Treaty Bonuses

Treaty Bonuses

Phenoca 15 Dec 2009 23:44

Another MMORTS went bankrupt this month. Celetania.
I am thinking, that the only way for an MMORTS to be successful, is to force players to get other players involved. The emphasis should be on building community by forming treaties between players, and then forming treaties between groups.
If someone takes-over a facility, they aren't destroying another player, but just imposing taxes/tribute.
If someone creates/colonizes a new facility by themselves, that facility will not be effective until they can bring other players' colonists to that planet.

If someone wants to be a war-monger, the effectiveness of their taxation is increased by allying with players who also take taxes from pacifists.
If someone wants to be a pacifist, the effectiveness of their facilities is increased by allying with other pacifists on their planet (as well as those pacifists' Diplomacy tech level).
War-mongers can easily tax a lot of raw-resources and get rich.
Pacifists can control the most colonists, and can become war-mongers at any time.

Players can be both pacifist and a war-monger at the same time. The only reason to create the distinction is so that we can say which technologies are pacifist-oriented, and which are war-oriented.
Mostly-pacifist players want lots of mostly-pacifist allies.
Mostly war-monger players want lots of mostly-war-monger allies.

Summary:
1) The more allies you have with similar technology as you, the higher your benefit from facilities or taxes is.
2) Some technology benefit player-player treaties, while some benefit group-group treaties.

I'd like to see group-oriented technologies becoming just as important as warfare technologies.
Origin of idea: War of Conquest. If you allied with someone, you got to share their technology bonuses. In Fragmented Galaxy, technologies should give bonuses to your allies… And also very important: More allies (even with newbies) should always be better than fewer allies (of just a few high-tech players). Emphasizing large groups of players helps to avoid elitism in the community.

Re: Treaty Bonuses

Matt R 16 Dec 2009 00:42

Currently, we have a general design for a very robust treaty/diplomacy system. With the treaty builder, a player could create an infinite variety of treaties ranging from very simple to very complex. These treaties could specify a relationship between only two civilizations, or be the binding constitution of a galactic federation of players.

The plan is to have these treaties be trigger-based and able to perform as many operations as possible. For example, anything from exchanging control of colonies to specifying trade tariffs to trading technologies to sharing military intelligence. Hopefully, this system will allow players to create the strong kinds of bonds you are desiring in MMORTSs.

As for technologies, the current tech system design makes it so that increased exposure for undiscovered technologies increases the chances of that technology being discovered. So, for instance, if you are allied with a nation that has technology you do not yet possess, by interacting with that nation through trade, joint military operations, etc, you increase the likelyhood that you will be able to obtain that technology. This feature should benefit groups of nations that choose to unite.

In general, FG's goal is to create a game as realistic and open-ended as possible. That is why we put so much emphasis on procedural algorithms, and design features with soft caps rather than hard caps. We put a lot of faith in the fact that this kind of design can be successfully translated into a stable game dynamic. Of course, we cannot know for sure until the game is up and running and being played.

As for bankruptcy, that shouldn't be an issue for us. At least, not anytime soon. At the moment, we have little to no expenses, and operate on a 100% volunteer basis. We only have one real full-time volunteer too. So, we are not really worried about results, popularity, or success right now.

Last edited on 16 Dec 2009 04:03 by Matt R + Show more

Re: Treaty Bonuses

Craig Macomber 16 Dec 2009 02:03

Thanks Matt, I think you covered everything pretty well.

I made some updates to the treaties doc: (Private dev site http://f-g-dev.wikidot.com/doc:treaties-diplomatic-agreements). It is by no means done, but I added a few details. Anyway, I would like it to eventually be possible to make something on par with federal governments out of the treaty system (by having conditions that allow modifications to the treaty itself when supported by a certain amount of listed nations). Potentially this type of thing could be used to elect representatives to vote of revisions to constitution and law code type treaties… Ya, it could get really complex. If the plan is implemented as such, multilevel representative federal governments would be possible to formally implement in game (as well as pretty much any other governmental/intranational structure)

I like the tax instead of destroy/capture idea, but it has some issues. Potentially we could enable to have that choice via treaties/triggers, but I don't see how making it the only option could really work.

Last edited on 17 Dec 2009 01:13 by tbg10101 + Show more

Re: Treaty Bonuses

Phenoca 24 Dec 2009 00:57

Thanks for the new treaties Doc! I'll give any applicable feedback there.

The key idea in my post above was that the more allies you have on a planet, the higher your boost to facility-production is. This forces players to form alliances.

Feel free to chew on my new idea also… Research Points :)
I really want to encourage pacifist gameplay features, because if everyone is trying to take over the galaxy… Only one person ends-up winning! Hmm, and I will chew on your ideas!

Last edited on 24 Dec 2009 00:57 by Phenoca + Show more

Re: Treaty Bonuses

Matt R 24 Dec 2009 08:17

The key idea in my post above was that the more allies you have on a planet, the higher your boost to facility-production is. This forces players to form alliances.

Again, we're trying to go for realistic gameplay. Adding random bonuses like that makes gameplay seem manipulatively designed. If there is a logical basis for adding a bonus like that, then we would consider it.

Like I said before, forming alliances is very advantageous for many reasons already, such as technological boosts from exposure to high-tech allies, economic boosts from trade agreements, and military boosts from cooperative defense agreements or joint offensive operations. There very little advantages for players who choose to pursue isolation, besides the obvious freedom to attack and take whatever they want, provided they have the power to do so.

