Career Mode Reputation

[JackFrost]

I think a lot of people are coming at this from a roleplaying perspective, whereas I'm talking about this from a game mechanics perspective.

It's a problem, mechanically, because of how contracts are distributed, your inability to preview them, and specific breakpoints and system difficulty distribution.

I am doubtful if a change from a 1.5 skull mission cap to a 2 skull mission cap, or a -20 rep to -30 rep would make any significant impact on how it feels from a roleplaying perspective. It does change how the game play side works.

Other things could be minor changes like increasing the visual difference of the reputation icons so new players notice when getting downgraded, or having some kind of warning when dropping a reputation level.

 

[ModernModron]

I think a lot of people are coming at this from a roleplaying perspective, whereas I'm talking about this from a game mechanics perspective.

It's a problem, mechanically, because of how contracts are distributed, your inability to preview them, and specific breakpoints and system difficulty distribution.

I am doubtful if a change from a 1.5 skull mission cap to a 2 skull mission cap, or a -20 rep to -30 rep would make any significant impact on how it feels from a roleplaying perspective. It does change how the game play side works.

Other things could be minor changes like increasing the visual difference of the reputation icons so new players notice when getting downgraded, or having some kind of warning when dropping a reputation level.

I haven't really played long enough to encounter the problems on a strictly gameplay level, though I agree it seems bad.

That said, I don't see any reason to restrict missions offered at all, regardless of skull count. If you're willing to work for a faction that gives you no perks and terrible prices, have at it.

-MM

 

[Jade_Rook]

So the issue is that the new rep mechanic creates a cost for taking a mission? Further, it becomes difficult to recover from that cost if you continue for a significant amount of time with a single faction. Am I interpreting that accurately @JackFrost , @ModernModron ?

I think there could still be some improvements made to the reputation system. There still isn't a lot of reason to trade c-bills/salvage for rep in negotiations. We might reach the next tier of reputation a little quicker, but not significantly so. Having allied with a faction, I actually have no reason to go for additional rep with them. There is actually something of a disincentive to working for my ally because I don't get any additional rep effects.

It might help to see a comprehensive numerical breakdown of the mechanic if only for reference.

I agree that seeing the actual numbers would be helpful as this is a game mechanics issue.

Here are the reputation thresholds for changing standing with a faction:
"LoathedReputation" : -80,
"HatedReputation" : -40,
"DislikedReputation" : -20,
"LikedReputation" : 20,
"FriendlyReputation" : 40,
"HonoredReputation" : 80,
"MaxReputation" : 100,

Here are the max skull ratings at the different standings (in half skull intervals, so Disliked is max 1.5 skulls):
"LoathedMaxContractDifficulty" : 1,
"HatedMaxContractDifficulty" : 2,
"DislikedMaxContractDifficulty" : 3,
"IndifferentMaxContractDifficulty" : 6,
"LikedMaxContractDifficulty" : 8,
"FriendlyMaxContractDifficulty" : 9,
"HonoredMaxContractDifficulty" : 10,

I believe that the effect on the target is set to 80% of the rep change for the hiring faction:
"TargetRepSuccessMod" : -0.8,
(This may be a bit high... I like that it is a factor, but it may be a little much)

I am having a hard time finding the rep change per skull rating. I think I had a 0.5 skull mission that gave 3 positive and 2 negative rep.

 

[JackFrost]

Those are the values to tweek. TBH though, I started this thread hopefully as a way to inform the devs that this might have negative gameplay experience for players who aren't following the game closely. The biggest problem is that this can often be result of missions on the first planet you spawn on.

It negatively impacted my game experience, and other players who might not be up to modding the game might also have problems.

In general, the game makes huge effort to warn players when they're doing something that could have negative results (heat warning, CONSTANT nagging about low cash, etc). But this, potentially with bigger long term effects than most other things has almost no indication and no warning.

Frankly, a lot of stuff about contracts and the starmap could use a bit of TLC.

 

[ModernModron]

So the issue is that the new rep mechanic creates a cost for taking a mission? Further, it becomes difficult to recover from that cost if you continue for a significant amount of time with a single faction. Am I interpreting that accurately @JackFrost , @ModernModron ?

I think there could still be some improvements made to the reputation system. There still isn't a lot of reason to trade c-bills/salvage for rep in negotiations. We might reach the next tier of reputation a little quicker, but not significantly so. Having allied with a faction, I actually have no reason to go for additional rep with them. There is actually something of a disincentive to working for my ally because I don't get any additional rep effects.


I agree that seeing the actual numbers would be helpful as this is a game mechanics issue.

