Deleted member 115407
D
So, more consequences for killing the lawfuls, more incentive for killing the anarchy citizens.
Brilliant game design, FD. Top notch.
Brilliant game design, FD. Top notch.
Deleted member 115407
D
As well they should. Mass-murdering people at a settlement should have consequences.
Can confirm that Update 6's (undocumented) change to notoriety has incentivised a new wave of attacks. We're back to dropping double-digits in a single tick in several places as people flood anarchy settlements to avoid irritating C&P.
C'mon, Fdev, things were only just starting to level off... throw us a bone here.
C'mon, Fdev, things were only just starting to level off... throw us a bone here.
I see that Fdev really hates anarchies - and begins at unexpectly turning off black markets as an positive for anarchies (which probably turned off when fleet carriers approaches). This is probably also the same day, which reverts titles back to prospect/associate. Anarchy stations still welcomes as an independent instead of anarchy.
Yeah, I know that for this we have properly topic, but still we must face with problems not fixed.
And now this. For us, anarchists, we have already hard life and too much problems. Don't add more problems.
Yeah, I know that for this we have properly topic, but still we must face with problems not fixed.
And now this. For us, anarchists, we have already hard life and too much problems. Don't add more problems.
@Fake Newts Yeah, this is the most 'intelligent' update for anarchies and their bgs so far. This opens gates for bounty and base raiding mats collecting tourists, but I am afraid that a proper solution would mean a really different standard for anarchies, which FDev won't imply any time soon.
Too tricky, I guess, since it touches too many different aspects.
An 'easy' solution, however, could be:
Logically (lol), a kill in an anarchy produces no notoriety, as it 'logically never happens' in front of any authority, which would issue a fine, bounty or notoriety. Both in space and on foot, one would still get their bounties through scanning, but cashing them in the same system must not work on INF! Logically, when someone's death has no influence on society, 'cause that's the way it is in anarchies - one dies one way or the other, it therefore cannot change bgs INF...
Techhnically, like bounties cashed at an Interstellar Factor only produce REP. Only missions, trade and explo should produce INF in anarchies.
Like this, cmdrs would still be able to get bounties, raid anarchy bases without getting send to detention when they make a mistake, and it would not have any influence on the local bgs, respectively INF. Everyone is happy!
@Bruce G
For your initial question, here is the graph for Screaming Eagles in Kurughnaye from May to now. Pretty nice when the game forces you to "blaze your own trail" by playing a bgs janitor - apologies, a bgs facility manager - for several months...
And maybe you and the developers can give the INF idea I outlined above a second look...
Just trying to help...
Too tricky, I guess, since it touches too many different aspects.
An 'easy' solution, however, could be:
Logically (lol), a kill in an anarchy produces no notoriety, as it 'logically never happens' in front of any authority, which would issue a fine, bounty or notoriety. Both in space and on foot, one would still get their bounties through scanning, but cashing them in the same system must not work on INF! Logically, when someone's death has no influence on society, 'cause that's the way it is in anarchies - one dies one way or the other, it therefore cannot change bgs INF...
Techhnically, like bounties cashed at an Interstellar Factor only produce REP. Only missions, trade and explo should produce INF in anarchies.
Like this, cmdrs would still be able to get bounties, raid anarchy bases without getting send to detention when they make a mistake, and it would not have any influence on the local bgs, respectively INF. Everyone is happy!
@Bruce G
For your initial question, here is the graph for Screaming Eagles in Kurughnaye from May to now. Pretty nice when the game forces you to "blaze your own trail" by playing a bgs janitor - apologies, a bgs facility manager - for several months...
And maybe you and the developers can give the INF idea I outlined above a second look...
Just trying to help...
The easiest, lowest hanging fruit solution right now, would actually be quite simple - more and better advertised reactivation missions. Take one of those for a large tourist or industrial base, and you can pick up a boatload of mats and data without picking up so much as a fine or firing a single shot.
I would note that at least some players have already picked up on this. Search Inara for tourist settlements in Infrastructure Failure state during prime time, and you immediately notice that most of the "last update" times are under an hour old.
Deleted member 115407
D
Problem is, every time FD aim for the easiest/low-hanging solution they botch it in some way (either by design, or by accident, but often times both) and make everything worse.
They've had a steady track record of doing so for 5+ years now.
Maybe they just need to resign themselves to the simple fact that having populated "Anarchy" systems and jurisdictions was a terrible, nonsensical design decision and fix it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Deleted member 115407
D
"Dude, after Update 6 we totally hosed Anarchies again. We may want to sit down and do some design re-evalu..."
"There, that oughta do it."
"There, that oughta do it."
The thing is, it's not like the earlier games didn't get it right.
