let's talk about Anarchy

[CenturionPuch]

Back in the day in the Elite I played on C64 trading in an anarchy or feudal system was very dangerous but if I managed to stay alive I could make lot more money than in other systems.
With the new crime and punishment coming in 2.4, I expect anarchy systems to become really dangerous,as they should be, as killing will not land you a pilot federation bounty in those systems.

The question is, will it be more profitable to trade in these systems?

 

[Apos]

The question is, will it be more profitable to trade in these systems?

Nope, at least not in 2.4.

Maybe in 3.0 and moving forward with FD's announcement of going back to improving the game's fundamentals.

 

[Factabulous]

Would be nice if Anarchies were more dangerous like back in the day - I never bother looking at the government type at the mo', as all you get are a few pirate flags at the stations - ooooh scary!

 

[Siobhan]

Anarchy just means there's no rule of law.
It's still in a community's interest to keep crime under control or else nobody would live or trade there.
Not to mention they'd attract the attention of the superpower navies and would soon stop being anarchies.

Take places like Tortuga or Havana in the c17 and c18. They were pirate anarchies, but they still had to trade, and people were not murdering people on the street just for emergent content.

 

[Ouberos]

It probably helps to consider the term "Anarchy" as incorrect. "Organised Crime government" might be a better term.

In general the Anarchy label and "Criminal" gameplay is very undeveloped in ED compared to what it could be. With all attention on the Thargoids and super powers, it is unlikely that this will change.

Trading in the Empire or the Federation gains you rank which unlocks ships and permits. Trading in the Anarchist factions brings you nothing but heat and the same profits. I agree that this should change.

 

[Jukelo]

Anarchy just means there's no rule of law.
It's still in a community's interest to keep crime under control or else nobody would live or trade there.
Not to mention they'd attract the attention of the superpower navies and would soon stop being anarchies.

Take places like Tortuga or Havana in the c17 and c18. They were pirate anarchies, but they still had to trade, and people were not murdering people on the street just for emergent content.

From a gameplay pov, anarchies are definitely meant to be both more dangerous and more profitable to do business in than the rest. In fact they are both, it's just that it's sadly not very noticeable despite the recent changes (2.2? 2.3?)

@OP: the bounty changes wont do anything to make anarchies more dangerous. People will ignore those PFBs like they ignore regular bounties, and those who want to get rid of them can just dock at an anarchy to sidewipe before going back to their regular business.

 

[FoxTwo]

Yeah, back in the day I'd sweat if I were to jump into an Anarchy or Feudal system.

In ED, I don't even look at the government type(s). It makes no difference. Anarchies are as safe (or "dangerous") as Corporate States.

 

[yodajedifishmaster]

anarchies ARE more dangerous unless uninhabited, when you can avoid all danger so long as you dont drop into a ring (that causes npcs to be generated in the bubble)

i think for clarification the OP and others hoping inhabited anarchies become more dangerous are really forgetting to add 'in my way too OP over engineered PVP capable ship'

none of my ships are engineered wiht millions of rolls to get the god roll every module. and none are geared and engineered for PVP. i play solo. anarchies are quite dangerous to me even in my combat ship. if they become more so, but it isn't so OP i cannot risk going there even in my combat build FAS then fair enough. if they get the post engineer npcs are all gankers with op weapons treatment on the other hand...

 

[Friedenreich Xante]

Anarchy just means there's no rule of law.
It's still in a community's interest to keep crime under control or else nobody would live or trade there.

Anarchy means there is no ruler, but not that there is no law. Anarchy systems in E: D are in fact anomic, and not anarchic since there are, in fact, rulers, but no moral rules, no laws.

Don't mind me, just playing the semantic police

 

[Jukelo]

i think for clarification the OP and others hoping inhabited anarchies become more dangerous are really forgetting to add 'in my way too OP over engineered PVP capable ship'

I've only recently (as in, past two monthsà started seriously diving into Engineering for anything other than FSD. In three years of playing the game Anarchies have never given me pause.

none of my ships are engineered wiht millions of rolls to get the god roll every module. and none are geared and engineered for PVP. i play solo. anarchies are quite dangerous to me even in my combat ship. if they become more so, but it isn't so OP i cannot risk going there even in my combat build FAS then fair enough. if they get the post engineer npcs are all gankers with op weapons treatment on the other hand...

