Solved Nation Relations: FINAL(!) Request for Suggestions on a Simplified Mode

[Pieter Boelen]

This has been in the game for months and we have had discussions about it so many times now. The most recent one being this here.
I am talking, of course, about the completely rewritten Nation Relations functionality in the game.
It is hugely and substantially different from before and it is NOT considerate to the player.
This is because I am trying to move the game world to a state that is no longer "player-centric" at all.

As far as I am concerned, my ideas on this make logical and realistic sense and could be a huge improvement to the game indeed.
It also currently works in the game pretty much as I have in mind, based on all comments I have read on the forums these past many months.

But of course whether people want to play like this is a matter of personal preference.
So a toggle and/or different settings/realism levels on this may be needed.

However, I probably asked if people would want that and HOW they would want it approximately 20(!) times or so.
So far, I did not get any further feedback I can actually put to sensible use so far.
Therefore I have made no further changes to this for quite a while and any further progress is effectively on hold.

Since I don't want to waste more of my very limited time and energy asking the same question over and over,
I will give you guys one FINAL OPPORTUNITY to explain what you would like to see in an "Arcade" setting for Nations Relations.
As a reminder: My own personal suggestion was to at least remove the "allied" behaviour, making "allied" and "neutral" nations effectively the same.
Doesn't make logical sense, isn't at all realistic, makes for less interesting gameplay, but is also more convenient and simpler to deal with.

Absolute deadline for feedback on this is BEFORE my Christmas holiday starts, so that gives you ONE WEEK to think about this and provide usable suggestions.
If I don't get anything I can work with, then the current system is what you get for the Beta 4 public release.

 

[Grey Roger]

"Arcade" mode isn't realistic anyway. "Realistic" mode is supposed to be realistic, the name is a bit of a clue.

A toggle would be nice for those who don't like the new relations system but would prefer the realistic sailing system. Personally I always play "Realistic" anyway and am happy with a system in which a single LoM puts you in the service of its nation and ties your relations to those of that nation, while multiple LoM's mean you need to keep an eye on relations so you don't upset one of your clients - and I usually get multiple LoM's, so I'm going to be affected by that.

 

[superkid]

I dont think it should be tied to arcade or realistic. i think there should just be an option to toggle it on or off in the advanced settings (dont remember how its called). and as far as neutral and friendly goes i feel like neutral i necessary. i mean if a country has friendly relations with another nation, it essentialy means its also at war with the other nation's enemys. though if one is neutral, it means that its also neutral with the other's enemy. does it actually work that way or not?

 

[Pieter Boelen]

"Arcade" mode isn't realistic anyway. "Realistic" mode is supposed to be realistic, the name is a bit of a clue.

Naturally. At the moment "Nation Relations" are not affected by the realism modes though.
It always behaves 100% the same and there are no settings to change its behaviour.

I dont think it should be tied to arcade or realistic. i think there should just be an option to toggle it on or off in the advanced settings (dont remember how its called).

At the moment there IS no such thing as an "on/off". There is an "old, buggy, unrealistic and nonsensical" system that ws used up to Beta 3.4. That code is no longer in the game.
And there is the completely rewritten new system, which has been reworked substantially to make logical sense and, as a result, is very different from what was there before

A lot of thought went into it to ensure that it doesn't need to actually become a problem for players.
But it IS more complex and does require the player to pay much more attention to it all, especially in Free Play with Changing Nation Relations.
Extra time was spent to add explanations and warnings in the game to avoid players being completely unaware of the new changes to this all.

So we can't simply say "there should be a toggle on it". Because a toggle on WHAT? Should the old and crappy system be restored as an option?
I'd much prefer if we don't need to do that because it was not very awesome (And bugged! Did I mention "bugged?).

My question is this: We currently have a reasonably logical and realistic system in place that allows a lot of different ways of playing with it.
But it cannot be denied that it is more complex than what was there before. So what parts of this new system would people like to see simplified?
Or would people agree with me that the new system IS actually good?

and as far as neutral and friendly goes i feel like neutral i necessary. i mean if a country has friendly relations with another nation, it essentialy means its also at war with the other nation's enemys. though if one is neutral, it means that its also neutral with the other's enemy. does it actually work that way or not?

