Diplomacy in Rebellion

It doesn't make it real obvious, but it's your faction not liking them that was causing you trouble.

I'm not sure why you can't decide to like whomever you feel like, since you are you know in charge of your faction, but you can't. The only way to get yourself to like them enough is to consantly request missions. Basically, request credits, then give hem back in an endless loop. It's way to endlessly compliated, getting them to like you s much easier than getting yourself to like them. 

Building to a ceasefire it a pita because you never know when they'll ruin your effort by jumping to one of your planets. Then getting to peace treaty seems almost like luck at times. After that though it gets much easier. At this point you can basically request endless credits and they'll finish the missions almost instantly. Do this to get yourself to like them, while parking an envoy at each of their planets so they'll like you. 

Ceasefire and Peace treaty each took me over an hour, from there I was able to get +20/+20 in only a few minutes w/all pacts following shortly.

We really need to be able to ser our own faction standings however we'd like.

Thanks for the explanation, now i get it. And i do not like it. As you said, i should be in charge of who do i want to ally, not the system with some random values. I understand the reason behind the system though. Against AI it seems only one value is needed, how they like you, but if there was another human player instead of AI, he needs to know, how much you like him.

Anyway, i think this whole point system needs to be removed and you should be able to offer AI anything you want at any point of the game (as long as you researched those things like that Interspieces communication or Pacts indeed). The Envoys, Missions and giving money to other player should be just the means to persuade the other player or AI to accept your offers, not generate some points, which allows you to offer these things. 

I mean, you play with AIs. You offer AI some treaty at the beginning of the game, before sending Envoys, giving money, doing missions... AI either accepts or not. If it does not, you send envoys, you give it money, you try to complete mission, if if gives you any. You offer the treaty again, again some harakiri computing takes place, where AI decides what to do, while taking those envoys, money and missions into account  decides for or against accepting. No numerical values  in the whole process for you to see or as prerequisites to actually offering any treaties or pacts needed at all.

If you play with humans, basically the same thing happen. You offer random guy treaty, lets say he refuses. So you try to convince him with money and stuff to see, if he would not change his mind.

Could it not work like this? Are all those numbers needed to deal with something not really that exact or rational as relationships anyway?

I think what the devs were trying to do was create a diplomacy that was a little more "people" oriented.  Think about it...the envoys help a particular planet, settlers abilities, and the like...I think that there were trying to get a more in depth feel to AI diplomacy.  making it harder to gain allies.  Obviously they succeeded.  i to think that they should create a input where you can "rate" the other factions, however, you shouldn't be able to just "like" another AI.  They should have to earn your people's respect.

I do think that it is a little to hard to offer a ceases-fire.  that should be relatively easy, especially sense "after years of war the factions turned to diplomacy."  if i had been at war for years, I should would want to create cease-fires with everyone.

What about tweaking the diplomacy in the game.  What if a cease-fire only required a 1.50 relationship factor, that way, if you are the same faction/sub-faction, you could get a cease fire quite quickly (if you implemented my idea for a "how i feel about you" bar).  But from there you need to show a real desire to be friends before you and the AI accept each other.

What are your thoughts about the "how I like you bar"?

Also, the envoys do have a diplomatic immunity ability, however it is not "all the time".  The ability last for a certain amount of time, then needs to cool down.  This should be changed to either a "all the time" ability or just increase the amount of time that the ability last for.  The envoy should not be able to be destroyed so quickly in my opinion.

your thoughts???

Yeah, i think Envoy should have the immunity all the time and to prevent its use as a indestructible scout in such casw it should be made far more expensive.

In regard to any "bars" and crapload of those relationship factors, as i said,at best they should affect AIs decision whether to accept your proposal or not, but not preventing you to offer it to them, if you wish to do so.

Actually, if there have to be any ratings, i would include some kind of espionage. You will have to research it first and once youll have it, you will get some basic info in the diplomatic window about other factions, number of their planets, income rates, etc... which will help you to decide, who to ally with or go into war against. This info could be against countered by researching some kind of espionage. The Envoys may take some part in the whole process as well.

