Return to “General”

Post

Faction-Worker Interaction

#1
I have been wondering why a player/npc/overlord will join a faction.

With the distinction between workers/serfs and players/overlords, having a faction doesn't seem as useful since, at some point, one player could easily have enough workers to control multiple systems. The only major possibility that I can think of is for players to group together to fight a player like the previous, but after they succeed, does the faction disband?

I currently cannot think of any reason beyond that to even have factions when you really don't need other player help. Are there any other reasons why a faction would be needed?
An idea that is not dangerous is unworthy of being called an idea at all. - Oscar Wilde

We often refuse to accept an idea merely because the tone of voice in which it has been expressed is unsympathetic to us. - Friedrich Nietzsche
Post

Re: Faction-Worker Interaction

#2
Kekasi wrote:I have been wondering why a player/npc/overlord will join a faction.

With the distinction between workers/serfs and players/overlords, having a faction doesn't seem as useful since, at some point, one player could easily have enough workers to control multiple systems. The only major possibility that I can think of is for players to group together to fight a player like the previous, but after they succeed, does the faction disband?

I currently cannot think of any reason beyond that to even have factions when you really don't need other player help. Are there any other reasons why a faction would be needed?

Well there is a problem with you assessment in that, in its current iteration, LT is going to be single-player.

I prefer the analogy LT = Mount & Blade in space (except without the "You must become king and unite this land plot line"

You as the player are in a universe that is already running, and there are NPC's that are vying for power, wealth, resources, etc. either by working together in a cohesive unit called a "Faction" or the NPC can work on his own and try to achieve his own aims by working and doing missions much like the player would. There isn't a built-in distinction between a "worker" and a "commander", that was only shown that way in the recent Dev Update because Josh hasn't coded the NPCs to the point where they can make decisions for themselves or make missions for themselves to complete. Instead you saw a couple NPCs making a mining and trade mission and a bunch of other NPCs completing those trade orders, ostensibly for their own personal benefit.

I don't quite understand how running a faction as one player or "the boss" would not "seem useful" because in order for you to control multiple systems you would have to have those NPCs working for you which, in effect, would create a Faction. Again I think this is because your argument is running on a multi-player line of thought.

But there will also be NPC factions out there that won't want your faction to succeed, here you will find a Faction is quite useful because there is strength in numbers and there is quality in being able to attack/ defend as a team.
Post

Re: Faction-Worker Interaction

#3
Raytheon wrote:Well there is a problem with you assessment in that, in its current iteration, LT is going to be single-player.

There isn't a built-in distinction between a "worker" and a "commander", that was only shown that way in the recent Dev Update because Josh hasn't coded the NPCs to the point where they can make decisions for themselves or make missions for themselves to complete. Instead you saw a couple NPCs making a mining and trade mission and a bunch of other NPCs completing those trade orders, ostensibly for their own personal benefit.
I apologize for my ambiguous descriptions of npcs and the player. I was basing it on the April 6th dev post:
JoshParnell wrote: . . .
To explain how this will work, consider LT to be like a multiplayer RTS. Were that the case, you would have a concept of your units, as well as a concept of the other players. You might use your resources to build new units, which can fight, mine, spread creep, etc :P Are your units alive? Sure. But your control over them is direct. You tell them to move, they move. You tell them to attack, they attack. They do so because they are 'low-detail' living entities. They might do some pathfinding and obstacle avoidance, they might try to dodge enemy fire, they may even try to automatically use abilities and weaponry as effectively as possible. But are they going to go rogue? No. Do you pretty much know how they're going to behave? Yep.

Now look at the other players. Similarly to you, they have units. They have resources. Can you control them directly? No. But might you be able to work with them to accomplish something? Sure. You say "hey, I'll pay you 1000 gold to make sure I get from A to B safely." If they accept, you don't know exactly what they'll do. You can't grab their units and control them as you can your own, yet you know that the other player is going to work to protect you. You see their units escorting you. You know that if a threat presents itself, they will respond appropriately to deal with it. They are a high-detail entity, making their own choices and managing their own units, and when you work with them, you are working on a goal-oriented (equivalently, job-oriented) basis, unlike when you work with your own units, wherein you are working on an action-oriented basis.

This is exactly the distinction that we will make in LT. We will view the world as being inhabited by low-detail personnel - let's call them, for the sake of the devlog, workers, and high-detail personnel - let's call them players. Your ship is staffed with workers. You have workers in your research lab, grinding out new technologies. Workers may control your turrets. But when you accept a mission, it is coming from a fellow player. If you want precise control over your fleet, you hire/buy workers. If you want someone else to help you make something happen, but you don't want to acquire and control the assets yourself, you hire other players (aka NPCs, despite the confusing terminology :D ).
. . .
I was using Josh's definition of player as a thinking/planning entity and worker/serf as the acting/working entity.


Raytheon wrote:I don't quite understand how running a faction as one player or "the boss" would not "seem useful" because in order for you to control multiple systems you would have to have those NPCs working for you which, in effect, would create a Faction.

But there will also be NPC factions out there that won't want your faction to succeed, here you will find a Faction is quite useful because there is strength in numbers and there is quality in being able to attack/ defend as a team.
With the previous separation, I don't really see a need for more than one thinking entity, unless there are too many workers to control, which may actually show the eventual need for factions, but I would love the option to control a massive power base by myself regardless of the amount of micro-management needed.
An idea that is not dangerous is unworthy of being called an idea at all. - Oscar Wilde

We often refuse to accept an idea merely because the tone of voice in which it has been expressed is unsympathetic to us. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests

cron