loyalty directly (as well as to output) meaning larger empires need to invade with more troops to be able to hold down a planet.
__________________ Cosmic Supremacy - It's not just a game, It's a life style.
Hey - I like this! Also, the post is extremely well-formatted.
However, I do not have the interest to read through everything.
And I will not say I will read-this-over "later"
So...
[quote="Earendel"]the current system is open to abuse,[/quote]
Concurred.
Truthfully, it would lower-morale to declare peace on a nation/empire with which you were at war (e.g. Vietnam or Iraq..? I mean, it's admitting defeat!) so you could realistically lose the bonus you had from declaring war in the first place (negating the repetitive-abuse of rep-gain).
[quote="Earendel"]Base-Event-Bonus = (PhysicalPowerDestroyed / PreviousPhysicalPower)[/quote]
This could plausibly arrest every issue with the rep. system, except for the possibility of... Declaring war while your 'enemy' still has only one planet..? Then you can destroy over 100% of his "PreviousPhysicalPower", while he is expanding to 1000% of his original 'power'.
[quote="Earendel"]Note: The same formulae are be used for the Event-Bonus you get when you lose any Physical Power to an enemy. Since both the winner AND the loser get an Event-Bonus from a conflict it’s worth remembering that the modifier works backwards for your enemy, so if you’re the more powerful player they’re getting a better output bonus. [/quote]
A possibility, and very logical.
Yet I somehow find it unrealistic! After all, what could possibly allow - sorry, rhetorical-question coming up - allow an entire nation to pay taxes?
Only one - a good 'aggro'.
Aggro = ticking-off another group of individuals
e.g. Pearl Harbour
Invading somebody's homeland
In conclusion, that Final-Reputation-Modifier needs to made into a real-time value (or pseudo-realtime (i.e. calculated daily)) in order to account for growth of the other player's empire. How do you address growth during war?
Hostile sounds good : )
And those scout-fleets... They're dangerous : )
I still do not understand how loyalty works, when people are "on the verge of rebelling". Is there somewhere that I can read-up on rebels?
Originally posted by Earendel
Base-Event-Bonus = (PhysicalPowerDestroyed / PreviousPhysicalPower)
This could plausibly arrest every issue with the rep. system, except for the possibility of... Declaring war while your 'enemy' still has only one planet..? Then you can destroy over 100% of his "PreviousPhysicalPower", while he is expanding to 1000% of his original 'power'.
Declaring war would have absolutely no effect on any of the bonuses. The ONLY thing that it would do is allow you to attack. It’s the attacking that gets you the bonus, not declaring war. Declaring war would also have no effect on ‘freezing’ the relative score calculation, or ‘PreviousPhysicalPower’ value. The PreviousPhysicalPower would be based on the Score you had from Planets, Ships, etc before you had them destroyed, or put more simply, the Physical power you have now, plus the physical power that was destroyed (that tick). If there is any change in the player’s score from power (like they build a facility or lose a shuttle) their physical power is immediately updated.
quote:
Originally posted by Phenoca
quote:
Originally posted by Earendel
Note: The same formulae are be used for the Event-Bonus you get when you lose any Physical Power to an enemy. Since both the winner AND the loser get an Event-Bonus from a conflict it’s worth remembering that the modifier works backwards for your enemy, so if you’re the more powerful player they’re getting a better output bonus.
A possibility, and very logical.
Yet I somehow find it unrealistic! After all, what could possibly allow - sorry, rhetorical-question coming up - allow an entire nation to pay taxes?
Only one - a good 'aggro'.
Aggro = ticking-off another group of individuals
e.g. Pearl Harbour
Invading somebody's homeland
I’m not sure what you mean about the taxes thing, but yes 'aggro' is a powerful motivating power.
quote:
Originally posted by Phenoca
In conclusion, that Final-Reputation-Modifier needs to made into a real-time value (or pseudo-realtime (i.e. calculated daily)) in order to account for growth of the other player's empire. How do you address growth during war?
