Doomed anarchies

[Rubbernuke]

One idea might be to use the 'zone' system already in the game (i.e. deep space / shipping lane) and have zones of control RNG pirates patrol (to simulate rival gangs).

These would look like the exclusion zones of planets that you can fly through, avoid etc. If you go through you get attacked, but if you want to get through you need an agile SC ship to find those cracks (thus adding gameplay).

 

[IstvaanDCIV]

If I understand correctly, "anarchy" factions in Elite are basically pirates and mobsters. It does seem like a rather glaring omission that such factions have no real way of getting back at the CMDRs who soil their turf. If you tread on the toes of organised crime, then there should be repercussions as they try to cut your feet off. Pilots who mess with anarchies should find themselves getting attacked by pirates more often, in greater numbers and in more powerful ships. They should be targeted by hitmen, both in ships and on foot. Unlike non-anarchy factions, they wouldn't announce a CMDR's infamy to the rest of the galaxy by issuing bounties, but will instead quietly hire some goons to take you out when you least expect it.

So I guess there should be a "shadow" version of the current infamy/C&P mechanics in which being a bounty hunter/vigilante/criminal-targeting murder-hobo spreads the word around the galaxy's criminal underworld.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Personally, I eventually started viewing anarchies in Elite Dangerous as being less about there being "no central authority," and more about being a catch-all term that includes any minor power that won't respect the autonomy of the Pilots Federation, and grant its members special rights, privileges, and immunities when operating in their area of control.

This could include a self-styled "pirate lord" who refuses to allow Pilots Federation members safe passage through their space, or a newly established democracy that insists that members of the Pilots Federation be prosecuted under their laws, as opposed to the Pilots Federation charter.

In other words, being designated as an "anarchy" is the Pilots Federation's way of saying, "Say... that's a nice little independent government you've got there. It would be a shame if something happened to it."

At least, that's how the mechanics of this game's so-called "crime and punishment" gameplay feels. It's one of the many reasons why I keep asking, "Are we the baddies?"

 

[Ian Doncaster]

It made more sense in the 1984 version. Without minor factions in the game and being able to see who is in charge you have the appearance of going into a system where no one rules so there is no central organisation to organise policing. Anarchy meant criminal because no-one was keeping the pirates out. So the difference there was that the pirates were just pirates, not necessarily under the jurisdiction of the controlling faction (or at least could be viewed as such).

Yes. Indeed, the whole C&P model with bounties really depends on there being a very small number of legitimate bounty issuers (1 in Elite, 3 in FE2, 4 in FFE) whose control over any individual system isn't meaningfully contested.

Even in Anarchy systems back then you'd get a bounty if you shot up the station or interfered with trade shipping, it's just that they had extremely limited ability to enforce those bounties unless you were kind enough to dock and let them impound you until you paid up.

With every system in the galaxy nowadays being in essentially a permanent state of either war or weekly elections or both (even if not for system control) the sort of solid central authority (Galcop, ImpSec, etc.) needed for the old Elite bounty system to work just isn't there any more. Moving away from "crime" as a concept towards "reputation/consequences" would probably not make a massive difference to the average self-defence trader / explorer or even bounty hunting of non-factional pirates (which should be the default sort of pirate) but would clean up a lot of the weirdness of the system where faction A orders you to beat up faction B but then won't let you dock to get paid because doing so attracts a bounty.

Yeah, the problem that anarchies face is more one of incentives than of lacking any particular BGS levers.

Agreed. If the actions being taken by players in aggregate didn't knock them over, the BGS would be virtually immovable. For the balance of player actions, the BGS is being entirely correct in collapsing Anarchies. They've made a few tweaks here and there to soften that impact specifically but it's not a big deal. (If all the people accidentally knocking them over were actually trying, it'd go even worse)

But it's not a BGS problem, and it's not really fixable without making fundamental-level rewrites to basic game mechanics and incentives, any more than anything can be done about Alioth Independents' sprawling expansion.

 

[Obi Wan Naboo]

View attachment 345348

 

[Ned Flandalorian]

utterly doodly dangerous

Simmer down there commanderino.

 

[Screemonster]

But it's not a BGS problem, and it's not really fixable without making fundamental-level rewrites to basic game mechanics and incentives, any more than anything can be done about Alioth Independents' sprawling expansion.

It'd need a carrot/stick approach in the form of reworking C&P as well as a rework to missions.