The "anarchy" in riedquat in FE2 wasn't a case of "there are anarchists in charge". It was "This system is ruled by a melting pot of gangs and families in a perpetual state of forever-war where alliances are rare and break the instant the balance of power shifts in any direction, and in any case only happen when two not-directly-neighbouring factions decide to gang up on a mutual neighbour and as soon as these temporary allies' borders touch each other they're directly at each others throats again. Industrial production is nonexistent as it takes less effort to bomb a factory than to build one, and the only real economic output of the system is some limited agricultural production from whatever parts of the surface aren't being turned into craters right now". There was no government and no possible way for there to be a government in that raging political inferno.
tl;dr the only way to get anything close to Riedquat in the current BGS would be to manually seed a system with nothing but criminal factions, and block the system from any incoming expansions just to make sure nobody inserted a non-criminal faction.
Deleted member 115407
D
This is literally just "the BGS" though.
Take away the half-baked social/political labels, and it's just the BGS, i.e. a bunch of tiny little factions who are willing to stop at nothing to secure their slice of the pie.
Ah yes, the long running debate over just what the heck "Anarchy" is supposed to mean. Most populated anarchy systems are firmly ruled by a gang or mob of some kind that doesn't feel like enforcing laws against theft and murder (except when they do), which isn't how most people use the word in reality! It could be interesting to add a mechanic where, for example, if system influence is too evenly divided between factions with different ideologies, system authority ships stop responding to crimes as they're too busy with other things. It's already the case that you get most of the other benefits of Anarchy (IFs, illegal goods on the market, etc) if a criminal faction controls a single station. I think that's one of the bits that Frontier really got right with ED - you already have rather fragmented system jurisdiction, and it's actually quite a lot of work to get a system under unified control (all those BGS wars to take that last station). Next to that, the part where it's a binary switch between "police respond to crimes in deep space" vs deep space being lawless wilds, feels off.
Deleted member 115407
D
Yes, but that is the comic book version of criminal organizations. That is how criminal organizations are poorly written by second-rate Hollywood screenwriters. A bunch of Mad Max half-wits, guffawing and spitting chunks of food out because DumDum just shot SparkPlug for no reason at the dinner table.
Real criminal organizations do care if you steal from them and murder their people. Real black markets exist because things are illegal, not because they aren't illegal.
Likewise, just because a faction is a happy smiley democracy doesn't mean that it isn't getting its hands dirty trying to achieve its goals, i.e. it's a shiny happy democracy for the faction members, not for anybody else.
We're wasting our time discussing it in this thread though.
Last edited by a moderator:
Deleted member 115407
D
Deleted member 115407
D
Bang up game design, FD. Blue ribbon stuff right there.
Well... they even mentioned the difference. Not an anarchy owning the settlement.
You know what'd make a huge difference?
Instead of "lawful factions send you to bounty hunt pirate factions with the very rare exception of a wetwork mission which is usually more trouble than it's worth*, and pirate factions send you to assassinate lawful factions" they just changed the targets a little so that instead of targeting "anarchies", factions would want you to kill any faction that they'd go to a war with instead of an election.
So democracies and co-operatives will happily get along.
Dictatorships? They want you to kill anarchists and democrats alike.
Corporates will want you to kill anyone that's not another corporate.
Anarchists will want you to kill literally everyone that isn't themselves, even other anarchists.
And so on.
The alternative would be to make pirate massacre missions faction-ambiguous and have them just want you to kill "pirates" regardless of which faction they belong to. Before Odyssey dropped, some of the most stable anarchies I'd set up were those that were more than 15ly away from the nearest populated system, which prevented them from being targeted by massacres. Hell, Fiden was anarchist for ages even after I left when carriers dropped, it only flipped back to lawful when a PMF moved in.
*wetwork missions are a problem because they usually don't tell you who they want you to murder in advance, and you can be blindsided by a frankly ridiculous kill requirement that'd take way too long to attempt
Deleted member 115407
D
ding ding ding!
But the problem, at its core, is not missions. The problem is that the missions have no consequence for the player, because "Anarchy" factions have been designed like cartoon villains.
Last edited by a moderator:
Deleted member 115407
D
The point is not that the particular player is ignorant of how basic faction jurisdictions work.* The point is that because of terrible game design, "Anarchy" factions are being driven to the brink of extinction. This player clearly states that he has been repeatedly farming an Anarchy settlement for days (at least 30 times in his own words) with zero consequences for him, and all of the consequences for the owning faction.
(* Although one would think that anyone flying a signature banner that proudly proclaims "Playing the Environment" would.... how should I put it.... "know stuff" about the environment in which they are playing. But I'll let that go.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeh, even without bounties, if killing people at settlements had much greater negative rep consequences that'd help a bit - especially if you're doing it without a mission to the settlement (the reason being they can at least grudgingly respect a mercenary, but some psycho killed or wannabe lawbringer doing it just because? Hell no)
Then give the assassins that come after you for driving your rep into the ground some actual teeth. I'm talking "old-style wing assassination target" levels of dental pointiness.
Then give the assassins that come after you for driving your rep into the ground some actual teeth. I'm talking "old-style wing assassination target" levels of dental pointiness.