I think I explained that before. The ‘PreviousPhysicalPower’ is continually adjusted. If the empire grows and their score increases then you’ll see the effect of that each and every time you attack. More importantly, if you destroy 90% of an empire and they become much weaker compared to you, the bonuses you get start to fall (like people losing taste for genocide).
__________________ Cosmic Supremacy - It's not just a game, It's a life style.
I just wanted to say that I also like these general ideas, although I'm sure they would need a good bit of testing and tuning. The hostile/skirmish idea could help prevent lots of people from declaring war on the weak just to get rid of scouts, for example.
Also, I think the move to -50% without penalty was too much at the lower end, but I think the penalties should be more gradual from the breakeven point to say -50%.
Another idea to consider: what if the 0-rep point was moved--say to minus 10% the aggressor's score? This would give people a small reason to attack those with a close score. Since the score is not a fully accurate indication of effective military might, those who take risks by opening hostilities should be rewarded. This change would also make the reward for attacking larger players even better.
I think this is perhaps your best post yet Earl, both in format and content. Since you've made several of those, it speaks volumes.
quote:
I find that Reputation is trying to fulfil two roles. On one hand it’s like a ‘karma’ systems, where attacking weaker players is bad. On the other hand it’s trying to give an incentive for players to attack each other. As other have stated, the current system is open to abuse, and lowering the break-even point is only going to increase that problem.
I was half-way done writing something about how this doesn't solve the abuse, since you still have the positive reputation modifier. But then it occured to me that it does at least address the issue, by ensuring that reputation is awarded based on the amount of destruction you bring to bear.
I think it may even be quite effective. Don't forget to have inactivity figure in there somewhere.
quote:
Also for new players, the way reputation affects your output is not very clear.
I think most of the nooby smell have left my fingertips (yes, that's where it sticks), and I still think it's pretty confusing. Not at all easy to predict or compute. Your calculations aren't done in the head either, but corruption and reputation are separated, which is a step up.
quote:
If you blow up an enemy fleet, people celebrate, get more motivated, and production increases. An Event-Bonus would be much more potent than the effects of Corruption & Reputation, but the Event-Bonus fades over 100 turns (or some other length of time).
I like the event-bonus in particular. I think you're right that it'll make an excellent incentive to go to war. Of course, like Trislan points out, it would probably require quite a lot of balancing.
quote:
Putting it all together:
The planet output would be based on citizens, facilities etc. Then the Planet’s loyalty would be applied:
If the planet’s loyalty is below 100:
Output *= Planet-Loyalty
If the planet’s loyalty is above 100:
Output *= 100% + (Planet-Loyalty - 100%)/10
I don't get this. Why aren't you just applying the Planet-Loyalty straight up in both cases?
Originally posted by Nongolf
I think this is perhaps your best post yet Earl, both in format and content. Since you've made several of those, it speaks volumes.
It’s always nice to be appreciated. Thanks Nongolf
quote:
Originally posted by Nongolf
Don't forget to have inactivity figure in there somewhere.
Yeah, I think inactivity would reduce any negative reputation that you’d get, but positive reputation, event bonuses and score would be unaffected.
quote:
Originally posted by Nongolf
quote:
Also for new players, the way reputation affects your output is not very clear.
I think most of the nooby smell have left my fingertips (yes, that's where it sticks), and I still think it's pretty confusing. Not at all easy to predict or compute. Your calculations aren't done in the head either, but corruption and reputation are separated, which is a step up.
Actually the percentages are applied directly:
quote:
Player 1 (50% of your score)
per 1% destroyed: +0.25% Output Bonus, -0.05% reputation.
Expanding on that example: If Player1’s main fleet counts for 20% of his score-from-power, and I destroy that fleet in a battle… that’s 20% of his power destroyed, and I get an event bonus of 0.25% per 1% destroyed, so 20 * 0.25% = 5%. That’s simply a straight 5% bonus to the output of all of my planets.
