ORIGINAL: Wade1000
Well, I like the idea of balancing a game based on reputation. Distant Worlds seems to have achieved this idea well. I'm just thinking maybe some important adjustments might be needed.
I like that it is difficult for any one empire to steamroll/dominate all other empires too quickly. Like Taltamir and Erik Rutins, states it is still doable to make war regularly and maintain your reputation. You just have to take heed of all the factors affecting repuattion.
Reputation will go from negative back to neutral over time.
So then, consider conquering small chunks of an enemy empire then try to use diplomacy to make peace. Wait for more reputation, then maybe be ready for another war with the same opponent or another.
Wars on our planet in our history have been constant on and off struggles, including cold wars of weapons races and espionage.
War and diplomacy tied together that way is interesting. It makes dipomacy as important and viable tool as war.
I agree entirely that re-balancing should be done... just because it is POSSIBLE to game reputation to maintain it doesn't mean you should need to game it.. also it should be more "obvious" and natural... people shouldn't have to game it, they should play naturally and get a "natural" reputation based on their behavior.
And evil governments SHOULD provide a great protection against revolt... that is, drastically reduce the negative aspects of bad reputation upon your own population via maintaining a police state. With path of darkness, it should even be opposite, where "bad" reputation gives bonuses while a good reputation is "bad"