If pirate massacre missions and pirate assassinations were faction-ambiguous, for instance, it'd take a lot of the negative pressure off anarchy factions which are heavily targeted by them. If criminal factions could generate those missions, even more so (I mean, what criminal gang doesn't want to take out the competition?)
Likewise, lawful factions should generate more criminal missions - with a particular weight towards attacking factions with which they'd go to war instead of an election. The nice fluffy democracy might be willing to negotiate with a cooperative via diplomatic means, but interactions with a dictatorship should be at a more Cold War kind of level.

As I stressed above, anarchy factions would benefit from reacting to players killing their faction members as if it was murder regardless of actual legal status. On the carrot side of that equation there should be ways to "get away" with crime in lawful jurisdictions - even if you still take the rep hit because they suspect you, you avoid the bounty because they can't prove it. For instance, places where there's no system link should have crime reporting disabled outright, rather than just having the crime reported regardless but the cops not showing up. Removing the panopticon would go a long way towards making it actually worthwhile to act shady.

Honestly I'd go a step further and say that low-sec should be lawless outside of the jurisdiction bubbles of stations, settlements and installations, with medium sec being lawless on planet surfaces outside of settlements - the galaxy would become a touch more dangerous and it'd justify giving cops a lot more teeth in highsec (coincidentally, most of the places people complain about getting ganked are... high sec systems).

Another, slightly more complex solution would be for bounties not to be fixed until authority ships arrive on the scene. Meaning, if you assault someone, blow them away, and get the hell out of dodge before the cops arrive in response to their distress call, you should get away without a bounty. If you get caught red-handed, enjoy having a price on your head.

Fighting smart and sticking to lowsec systems for your shady dealings should be rewarded, as it is right now literally the only difference between high and lowsec is how long it takes for the cops to show up.

 

[Ruurka]

I agree with Scree. Maybe I again say it, but anarchies in ED needs serious changes. We need to be competitive with other factions, but for now, as Naboo said, it's for now going to against us. Theocracy, which have fewest faction presents, are controlling more systems than anarchies, which have most faction presents.

We need, that anachies will be more... unique, with their own set of rules and BGS. Or even in commodity market (where during buying commodities, you may don't know, do that goods are stolen or not every time during transaction). Anarchies really needs a lot of changes, not only superficial changes, but also more deeper (like adding their own ships, which will be works like security ships, but with different behavior (like f.e. their scanning will not break smuggling missions if you're allied with them, or after scanning, they may demand a cargo from you before they let you to pass (not fulfilling their demands may results to attack you, their station do same. Not forgetting, that they may scan you sooner, than security ships will do).

There's a lot of possibilities, to improve anarchy factions and their systems, just is need to implement. Lawful factions have enough changes, time to anarchy factions, to they have lot's of changes.

P.S. Don't excluding anarchy factions from CG's.

 

[Frankymole]

that anachies will be more... unique, with their own set of rules

There's an inherent contradiction there... anarchy should mean fewer rules, preferably none.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

There's an inherent contradiction there... anarchy should mean fewer rules, preferably none.

Potentially, although I think we could all agree that if you gun down dozens of members of a faction, their opinion of you should at least become more negative.

 

[Riverside]

Potentially, although I think we could all agree that if you gun down dozens of members of a faction, their opinion of you should at least become more negative.

This is a rule that could be different for lawless factions. While lawful factions continue with the current rule (that wanted ships has essentially no effect on faction rep) with lawless factions all their ships are wanted so having kills affecting rep would be reasonable.

It could discourage farming bounties in systems where the anarchy faction controls a useful asset and in particular the system. However in practice I don't think this would make any difference for most circumstances, Cmdrs won't really care that they are hostile with a pirate faction in lawful systems.

 

[Frankymole]

Potentially, although I think we could all agree that if you gun down dozens of members of a faction, their opinion of you should at least become more negative.

Hmm, and yet my reputation with anarchies remains at 100% even when their base is on red alert, alarms blaring, turrets shooting at me. Reputation doesn't seem to go down very fast with other factions either, even if I have notoriety and crimes (bounties / wanted) from them. Maybe that isn't what reputation means, but it seems odd. Rep does go down when you do ship conflict zones against a faction.

 

[Frankymole]

Cmdrs won't really care that they are hostile with a pirate faction in lawful systems.

Surely pirates are automatically hostile to lawful ships, that's why they keep attacking them?

