Faction Reputation... do we want it?

[JacobFlowers]

Flatfingers said this topic deserved its own thread. So here it goes.

Read the full interview here:
Trekmovie.com INterview with CZ (http://trekmovie.com/2009/10/07/exclusive-interview-with-star-trek-online-producer-craig-zinkievich/)

This concerns me:
TrekMovie: Are there consequences in the game. Say for example I am a Federation player and I violate the prime directive, or a Klingon player acts cowardly or without honor. Is there a penalty?

Craig Zinkievich: There are some storylines in the game that change based on the actions that you have, but there are no sweeping rules like you described.

Quoted from Flatfingers:
Takeaway: This one is so big it deserves its own thread, but in a nutshell... nuts. This is the difference between a Star Trek MMORPG and a generally conventional MMORPG that happens to use some Star Trek artwork and sound effects and place/race names.

How can you have honor if you're not free to choose dishonorable actions? Where is the virtue in voluntarily choosing the ethical path (when doing so is hard) if you're prevented from choosing otherwise except as part of a pre-programmed option in a pre-scripted episode?

Of course I understand that all games require constraints. But simply not permitting any choice of significant anti-faction behaviors, in a game that's based on a world where such choices are a defining characteristic... that's quite a constraint.

I won't belabor this point. I know it won't mean anything to the "it's just a game" folks, and those who understand that there's no point in licensing the Star Trek IP if you're not going to make good use of one of its most fundamentally distinctive elements don't need this explained to them.

My own commentary:
I agree with the above sentiments. The Sci Fi genre is dominated by EVE which has a well established and well developed reputation system. Additionally, STO's skill progression system seems to be similar to what was found in "Fable: The Lost Chapters" to a degree, what with investing aquired skillpoints. That game ADDITIONALLY had a very noteworthy reputation system that inherently had an effect on appearance and personality. While I do not advocate a system that goes THAT far (it might be cool), I am disappointed that we will not have this in place 'at launch'.

Additionally, I also feel that it may be too restrictive to episodic content. Where will the hard choices be, where the right decision conflicts with Klingon honor/duty (TNG: Redemption II) or when a superior officer gives you a seemingly unethical order (TNG: The Pegasus or VOY: Equinox).

I think we are loosing out on a bit of "Star Trek' essence here, and all on something that does not seem so difficult to implement. If episodic content already have the ability to have mulitple endings, then it would seem feasible to implement a Federation/KDF Faction Reputation System as well as a 'UNIVERSAL Reputation Rating System'.

What do you guys think of this?

[bjwalle1]

I think that this is already in game but I could be wrong.

I hope there is something like this.

[Stalazon]

Having factions where your actions* have an impact on their standing can be very rewarding. Having a faction system that requires you to 'grind' repeated quests/scenarios/whatever to increase your level within the faction to be eligible for reward x or quest y = very lame.

*actions being something like you're doing an episode and you're given some choices, which one you choose determines if there's an impact of the faction that would help or harm them due to your choice.

[Bastrol]

I think this would benefit the game for sure. Except in special cases, if a Ferderation player goes against the prime directive or if a Klingon player takes the cowards way out or something to that effect, there should be consequences for the said player and a small negative affect on the faction's reputation as a whole.

I imagine this would be unpopular with alot of people but if a Klingon warrior, for example, ran from battle word would get around that he/she is a coward and probably would lose status in the empire. If enough Klingons did the same the reputation of the Empire as a whole would drop.

If I missed the point of the thread disregard this post :D

[JacobFlowers]

I think this would benefit the game for sure. Except in special cases, if a Ferderation player goes against the prime directive or if a Klingon player takes the cowards way out or something to that effect, there should be consequences for the said player and a small negative affect on the faction's reputation as a whole.

I imagine this would be unpopular with alot of people but if a Klingon warrior, for example, ran from battle word would get around that he/she is a coward and probably would lose status in the empire. If enough Klingons did the same the reputation of the Empire as a whole would drop.

If I missed the point of the thread disregard this post :D

No, you were right on. My intention was asking people if this is something they feel that should be seriously considered to be implemented as part of the core of the game (i.e. at launch).

But yea... running from a battle = lose honor
Turn and face your enemy for ramming speed = + reputation bonus (haha)

[Eclipse1987]

if it affects my gameplay ie; I get a exp boost or stat modifier for conforming to faction roles, or penalized for not then yea it'd be cool.

however if it's just an add on for it's own sake, I'll pass.

if said system was implemented I'd like one similar to InFamous.

I have to say I think this is probably the first time I have agreed with one of the o.p. suggestion's. On the whole I like it.