Likewise with reputation, that 20% destroyed equates to a reputation loss of -1%. Again it’s a simply a straight -1% penalty to the output of all of my planets.
quote:
Originally posted by Nongolf
quote:
Putting it all together:
The planet output would be based on citizens, facilities etc. Then the Planet’s loyalty would be applied:
If the planet’s loyalty is below 100:
Output *= Planet-Loyalty
If the planet’s loyalty is above 100:
Output *= 100% + (Planet-Loyalty - 100%)/10
I don't get this. Why aren't you just applying the Planet-Loyalty straight up in both cases?
Well, based on this: A closer look at Loyalty & Rebellion
Loyalty would be on a linear scale, meaning anything that gives you +5% loyalty gives you that same +5% whether the planet’s loyalty is already at 25% or even 225%. It’s important to keep it that way so you can keep track of the real loyalty status and see how much of a buffer zone you have before planets start becoming disloyal. That also means it’s relatively east to push the loyalty of an already loyal planet well above 100%, maybe even over 200%.
If the loyalty of a planet is 60%, then they’re only producing 60% of … stuff (because 40% of people are not cooperating). That makes sense, but once everyone is cooperating (loyalty over 100%) it has less of an impact (hence loyalty increases over 100% being worth a 1/10th). Plus for game balancing reasons you wouldn’t want a 200% loyalty planet producing twice as much. (FYI: 200% loyalty would be 100% + 100%/10 = 110% output.)
__________________ Cosmic Supremacy - It's not just a game, It's a life style.
Originally posted by Earendel
I’m not sure what you mean about the taxes thing, but yes 'aggro' is a powerful motivating power.
I was sort of referring to the fact that taxes were never set to 0.0% again after World War.
quote:
Originally posted by Earendel
If there is any change in the player’s score from power (like they build a facility or lose a shuttle) their physical power is immediately updated.
Oh, ok.
quote:
Originally posted by Nongolf
I think this is perhaps your best post yet Earl, both in format and content. Since you've made several of those, it speaks volumes.
Agreed.
And yes; inactivity should be applied to negative rep-change.
quote:
Originally posted by Earendel
(FYI: 200% loyalty would be 100% + 100%/10 = 110% output.)
What?! But loyalty-increase due to troops is already soft-capped at 100% (i.e. the more troops, the less effective they are at increasing loyalty past 100%).
um....loyalty increase in NOT capped at 100 percent....Im almost certain i had over a 100% bonus on my HQ when i emptied all my military out of my ships....granted it was close to 4k miltiary...but hey...still over 100%
__________________ ----Its better to die on your feet than live on your knees----
Yeah, I think inactivity would reduce any negative reputation that you’d get, but positive reputation, event bonuses and score would be unaffected.
I don't think so. The less people get from fighting deadbeats, the better.
I see nothing that speaks to influencing some areas with inactivity modifyiers, while excluding others.
quote:
Expanding on that example: If Player1’s main fleet counts for 20% of his score-from-power, and I destroy that fleet in a battle… that’s 20% of his power destroyed, and I get an event bonus of 0.25% per 1% destroyed, so 20 * 0.25% = 5%. That’s simply a straight 5% bonus to the output of all of my planets.
Likewise with reputation, that 20% destroyed equates to a reputation loss of -1%. Again it’s a simply a straight -1% penalty to the output of all of my planets.
Well, your calculations are easier, but not exactly easy (particularly since you're not likely to know most of the values involved). That was my point. I think you must agree?
I do think that you've struck a nice balance between a system that includes many aspects, while keeping it relatively simple.
quote:
Loyalty would be on a linear scale, meaning anything that gives you +5% loyalty gives you that same +5% whether the planet’s loyalty is already at 25% or even 225%. It’s important to keep it that way so you can keep track of the real loyalty status and see how much of a buffer zone you have before planets start becoming disloyal. That also means it’s relatively east to push the loyalty of an already loyal planet well above 100%, maybe even over 200%. If the loyalty of a planet is 60%, then they’re only producing 60% of … stuff (because 40% of people are not cooperating).
