then tag the commodities that arrive in a carrier storage and ignore those commodities from BGS influence?
so whoever trade any commodity that comes from a carrier will not affect the bgs?
Fleet Carrier Hydrogen Bomb
- Thread starter Dommarraa
- Start date
then tag the commodities that arrive in a carrier storage and ignore those commodities from BGS influence?
so whoever trade any commodity that comes from a carrier will not affect the bgs?
With every other occupation being pampered to, doesn't seem right to just negate the main bgs functionality. Need a proper solution, but that's above my pay grade
well, arent the carriers supposed to be bgs neutral?
tagging the commodities put in a carrier, then ignore them from a bgs point of view, would just make sure this will actually happen
it will not hamper the traders or the station repair operations.
![[Cancelled Consoleer] boppa_](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/159/159397.jpg?1610496247){kind=avatar}
Questions to the OP:
I agree with the thought that the profit/loss should relate to the entity that the commodity was bought from, not the selling Commander's actual profit/loss. Or, some sort of Influence "tarrif" is levied on transactions carried out where the Buy entity was a Fleet Carrier, in order to balance it out with traditional Trade BGS effects.
Can you confirm whether this appears to be subject the same diminishing returns effect on the Station controlling Minor Faction's Influence, as is the case with most other positive/negative trade activities?
As you stated you saw the influence levels tank - by how much? and presumably there were no other activities taking place in the system for that tick period?
I agree with the thought that the profit/loss should relate to the entity that the commodity was bought from, not the selling Commander's actual profit/loss. Or, some sort of Influence "tarrif" is levied on transactions carried out where the Buy entity was a Fleet Carrier, in order to balance it out with traditional Trade BGS effects.
Yeah, I followed all the testing protocols. It has the same impact and diminishing returns as normal selling at a loss, cos it is the same thing.
There are no quick fixes that I can see. Only quick sledgehammers.
why does selling at a loss negatively affect the station owner? i've thought about it a couple different ways and the mechanic doesn't make sense to me.
it seems it should only cause the seller harm.
if i'm buying something from someone and the seller is taking a loss on the sale, how is that bad for me?
it seems it should only cause the seller harm.
if i'm buying something from someone and the seller is taking a loss on the sale, how is that bad for me?
BGS influence of a station owner goes up if people sell for profit and goes down if they sell at loss.
by buying at 1000% above market price and then selling, the station is recording a sales transaction loss per tonne and therefore influence takes a hit.
doing it with hydrogen just limits the cost. It could just as easily be done with LTDs if there were sufficient in stock.
fleet carrier loses money, station owner loses BGS inf.
one night of mining could recover any financial losses.
yes. i realized that is how it works. i am asking why it works that way at all.
why should an asset owner's influence go down when they buy a commodity from a commander and that commander takes a loss on the sale?
Generally the principle in the BGS, according to Frontier, is:
- player succeeds => good things happen to the factions involved
- player fails => bad things happen to the factions involved
Nice in theory, two false assumption in practice:
- accidental failure is far less common than this assumes
- deliberate failure is far easier and more common than this assumes
And so various ways to deliberately fail have been stripped of their BGS effect or seriously toned down, over the years, because while they'd have been fine if people weren't intentionally playing the BGS, they're massively overpowered if people do. This might need to go the same way now that a way to do it really quickly exists ... as Jmanis has pointed out many times before, though, without a way to attack a faction by succeeding - a few missions do, but they're rarely targetable - it just entrenches factions in certain positions as impossible to bring down.
FD might consider this legit, or at least legit enough to see how bad it gets. While it's quicker with a FC than doing it properly, and using their own commodities feels just plain wrong, it's still a really tedious way of playing, and up against other traditional methods, it may still be sub optimal.
Dav having a read is probably as much as I could hope for. Thats certainly more attention than my bug report will ever get
Dav having a read is probably as much as I could hope for. Thats certainly more attention than my bug report will ever get
The problem there is that the existing variance on price on a lot of goods - especially the ones with cheaper averages - is well outside that range.
Wine - market average 484 credits - can be bought for 126 credits (75% below), and sold in the right BGS states for at least 7234 credits (almost 1400% above, which exceeds even the existing Fleet Carrier limits)
(And buying/selling at silly prices is one of the few practical ways for a friend to help you fund your carrier at the moment, too, for non-BGS issues)
Some mitigations that could be used, none of which seem sufficient:
- make the BGS effect of selling goods that a station supplies zero. That at least stops things like laundering a station's own H-Fuel (or other goods) back to it and means you have to buy the goods from elsewhere. With a 20 minute jump time and a multi-kiloton hold, this doesn't mitigate much, but it does at least stop some of the sillier options.
- put an extremely sharp diminishing returns curve on selling goods for a loss - so someone messing up and dropping their 100t Geological Equipment at a 200cr/tonne loss can hurt a faction slightly, but someone putting 200 million of loss onto a faction still only hurts it slightly. Feels like this might be necessary ... but has to be viewed as a stop-gap measure pending introduction of proper targetable ways to attack a faction economically or militarily, or we just continue down the slope of only positive BGS actions being possible, and negative states only usually arising as side effects of Event States.
- prevent carriers setting a sell price for their goods higher than the maximum buy price in the local system. Could still be used for attacks in the right circumstances - a secondary market in a different state, or a nearby system in a different state which can at least be used to get lots of overpriced goods, but wouldn't be universally applicable.
for every well meaning friend there will be countless gold sellers exploiting the mechanic (unfortunately)
It seems like that might make it hard for a carrier to sell anything at all in an uninhabited system... ?
Very good point. And if it wasn't restricted in uninhabited systems you could still set up some implausibly high losses just by parkling the carrier in the next system over.
So much for that idea....
Gold sellers will always sell gold given the chance ... personally I've never been keen on mechanics designed in a way deliberately to stop gold sellers.
I was mentioning in another thread that if maintenance costs were measured in cargo, not credits, a more vibrant player market would exist. If Osmium was a running cost... logic would say it would hold a value equal to the effort it takes to get, in absence of any other demand. Since its equivalent or potentially harder than LTDs, this would be in the order of almost 1m/t. If FC owners want people to interact with their FC, there's the reason to, but it wouldn't work if you capped the price at say 15% more than galaxy average.
This exploit will also work to maximize positive trade inf. Load the carrier with commodities in high demand in your system. Jump to your system and sell it cheap to yourself. Then go sell it a the station for an "inflated" profit margin. It would cut down the needed trade runs and you could even run trade out of your carrier for days without refilling it. The profit at the end is the same, but you have much higher inf gains for each sale.
Seems carriers will be pandora's box for the bgs.
Seems carriers will be pandora's box for the bgs.
And if the owner has an alt/friend that will do the dirty work for him?