|
|
Post by tarquelne on Apr 27, 2019 11:13:07 GMT -5
I suggest that some player actions cause a Rep loss among multiple, even all, factions.
The one that comes most readily to mind - perhaps the only one that deserves this treatment - is destroying a Merchant ship when there’s no Conflict involved.
I find that hard to write off as Faction-conflict-as-usual. You’re not acting like the relatively genial, permit-obeying privateers who style themselves “Pirates.” Greasing a law abiding merchant outside the framework of a sanctioned Conflict strikes me as real black-hearted-corsair, Crimes Against Humanity stuff. It makes your faction look bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by drspendlove on Apr 27, 2019 11:38:12 GMT -5
Eh. That implies a greater sense of universal caring than I think the factions possess.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarquelne on Apr 27, 2019 11:50:26 GMT -5
Eh. That implies a greater sense of universal caring than I think the factions possess. When you’re not just robbing and ransoming, but indiscriminately destroying expensive starships and the merchant traders, I think all they need to care about is thier own bottom line. I think that’s what’d make blowing up ships suddenly seem a universal-ill. It could be that individual starships and traders are more insignificant than I think, but the idea behind the faction accords seems to be too keep the conflicts from doing lasting material damage, where even the Solar Wars have rules that sharply limit damage. Having everyone but the individual faction harmed OK with blowing up merchants outside a Conflict strikes me as not just against the spirit of the accords, but (worse) very short sighted. |
|
|
|
Post by grävling on Apr 27, 2019 12:03:02 GMT -5
1. But your honour, though he said he was a merchant, I knew he was a spy ...
2. From a pirate's point of view, the proper behaviour of a merchant is to always halt and deliver cargo. If they decide to do anything else, they have marked themselves for death. Once word gets out that this is how I treat merchants who aren't quick to settle, the rest of them will knuckle under and start behaving properly.
|
|
|
|
Post by tarquelne on Apr 27, 2019 20:33:37 GMT -5
Any penalty might only kick in with the Second Founding, or only with the new alliance contacts.
Give a bit more of a “Wild West” feel before unification, a little less after.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brutus Aurelius on Apr 27, 2019 21:20:20 GMT -5
Remember that most of those Merchants are Star Traders, who don't legally have any Faction citizenship.
I could see helping the Hunna, or not destroying a Xeno ship after a victory drop Rep will all Factions tho
|
|
|
|
Post by resistor on Apr 27, 2019 21:49:53 GMT -5
Remember that most of those Merchants are Star Traders, who don't legally have any Faction citizenship. I could see helping the Hunna, or not destroying a Xeno ship after a victory drop Rep will all Factions tho What would be the purpose of not destroying a xeno ship? |
|
|
|
Post by tarquelne on Apr 28, 2019 7:55:18 GMT -5
Remember that most of those Merchants are Star Traders, who don't legally have any Faction citizenship. Perhaps we should get a reputation bonus for destroying them. But looking at the Lore book it seems that the Factions, while often having an uneasy relationship with the Traders, do find them useful. It’s not only because of law and tradition that they don’t slaughter the Traders. Given that - that the Traders contribute to the general welfare - I think the factions would frown upon someone killing off the Traders most useful as a class, the Merchants. Just “frown on” ... a rep loss. I don’t think the Traders would be happy about it either. The official Conflicts are limited both by rules and in time. Some yahoo appearing out of the Void and not just robbing Traders but destroying them, even when there’s no Conflict? That’s what Xeno do. I think the Traders really wouldn’t like it, and would put pressure on the factions to curtail it. They’re not going to be able to get a police force formed. However, they could have enough pull to get “heinous” piracy frowned upon ... a rep loss. Trying to put myself in the shoes of a Faction authority: a Trader flying around and “indiscriminately” destroying Merchants seems like a threat to trade, and thus my bottom line. They might also piss off/frighten away the hereditary enemies I happen to be trying to cut a deal with ATM. I’m not going to declare war on the “heinous” pirate ... not unless they engage in a prolonged attack on my faction. But they’re rocking the boat, and they seem to have forgotten it’s my boat. I frown on that. Finally, working from first principles: Goverments desire a monopoly on violence ... for lots of reasons, almost all of them self-serving. The Factions seem inured to the necessity of sharing this monopoly with each other. It’s in thier interest to share it with cooperating traders during conflicts. I see no reason, however, for them to be anything other than tetchy about sharing it with a Star Trader destroying useful ships when a faction hasnt given the OK. I shouldn’t have been so flip in the OP. While I think “black hearted piracy” and “crimes against humanity” would be the official party line, the Factions would be, as always, motivated by self interest. |
|
|
|
Post by Brutus Aurelius on Apr 28, 2019 8:51:32 GMT -5
