Lets test this persistent universe and see if FD are true to their word.

orfeboy

orfeboy
Screenshot_0047.png


Here is the latest Lugh blurb from Galnet. Now this seems to suggest that lockdown on behalf of CSG is self imposed. As I read it, it says that CSG were upset with the number of pirates in the area and were happy to have the Feds come in and lock the system down.

Now this is the sort of thing that frustrates me. All the missions talk of influence building being associated with 'War' and fighting a 'war'. So are we fighting a war for dominance (from the games perspective) or not? The missions to bring in guns refer to 'war' and the missions begging for money to 'continue the war' and 'fund the war' most definitely give credence to the fact we are fighting a war.

So I ask you this: If we are doing missions to bring in weapons to fight a war on behalf of CSG and their agenda for the Lugh system and paying out 4,000,000cr to fight a war and these missions increase lockdown of the Lugh system as acknowledged by the results table after the completed missions, then why would CSG ask the Feds to lockdown the system? That is totally daft.

I say it again, lockdown should allow you to force the issue and overcome it by force and this should induce a new state called 'Rebellion'. It seems to me to be the logical course of action for the game mechanics to take and would add a lot more excitement to the game. This whole saga we have been running here shows there is a market and an appetite for this kind of gameplay within Elite Dangerous. I implore to the devs to develop this part of the simulation further and make it all it can be.
 
Last edited:

Jerzy7

J
But Lockdown has to do with low security and development. Pirates and criminals are the enemies of all factions. Lockdown and the civil war for freedom are completely unrelated except that while the lockdown is in effect you cant get your civil war.
 

Darkfyre99

Darkfyre99
orfeboy said:
1) Damage LFE economically. We must end their boom. So we need to start hatching strategies to do that. One is to accept their missions as Darkfyre repeats quite a bit and then seek to betray these missions. This damages LFE. Another possible source of damage is to destroy their traders but this might only serve to raise lockdown again.
Click to expand...

Technaut said:
This made me laugh.
Click to expand...

:D

I am quite the advocate for using the sneaky gate, aren't I? :rolleyes:

orfeboy said:
2) We must try to fend off another boom for CSG. Booms are great but we need civil war so for now I suggest we stop trading for CSG for a day or two at least and see how that goes. Keep doing missions for CSG however. This can damage their influence and raise ours and it is important we keep our % high.
Click to expand...

I've stopped doing mission for CSG altogether. There are so few missions that don't produce an economic boom, that it isn't worth while even looking. I even took a mission for Hartfield Market's Medical Officer, and that was Economic Boom+ for CSG. I'm almost tempted to say that we should concentrate on speeding up the Economic Boom for LFE by doing missions and trading with them instead. We can offset whatever influence gains they get by betraying a few of their missions along the way. :D
 

orfeboy

orfeboy
Jerzy7 said:
But Lockdown has to do with low security and development. Pirates and criminals are the enemies of all factions. Lockdown and the civil war for freedom are completely unrelated except that while the lockdown is in effect you cant get your civil war.
Click to expand...

Read the mission texts. they refer to bringing in weapons to fight 'the war' as do the donation missions of capital to 'fight the war'. These missions cause the lockdown... It is a contadiction.
 

Darkfyre99

Darkfyre99
orfeboy said:
Screenshot_0047.png


Here is the latest Lugh blurb from Galnet. Now this seems to suggest that lockdown on behalf of CSG is self imposed. As I read it, it says that CSG were upset with the number of pirates in the area and were happy to have the Feds come in and lock the system down.

Now this is the sort of thing that annoys me. All the missions talk of influence building being associated with 'War' and fighting a 'war'. So are we fighting a war for dominance (from the games perspective) or not? The missions to bring in guns refer to 'war' and the missions begging for money to 'continue the war' and 'fund the war' most definitely give credence to the fact we are fighting a war.