I can't see how that can be. For a start you would have to lose the interdiction, which even in a Type 7 is very hard these days, and a Type 7 can survive the 15 seconds it takes to high wake, even against an Elite Python or Conda (NPC pirates take so bloody long to aggro). And any other ship would have more survivability than a Type 7 in some shape.

 

[yodajedifishmaster]

Anarchy means there is no ruler, but not that there is no law. Anarchy systems in E: D are in fact anomic, and not anarchic since there are, in fact, rulers, but no moral rules, no laws.

Don't mind me, just playing the semantic police

technically even anarchists in the real world are lying. when you ask if they really mean they don't want anyone to at least stop someone if they were murdered in their ideal anarchy govt they will say that there still needs to be justice and rule of law, that murder and still arent okay - which means since they insist there ARE still rules they are not anarchists. most 'anarchists' in real life just secretly want to do something that is currently illegal, but they understand the public don't want drugs and certain kinds of sex legal - nobody wants an infinite addict problem committing crimes for their next fix to go supernova. its bad enough with drugs being illegal.

and it is as you say - anarchy systems are misnamed. Frontier systems would be more accurate - the law doesnt usually leave the 'town' (spaceport) its supposed to protect. the main difference is that due to low numbers, or just no interest, they dont go out in the system and patrol, and do not answer reports of crimes unless in the no fire zone.

 

[ShimEnki]

It probably helps to consider the term "Anarchy" as incorrect. "Organised Crime government" might be a better term.

The OCG aka Federation and Empire.

My last trip to the Philippines --I had a latte in a starbucks in Makati with 2 security guards with shotguns.

The bank across the street had 6 cops all wielding machine guns as I accessed the atm.

This ...is anarchy...a disorganized crime gov.

Just sayin

 

[Apos]

technically even anarchists in the real world are lying. when you ask if they really mean they don't want anyone to at least stop someone if they were murdered in their ideal anarchy govt they will say that there still needs to be justice and rule of law, that murder and still arent okay - which means since they insist there ARE still rules they are not anarchists. most 'anarchists' in real life just secretly want to do something that is currently illegal, but they understand the public don't want drugs and certain kinds of sex legal - nobody wants an infinite addict problem committing crimes for their next fix to go supernova. its bad enough with drugs being illegal.

Erm...what are you talking about...you quoted someone who just told you that anarchy is the lack of ruler and not the lack of laws and you reply by saying that anarchists are lying because they agree to the necessity of laws?

The notion creates a minor issue when it comes to under what authority the law in enforced, but other than that it's not exactly lying either.

Other than that, I know this might blow your mind, but Anarchy also has schools of thought just like everyone else. Some of them consistent but otherwise not appealing to everyone, some with their utopian plot holes and some with huge incompatibilities. (*cough* ancaps *cough*)

 

[Siobhan]

Anarchy means there is no ruler, but not that there is no law. Anarchy systems in E: D are in fact anomic, and not anarchic since there are, in fact, rulers, but no moral rules, no laws.

Don't mind me, just playing the semantic police

Happy to be corrected.

 

[Friedenreich Xante]

technically even anarchists in the real world are lying. when you ask if they really mean they don't want anyone to at least stop someone if they were murdered in their ideal anarchy govt they will say that there still needs to be justice and rule of law, that murder and still arent okay - which means since they insist there ARE still rules they are not anarchists. most 'anarchists' in real life just secretly want to do something that is currently illegal, but they understand the public don't want drugs and certain kinds of sex legal - nobody wants an infinite addict problem committing crimes for their next fix to go supernova. its bad enough with drugs being illegal.

and it is as you say - anarchy systems are misnamed. Frontier systems would be more accurate - the law doesnt usually leave the 'town' (spaceport) its supposed to protect. the main difference is that due to low numbers, or just no interest, they dont go out in the system and patrol, and do not answer reports of crimes unless in the no fire zone.

