Backstory

[robn]

@Thargoid wrote up some back story for a few different factions here:

https://github.com/Thargoid/pioneer/wiki/Story

We know we need factions. We're pretty much in a position to start implementing. Its something we haven't wanted to touch, largely because its a giant bikeshed and everyone has great idea for colours.

We know that it will be possible to add factions via mods. So we don't need to cover any base, we simply need to make sure that the factions that ship with the core game offer enough variety to satisfy the majority of player and game types will we see.

With that in mind, please read @Thargoid's work and offer constructive criticism. Unless there turns out to be a compelling reason to delay it, I want this issue to produce enough history/backstory for us to bless into canon and built on top of.

[Brianetta]

It'd be nice to have some Frontier-style corporate systems. Residents are employees. The government is the board.

[Luomu]

@tomm if you read these issues now might be a good time to bring forward any story/setting requirements you have

[tomm]

I wrote a brief (with 50 year granularity) history of the pioneerverse. It is more of an overview of significant incidents and trends, but I can flesh things out since I'm happily unemployed in 1 week and I'd like to be involved in this.

Just a few things to mention now:

• I don't think we should rename any local systems from their astronomical names. For aesthetic reasons. Just the planets.
• If we are planning to have factions actually growing, what will be the pace of expansion? A slow pace in gameplay terms of 1 system per 2 years would represent a sudden & explosive growth compared to backstory timelines.
• I'm in favour of a history that leaves major events and trends, but largely erases individuals and their names. It is kindof similar to my attitude to the player's position within the game.
• I think the style and tone of epsilon eridani's system description should be a model for other pieces of background story of this type. Note that it is credited to an academic of new hope university. Unless things are basically just factual (demographic, astronomical, etc), it should be clear that they are leaning towards one faction or other, or in any case are not impartial truth. Between rumours, patriotic, dissident and other shades, it should be very hard for a sceptical player to ever feel that they have found impartial truths about politics in the gameworld.

[robn]

I wrote a brief (with 50 year granularity) history of the pioneerverse. It is more of an overview of significant incidents and trends.

I gave @Thargoid that brief history as a starting point and told him to use it if useful, but not to be afraid to change it if he couldn't make things fit.

I don't think we should rename any local systems from their astronomical names. For aesthetic reasons. Just the planets.

Already discussed at length. The current plan is to allow multiple system names so that they can be found by catalogue and local/story names. Planet names don't have to match the star name, of course.

If we are planning to have factions actually growing, what will be the pace of expansion? A slow pace in gameplay terms of 1 system per 2 years would represent a sudden & explosive growth compared to backstory timelines.

Expansion could also be done in-system by adding/removing a starport, upgrading a starport (more facilities) or things that are just visual (cities get bigger, new mine/factory/starport under construction).

I'm in favour of a history that leaves major events and trends, but largely erases individuals and their names. It is kindof similar to my attitude to the player's position within the game.

Why? Histories are full of names and characters. I agree that the player should remain anonymous, but people get remembered too, not just events.

I think the style and tone of epsilon eridani's system description should be a model for other pieces of background story of this type. Note that it is credited to an academic of new hope university. Unless things are basically just factual (demographic, astronomical, etc), it should be clear that they are leaning towards one faction or other, or in any case are not impartial truth. Between rumours, patriotic, dissident and other shades, it should be very hard for a sceptical player to ever feel that they have found impartial truths about politics in the gameworld.

This is a good point. The FFE journals had this kind of thing too - same story from different viewpoints. Hmm, maybe you can get upgraded maps from the other side that change the descriptions to what they think of the place right now?

[Thargoid]

Hi

Actually the most upto date entry on the back story is here:

https://github.com/Thargoid/pioneer/wiki/Story

This one includes short and long descriptions of each of the factions capital systems expansion data and general history.

Some comments on Tomm's comments:

I wrote a brief (with 50 year granularity) history of the pioneerverse. It is more of an overview of significant incidents and trends, but I can flesh things out since I'm happily unemployed in 1 week and I'd like to be involved in this.

I don't actually think i've seen this but would like to. Where is it stored?

•I don't think we should rename any local systems from their astronomical names. For aesthetic reasons. Just the planets.

A couple of comments on that: 1) all the names of the systems at the moment are so similar its hard to differentiate them. 2) If you had colonised a system with your own hard earned cash would you want to name it after yourself/someone you care about or or just roll with what an astronomer thought of hundreds of years ago?

•If we are planning to have factions actually growing, what will be the pace of expansion? A slow pace in gameplay terms of 1 system per 2 years would represent a sudden & explosive growth compared to backstory timelines.

New systems being explored could be a once every ten years or so item. Robb's thoughts echo my own in that growth doesn't have to be that big and bold. It could be some factions are growing crazy and some are stagnant.

•I'm in favour of a history that leaves major events and trends, but largely erases individuals and their names. It is kindof similar to my attitude to the player's position within the game.