[mrwalsh]

I think the points you use to advance your character do represent reputation, and I'd wager that your mission choices do affect what degree of rep you achieve (or fail to achieve); I think we should wait and see how it's implemented before deciding the system is lacking.

I think what was suggested is that when you are given options, you'd be given them within things you'd do. For example: "They are demanding we send them the ambassador, but we were supposed to escort him personally and something seems odd here, what should we do?" "a) send an away team to escort personally, against their demands" "b)give over ambassador and head out" "c)stall them and send an away team to investigate" "d)blow up the planet" - Options A-C would have varying degrees of "correct" to them, each with their own resulting branches for varying stakes and potential reward, but 'D' would represent something you wouldn't be able to do (and wouldn't be a choice provided). Again, this is pure speculation, as it is on all of our parts.

As for the rating of the entire faction dropping because somebody didn't make the right choice? No, that wouldn't be much fun. You'd have the community punishing new players in a heartbeat for lack of capability-and you have to remember a solid portion of these people will have never even played an MMO before-and you'll have people abusing the system for their own enjoyment. Losing faction in general is a bad idea unless explicitly given the option to intentionally lose it (like a Starfleet Captain given the option to trade tech secrets to the Ferengi for money), and there's no point in that until there's a game mechanic that justifies it. Maybe that'll be acceptable if they add privateering or other means of faction defection, like if you wanted to be a Maquis or something. All you'd stand to do now is severely gimp your character.

You have to remember this is an MMO before being an RPG. The idea would be an important component of something like Mass Effect, not so much a strong place here. PVP faction on the other hand should have an overall rating and global comparison, but that's kind of central to faction vs faction PVP.

I don't mean to sound like the grumpy conversation killer or the guy posting the quit talking and wait-and-see stuff. I only bothered to reply because I thought the idea did hold some merit and does bring focus to an important point. Actions do need to hold value, and you need to be able to make mistakes (accidentally or not).


Side note, and sorry to mention it, but a personal pet peeve:

To loose - To let loose, to free from restraints. (Present participle - loosing)
To lose - To cause (something) to cease to be in one's possession or capability due to unfortunate or unknown circumstances, events or reasons. (Present participle - losing)

Don't know what it is about that word, but it's probably the most common misspelling in otherwise well-written posts I see.

[Azurit]

Of course I understand that all games require constraints. But simply not permitting any choice of significant anti-faction behaviors, in a game that's based on a world where such choices are a defining characteristic... that's quite a constraint.


For me this is not such a big issue. You passed the Starfleed academy, you are in a military and all your resources are provided by Starfleet. You can not realy commit any significant anti-faction behaviors. If you would do it, you would just end like Captain Maxwell in TNG 4x12 - "The Wounded". You can do it one time, then they chase you and you lose everything.

This might be different for the klingons of course.

[JacobFlowers]

if it affects my gameplay ie; I get a exp boost or stat modifier for conforming to faction roles, or penalized for not then yea it'd be cool.

however if it's just an add on for it's own sake, I'll pass.

if said system was implemented I'd like one similar to InFamous.

I have to say I think this is probably the first time I have agreed with one of the o.p. suggestion's. On the whole I like it.

A pity Eclipse, that this is probably the first time you've agreed with me on something. I've written several propositions that many people agreed with and/or felt were important to consider. :p


A proposition to satisfying the Sandbox Elements AND Persistent World desires (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=25205)
Lessons from Champions Online (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=26629)
Instanced Universe vs Persistent (STO vs SWG vs EVE) (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=25205)
ZAM Article on STO... Ouch! (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=25472)
The NEXT Ask Cryptic (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=24785&page=2)
Making STO AI Interactive, or bust... (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=21885)
Sandbox Elements in STO (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=24850)
Ships of the Line Statistic Missing (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=24303)
Cookie Monster's Homeworld (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=20091)
Canon and Quarantine Planets (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=17973)
Want to make Away Missions AWESOME...? Then... (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=27530)


The only proposition where most people disagreed with me was my thread regarding the concerns I have regarding ship customization and how it could be detrimental to PvP, and play a part in somewhat destroying immersion. And naturally I won't mention the threadnaught regarding the Galaxy and Sovereign. If you read my original post, I think it was quite reasonable, and once you get past all the people squabbling over the details, the original proposition was sound and fair. :mad::p

Anyway, at least we can agree one 1 thing! :)

[marscentral]

From my understanding of what Zinc has said, there are consequences in some missions for pro/anti faction choices that last for that mission. In a way that sort of matches television where things wrap up at the end of the episode. I do think there is merit to the idea of being able to build a reputation within your faction that has lasting consequences, but I can understand Cryptic taking the easier option on this one.