Nations being Friendly or Neutral to each other are now handled differently. If they're Neutral, they don't care what you do with the other nations.
But if they're Friendly and you attack one of them, you lose points with the ally as well.

I think if England and Portugal are Allied, it is theoretically possible for England to be hostile to France, but Portugal to be neutral to France.
That should remain possible, I think. Stuff like that probably happened in real history as well. Politics were and are a complicated thing.

 

[jsv]

Same as @Grey Roger, I'm unlikely to play in that arcade mode, so no useful suggestions from me.

As a reminder: My own personal suggestion was to at least remove the "allied" behaviour, making "allied" and "neutral" nations effectively the same.
Doesn't make logical sense, isn't at all realistic, makes for less interesting gameplay, but is also more convenient and simpler to deal with.

You mean, that would make local governors not to care all that much about formal alliances, established somewhere halfway across the globe? Somehow, that doesn't strike me as extremely unrealistic. I'd say it's more believable that cursed gold, ghost ships and giant krakens

It is hugely and substantially different from before and it is NOT considerate to the player.
This is because I am trying to move the game world to a state that is no longer "player-centric" at all.

In principle, I agree with your philosophy there and I like the direction you're taking the game.
There can be some problems with the particulars of the implementation that I haven't come across yet. I'll be sure to complain when I encounter any.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

Same as @Grey Roger, I'm unlikely to play in that arcade mode, so no useful suggestions from me.

As I said, no "Arcade Mode for Nation Relations" currently exists. And if I don't get specifications from the people who want it, it will stay that way.
If you and everyone else here are OK with the version currently in Beta 4 WIP, I would be really very happy to not make such an "Arcade" option at all.

You mean, that would make local governors not to care all that much about formal alliances, established somewhere halfway across the globe? Somehow, that doesn't strike me as extremely unrealistic. I'd say it's more believable that cursed gold, ghost ships and giant krakens

Of course all that REALLY unrealistic stuff is generally avoidable as well.

But yes, that is pretty much the effect. It would probably be simpler for players to deal with that way. Though I'm not sure it would truly make *that* much of a difference.
And does mean that two different things are technically the same, which strikes me as rather lame. But I most definitely will NOT use that "arcade" option anyway.
In fact, whatever we decide here, I won't have it linked to Arcade/Realistic Game Mode at all. So even Arcade players would need to disable it separately and on purpose.

There can be some problems with the particulars of the implementation that I haven't come across yet. I'll be sure to complain when I encounter any.

Oh, I'm counting on it. As much thought as may have gone into it so far, you can always expect unexpected weirdness.
If that occurs, I would want people to report those weird situations. And if I have no valid explanation for it, then I'll happily correct it so it DOES behave itself as we want.

 

[jsv]

So we can't simply say "there should be a toggle on it". Because a toggle on WHAT? Should the old and crappy system be restored as an option?
I'd much prefer if we don't need to do that because it was not very awesome (And bugged! Did I mention "bugged?).

Oh no! Bugs are not exactly in short supply as it stands. We absolutely do not need more as an option.

 

[Grey Roger]

My question is this: We currently have a reasonably logical and realistic system in place that allows a lot of different ways of playing with it.
But it cannot be denied that it is more complex than what was there before. So what parts of this new system would people like to see simplified?
Or would people agree with me that the new system IS actually good?

I like the idea of international politics having more of an influence on the game, and a player with multiple LoM's having to tread carefully so as not to upset one of his clients, especially with variable relations active. Others don't. What would be really nice, if it's possible, would be a toggle to allow players some level of choice. At the least, would it be possible to have a toggle and a check so that if it's set off, alliances don't matter so that if you are jumped by an English ship and sink it, Portugal doesn't get upset even though it's allied to England? Personally I would leave the toggle on so that alliances mean something, but I can think of one person who'd probably switch it off at first opportunity judging by another thread.

I think if England and Portugal are Allied, it is theoretically possible for England to be hostile to France, but Portugal to be neutral to France.
That should remain possible, I think. Stuff like that probably happened in real history as well. Politics were and are a complicated thing.

In our game, that sort of situation may very well happen as a result of variable relations - England and Portugal start off allied and both hostile to France, then Portugal signs a treaty with France. In fact, the "Assassin" storyline requires exactly that sort of setup. Spain and France are allied, Spain is hostile to Portugal, France is neutral to Portugal.

In reality, Spain switched sides twice during the Napoleonic wars - originally it was allied with Britain, then it was defeated and forced to ally with France, then Wellington conducted a successful campaign through Portugal and Spain which led Spain to declare independence from the French empire and re-ally with Britain. And during our "Spanish Main" period, alliances and wars went all over the place, not least England's relations with Portugal and Holland.

 

[jsv]

Of course all that REALLY unrealistic stuff is generally avoidable as well.

I'm not at all against fantastic elements in otherwise realistic game. As long as the core mechanics is sound, an occasional mermaid here and there could even be adding to the feeling of authenticity. After all, people believed in such things then and still believe in them now.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

What would be really nice, if it's possible, would be a toggle to allow players some level of choice. At the least, would it be possible to have a toggle and a check so that if it's set off, alliances don't matter so that if you are jumped by an English ship and sink it, Portugal doesn't get upset even though it's allied to England? Personally I would leave the toggle on so that alliances mean something, but I can think of one person who'd probably switch it off at first opportunity judging by another thread.

I think especially my suggested "allied and neutral behaves the same" toggle would be really very simple to implement.
Should take me about 2 minutes and I could have that included in the next update if desired.
It is a few lines of code that deal with "allies"; all that would be needed is to have an if-statement around that.

 

[Talisman]

I am officially tired of getting no usable feedback on this despite specifically and repeatedly asking for it.
Until we get repeat discussions of stuff we went through before and that didn't lead to anything.

Absolute deadline for feedback on this is BEFORE my Christmas holiday starts, so that gives you ONE WEEK to think about this and provide usable suggestions.

If I don't get anything I can work with, then the current system is what you get for the Beta 4 public release.

I thought we had agreed that the new systems ( Nation Relations - Levelling - Smuggling ) would stay in the game and be in the public Beta 4 release "as they are" - that the only things that would be done were bug fixing to stop crashes, CTDs and the like. Since I thought we had agreed that everyone here had expressed their opinions and that more feedback from a greater number of people was needed in order to properly assess the new systems. And that this feedback could only be obtained by a proper public release.

Therefore I thought that the new systems would be in Beta 4 public release as they are now.
I see no reason to add toggles or anything else fancy to the system until we get more feedback from far more players.

I am talking, of course, about the completely rewritten Nation Relations functionality in the game.

It is hugely and substantially different from before and it is NOT considerate to the player.

This is because I am trying to move the game world to a state that is no longer "player-centric" at all.

I am not sure that I agree with what you have said here ( unless I have misunderstood what you are saying ) - surely all games are "player-centric" - otherwise what is the point of playing them. If they are not "player-centric" then you might as well just be a spectator and sit and watch as the AI plays the game in front of you. Pretty much like watching the TV or a film. The game has to involve the player and react to their decisions and what they do.

It is my intention to move further and further towards a "player-independent game world" in the future.

That would, in a way, force the player to "fit in or pay the price". ....... But it IS realistic and also offers a much greater potential for gameplay.

I don't think it would increase the potential for gameplay. It may make certain types of gameplay better or more available, but it will also remove other types of gameplay and thus reduce the choices available to players.



The following is a very personal opinion (and I think others will strongly disagree with it )

I think one of the major problems is that the changes you are making are to the basic infrastructure of the game ( the game world) and that these type of changes are not appropriate for what is supposed to be a Beta version of the game, they would be more appropriate to an Alpha version.

I understand that personally you do not want to have to maintain 2 versions of the game ( Beta & Alpha ) at the same time, with all the extra work that involves.

So I suggest that no further major changes to the game world are made until Build 15.
That the only changes to Build 14 should be Bug Fixes, and things appropriate to a Beta release, so that a final release of Build 14 can take place sometime in the not too distant future.

Then with Build 15 you can go back to Alpha development and change the game world - alter the Nation Relations - the Goods Trading economy, and all the other things you and @Levis want to do.

 

[Hylie Pistof]

I see no need for a toggle. My objection in the other thread was that a player could be caught in a situation if he wasn't careful. Since I am currently at level 36 and have sunk a grand total of 4 ships I am not in danger of getting everyone mad at me.

