I'm 100% sure I can sell goods to my carrier. The buying I'm not so sure as I only tried the fencing module and that didn't show the buy orders.
Fleet Carrier Hydrogen Bomb
- Thread starter Dommarraa
- Start date
I'm 100% sure I can sell goods to my carrier. The buying I'm not so sure as I only tried the fencing module and that didn't show the buy orders.
Was this potential exploit actually tried out and shown to work during the Beta or is it a theoretical effect? Only asking because I thought that trading goods within a system had no influence effect, which I could easily be completely wrong about.
Tested.
I also thought in system trading didn't work, but was informed that this was incorrect. Same station trading doesn't work, same system does. Anyway it was properly tested with FC
I will be very interested in seeing how they fix this, because I can't see a way that does not interfere with other BGS areas like smuggling.
Earlier investigations into trading effects on influence suggested that goods being sold are already flagged with a system (or station?) of origin, meaning that all goods sold during one station visit, that were sourced from a single system, only count as one influence transaction. Buying goods from several systems and selling them during one station visit counts as several transactions. I don't know if that's still the case.
What is being achieved with this exploit isn't something that can't already be done to some degree between systems with large price differences, but becomes a problem because it can be done much, much faster between an FC and a station.
If they flagged goods bought from an FC with the system it's in at the time of purchase and reduced the influence effects of in-system trading, would that sort it out? I don't imagine that many people are using in-system trading at a profit or loss for influence purposes (but I could be wrong), so no great loss to existing mechanics. It would still allow trading with an FC to have an affect on influence but limit the scale of that effect.
Feel free to point out the elephant I've missed
What is being achieved with this exploit isn't something that can't already be done to some degree between systems with large price differences, but becomes a problem because it can be done much, much faster between an FC and a station.
If they flagged goods bought from an FC with the system it's in at the time of purchase and reduced the influence effects of in-system trading, would that sort it out? I don't imagine that many people are using in-system trading at a profit or loss for influence purposes (but I could be wrong), so no great loss to existing mechanics. It would still allow trading with an FC to have an affect on influence but limit the scale of that effect.
Feel free to point out the elephant I've missed
The elephant is that its wrongEarlier investigations into trading effects on influence suggested that goods being sold are already flagged with a system (or station?) of origin, meaning that all goods sold during one station visit, that were sourced from a single system, only count as one influence transaction. Buying goods from several systems and selling them during one station visit counts as several transactions. I don't know if that's still the case.
What is being achieved with this exploit isn't something that can't already be done to some degree between systems with large price differences, but becomes a problem because it can be done much, much faster between an FC and a station.
If they flagged goods bought from an FC with the system it's in at the time of purchase and reduced the influence effects of in-system trading, would that sort it out? I don't imagine that many people are using in-system trading at a profit or loss for influence purposes (but I could be wrong), so no great loss to existing mechanics. It would still allow trading with an FC to have an affect on influence but limit the scale of that effect.
Feel free to point out the elephant I've missed
No idea if it WAS correct and changed, or was just wrong from the beginning. I suspect the later.Transactions are by commodity, not source. 4 different commodities from System X gives 4 Transactions. 1 Commodity from 4 different Systems gives 1 Transaction.
The idea that FD would implement a fully traceable FIFO/LIFO stock control system is (to anyone who has experience of such a system) coffee spitting. What I suspect they do is a lot simpler: When you buy a commodity, all of that commodity is marked as "local" and can no longer effect BGS. When you enter SC, all "local" flags are cleared. (This does mean that single station trading may be possible (never tested it) simply by jumping to SC and redocking, but given the loss is small, it would not be practicable)
They could change it so the "local" flag was only changed when jumping system, but people using their FC "properly" buying bulk goods from a cheap location and selling to an expensive system would also have no or a reduced BGS effect, which really isnt justifyable.
None of the individual steps in the process is wrong its a combination of them all, but if you nerf any one of them, everything collapses for people playing reasonably.
If they DID implement a batch traceable stock system, CMDRs would then never know what effect the goods they were purchasing from the FC would have any on the BGS.
Probably with a simple "bought" flag similar to the "local" flag that is only cleared when you run out of cargo. Nobody ever tested it AFAIK, and would have no reason to do so, people either buy OR mine, so the simple process works.
Buy OR Mine doesn't work for Missions nor for CG. It's only Mine
So there is a Flag.