[Peregrine_Falcon]

If the game doesn't limit your options, then you'll end up with Federation captains firing on and destroying Federation Starbases. Remember this is the internet, and if players can do it then they will do it.

While you control your own starship directly in game, the actuality is that you're giving orders. Onboard a Federation starship if a captain gives an order to fire on a Federation starbase or upon a civilian city the officers on phaser stations will refuse those orders. In fact their oath to Starfleet requires them to disobey such orders, and even to relieve and arrest the captain if he gives those orders. We saw this happen onboard the Enterprise in Star Trek ToS episode "Turnabout Intruder."

Your character is going to be in the military. Starfleet officers don't purposely fire upon Starfleet vessels or bases any more than US Navy officers fire upon US Navy ships or bases. It just doesn't happen. There are a great many reasons for this. I believe that Starfleet officers, much like US Naval officers IRL, undergo psycological evaluations. Neither Starfleet nor the US Navy wants to put crazy people in charge of powerful ships.

However, one of the biggest problems with MMOs is the feeling that as a player nothing I do really makes a difference. Nothing ever changes. I haven't really had any effect upon the game universe. So it would be nice if the game implemented a system where the server kept track of your past actions and changed text or mission options/outcomes based on past experience.

I'd love to be in a situation where a Klingon ship expresses worry about engaging me alone simply because of my reputation as a fierce and capable combatant. Or where a certain NPC treats me contemptuously if I'm a new character, but with a certain respect if I've built up a reputation.

As a Klingon captain the restrictions should obviously be lessened, but the same applies. I'd really enjoy it if an otherwise hostile faction decides to give me the option to simply leave the area instead of attacking me immediately because they remember that I've helped them in the past.

It's an MMO, and I know that the world will never really change because of my actions, but little things like that conceal that fact. They make it appear that I've done things that make a difference. When the NPCs react to me, based on my reputation instead of always reacting the same way to me because of my faction, it makes it appear that I'm having an effect on the world around me.

[JacobFlowers]

From my understanding of what Zinc has said, there are consequences in some missions for pro/anti faction choices that last for that mission. In a way that sort of matches television where things wrap up at the end of the episode. I do think there is merit to the idea of being able to build a reputation within your faction that has lasting consequences, but I can understand Cryptic taking the easier option on this one.

I can understand also why they would take the easier option. :(

If the game doesn't limit your options, then you'll end up with Federation captains firing on and destroying Federation Starbases. Remember this is the internet, and if players can do it then they will do it.

While you control your own starship directly in game, the actuality is that you're giving orders. Onboard a Federation starship if a captain gives an order to fire on a Federation starbase or upon a civilian city the officers on phaser stations will refuse those orders. In fact their oath to Starfleet requires them to disobey such orders, and even to relieve and arrest the captain if he gives those orders. We saw this happen onboard the Enterprise in Star Trek ToS episode "Turnabout Intruder."

Your character is going to be in the military. Starfleet officers don't purposely fire upon Starfleet vessels or bases any more than US Navy officers fire upon US Navy ships or bases. It just doesn't happen. There are a great many reasons for this. I believe that Starfleet officers, much like US Naval officers IRL, undergo psycological evaluations. Neither Starfleet nor the US Navy wants to put crazy people in charge of powerful ships.

I understand your sentiments thoroughly. If we were allowed (which I know at launch we are not allowed to) have more open ended actionable decisions in game play, Cryptic could develop systems that would appropriately correspond to a person's actions. There ARE crazies out there, and Admirals wanting to take things into their own hands. (TNG Pegasus, Phoenix, and a BUNCH of others).

Even the rogue federation organization 'Section 31' seems to deem itself 'above federation law, in order to protect federation interests'. I know a decent amount of people have expressed an interest for that Group/Faction to be somehow implemented in the game with even the desire to be able to join their ranks.

So if a fed player opens fire on a federation Starbase in a hub zone, they could be marked 'red' and thus they would appear as an enemy on everyone's sensor. Punishment fits the crime. If you do something unethtical, or questionable, either a deduction or merit points, or something appended to your 'starfleet record' which imposes certain restrictions on you. This would discourage such behavior. However to make things interesting, Episodic content could also have difficult choices, where one path follows federation standards but comes at a loss (i.e. letting people die because of the prime directive) or one that does not follow federation protocol but comes with a boon (i.e. not destroying a planet that is harvesting the Omega particle, in exchange for some special piece of technology).