So I ask you this: If we are doing missions to bring in weapons to fight a war and paying out 4,000,000cr to fight a war and these missions increase lockdown as acknowledged by the results table after the completed missions, then why would CSG ask the Feds to lockdown the system? That is totally daft.

I say it again, lockdown should allow you to force the issue and overcome it by force and this should induce a new state called 'Rebellion'. It seems to me to be the logical course of action for the game mechanics to take and would add a lot more excitement to the game. This whole saga we have been running here shows there is a market and an appetite for this kind of gameplay within Elite Dangerous. I implore to the devs to develop this part of the simulation further and make it all it can be.
Click to expand...

Bah! Federation propaganda and shoddy journalism. "Oh, yes! The Crimson Stage Group invited us in! We would never go where we're not wanted. Trust us. We're the Federation. We're in control."

Everyone knows the Lugh Sun is controlled by Lugh for Equality, and the real news is published in Knightly (Still Banned in Hartsfield Market) News. Anyone passing through those checkpoints could see that the Federation wasn't there to hunt pirates. Heck, the Feds need better sock puppets if they're going to be taken seriously. It's "personnel," not "personal." Though I do take such censorship personally. ;)

(And I agree. I would like to see attacking those checkpoints as an option.
 

Jerzy7

J
For those missions yes. Buying weapons from smugglers is a time honored tradition :) . However the smugglers sell to you "Freedom fighters" and pirates. Whoever has the cash. A lockdown in the game is triggered by lawlessness and low development . Even though your actions are part of those activities its not all of them. The lockdown is separate from civil war. You can oppose the lockdown trying to keep security down encouraging all criminal activities not only yours if you want. That will hurt the Fed faction which you want. But in game terms it means you will have to wait to trigger the civil war till it ends because of that one state at a time thingie.
 

orfeboy

orfeboy
CMDR Starschulz said:
View attachment 12928
It is missions like this that make me unsure about just what is going on.
Click to expand...

Exactly. There seems to be very little logic to it. If lockdown is triggered by pirate activity it needs to be seperated from the activity caused by bringing in weapons and a possible takeover. Lockdown should be one state as mentioned above and 'Governmental stability' or some other such term should be generated by bringing in weapons and destroying government police ships.

This would then allow the two to act independently and would make more sense. The idea of rebellions may not have been in the original design concept for the game but it is obvious there is an appetite for this type of gameplay and would help to further enrich the game. This sort of thing gives players something to strive for and leave their mark on the game. One of the things the some players are moaning about on other threads. I think it would greatly enhance this corner of the game and in development terms might not be that huge (but then again, what do I know about game development ? :) )
 
Last edited:

CMDR Starschulz

CMDR Starschulz
yrSqTeR.png

I think mission rewards are pre-determined, and have nothing to do with how you do the mission. In this particular example i went out into the combat zone and shot Federal navy ships, Fighting for the Lugh Defence Force, however it gave me a reward as if i was fighting for the federation. Really annoying. What also upsets me is that after a round of killing in combat zones and i turn in the vouchers i see my federation rep go UP. yes, up. something is clearly wrong here.
 

jpaulwilson1982

jpaulwilson1982
I've been in the Banki system, where the Federation and an anarchist faction are at war. Everything seems to work perfectly fine for me so far, except for one thing... in the Banki system, there are two stations, both owned by the independent anarchist faction. I accepted a couple of combat missions to kill X number of enemy pilots for the Federation faction at one of the stations, and I went out and fulfilled those contracts. I return, turn them in, and my Federation rep decreased, along with my rep for the federation faction. But, I turn in combat bonds at that same station and that increases my rep with the Federation and its faction. This seems like a bug of some sort to me... am I right or am I missing something? Thanks.
 

Jerzy7

J
CMDR Starschulz said:
View attachment 12947

I think mission rewards are pre-determined, and have nothing to do with how you do the mission. In this particular example i went out into the combat zone and shot Federal navy ships, Fighting for the Lugh Defence Force, however it gave me a reward as if i was fighting for the federation. Really annoying. What also upsets me is that after a round of killing in combat zones and i turn in the vouchers i see my federation rep go UP. yes, up. something is clearly wrong here.
Click to expand...

