The regime type should affect the systems security level

[OMIKRONXI]

In 1984's Elite you knew: if you were loitering in anarchy space it would be much more likely to become attacked by pirates as if you travel in a democratic system. I was really wondering, why this simple feature has not made it through the years!

In my opinion, this would be a big step towards more realism. It would enhance the immersion experience and improve the gameplay as there are more strategic decisions to be made: Poorly armed traders would sure try to avoid systems with a civil war undergoing, while both bounty hunters and pirates could benefit from labile situations. Smugglers would love the absence of systems authority in anarchy systems, but on the other hand they have to deal with pirates instead...and so on and on.

In 1984's Elite there has been only one planet, one sun and one station per system - and one form of government. Simple.

In 2016's Elite inhabitated star systems ususally have a lot of star ports and 5 rival fractions with different political orientations. In my opinion, it would be to complicated to establish a lot of different security levels within one system. To keep it simple: the fraction with the highest influence will determine the security level for the whole system. This implies: as the systems major fraction could change, so does the security level. Maybe you return from a long journey to Sagittarius A to find your formerly peaceful and prospering home system turned into a cut-throat pirates nest?

So what do you think?

 

[Hydrino]

In 1984's Elite you knew: if you were loitering in anarchy space it would be much more likely to become attacked by pirates as if you travel in a democratic system. I was really wondering, why this simple feature has not made it through the years!

In my opinion, this would be a big step towards more realism. It would enhance the immersion experience and improve the gameplay as there are more strategic decisions to be made: Poorly armed traders would sure try to avoid systems with a civil war undergoing, while both bounty hunters and pirates could benefit from labile situations. Smugglers would love the absence of systems authority in anarchy systems, but on the other hand they have to deal with pirates instead...and so on and on.

In 1984's Elite there has been only one planet, one sun and one station per system - and one form of government. Simple.

In 2016's Elite inhabitated star systems ususally have a lot of star ports and 5 rival fractions with different political orientations. In my opinion, it would be to complicated to establish a lot of different security levels within one system. To keep it simple: the fraction with the highest influence will determine the security level for the whole system. This implies: as the systems major fraction could change, so does the security level. Maybe you return from a long journey to Sagittarius A to find your formerly peaceful and prospering home system turned into a cut-throat pirates nest?

So what do you think?

Of course. This has been brought up numerous times. I think there is some difference but it just may not feel noticeable in average systems and sometimes might not even be justified. Let me explain:

is a high security system necessarily any safer than low sec or anarchy? An anarchy could be peaceful just because no pirates or thugs are around and/or a vigilante code or chieftains keep the peace. Big cities are often high security but still have lots of crime- sometimes much more than smaller areas just due to population density and that cops can't be everywhere at once. There are certainly very safe cities with very unsafe areas as well. So having various safe and less safe spots in the same system does not break immersion for me.

I think the changes coming to Missions in 2.1 patch will partly address this as the BGS workings should be more apparent through the bulletin boards and the mission givers. At least that is a hope.

 

[OMIKRONXI]

The point for me is: at the moment every system feels exactly the same. But there should be dangerous and even more civilized systems - no matter how they are called. In RL, the chance of getting robbed or killed in Denmark is also different compared to Syria . The player just needs enough information to measure up if he's taking the risk to enter those unsafe areas - respectively if there is enough reward to be expected. As the tools are already implemented for the most part, this should take no great effort. I'm sure: the gain in game experience would be outstanding in contrast to large projects like planetary landings.

 

[Snarfbuckle]

At the moment they first need to make the term "security" actually MEAN something before applying how different faction mixes handles it.

 

[OMIKRONXI]

My definition of "security level" isn't how many police vessels are actually in the vicinity, but how is the likelihood of being attacked. But it's even more realistic if in a system that meant to be a pirates nest the presence of police ships tends to zero.