Phoenix Project base personnel poll

Phoenix Point Game Feedback
41

So true…

Here is what I think re reworking diplomacy and integrating it with base management:

The premise is that PP has to survive off the various havens, whether by taking by force what it needs, trading either goods (resources) or services (protection) for it, or obtaining it as a tithe for being aligned with the faction to which the haven belongs. It then follows from the decisions made by the player in this regard that the role and identity of PP organically emerges.

It should be noted that this is already in one way, or another in the game: you can raid haven’s districts for various resources, or trade for them, you get paid for protecting havens, and every once in a while the faction will give you “gifts” for achieving certain diplomacy scores.

The problem is that all these things happen independently of each other and are not part of a single coherent system, nor do they tie into any of the other systems.

I suggest that

  1. PP have the option to declare a haven to be under its protection and from then on get a % of the resources generated there, the kind of resources depending on the districts - including raw, classless recruits that can be trained by PP into any of the classes it has researched - and the % depending on PP’s reputation with the leader.

These resources get sent to a specific PP base where they are stored. The further away that base is, the more resources get lost on the way (because they are sent by drones and the further away they are the more likely they are to be attacked, or to malfunction).

If the Haven gets attacked, whether by Panda or another faction, and PP doesn’t respond, the Haven doesn’t get immediately destroyed - rather one of its districts get damaged and PP suffers a big reputation loss with the Haven’s leader and a smaller reputation loss with the leaders of nearby Havens. Repeated attacks will get a haven destroyed, causing a massive damage to PP reputation.

In addition to resources, depending on the reputation level reached with the Haven’s leader, the Haven can provide equipment or trained recruits.

  1. PP’s reputation with leaders of the various havens be largely independent of the diplomacy rating with the factions. In fact, havens should attempt to break away from their factions and become independent if the leader of a haven and the faction have very different opinions about PP. For example, the leader hates PP because it has raided it in the past, but the faction is allied to PP. Or viceversa, PP has protected the haven time and again, but the faction is at war with PP.

  2. A higher diplomacy rating with the faction will mean that the havens of the faction will also send resources to PP, as in the case of the protection agreements, but a much smaller %. This is basically the faction ordering the havens to pay a tithe to PP to encourage the alignment of their interests. Also, and as is now, higher diplomacy rating will allow to share research, but it should be reviewed to be a bit more restrictive.

  3. The PP bases that serve as receiving hubs of resources from havens get visual cues re what is happening there, i.e. so you can see the drones with the stuff flying in and out, some civilians sorting out the cargo, etc. and possibly some special building options to enhance their roles. This could also tie into some managerial perk for PP soldiers, as suggested by @SpiteAndMalice.

PP bases to have the option to be sealed - so that they are more resilient to attack but can’t operate at the same time.

These are the basics - I think it’s easy to see how the system can be made much more complex and have a larger, or smaller degree of abstraction VS micromanagement.

Thoughts?

42

I would agree but I have no idea where is fun in stopping vehicle manufacture that will take 10 days to make one gun :P. Some things could (and in my opinion should) be done in parallel, even if each would slow down each other. It’s still micromanagement to switch it on/off/on/off to make something in between of other manufacture already in progress. :slight_smile:

1 Like
43

wohooo after a week of the poll nearly 60% voters on this thread prefer high element of micro-management on strategic part. I wonder how this represents the opinion of everyone playing Phoenix Point. Maybe such majority is only on the forum? :slight_smile:

44

That’s the general downside of forum polls - I don’t think it’s representative of player-base as a whole, by virtue of the fact that we’re discussing the game on here in the first place, we’re a hardcore minority.

1 Like
45

^ What @SpiteAndMalice said. Though I do think that generally since the forum denizens are the most passionate/active in a game’s community, they should at least be given a decent amount of weight in consideration for balance, features, etc.

That being said, there are also more than 50 people on the forums here. And even of the 48 that have voted, it’s not an overwhelming majority (only 56%) in favour of more complex base personnel mechanics. But a clear supermajority (77%) does at least want some form of base personnel/staff to make them feel less lifeless.

46

Well, I didn’t vote as at the moment I’m still waiting for Snapshot to fix their current game. So far the last patch isn’t even close. My first encounter with the Pandorans were already mid-level evolved. That’s not what we were led to believe was in the works.

47

I voted no base staff, but I’d go even further and say no bases. :smiley:

Let soldiers heal at friendly havens and there’d be no need for a player-owned base at all.

Research and manufacturing speed could depend on diplomacy, and the current base-defence maps could work as a kind of scavenging mission: clear out the monsters from an abandoned military site to get a cache of guns and ammo, maybe even a vehicle.

48

For me a bad idea, this would maybe make at least one way to play this game nearly impossible. The way to fokus more on the real enemy, the pandas, and not the factions. Instead use them and their ressources more opportunistic by farming, stealing aircrafts and research. Such a way without PP bases? I think this will not work.
BTW, i didn’t do this in my 6-7 playthroughs but i planned it for future runs, could be funny.

49

Not to be a sore loser, but there was obvious bias in the way the questions were phrased, which doesn’t go away with a warning to ignore it :wink:

Actually, I think that all players - myself included-, as a rule, like more features.