Heh I heard that. I took a mission from an imperial faction in one system to "fight for the Empire" in another system. I goto that system where a different imperial faction has conflict zones with a minor faction. Pick Imperial navy as the faction im fighting for kill a bunch of enemies. When I go back to turn in the mission the imperial faction that gave the mission gets all good pluses and the imperial faction that is fighting the war gets all red bad states. I was surprised that the mission to fight in the war for the empire screwed the imperial faction actually engaged in the war lol.
 

SirFreddie

SirFreddie
Technaut said:
It think this might help us a little, just posted by Michael.


"Here's a high level piece that I prepared earlier:

Civil War – Triggered by changes in influence between competing minor factions, or when a single minor faction reaches a high enough influence level. Decreases standard of living and security while active. Creates conflict zones and only combat missions or actions provide any benefit to the minor faction. QUOTE]

Are we missing something here?

CSG is not in a state of Civil War.

But we do want to eliminate all other Minor factions in the system.

Now I've visited a few of the Conflict Zones (as many of you have) and found that the combatants consist of a Minor Faction and the Federation.

And I've seen CSG missions on the BB asking us to take out X amount of ships in a Conflict Zone... But which sides ships?

Now here's the Machiavellian bit that sticks in my craw. My conclusion is that in order to speed up the demise of our competing factions we should side with the Federation in the Conflict Zones, the guys we want to be independent from :eek:

Of course when there is just the CSG left the Federation will become our target :D

Does this make any sense?
Click to expand...
 

Darkfyre99

Darkfyre99
SirFreddie said:
Are we missing something here?

CSG is not in a state of Civil War.

But we do want to eliminate all other Minor factions in the system.

Now I've visited a few of the Conflict Zones (as many of you have) and found that the combatants consist of a Minor Faction and the Federation.

And I've seen CSG missions on the BB asking us to take out X amount of ships in a Conflict Zone... But which sides ships?

Now here's the Machiavellian bit that sticks in my craw. My conclusion is that in order to speed up the demise of our competing factions we should side with the Federation in the Conflict Zones, the guys we want to be independent from :eek:

Of course when there is just the CSG left the Federation will become our target :D

Does this make any sense?
Click to expand...

The faction we want to have a civil war with is Lugh For Equality, the faction that is in control of this system at this time. LFE is currently in an economic Boom state at this time. Since minor factions can only have one state at this time, if we want to have a civil war with LFE, we need to:
  1. Get LFE out of their Boom state
  2. Keep CSG's influence above LFE's
  3. Avoid CSG getting a state. Boom is already pending, so we want to avoid that.

Based on the missions I've taken regarding the current Civil war between Silver LTD (Federation) and Lugh Defense Force (Independent), we do NOT want to get involved the brawl between these two almost non-existent factions. Doing so could trigger civil unrest, which is another state we want to avoid.
 

Darkfyre99

Darkfyre99
Technaut said:
I Think everyone has left to go exploring.
Click to expand...

I checked the traffic report just before I logged out. Only 107 ships had passed through the system the previous day, so I suspect you're right.

On a positive note, CSG's influence is still rising! It was 88.2 at the last update.
 

Brindarm

B
Darkfyre99 said:
I checked the traffic report just before I logged out. Only 107 ships had passed through the system the previous day, so I suspect you're right.

On a positive note, CSG's influence is still rising! It was 88.2 at the last update.
Click to expand...

Sorry guys, I'm doing the beta testing this week so haven't been around. I'll be back as soon as beta's finished.

With all the talk about wanting to fight the checkpoints etc. I've lost track of the current goals - has it been decided what needs to be done to get LFE out of Boom while not triggering any unwanted states for CSG?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom