Thanks for the explanation, now i get it. And i do not like it. As you said, i should be in charge of who do i want to ally, not the system with some random values. I understand the reason behind the system though. Against AI it seems only one value is needed, how they like you, but if there was another human player instead of AI, he needs to know, how much you like him.

Anyway, i think this whole point system needs to be removed and you should be able to offer AI anything you want at any point of the game (as long as you researched those things like that Interspieces communication or Pacts indeed). The Envoys, Missions and giving money to other player should be just the means to persuade the other player or AI to accept your offers, not generate some points, which allows you to offer these things. 

I mean, you play with AIs. You offer AI some treaty at the beginning of the game, before sending Envoys, giving money, doing missions... AI either accepts or not. If it does not, you send envoys, you give it money, you try to complete mission, if if gives you any. You offer the treaty again, again some harakiri computing takes place, where AI decides what to do, while taking those envoys, money and missions into account  decides for or against accepting. No numerical values  in the whole process for you to see or as prerequisites to actually offering any treaties or pacts needed at all.

If you play with humans, basically the same thing happen. You offer random guy treaty, lets say he refuses. So you try to convince him with money and stuff to see, if he would not change his mind.

Could it not work like this? Are all those numbers needed to deal with something not really that exact or rational as relationships anyway?

Yeah, i think Envoy should have the immunity all the time and to prevent its use as a indestructible scout in such casw it should be made far more expensive.

In regard to any "bars" and crapload of those relationship factors, as i said,at best they should affect AIs decision whether to accept your proposal or not, but not preventing you to offer it to them, if you wish to do so.

Actually, if there have to be any ratings, i would include some kind of espionage. You will have to research it first and once youll have it, you will get some basic info in the diplomatic window about other factions, number of their planets, income rates, etc... which will help you to decide, who to ally with or go into war against. This info could be against countered by researching some kind of espionage. The Envoys may take some part in the whole process as well.

     Having the envoy with a limited time immunity is a good call in my opinion, indestructible scouts are bad, and to the thought of making them more expensive? I would pay a lot for indestructible scouts. I don't think you can make it to expensive for use as a scout, but cheap enough for use as an envoy. 

     I like showing us the numbers for all diplomacy relations, this way your not as frustrated as you were at the start of this post all the time. Numbers allow us to know what is happening. You cant have a game make decisions without numbers, unless you make it random, and random would not work here. I would rather see the numbers then not see them. 

     In regards to having to make sure your people like them, I agree with it, it makes it more realistic and plot relevant. An extreme example - if they have murdered x million people on your planets, your people would not be happy with you saying, Sure! Lets be friends and I will go and save your fleet and worlds from extermination! - Even considering at the start neither faction has 'done' anything to each other, your people still remember war for Years and years (before you start playing your game), with whole planets being bombed out of existence. Would you trust that the people who murdered that many civilians so easily? In addition, your leader has been giving away resources to these people and they have done nothing in return! 

     Now, I agree that this makes diplomacy more difficult, but that is how it should be after all this time. All sides have been monsters just waiting for the chance to murder unsuspecting children with nuclear bombs and their equivalents. Peace is something that is difficult after all.

    And on to espionage, ok I like the idea of this, but it would have to be later on I think, maybe sins 2.

Another way to help increase your faction's relations with another faction is to again offer them a mission, but give them a mission asking them to send you an envoy ship.  That way, if they do complete it, not only will relations increase for them doing what you asked, but now they have an envoy parked in your space earning the trust of your people.

To ensure a faction you want to ally with stays allied you need envoys at five or six of their planets. Once you do that you have a friend for life, even if you reject all their missions

well, diplomatic victory was always a bit broken. I felt you could get to it too quick in Trinity.

However, I think there is some work to be done with it. For one thing, you'd think that if you were declared the Diplomatic Champion of the galaxy (assuming that's what is said when you win with a diplomatic victory), you should, at least have distributed a few pacts here and there. As it stands, you gain no more ground towards the diplomatic victory if you 1) have pacts, 2) research the tech tree past the point where you can offer missions and build the envoy 3) have lots of very good allies (seems 1 or 2 good allies is all you need).

Also, there's no way to prevent someone from winning via diplomatic victory. It's basically a timer that ticks faster depending on how much work you put into it.

What I would say is that your 'score' should go up from having lots of friends, and go down from having lots of enemies. Your rate gain should be higher if you have pacts and the higher tier pacts should be worth more. Destroying envoys should result in a point drain for the owner of the envoy.

The result: if you want to win by diplomatic victory, you have to have more allies and more pacts than your opponents. You should have few enemies. For the few enemies you do have, their plan of attack on you should be to take out your envoys and attack you (obviously would make your relations drop further, and result in the biggest drain on your points). It would also behoove your enemy to make his own friends and encourage them to do the same to you. Is this not what everyone would have expected diplomacy to be like?

One additional thing I would add, but it's not completely necessary: Culture should affect your relations/points. Again, this can be combated, and it makes sense that the dominant culture has the biggest diplomatic influence. Obviously, it should only have this affect when in presence of another players' system. I'm not sure which way makes the most sense. If it directly gave points, it might be preferred over making allies, and that would be bad. If it directly affected relations, envoys might lose their effectiveness even in non-diplomatic victory games. On the other hand... culture could have a negative affect. So, lets say I have the dominant culture, but I'm not so invested diplomatically. My culture maybe suppresses the diplomatic gains of other empires. Not alot, but it would then play a part. I dont know though, sounds a bit complicated, but I feel culture should play some part in the diplomatic victory since there's no 'culture victory' (which there so should be).

Or maybe just a rate bonus for having so much % culture?

I wholeheartedly agree. I think the diplomacy parts of the game adds some nice things, like the trading alliances, ceasefires, pacts or the new stuff regarding neutral factions,pirates etc... but diplomatic victory was pointless from the start. As a human player, yes, you want to use diplomacy to give you some "breathing space" or to use some of those bonuses, which come with pacts or envoys, but i doubt anyone would want to win the game by amassing some diplomatic points, basically sending envoys and waiting for the needed amount of points to be met. So its IMHO not about about letting another human win this way, its about to not to want to win this way yourself at all. 

A very simple solution could be to have an option that sets how complicated the diplomacy is- Basic (pre diplomacy with pacts and that stuff) and Advanced (What it is now.) 

Naturally, with Basic on, Diplomatic Victory would be disabled. Personally, im too interested in trying to turn the enemy on themselves (i remember a particular pre patch one.. Secrets? That was great, since it was a single lane down the middle of  the map, and i just got the ally at the back to ceasefire with me, and it was game over.)

But uh... yeah. Id like it if it was simply toggle able.