Its my opinion, but i disagree with that. There are people famous throughout history for this and that. Everyone knows Abe Lincoln and Christopher Columbus and Beethoven and Julius Caesar. Some people's exploits are greater than time itself. It would be unnatural for Pioneer history NOT to have 'celebrities' Thats why in my history i've named the likes of special explorers, the president of Ep-er during the rebellion, that kind of thing. those are the people that people remember. But of course thats just my opinion. On this note I actually created a bunch of systems and did a pull request so people could have a play with what i've come up with, see if they like the feel of the star systems, etc.

•I think the style and tone of epsilon eridani's system description should be a model for other pieces of background story of this type. Note that it is credited to an academic of new hope university. Unless things are basically just factual (demographic, astronomical, etc), it should be clear that they are leaning towards one faction or other, or in any case are not impartial truth. Between rumours, patriotic, dissident and other shades, it should be very hard for a sceptical player to ever feel that they have found impartial truths about politics in the gameworld.

I disagree on this point, to a point. A starship is going to be equipped with a standard map, aka a lonely planet or hitch hikers guide. There may be individual people writing parts of the book/map/guide but it goes through one editor gets proofed, vetoed, put past this person and that. It is a final, polished uniform product. It will be neutral in standpoint (to a degree) and cover all the systems. You aren't going to have a map cobbled together from here and there. Not a standard map. However the idea of being able to buy new maps, maps made by other people that are flavoured, is quite cool. You could say that the Galactic Navigation Bureau is based on Sol and so the descriptions I have made would be suggestive of that. The Tolan Kingdom could produce their own maps that are Xenophobic (if you're not Tolan you're not one of us)

[robn]

Sorry, I was sure I'd given it to you. Here it is: http://pioneerspacesim.net/pioneer-draft-history.html

[Thargoid]

all good.   I had included most of the ep-er stuff in mine anyway, trying to use what I already knew so its not a total loss.   Cheers   John

--- On Tue, 24/4/12, Robert Norris reply@reply.github.com wrote:

From: Robert Norris reply@reply.github.com Subject: Re: [pioneer] Backstory (#1213) To: "John" john_melinda@xtra.co.nz Date: Tuesday, 24, April, 2012, 11:20 AM

Sorry, I was sure I'd given it to you. Here it is: http://pioneerspacesim.net/pioneer-draft-history.html

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/pioneerspacesim/pioneer/issues/1213#issuecomment-5294295

[Brianetta]

@Thargoid, if you want your wiki pages pulling into the central wiki just let me know on here.

[Ae-2222]

Some considerations for design approach

In design of complicated things with a web of interrelated effects in different areas (e.g. story, art assets, and gameplay) a consideration is:

• It's easy to, at the start, design in and set in stone minor details which are non-fundamental but which end up limiting options and flexibility later in ways that are not apparent at the beginning.
• An analogy, in terms of designing a tree, is choosing the position and angle of a few leaves first then designing the tree. Possible trunk positions, branch heights, etc. may be excluded.

Working on the fundamentals first, the trunk and branch structure in keeping with the analogy, is a very valid approach (although it involves working without the leaves for a while) and ensures the final tree is the best outcome. At an early stage just determining possibilities, outlining and choosing the best fundamentals is sufficient for a while..and will end up in a far more significant outcome.

(This is one of the reasons that things involving combat and in-system FTL are still undecided: it is hard to see the consequences without considering a lot of aspects. It's hard to see what effect it will have without a lot of surrounding things being developed before hand. )

(I thought it might be helpful to elaborate given some intensive discussion in the forum I saw, particularly over combat, in recent times.)

---

Given this, it helps to look at backstory creation from more a designers point of view than an end user - i.e. in terms of the core elements 'the bones' of story as it impacts:

• narrative terms - philosophical/general themes relating to the factions in terms of how 'interesting'(novel, thought provoking) they are
• consequences for gameplay - what is it in terms looking at it as something which exists only to serve gameplay i.e. stripped of other aspects? (in a game this is a major factor)
• consequences for art direction - is it strong enough to drive art direction (spacecraft, standard architecture, faction specific buildings/monuments)?
• consequences for music - are there genres or sources of leitmotifs that might be relevant? (does not need to happen necessarily as music can be situation based)

As opposed to the finishing touches, 'the flesh':

• Names, dates, places
• Word-sculpting - Final wording of faction descriptions, history
• Minor plot fleshing out - small events involving small scale entities (or even large scale entities) like history of induviduals, which have no consequence later
• General/philosophical themes can be compiled into lists, and looked at in terms of how they affect the ther core elements.
• Things like potential gameplay, or ways in which art can express the story, will need to be determined first.
• Factions/backstory options can be stated in terms of the different core elements, so their strengths can be gauged for each possible option.

---

With regards to the very preliminary work, done to start discussion, by Thargoid, most of the backstory part fits into the finishing touches category (as it's in the form of a finished text rather than design notes) with one or two things that will filter down into how the factions/their members behave and thereby create gameplay.