Espionage would be interesting.  I haven't play Galactic Civilizations II in a while but it has a espionage part of the game that does exactly what you want...gives information about ship strength, planet info, ect.  I think that if espionage was to be added to the game that it should have its own research tree.  Espionage could help your influence spread either quicker or with more force.  It could also allow you to steal credits or even damage (destroy) enemy buildings (ships).  It would add another aspect to the game that would not only increase the appeal i think but also increase the benefits from diplomacy.

Thoughts anyone???

     Having the envoy with a limited time immunity is a good call in my opinion, indestructible scouts are bad, and to the thought of making them more expensive? I would pay a lot for indestructible scouts. I don't think you can make it to expensive for use as a scout, but cheap enough for use as an envoy. 

     I like showing us the numbers for all diplomacy relations, this way your not as frustrated as you were at the start of this post all the time. Numbers allow us to know what is happening. You cant have a game make decisions without numbers, unless you make it random, and random would not work here. I would rather see the numbers then not see them. 

     In regards to having to make sure your people like them, I agree with it, it makes it more realistic and plot relevant. An extreme example - if they have murdered x million people on your planets, your people would not be happy with you saying, Sure! Lets be friends and I will go and save your fleet and worlds from extermination! - Even considering at the start neither faction has 'done' anything to each other, your people still remember war for Years and years (before you start playing your game), with whole planets being bombed out of existence. Would you trust that the people who murdered that many civilians so easily? In addition, your leader has been giving away resources to these people and they have done nothing in return! 

     Now, I agree that this makes diplomacy more difficult, but that is how it should be after all this time. All sides have been monsters just waiting for the chance to murder unsuspecting children with nuclear bombs and their equivalents. Peace is something that is difficult after all.

    And on to espionage, ok I like the idea of this, but it would have to be later on I think, maybe sins 2.

both side need to have the right numbers... the AI can be at 20 but if you are at -5, you cannot make a treaty...

A easy way for increase your own numbers is to give mission to the AI... usually, i chose the mission type "give crystal/metal" at max level ( 1200 unit )... simply give the mission, give them 1200 crystal/metal, they give it back and your relation with them increase... best to make it early in the game, before your increase your fleet supply... there is a tax on the donation, both side... early, it can be zero percent tax, late game it can be over 75% tax...

Another way to help increase your faction's relations with another faction is to again offer them a mission, but give them a mission asking them to send you an envoy ship.  That way, if they do complete it, not only will relations increase for them doing what you asked, but now they have an envoy parked in your space earning the trust of your people.

Well, if your are befriend with rebels ( grey ship who stay at the border of your gravity weel and become more numerous with time) and he is not, these will always kill his envoy ship, making the mission a failure and lowering the relation level...

To ensure a faction you want to ally with stays allied you need envoys at five or six of their planets. Once you do that you have a friend for life, even if you reject all their missions

The thing is:

It´s harder now to build diplomatic relationships cause of the Rebel/Loyalist afiliation (between them u will always have a -5.00 diplomacy rating).

In trinity it was easy for me to have a Diplomacy Victory, but now... its damn hard and impossible!!!!!!!!

well, diplomatic victory was always a bit broken. I felt you could get to it too quick in Trinity.

However, I think there is some work to be done with it. For one thing, you'd think that if you were declared the Diplomatic Champion of the galaxy (assuming that's what is said when you win with a diplomatic victory), you should, at least have distributed a few pacts here and there. As it stands, you gain no more ground towards the diplomatic victory if you 1) have pacts, 2) research the tech tree past the point where you can offer missions and build the envoy 3) have lots of very good allies (seems 1 or 2 good allies is all you need).

Also, there's no way to prevent someone from winning via diplomatic victory. It's basically a timer that ticks faster depending on how much work you put into it.

What I would say is that your 'score' should go up from having lots of friends, and go down from having lots of enemies. Your rate gain should be higher if you have pacts and the higher tier pacts should be worth more. Destroying envoys should result in a point drain for the owner of the envoy.

