There are now many threads (only one of which is in the Suggestions forum) that I am aware of relating to problems surrounding low reputation. There may be more and I know of at least one suggestion regarding high reputation.
As a result, and because it's sometimes hard to follow all the different threads and discussions, I felt it important to consolidate the discussions into a suggestion post with a concrete suggestion for a JSON hotfix and a couple of suggestions for a more dynamic reputation system.
Please bear with me and if you know of additional threads regarding LOW reputation, please link them in the comments.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Disclaimer: At first I didn't think much of the claim that there was a problem with the reputation system. I didn't feel like it was too difficult to control your reputation and prevent blackballing yourself. However, on reading the experiences and discussing it in the threads, as well as trying out certain actions in my saves, I've come to agree with the majority of folks. Low reputation is incredibly easy to fall into and, if not caught early enough, incredibly tedious and hard to get out of...especially in Career Mode.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Threads specifically related to low reputation or mission availability:
@Knotz - https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...recover-reputation-once-its-at-hated.1132969/
@Leraje_ - https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/thoughts-on-reputation-and-alliances.1133284/
@Sorbo - https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...r-oversights-in-reputation-mechanics.1133270/
@eelnicki - https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/reweigh-mission-reputation-loss.1133045/
@Icewraith - https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...m-vs-travel-contracts-and-reputation.1134507/
@Hagen-Volker - bug report - https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...e-to-get-contracts-from-that-faction.1132960/
@Fletchtar - https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...reputation-and-contract-availability.1137607/
@Kereminde - comment - https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ggested-solution.1133319/page-3#post-24967290
@Sharazad (and others, apologies as I don't remeber which threads they were in) point out that access to stores (Black Market or Faction) that the player should have access to if their reputation with the system faction is too low. Examples given:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/arg-a-pirates-life-for-me.1134856/
I don't know how to address that in JSON for a hotfix and it sounds like a bug to me.
Additionally, @Edmon touches on the problem of low reputation in https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ss-of-flashpoint-a-suggested-solution.1133319 but talks mostly about high reputation goals.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
In these threads, a number of suggestions have been made already (and apologies if I don't list your idea for low reputation here). If I missed your suggestion, please repost it below or link to it. I will try to keep the top post updated.
From @FArheinFisch Use mrb rating for available contract difficulty.
From @Jade_Rook What if lower rep didn't restrict you from [3 skull] missions, but instead drastically reduced the pay? What if you could take 3 skull missions from factions which loath you (-80 to -100 rep), but the mission only pays 25% of what it would normally?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
HotFix - JSON Changes
Thanks for @Amechwarrior and @draqsko for pointing out the SimGameConstants settings where reputation is set up.
The JSON changes are designed with two purposes in mind. First, reducing the size of the hole that limits your ability to get contracts. Second, reducing the difficulty of filling that hole.
Currently, reputation is a pretty evenly divided range of "feelings" that a faction can have you, starting at 0, and moving +/- 20 in each direction twice, before making a big jump.
Reduce the size of the hole
Current (SimGameConstants.json lines 242 - 247)
HotFix #1
Start the gaps wide and make them progressively smaller, to provide the difficulty of reaching the new stages and the ease of coming off the absolute worst state. This gives you a 40 point swing state at "Indifferent", 40 point states at Liked/Disliked, 30 point states at Friendly/Hated, and very narrow bands at Honored/Loathed.
Make the hole easier to fill
CAMPAIGN MODE
Current (SimGameConstants.json lines 251 - 253 for Campaign Mode)
This is what ends up limiting the difficulty of the contracts that are available to you and, in the end, is the cause of the blackhole from which it is hard to recover from in Campaign Mode. Other than Pirate locations, there are few 3-Skull planets that can host missions for Loathed mercenaries. While this may seem appropriate, it locks out a reasonable amount of content for players that enjoy the sandbox experience and want to continue playing a single merc company for a significant amount of time.
HotFix #2 - Campaign Mode
Set the MaxContractDifficulty to one less than what an Indifferent merc company would take. Indifferent is a MaxContractDifficulty of 1 (from what I can tell, this is 1/2 skull above Global Difficulty in Campaign Mode). So, for anyone with a lower than Indifferent reputation, limit them to 0 above the Global Difficulty.
CAREER MODE
Current (SimGameConstants.json lines 969 - 972 for Career Mode)
There is a steep (1.5 skull) drop from Indifferent to Disliked and then a steady fall to the bottom.