I was thinking about getting a big ship and going on a rampage, but probably will not.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

I thought we had agreed that the new systems ( Nation Relations - Levelling - Smuggling ) would stay in the game and be in the public Beta 4 release "as they are" - that the only things that would be done were bug fixing to stop crashes, CTDs and the like.

As far as I'm concerned, that is definitely what I would prefer.

I am not sure that I agree with what you have said here ( unless I have misunderstood what you are saying ) - surely all games are "player-centric" - otherwise what is the point of playing them. If they are not "player-centric" then you might as well just be a spectator and sit and watch as the AI plays the game in front of you. Pretty much like watching the TV or a film. The game has to involve the player and react to their decisions and what they do.

Of course I don't mean "the game playing itself". I mean that the game WORLD basically does its own thing and the player takes part in it.
Eventually I'd also want the player to influence the game world. For example, if a player has a LoM and incites an international incident,
then the player could be the one to trigger two nations breaking their alliance.

Another of my ideas with the same philosophy is to try and NOT have NPC level tied to that of the player.
That is already no longer the case for the size of ships encountered, but I'd like to REALLY untie it completely.
But I have got zero clue if that would even work from a gameplay point of view at all, so that will be a huge experiment when we get to that.
(Eg. NOT soon ).

Especially in the stock game, the game world basically "revolved around the player".
That is very apparent with the original Nation Relations, which didn't even show relations between the various nations at all.
And ships encountered becoming larger as the player progressed.

It all falls back to "choices having sensible consequences".
So you wouldn't be able to do "whatever you please" and expect to walk free without anyone caring.
That was definitely possible in the game and still is in several spots. I'm hoping to reduce that wherever I can though.

I don't think it would increase the potential for gameplay. It may make certain types of gameplay better or more available, but it will also remove other types of gameplay and thus reduce the choices available to players.

It will mainly remove the "do whatever you want" style of gameplay as you would probably end up being a pirate when doing that.
And remaining friendly to all nations at the same time could end up being tricky. But possible.
I haven't yet thought of any real examples that become impossible through these changes.
But they will require a different approach to playing the game.

I think one of the major problems is that the changes you are making are to the basic infrastructure of the game ( the game world) and that these type of changes are not appropriate for what is supposed to be a Beta version of the game, they would be more appropriate to an Alpha version.

I understand that personally you do not want to have to maintain 2 versions of the game ( Beta & Alpha ) at the same time, with all the extra work that involves.

So I suggest that no further major changes to the game world are made until Build 15.
That the only changes to Build 14 should be Bug Fixes, and things appropriate to a Beta release, so that a final release of Build 14 can take place sometime in the not too distant future.

Then with Build 15 you can go back to Alpha development and change the game world - alter the Nation Relations - the Goods Trading economy, and all the other things you and @Levis want to do.

I do actually agree. Most of my more fancy ideas are DEFINITELY meant for Build 15 and are most not short-term goal of mine.
So no worries there.

For reference, these are the only ones I DO hope to tackle after Beta 4 has been released but before calling Build 14 finished:

Spoiler

Planned Feature - Balancing and Repurposing Reputation Gain | PiratesAhoy!
Planned Feature - Fame to Affect Gameplay in Multiple Ways | PiratesAhoy!
Planned Feature - Add Gameplay Value to Drinking in Taverns | PiratesAhoy!
Planned Feature - Officer Loyalty | PiratesAhoy!

That is mainly because those are logical progressions of improvements that have already been made.
Those are more "finishing touches" than starting on brand new projects though.
Some of those are currently even almost "broken", so could definitely do with some attention anyway.

I see no need for a toggle. My objection in the other thread was that a player could be caught in a situation if he wasn't careful.

That is a true point. You do need to be careful as actions do have consequences.
But that is why there is a "Nations Relations Tutorial" of some sort. And warnings and notifications about these things.

If I find the time, I'll add the suggested Questbook Entries when nations immediately turn Wary/Hostile though.
Then at least players notice immediately that it happened, together with an explanation of why.
If they truly did not want that, reloading an earlier save is always a possibility. One of the advantages of a game being a game.

I was thinking about getting a big ship and going on a rampage, but probably will not.

You could do that, just for fun. Go full-blown pirate, attack everyone and see what happens.

