Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 21 of 21

Thread: Instead of faction states, why not just use system states?

  1. #16
    Originally Posted by Novo Mundus View Post (Source)
    Not as sure about famine - some factions could be stockpiling their own food, and generally have a better supply chain than others, and gaurd their food supplies, causing other factions within the same system to be short on food. This could then have "steal food from the other faction in this same system" missions (which could include from megaships/gound bases, as well as piracy of supply ships)
    Yeah, I could see factions stockpiling food. If only the game reflected that now, where are all the NPC food transportation freighters which should be entering those systems, ripe for piracy? Nice call on the stealing food missions, I like that.

    You could even have passengers fleeing stations in outbreak systems, with the system authority ships requesting your 'assistance' to prevent them escaping and spreading the infection to neighbouring systems. A nice little moral question for Commanders to ponder. Are they infected, or not? Are you really gonna blow up an Orca full of families, protesting their innocence and clean bill of health?

    I'm going a bit off track there, but system states should be providing more gameplay opportunities then they do now, while making some sense.

  2. #17
    Originally Posted by TheSisko View Post (Source)
    Yeah, I could see factions stockpiling food. If only the game reflected that now, where are all the NPC food transportation freighters which should be entering those systems, ripe for piracy? Nice call on the stealing food missions, I like that.

    You could even have passengers fleeing stations in outbreak systems, with the system authority ships requesting your 'assistance' to prevent them escaping and spreading the infection to neighbouring systems. A nice little moral question for Commanders to ponder. Are they infected, or not? Are you really gonna blow up an Orca full of families, protesting their innocence and clean bill of health?

    I'm going a bit off track there, but system states should be providing more gameplay opportunities then they do now, while making some sense.
    Yeah, left out famine because people are ignorant like that, and might totally try to starve out their "fellow" man. Agree on the general principle of deeper and more sensible states, both for systems and the factions within.

  3. #18
    Originally Posted by Kaocraft View Post (Source)
    BGS probably needs a rethink and a rebuild from the ground up.
    I think the current model works pretty well for the typical state at the start of the game and maybe the first couple of years after that - a faction controls *a* system, not even all the assets in that, the bigger factions have a presence in some adjacent system, and some of the biggest might even control a minor station there too.

    Then it works pretty well. System X in Famine ... well, their base in System Y will also have Famine state, even though they've personally got enough food, because they're trying to collect it for their citizens in X.

    Get into a War in System Y? Obviously this will be felt in nearby X.

    With mini-empires with consolidated control over 5-10 systems being much more common nowadays, the effects get a bit odd, especially for the 30+-system regional powers. The surprise is that it still works reasonably well even in that case.

    Higher player numbers and a better understanding of the BGS I think have changed things too as everything moves much faster - the Lugh war was a major event with an independent faction trying to throw off Federal control, with multiple CGs and long-term political consequences. In today's galaxy, "independent faction takes over Federal system" is just another Monday. I'm not sure Frontier really know how to cope with the ultra-fluid borders that causes. (The premise of the game being in part that the near-instant travel of the new FSD is shaking up the established order, it's perhaps reasonable that none of the superpowers know how in-universe they're supposed to deal with it, though).

  4. #19
    Originally Posted by TheSisko View Post (Source)
    But it doesn't make sense that the entire faction adopts that state. If there's an oubreak of flu in London, the whole of England doesn't go into 'outbreak' state. So why should factions?
    If London was in outbreak, most foreign countries would just consider England as in outbreak.

  5. #20
    BGS is to generate so background for us to play in, it isnt supposed to be an Intersteller Geopolitical Simulator, so cut it some slack.

    Such a change would lead to all sorts of horrible consequences without a lot of much cleverer couterbalancing. Do you really want the bubble ruled by a dozen Player Groups ? The current faction wide status does a great job at preventing exponential expansion.

  6. #21
    Originally Posted by Dommarraa View Post (Source)
    BGS is to generate so background for us to play in, it isnt supposed to be an Intersteller Geopolitical Simulator, so cut it some slack.

    Such a change would lead to all sorts of horrible consequences without a lot of much cleverer couterbalancing. Do you really want the bubble ruled by a dozen Player Groups ? The current faction wide status does a great job at preventing exponential expansion.
    I'd like to land at a station full of cooties that don't nonsensically affect people purely on the basis of their political affiliation. How that translates into Nu-EVE is not apparent by your post.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12