Is it possible to ruin someone else's colony?

[Alaska Sædelære]

A question inspired or triggered by reading this thread: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/exploit-or-army-of-alts.637097/

I don't fully understand what's going on there, but it brought me to wonder about something: In the current or intended final state of the colonisation game, is it possible to ruin or hamper an established colony, which was built to function and provide a reliable income? By whatever means, e.g. powerplay or by exploiting any kind of way that different game mechanics interact. Because if so, it would be possible to target individuals and destroy their work, like a kind of ganking on a bigger scale. I don't know how to figure this out at the time of writing, has anybody else thought of this?

 

[Therinfluffs]

Colonies only exist to... ?????? then you pay Arx to put funny names on the stations.

They literally don't add any gameplay that didn't already exist.

Basically the main issue people have had is other's grabbing nearby systems the moment the one they started the primary port on is finished.

 

[PilotB]

You can just like one of the CGs put systems into lockdown and various other states that limit people's ability to access services. This is standard BGS stuff but now you can target a player because their name is on the system. For some activities nothing they do impacts you for others you can completely lock it out and you can be a troll and remove their faction from their system by overpowering them during wars and tanking it's influence.

 

[Bigmaec]

Apart from "stealing" systems I don't think so.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Because if so, it would be possible to target individuals and destroy their work, like a kind of ganking on a bigger scale

Yes, you could target an individual's constructed systems and change faction ownership etc. (I know how some folk adore BGS gardening) Or alter state to whatever you wish.
The architect will still have their name on the system regardless and receive their weekly stipend, regardless of which faction controls it.
But that is about the limit of actions actually possible.

After all, anyone who is constructing systems surely realises they do not belong to them, but the faction the permit was purchased from.

 

[SteveWW57]

I have mentioned it in another thread, but essentially an Architect should step back from becoming invested in the BGS/PP side of things.

Build and move on I say, your legacy remains, no matter who controls it.

 

[Razzerman]

Build and move on I say, your legacy remains

That's the way I'm starting to look at it - first was was a test run really; time to upsticks and move along

 

[Alaska Sædelære]

Thanks all for the answers. Yes I'm aware that architects don't "own" their systems in any way and have no affiliation with the faction they start out under, and that those might change. I'm not invested in BGS/PP shenanigans. The question was only regarding the system economy and whether any conditions could be brought about by other players which could diminish or interrupt its weekly output. If I understand correctly, this isn't something to worry about, or is it?

 

[Rat Catcher]

The question was only regarding the system economy and whether any conditions could be brought about by other players which could diminish or interrupt its weekly output. If I understand correctly, this isn't something to worry about, or is it?

Give it a try, that is the only way to know for certain.

 

[Alaska Sædelære]

Give it a try, that is the only way to know for certain.

I am not going to spend my time to try if I can thwart someone else's effort, if that's what you mean. Someone will do it, if there is a chance. But knowing if the ones I'm building are potentially at risk would influence my approach to the whole thing.

 

[SteveWW57]

Give it a try, that is the only way to know for certain.

Nuking from orbit is the only way to be certain.

 

[Doctor Dread]

I have mentioned it in another thread, but essentially an Architect should step back from becoming invested in the BGS/PP side of things.

Build and move on I say, your legacy remains, no matter who controls it.

I will build 8-9 systems I have so far (two of them are almost complete, the rest will wait new changes & ships) and quite frankly, I haven't got a clue what factions are on them. Not a single one

 

[Ian Doncaster]

The question was only regarding the system economy and whether any conditions could be brought about by other players which could diminish or interrupt its weekly output. If I understand correctly, this isn't something to worry about, or is it?

That could be done through BGS (less so PP) changes, yes. You might not as an Architect have particularly strong opinions on which faction runs a system, but there are other BGS considerations to take into account at least in theory.

1) Straightforwardly, if the BGS station controller isn't an Anarchy faction, it can be put into Lockdown to close all owned markets (and if it is an Anarchy faction it can be swapped for a non-Anarchy one) until the state is cleared. Deliberately spreading out key stations across multiple factions can make this less severe / harder to achieve.

2) More subtly, many BGS states reduce production levels of certain commodities (or, if the station economy is hybrid, increase consumption levels with similar net effects). Some of these are temporary while others could be maintained for an indefinite period. The "Expansion" state is a general risk to any station controlled by a heavily expanded faction. Stations with hybrid economies are more vulnerable to this in general (though, equally, can also benefit more from deliberately applying pro-production states).

3) As far as "reliable income" goes, your colony income is adjusted by the happiness score, which is itself based on BGS states. So damage to those could reduce your weekly income (though probably not by very much, and it would take a lot of effort to sustain it)

4) Certain commodities are forbidden by particular faction types. If you were interested in exporting one of those you'd need to keep that faction type out of controlling the station, and if one did get in, do work to take it out again. Relatively few commodities are possible to affect this way, though. You can also have temporary changes in legality as a result of transient BGS states.

There is a distinct difference between "possible" and "practical", though. Some of these might occur temporarily and accidentally as a result of passing traffic in the system, but more persistent effects would generally be time-consuming to maintain deliberately.

 

[PilotB]

I have mentioned it in another thread, but essentially an Architect should step back from becoming invested in the BGS/PP side of things.

The happiness mechanic is supposed to encourage the architect to stay and play the BGS for the increased payout. Sadly that's vulnerable to other players actions. Fortunately it can't go below 0 so they cannot reduce your payout but they can remove your bonus.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Fortunately it can't go below 0

It can. There are probably more states which reduce it than increase it, though the increasing ones are probably easier to get.

 

[Alaska Sædelære]

Thank you Ian, that was comprehensive.

 

[PilotB]

It can. There are probably more states which reduce it than increase it, though the increasing ones are probably easier to get.

Then you can actively attack another player's system income in addition to shutting down their markets and changing their mission board.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Then you can actively attack another player's system income in addition to shutting down their markets and changing their mission board.

I'm sure having my income drop from 130k / week to 100k would be traumatic in the extreme!

A much larger system may generate more, but as the maximum is 5 mill, it still really isn't a major concern, more can be earned just doing a single mission each week.

As has been mentioned here, the Architect should always keep in mind that other players may wish to change any or all of the factions in a system, for whatever reason, so it may not remain as planned permanently.

 

[Screemonster]

If the architect has put an anarchy faction in charge and deliberately scuppered their system security such that non-anarchy factions get put into permanent lockdown (there's a system near the starter bubble with an incredibly deformed sec slider) then flipping it to a lawful faction will inflict that lockdown.

But as long as you don't go insane with extreme negative security and quality of life effects that shouldn't be an issue.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

I'm sure having my income drop from 130k / week to 100k would be traumatic in the extreme!

Probably not even that much. It may be possible but I've not seen anything even as high as +/-10% reported for happiness.

The amount of sustained effort required to deny someone 10,000 credits a week would be substantial, too.

If the architect has put an anarchy faction in charge and deliberately scuppered their system security such that non-anarchy factions get put into permanent lockdown (there's a system near the starter bubble with an incredibly deformed sec slider) then flipping it to a lawful faction will inflict that lockdown.

There's a fair case for "put an Anarchy faction in charge and ignore the sec slider", of course, since it means that you don't end up with the choice of:
- use up most of your orbital slots on fairly low-bonus government installations to try to keep it at least positive
- put military settlements down and have their weak links start to mess up any non-Extraction non-Military economies you have in the system.