With regards to Tomm's document, it says almost everything in the finishing touches category, understandably, as that was the intention. The main thing that can be classified as impacting core elements is the Earth/colonies conflict and perhaps an eco-concerned theme that might be applicable (there is generally greed for territory/wanting to be independent for non-philosophical/non-thematic reasons).

---

It's easy to recycle the nature of story, the core elements, from Frontier, which had limited expressible gameplay, limited music system (Pioneer can have a far more dynamic/responsive system), limited potential scope for art to express, and a static universe.

• Frontier had very generic/limited backstory and used trivial tropes (didn't do anything novel fiction wise).

---

As an example, to demonstrate the process of evaluating Pioneer's needs, the process in deriving a (very good) idea, originally mentioned in the design piratepad, is worked through.:

The chain of dependencies which ends in faction story setup goes something like this.

1. What gameplay is possible: considering possibilities for NPC character AI, partially simulated minor 'organisations' smaller than faction level(companies, guilds, religious orders which can be simply simulated using probabilistic state space machines etc.), and high level faction AI .

• e.g. Based on two possibilities previously discussed in IRC:
• JohnJ's high level RTS AI plan enables factions to go to war and occupy territory
• NPC's have goals and can see the results of actions and judge results against goals/personality (Goals, rule based inference, fuzzy personality value system.)
  • Goal: Gain money.
  • Action: be corrupt allowing action A which affects people X.
  • Result: Money, risk of being caught, help/hinder people belonging to group X.
  • Personality value system: Money and acceptable risk based on personality, help/hinder people based on personality and inter-group history, personal history.

2. What player decisions become possible (interaction is essentially about choosing)? e.g.:

• Choosing to bribe the correct people - e.g. officials who like to gamble or belong to a social/religious group with suitable general values and who belong to a subgroup who likes/dislikes the group affected by the action appropriately.
• Choosing to help smuggle out people from occupied territories (e.g. government members to form a government in exile) from occupied territory, smuggle in medical supplies, double cross by handing people over, overcharge taking advantage of situation etc.

3. How to introduce/manipulate themes and setting so the player can better encounter difficult/interesting choices? e.g.:

• Create varied conflict with increased frequency
  • Requirement of vital thinly or unevenly spread resources. 'Unobtanium'.
  • Religious/ political ideals involving taking over territory.
  • Involve many much smaller factions to create a fluid situation instead of two 'lumbering' factions.
  • Create conflict around different themes so opportunities to take advantage of the situation in different ways are present.
  • Weave plot twists for future tensions into the backstory i.e. group Y discovers group X was responsible for its' predicament.

4. How to set up faction story such that it serves the gameplay?

• The specific instances of things mentioned in 3.
  • e.g. To create smaller numerous factions there could be a scenario where things degraded on Earth and different groups with ideals decided to use a crude, dangerous,random, anbd time intensive form of hyperspace which had extremely long range to seed a portion of the galaxy which colonies. These colonies would evolve on their own, resulting in very varied factions, and with their close neighbours for a time based on their ideals, before faster travel arrives.

Incidentally, the idea of having smaller more numerous factions stems also from being able to:

• Create a fluid situation in all areas not just war which will result in constantly evolving opportunities.
• Make better use of having an RTS capable faction AI.
• Allow more variety.
• Allow future contributors to contribute (new faction specific theme concepts, assets, missions, music).
  • These projects tend to last a long time (Orbiter 12 years, Flight Gear 15).
  • Only a fraction of future contributors have contributed so opportunities for extensibility in the backstory are important (e.g. new factions in unexplored areas, space for additional things to happen in their relatively isolated period).

---

To summarise:

• Details, particularly themes matter. Behaviour of factions, intermediate organisations and, most importantly, individuals has the potential to be strongly sensitive to this (in addition to creating a richer universe).
• Lists of stuff, design notes, are more important to start with than finalised/fleshed out prose. This allows the concepts to be discussed and refined before spending time fleshing out inconsequential things.
• Gameplay possibilities need to be investigated and faction stories/setting needs to be manipulated to ensure it serves gameplay.

[robn]

@Ae-2222 I skimmed what you wrote, mostly because I've heard it before. I don't see that this is particularly relevant at this point. Right now we're looking to establish setting to give us a context to work in. Its possible this information won't appear in the game at all, but instead be revealed at various points by various means. I don't see how its limiting at all.

[Ae-2222]

How does this setting affect what is being worked on precisely, then?

(admittedly right now, other than for art direction, it has no immediate effect for coding which is why people tended to not have it as a particular priority for a while)

I'm not sure I follow, but, if you mean that the documents won't appear as text assets in game, yes, that's probably right, and they will not need to appear in game.

---

However my main point was that the work so far mainly addressed literary stuff instead of having much to say about the setting (I assumed when posting that this thread was about general world backstory as well as faction specific) as it affects the game (including the themes which were mostly generic greed for territory,money and desires for independence). Also about not having much that is not generic in the themes.