Playing as a pirate hostile to all non-pirate nations could make for an interesting challenge anyway.
Especially when you try to sneak around and make your money smuggling and generally being a nuisance.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

Current Status:

Based on the earlier suggestions, I intend to still make the following changes:

- Governor Ship Hunting quests to DO lose you points with the target nation, but ONLY the target nation.
If the target is friendly/neutral, they would turn immediately hostile. If you had a LoM with the target, you will "leave bad".

- When your actions cause nations to immediately drop down the Wary/Hostile, there will be a Questbook entry to let you know it happened and why.
Otherwise it may be a bit "invisible" when it happens and cause surprises later.

Does that sound about right? Did I miss anything?

 

[pedrwyth]

Ok so I've kept a way from this topic for a couple of months since I too thought we were waiting for a wider public appraisal. However if this is to be my FINAL opportunity for comment...

Currently the player is effectively a small one man nation state since international relations (which are by definition between Nations) directly impact the player. Actions by an individual (unless clearly on behalf of another nation) should not be the concern of political alliances made for mutual assurance of defence (or indeed mutual aggression). In its current form the game is no more realistic than other possible behaviours - just different. It has always been a bit weird in calling the restoration of a players standing "diplomacy" rather than some form of amnesty and is now extended changing gameplay considerably.

Personally I can't imagine an allied nation would be at all interested in the actions of a single individual in sinking a vessel of one of their allies, - unless of course it directly assisted them in some way to take notice (such as an excuse for clearing out a particular pirate lair), they might even be secretly pleased in the Machiavelian world that is International Politics. The nation losing the ship would also be unlikely to go running cap in hand to their allies to deal with one man for one ship- not only showing a weakness (both in losing the ship and in being unable to deal with the miscreant themselves) but also not what their alliance is about.

So how to ameliorate the impact for a player who does not want to accept the level of consequences as currently enforced.

A simple on/off toggle for impact on allies of sinking ships may be a black/white solution and could be useful but probably goes too far the other way. Whilst sinking one ship of your ally may conceptually provoke no action sinking a few/many may well lead to a change in attitude not least because in self-interest terms you are weakening one of the allies side if hostilities do break out into open warfare. So I would suggest a factor that can be altered in internal settings to control rate of change of relations when an ally is not yet hostile (or possibly just for when not yet even wary - so not a full (16 point) swing to wary). Obviously by default the factor would behave as the game does now but would allow changing to set a personal preference of what rate ships are required to be sunk/captured to see allied nations becoming wary and then hostile. If it could be written to accomodate a zero impact case (ie without generating a divide by zero) it could act as the on/off toggle too.

Again personally (as argued elsewhere) I would also like to have an ability to leave the allied Nations affected mode on (with the ability as above to regulate how much impact dynamically) but to exclude coastguard ships (perhaps by testing if smuggling to that nation is an active case) - you may be smuggling stuff that isn't even contraband with the allies and again local tax matters are not an alliance issue (and neither should be the loss of small coastguard vessels - which is what the coastguard should be using) but currently seem a lone voice there so will probably just have to make my own mod for that.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

However if this is to be my FINAL opportunity for comment...

Final prior to the Beta 4 public release just to ensure I don't leave this in an "unplayable state" for those people already here.
And because I don't want to keep going in circles on this one, with it ending up delaying that public release.

Ok so I've kept a way from this topic for a couple of months since I too thought we were waiting for a wider public appraisal. However if this is to be my FINAL opportunity for comment...

Currently the player is effectively a small one man nation state since international relations (which are by definition between Nations) directly impact the player. Actions by an individual (unless clearly on behalf of another nation) should not be the concern of political alliances made for mutual assurance of defence (or indeed mutual aggression). In its current form the game is no more realistic than other possible behaviours - just different. It has always been a bit weird in calling the restoration of a players standing "diplomacy" rather than some form of amnesty and is now extended changing gameplay considerably.

Personally I can't imagine an allied nation would be at all interested in the actions of a single individual in sinking a vessel of one of their allies, - unless of course it directly assisted them in some way to take notice (such as an excuse for clearing out a particular pirate lair), they might even be secretly pleased in the Machiavelian world that is International Politics. The nation losing the ship would also be unlikely to go running cap in hand to their allies to deal with one man for one ship- not only showing a weakness (both in losing the ship and in being unable to deal with the miscreant themselves) but also not what their alliance is about.

