BGS capital distance influence tax

[Deleted member 192138]

Some minor factions have territory that spans a huge amount of space. With the way that these factions are implemented - native to a system, generally named or representing a specific political party or grouping of that system, it seems weird that the BGS makes no distinction for how the interests and cultural distinctions would impact power and control in state of infinite growth. The more a ruling group is viewed as being culturally distinct and interested in their own interests of their native locales, the harder it is for them to maintain control. Managing these perspectives takes a huge amount of resources - either in the form of media, or direct suppression of dissent/oppression.

Historically, this results in either military control that has to be sustained, and when it can't these control orders collapse (such as the collapse of colonial empires in the 20th century), or the need to forcibly culturally assimilate conquered people into a shared national identity over the course of centuries. Both of these means a sustained resource cost for maintaining control over territory further away from (geographically and/or culturally) the commanding nation state.

In Total War games, this has been represented in campaign modes with a negative public order state the further from the designated capital city that a conquered region is. It seems like something similar could be implemented in Elite - where a minor faction in control of systems further away from their native origin point, incurs a tax to their influence. With the implementation of command capital costs in power play, this is also already recognised as a factor for command and control in Elite, but not directly as part of the background simulation.

To ground my suggestion into an action, and to pluck some numbers out the air - I propose that if a controlling faction in a system is 20Ly from their native system, this incurs a -2% influence state similar to how a terrorist attack/famine/outbreak or other negative disaster state works. Actual numbers should be subject to balancing considerations, of course. This could be done as an incremental tax (so say 40Ly would be a -4% influence tax) but I suspect the coding for that would be additionally complex - a flat rate at a specified distance seems more straight forward.

This would shape the play space for BGS to be more realistic and more interesting. It would impose a more meaningful cost to a permanent state of expansion than the occasional drop of influence in a stronghold system, as it would make it cost more resources for minor factions to maintain huge empires. Instead, the question of whether or not taking control of a system would be beneficial has to be balanced with consideration of how far it is from the native system, how this will impact on the resources needed to maintain it, which other systems are under control, whether a target system has meaningful benefits for a faction to expand there. The implementation of this state could also create foreground for, and a more meaningful impact of, positive and negative states such as public holiday and terrorist attacks. As these then come to reflect and impact on the cultural and political relevance of controlling factions, whilst also providing a counter to or stacking on top of this capital distance tax.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Interesting idea - certainly I think some sort of "overheads" for larger factions are needed, since the new post-3.3 BGS model doesn't really have the same "overheads" for large factions that the old one did.

I propose that if a controlling faction in a system is 20Ly from their native system, this incurs a -2% influence state similar to how a terrorist attack/famine/outbreak or other negative disaster state works.

There's a clever consequence here related to system population, too.

• In a low-population system, the distance tax would be barely noticeable and once the system was under control, passing traffic would probably be sufficient to keep it stable anyway and largely ignore the tax.
• In a medium-population system, taking the system would be tougher, holding it would still be practical, but expanding further from it would be very tricky.
• In a high-population system, onward expansion would essentially be impossible, capture incredibly difficult, and substantial efforts would need to be made to avoid just retreating straight back out again.
• Ultra-high population systems would be basically impossible to even maintain a stable presence in, never mind take over.

 

[Riverside]

I would like to see more evidence that the intent of the changes made in 3.0, where retreats would be harder to avoid, expansions have a significant downside and maintaining a large number of systems would become a genuine achievement even unopposed rather than only a matter of time. I like your idea of an increasing influence tax based on distance from the system of origin, I'd like to see a drastic reduction in the inf effect of bounty vouchers based on distance from where they were obtained too, although I can imagine this would require the system they were obtained from to be tracked.

This may encourage Powerplay supporting players to make more use of suitable local NPC factions rather than endlessly expanding one faction throughout their territory too.

 

[Deleted member 192138]

I'd like to see a drastic reduction in the inf effect of bounty vouchers based on distance from where they were obtained too, although I can imagine this would require the system they were obtained from to be tracked.

Does a mechanic for this exist currently? It would make sense, though I don't know how much impact it would have, as people that want to do bounty farming will just do it closer to whichever system once they know that exists.

I do think that the effect of bounties needs to be re-balanced now that they're a much more favoured way to earn credits, so therefore having a big effect on how ambient traffic interacts with influence compared to before. Though that train of thought could end up being a large thread in itself.

This may encourage Powerplay supporting players to make more use of suitable local NPC factions rather than endlessly expanding one faction throughout their territory too.

Yes. I'll be honest - one of my main motivations for why I'd like to see some sort of change is that I find it pretty disappointing looking at the size of factions and control, and you end up with these goliath factions that suited the needs of a player group at one point, that then moved on to other things or dropped out of activity, or just focused on different fronts, but due to the way the game works you have these skeletons or husks of basically untouched factions that remain in control. It's kinda weird and disappointing that the diversity and identity of regions is subsumed by these empty mega-factions.