Things about the setting that would tend to limit things:

• Using the example I gave having the setting only produce a few factions near earth instead of numerous small ones scattered about is one.
• Not having a backstory where a lot of small factions with different ideals would make things not fluid, give less variety, affect contributions.
• John's convoy mechanic entails another: to have a need for ships to travel together you really need there to be a journey i.e. faction centers need to be spaced apart. This would imply that the backstory doesn't exclude stuff about population centers being scattered etc.
• Because there can potentially be good character ai that can weigh up things, settling on factions without developed themes will preclude gameplay. (Themes concerning result in codes of behaviour, religious attitudes affecting things in gameplay, social attitudes towards others and gameplay etc.)

[Thargoid]

Hi AE

There was a lot there to digest. If I understand you you are fearful of doing anything related to story because you are worried it will limit things. You talk about needing to put the trunk in the ground before designing the leaves.

Fair enough.

My reposte would be: You're not going to have a trunk if you don't find suitable ground and put the seeds in the ground.

I don't want to limit anything, but I suggest that you need to have something. I'm not saying that what i have done is the final polised product. Its a starting point. I've created a few factions to give a bit of flavour.

If story design hasn't been done because it isn't a priority, because it has no influence on design to date, why would that change? If anything adding some story now will: 1) make it more interesting for testers and getting more people to join up 2)spark off some ideas of designers "Hey i can think of a cool ship design for the Tolan Kingdom" which may lead to whole fleet of differenrt design ships. Or "Tolan kingdom is cool but if i twist it like this, it'll be even better and I can do X and Y with it'. you need those seeds and some grounding to start from.

If the game decides to go down path A but the given storyline is really down path B, then SCRAP THE STORY! don't say 'oh well thats set in stone'. I don't think you give yourself and the other designers enough credit. They aren't retards.

So to summarise my points: I don't see how it can actually hurt, but I think it has some good gains to put something in there. maybe all of it, maybe just some of it. there is a lot of scope for independent groups all around Sol/Earth and what i've done doesn't hurt that at all.

Anyway thats my thoughts.

-John

[Ae-2222]

Edit:

@Thargoid wrote: You talk about needing to put the trunk in the ground before designing the leaves. @Ae-2222 wrote: Given this [the tree/leaves analogy] , it helps to look at backstory creation from more a designers point of view than an end user - i.e. in terms of the core elements 'the bones' of story as it impacts:

To be clear, the analogy refers to why it's important to look at things from a designers point of view (that is in terms of the core elements I outlined, instead of non-core elements, which I also outlined).

It has nothing to do with the rest of the post including whether certain aspects of setting could be be unhelpful to certain gameplay.

I only detailed it because:

@Ae-2222: (I thought it might be helpful to elaborate given some intensive discussion in the forum I saw, particularly over combat, in recent times.)

---

@Thargoid wrote: If I understand you you are fearful of doing anything related to story because you are worried it will limit things.

I'm not fearful/worried about doing things related to the story . I can sort of see how you (and possibly robn) might have construed this by mixing the analogy with the rest of the post.

Naturally, if setting is canonised/finalised then the fact that some aspects of setting can be unhelpful to some gameplay will be an issue .

My post was about:

My main concern was that a bit more thought about gameplay was needed than was present in the preliminary work (re-evaluating things, instead of re-using underlying setting assumptions which worked for Frontier). I then listed a bunch of specific suggestions to the setting.

A minor point was that it needed more variety in themes and things that will affect attitudes, customs, laws as character AI will probably be able to keep up.

The other point which I didn't emphasize enough was that there wasn't much in the way of backstory stuff to provide strong art direction (several art direction requests made by visiting artists to the IRC channel was responsible for kick-starting the design discussions). It's likely this is the only pressing issue.

---

---

@Thargoid wrote: If story design hasn't been done because it isn't a priority, because it has no influence on design to date, why would that change?

I agree, my point was that until more about gameplay was known/considered, settling down on the setting would affect things adversely later on.

@robn wrote: Unless there turns out to be a compelling reason to delay it, I want this issue to produce enough history/backstory for us to bless into canon and built on top of.

---

[Thargoid]

Ae, I think we may be boiling this down to a few points:

1) More information that will relate to artwork i.e how does one nations ships, cities, philosophers, flags etc etc vary from another nations 2)you think gameplay should dictate story instead of story dictating gameplay 3)you think that the nations need to be more 'at opposite ends of the spectrum' that they are too similar?

In answer to 3) above, I think a closed society (tolan kingdom) a corporate society (corporate space) and two differing democracies is a pretty good starting point on the variety point. Maybe I still don't quite understand where you are coming from.

1) and 2) I agree on, though i'm not sure how to move forward on 2) I think maybe that has to be a back and forth cumulative process. Are you saying that to make up 'story' for Pioneer i need to develop game mechanics? or list intracies in the 'current day' which would naturally lead to things for the player to do (Ie missions, or trade routes, etc?)

anyway keep hitting me with this stuff, we'll come to an agreement at some point (I hope!)