So how to ameliorate the impact for a player who does not want to accept the level of consequences as currently enforced.

A simple on/off toggle for impact on allies of sinking ships may be a black/white solution and could be useful but probably goes too far the other way. Whilst sinking one ship of your ally may conceptually provoke no action sinking a few/many may well lead to a change in attitude not least because in self-interest terms you are weakening one of the allies side if hostilities do break out into open warfare. So I would suggest a factor that can be altered in internal settings to control rate of change of relations when an ally is not yet hostile (or possibly just for when not yet even wary - so not a full (16 point) swing to wary). Obviously by default the factor would behave as the game does now but would allow changing to set a personal preference of what rate ships are required to be sunk/captured to see allied nations becoming wary and then hostile. If it could be written to accomodate a zero impact case (ie without generating a divide by zero) it could act as the on/off toggle too.

Again personally (as argued elsewhere) I would also like to have an ability to leave the allied Nations affected mode on (with the ability as above to regulate how much impact dynamically) but to exclude coastguard ships (perhaps by testing if smuggling to that nation is an active case) - you may be smuggling stuff that isn't even contraband with the allies and again local tax matters are not an alliance issue (and neither should be the loss of small coastguard vessels - which is what the coastguard should be using) but currently seem a lone voice there so will probably just have to make my own mod for that.

Of course the current "one ship attacked leads to immediate change in points with all affected nations" is a bit of an exaggeration.
In real life, that WOULD still happen. But ONLY if the news gets through. And even then people may not care unless you do it so often to be considered a public menace.

As I figure it, the new system IS realistic, but in an exaggerated way. Which is fine by me for now.
Having the system as simple as possible without (too many) exceptions and "chance factors" that damp the effects is somewhat of a "necessary evil" in the development process.
It is already quite complicated. Adding further realism to it would mean diluting the effects.
Which may be quite fine from a gameplay point of view. But NOT from a development and testing point of view.

It is basically the same reason I deliberately left the "false flag detection chance" at 100% for quite a while during the fixing of that mod.
That makes it so much simpler to see what is happening and to comment on the basic game mechanics for starters.

My own hope for future development, and I think @Levis and @Armada suggested the same, is to have some sort of "news spreading" system.
So rumours start at a certain spot and "spread out". And your actions only get noticed if there are witnesses to tell the tales.
And even then only if there are enough of those witnesses to make it clear it isn't just a random story, but you are a real menace.

Adding such a system would probably be hugely complex and is definitely something I do not plan on adding in Build 14.
But at least that does give you an idea of what I would eventually want to move this towards. But not now.
Right now, I need to get it in such a state that it is playable for the next public release,
so people can comment on it, ask questions and get used to thinking about these things.

================================================

In short: I am not claiming that the current situation is perfect. Not even close.
But I do firmly believe that it makes for much more logical "cause and effect" than what was in place before and it also isn't technically broken.
It opens up a lot of gameplay scenarios, both for intentional (ab)use by the player, but also accidental ones so that when role-playing,
you may suddenly find yourself in a situation and you have to figure out how to deal with that.
We never really had that before. Not resulting from Nation Relations in any case.

This is just one step in the progress, not a final end result.
But I believe it to be an important step and to be a step forward.

 

[Talisman]

It all falls back to "choices having sensible consequences".
So you wouldn't be able to do "whatever you please" and expect to walk free without anyone caring.
That was definitely possible in the game and still is in several spots. I'm hoping to reduce that wherever I can though.

Some players want to play that way - doing "whatever you please" - if you become too restrictive about the way they can play the game then they won't play it.

And you will give the impression that you want people to play the game the way you want it played. Which is not a good idea.

For reference, these are the only ones I DO hope to tackle after Beta 4 has been released but before calling Build 14 finished:

Planned Feature - Balancing and Repurposing Reputation Gain | PiratesAhoy!
Planned Feature - Fame to Affect Gameplay in Multiple Ways | PiratesAhoy!
Planned Feature - Add Gameplay Value to Drinking in Taverns | PiratesAhoy!
Planned Feature - Officer Loyalty | PiratesAhoy!