HotFix #2 - Career Mode
Smooth the decline from the top to the bottom into 1/2 skull steps.
Honored is at 10, Liked, is at 9, Friendly is at 8. There is no real reason for Indifferent to be 6, so we boost that to 7, and then continue the decline from there, meaning Loathed is 1.5 skulls higher than it currently is.
But! you may say, where's the penalty for low reputation? In Career Mode, it's clear. There is a declining mission availability, but missions would be much more available. In Campaign Mode, it's not as clear.
I've tried playing with the reputation pay values but they didn't seem to actually change anything. The default is:
But I was getting multi-million C-Bill and 5/20 salvage contracts with Loathed factions and increasing that negative number didn't seem to be changing anything...so I'm not sure how to implement @Jade_Rook 's suggestion about giving a massive pay-cut for contracts as a hotfix.
But I did notice there are Shop Price adjustments...and that's another place that penalties can be placed.
Current (SimGameConstants.json lines 265 - 267)
HotFix #3 - Penalize Low Reputation in Shops
Stuck in a Hated Faction (you can't sell in Loathed shops) area and see that sweet SLDF Highlander part you want? Good luck at 90% mark-up.
UPDATE
Reduce the speed of digging the hole
Current (SimGameConstants.json lines 297 - 299)
Courtesy of @Jade_Rook in the comments...
This sets the ratio of reputation lost to reputation gained from the contract. Currently, if you succeed at a mission, you lose reputation at a rate of 80% of the reputation gained with the employer, 40% if it's a good faith loss, and 0% if it's a bad faith loss.
Since most people seem to be rather successful at their missions, this means you end up digging the negative rep hole very quickly if you even have a slight tendency to favor one faction over another.
To lessen the speed of that, we can reduce those numbers a bit. Thanks to @Jade_Rook for doing some testing on this below
I've removed the hotfix suggestion after doing some more testing on it. On a 4.5 star battle mission, the settings in the suggestion would've started the reputation difference at +14 sponsor, -9 target and on a max reputation run, that would've escalated to +23 sponsor, -14 target. On hindsight, that makes it far too easy to alternate your way to high reputations across the board.
While potentially a useful tool, I don't feel confident in it as a HOTFIX. There may well be a way to incorporate sponsor/target reputation in modifying the loss / gain percentage (LTS#3), but a straight, across-the-board improvement in that ratio (especially in light of the other options) seems inappropriate.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Long Term Solution Suggestions FOR LOW REPUTATION
LTS Suggestion #1 (from @FArheinFisch )
This is probably the most elegant and appropriate solution to the issue of mission availability.
Use your MRB rating as the factor which decides the difficulty of contracts of that are available to the player. As your MRB rating goes up, you get contacted for harder and harder missions. Period, end of story.
LTS Suggestion #2 (adapted from @Jade_Rook )
Make your reputation really impact pay and salvage.
All missions have a base difficulty. Set the pay based on that. Then modify it based on reputation starting from "Indifferent".
Assuming a 3-skull mission with a max of 3/14 salvage, a rep modifier max of +13, and Indifferent reputation as the base:
In combination with the adjusted Reputation bands (above), this still allows for reasonable exit strategies from maximum negative reputation.
LTS Suggestion #3 (from myself)
Make reputation more responsive to your current sponsor / target reputations.
Example:
The sponsor and target of a contract are both indifferent to you and running the mission at default settings would net you a +3/-3 rep change.
That same mission where the sponsor already likes you, might net you a +4 while the indifferent target is still -3.
On the other hand, if the sponsor is indifferent and the target likes you, the rep change is +3/-4. Why? because the target liked you, but then you went against them. "Some friend you are".
In reverse, if the sponsor DISLIKES you, then the rep bonus becomes +4. Why? "Because, maybe you're not that bad after all."
And then for each step away from "Indifferent" that bonus changes by 1. So, "Disliked/Liked" is + (sponsor)/-(target) 1, "Hated/Friendly" is +/- 2, "Loathed/Honored" is +/- 3.
LTS Suggestion #4 (from @NwFrplayer ) - Make loathed have a real consequence
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/low-reputation-consequence.1137263/
@NwFrplayer rightly points out that if you don't care about being loathed by a faction, there is virtually no consequence for it. They posit an interesting way to "make" the player care and that is by having a sort of "bounty hunter" in-mission possibility, where the worse your relationship is with a faction, the more likely a random opfor will show up in-mission and attempt to kill you. Not sure how feasible it is, but it's definitely interesting.
