Jump to content
Ripper

Organization / Faction Reputation

Recommended Posts

Piggy Backing off the "Reputation System/Curriculum Vitae" thread...  Thanks Blacksythe...  :D

 

It would also be nice to have a reputation for organizations.

 

Essentially a database with factions and their relationship to other factions.  Any unprovoked attack by any member of the organization would increment the value towards hostile, while a standard timer would increment the value back towards friendly.  (or some other method.  This needs to be fleshed out, due to the different sizes of the Organizations.)

 

This could be extended to sensors and provide a basic "Friend or Foe" mechanism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem I see here is that this would entice people to join an enemy organization as a mole and go on a killing spree just to drive down the reputation of that org.

 

If there is a reputation system for orgs it should be tied into the player created quests. The more quests/contracts/missions a given organizations members complete for another org, the higher the reputation becomes with the other org.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the piggyback XD

 

I disagree on the automation though

 

Faction at peace, faction at war and neutral and anything in between should have more control from the organizations. For example faction members could have a report attack, which sends details to the organization management who can choose how to act on it.

 

You don't always know who attacked/ killed you as it could happen that fast

 

This same logic can be applied to the sensors, you don't always know if a ship is friend or foew until it fires on you/talks to you why should the sensors be any different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A "Government" is nothing more than an organization.

 

Being "at war" is two organizations fighting between themselves.  Of course they're naturally going to be seen as "Hostile"

 

The "Hostility Value" in the database would need to take into account the number of members.  If a "mole" joined an organization, he shouldn't be able to decrease that value by much, before his own organization would kick him out.

 

The difficulty IS determining what an "unprovoked attack" is, and how to decrease the "Hostility Value" over time when the two organizations quit fighting.  My only guess is a timer that's possibly tied to the number of members of each organization.

 

Does it have to be an unprovoked attack?  Could it be someone who damaged you?  Accidental increases in the "hostility value" would be negligable, and evaporate with time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point was why have an automatic scripted system for this when you can have an informative one instead. Having a system tag someone as hostile automatically would take away from any subterfuge gameplay players might be able to have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a "mole" joined an organization, he shouldn't be able to decrease that value by much, before his own organization would kick him out.

That depends on how this reputation thing would work. If it is meant as a means of keeping members of organization A informed as to their current status with organization B, then yeah, maybe.

If it is meant as a general reputation that could be viewed by organizations X,Y,and Z before they decide whether or not to do business with them, then not really. The mole from A, who planted himself in B could just attack members of organization X. He would not be harming his own organization, only X, and the reputation of A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also like to add that an attack is more subtle then shooting at someone.

If I cut you of from a valuable resource you might concider that an attack on your influence.

 

Wars are fought on many fronts.

An economic war, a propaganda war, an information war and so on.

 

Reducing war into pure military conflict is narrowing the concept of war and attack. This is not meant to tear down your idea but personally I dont think a system like you propose is flexible enough for a game like DU.

 

Wouldnt it make more sense if orgs just decide for themself who they like or not?

Dont like them? Break down their castle.

You like them? Leave them alone.

 

Just some thoughts. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also like to add that an attack is more subtle then shooting at someone.

If I cut you of from a valuable resource you might concider that an attack on your influence.

 

Wars are fought on many fronts.

An economic war, a propaganda war, an information war and so on.

 

Reducing war into pure military conflict is narrowing the concept of war and attack. This is not meant to tear down your idea but personally I dont think a system like you propose is flexible enough for a game like DU.

 

You make some good points, it would be virtually impossible to create an automatic system that keeps track of anything more than direct military-type attacks.

On the flipside, it could at least be used to show whether an organization tends to be aggressive with it's military.

 

I personally don't have a strong opinion either way, just stating my observations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...