Reputation system is a huge step back!

[Yarri]

I believe that innovation with a casus Belli and reputation swings the game back, depriving it of huge strategic part and turning it into economic farm instead of a military strategy 4. This may be an exaggeration, but it cannot be denied that war is no longer a simple matter and is often disadvantageous. But that's not the worst. It is much worse that we were deprived of one of the aspects of the game. Now we cannot choose the path of good or evil, now we have to act only on one, pre-prepared for us line. Otherwise, we will spoil your reputation and lose many possible bonuses. Why this was done for me question without answer. But we can say for sure - this is a very, very bad innovation. I just hope that we will return the freedom of choice in any patch, including the opportunity to declare war on their own.

 

[Gyrvendal]

Not sure what you are talking about. Getting a casus belli is not that hard, it tends to happen on it's own once you border a civ you don't like.
Also you can try to provoke them into attacking you.

 

[Jolly Joker]

Covert Ops - Fabricate Casus Belli.

Things have just become a little more complex. For example, your territorial expansion and situation gives you claims (others as well, of course) on sectors, and when someone else is annexing them or builds a colony, they are ignoring your claims, giving you a minor casus belli. Same is true the other way round, of course, so annexing a sector an AI has a claim on tends to provoque them into action.

 

[The Founder]

Provoking a good casus belli is pretty easy.
You just insult them until they hate you so they insult you back. Or you even just cut them off with claims, so they have to ignore your claims or be boxed in. Or do some covert ops against you.
With denouncing, you can then use that to poision their relations with everyone else, removing their alliances/defense pacts.
And from there either you got a decent casus beli. Or they hate you enough and have enough casus beli to attack you.

As for the reputation: Agreed. It seems not at all vaiable to intentionally tank your Reputation.

 

[Garresh]

Are the penalties for low reputation that bad? I've found I can kind of ignore rep as long as I can get a good friend on one of my borders to watch my back. And with casus belli you can go warmonger to no issue. ALSO it's really easy to declare war on a faction then make peace afterwards. I started my most recent game in a psi fish war, captured one of their dwellings, and got a huge boost out the gate. Then made peace to not have to deal with their bs, allied my closest player, and then started spamming siphons and research taps on everyone else. I kind of find it hard to REALLY tank your reputation. Don't just war everyone at once. Pick one target at a time and cover all your bases, then you have no problems with aggressive expansion.

 

[The Founder]

Are the penalties for low reputation that bad?

In a well designed system, you got bonuses for either end of the spectrum. Opposing bonuses, but bonuses none the less.

There is a well known issue with player and penalties. One most game devs in this age know to avoid.

 

[MaitreBouh]

In a well designed system, you got bonuses for either end of the spectrum. Opposing bonuses, but bonuses none the less.

There is a well known issue with player and penalties. One most game devs in this age know to avoid.

Not every game should be made for children. Players don't always realize it, but a good game doesn't give them everything on a silver plate.

 

[MaitreBouh]

OK, let's go deeper into this. First there are two different things : your reputation with other players/factions, and the popular support.

You have no penalty for having a bad reputation with other players and factions.

Popular support is another dimension to the game. And like there is much to lose if you don't play the war game, there is a bit to lose if you don't play the diplomacy game. There is also much to lose if you don't play the expansion game BTW.

This has nothing to do with bad good or evil, it's managing your empire. There is a reliability score I think but this one will only change how npc react to you I think, so you can be treacherous if you like without penalty.

 

[Jean-Luc]

The benefit of low reputation is that you're doing whatever you want, no need to hold back in terms of war, no need to think who you declare on, you raze and migrate cities all you want. It's a side effect of going expansion happy with no compromises or hoops to jump through. All you're really paying for that is more expensive NPC stuff. It's also easier for others to declare on you but if you're taking this route you don't really care.

You also sometimes benefit in those pickup events where you can get both the item and the resources.

 

[The Founder]

Not every game should be made for children. Players don't always realize it, but a good game doesn't give them everything on a silver plate.

So everyone that disagrees with your playstyle is a "child"? Not exactly the most mature thing to say now, is it?

 

[RNGesus322]

I would say that low reputation should possibly give your units slightly higher morale to compensate for the diplomatic penalties. This would make low rep a more viable strategy.

 

[Ethorin]

diplomatic penalties

...what diplo penaltis?

no seriously, the rep thing is EXACTLY like Good v Evil in AoW3, disreuputable people like it when you are also disreputable.

 

[P5552]

I will just add my two cents in and say that the advantage of being evil might be being allowed to do evil acts itself. You might get no perks for your reputation, but you got to declare wars whenever you wanted, use devastating operations on enemy cities, and much more... While your opponents had to restrain themselves all the time.


Just playing the devils advocate though. Giving some extra bonuses for being disreputable would certainly flavor it up.

 

[The Founder]

You might get no perks for your reputation, but you got to declare wars whenever you wanted

You can already do this. This is not a Reputation thing.
This is a mater of War support/Approval.

There is a reputation impact for declaring on NPC factions, however.

 

[Blastom]

I think the point of reputation is that it's an expendable resource instead of "two paths" in AoW 3.

You do what ever your want, you lose it.
You cost extra resource or avoid some direct gain to maintain it, you gain it and the bonus for being good.

So if you want war, you need to prepare extra resource to neglect low reputation; if you want reputation, you pay other resource gain to trade the benefit of high reputation.

You can go grey way without giving or getting from your reputation as well. You don't need to seek a pure good or a pure evil way like before.