Respect and Fear in Multiplayer?

[MatThePhat]

Howdy, I've been checking out the info for the rising tide expansion and I was wondering if the new diplomacy system affects human players in multiplayer.

I'm imagining respect and Fear would still be calculated the same based on trait similarity and military regardless of how the human actually feels. Therefore, the stuff about needing a certain respect/fear to reach a certain attitude (cooperative, etc) and the effects that attitude has on diplomatic capitol trades would probably stay in too.

If that's the case, the roleplayer in me is excited, because it provides a mechanical incentive for human players to actually work with civs that are like you and dislike those that are different instead of acting with sociopathic pragmatism.

However, I don't know if anyone has heard anything about pushing these changes to multiplayer or not.

 

[Tagma]

I hope someone has an answer to that question!
I do like the thought of a system that rewards less "sociopathic pragmatism." I almost never finish my Civ5 games because I can never bring myself to declare war on a nation that's been my friend since the bronze age...

 

[AriochIV]

I'm guessing, but I would expect that as with previous behavior-altering diplomatic actions (such as Favors and Intrigue), Respect and Fear will probably have no effect on other human players.

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

I "fear" it will have no effect. Because it represents the fear/respect of the leader I assume, which is the player. But if it represented the populations thought, then it could have affected the players actions by negative modifiers (like health) if the player neglected the general opinion of his population.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

But the thing is they cannot not edit it.

In base game of Civ 5 you could never make a DoF with a human AI but once it begun to have an effect (what was it, Research Agreement requiring DoFs?) then they added it as a "trade option"

And given the fact that old DIplomacy system is out the window I hope that the humans can partake in this sort of "game" since I will get very frustrated with Firaxis continuing to downgrade the MP experience between human players when the features they've built have an effect on the game!

 

[Amrunril]

From what we've seen so far, fear/respect is a one-sided mechanic. To agree to cooperation/alliance, the AI needs to fear or respect the human players, but the human player doesn't need to fear or respect the AI in any mechanical sense. This makes it seem extremely unlikely that this system will act as a constraint on human-human relations.

I think that this is probably the right choice design-wise. The fear/respect system makes some sense for giving the AIs personality, but between human players it would seem like an arbitrary constraint on diplomatic choices. The diplomatic capital cost of cooperation/alliance deals already serves the function of forcing you to be somewhat selective with your diplomatic relationships, and the fact that they're more likely to have agreements you want provides an incentive to cooperate with players with similar playstyles.

 

[x2Madda]

But the thing is they cannot not edit it.
-snip-

This is true, since we are lead to believe the old diplomacy system is completely removed.
If they leave it the same old system for MP...Well...

 

[poom3619]

Human like to know what AI thinks and would like a "honest" person that act in expected way and quantify their thought. Some complains when AI act friendly for most of the game and suddenly declare war.

Human wouldn't expect the same from another human, and don't want to restrained their option by number.

Yeah, Right.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

From what we've seen so far, fear/respect is a one-sided mechanic. To agree to cooperation/alliance, the AI needs to fear or respect the human players, but the human player doesn't need to fear or respect the AI in any mechanical sense. This makes it seem extremely unlikely that this system will act as a constraint on human-human relations.

I think that this is probably the right choice design-wise. The fear/respect system makes some sense for giving the AIs personality, but between human players it would seem like an arbitrary constraint on diplomatic choices. The diplomatic capital cost of cooperation/alliance deals already serves the function of forcing you to be somewhat selective with your diplomatic relationships, and the fact that they're more likely to have agreements you want provides an incentive to cooperate with players with similar playstyles.

So do you think , assuming the different relation levels are in multiplayer, will just have "hey bud, wanna be allies on Turn 1?"

Because different relationship levels means bigger or smaller bonuses to the agreements, as far as I know if you are Allied you get better bonuses to your agreements with that sponsor.

 

[MatThePhat]

So I agree it seems unlikely that they would prevent you from allying with another human for any reason (as interesting as that would be from an rp perspective). However, do you think they will also remove the effect respect and fear have on the trait trading (specifically the balances)? It seems pretty integral to that whole system

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[Stringer1313]

Purely because cooperativeness actually has a real impact on things, there does need to be some constraint on them in human interactions. I agree they should leave the existing system in place, and just say that it is the "people" who respect/fear you rather than the leader, and create unique dialogue for that. Seems like the easiest fix.

Alternatively, they can provide an option for humans to remove that constraint, but then your cooperation deals are always going to remain at the base level.

Another idea would be to have all human cooperation deals start at base level, but increase in level depending on # of turns the agreement has been in place.

 

[MatThePhat]

To expand, I do like the idea of restricting alliances and war based on respect and fear from an RP perspective. The lack of Casus Belli in the civ games has always felt off. As well, it would lend huge gravitose to many of my decisions. Maybe picking up some of those worthless traits is valuable if it means Mr. VonWarMaker over there has to spend more diplomatic capital and have a harder time of attacking me. As well, it might make it actually possible to win a multiplayer game by going builder for once.