Right. Makes perfect sense. This was how I figured it would work.
But then you go and say things like:
quote:
That makes sense, but once everyone is cooperating (loyalty over 100%) it has less of an impact (hence loyalty increases over 100% being worth a 1/10th). Plus for game balancing reasons you wouldn’t want a 200% loyalty planet producing twice as much. (FYI: 200% loyalty would be 100% + 100%/10 = 110% output.)
And here I think the sense leaves. First, I don't understand which game mechanics warrant that loyalty is less worth when loyalty is over 100. Having planets producing at twice the normal would be a powerful intrument in your wars, but one must imagine that the player in question must have fought long and hard for such a bonus.
I'd rather look at giving less of a bonus, or making it shrink away faster, than making the loyalty bonuses apply differently from planet to planet. It defeats the entire purpose of this suggestion (to make loyalty/corruption more transparent).
I seem to detect a slight tinge of 'but it's realistic!' to your reasoning, which is, in my opinion, poor argumentation for anything relating to games and what 'fun' is.
That makes sense, but once everyone is cooperating (loyalty over 100%) it has less of an impact (hence loyalty increases over 100% being worth a 1/10th). Plus for game balancing reasons you wouldn’t want a 200% loyalty planet producing twice as much. (FYI: 200% loyalty would be 100% + 100%/10 = 110% output.)
And here I think the sense leaves. First, I don't understand which game mechanics warrant that loyalty is less worth when loyalty is over 100. Having planets producing at twice the normal would be a powerful intrument in your wars, but one must imagine that the player in question must have fought long and hard for such a bonus.
I'd rather look at giving less of a bonus, or making it shrink away faster, than making the loyalty bonuses apply differently from planet to planet. It defeats the entire purpose of this suggestion (to make loyalty/corruption more transparent).
I seem to detect a slight tinge of 'but it's realistic!' to your reasoning, which is, in my opinion, poor argumentation for anything relating to games and what 'fun' is.
It’s not that loyalty is worth less when over 100. It’s just that disloyalty would severely disrupt production.
If any loyalty over 100 increased output on a 1-to-1 ratio then planet output would become more about motivation than dedicated facilities – which would be bad would be bad for the game mechanics. That fact that it has a realistic parallel is just convenient because it makes peoples understanding of it more instinctive.
I’m not sure why you say that loyalty bonuses apply differently from planet to planet. All the bonuses to loyalty would work in the same way…
It breaks down to this:
If a planet is disloyal, it’s output is reduced so it’s more effective to increase the loyalty than build facilities (except propaganda offices).
Troops are vital to suppress rebellions.
Propaganda would be used to build loyalty so that output can function at full capacity.
If the planet’s loyalty is over 100%, great – everyone is working and you even get a small bonus, but now you should focus on facilities. Increasing loyalty even more would give you a nice buffer zone against any drop in loyalty and would give you another small output increase, but in terms of output it would be far more effective to build dedicated facilities.
I hope that illustrates why the mechanics would be set up that way.
quote:
Originally posted by Nongolf
Having planets producing at twice the normal would be a powerful intrument in your wars, but one must imagine that the player in question must have fought long and hard for such a bonus.
I agree, and here’s the best way to double your output (assuming you’ve already got the facilities and workers): Attack a more powerful player.
So hopefully what would happen is that smaller players would enter a hostile state with a larger player. (All-out war would work too, but it would put your planets at risk). They would then start skirmishing against the larger player’s supply lines. That would give them a nice Event-Bonus (even if they lose) that could be used to make an even bigger fleet, and then do it again for an even bigger fleet. Even if there are repercussions, it’s unlikely that a large player would bother with a decisive counter strike simply for the reputation loss that would be involved (it would mount up if they did that against everyone). It would be better for them to just ignore the smaller players snapping at their heels and just focus on their biggest threat.