On the flip side, this could have interesting consequences on the positive side, where there is a random chance of a dialogue offering allied units for an employer that you have good relations with.
Both of those may fit better as HBS develops the reputation / relationship system more with various non-faction groups (example, pissing off Mason's Marauders may have them drop in on a mission to attack you. Helping out the Kell Hounds may have them offer a couple of mechs in support of mission later on, etc).
LTS Suggestion #5 - ( from @Kereminde ) - don't populate mission list with 'unacceptable' missions
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ggested-solution.1133319/page-3#post-24967290
The reputation system gates what the MAXIMUM difficulty can be for a given contract to be accepted and the Global and System Difficulty Levels seem to gate the MINIMUM difficulty available on a given system. However, contract lists sometimes fill up with contracts that can't be accepted due to reputation reasons. Making the procgen contract system populate with contracts you can take would eliminate the issue of mission availability entirely.
[Note: from me]The easiest way to avoid filling with contracts that can't be accepted (based on my coding experience in other languages and using the logic that seems to be currently used) would be to do something like this:
1. Generate the contract list at the current difficulty - So if you're at a diff10 (5-skull) system, generate the contract list for that difficulty (10 +/- 1 = 4.5 - 5.5).
2. Eliminate any contracts that the player can't accept.
3. Regenerate contracts at ( difficulty - 2x variance ) FOR THE ELIMINATED FACTIONS - Why 2x variance? Because you have already attempted to fill "difficulty - 1x variance" in step 1 and need to attempt "newdiff + 1x variance" now. So now we have contracts of 8 +/- 1 (7 -> 9 = 3.5 - 4.5)
4. Repeat until approproiate amounts of contracts are created.
After step 1, you have the contracts for all acceptable factions, so every time you eliminate an unacceptable faction contract, you need to regenerate a lower difficulty contract for that same faction. You can either do that by simply looping over the difficulties regening contracts, or jumping right down to the "max contract difficulty" for that faction.
Alternately, the logic used to generate the procgen missions needs to have faction and difficulty "decisions" switched so you generate a list of missions and factions BEFORE determining the difficulty of those missions. This would allow you to cap the difficulty at whatever level reputation allows. This would also eliminate any "<5-skull" missions that can't be accepted when you are already honored.
LTS Suggestion #4 (from @BobaFatt - Regress towards indifferent
Is this too simplistic to just let all reputation slowly regress towards Indifferent over time, so if you spend a period of time not actively antagonizing a loathed faction they will eventually “just” hate or dislike you. Similarly with positive reputation, if you ally with somebody and then just don’t take missions for them they will think a little less of you over time.
[Note: from me]
I think this would add a certain amount realism and would be awesome if the timeline were extended a great deal or if we were thinking in grand strategy terms. For a 1200 day career though, I'm not sure how much difference that would make. I'm not sure regression in days would be appropriate (too fast), weeks would mean you would move closer just about every jump, months would probably be 'not enough to matter' and years would definitely be "not enough to matter".
Maybe in terms 'jumps' or even contracts though. It's a great idea but I'm just not sure how you would measure it and balancing it would be quite the exercise.
As a result, and because it's sometimes hard to follow all the different threads and discussions, I felt it important to consolidate the discussions into a suggestion post with a concrete suggestion for a JSON hotfix and a couple of suggestions for a more dynamic reputation system.
Please bear with me and if you know of additional threads regarding LOW reputation, please link them in the comments.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Disclaimer: At first I didn't think much of the claim that there was a problem with the reputation system. I didn't feel like it was too difficult to control your reputation and prevent blackballing yourself. However, on reading the experiences and discussing it in the threads, as well as trying out certain actions in my saves, I've come to agree with the majority of folks. Low reputation is incredibly easy to fall into and, if not caught early enough, incredibly tedious and hard to get out of...especially in Career Mode.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Threads specifically related to low reputation or mission availability:
@Knotz - https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...recover-reputation-once-its-at-hated.1132969/
@Leraje_ - https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/thoughts-on-reputation-and-alliances.1133284/
@Sorbo - https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...r-oversights-in-reputation-mechanics.1133270/
@eelnicki - https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/reweigh-mission-reputation-loss.1133045/
@Icewraith - https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...m-vs-travel-contracts-and-reputation.1134507/
@Hagen-Volker - bug report - https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...e-to-get-contracts-from-that-faction.1132960/
@Fletchtar - https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...reputation-and-contract-availability.1137607/
@Kereminde - comment - https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ggested-solution.1133319/page-3#post-24967290
@Sharazad (and others, apologies as I don't remeber which threads they were in) point out that access to stores (Black Market or Faction) that the player should have access to if their reputation with the system faction is too low. Examples given:
- If you are Loathed by Davion, you can't access any of the Steiner Faction Stores if you are Allied with Steiner.
