Hereno Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 this mechanic would give each nation a fictional "national reputation" rating, representing how other nations see them on the international stage it would range from 0 to 100: 01-20: Axis of Evil 21-40: Rogue State 41-60: Neutral 61-80: Positive Influence 81-100: Beacon of Hope each stage would have various mechanics that would impact nations. at 1 reputation, a nation might get 10% less income than normal; whereas at 100 reputation, it might get a production boost of 5% the idea being that this mechanic then becomes a tool by which to enforce the morality of the world on nations: it accurately represents that there are real consequences for offending public opinion, regardless of "government type" things that can lower reputation: declaring wars: drop by 5 for every war declared espionage: drop by 2 if you are caught using nuclear weapons: drop by 20 for every nuke used things that can raise reputation: time: chilling out will make your reputation go up by 1 per day winning wars: winning a war will gain you back 3 reputation points 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shellhound Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Most people want to see more wars, this suggestion would give yet another reason to prevent alliance wars from happening. I just don't necessarily see it adding anything to the game besides a realism aspect, which, imo, has no place when deciding what to add to the game. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted February 8, 2015 Author Share Posted February 8, 2015 what if we made it so that declaring on someone with a low reputation gained you reputation points, rather than lowering them? the idea behind this is to limit raiding: it takes a significant amount of wars - including many losing wars - to actually drop reputation substantially that only occurs when you're a raider who gets into trouble and gets smacked around. it insulates the losers in war from having their reputations damaged, but it can eventually serve as a mechanic that will induce victors to peace out sooner rather than later the result being a faster war cycle. wars end quickly with basis in game mechanics: because it is actually against the victor's interest to significantly beat down an opponent. it raises the threshold for that sort of behavior, making it a lot more special and purposeful i think this is something that benefits everybody in the long-term 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shellhound Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Hmm, that makes a lot more sense imo. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about it though it doesn't necessarily seem like a bad idea now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRBOOTY Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Most people want to see more wars, this suggestion would give yet another reason to prevent alliance wars from happening. I just don't necessarily see it adding anything to the game besides a realism aspect, which, imo, has no place when deciding what to add to the game. The idea is good though, just maybe not the mechanics If we could find a good way of polling international opinion, that would fix this It does add realism, and it could work well But you're right that we shouldn't base it on declaring war, lest we want noone to be shell(ed) Maybe there could be an option if someone declared on you that says "challenge to the international community" And if the international community decides against one's case, their reputation goes down by a certain quantity? We could have polls here, to liven up the forums And there could be other mechanisms too, to help fill the reputation quorums I don't know, this might be a tough idea to create But if you ask me, it's good enough that it warrants debate Quote MR BOOTY IN DA HOUSE http://i.imgur.com/R5WWAB1.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niklaus Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 I could learn to bear it, if it were implemented. Not a bad idea on paper. Can't say whether it will work well or not, in practice. Quote Blood of a king. Heart of a lion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur James Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) I disagree...using "war" as a form of definition is a bad term....if suggesting defensive or agressive war to define what the person is.....maybe fine to that Edited February 8, 2015 by Arthur James Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailor Jerry Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 I sort of like the idea. As for the warring aspect......for aggressors, if they attack nations that are lower then they are, give them a negative rep which is based proportional to difference in the gap of the scores.....the bigger the gap, the bigger the negative. Now if the aggressor attacks a larger nation, then the opposite. A positive rep would be gained.....the bigger the score gap, the bigger the positive. Any defending nation should always get a positive rep for winning a war, but make it based on the score differential between the two nations. If the defender is the much bigger nation, then they would get a rather small positive rep, but if the defending nation is much smaller, then the defender would get a much larger positive rep. Not sure about the issuing of rep in other areas. The nuke idea is good idea I think, not sure about other negative ones though. As for positive ones, I'm not sure either, maybe by activity level? Some mechanic for logging in everyday like the $10k bonus. I like the idea of a positve rep for donating stuff, like giving aid, but I'm sure how that would work or could be tracked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anneal Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 things that can lower reputation: declaring wars: drop by 5 for every war declared espionage: drop by 2 if you are caught using nuclear weapons: drop by 20 for every nuke used things that can raise reputation: time: chilling out will make your reputation go up by 1 per day winning wars: winning a war will gain you back 3 reputation points Regular missiles should decrease reputation as well; in fact using them should be –20, and Nuclear Weapons should be –50. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashland Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Quote ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ [10:47] you used to be the voice of irc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Alex Posted February 8, 2015 Administrators Share Posted February 8, 2015 I like the idea, just without the bonuses tied in. Why not just make it a fun "roleplay" type mechanic, with no actual bearing on how successful your nation is? 3 Quote Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest ItForums Rules | Game Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adama Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 You can't put a penalty on nations for going to war, and then expect the game politics to survive in the long term. 2 Quote If you can dodge a wrench, you can dodge a roll. There is one you will follow. One who is the shining star, and he will lead you to beautiful places in the search of his own vanity. And when there is no more vanity to be found, he will leave you in darkness, as a fading memory of his own creation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ezg Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 We could also add bonuses for being in negative reputation so that this benefits raiders too. For example, 100 reputation gives you 5 percent income while 0 reputation give you 5 percent less military upkeep or something like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atzuya Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Can we get bonus military strength as our reputation dips lower? That would be awesome 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurdanak Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Can we get bonus military strength as our reputation dips lower? That would be awesome I was thinking that, too. Econ benefits for a high rep and military benefits for a low rep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shellhound Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Regular missiles should decrease reputation as well; in fact using them should be –20, and Nuclear Weapons should be –50.!@#$ that noise. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted February 10, 2015 Author Share Posted February 10, 2015 there could be a spy operation to tarnish another nation's reputation or allow us to send each other diplomatic insults Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jefferson Davis III Posted February 12, 2015 Share Posted February 12, 2015 I kind of like this idea, maybe there should also be some influence on reputation that comes from your policies! YES, that could be a big factor, finally policies would have a real purpose, to actually influence your reputation, but the reputation from your policies would have to have only bonuses but give bonuses to different areas. I do think the mechanics would have to be worked out, but I like the idea of reputation. Quote "Head-shots for days" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taureg Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 What's next? Permission slips, Conduct Committees, Public Flogging if you don't play the game by certain accepted standards? How about we just let people play the game without constantly trying to devise ways to force them into "conforming" to someone else's notion of what the game is. "the idea behind this is to limit raiding:" Just get Sheepy to do away with raiding in the game. Your problem will be solved. The horrors of raiding will be eliminated, we'll be one step closer to cloning all players, another step closer to eliminating both politics and war from the game, and another step closer to the dream of renaming the game Pixel Empires. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malice Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Would be best as a flavour only fame/infamy thing. I don't think there is ever any need to reward abstaining from warfare in a 'Politics and War' game.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buck Turgidson Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Uh, don't want to state the obvious, but if we want to encourage alliance wars, maybe this mechanic could work in reverse (and a slightly less US-centric scale): 01-20: Bacon of Hope (bacon is SO much better) 21-40: Wuss 41-60: Neutral 61-80: Rogue State 81-100: Axis of Good Let's face it - in RL the nations who are the best at war are the "good guys"... And if you really stand aside from war, you are basically bacon. Quote Are you originally from Earth, too? Proud owner of Harry's goat. It's mine now. I now own MinesomeMC's goat, too. It's starting to look like a herd. Yep, it is a herd. Aldwulf has added his goat, too, and it ain't Irish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atzuya Posted February 14, 2015 Share Posted February 14, 2015 If you can get bonus military strength as your reputation goes down to the sink, this thing will actually buff up raiders instead of limiting their movements. Sure, they will lose like $30,000 daily revenue, but now they get to have stronger soldiers, which means more raiding money for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.