The basic assumption I make is that since FG is a fairly obscure MMOG, people will mostly only play it if they are seeking a multiplayer experience, and so most players will naturally want to form alliances or make agreements. Most of the smaller MMOGs I have played are very big on alliances, even when there are no in-game incentives to make them.

Feel free to chew on my new idea also… Research Points :)

Again, increased exposure to high-tech allies will increase technological advancement.

It might be a good idea to add a diplomatic option to cooperatively work on certain technologies. This would be very simple, since it would simply add/compare the progress of involved nations with regard to certain technologies, as well as combine exposure levels, which could theoretically increase the rate of discovery. This could be a way for nations to cooperate on joint projects, which seems like something you would like to see.

if everyone is trying to take over the galaxy… Only one person ends-up winning!

Not necessarily true. I believe that if our game dynamic is accurately and realistically designed, a balance of power system will naturally form between the most powerful empires, with lesser empires acting as independents or client/vassal states.

Re: Treaty Bonuses

Phenoca 24 Dec 2009 15:41

This could be a way for nations to cooperate on joint projects, which seems like something you would like to see.

Yes!
I am not sure how realistic it is to get more resources by having to split-up the facilities between players. But this actually gives large alliances something to do. Ever played those games where your team can run-around shooting players, but one team decides that they are going to find a hiding spot and all camp there? The reason for the resource bonus is because it is a joint-project and everyone participating has an incentive to be involved in colonizing and defending one planet.

Re: Treaty Bonuses

Craig Macomber 26 Dec 2009 07:23

if everyone is trying to take over the galaxy… Only one person ends-up winning!

It has been a while since we solved that problem. It is one of the 2 main design problems for MMORTS games. You choose one of the solutions, and go from there (Soft capped size, or world resets). The other issue of course is online vs offline players. Solve those 2 problems, and you have a MMORTS design. I addressed both of them in your other thread. I guess we really should mention these issues and our solutions to them somewhere obvious in the game description. Oh, thats right, I added it to the gameplay description already (no sarcasm there, I actually forgot I updated that. It is worth a reread):

The goal of Fragmented Galaxy is to develop a powerful nation, what this means is left up to you. Generally the means of accomplishing this will be through optimizing your nation. It is a game of efficiency. The larger your nation grows, the higher the costs of maintaining it. There will come a point at which you can no longer continue to freely expand, and this will happen quickly. You will simply see your budget slowly get consumed by the various sectors of empirical maintenance as you grow and spread your forces and colonies across more colonies, planets and solar systems. To continue to expand, you will have to optimize, design your nation, and this is the strategy.¹

When you log off, your empire will continue to work toward your design, and follow your guidelines. Whether of not you are online at any given moment should have very little impact, as what matters is the status and design of your nation, not specific actions in combat. Any immediate reactionary actions that may wish to perform should be configurable through the triggers system. Generally you may want to login occasionally and check up on your nation and make adjustments as needed, though you may see it as a valid goal to make a powerful nation requiring minimal attention.²

Footnotes

1. Your goal as a player

2. Offline vs. Online in a persistent universe

Last edited on 26 Dec 2009 07:26 by Craig Macomber + Show more

Re: Treaty Bonuses

tbg10101 29 Dec 2009 06:30

if everyone is trying to take over the galaxy… Only one person ends-up winning!

Even if a player can manage to manipulate their economy to potentially support a galaxy-sized nation, don't forget that moderators can keep larger nations from decimating the rest of the players.

Re: Treaty Bonuses

Matt R 29 Dec 2009 08:48

don't forget that moderators can keep larger nations from decimating the rest of the players.

Ha, that reminds me of an old plan we came up with a while ago. Usually in online games abusive or otherwise troublesome players are normally punished, banned, etc, by some method outside of the game. In FG's storyline, Earth is said to be currently controlled by an advanced and mysterious race supposedly remnant from the ancient empires of the colonial wars.

One of our old plans was to have Earth actually exist in the game, and have us (the devs) control it. Earth would possess super advanced technology and ships more powerful than anything the players are capable of creating, though not impossible to kill. If a player is deemed troublesome in some way and needs to be punished, forced back into line, or just given a warning, a fleet from Earth could be dispatched to cause some havoc in their empire. If the player needs to be removed from the game, then Earth could send out a fleet to exterminate them.

In this way we can solve problems in-game in a way that is appropriate to the storyline and the environment of the game. In extreme cases, full account banning can be used after their empire is destroyed.

So, if someone was trying to take over the galaxy, Earth could simply declare war on them to reinstate a balance of power. Earth could also be used as a tool to communicate with the players within the game. Other games have instituted player "governments" whose leaders pass legislation that tells the devs what changes to the game they want made. Earth could be the leading nation in an "interplanetary republic" of sorts, where members could communicate directly with us what they want changed in the game.

Just a random thought which is probably not appropriate to this thread.

Re: Treaty Bonuses

Phenoca 30 Dec 2009 19:04

Oh, thats right, I added it to the gameplay description already (no sarcasm there,

Haha, thanks.
I hadn't considered "Whether of not you are online at any given moment should have very little impact," since… In all strategy games I play there are always orders to send once you realize that someone has declared war. Not sure how general that statement is meant to be, or how far-reaching the 'design of your nation' is :)
Good idea to quote the description.

One of our old plans was to have Earth actually exist in the game, and have us (the devs) control it.

Yeah I liked that plan. I recall someone mentioning that if Earth got the best technologies first (after a game update), then other players could try to copy it by fighting Earth.

Earth could be the leading nation in an "interplanetary republic" of sorts, where members could communicate directly with us what they want changed in the game.

It would be neat to see GM Support in-game (instead of on the website).