Remember that most of those Merchants are Star Traders, who don't legally have any Faction citizenship. Trying to put myself in the shoes of a Faction authority: a Trader flying around and “indiscriminately” destroying Merchants seems like a threat to trade, and thus my bottom line. They might also piss off/frighten away the hereditary enemies I happen to be trying to cut a deal with ATM. I’m not going to declare war on the “heinous” pirate ... not unless they engage in a prolonged attack on my faction. But they’re rocking the boat, and they seem to have forgotten it’s my boat. I frown on that. That's when the Military starts shooting on sight, or the Contacts that you are interfering with send Bounty Hunters. Attacking a Merchant, stealing their fuel and cargo, and shattering the Hull leaves you with enough Rep Loss that, assuming 0 Rep before the encounter, you're going to lose access to Starport services, suffer from increased hostility from that Faction's ships, and make it harder to work with their Contacts. |
|
|
|
Post by tarquelne on Apr 28, 2019 10:58:02 GMT -5
That's when the Military starts shooting on sight, or the Contacts that you are interfering with send Bounty Hunters. Attacking a Merchant, stealing their fuel and cargo, and shattering the Hull leaves you with enough Rep Loss that, assuming 0 Rep before the encounter, you're going to lose access to Starport services, suffer from increased hostility from that Faction's ships, and make it harder to work with their Contacts. Because economies tend to be interdependent things, I believe that destroying Merchants is, to some small degree, interfering with every Contact and thus, to some small degree, there should be a rep penalty. Maybe there are so many Star Traders, or ships are so cheap, that individual Star Traders really are more tolerated rather valued. If so, then rep losses would be fractions of a point and not really worth tracking. If not, though, realistically there should be a penalty. I mean, heck, if a faction is supposed to be in charge of a system or quadrant and you come along and blow up a Merchant you’re making that Faction look weak - they can’t protect shipping. They’d rather you went elsewhere. “Frown upon”. What I’m proposing could be seen simply as an extension of the Rep bonus you get with the local faction for destroying a Pirate. Rather than a point for eliminating a criminal on thier turf, you lose a point for eliminating someone, who is to some degree, under thier protection. The game has no underlying economic model that’d allow a quadrant’s economy to be wrecked by sufficient ... I’ll call it “egregious piracy” as layed out up above. However, the Contacts model does allow for the Contact influence to be influenced by economic factors (imposed by Rumors), and the Contacts system allows Contacts to respond to threats. Rep is one of the ways they respond. I get that the factions are self serving. I get that they take steps to respond when Traders displease them. At this point I think I’ve done all I can to outline why egregious Merchant destruction would displease a self-serving faction. |
|
|
|
Post by Brutus Aurelius on Apr 28, 2019 11:28:10 GMT -5
Because economies tend to be interdependent things, I believe that destroying Merchants is, to some small degree, interfering with every Contact and thus, to some small degree, there should be a rep penalty. Maybe there are so many Star Traders, or ships are so cheap, that individual Star Traders really are more tolerated rather valued. If so, then rep losses would be fractions of a point and not really worth tracking. If not, though, realistically there should be a penalty. I think you are overestimating the role of Star Traders in the overall economy. Every settled world is self sufficient, though like all economies there are goods that they demand in large quantities and goods they produce in excess. Star Traders buying and selling goods are independent operators taking advantage of those economic conditions, and of the prices and availability/demand set by the Prince that rules the local system. When a Prince declares a Surplus, they are essentially saying they want to offload a lot of goods for whatever reason, and when they declare a Shortage, it is essentially declaring that they want a high value order of whatever materials filled.
One Star Trader Captain doesn't have a very significant effect over most of the system wide economies. One could argue that Tradeways rely more heavily on Star Trader traffic, but the bulk of their trade is still going to be Faction vessels moving goods around, rather than independent Merchants. (And I use Faction and Independent here as relating solely to the status of the Captain as a Star Trader or not).
Pirate Fleet rumors are an exception, as they denote a large group of corsairs working in loose coordination to disrupt merchant traffic and economic activity. As for individual Contacts, Rep changes and sending out Death Warrants on you are about the only ways they can directly harm a Star Trader, due to their mobility and different legal status.
As just one example of this legal seperation, the Death Courts that issue Warrants during a Duel of Assassins does not consider cases against Star Trader Captains.
|
|
|
|
Post by contributor on Apr 28, 2019 12:37:43 GMT -5
I think I agree with the overall idea. Trade is the life blood of a civilisation, especially one that is named after Traders. Wantonly destroying merchants would be a major blow to the wealth of multiple stakeholders and I think every faction would want to do something to disincentivize this type of behavior. The way things are now, I would really expect merchants to always travel in convoy with military ships to provide safety.
The current system also isn't reciprocal, which is something the Treses have touted as a high value. I have yet to lose a trading captain when defeated by a pirate because he decided that our ship was worth more in scrap than the damage to his reputation. So essentially the player is doing things that no other captain out there would ever do. Sounds pretty heinous to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by drspendlove on Apr 28, 2019 13:24:48 GMT -5
Hmm, I'd prefer the approach that particularly hostile pirates outright destroy your vessel if it is mostly intact, to collect scrap. Then it'll be mirrored, but probably not in the direction y'all were hoping.
|
|