- If you are Loathed by Liao, you can't access the Kurita Faction Store in their space if you are Allied with Kurita.
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/arg-a-pirates-life-for-me.1134856/
I don't know how to address that in JSON for a hotfix and it sounds like a bug to me.
Additionally, @Edmon touches on the problem of low reputation in https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ss-of-flashpoint-a-suggested-solution.1133319 but talks mostly about high reputation goals.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
In these threads, a number of suggestions have been made already (and apologies if I don't list your idea for low reputation here). If I missed your suggestion, please repost it below or link to it. I will try to keep the top post updated.
From @FArheinFisch Use mrb rating for available contract difficulty.
From @Jade_Rook What if lower rep didn't restrict you from [3 skull] missions, but instead drastically reduced the pay? What if you could take 3 skull missions from factions which loath you (-80 to -100 rep), but the mission only pays 25% of what it would normally?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
HotFix - JSON Changes
Thanks for @Amechwarrior and @draqsko for pointing out the SimGameConstants settings where reputation is set up.
The JSON changes are designed with two purposes in mind. First, reducing the size of the hole that limits your ability to get contracts. Second, reducing the difficulty of filling that hole.
Currently, reputation is a pretty evenly divided range of "feelings" that a faction can have you, starting at 0, and moving +/- 20 in each direction twice, before making a big jump.
Reduce the size of the hole
Current (SimGameConstants.json lines 242 - 247)
Code:
"LoathedReputation" : -80,
"HatedReputation" : -40,
"DislikedReputation" : -20,
"LikedReputation" : 20,
"FriendlyReputation" : 40,
"HonoredReputation" : 80,HotFix #1
Start the gaps wide and make them progressively smaller, to provide the difficulty of reaching the new stages and the ease of coming off the absolute worst state. This gives you a 40 point swing state at "Indifferent", 40 point states at Liked/Disliked, 30 point states at Friendly/Hated, and very narrow bands at Honored/Loathed.
Code:
"LoathedReputation" : -90,
"HatedReputation" : -60,
"DislikedReputation" : -20,
"LikedReputation" : 20,
"FriendlyReputation" : 60,
"HonoredReputation" : 90,Make the hole easier to fill
CAMPAIGN MODE
Current (SimGameConstants.json lines 251 - 253 for Campaign Mode)
Code:
"LoathedMaxContractDifficulty" : -3,
"HatedMaxContractDifficulty" : -2,
"DislikedMaxContractDifficulty" : -1,This is what ends up limiting the difficulty of the contracts that are available to you and, in the end, is the cause of the blackhole from which it is hard to recover from in Campaign Mode. Other than Pirate locations, there are few 3-Skull planets that can host missions for Loathed mercenaries. While this may seem appropriate, it locks out a reasonable amount of content for players that enjoy the sandbox experience and want to continue playing a single merc company for a significant amount of time.
HotFix #2 - Campaign Mode
Set the MaxContractDifficulty to one less than what an Indifferent merc company would take. Indifferent is a MaxContractDifficulty of 1 (from what I can tell, this is 1/2 skull above Global Difficulty in Campaign Mode). So, for anyone with a lower than Indifferent reputation, limit them to 0 above the Global Difficulty.
Code:
"LoathedMaxContractDifficulty" : 0,
"HatedMaxContractDifficulty" : 0,
"DislikedMaxContractDifficulty" : 0,CAREER MODE
Current (SimGameConstants.json lines 969 - 972 for Career Mode)
There is a steep (1.5 skull) drop from Indifferent to Disliked and then a steady fall to the bottom.
Code:
"LoathedMaxContractDifficulty" : 1,
"HatedMaxContractDifficulty" : 2,
"DislikedMaxContractDifficulty" : 3,
"IndifferentMaxContractDifficulty" : 6,HotFix #2 - Career Mode
Smooth the decline from the top to the bottom into 1/2 skull steps.
Code:
"LoathedMaxContractDifficulty" : 4,
"HatedMaxContractDifficulty" : 5,
"DislikedMaxContractDifficulty" : 6,
"IndifferentMaxContractDifficulty" : 7,Honored is at 10, Liked, is at 9, Friendly is at 8. There is no real reason for Indifferent to be 6, so we boost that to 7, and then continue the decline from there, meaning Loathed is 1.5 skulls higher than it currently is.