You tell me what story/versimulitude you want and I can focus on that for you. I don't have an agenda or need to imprint my designs on Pioneer, though that wolud be nice. I can always use my ideas elsewhere. I'm a writer. Its what I love to do, and bringing the communual Pioneer dream into text is something I want to help with.

[robn]

Are you saying that to make up 'story' for Pioneer i need to develop game mechanics?

I think not. If it becomes necessary the story can adjusted to support a new mechanic. I didn't see anything your proposed history that would restrict any particular mechanic.

[Thargoid]

I just stumbled upon the thread on spacesim also discussing this stuff.

I'm happy to take the 'list of attributes' and add that in to what I have produced.

Anything else I can do to help???

[robn]

I'd like to nail this down pretty soon. As I said, I don't see that descriptions of the factions will necessarily constrain gameplay mechanics, and if it turns out they do and that's a problem, we'll just change it.

Could anyone who cares please check in. A simple yes/no/don't care will do.

[robn]

@Thargoid Did you want to include a corporate system? Maybe something like Sirius from Frontier?

[Thargoid]

Hi Rob

I have already made a 'Haber Corporation' on https://github.com/Thargoid/pioneer/wiki/Story

as much detail as the other factions.

[robn]

Yes, you have. Sorry - it didn't stick in my head.

[Thargoid]

So to confirm so far we have:

Solar Federation Confederation Corporate Space Tolan Kingdom (single isolationist society) and some ideas of independents to sprinkle around.

[Ae-2222]

To put it in different terms, I just wanted to say most of the text in the preliminary works there was mainly 'literary fluff' (not that that isn't brilliant) and there was only a small amount that translated into game behaviour (involving factions/organisations/NPCs/missions)and, art direction. And that it needed to be expanded upon.

That looking at what was written through these different filters would help:

@Ae-2222 wrote:

• narrative terms - philosophical/general themes relating to the factions in terms of how 'interesting'(novel, thought provoking) they are
• consequences for gameplay - what is it in terms looking at it as something which exists only to serve gameplay i.e. stripped of other aspects? (in a game this is a major factor)
• consequences for art direction - is it strong enough to drive art direction (spacecraft, standard architecture, faction specific buildings/monuments)?
• consequences for music - are there genres or sources of leitmotifs that might be relevant? (does not need to happen necessarily as music can be situation based)

---

@Thargoid wrote: 2)you think gameplay should dictate story instead of story dictating gameplay

I'm not sure what you mean exactly by 'dictating' but: As I quoted above, looking at story purely in terms of "something which exists only to serve gameplay", would help to expand things in areas that need expanding.

To be clear, by serving gameplay I mean having a setting that 'naturally' leads to gameplay situations.

By 'naturally leads' to game play situations I mean that it would lead to further development in areas of setting, missions,faction/NPCs, and would take full advantage of engine capabilities/provide inspiration for art assets to be modelled from.

For instance, if you had a game about backstabbing and intrigue with appropriate engine/AI:

• You would not want to set it in a monastery:).You would not want to make only two people exist as more people would lead to complicated/interesting situations which makes better use of the AI. You would not generally want the people to have no prior history at the start either.
• A better setting would have strong motives for backstabbing as well as more people/prior history e.g. money within a gang of pirates, or power within a political party..or both motives within a rich aristocracy.

• (It's always possible to set it in a monastery (and it would certainly be a novel setting as it's unlikely to have been done too many times) but further development wouldn't naturally flow as it would from a rich setting).

  @Thargoid wrote: 2) I agree on, though i'm not sure how to move forward on 2) I think maybe that has to be a back and forth cumulative process. Yep:)

---

@Thargoid wrote: 1) More information that will relate to artwork i.e how does one nations ships, cities, philosophers, flags etc etc vary from another nations

• Also how their themes/philosophies filter down to art (modelling is the more urgent art but naming, music, face gen race/accessory setup): Do they have a spartan ethic? Do they care about life i.e. no escape pods? Should their morbid outlook and violent society be reflected in their architecture e.g. by using sombre colours or shades of grey? Is a run down or vibrant aesthetic appropriate? Do they have secrets (e.g. genetic, religious) and are obsessed with privacy (i.e. no windows, giant grey structures closing off their cities)?
• And how themes/philosophies filter general city structures: Do they live in small scattered settlements? Do they build partially submerged buildings, prefer space: O'niell cylinders/space cities, have overseeing structures of a totalitarian regime?

It's possible to have games with no strongly driven art style which contributes to the setting and vice versa, but these games risk being a mishmash of randomly copied ideas picked from sci-fi when the art style is weak, or feel superficial/bland when it has no/clashing context.

• Another possibility is to let artists decide, once a number have joined/someone is willing to design a complete faction, on strong themes/coherent details, then retro-fit a suitable story around that.

---

@Thargoid wrote: 3)you think that the nations need to be more 'at opposite ends of the spectrum' that they are too similar?