__________________ Cosmic Supremacy - It's not just a game, It's a life style.
Registration Date: 26.12.2004
Posts: 8,276
Location: Vienna, Austria
Excellent post, and excellent ideas Earendel! I had this thread on my radar for a while, but had to keep pushing back to actually delve into it.
I like the event bonuses, since they would be a real good incentive to go to wars (especially against bigger players). I like that event bonuses are temporary, and reputation is permanent, although they are both computed very similarly.
So I would get an event bonus for destroying physical power of my enemy, but I would also get an event bonus (sort of a "resistance bonus") for having parts of my own physical power destroyed. So if I attack a bigger player and destroy 10% of his physical power, but my entire fleet is destroyed during that process (representing 50% of my own physical power), I would in total gain quite a lot of event bonuses, right?
Or do I only gain event bonuses for having my property destroyed if I am simply defending (not having the attack order set). Fortunately I do already have a clear definition in place of who is the aggressor, and who is the defender in any given battle.
The reputation on the other hand is only dealt for *destroying* physical power (not for having physical power destroyed), correct?
Just as a side note, since probably no-one knows, we do already have a resistance bonus in the game, every time you lose a planet.
We would have to see in what order exactly the various bonuses (loyalty, civ-traits, etc.), and factors (reputation, empire-wide corruption) are applied exactly on each planet.
All in all definitely a feature well worth trying, but it will need the one or other XP Galaxy to test this before it can go live.
Originally posted by Erwin [CS]
All in all definitely a feature well worth trying,
Good
quote:
Originally posted by chrisadamley
um....loyalty increase in NOT capped at 100 percent....Im almost certain i had over a 100% bonus on my HQ when i emptied all my military out of my ships....granted it was close to 4k miltiary...but hey...still over 100%
A "soft-cap" is a limit that can still be pushed through persistence, but which takes more and more effort as you continue to increase it.
Originally posted by Erwin [CS] Excellent post, and excellent ideas Earendel! I had this thread on my radar for a while, but had to keep pushing back to actually delve into it.
Thanks Erwin. Sorry I didn’t reply sooner, the post was marked as read even though there are new posts.
quote:
Originally posted by Erwin [CS]
So I would get an event bonus for destroying physical power of my enemy, but I would also get an event bonus (sort of a "resistance bonus") for having parts of my own physical power destroyed. So if I attack a bigger player and destroy 10% of his physical power, but my entire fleet is destroyed during that process (representing 50% of my own physical power), I would in total gain quite a lot of event bonuses, right?
Or do I only gain event bonuses for having my property destroyed if I am simply defending (not having the attack order set). Fortunately I do already have a clear definition in place of who is the aggressor, and who is the defender in any given battle.
You would get an Event-Bonus for everything you destroy, and everything of yours that is destroyed, regardless of whether you are the attacker of defender. You might want to treat the two sources of the bonuses as separate event-bonuses for simplicity – which would balancing easier and would also allow players to put a multiplier on either type of Event-Bonus for custom galaxies.
quote:
Originally posted by Erwin [CS]
The reputation on the other hand is only dealt for *destroying* physical power (not for having physical power destroyed), correct?
Yes
quote:
Originally posted by Erwin [CS]
We would have to see in what order exactly the various bonuses (loyalty, civ-traits, etc.), and factors (reputation, empire-wide corruption) are applied exactly on each planet.
Yes, that could make a huge difference, especially if some modifiers are grouped and added before acting as a multiplier.
quote:
Originally posted by Phenoca
A "soft-cap" is a limit that can still be pushed through persistence, but which takes more and more effort as you continue to increase it.
Effectively the soft-cap would be taken off loyalty, and put on the output-multiplier from loyalty so that any effects on loyalty would be consistent and transparent.
__________________ Cosmic Supremacy - It's not just a game, It's a life style.
Registration Date: 22.02.2007
Posts: 708
Location: Third Star To The Left, straight on til morning
This stuff looks awesome...