But! you may say, where's the penalty for low reputation? In Career Mode, it's clear. There is a declining mission availability, but missions would be much more available. In Campaign Mode, it's not as clear.
I've tried playing with the reputation pay values but they didn't seem to actually change anything. The default is:
Code:
"LoathedRepPaymentAdjustment" : -0.9,
"HatedRepPaymentAdjustment" : -0.5,
"DislikedRepPaymentAdjustment" : -0.1,But I was getting multi-million C-Bill and 5/20 salvage contracts with Loathed factions and increasing that negative number didn't seem to be changing anything...so I'm not sure how to implement @Jade_Rook 's suggestion about giving a massive pay-cut for contracts as a hotfix.
But I did notice there are Shop Price adjustments...and that's another place that penalties can be placed.
Current (SimGameConstants.json lines 265 - 267)
Code:
"HatedRepShopAdjustment" : 0.5,
"DislikedRepShopAdjustment" : 0.2,
"IndifferentRepShopAdjustment" : 0.1,HotFix #3 - Penalize Low Reputation in Shops
Code:
"HatedRepShopAdjustment" : 0.9,
"DislikedRepShopAdjustment" : 0.5,
"IndifferentRepShopAdjustment" : 0.2,Stuck in a Hated Faction (you can't sell in Loathed shops) area and see that sweet SLDF Highlander part you want? Good luck at 90% mark-up.
UPDATE
Reduce the speed of digging the hole
Current (SimGameConstants.json lines 297 - 299)
Courtesy of @Jade_Rook in the comments...
Code:
"TargetRepSuccessMod" : -0.8,
"TargetRepGoodFaithMod" : -0.4,
"TargetRepBadFaithMod" : 0,This sets the ratio of reputation lost to reputation gained from the contract. Currently, if you succeed at a mission, you lose reputation at a rate of 80% of the reputation gained with the employer, 40% if it's a good faith loss, and 0% if it's a bad faith loss.
Since most people seem to be rather successful at their missions, this means you end up digging the negative rep hole very quickly if you even have a slight tendency to favor one faction over another.
To lessen the speed of that, we can reduce those numbers a bit. Thanks to @Jade_Rook for doing some testing on this below
I've removed the hotfix suggestion after doing some more testing on it. On a 4.5 star battle mission, the settings in the suggestion would've started the reputation difference at +14 sponsor, -9 target and on a max reputation run, that would've escalated to +23 sponsor, -14 target. On hindsight, that makes it far too easy to alternate your way to high reputations across the board.
While potentially a useful tool, I don't feel confident in it as a HOTFIX. There may well be a way to incorporate sponsor/target reputation in modifying the loss / gain percentage (LTS#3), but a straight, across-the-board improvement in that ratio (especially in light of the other options) seems inappropriate.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Long Term Solution Suggestions FOR LOW REPUTATION
LTS Suggestion #1 (from @FArheinFisch )
This is probably the most elegant and appropriate solution to the issue of mission availability.
Use your MRB rating as the factor which decides the difficulty of contracts of that are available to the player. As your MRB rating goes up, you get contacted for harder and harder missions. Period, end of story.
LTS Suggestion #2 (adapted from @Jade_Rook )
Make your reputation really impact pay and salvage.
All missions have a base difficulty. Set the pay based on that. Then modify it based on reputation starting from "Indifferent".
Assuming a 3-skull mission with a max of 3/14 salvage, a rep modifier max of +13, and Indifferent reputation as the base:
"Disliked" should pay out 10% less c-bills and reputation and one step less salvage. Max salvage becomes 2/11. Max Reputation change becomes +11.
"Hated" should pay out 50% less c-bills and reputation and two steps less salvage. Max salvage becomes 2/8. Max Reputation change becomes +6.
"Loathed" should pay out 90% less c-bills and reputation and three steps less salvage. Max salvage becomes 1/6(?). Max Reputation change becomes +2.
"Hated" should pay out 50% less c-bills and reputation and two steps less salvage. Max salvage becomes 2/8. Max Reputation change becomes +6.
"Loathed" should pay out 90% less c-bills and reputation and three steps less salvage. Max salvage becomes 1/6(?). Max Reputation change becomes +2.
In combination with the adjusted Reputation bands (above), this still allows for reasonable exit strategies from maximum negative reputation.
