Players have been ruining Anarchy systems for years, they ain't likely to stop until there are none left, then will cry because there is nowhere that they can murder without consequence.
PP 2.0 donation spam is ruining Anarchies
- Thread starter Obi Wan Naboo
- Start date
That's true, but while there's quite a demand for environments which are made either easier or harder by the lack of authority enforcement, there is still a game balance problem in that Anarchies are self-destructive in the BGS under that activity. So in the long term - over two-thirds of them already gone compared with 10 years ago - for those environments to continue means either making Anarchy factions intrinsically stable under common patterns of player activity, or it means providing those environments in a way which doesn't depend on having a specific controlling faction government.
The first option at this stage would probably mean making Anarchy factions gain influence if their ships/personnel are killed. Would certainly shake things up a bit!
The second option would decouple system authority appearance (and maybe even bounty/notoriety issuing) from government type in a wider range of conditions (as already done, for example, for a HazRES or an Odyssey base with disabled alarms, or certain Powerplay enemies)
Don't see why - Kumo pledges don't get bounties anywhere in their territory so don't get the main benefit of them, and it just makes everyone else's undermining of them slightly easier if they do have them.
Kumo isn't Anarchy, more's the pity.
Not sure that would work with how missions work with other factions. What FDEV could do is have anarchy minor factions gain passive influence over time. Very small,... Say 1% per week. With so many systems it would be impossible for the player base to keep all of them down. And it goes on with the theme that if people don't maintain governments they eventually break down into anarchy's. A corruption of governments.
And we already know they have this mechanic available and coded as Azimuth in T Tauri has a sticky hold on that system. Despite the low population and low traffic, they somehow manage to gain influence to stay on top. Plot armor.
Mostly fine, I would think - they'd get various hostile missions against them, mostly from out of system, and they'd generally gain influence as a result (and the faction giving the mission would also gain influence in their system, of course). I think it would be fine to balance the influence gain from kills to be marginally lower than that resulting from the mission causing those kills, all else equal, so that missions taken within a system boost the faction giving the mission the most, then the Anarchy faction gets a bit, and everyone else loses out.
This doesn't make narrative sense and isn't supposed to - it's purely a balancing factor to make Anarchy factions self-reinforcing like all other types are. And I do think "having ways for any government type to become temporarily lawless" is probably the better option.
Passive moves like that don't tend to cause conflicts, so it would require a system to be largely untouched for over a year so the Anarchy faction finally gets to the coup threshold - and even then it'd lose the war and not obtain system control if no-one fought for it. The Pirate Attack state gives Anarchy factions 1% a day and no-one notices the effect of that.
It doesn't do anything to keep existing Anarchy factions taking multiple percent loss a day when in control, which is the bigger problem - it's not an effect which could sustain a decent number of Anarchy farms.
Very minor nitpick but the T Tauri example isn't really about influence, that works normally to my knowledge,. Azimuth can have their influence reduced there, it's been done several times now. It just looks harder to do because as a remote system with little infrastructure, almost all its visitors are going to benefit Azimuth, either deliberately from permit hunting or by coincidence as passing explorers drop exploration data etc. There are no nearby systems to generate missions that could shake things up, and Azimuth control the main base people go to.
The actual difference there is that Azimuth cant lose control of Hind Mine if they do get into a conflict there. So yeah, plot armour.
It's in no PP group's interest to have anarchy assets. Settlements are now even worse than they were before because it's a quick and way way to pick up powerplay goods and data because you don't get bounties for wiping out the settlement first.
I actively worked against them for a week. All I saw was when I worked against them their faction would gain an equal amount of influence back.
Our specially is bringing Federation rule of law to uncouth heathens!
These remote isolated systems are a real pain to shift, believe me, I spent months hunting signal sources in the Eagle Nebula pre-Odyssey to flip those ones. They heavily favour the controlling faction. But that's just down to the way the system is, not some special BGS rule. Get some help and you can definitely overcome it though - won't do anything permanent in T Tauri, but there are other interesting targets.
No just AX enthusiasts wanting Sally guns.
All that high population does is decrease the cap on uncontested influence movements.
If you're working against opposition (however unintentional) then the overall outcome is likely to be well below that cap anyway and the population level barely matters. Especially in a system like that where basically all passing traffic will be giving influence to the current controlling faction.
Personally I'd take being able to flip and hold places like T Tauri and similarly systems Eurybia and Yoru as canaries in the mine for the lifetime of the game. To me it would suggest that the level of new players has had a dramatic dip from where it is now because historically those places have been fortresses due to the game encouraging supporting those controlling factions.
I've been playing the game since the Alpha, and I only recently unlocked Eurybia and Yoru. The only reason I did so was because PowerPlay 2.0 is giving me so many materials, I might as well pin their blueprints and max out their access level, in the unlikely case that I might want easy access to them. I did that with a bunch of other Engineers as well.
And truth be told, it took me a while to figure out that everyone wasn't talking about the star type T Tauri, a very young proto-star, but a system of that name.
I believe the T Tauri system is how T Tauri stars got their name, or vice versa, the first recorded discovery of one.
Except in Elite. Where the star isn't a T Tauri.
Ohhh hell, you're serious? I think I umm, may have been making an assumption about that...