Variety helps (manipulating the backstory to 'naturally lead' to variety would be appropriate too e.g. long period of relative isolation before travel got gradually faster). More than that, the factions need the details first, so some expanding upon.

Expanded upon in the areas that can make an impact to things that affect the way the game behaves

• i.e.: Laws, codes of honour, NPC character/faction attitudes which are based on philosophical/social/economic groups the recipient of the attitudes belongs to, customs based on religions/traditions that act as behavioural quirks etc.

Of course, these are not anywhere near as urgent as art.

---

@Thargoid wrote: I don't have an agenda or need to imprint my designs on Pioneer, though that wolud be nice. I can always use my ideas elsewhere.

If you already have established detailed plans that's nice:D, as they would be coherent and strongly directed.

---

@robn wrote: I'd like to nail this down pretty soon. As I said, I don't see that descriptions of the factions will necessarily constrain gameplay mechanics, and if it turns out they do and that's a problem, we'll just change it.

Could anyone who cares please check in. A simple yes/no/don't care will do.

To the extent the backstory can be changed without re-doing existing art/missions it's not really nailed down.

So a Yes. As far as non-art direction things are concerned.

No, as far as stuff relating to art-direction is concerned given, as I outlined above, there isn't much content, yet, in the way of providing strong/detailed art direction as far as I can see.

• It's always possible to leave some of that to the artists, or work on it later in collaboration with them:) and retro-fit a suitable story, in which case there's no need to finalise anything.

---

@Thargoid wrote: I just stumbled upon the thread on spacesim also discussing this stuff.

From my quick (very quick) read, it seems a brainstorming topic that a). created a proposal for a quick, static, faction system (temporary while a dynamic RTS system is done, I guess?) b). appear to be outlining the numbers needed for factions to affect existing gameplay.

It's not really a backstory thread and won't have much to contribute. They are taking things like taking setting into account wrt. to art stuff like facegen and existing gameplay stuff based on NPC reaction to reputation etc. though, so there would be a few points there. (Since it's now a focused discussion, topics a). and b). should really be on Github which is used the most,by far, by interested parties (IRC is missing 4 or 5 active devs and some interested people)).

[robn]

@Ae-2222 You're massively overcomplicating this. Think of it more as an initial brief for artists, if you like. "So there's this thing called the Haber Corporation, here's an overview of their history. Please design a few ships in a style that compliments that description."

If we try and pin down every single detail right now then a) we'll never get any agreement and b) it will never be implemented. Pioneer does not have a single designer. We will never be able to dictate to artists or anyone else how they should do things. I want people to bring in the own ideas and fill the galaxy with them - God knows we have the room! All this backstory is is to provide a little context to guide people when they create things. And if someone creates something truly unique that doesn't fit anywhere else, the we give it a single-system independent faction or find another way. We've always been happy to go back and redesign things that aren't working. I see no reason why this would be any different.

[Ae-2222]

@robn

It would be nice to have a few striking factions with strong, intriguing, direction close to the starting points. Once there are enough people/interest perhaps a few can be defined.

[Thargoid]

AE

We've had a big long conversation here but all you really had to say was 'I don't think what has been done is good enough, not strong enough, not striking enough.' That would have saved us all a bit of time.

I'm a big boy, I can handle it.

I'll have another look at it.

[robn]

Any more input? I'm keen to get this pinned down as foundation for our universe so we have context for further development. I'll give this a couple more days and if there's no strong objection ill consider this blessed. #1073 will become the first code change coming from this (though it needs work) so its not like this is just handwaving.

[Ae-2222]

@Thargoid

@Thargoid I did point out that the themes (as outlined in the preliminary) needed more variety in several places and that there wasn't much that fell into the strong art direction category.

@Ae-2222 wrote: My post was about:

My main concern was that a bit more thought about gameplay was needed than was present in the preliminary work (re-evaluating things, instead of re-using underlying setting assumptions which worked for Frontier). I then listed a bunch of specific suggestions to the setting.

A minor point was that it needed more variety in themes and things that will affect attitudes, customs, laws as character AI will probably be able to keep up.

The other point which I didn't emphasize enough was that there wasn't much in the way of backstory stuff to provide strong art direction (several art direction requests made by visiting artists to the IRC channel was responsible for kick-starting the design discussions). It's likely this is the only pressing issue.

..but it was a lesser point given it was just preliminary work..most of what I wanted to say was more subtle stuff, that I came up with when doing the design piratepad, about ticking off the game's requirements and then manipulating the setting as needed.

There's no time constraints for tweaking setting and, for the near future, it's simpler to just roll with what ever art contributions we get as the galaxy is large enough to use them.

Thread based, non-realtime, linear, collaboration between multiple people is hard! (even more so if you haven't used forums much before)

Incidentally, this is why IRC is preferred by a lot of devs for collaboration in tricky areas:D..realtime allows checking the way a topic is understood, checking understanding instantly and focusing on communicating what's necessary as well as writing with the minimum detail/comprehensiveness required for a known audience. This whole topic probably would have only taken 15 minutes of intensive discussion:). I probably should have thought about rearranging the first post, carefully, in hindsight.