Here are the reputation thresholds for changing standing with a faction:
"LoathedReputation" : -80,
"HatedReputation" : -40,
"DislikedReputation" : -20,
"LikedReputation" : 20,
"FriendlyReputation" : 40,
"HonoredReputation" : 80,
"MaxReputation" : 100,

Here are the max skull ratings at the different standings (in half skull intervals, so Disliked is max 1.5 skulls):
"LoathedMaxContractDifficulty" : 1,
"HatedMaxContractDifficulty" : 2,
"DislikedMaxContractDifficulty" : 3,
"IndifferentMaxContractDifficulty" : 6,
"LikedMaxContractDifficulty" : 8,
"FriendlyMaxContractDifficulty" : 9,
"HonoredMaxContractDifficulty" : 10,

I believe that the effect on the target is set to 80% of the rep change for the hiring faction:
"TargetRepSuccessMod" : -0.8,
(This may be a bit high... I like that it is a factor, but it may be a little much)

I am having a hard time finding the rep change per skull rating. I think I had a 0.5 skull mission that gave 3 positive and 2 negative rep.

Wow. So just getting a 4 Skull mission requires a faction to actively Like me? That's worse than I thought.

-MM

 

[Jade_Rook]

Wow. So just getting a 4 Skull mission requires a faction to actively Like me? That's worse than I thought.

-MM

Yes, I think this shows up in some of the mouse overs, but I forget if you can see all of the effects or just the current status.

At least Liked only requires +20 rep. Getting a 5 skull mission requires that you reach Honored status, +80 rep.

These lines are in the SimGameConstants JSON.

 

[Packrat]

Honestly, given the way reputation worked before 1.3, I doubt that there are very many pre-existing saves where the rep for a faction is as far down as -25. It seems like you'd really have to work for that with the old system.

I find it troubling that so many are writing off messing with people's existing saves, even if it is a small number. Screwing with those is one of the biggest no-nos in live game development. People payed money for the game, invested a lot of time into a campaign, and are now essentially being told "Sucks for you, start over." Come on, folks...

I have to say, I really hate the new reputation system. Like, I despise it so much I have to force myself to play the game against it just to see the new stuff.

I certainly did not expect this going in, and I'm still not sure why this such a problem. It might just be that I hate 'losing' things, so maybe seeing all those bright red numbers just irks me. Or maybe the real concern is a fear that I'm going to effectively burn bridges and forever lock myself out of content with a faction because I take a few missions against them. Learning that mission difficulty is capped by reputation certainly won't help that.

One other thing that I notice annoy me about the new system is that I suddenly feel a lot less mercenary. Rather than evaluating missions based on their risks and rewards, I'm sitting there wondering who I can afford to piss off. That isn't how this is supposed to be. I mean, if I do something to really screw a faction I'd expect them to hold a grudge, but just shooting up some random base on the edge of the Periphery shouldn't matter in the big scheme. You'd think it would just encourage the target to hire me away from their enemy.

And the rewards, well, they just make it worse. Sure, cool toys are cool, but when it's offered this way I feel like I'm just more of a house unit. What, really, is the benefit of claiming to be a merc if I have to give up the freedom to choose my work? In effect, I'm voluntarily signing myself up for a company store scam. Yay?

I love this game and I was happy to buy the expansion, but this is really bothering me. Anyone know if the reputation system can be modded easily?

-MM

I have to agree. This has seriously soured my experience with the game. I feel like I'm being punished for playing the way I want -- the I way I bought the game to play and had fun with until now -- and am being pushed into playing in a way I don't want, even locking content away from me if I don't engage in that. It feels like the game is telling me that my fun is wrong.

 

[Donvale]

It's an interesting conundrum.
For me I generally like replayability in games and I feel this slowly locking you into one faction or another over the course of the game actually enhances this as it means each gameplay is likely to be a little different.
Maybe they need a dificulty option for this -0.8 vs -0.4 or something selectable when creating your career mode game, personally I'd still pick the harder one, but I can certainly see why some people wouldn't like it.
Also worth notingt that Flashpoints seem to give massive bigger reputation changes so depending on whether you can still do ones for factions you dislike this might be one way out of the hole depending on the factions involved.

 

[IceTitan]

Yeah the reps a bit of a pain... considering where I started. Mission list works against me rep wise while trying to ensure I can take casualties without risk of bein out of commission for month(s). Since all i get are neutral, liao or marik... which screws davion, steiner reps.Even though making sure to avoid doing anything against them. While liao missions just wrecks rep with everyone...... so painfully slowly trying to move away while trying to make sure I can handle lost months in case shit hits the fan.

 

[ronhatch]

I find it troubling that so many are writing off messing with people's existing saves, even if it is a small number. Screwing with those is one of the biggest no-nos in live game development. People payed money for the game, invested a lot of time into a campaign, and are now essentially being told "Sucks for you, start over." Come on, folks...

Fair enough.

From my point of view, I would expect anybody that managed to go below the threshold with the prior system to have actually worked towards it intentionally... which would also mean that they are likely never going to attempt to bring their reputation with that faction back up. So my impression is that it actually is a non-existent problem, rather than a very rare problem. And that's what I'll continue to believe until and unless someone comes forward that had run across this with an existing save that was already below the -25 threshold and was bothered by that specific aspect of the new reputation system.

Obviously your take on it is different, and I'm not trying to change your mind... just stating for the record where we differ.