[FONT="Verdana"][B][COLOR="SkyBlue"]
However, one of the biggest problems with MMOs is the feeling that as a player nothing I do really makes a difference. Nothing ever changes. I haven't really had any effect upon the game universe. So it would be nice if the game implemented a system where the server kept track of your past actions and changed text or mission options/outcomes based on past experience.

I'd love to be in a situation where a Klingon ship expresses worry about engaging me alone simply because of my reputation as a fierce and capable combatant. Or where a certain NPC treats me contemptuously if I'm a new character, but with a certain respect if I've built up a reputation.

As a Klingon captain the restrictions should obviously be lessened, but the same applies. I'd really enjoy it if an otherwise hostile faction decides to give me the option to simply leave the area instead of attacking me immediately because they remember that I've helped them in the past.

It's an MMO, and I know that the world will never really change because of my actions, but little things like that conceal that fact. They make it appear that I've done things that make a difference. When the NPCs react to me, based on my reputation instead of always reacting the same way to me because of my faction, it makes it appear that I'm having an effect on the world around me.

It has already been stated in the 2008 August Ask Cryptic that STO's Unvierse will be 'dynamic'. In fact, the last quote by CZ is RATHER exciting and impressive.... however we have seen nothing iterated upon that would shed light on those amazing comments. Someone aught to quote them for truth! haha.

But yes, I agree heartily with your ideas, and am like minded in your same desires. I hope indeed they come to fruition. However, given the quote by CZ in the trekmovie interview, I would venture to say 'not at launch' :(

[JacobFlowers]

bump - bump!

[Sivar]

I think this is another of those "wait and see" moments. While I wish they would have a straight forward rep system (be it individual or faction) as it adds depth to the game, I am willing to wait and see how it pans out before I go on a tantrum :cool:

[JacobFlowers]

I think this is another of those "wait and see" moments. While I wish they would have a straight forward rep system (be it individual or faction) as it adds depth to the game, I am willing to wait and see how it pans out before I go on a tantrum :cool:

It was already stated by Zinc in the interview that we will not have a system in place described in this thread.

[piponolo]

I think it would be neat. But if it isnt there right now, I could stand for it to be included post launch.

I think this game is going to be slightly rushed. Not a bad product, just cut down to what the devs REALLY think should be in the game and then upgraded. A lot. Therefore if something isn't at launch...meh. I can deal.



:D

[JacobFlowers]

I think it would be neat. But if it isnt there right now, I could stand for it to be included post launch.

I think this game is going to be slightly rushed. Not a bad product, just cut down to what the devs REALLY think should be in the game and then upgraded. A lot. Therefore if something isn't at launch...meh. I can deal.



:D

Would you rather have something rushed, or something polished?

Seems CO was rushed. Result: go read some of the reviews gamespot, ign, euorgamer, etc.

Aion was not rushed, and polished. End result: people waiting in queues to enter the game servers (way more people than expected). Plus + go read the reviews.

So... what would you rather have, something rushed, or polished?

[Faerlzress]

OP, Please clarify your concept of faction.

Are we talking about a karma system akin to Ultima Online?
If I murder 3 players I have a timeout?

Are we talking about earning points with faction like WoW?
If I do these quests for the Blood Sailors I will be able to buy loot.

Are we talking about fable moral choices?
I choose good or evil and my alignment for good or evil goes up or down.

Are we talking about just choices?
The starship is going to explode if I don't disarm the bomb, do I choose the red wire or the blue wire?

Is this long term consequences or simply episode choices?
And what do you expect from making these choices?

[JacobFlowers]

OP, Please clarify your concept of faction.

1)Are we talking about a karma system akin to Ultima Online?
If I murder 3 players I have a timeout?

2)Are we talking about earning points with faction like WoW?
If I do these quests for the Blood Sailors I will be able to buy loot.

3)Are we talking about fable moral choices?
I choose good or evil and my alignment for good or evil goes up or down.

4)Are we talking about just choices?
The starship is going to explode if I don't disarm the bomb, do I choose the red wire or the blue wire?

5) Is this long term consequences or simply episode choices?
And what do you expect from making these choices?

I guess the system I most have in mind is that which is incorporated into EVE... which is a combination of WoW and Fable's systems. I'll address each of your points (which I've numbered) so we can discuss.

1) No. I had no reference in mind to the Ultima system. Do you think its good and has a place in STO? I personally am not familiar with it at all.

2) Yes, implementing a system similar to WoW. Already we have have something like this slightly, in that you complete episodes and get merit points or whatever they are called. But at the same time it is not the same. I think this system would do well for special items or ships for the major factions (KDF, FED) and also minor regional powers (Tholians, Romulans, Cardassians, Ferengi, and all those other races). What do you think? You save a planet from their sun going super nova, and you become 'friendly' with them, allowing certain bonuses in their system, or items to be acquired blah blah. A system like this is in EVE and WoW.