So to allow clarity, and to allow future people to follow what has been put across / to contribute quickly, it might be simpler to move the posts to an excise thread/delete them and replace with a single summary post/link.

[Luomu]

Its possible this information won't appear in the game at all, but instead be revealed at various points by various means. I don't see how its limiting at all.

This is what I am after. I think we have no hope of telling a compelling story, and it wouldn't even fit the nature of the game. Instead, we need an universe "bible" where we can pull things from when needed. A lot of ideas will be undoubtedly left unused.

I have read the Story so far. Besides the need for proofreading it's okay, kinda bland but let's start from something!

To continue from here, I have some suggestions:

I think we would benefit from more short descriptions of various corporations. Names, what do they specialize in and where their headquarters are.

A couple of major religious cults would be nice too. Completely fictional ones, please.

Haber could use some better PR, I wouldn't want to go there :) Overall things shouldn't be black and white, most factions should have some compelling aspects.

I don't mind mentioning the names of fictional famous people, but I request you put them though a gender/ethnicity roulette. All the important people mentioned so far are men, with mostly western-style names.

[Thargoid]

Hi Luomu

In reply to your comments:

1)I made a pull request for a change to the standard systems file (can't remember the name but its the non-custom system file and i had added descriptions to a few systems which introduced some corporations and other things. a smattering of flavour. If its possible for you to check that out I think that might satisfy some of your wishes 2)I happen to be a western-ish male, so apologies for that bias. But really can anyone be as important as a male from the west? I mean really ? ;) 3)re blandness, well it was a non proofread draft, effectively and I could go through and have another look at it. In fact I will, at some point, but if you have some specific blandness you want addressed or any of your own ideas, shoot them through and I can incorporate them.

4) I mention a few cult type places under 'independent' on my wiki file but didn't really explore them. I didn't want to put a lot of effort into this unless it was going to be accepted. If what is listed so far is considered a 'good start' then i'll keep building on it, adding places and people and whatever the heck pioneer wants.

I guess this is general question but when I think Pioneer I think the wild west, I think the edge of civilisation, I think far from creature comforts, I think a hard life. There is a certain monotonous/blandness to that kind of existence. To this end I think a lot of colonies are going to be quite similar in their outlook, we'll just need to get clever to find ways to differeniate them.

Cheers

John

[Thargoid]

Hi

Ok I've had another pass on what i had written for backstory etc.

The link is:

https://github.com/Thargoid/pioneer/wiki/Story

So I've looked at the comments people have made and tried to add in to appease them as I could. I've extended some parts, added brand new parts, tried to focus on game play aspects where I could (and i've tried to make these stand out for easy reading) But in the end I've focused on the story, not how I can relate story to game play (In my opinion that is the job of the game programmer) Its still not the final product. its not polished or even written particularly well - its really just dressed up notes, but its there for Pioneer to take, or not.

I'm not going to spend any more time on this until a decision is made to accept what I've done, or not.

I hope you like it. And remember if there is something you want in there that you don't see, add it!

Cheers,

John

[Brianetta]

Pushed to master wiki.

[Thargoid]

Anything happening here? Anyone interested?

Pushing this stuff into the next release is a way to push it in people's faces (such as the custom systems i've created) then you'll actually start to get comments on it as people play it.

just sayin'

[gernot66]

yep, me ;) just took a quick look into your backstory and have readed,

Ship concept: The Solar Federation 'Peacekeeper' class capital ship, a gun platform styled ship whose design is based around being able to blow the be-je-zus out of planetary defense

well, don't you think such goes a little to far, gunships? how you like to control them? with a crew? is that "pioneer"? imho if i dislike something then tactical space sims, no fun for me, it's a different thing i guess. i don't like to blast down anything from a captains chair, ordering instead acting? no certainly not. really i see no point for this, i imagine actually something like the ships from well known anime, boring. blast all off at end of every sequel with a large plasma gun? not very funny (but typical anime), i neither liked it in the cartoons. lot of useless turrets firing in whatever direction only because it looks so good?

we can run already for dragonball, please...

and oh well, look at our development of real weapons, superfortresses are "out of style" since i don't know, there is no need for gunships or bombers, outdated you can say.

that was "ok" to punish civilians in WW2 to break germanys will, but it's not a clever weapon. do you know how many fortresses have been shot by a "Komet"? late developed but if they would have had more time... loss was immensive for allies, costs for the "Komet" little.

no gunship has any chance against a fast small fighter, no matter what armour. it climbes faster and higher, some precise shots and bye bye gunship.

[Thargoid]

Hi Gernot

I had a little trouble following your train of thought there sorry. Can't remember exactly what was written but I believe you are referring to navy capital ships, not player flyable ships. A military is always going to have a range of different ships to fill different roles. I think specialisation is the way it will stay (ie carriers to carry ships, battle cruisers to blow stuff up real nice, etc)

If I missed your point, hit me back.