 

[ronhatch]

FWIW, I do think the ratio in that "TargetRepSuccessMod" variable ought to be toned down a bit.

I can see at least some rationale for reputation to be that close to a zero-sum game in real life, but in a video game it just seems ridiculous to me.

 

[Ben G]

One improvement that could be made is to make it more obvious who the opponent is when you are selecting a mission. You can see during negotiations, but it would be nice to see before then.

 

[wolfhoundtoo]

I just received an warning about my rep with the pirates while traveling between planets so maybe they've added something to point it out.

 

[ronhatch]

One improvement that could be made is to make it more obvious who the opponent is when you are selecting a mission. You can see during negotiations, but it would be nice to see before then.

I can't think of a single description that doesn't have the faction name of your opponent in there somewhere. It isn't in a specific spot, so you have to actually read the description... but it's there.

 

[jj284b]

I can't think of a single description that doesn't have the faction name of your opponent in there somewhere. It isn't in a specific spot, so you have to actually read the description... but it's there.

Its there, but you need to look for it.. if there was an opfor icon (like it is with Flashpoints), it would be instantly obvious...

 

[Fallenkezef]

It's an interesting conundrum.
For me I generally like replayability in games and I feel this slowly locking you into one faction or another over the course of the game actually enhances this as it means each gameplay is likely to be a little different.
Maybe they need a dificulty option for this -0.8 vs -0.4 or something selectable when creating your career mode game, personally I'd still pick the harder one, but I can certainly see why some people wouldn't like it.
Also worth notingt that Flashpoints seem to give massive bigger reputation changes so depending on whether you can still do ones for factions you dislike this might be one way out of the hole depending on the factions involved.

Aye, my current playthrough I'm very much a cappellan loyalist. Next play I'll look at playing as a Marik or Fedrat merc

 

[Hopit]

I think a lot of people are coming at this from a roleplaying perspective, whereas I'm talking about this from a game mechanics perspective.

It's a problem, mechanically, because of how contracts are distributed, your inability to preview them, and specific breakpoints and system difficulty distribution.

I am doubtful if a change from a 1.5 skull mission cap to a 2 skull mission cap, or a -20 rep to -30 rep would make any significant impact on how it feels from a roleplaying perspective. It does change how the game play side works.

Other things could be minor changes like increasing the visual difference of the reputation icons so new players notice when getting downgraded, or having some kind of warning when dropping a reputation level.

Ye, this basically ruined my campaign save I've played since launch and have all my 66 hours in. I can't do any missions outside of 2 factions (1 of which doesn't even have a presence on the map) because thanks to everyone either disliking or hating me, I have to do 1.5 or lower skull missions, when basically every mission available is 4 skull minimum

Normally I'd have a mod that disables that ridiculous "galaxy" wide difficulty increase for missions and actually add variety to mission difficulty, but before it's updated my game is basically stuck in limbo

 

[ronhatch]

Ye, this basically ruined my campaign save I've played since launch and have all my 66 hours in. I can't do any missions outside of 2 factions (1 of which doesn't even have a presence on the map) because thanks to everyone either disliking or hating me, I have to do 1.5 or lower skull missions, when basically every mission available is 4 skull minimum

Normally I'd have a mod that disables that ridiculous "galaxy" wide difficulty increase for missions and actually add variety to mission difficulty, but before it's updated my game is basically stuck in limbo

So to be clear, six factions disliked or hated you BEFORE the update to 1.3?

I'm curious how you managed that... from what I remember of 1.2, you only had to take missions from a faction occasionally to keep reputation above 0.

 

[Hopit]

So to be clear, six factions disliked or hated you BEFORE the update to 1.3?

I'm curious how you managed that... from what I remember of 1.2, you only had to take missions from a faction occasionally to keep reputation above 0.

Because I was in Capellan space, and surprisingly, capellan missions are the dominant ones there. and the rest just came with the missions i'd been selecting (avoiding base defense and escorts)


Hell, I'd be fine if I could still do missions for factions, with decreased rewards mind you, inside "independent" planets/system to actually have a way to increase the rep in some way

 

[Packrat]

Ye, this basically ruined my campaign save I've played since launch and have all my 66 hours in. I can't do any missions outside of 2 factions (1 of which doesn't even have a presence on the map) because thanks to everyone either disliking or hating me, I have to do 1.5 or lower skull missions, when basically every mission available is 4 skull minimum

Normally I'd have a mod that disables that ridiculous "galaxy" wide difficulty increase for missions and actually add variety to mission difficulty, but before it's updated my game is basically stuck in limbo

Because I was in Capellan space, and surprisingly, capellan missions are the dominant ones there. and the rest just came with the missions i'd been selecting (avoiding base defense and escorts)


Hell, I'd be fine if I could still do missions for factions, with decreased rewards mind you, inside "independent" planets/system to actually have a way to increase the rep in some way

How appropriate that you were in Capellan space, because you are my vindicator right now.