 

[Dillon Fallon]

This is a rule that could be different for lawless factions. While lawful factions continue with the current rule (that wanted ships has essentially no effect on faction rep) with lawless factions all their ships are wanted so having kills affecting rep would be reasonable.

It could discourage farming bounties in systems where the anarchy faction controls a useful asset and in particular the system. However in practice I don't think this would make any difference for most circumstances, Cmdrs won't really care that they are hostile with a pirate faction in lawful systems.

True, how useful it would be is certainly debatable, but going into a settlement where you're KoS might make it be something to think about.

It's just something that makes more sense to me even if that's all it does, as opposed to still being allied to a faction that you've just killed 50 members of.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

Hmm, and yet my reputation with anarchies remains at 100% even when their base is on red alert, alarms blaring, turrets shooting at me. Reputation doesn't seem to go down very fast with other factions either, even if I have notoriety and crimes (bounties / wanted) from them. Maybe that isn't what reputation means, but it seems odd. Rep does go down when you do ship conflict zones against a faction.

Kill everyone in a settlement a few times and see how it goes. It does drop considerably if you're consistently farming in one place or against one faction.

 

[Frankymole]

Kill everyone in a settlement a few times and see how it goes. It does drop considerably if you're consistently farming in one place or against one faction.

Maybe it works differently in Colonia. I keep being sent on missions to one place and it doesn't seem to go down at all... mind you, there are two anarchy factions which spawn missions against each other's bases. I don't take an equal number from each, but I guess some people do.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

Maybe it works differently in Colonia. I keep being sent on missions to one place and it doesn't seem to go down at all... mind you, there are two anarchy factions which spawn missions against each other's bases. I don't take an equal number from each, but I guess some people do.

If it's an anarchy settlement, it won't. If you go shoot up a lawful settlement, you will see a drop in reputation. That's the issue, especially with Odyssey material farming which still seems to be harmful in some way.

 

[Frankymole]

If it's an anarchy settlement, it won't. If you go shoot up a lawful settlement, you will see a drop in reputation. That's the issue, especially with Odyssey material farming which still seems to be harmful in some way.

Ah, I see what you mean. Sorry for getting the wrong end of the stick. I agree, your rep should drop big-time if you attack an anarchy faction - perhaps even faster than for a lawful one, as they have no bureaucratic loops to jump through to demand your head on a pole.

 

[Screemonster]

Ah, I see what you mean. Sorry for getting the wrong end of the stick. I agree, your rep should drop big-time if you attack an anarchy faction - perhaps even faster than for a lawful one, as they have no bureaucratic loops to jump through to demand your head on a pole.

Especially since being hostile to a faction and continuing to operate in their space will result in this:

Which... honestly sounds like way more in line with how an criminal faction would operate rather than faffing around with bounties and arrest warrants.

Funnily enough, I've never had one of these from an anarchy. Even when I've seriously annoyed that anarchy. I've had it a few times from lawful governments though. This message is one I got while I was in their haz-res, bounty hunting for them in order to get my rep out of hostile. Funny how that works.

 

[photomankc]

Maybe it works differently in Colonia. I keep being sent on missions to one place and it doesn't seem to go down at all... mind you, there are two anarchy factions which spawn missions against each other's bases. I don't take an equal number from each, but I guess some people do.

As mentioned its just a quirk of the way Elite does "Anarchy" as a catch-all for "Criminal". You can't lower your rep with them by killing faction members (outside a combat zone). It seems to require the stack of bounties to do it and you can't get those in Anarchy. So you can run about friendly as can be with them all as you raid settlement upon settlement over and over and over again. No impact to you... only to them. Now as I recently experienced. One can quickly burn their way from neural to hostile with just a couple settlement massacres against non-anarchy if they are large ones. Maybe a couple of ship kills to boot. Wanted, a good 1/2 day of notoriety, and shoot-on-sight by all members of the faction. Once you are hostile performing missions or looting thier settlements becomes far more spicy and certain mission types become pretty close to impossible.

I believe that we're unlikely to see this really corrected because they treat a criminal controlled system as 'anarchy' baked into the BGS. Where a really criminal controlled system would still have a reputation hit for the guy that keeps offing all their people as well as enforcement squads to deal with them once they became hostile. It's not that there are no rules or authority, it's that those rules and authority are not based on the legal system of a legitimate government.

Anarchy should be uninhabited systems or perhaps systems with unaffiliated settlements or a state entered when a power is overthrown or deposed. The conflation of anarchy with criminal tyranny is unfortunate in ED.