[gernot66]

like usual (not your fault, i'm the one who "kommt vom stöckchen aufs hölzchen", means i flies high....)

in general the workout of the story looks fine, i will have to read more.

this is not my part of it, but of course i should get a little interested in, because yes, i can see already; "erm, gernötli we would need a ship belonging to this or that faction and it should have this and that specifications or look".

so it's only good to know for me what your thoughts are and in which direction we go. it's not that i couldn't make a fine "anime" style massive battleship, it's only a personal dislike ;) actually "100 turrets" can't be managed, but i can make them...

well, if i think of the "imperial explorer" in FFE, clumsy no problem to finish that one, only a large "thick" hull you have to melt away. that's why i think gunships and "flying fortresses" have no future.

i would have a clip how it's done ;) they have not a single chance, once you matched the speed you fire in the thrusters until that thing is finished. give me a triplet of "merlins" and "gyr attack fighters" that's fun. (i have a very bad reputation in FFE, i guess i'm a wanted cross spy)

imho, 200 tons is the upper limit for a useful fighter, any else is to clumsy because of inertia.

so that's why i think we won't have battleships in future even when it's only fantasy. they do look nice in the movies and cartoons, but they have no reason to exist, imho.

but yes, that shouldn't mean we couldn't have some, AI piloted or human.

yeah, ok i can see a use for a battleship, to drop a "fusion bomb" and melt a whole planet away. troop transporters, yep! but carriers like our aircraft carriers, i don't know, they leak of the same as a battle cruiser, "1000" ships aboard but can be outsmarted by a litle "torpedo boat" in the right situation. because it's lame and before they can launch any ship the battle will be over. i mean imagine we have the carrier, a pirate or enemy fighter is aproaching, first it has to be confirmed (20 secs loss), the captain orders "red alert, all crew to their battle stations" (yet 10 secs lost) now the pilots are in "piket", but they will need some time to get ready and lift off anyway, let's say 3mins, 3:30 minutes to long...

yeah, but if it's a machine controlled battlecruiser, the situation will be different, confirmed in 0.0 sec. (no mercy, wrong ship? sorry), ready in 0.1 sec., launch in 1 sec. ;)

i didn't respected here the possibility of a long range scan, but let's say it's a unattented attack, a hidden ship, hidden however, maybe a wrong registration?, weapon system disengaged to have no measurable energy consumption until you are in the very close range of it. perhaps a tricked mass reading so together with the wrong registration it will appear as a "LYNX" on their screen.

at least they wouldn't know what it is until it's in a visible range.

oh yes, we can't in pioneer, but also i guess a hyperspace re-entry point can be precalculated, what chance it will have then, when i "materialise" a few km of it? that we see the "exit cloud" already when a ship is entering hyperspace is a conpromise for the game imo, else you couldn't do assasinations. oh, yes a very weak point, what is if i wait for the battlecruiser, it's gone before they knew it.

yes i imagine mass reading as a way to calculate a possible hyperspace jump, perhaps the mass of a battlecruiser is enough? besides i have a very own (or old ;)) idea about hyperspace...

let's say they are a lot of pro's and con's for battlecruisers, yes perhaps it would be cool to find out if they have (any) power.

---

taking about storyline, hmm, when i remember what i and the few sci-fi addicted friends i had, liked most it was always the beginning of a story, when everything was small and uncertain, as soon as the story grew to massive battles with massive ships it has started to bore us.

and i still feel the same when i play FE2, best is the start, when i'm able to have all the powers it isn't the same fun no more. that's why i never wen't to elite, i mostly started a new career after the first few bombings. anyway imo the hierarchy of bombing and reconaissance is wrong, it's harder to make a good photo then to bomb from 500km height (points do reflect this).

after all there is only one challange left, select a impossible mission, a 0 gravity asteroid with a flying station (try to hit one, if you can catch it) and planets with more then 3g gravitation, where you have to aproach with the main thrust ahead to control at least a little your speed. and of course "sweep the floor" after the work is finished, pick up all "indians" left. never chicken out.

[Luomu]

@Thargoid your writing has been in the official wiki for a while now. When you have additions and corrections, just submit them! Anyone else is free to submit corrections too, of course.

[Brianetta]

@Thargoid doesn't have write access to the wiki, so somebody will need to be told when there are changes to be merged. I can be that person.

[Thargoid]

I'm actually waiting for some kind of decision on the work I have already done before I do more. Why keep going down road A if the decision of the group is they want road B?

Kind regards

John Harper Project Engineer Windsor Engineering

Sent from my Phone

On 13/07/2012, at 1:35 AM, Brian Ronald reply@reply.github.com wrote:

@Thargoid doesn't have write access to the wiki, so somebody will need to be told when there are changes to be merged. I can be that person.

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/pioneerspacesim/pioneer/issues/1213#issuecomment-6935100