Of course, would it make for better gameplay? Maybe, but it would require a level of care and fine-tuning that would probably be better spent elsewhere. I don't know, maybe this would be better as a mod or something for us RP freaks out there.

 

[Amrunril]

So do you think , assuming the different relation levels are in multiplayer, will just have "hey bud, wanna be allies on Turn 1?"

Because different relationship levels means bigger or smaller bonuses to the agreements, as far as I know if you are Allied you get better bonuses to your agreements with that sponsor.

It now costs diplomatic capital to enter into cooperation or alliance (this wasn't the case in the first diplomacy preview, but it's been added as of the most recent livestream). This means you need to weigh the benefits of advancing your relationship against all of the other things you can do with that capitol. Making alliances with other players to enhance agreement yields will presumably be a strong strategy in multiplayer, and it will likely be more prevalent there than in single player, but the diplomatic capitol cost should stop it from being immediate or automatic.

Purely because cooperativeness actually has a real impact on things, there does need to be some constraint on them in human interactions. I agree they should leave the existing system in place, and just say that it is the "people" who respect/fear you rather than the leader, and create unique dialogue for that. Seems like the easiest fix.

The diplomatic capital cost of advancing relationships will provide at least some constraint on cooperation agreements. How effectively it does so will depend on the way the numbers are balanced.

And using fear/respect as a constraint on human-human cooperation agreements isn't leaving an existing system in place, it's adding a new one. A human player doesn't need to fear/respect an AI to enter into a cooperation agreement- only to be feared/respected. Humans are completely free to depend on strategic considerations and their own internal conceptions of fear and respect when determining their willingness to enter to enter cooperation with AIs, so it only stands to reason that they'll be able to determine their willingness to enter cooperation with other humans in the same manner.

 

[Halbbruder]

I reckon that in MP, respect will be measured on the deals being offered, which should level up the diplomatic relationship, along with common/compatible traits. Fear will either be determined by traits, tech difference, affinities (?), border clashes or military differences. So if you have the strongest army, other players can tell because you will have fear points on each of them, or something. And then add techs and affinities, maybe.

Very good question though.

 

[Stringer1313]

Yeah on further thought I don't think the fear-respect system will work in MP. As someone pointed out, the current system only requires one party (AI) to fear/respect the other (human). It will too difficult for two humans to have "their populations" satisfy the fear/respect requirements of the other.

Most importantly, fear/respect is based on information only the AI has access to, such as how many improvements you're building, etc. etc. We're fine with the AI having that info b/c it won't use that info to actually make decisions (and even if it did, we're ok with the cheat because AI needs it). But there's no way a human should be able to profit from that secret information.

So I think the easiest way to do it would be to require large amounts of diplomatic capital to upgrade status --- maybe more capital than with an AI because there's no fear/respect threshold. Maybe also a X turn minimum. That will prevent humans from cheesily becoming allies at turn 1.

 

[Gort]

I wonder if AI players will still be unable to approach human players with deals. That flaw got added in Civ 5 and lasted all the way through Gods and Kings, Brave New World and got included in Beyond Earth.

I think the safe bet with fear and respect is that they'll have no effect on other human players.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I've discovered something.

While watching Firaxis's Archive of a Livestream, I noticed they briefly discussed Fear/Respect and the influence of unique traits affects that.

For example, someone with Protective trait will influence their view on your average city population.

So it's possible that this system will infact work on Multiplayer.

I'm sure certain base theresholds will exists for each leader, but it si interesting that the system is affected by which traits leaders adopt and your actions.

 

[poom3619]

I think another solution would be making long-standing peace or cooperation yield benefit that outweigh war. When a "Commercial" cooperate with "Protective" leader for a long-time would make their cities drastically stronger and generate more energy which will be removed completely when both party declare war against each other.

As values of +X of Y is subjective at best. I can foresee different people calling a same thing overpowered and underpowered.

 

[poom3619]

To expand, I do like the idea of restricting alliances and war based on respect and fear from an RP perspective. The lack of Casus Belli in the civ games has always felt off. As well, it would lend huge gravitose to many of my decisions.

I think this would actually cripple AI in Civ game as serious, warmongering human player will find a way to gain strongest Casus Belli* and engineer their faction/civ since day 1 result in AI wages restricted war while human wages "just" war while unopposed diplomatically. This is also in case with Paradox Interactive's game.


*CKII' Great Holy War or Tribal Invasion, EU4's Holy War and Imperialism

 

[Minor Annoyance]

Respect isbased on the traits you pick, and human players would be picking traits the same as the AI so the game could calculate it just the same for humans as two AI.