3) I absolutely think a 'moral' system should be in STO. We have seen it showcased sooo many times in Star Trek, indeed it is a defining and distinctive characteristic inherent to the IP, do you agree? A system like this is in EVE. They call it 'security status'. If you attack a player un provoked your security status is lowered to the point of being considered a galactic criminal in which NPC's fire at you on site and all Players are able to fire at you regardless of your faction orientation. Unfortunately this system to be incorporated might require privateering which will sadly be 'not at launch'.

But just as I quoted of Flatfingers. How can you have honor in the game if you are not free to make dishonorable choices? Federation captains are always faced with moral judgement because of restrictions from the prime directive, do we obey the omega directive at any costs, etc. The consequences/gains could be wide and varied to make it a unique aspect of gameplay. What do you think?

4) Choices, I think it has been established already that we can make choices in episodes that will affect the rest of the episode. But it will not have any lasting effect. I was hope lasting effect would be part of the game.

5) Give me a choice... and I'll say : Both! Both should be in the game. Look at Ask Cryptic August 2008 and look at the last question regarding a statis/dynamic universe. We haven't heard ANYTHING more about this which disappoints me sorely, but I would love for our decisions to have far reaching consequences either in short term, long term, or both. What do you think?

[gair22]

Sure there will be some form of faction reputation. I just hope it doesn't play into some type of grind.

[JacobFlowers]

Sure there will be some form of faction reputation. I just hope it doesn't play into some type of grind.

but not in the way described in the trekmovie.com interview.

see this thread for more info: http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=28180

[Kobasa]

maybe implement a different system, for example, like in real ST, if captain goes renegade, a fleet of ships will be dispatched to intercept the ship and aprehend the captain.

Maybe something like that could be implemented here, if you destroy friendly vessel(outside of House Wars, ofcourse), patroling ships will be "notified" to track you down, and if player whose ship you destroyed wants it, he can offer reward to other players(we had a chance to see bountyhunters in VOY and STE) to destroy your ship.

The more friendly vessels you destroy, more patrol ships will be "notified" to intercept/destroy you on sight.
And if you destroyed alot of friendly vessels, a fleet of ships will be dispatched, then maybe you could hide in nebulas, near planet's poles and so on...

Then there could be ethics/honor bar or counter in game, which would fill positive if you chose honorable/ethic path in episodes and fill negative if you chose non ethic/dishonorable path in episodes.

The higher the honor/ethics, the more quests could be offered to you, if your ethics/honor is lower than 0, then less NPCs within your faction will want to offer you quests, but then, maybe some of the remote NPCs of other factions would be happy to pay you for your services.

Also if Borg is to have bigger than episodic role in the game(a NP faction), then maybe it would be good to implement threat/distinctiveness meter in the game, the higher those meters are, more ships will be dispatched from Borg territory to destroy/assimilate certain faction's ships.

[JacobFlowers]

maybe implement a different system, for example, like in real ST, if captain goes renegade, a fleet of ships will be dispatched to intercept the ship and aprehend the captain.

Maybe something like that could be implemented here, if you destroy friendly vessel(outside of House Wars, ofcourse), patroling ships will be "notified" to track you down, and if player whose ship you destroyed wants it, he can offer reward to other players(we had a chance to see bountyhunters in VOY and STE) to destroy your ship.

The more friendly vessels you destroy, more patrol ships will be "notified" to intercept/destroy you on sight.
And if you destroyed alot of friendly vessels, a fleet of ships will be dispatched, then maybe you could hide in nebulas, near planet's poles and so on...

Then there could be ethics/honor bar or counter in game, which would fill positive if you chose honorable/ethic path in episodes and fill negative if you chose non ethic/dishonorable path in episodes.

The higher the honor/ethics, the more quests could be offered to you, if your ethics/honor is lower than 0, then less NPCs within your faction will want to offer you quests, but then, maybe some of the remote NPCs of other factions would be happy to pay you for your services.

Also if Borg is to have bigger than episodic role in the game(a NP faction), then maybe it would be good to implement threat/distinctiveness meter in the game, the higher those meters are, more ships will be dispatched from Borg territory to destroy/assimilate certain faction's ships.

kobasa, i think these are well thought out and really good ideas. Espescially the mention of the Borg dynamics, I never really thought about this, but yes... this is an instance where 'THREAT' actually does matter in MMO combat.

Good catch

[Kobasa]

Just hope someone from Cryptic reads these forums, this aspect of game seems to be poorly covered from what I can read from interviews and official website.