An idea on how to rework Haven raiding and Diplomacy to make it more intuitive

That’s what we say the whole time :wink:

For me personally, the old -15/-30 was OK’ish in terms of trade off and by far not so much that you went too fast into war. I would say -20/-40 would also be OK. And especially in the beginning I highly doubt that you’re able to gain this back that quickly. Later on yes, but that’s why something suggest to make the loss dependant on the actual reputation, the higher you stand the more you lose.

Again, if you lose so much rep, that the faction rep went negative, then ANY heaven of this faction is negative so that you cannot trade or recruit with the whole faction. Of course there are two other factions :wink:
But that happens to me as I stole an early aircraft with the old rep values, and that’s why I decided to do that never again. Well, now this is no longer a problem, because they reduced the loss so much that it is no real trade off.

… and give you the possibility to refuel your aircraft at their base? Sounds even more irritating and not really realistic … :wink:

1 Like

IMO, the problem is not so much lore or realism as gameplay. This would be a completely new mechanic - there is nothing like this currently in the game. You can make pit stops at any POI, including previously explored sites where literally nothing was found. It would be difficult to communicate to the player why this is happening and where it is happening, and what to do about it. Also, it’s a bit binary in that either it makes no difference because you can reroute through a different POI, or you can’t, in which case you are screwed.

@omenomaho I agree that some sort of local effects would be nice, not only for this but for many other mechanics, because your actions need to have some local impact.

Yeah, I think so too. Some of the side quests for neutral Havens carry a penalty of - 20, and IME it takes quite a bit of time to offset it (unless you do sabotage missions, but with the strikes system you couldn’t game that).

1 Like

Not only that, if the penalty for the attacked faction is high enough also for sabotage then it would be nothing more than shifting the penalty loss to another faction (as it was with the old values +15 vs -15/-30)). A real trade off and then more a strategical descension than just an exploit as it is right now. Independent of your suggested strike model, that would top the whole thing to prevent farming loops.

This is the independent haven mission:

In my opinion -20 is too much, but you can postpone until you are able to destroy Lairs and Citadels.

-20 in independent haven missions give food for thought because you can’t know beforehand how much aggressive it would be considered. I don’t think it’s too much if this mission is a direct attack.

Direct attacks should’ve way worse consequences. I say -40 to -50 in a simple mechanism of rep points only, or the suggested values of -20 to -30 when paired with a strike system.

However I still don’t like the unrecoverable part of the strike system, and it’s also more complicated.

When -25% hide all base locations.
When -50% that means war.
Perhaps, when < 0 double the penalty.

I agree. I think that as long as the rep reward from the sabotage mission is equal to or lower than the penalty, that situation (abusing sabotage missions) is taken care of.

The other thing, going back to the local effects that @omenomaho suggested: what should perhaps happen is that all the Havens regardless of Faction within a local area should gain negative rep with PX when PX attacks one of them.

This would represent that these Havens see themselves as potential future targets of PX.

In the early game it would mean that stealing that aircraft will get you locked out of recruiting and trading in your starting area.

If this is enough, I would then rather drop my suggestion for strikes to avoid unnecessarily complicating the system.

Also @aleksandr777 too high penalty is same as making it a binary choice - either you will be at war with the faction, or its ally.


I also thought about this, but I think this would be very irritating. Everything what is revealed once stays revealed through the whole game. And it is also not really realistic, because PX already knows where these heavens are.

That is actually the case at -75% and I think that is high enough.

With increasing the penalty I would rather go the opposite way, the higher you stand the more you lose.
For instance:
Neutral, 0 - 24% = -25%
Supportive, 25 - 49% = -50%
Aligned, 50 - 74% = -75%
Allied, above 75% = direct war, means set reputation on -100% (what should be already the case, but it isn’t)

This way you fall definitely below 0% when you do only one aggressive act.
But that is also maybe to hard?

But what I agree, we need some more penalties when reputation goes down.
Actually we have:
<0% -> no trading and recruiting at heavens
<-25% -> nothing
<-50% -> nothing
<-75% -> war

One Idea, any heaven below 0% or lesser reputation will not longer reveal any POI nearby. Especially in the beginning this could be a real downside and it is also somewhat logical.