 

[Riverside]

Does a mechanic for this exist currently?

Any bounty obtained via KWS or without is as good as any other for that faction regardless of the system it's obtained in & sold in.

 

[Screemonster]

A big problem I've noticed is that since states can't be blocked by activity in another system, there's no braking effect on low-population systems.
There was one faction at the bottom of the bubble that I ran into that was present in over 20 systems, all of which had been runaway expansion from a single-outpost system with a population of 4000 because there was nothing there to stop them. The BGS groups I know and talk to also don't bother avoiding bad expansions any more since there's no such thing - if they expand somewhere they're not interested in, they just ignore it, no big deal.

So I took over that system and spammed expansions for the anarchists there to fill up the local systems. I moved out when another PMF moved into the area. I also ran into another faction nearby that had the strategy of bountyhunting in one good system they owned, and dropping the bounties in a lowpop system they owned to just expand constantly because there's no brake on doing so. They didn't direct their expansions at all, so I was able to stop them coming my way by filling a few chokepoint systems so there was no path available for them to reach me easily. (They ended up bumping into the Off World Collective and going to war with CI as far as I can tell, ho ho)

Honestly, a distance-based solution isn't really necessary, all we really need is a global expansion tax since expansion is the last global state we have.

Every day expansion is active, they lose log10(x)% in every system, where x is the number of systems they have a presence in - they'd have to pass 10 systems before it even gets to 1% per system per day, and 100 before it reached 2%, but expanding a large empire would take a lot of work to maintain ground.

 

[Deleted member 192138]

Honestly, a distance-based solution isn't really necessary, all we really need is a global expansion tax since expansion is the last global state we have.

Every day expansion is active, they lose log10(x)% in every system, where x is the number of systems they have a presence in - they'd have to pass 10 systems before it even gets to 1% per system per day, and 100 before it reached 2%, but expanding a large empire would take a lot of work to maintain ground.

Whilst your suggestion would make it unappealing to make future mega-faction setups, I don't think it would necessarily reduce existing, un-attended mega-factions. One of the intended consequences of my proposal would be to create a background effect on existing, un-attended mega-factions that would reduce them back to within a localised territory. So that their distant and untouched systems can passively return to native (or more local) faction control, without forcing a retreat if the player group supporting them do want to return their attentions to actively maintaining the full reaches of their empire.

I think a global expansion would be an interesting mechanic. I also think it would very specifically be open to being manipulated by opponents. So players would keep on pushing their opponents into wasteful expansions to hit their influence everywhere. You end up with a permanent grind in one or two small pop systems trying to trigger/avoid an expansion tax, so that you can keep control in systems 20+Ly away. On the one hand it would create a curious element of subterfuge, but on the other hand I don't think it would promote the best kind of gameplay for BGS contestation.

 

[Sentenza]

I don't think this is really applicable here - "supply lines" are effectively meaningless in an universe with FTL travel, it takes less time to jump 20ly than to travel in your own system. "Faction size" is a much more practical limit - more systems, more overhead to handle them.

 

[Riverside]

I don't think this is really applicable here - "supply lines" are effectively meaningless in an universe with FTL travel, it takes less time to jump 20ly than to travel in your own system. "Faction size" is a much more practical limit - more systems, more overhead to handle them.

You make a good point about faction size (the number of systems a faction is present in)

Both are a factor imo.

 

[Deleted member 192138]

I don't think this is really applicable here - "supply lines" are effectively meaningless in an universe with FTL travel, it takes less time to jump 20ly than to travel in your own system. "Faction size" is a much more practical limit - more systems, more overhead to handle them.

This isn't a question of supply lines, but rather creating the impression of cultural and political diversity and significance. I agree that geography with FTL/immediate travel would create very different questions for logistics, however it does remain a way to implement practical changes. For example, 20Ly is the territory looked at in the first phase of expansion, it's the minimum distance you have to travel to be able to cash cartographic data and also the range in which you can buy cartographic and market data.

Although in game we can set up a ship with a jump range of 80Ly, it's probably fair to presume that in Elite most standard logistical transport mechanisms aren't geared for that sort of range in one hop. So my proposal of a 20Ly bubble of effect is for a simple implementation that follows the premise of existing mechanics in the game.

 

[Screemonster]

Another interesting way to do it would be, rather than subtracting influence directly, reduce the effect of inf+ actions the further you are from their capital.
I seem to recall the very first civilisation game had a similar mechanic (depending on government type) called "corruption".

Directly forcing the hand of god to grind away a faction's influence into constant maintenence mode even when there's no traffic would be a bit much, in my opinion, especially given that depending on where they started in the bubble, they might not have many inhabited systems within 20ly. The Void Walkers, for instance, are currently present in 27 star systems and only one of those is within 20ly of their capital (besides the capital itself, obviously) - admittedly, as far as I can tell they're largely the size they are because they're virtually unopposed in that part of the bubble, but it'd be a bit harsh to force constant maintenance on what they've built and render them unable to take a break - but making it a little harder to expand further, or make it harder to maintain a large empire if they are finally opposed, would be fine.

