How to trigger lockdown?

[S0rkvild]

Prior to 3.3 it wasn't hard to trigger lockdown in a small low populated sector. I've been attacking security forces in one sector for days and still nothing, their influce have only dropped. No lockdown, no civil unrest.
It is also very hard to spot a lockdown system on the galaxy map! What happened to lockdown then?

 

[Factabulous]

Reduce security for the faction. Deserter Assassinations do it, and a few other mission types. I'm probably going to make one while I work on a couple of famines, but it's a lower priority for me. You can check the slider and see if you are moving the security setting via your actions to see if they are doing what you want.

 

[Jmanis]

All negative states such as lockdown, bust, famine etc. now have to compete directly with positive effects to occur... and because there's no easy, directed access to activities which cause negative states, unlike the positive states, negative states are nigh-on impossible to achieve without a significant amount of effort.

It's doable like what Factabulous said, but lots of effort.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Kill ships. Kill security over and over.

My first retreat of the new BGS was me driving a lead faction down into lockdown and eventual retreat by simply killing a lot.

 

[DNA-Decay]

I miss the One state rule and viable negative effects.

 

[Jmanis]

I miss the One state rule and viable negative effects.

Honestly, I don't mind multiple states... but it's the lack of viability of Civil Unrest, Lockdown, Bust and Famine which is killer. I also get the competing sliders... a faction with Boom and Bust pending at the same time was always awkward in my books... but at least they happened.

Mission boards allow the player to direct particular positive state effects towards a particular faction, and any negative effects are distributed among random[1] factions (or at best, target Criminal factions).

FD must introduce a mechanism where you can direct particular negative state effects towards a particular faction, and any positive effects are distributed among random factions.

I've previously suggested it could be a mission board accessible only through "Anonimity protocols" where all the missions are offered by "Anonymous Contacts"... and grouped by the faction they target.

The positive effect is attributed to the "offerer" of the mission, but you won't know who that is because the mission is offered up anonymously. Obviously, all these activities would be illegal in nature to boot.

[1] notwithstanding the quirks of the BGS, like that one system in my faction's domain which, despite a host of options... factions will always target the one pirate faction.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I think the sliders are not good for negative actions, as it takes far too long to get to them. I'd much prefer a bar that just deals with prosperity and have civil unrest and lockdown as temporary states that appear like outbreak or pirate attack.

Plus Lockdown is a shadow of its former self too (admittedly the last one I created was during the BGS tweakageddon). Unlike before where patrols were chunky and dangerous, now they are / were non-existent. What I'd like to see more in lockdown (and it may be like this now) is for more dangerous sec ships, navy ships and every transport being a private or military courier.

 

[Jmanis]

I think the sliders are not good for negative actions, as it takes far too long to get to them.

To me, that's really a by-product of FD's attitude that positive effects come from CMDR's being successful at thing, and negative effects come from CMDR's failing at things (They made this claim back in one of the early BGS livestreams, and haven't really countermanded it since).

Understand they've gradually introduced negative effects from doing missions, but they're too random to be effective. FD seem to be stopping short of wholesale access to activities which reward the player for "causing bad things". Realistically, a "military" career path comparable to FE2's is what's needed.

 

[Rubbernuke]

To me, that's really a by-product of FD's attitude that positive effects come from CMDR's being successful at thing, and negative effects come from CMDR's failing at things (They made this claim back in one of the early BGS livestreams, and haven't really countermanded it since).

Understand they've gradually introduced negative effects from doing missions, but they're too random to be effective. FD seem to be stopping short of wholesale access to activities which reward the player for "causing bad things". Realistically, a "military" career path comparable to FE2's is what's needed.

Trouble is, unless you do it deliberately or pick a mission that is poorly designed and easy to fail, its incredibly hard not to fail at anything. What I'd love to see (other than better NPC opposition) is a Mass effect good / bad slider for a pilot, with stations and factions responding / giving missions according to your morally flexible standing. So, a goody goody would never see a black market, while someone like me would be wading in moral filth and never be allowed into polite society except when polite society wants someone dead.

 

[Factabulous]

Understand they've gradually introduced negative effects from doing missions, but they're too random to be effective. FD seem to be stopping short of wholesale access to activities which reward the player for "causing bad things". Realistically, a "military" career path comparable to FE2's is what's needed.