LTS Suggestion #3 (from myself)
Make reputation more responsive to your current sponsor / target reputations.
Example:
The sponsor and target of a contract are both indifferent to you and running the mission at default settings would net you a +3/-3 rep change.
That same mission where the sponsor already likes you, might net you a +4 while the indifferent target is still -3.
On the other hand, if the sponsor is indifferent and the target likes you, the rep change is +3/-4. Why? because the target liked you, but then you went against them. "Some friend you are".
In reverse, if the sponsor DISLIKES you, then the rep bonus becomes +4. Why? "Because, maybe you're not that bad after all."
And then for each step away from "Indifferent" that bonus changes by 1. So, "Disliked/Liked" is + (sponsor)/-(target) 1, "Hated/Friendly" is +/- 2, "Loathed/Honored" is +/- 3.
LTS Suggestion #4 (from @NwFrplayer ) - Make loathed have a real consequence
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/low-reputation-consequence.1137263/
@NwFrplayer rightly points out that if you don't care about being loathed by a faction, there is virtually no consequence for it. They posit an interesting way to "make" the player care and that is by having a sort of "bounty hunter" in-mission possibility, where the worse your relationship is with a faction, the more likely a random opfor will show up in-mission and attempt to kill you. Not sure how feasible it is, but it's definitely interesting.
On the flip side, this could have interesting consequences on the positive side, where there is a random chance of a dialogue offering allied units for an employer that you have good relations with.
Both of those may fit better as HBS develops the reputation / relationship system more with various non-faction groups (example, pissing off Mason's Marauders may have them drop in on a mission to attack you. Helping out the Kell Hounds may have them offer a couple of mechs in support of mission later on, etc).
LTS Suggestion #5 - ( from @Kereminde ) - don't populate mission list with 'unacceptable' missions
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ggested-solution.1133319/page-3#post-24967290
The reputation system gates what the MAXIMUM difficulty can be for a given contract to be accepted and the Global and System Difficulty Levels seem to gate the MINIMUM difficulty available on a given system. However, contract lists sometimes fill up with contracts that can't be accepted due to reputation reasons. Making the procgen contract system populate with contracts you can take would eliminate the issue of mission availability entirely.
[Note: from me]The easiest way to avoid filling with contracts that can't be accepted (based on my coding experience in other languages and using the logic that seems to be currently used) would be to do something like this:
1. Generate the contract list at the current difficulty - So if you're at a diff10 (5-skull) system, generate the contract list for that difficulty (10 +/- 1 = 4.5 - 5.5).
2. Eliminate any contracts that the player can't accept.
3. Regenerate contracts at ( difficulty - 2x variance ) FOR THE ELIMINATED FACTIONS - Why 2x variance? Because you have already attempted to fill "difficulty - 1x variance" in step 1 and need to attempt "newdiff + 1x variance" now. So now we have contracts of 8 +/- 1 (7 -> 9 = 3.5 - 4.5)
4. Repeat until approproiate amounts of contracts are created.
After step 1, you have the contracts for all acceptable factions, so every time you eliminate an unacceptable faction contract, you need to regenerate a lower difficulty contract for that same faction. You can either do that by simply looping over the difficulties regening contracts, or jumping right down to the "max contract difficulty" for that faction.
Alternately, the logic used to generate the procgen missions needs to have faction and difficulty "decisions" switched so you generate a list of missions and factions BEFORE determining the difficulty of those missions. This would allow you to cap the difficulty at whatever level reputation allows. This would also eliminate any "<5-skull" missions that can't be accepted when you are already honored.
LTS Suggestion #4 (from @BobaFatt - Regress towards indifferent
Is this too simplistic to just let all reputation slowly regress towards Indifferent over time, so if you spend a period of time not actively antagonizing a loathed faction they will eventually “just” hate or dislike you. Similarly with positive reputation, if you ally with somebody and then just don’t take missions for them they will think a little less of you over time.
[Note: from me]
I think this would add a certain amount realism and would be awesome if the timeline were extended a great deal or if we were thinking in grand strategy terms. For a 1200 day career though, I'm not sure how much difference that would make. I'm not sure regression in days would be appropriate (too fast), weeks would mean you would move closer just about every jump, months would probably be 'not enough to matter' and years would definitely be "not enough to matter".
Maybe in terms 'jumps' or even contracts though. It's a great idea but I'm just not sure how you would measure it and balancing it would be quite the exercise.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