That is mainly because those are logical progressions of improvements that have already been made.
Those are more "finishing touches" than starting on brand new projects though.
Some of those are currently even almost "broken", so could definitely do with some attention anyway.

I think ALL of those should be left for Build 15.

Except perhaps -- Planned Feature - Add Gameplay Value to Drinking in Taverns | PiratesAhoy! -- might be OK for Beta 5 ( depending on what/ how much is going to be added - if it is only small stuff then OK, but if major changes then Build 15.

The other 3 all have the potential for being serious changes to the game world and I would not like to go through another Beta3.5/Beta 4 development experience because of changes to them.

You say that they are "broken" - I assume you mean that they do not work as intended - but they either do work in a way or at least do not stop the game from working, so I would not call them broken, just not working as well as they should, so they should not undergo major changes until Build 15.

P.S. _ I also think attempts to "clean up the code" of the game should be left to Build 15. If it works and does not cause the game to crash - then don't do things that might break it, this close to completion.

Here is another suggestion @Pieter Boelen and @Levis might like to think about over the Christmas Holiday:-

Pieter continues as coordinator for Build 14 and sees it through to completion.

While

Levis becomes coordinator for Build 15 - and starts on the major game world changes that are planned, ( by Pieter & Levis) with help from the rest of us gradually increasing as Build 14 gets closer to completion and there is less to do on it.


Just a thought.

 

[Pieter Boelen]

Some players want to play that way - doing "whatever you please" - if you become too restrictive about the way they can play the game then they won't play it.
And you will give the impression that you want people to play the game the way you want it played. Which is not a good idea.

Try doing "whatever you please" in real life. But while owning a ship. And a gun. And plenty cannons.
See how fast you will be considered a pirate and get the navy chasing you.

It isn't that I am trying to force players to play the game in the way I want it played. The current system already does allow a lot of player freedom.
But it is freedom to choose what consequences you are willing to accept and which ones you want to avoid.
And freedom to turn your career around and proceed in a different direction in mid-game.
But NOT the freedom to have no consequences for your actions. For simple reason that does not make any sort of sense.

I think ALL of those should be left for Build 15.

Except perhaps -- Planned Feature - Add Gameplay Value to Drinking in Taverns | PiratesAhoy! -- might be OK for Beta 5 ( depending on what/ how much is going to be added - if it is only small stuff then OK, but if major changes then Build 15.

The other 3 all have the potential for being serious changes to the game world and I would not like to go through another Beta3.5/Beta 4 development experience because of changes to them.

They would change the gameplay, yes. By adding elements that are currently notably missing.

For Reputation, my main intention is to ensure that you can't become a Hero by repeatedly telling people their wallets are about to fall out of their pockets.
To get big changes to your relations, you'd need to commit big actions. I reckon that should be a relatively small change, but I'm quite looking forward to seeing it done.
This would then also lead to deliberately being able to play the game as a nasty character. Think of Blackbeard and his carefully constructed reputation, for example.
Right now, there is basically no purpose to NOT being a Hero. Which makes "Reputation" a simple "gaining points" rather than a role-playing element.
Missed opportunity there.

Fame is a logical extension of the Reputation changes together with the False Flag Detection.
Originally Fame was added purely "to keep score" and it had zero effect on the gameplay itself.
It has also influenced your "false flag detection chance" ever since that mod was added, but that never mattered since that mod has been broken forever.
But it actually works now. Which means that the ONLY effect that fame has in the game is a negative one.
Why would you WANT to be famous if all it does is to attract more unwanted attention? There should be substantial positive elements to it as well!

And Officer Loyalty also plays into the Reputation part, because I want to make large changes in Reputation also affect your officers' loyalty.
This is actually a stock game feature, but nobody ever observed it working because you basically cannot trigger it, unless you REALLY do it on purpose.
It is already functional again thanks to @pedrwyth, so it should in theory not require a huge amount of developing.
For certain it will have an effect on the game, but I WANT it to have that effect on the game so that we can find out how it actually plays out.

So basically all three go hand in hand and their main purpose is to finish functionality that already exists
and/or to add expected gameplay value to things that currently don't. Those things seem like "notably missing features" to me.
As in: Stuff that isn't currently there, but really should be.