 

[Shields Offline]

This idea is very Civilization, I love it.

 

[Sentenza]

This isn't a question of supply lines, but rather creating the impression of cultural and political diversity and significance.

Is there really any cultural/political diversity between systems, if it takes five minutes to go from one to another?

 

[Ian Doncaster]

I don't think it would necessarily reduce existing, un-attended mega-factions.

Though I don't know how much yours would either - it'd make them stabilise lower down but if they'd consolidated a system properly, up to medium-high populations would keep the influence levels stable even with a 2% tax based just on passing traffic, if no-one was particularly trying to overthrow them either.

I'm not sure an unattended mega-faction is that much of a problem in itself, though - with per-system states, it can now theoretically be dismantled and retreated from tens of systems at once, if people take a dislike to it.

 

[Jane Turner]

the 3.3 changes had almost the polar opposite effect of the changes they were intended to cause. The "Empires will fall" that was quoted, became "Empire can grow infinitely large without any repercussions, and for good measure, factions just starting out will be heavily handicapped. I'd be all for reintroducing some sort of faction-wide complexity, despite the obvious headaches that it would cause us.

 

[Sentenza]

the 3.3 changes had almost the polar opposite effect of the changes they were intended to cause. The "Empires will fall" that was quoted, became "Empire can grow infinitely large without any repercussions, and for good measure, factions just starting out will be heavily handicapped. I'd be all for reintroducing some sort of faction-wide complexity, despite the obvious headaches that it would cause us.

I would simulate administrative overhead with an influence tax based on the number of systems you control. I would even make it exponential to counterbalance the manpower of very large groups, with a no-tax zone to not crush newly established factions. So, something like this:

0-5 systems: no effect
5+ systems: influence tax starting at 1% and growing exponentially

The rising curve will ensure that no one can keep expanding just by having thousands of players, past a certain point the effort WILL be more than they can do no matter what.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Could you use something already in the game for that, like happiness? For example, each system added makes that faction less and less happy (eventually becoming a drag as you see more unrest) and requires more work to keep topped up, or, the bigger it gets the greater the chance of a negative BGS state (like something similar to infrastructure failure, outbreak or famine)?

 

[Deleted member 192138]

Could you use something already in the game for that, like happiness? For example, each system added makes that faction less and less happy (eventually becoming a drag as you see more unrest) and requires more work to keep topped up, or, the bigger it gets the greater the chance of a negative BGS state (like something similar to infrastructure failure, outbreak or famine)?

Despite happiness being much heralded for the Beyond update, in that it would have an effect on where you can expand from and would be meaningful, that never really materialised as far as I'm aware. I tend towards solutions that limit complexity. Less to go wrong (hopefully).

Is there really any cultural/political diversity between systems, if it takes five minutes to go from one to another?

I can walk down the road to communities that talk in different dialects, have different fashion aesthetics, different voting priorities, different wealth, different jobs. As the world has gotten smaller (logistically speaking) the empires of the 19th century have shrunk and collapsed. Cultural and political diversity and autonomy isn't measured in travel time.

I would simulate administrative overhead with an influence tax based on the number of systems you control. I would even make it exponential to counterbalance the manpower of very large groups, with a no-tax zone to not crush newly established factions. So, something like this:

0-5 systems: no effect
5+ systems: influence tax starting at 1% and growing exponentially

The rising curve will ensure that no one can keep expanding just by having thousands of players, past a certain point the effort WILL be more than they can do no matter what.

Something like this could also work. My concern about an exponential growth of the tax or some sort of curve is, if something goes wonky with its implementation, suddenly every faction is getting crazy influence going on. So it's not that I disagree with the principle, but I'm not necessarily confident with what would result in implementation.

A middle ground between distance and faction size, could be to have the capital distance tax activate in systems where both of two triggers are met:
1. Does the controlling faction control 6+ systems.
2. Is this specific system 21Ly+ from the controlling faction's native system.
If yes to both, then capital expansion tax is active in each applicable system, until either becomes a no.

That way fledgling PMFs have room to grow and expand in packed (by faction) or sparse (by population) regions without hitting into a tax immediately (of course, precise numbers should be subject to balance considerations).

 

[SciTrekker]

Could you use something already in the game for that, like happiness? For example, each system added makes that faction less and less happy (eventually becoming a drag as you see more unrest) and requires more work to keep topped up, or, the bigger it gets the greater the chance of a negative BGS state (like something similar to infrastructure failure, outbreak or famine)?

I like the ideas here. I'd definitely like to see more done with existing assets. What's Happiness good for? We're all sad blokes.

 

[Rubbernuke]

With happiness it also allows you to set a threshold for faction growth, so you won't get runaway expansion. Unless you actively push for it the faction will have a size that keeps it in balance, and that large groups are easier to destabilise.

I assumed FD were going to do this from what they said before though. Perhaps EDO will have it?