The result: if you want to win by diplomatic victory, you have to have more allies and more pacts than your opponents. You should have few enemies. For the few enemies you do have, their plan of attack on you should be to take out your envoys and attack you (obviously would make your relations drop further, and result in the biggest drain on your points). It would also behoove your enemy to make his own friends and encourage them to do the same to you. Is this not what everyone would have expected diplomacy to be like?

One additional thing I would add, but it's not completely necessary: Culture should affect your relations/points. Again, this can be combated, and it makes sense that the dominant culture has the biggest diplomatic influence. Obviously, it should only have this affect when in presence of another players' system. I'm not sure which way makes the most sense. If it directly gave points, it might be preferred over making allies, and that would be bad. If it directly affected relations, envoys might lose their effectiveness even in non-diplomatic victory games. On the other hand... culture could have a negative affect. So, lets say I have the dominant culture, but I'm not so invested diplomatically. My culture maybe suppresses the diplomatic gains of other empires. Not alot, but it would then play a part. I dont know though, sounds a bit complicated, but I feel culture should play some part in the diplomatic victory since there's no 'culture victory' (which there so should be).

Or maybe just a rate bonus for having so much % culture?

Diplomatic Victory simply doesn't make sense, as no Human player would ever let another Human player win this way.  Occupy 'Orion' win?  Great idea, causes a King of the Hill scenario.  Tech win?  Sure, kind of like wonder wins in AoE - causing everyone to desperately rush the tech player in FFA games.  Win by being nice to everybody?  Oh hi, I break all my treaties with you and scrap my envoys.  It only works against AIs who don't understand you're about to win.  It was absolutely never used in Sins Diplomacy, and should probably just be scrapped.  It's also the most anti-climatic way to win a RTS.  Everyone likes me, so I win.  What?  I bet you also won using the Galactic Council win in MoO2, you wuss.

I wholeheartedly agree. I think the diplomacy parts of the game adds some nice things, like the trading alliances, ceasefires, pacts or the new stuff regarding neutral factions,pirates etc... but diplomatic victory was pointless from the start. As a human player, yes, you want to use diplomacy to give you some "breathing space" or to use some of those bonuses, which come with pacts or envoys, but i doubt anyone would want to win the game by amassing some diplomatic points, basically sending envoys and waiting for the needed amount of points to be met. So its IMHO not about about letting another human win this way, its about to not to want to win this way yourself at all. 

I can understand that viewpoint, but I have a few counter-ish points for you guys:

• First, if a game has been going on and now everyone realized you are close to diplomatic victory, it is fairly difficult to stop you from winning. As I said above, it's like a game timer. That said, I'm sure most people wouldn't let it get that far to begin with.
• Next, forget the goal of actually winning via diplomatic victory... It's actually really interesting to have backstabbing be encouraged by a game mechanic and yet there be so many obvious benefits to teaming up.
• I'm not sure what happens if 2 allied victors are set and someone hits the Diplomacy points victory threshold. Shouldn't both players win? I honestly don't know why diplomatic victory isn't set in the 5v5 locked games, as it will limit the length of the game fairly well, assuming someone goes for it. And I'd think a 10 player FFA with unlocked teams would be interesting.
• The idea, I think, for diplomatic victory was that someone who goes down the civil trees has a victory condition. I think there should be a lot more ways to win (all toggle-able, like the current game modes). Let's get one for achieving a 75% galactic culture percentage or something. 
• I really think the whole thing could be made more sensible by better distributing points. In my opinion, currently, the reasons you receive a point do not correspond with what the player thinks he should get points for, and then there's no way to lose points or directly stop a player from getting points.
• Not every game mode needs to be multiplayer-geared. They could make it work in single player only or something.

A very simple solution could be to have an option that sets how complicated the diplomacy is- Basic (pre diplomacy with pacts and that stuff) and Advanced (What it is now.) 

Naturally, with Basic on, Diplomatic Victory would be disabled. Personally, im too interested in trying to turn the enemy on themselves (i remember a particular pre patch one.. Secrets? That was great, since it was a single lane down the middle of  the map, and i just got the ally at the back to ceasefire with me, and it was game over.)

But uh... yeah. Id like it if it was simply toggle able.