But as much as I'd like to see those being done, I am deliberately waiting until AFTER a good and playable Beta 4 has been publicly released.
That way there will be a stable and mostly reliable game version for people to actually play with and do some thorough testing on.
And while the players do that testing, I can add simple versions of all of those elements for Beta 5.

My main wish is that once those things are in place in a simple way, we can start gathering feedback on them.
And also start playing around with making them more fancy.

As for Build 14 vs. Build 15, from my side I figure that Build 14 should be:
- As bug-free as possible
- Have a simple but operational version of all gameplay features currently in the mod
- Adds only features and effects that are notably missing

Anything that is hugely complex and/or more "nice to have" can wait until Build 15 as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Talisman]

Try doing "whatever you please" in real life. But while owning a ship. And a gun. And plenty cannons.
See how fast you will be considered a pirate and get the navy chasing you.

It isn't that I am trying to force players to play the game in the way I want it played. The current system already does allow a lot of player freedom.
But it is freedom to choose what consequences you are willing to accept and which ones you want to avoid.
And freedom to turn your career around and proceed in a different direction in mid-game.
But NOT the freedom to have no consequences for your actions. For simple reason that does not make any sort of sense.

You and I are going to have to " agree to disagree" about this.

As far as I am concerned this is a game ( played for enjoyment & escapism ) - NOT real life or a simulation of it. And that is my very strongly held opinion.

They would change the gameplay, yes. By adding elements that are currently notably missing.

For Reputation, my main intention is to ensure that you can't become a Hero by repeatedly telling people their wallets are about to fall out of their pockets.
To get big changes to your relations, you'd need to commit big actions. I reckon that should be a relatively small change, but I'm quite looking forward to seeing it done.
This would then also lead to deliberately being able to play the game as a nasty character. Think of Blackbeard and his carefully constructed reputation, for example.
Right now, there is basically no purpose to NOT being a Hero. Which makes "Reputation" a simple "gaining points" rather than a role-playing element.
Missed opportunity there.

Fame is a logical extension of the Reputation changes together with the False Flag Detection.
Originally Fame was added purely "to keep score" and it had zero effect on the gameplay itself.
It has also influenced your "false flag detection chance" ever since that mod was added, but that never mattered since that mod has been broken forever.
But it actually works now. Which means that the ONLY effect that fame has in the game is a negative one.
Why would you WANT to be famous if all it does is to attract more unwanted attention? There should be substantial positive elements to it as well!

And Officer Loyalty also plays into the Reputation part, because I want to make large changes in Reputation also affect your officers' loyalty.
This is actually a stock game feature, but nobody ever observed it working because you basically cannot trigger it, unless you REALLY do it on purpose.
It is already functional again thanks to @pedrwyth, so it should in theory not require a huge amount of developing.
For certain it will have an effect on the game, but I WANT it to have that effect on the game so that we can find out how it actually plays out.

So basically all three go hand in hand and their main purpose is to finish functionality that already exists
and/or to add expected gameplay value to things that currently don't. Those things seem like "notably missing features" to me.
As in: Stuff that isn't currently there, but really should be.

But as much as I'd like to see those being done, I am deliberately waiting until AFTER a good and playable Beta 4 has been publicly released.
That way there will be a stable and mostly reliable game version for people to actually play with and do some thorough testing on.
And while the players do that testing, I can add simple versions of all of those elements for Beta 5.

I would dispute that these are "noticably missing" - in that they do not cause the game to play badly or be unplayable. Therefore I do not think they need to be messed around with in Beta 5.

Again this is only my opinion and we will probably have to " agree to disagree" on this since it is you and not me who will be doing all (or most) of the work on these.
But if their implementation causes anything like the problems encountered with Beta 3.5/Beta 4 I am going to be very depressed - because the situation could have been so easily avoided.

 

[Mirsaneli]

Pieter, can you explain me what do you mean by saying that the game is "player-centric" at the moment? Regarding the current relations system in the game (which I haven't even tested completely yet), I do think that it would be nice to have a "real world and relations" going on in the background (even though I do agree that this is just a game and that RPG should concentrate on the player) because it would bring more dynamic into the game, which is always a nice thing in my opinion. However, since I'm new to this forum and because I know very little about the relations system, I will stay aside on this one