Question about the Reputation-Direction value.
Do you propose that too be recalculated every turn or only once at the beginning of a conflict [ie the declaration of war]...
In otherwords if you declare war on someone barely larger than you then you will gain rep based on the conflict size*0.1 but then after you have killed enough to cut him lower then will you start to loose Rep...
If so then are you not concerned about stagnation as each player nibbles a little off a neigbour and then stops for rep reasons?
Also is Rep gain/loss impacted by if you are the attacker/defender?
What I mean is... if someone smaller than you attacks you and they loose a lot of PhysicalPower in the process... can you loose rep?
Also is the Rep gain/loss impacted by if you are the original attacker/defender?
What I mean is... if someone smaller than you declares war on you, can you counter-attack freely or can you loose rep?
I get the event-bonus and agree that there can be large initial bonuses but then much smaller ones in the mop-up phases...
I am just unclear on the Rep system you propose.
__________________ "I do not agree with a word you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it". --Voltaire
Registration Date: 26.12.2004
Posts: 8,276
Location: Vienna, Austria
This is how I understand it... The amount of rep gain loss and event bonus is calculated before the turn (and actually visible to you in the Diplomacy Screen), and it is recomputed every turn - based on your current physical power for this turn. So what you see in the Diplomacy Screen beforehand you can rely on when the actual tick happens. That's how I would answer your question one and two.
As for rep gain/loss for smaller players that declared war on you, I think we should stick with what we have now - namely you can't lose rep on players that declared war on you.
Finally, since the rep gain/loss and event bonus values are recomputed every turn, they will fluctuate as the size relative between the two players changes. I think it could even go as far as, you start attacking a player that is bigger than you, you win the upper hand, and overtake him both score and physical power wise: the reputation gain would turn into a reputation loss over time... did I get that right Earendel?
Originally posted by Gedrin
Question about the Reputation-Direction value.
Do you propose that too be recalculated every turn or only once at the beginning of a conflict [ie the declaration of war]...
In otherwords if you declare war on someone barely larger than you then you will gain rep based on the conflict size*0.1 but then after you have killed enough to cut him lower then will you start to loose Rep...
If so then are you not concerned about stagnation as each player nibbles a little off a neigbour and then stops for rep reasons?
It would be calculated each turn, so once the other empire is smaller you would start losing rep. I’m not concerned about stagnation, because at almost equal values the benefit that you’d gain from the event bonus would far outweigh any reputation losses, plus there’s the added benefit any planet you take along the way. If you continue to win and get a much higher score than your enemy, then yes, the reputation penalty would become a concern since they’re no longer a worthy opponent. At that point it’s best to stop unless you have some other reason to continue the war.
quote:
Originally posted by Gedrin
Also is Rep gain/loss impacted by if you are the attacker/defender?
What I mean is... if someone smaller than you attacks you and they loose a lot of PhysicalPower in the process... can you loose rep?
A player should be able to gain reputation by baiting an enemy fleet into their PD. In that case they are considered the defender, so the defender can gain reputation. A larger player should not lose reputation when their PD faces suicide bombers, since they’re only acting in self defence. With that reasoning, I’d say that you can gain reputation by attacking and defending, but you can only lose reputation by attacking.
quote:
Originally posted by Gedrin
Also is the Rep gain/loss impacted by if you are the original attacker/defender?
What I mean is... if someone smaller than you declares war on you, can you counter-attack freely or can you loose rep?
No, the declaration of war would have no effect on the calculation.
Another thought: Any reputation loss for attacking a planet should be reduced by the percentage of the population that are loyal to you. So if a weaker enemy manages to snatch a lightly defended planet, you can take the planet back will little to no reputation loss.
__________________ Cosmic Supremacy - It's not just a game, It's a life style.
Registration Date: 26.12.2004
Posts: 8,276
Location: Vienna, Austria
quote:
Originally posted by Earendel
quote:
Originally posted by Gedrin
Also is the Rep gain/loss impacted by if you are the original attacker/defender?
