Idea for Home World Councils

I think I have seen someone post this idea elsewhere on the Rebellion forum before, and this might be you. I still don't think this idea is a strong one, for the player already has a lot on his plate in the game.

You do make it sound nice though, but I don't think there should be severe penalties if you fail those council missions. In some situations, the last thing you want is to lose allegiance on an important planet that is already struggling to survive while a lot of hostile culture is spreading towards it. Would be really stupid to lose a planet because of a council mission failure.

"Missions" already often feel quite stupid or pointless when an allied AI player or something (or the AI controlling this council) tells the player to carry out some mission which is clearly not a good idea for the team. If a player is failing to build defenses on some world, or doesn't want to take some neutral world, it'd probably for a very good reason.

When the AI tries to order you around, it seriously detracts from the "feel" of being a player in control in the game when you have to go and carry out "missions" which are often unnecessary if not downright stupid. Adding another mission-giving entity like the one you mention would not help the game IMO.

@ Teun-A-Roonius, no it was not me, i'm new here on the forum.

...Anyways, thank you guys for giving your feedbacks. Sometimes when you have an idea, you do not always think about all the drawbacks it can bring along. you guys are thinking outside the box, and thanks to your comments, I now realize that this can easily ruin a game, especially if the AI sucks at giving missions.

Well, i guess that what is an interesting feature in one game is not necessarily as good for another.

No problem! Remember that it is always a good thing to post your ideas on the forums, for other people might build on the ideas posted here or think of new ideas after reading them. Keep up the good thinking!

potentially, this could be implemented in such a way that it would not detract from the current game play.

Option 1. It could simply be a toggle-able setting in the game options (I'm all for toggles in game options so every person can play how they want to play, but with default "tournament settings" for the MP crowd). 

Option 2.  Have a non-intrusive "council" window in-game (maybe in one of the diplomacy windows) where you can take on missions offered and enable/disable audio and text messages regarding these missions.  If you never go to this window to accept a mission, there will be no penalty.  To make it more interesting, they could be purchased contracts so the only penalty to not completing a mission is the money you put down to get it. 

Either way, something like this could make the penalty/reward techs in the diplomacy tree viable even in a 1v1 (if adjusted to account for this new mechanic), and provide more options on what to research when.

you know, i think its a great idea. simply have it like that but no penalty for a failed mission. altho considering that since these missions are technically based on empire growth, i think it would be better to leave them out becus the first thing on every players mind is "i need to build my economy, then defenses, then kick some alien ass" and adding the missions may just complicate things.

There's already an almost overwhelming amount of stuff to do (in competitive games at least) without another feature like this one.

Dont forget that not everyone plays multiplayer... I for one do not.

I think they could improve the artifact system. Right now its not worthwhile searching for them.

As a toggle and with some balancing, I could see this system working. It produced a love/hate relationship with me in the TW series. That's good in a sense cause building an empire is hard. Keeping it is harder. The toggle serves both teh SP and MP community, as it allows the game to be played without. Expanding the Diplo tree might also be fun with this new option.

The purchased contracts I especially like because you're choosing to take on the mission and, if successful, have the extra incentive. And yes, you only lose what you put into it, such as the cost of the contract and resources applied to its achievement. Again, can toggle or be ignored and the Diplo tree can be expanded in a non-intrusive fashion.

I think artifacts should be improved. Making them stronger is certainly an option, but there is also the choice of making them affect more than one aspect of gameplay.

If the AI weren't so stupid, seems great.  The AI is so stupid in SOASE that if you are playing AI, 2v2v2v2 and forget to lock teams, your teammate -being an idiot AI- will sometimes refuse to help they made a treaty with the very empire that is besieging your world WHERE THEY ARE!  Your teammate might also siege your planet and attack your fleets, but let your enemies flow right through.

I'm not sure we can hold the AI accountable for times when the player forgets to lock teams. I mean, the AI is not smart by any means, but it's certainly not expected to pick up the slack for a player's mistakes.

Still, you've made the point that you don't trust the AI council. The contracts idea still works. And even if you went with the council, you would simply have to improve the AI, which can be done if the devs are dedicated to the proposition.

While I think missions can be very useful in providing structure to a new player's game, there is always the feel that you're in some sort of binding contract you never agreed to.

I was just playing Anno 2070 the other day, got a mission I didn't want to do, ignored it, and was sent back a soundbite that when something along the lines of "You lying cheat!"

I mean, I never agreed to anything. How am I a liar or a cheat?

It really should go something like "If you have the time, we'd be really like you to get this done. There's money in it for you if you do, but no real consequence if you don't."

That always seemed like something you'd ask the supreme ruler of your nation, not "DO THIS OR I THROW A HISSY FIT."

So long as the mission giver is capable of respect and civility, I'm for domestic missions.

Otherwise, it is a firm negatory.

I think there should be more artifacts in each game generally. Right now you need to have a map with about 100 planets to get all artifacts in the game. That simply sucks. If they would make it one artifact per 3 planets on average, you would need a map with only 36 planets to get all the artifacts into the game. Would be a lot cooler in my opinion.

it may be a lot cooler, but if you have duplicates then u may only get half the artifacts but with doubles of some of them. and finding an artifact every 3 planets seems a bit low, i do agree it does take a crapload of planets to find em all, but i think every 6 planets planets with no duplicates is more reasonable.

Signed,

       Trade Emergency Coalition Advanced Research Facility (TEC-ARF)

I have never found the same artifact twice on a map. I didn't know that was even possible!

The Stardock people did not enable signatures like these on their forums for a reason. They're obnoxious, unnecessary, and add nothing of value.

Also, it's the "Trader Emergency Coalition" rather than the "Trade Emergency Coalition."

ok ill stop the signature, but if u have a map large enof (just make a rigged one) just use "Huge Multi" and make urself the only player, if u go far enof, and even then u can find the same one twice in the same solar system, and u WILL find 2 of the same.