Even when the negative effect is well known the balance of cause/effect is way off at the moment.

Currently working on getting some famines but yesterday I 'only' did 3 assassinations in one system - and the faction slipped back away from famine. So to get a famine (in a system with a population under 10k) and maintain it I reckon someone will have to do 5+ assassinations per day to keep the state. Fair enough sliding back if the system is seeing no action, but when I am actively (if not very actively) aiming for that state it seems ... wrong.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Currently working on getting some famines but yesterday I 'only' did 3 assassinations in one system - and the faction slipped back away from famine. So to get a famine (in a system with a population under 10k) and maintain it I reckon someone will have to do 5+ assassinations per day to keep the state. Fair enough sliding back if the system is seeing no action, but when I am actively (if not very actively) aiming for that state it seems ... wrong.

It does, but on the other hand without that you'd end up back in the 3.3 situation where even minimal-traffic systems were jammed at the top of Civil Liberty + Investment after a few weeks because there might only have been one positive transaction a day, but no negative ones.

Making the drift be towards the most negative state rather than neutral would make famines/lockdowns much more common in unvisited systems (like the old Famine/Outbreak mechanism) - but would also mean that a lot of non-controlling factions ended up almost permanently stuck there.

 

[Jmanis]

Even when the negative effect is well known the balance of cause/effect is way off at the moment.

Currently working on getting some famines but yesterday I 'only' did 3 assassinations in one system - and the faction slipped back away from famine. So to get a famine (in a system with a population under 10k) and maintain it I reckon someone will have to do 5+ assassinations per day to keep the state. Fair enough sliding back if the system is seeing no action, but when I am actively (if not very actively) aiming for that state it seems ... wrong.

It's interesting to note, there's 30-40-odd factions in Bust/Civil Unrest... the noteworthy part being they are all Anarchy factions. That's because all "lawful" factions out-of-war target Anarchy almost exclusively with Assassination/Massacre missions.

It does, but on the other hand without that you'd end up back in the 3.3 situation where even minimal-traffic systems were jammed at the top of Civil Liberty + Investment after a few weeks because there might only have been one positive transaction a day, but no negative ones.

Making the drift be towards the most negative state rather than neutral would make famines/lockdowns much more common in unvisited systems (like the old Famine/Outbreak mechanism) - but would also mean that a lot of non-controlling factions ended up almost permanently stuck there.

So what about a compromise? Factions tend towards the bottom-most rating of "neutral", and like the positive states, the negative states drift towards neutral over time too (they probably do already)? That way, it only takes a very small amount of effort to send an "Idle" faction into Bust/Civil Unrest... but if left alone they'll drift towards neutral again.

That way it's still only active participation which pushes a faction to and maintains a negative state, but the default favours the negative states, acknowledging the overwhelming bias towards positive actions?

 

[Factabulous]

It's interesting to note, there's 30-40-odd factions in Bust/Civil Unrest... the noteworthy part being they are all Anarchy factions. That's because all "lawful" factions out-of-war target Anarchy almost exclusively with Assassination/Massacre missions.

Also - it's easier to get an Anarchy into negative states because it will have a larger number of 'lawful' neighbours - it's more difficult to find an anarchy that will concentrate its assassination missions on a single other faction (whereas it's easier to find a system where all the lawful factions will give missions to the same neighbouring anarchy faction)

So what about a compromise? Factions tend towards the bottom-most rating of "neutral", and like the positive states, the negative states drift towards neutral over time too (they probably do already)? That way, it only takes a very small amount of effort to send an "Idle" faction into Bust/Civil Unrest... but if left alone they'll drift towards neutral again.

That way it's still only active participation which pushes a faction to and maintains a negative state, but the default favours the negative states, acknowledging the overwhelming bias towards positive actions?

They do drift towards neutral (centre of NONE I think) - and that drift becomes more pronounced as you reach the extremes (at least in the negative states). The amount that the state will change is also capped lower in the red sections. I have no issue with it drifting back - after all if no-one is working the system then no-one cares.

It does seem a bit much that in my current system (heading for a famine) the state is:

0-5 assassination : BGS wins, you go back 1 day of effort
6-10 assassinations: I win, gain a day
11+ assassination: Capped - I still win 1 day

(These numbers are very estimates) The BGS push towards NONE just seems too strong at the moment in those red areas. Anyway, I need more data