What I mean is... if someone smaller than you declares war on you, can you counter-attack freely or can you loose rep?
No, the declaration of war would have no effect on the calculation.
Another thought: Any reputation loss for attacking a planet should be reduced by the percentage of the population that are loyal to you. So if a weaker enemy manages to snatch a lightly defended planet, you can take the planet back will little to no reputation loss.
Phew, it starts getting complicated here... the populations loyalty (or rather your empire's influence on the planets' population) does have an influence on how much reputation you'd lose? Wouldn't it be easier to say that you can attack a player that declared war on your first without any reputation loss? At least that part of the current reputation system was never disputed...
Originally posted by Erwin [CS]
This is how I understand it... The amount of rep gain loss and event bonus is calculated before the turn (and actually visible to you in the Diplomacy Screen), and it is recomputed every turn - based on your current physical power for this turn. So what you see in the Diplomacy Screen beforehand you can rely on when the actual tick happens. That's how I would answer your question one and two.
Yes
quote:
Originally posted by Erwin [CS]
Finally, since the rep gain/loss and event bonus values are recomputed every turn, they will fluctuate as the size relative between the two players changes. I think it could even go as far as, you start attacking a player that is bigger than you, you win the upper hand, and overtake him both score and physical power wise: the reputation gain would turn into a reputation loss over time... did I get that right Earendel?
That’s right… I think… although you do make it sound like the specific gain that you got in the past would become a negative, which would not be the case.
So what I mean is, if I attack a much larger player and get +5% rep from it, then there are no more fights between us and I end up with a larger empire, that +5% would not become a negative, it’s a permanent +5%… but if I attack their empire again any further adjustments to my rep would be negative. I hope that’s clear enough…
quote:
Originally posted by Erwin [CS]
Phew, it starts getting complicated here... the populations loyalty (or rather your empire's influence on the planets' population) does have an influence on how much reputation you'd lose? Wouldn't it be easier to say that you can attack a player that declared war on your first without any reputation loss? At least that part of the current reputation system was never disputed...
Well, I’m sure it would be easier
, but I don’t think it would work as well. If two equal players go to war, one of them has to be ‘the declarer’. If their empire ends up much smaller, the other player should still lose rep for continually attacking a much weaker opponent. If you want to avoid rep loss then just make sure you’re always the defender. The only reason that I’d like to make an exception for planets is because some planets are clearly ‘your’ planets and you should not lose rep for ‘liberating’ them.
__________________ Cosmic Supremacy - It's not just a game, It's a life style.
Registration Date: 26.12.2004
Posts: 8,276
Location: Vienna, Austria
quote:
Originally posted by Earendel
So what I mean is, if I attack a much larger player and get +5% rep from it, then there are no more fights between us and I end up with a larger empire, that +5% would not become a negative, it’s a permanent +5%… but if I attack their empire again any further adjustments to my rep would be negative. I hope that’s clear enough…
Yes, I understand and agree.
quote:
Originally posted by Earendel
Well, I’m sure it would be easier
, but I don’t think it would work as well. If two equal players go to war, one of them has to be ‘the declarer’. If their empire ends up much smaller, the other player should still lose rep for continually attacking a much weaker opponent. If you want to avoid rep loss then just make sure you’re always the defender. The only reason that I’d like to make an exception for planets is because some planets are clearly ‘your’ planets and you should not lose rep for ‘liberating’ them.
You are right there... It's just I would like to avoid exceptions as much as possible.
, but I don’t think it would work as well. If two equal players go to war, one of them has to be ‘the declarer’. If their empire ends up much smaller, the other player should still lose rep for continually attacking a much weaker opponent. If you want to avoid rep loss then just make sure you’re always the defender. The only reason that I’d like to make an exception for planets is because some planets are clearly ‘your’ planets and you should not lose rep for ‘liberating’ them.