Diplomacy should be reworked that way, local attitude and glocal factions attitude,
how do other havens/citizens are perceiving PX in the game, that depends on your actions

But we have to see through,
why players are compelled to steal/raid in the first place?

is it beacuse is easy? reaching a few tiles on tactical you get researchs that are taking many days other way,

is it because is perceived as unavoidable? raiding you get lot of resources that you need desperately first weeks, perhaps a second aircraft because you need to cope with many threats and explore at the
same time

or players feel that clock is ticking and feel pressure to get squads, activate bases and manufacture lot of weapons and other things?

or because there are barely consequences? reputation loss is very low

those are questions related to diplomacy and agressions,
if you want just play as badass, to piss factions off and get what you want whenever you want that should be punished, hard

but if the problem is resources, aircrafts , players need alternatives

we can discuss consequences , war, warnings, hidden POIs , loss of REP, but first is first

and factions REP should be harder to recover than to lose, because a destroyed Citadel is adding 15 points and a Lair 10 points, and end January you can destroy nests and lairs easily, in February many Citadels.


Yep, that makes a lot of sense.


Not at all, if you’re 0% and lose 40% or even 50%, you’re still not at war. You would always need 2 or more attacks to reach -75% which leads to war. With higher reputation losses the more allied you are, the point is to balance reaching war in 2 or 3 attacks. The only difference to the strike system is that this one is recoverable. It’s not exploitative because to go up enough to make another attack possible, you would’ve a lot of work. It is possible to do it, and make more than 2-3 attacks without going to war, but you can’t do it repeatedly and thus is not exploitative.

I like @MadSkunky 's suggestion of:

You should post your opinions about this on canny as the post has been marked as “planned”:

1 Like

I would rework a bit to be:
When -25% you can’t stop at this faction’s base locations to refuel or make any interaction.


The major problem I have with both propositions I quoted / replied here is that those would essentially impede an “enemy to all” playthrough, unless the exploration / flight system is also reworked. It would also make exploration harder if you chose not to ally with everyone, because otherwise you can only reveal POI’s through base scanning and you cannot establish a base anywhere you want.

I like those ideas and for me exploration NEEDS to change. As I said some times I would like free exploration (needing POIs for refuelling) where you could find things just by going there - POI’s, pandorans (if above ground), factions, etc. With this, the two ideas above would also be possible, because being enemy to factions wouldn’t stop you moving around the world.

1 Like

Again, citing any realism is futile. We teleport arms and ammunition all across the globe and “refuel” in friendly havens hostile havens, salvage sites, pandoran nests, lairs, etc. You can definitely lore that if you really need to but it really is a non-argument. You could postulate that the aircraft rests at these pitstops, recharging via inflatable solar cells. Hostile havens may not like you landing near by doing just that. It really isn’t that far fetched. Also, maybe we should not be able to use pandoran structures as pitstops to reach other points… It wouldn’t change a thing.

We have aircraft transporting hundreds of people and not just 6 around half the globe without pitstops. Realism.

I fully agree, but, well, it was more a little sidekick because you started with that:

I have only a problem with deny pit stops at heavens, because it doesn’t fit with the actual flight system where we can do pit stops on any point. This answer describes best what I think about that:

Done :slight_smile:

1 Like

I kind of like that resources are a struggle. It makes you really think about what you buy/build. Early on getting Synedrion laser weapons is great but you have to bestingy with the ammo because of the tech resource cost to reload.

I really do have to think through whether to build that Cybernetics Lab or a couple of extra assault rifles, or hire that Technician.

1 Like

I don’t mind resources being scarce, and it’s important to have opportunity costs. What I don’t like is that on the one hand you can abuse certain game rules to easily obtain nearly unlimited resources (provided you are willing to waste real-life time on it) and on the other that many players who are unfamiliar with these rules, and/or are playing for the first time have a lot of trouble obtaining enough resources.


I’m with you on that. They do need to do more to explain things. One of the parts I liked best in XCOM was that each of the major areas of the game had a character guiding you, like Bradford and Shen. They gave you the scoop at the beginning and chimed in as necessary. It also gave some character to your team beyond the soldiers.

I also agree on raiding needing a steeper cost. Also, if a faction goes to war with you they should really go after your bases and dig sites in addition to being an op for on scavenging ops and such.

1 Like

Nice idea, this could help with the exploration revamp idea… if you could fly anywhere and not only to PoI’s, we could have:

  • friendly PoIs instantly recharge/“refuel”
  • enemy PoIs do not
  • PoIs without human settlements do not
  • you can stop at any place (be it a PoI or not) to recharge, needing a few hours.

This enables even long distance travelling from the beginning, although needing more time.
Also, if you recharge inside mist or in an enemy PoI, you would’ve a chance to be ambushed.