Again, anarchy means no ruler, not that there are no rules. A system without rules is called an anomie. In contrary, the anarchy system is a smart construct of rules that are enforced by the society as a whole, with all members having equal rights. The so-called anarchy systems in E: D are not anarchies. They are anomies. The word "anarchy" is misused by todays medias so everyone wrongfully assumes it means chaos or absence of rules. This is wrong.

 

[Shadowdancer]

So by and large, how would an anarchic system as per definition be useful for the game? If could mean a place that's virtually undistinguishable from any other "ordered" system ("look, ma, we're playing communism the way it was meant to be played!"), heck, Belgium would have qualified for some years

By the pirate island approach to keep it colourful, those systems could be the dangerous places they used to be, hard to navigate, reasonably useful if you manage to befriend the faction, and the ultimate free market. Those high-tech pirate islands? Be very afraid. However, to really work, there'd need to be some changes that many players would not like. For one, AI interdictions should once more be harder to escape, and there'd need to be a lot more of them (institutionalised chain interdictions: The Game), until you gain some favours, e.g., up to neutral they'll sink your ship, while you're cordial they'll nicely ask for cargo (or cash "donations?"), and at friendly or allied you get mostly free sailing. No shortcuts through cartographics or other shenanigans, all missions, trade, or combat, all the way up.

I'd take some of that.

 

[CenturionPuch]

anarchies ARE more dangerous unless uninhabited, when you can avoid all danger so long as you dont drop into a ring (that causes npcs to be generated in the bubble)

i think for clarification the OP and others hoping inhabited anarchies become more dangerous are really forgetting to add 'in my way too OP over engineered PVP capable ship'

none of my ships are engineered wiht millions of rolls to get the god roll every module. and none are geared and engineered for PVP. i play solo. anarchies are quite dangerous to me even in my combat ship. if they become more so, but it isn't so OP i cannot risk going there even in my combat build FAS then fair enough. if they get the post engineer npcs are all gankers with op weapons treatment on the other hand...

What is an over engineered ship? Should I just not engineer because others can't bother to engineer their ships?
If you play solo anyways why do you care about what anarchy systems will be like with other commanders making them dangerous in open?

 

[Apos]

So by and large, how would an anarchic system as per definition be useful for the game? If could mean a place that's virtually undistinguishable from any other "ordered" system ("look, ma, we're playing communism the way it was meant to be played!"), heck, Belgium would have qualified for some years

By the pirate island approach to keep it colourful, those systems could be the dangerous places they used to be, hard to navigate, reasonably useful if you manage to befriend the faction, and the ultimate free market. Those high-tech pirate islands? Be very afraid. However, to really work, there'd need to be some changes that many players would not like. For one, AI interdictions should once more be harder to escape, and there'd need to be a lot more of them (institutionalised chain interdictions: The Game), until you gain some favours, e.g., up to neutral they'll sink your ship, while you're cordial they'll nicely ask for cargo (or cash "donations?"), and at friendly or allied you get mostly free sailing. No shortcuts through cartographics or other shenanigans, all missions, trade, or combat, all the way up.

I'd take some of that.

Why would you need to harm the word even further when you can have what you are describing with its proper namesake?

The name doesn't take away from the possibility of having what you are asking. But in the end of the day, they are crime gang syndicates, not anarchic communities.

 

[wrmiller]

I have a nearby anarchy system that I use to from time to time for cashing in bounties. I noticed that there is a high res site in the nearby ringed planet. Why? There are no 'police' that I have seen in this system, and I'm free to shoot anyone I choose to even though there is reason to as there are no bounties to collect in a anarchy system.

I just thought it weird.

 

[Siobhan]

I have a nearby anarchy system that I use to from time to time for cashing in bounties. I noticed that there is a high res site in the nearby ringed planet. Why? There are no 'police' that I have seen in this system, and I'm free to shoot anyone I choose to even though there is reason to as there are no bounties to collect in a anarchy system.

I just thought it weird.

Take a KWS?