Yes, I did test that for missions in Beta 1. They keep the mined flag when transferred to/from the FC by the owner but lose it if you buy/sell from the FC. I'll try it again in Beta 2 if I get a chance.
I knew there'd be a problem somewhere in thatThe elephant is that its wrong
Transactions are by commodity, not source. 4 different commodities from System X gives 4 Transactions. 1 Commodity from 4 different Systems gives 1 Transaction.
I know that back in 2018/19 I could get a bigger influence effect by trading e.g. 200t of 1 commodity from 4 systems (50 each) than I could by selling 200t of 1 commodity bought in a single system, so there was some sort of source-flag/transaction-splitting being applied. But I've not really tested it since then and there's been a lot of changes since, it may have been ditched along the way.
So if they want to prevent bombing or booming a ruling faction they have a mechanism - (permanently) flag any commodity bought from a carrier and have those commodities incur reduced or even no BGS influence at all.
IIRC mined flag is also lost when commodities are spaced from inventory
I knew there'd be a problem somewhere in that
I know that back in 2018/19 I could get a bigger influence effect by trading e.g. 200t of 1 commodity from 4 systems (50 each) than I could by selling 200t of 1 commodity bought in a single system, so there was some sort of source-flag/transaction-splitting being applied. But I've not really tested it since then and there's been a lot of changes since, it may have been ditched along the way.
Isn't it all now value base? The commodity sold needs to be in demand and turn a profit to count for positive trade inf. 1mil profit from 4 transactions = 1mil profit from 1 transaction with everything else the same.
For whatever reason, the FC needs to be destroyed - You set the bomb - Back off a safe distance and wait- It goes off - Scattering bits of metal in all directions - In those scattered bits are valuable modules and other items which are salvageable - While the rest of the flotsam drifts into the nearest star\planet\moon gravity well to be burned up - Resolving the detritus issues currently in-game - Which also could be used for destroyed shipping while adding a purpose to the time limit imposed on USS signals.
Buying does actually work for mining missions, FYI. Just not CGs.
It's (presumably) why commodity requirements for mining missions tend to be much higher when they're market-sourcable.
![[VR] Dr Gentech](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/175/175740.jpg?1623198898){kind=avatar}
Could you make it so that being in an FC market just doesn't change the tag of the item? So in the case of OP, that hydrogen brought from the station would have the "bought at 50 credits from XYZ station" tag, then it gets sold to the FC and doesn't lose that tag, then it gets sold back to the player and doesn't lose that tag, and then it gets sold back to XYZ station for no net BGS effect due to same station (or for a minimal BGS effect if the commodities weren't bought at XYZ) station. This would stop the exploit mentioned in OP but would still allow FCs to be used for BGS by e.g. filling up the FC at a station with something very overpriced, jumping the FC to target system that buys that commodity for cheap and selling it all. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something because I'm not a BGS player.
What happens if the FC is storing the same commodity from multiple sources?
It could still be tracked in theory - but how would the player select which ones to take out in cases where it mattered?
For most of the time, it shouldn't matter. For BGS work, I guess the FC owner would have to ensure somehow that they knew where it came from. Maybe only make it accessible to friends or squadron, and talk to everyone beforehand to make sure everyone knows where they have to but it from. Would still be an aid to BGS work I think.
it's an exploit if we don't have a direct way to contrast a carrier, at the moment they are over-powered, we need ways to contrast them, something like attacking their subsystems and blocking some of their facilities.
Truth be told, this is (at least for me) still one of the major issues with trade and the BGS[1]. The amount of profit the commander makes should be irrelevant to the effect of the transaction for the faction; regardless of if the commander makes or loses, say 2000cr on the item, the station still buys it for, say, 10,000cr.
At the very least, selling to High/Medium/Low demand should respectively increase the influence/economy, while selling to no demand (i.e it's not actually an import item) or beyond demand (i.e it's an import item, but you have more items than there is demand) should hurt influence/economy. Coincidentally, this would've also helped correct the lack of negative states prior-to Drought/Infrasturcure/Terror/Blight states being added, and also corrects for massive saturation (e.g in the case of LTDs), and promotes diversity of goods (for low pop systems).
So then regardless of the washed price of a good, if it's selling to a demand line, it'll still make a positive effect.
[1] such is the case for bounties/CZs as well; the effect should not be contingent on you handing the bonds or bounties in, rather, it should be an effect of the kill.
Last edited: