General Fleet Carrier Service: Diplomatic Envoy

[EWanderer]

Just a thought I had the other day for a new Service available to Fleet Carriers: The Diplomatic Envoy.

If a FC is within a populated System, the owner can select one of its faction from one of the stations/outposts, which will have their mission board made available (that means taking mission, turning them in or deliver commodities towards) on the Fleet Carrier.

A few possible use cases:

• Make a system without large landing pads available to Large Ships.
• Service a faction closer to the entry star, if the nearest station is +2000ls.
• Connect to a planetary settlement with an orbital station.

In short allow an owner to aid BGS efforts to his choosing.

Now there should be several downsides/cost associate with this:
1. The Service cost scales with the logistical effort involved: X Credits per Light Second per week and +50% for planetary bases or small outposts for example
2. Missions turned fully or even partially in at a FC should reduce the monetary reward and also not count towards progression of Navy Ranks.

 

[Chrystoph]

Recommend not, as you are asking for all of the benefits of BGS interaction without ANY of the consequences.

Facilities that have BGS interaction can be taken away from the Controlling faction, but you wouldn't have that potential here. In effect, you are asking for an invulnerable capability for Player Created Factions to manipulate the BGS by moving their FC into an area that they are expanding to.

 

[EWanderer]

Recommend not, as you are asking for all of the benefits of BGS interaction without ANY of the consequences.

Facilities that have BGS interaction can be taken away from the Controlling faction, but you wouldn't have that potential here. In effect, you are asking for an invulnerable capability for Player Created Factions to manipulate the BGS by moving their FC into an area that they are expanding to.

Correct me if I am wrong, but a faction will be accessible through all starports if they are present in that system. so I am not sure what you mean aside lockdown state.
Also of when Isaid copy mission board that assumed to also follow the lockdown logic so lock down copy mission board is also empty.

 

[Chrystoph]

For people that "play the BGS", which is what you are asking for, the purpose is to cause a specific faction to become the Controlling faction in the system. That position is contested, but your proposal allows for a Faction to have an influence point that CANNOT be contested because the other Factions do not exist on the "station".

That being the case, the Faction you choose has one location in the system that is invulnerable to anything that happens in the system. In theory, you could even maintain a presence if the Faction is actually removed from the system.

 

[Rebel Yell]

I'd like to have a sort of "guestbook" with pre-compiled feedbacks (to avoid trashtalk), with the list of commanders who have docked on the carrier and used its services.

Eventually, also a board with a welcome message written by the owner.

 

[EWanderer]

For people that "play the BGS", which is what you are asking for, the purpose is to cause a specific faction to become the Controlling faction in the system. That position is contested, but your proposal allows for a Faction to have an influence point that CANNOT be contested because the other Factions do not exist on the "station".

That being the case, the Faction you choose has one location in the system that is invulnerable to anything that happens in the system. In theory, you could even maintain a presence if the Faction is actually removed from the system.

Alright I understand what your problem is and I ask you to read the proposal carefully. Rather than being just a mission board, the mission board would be a copy of the mission board you would get from that faction for a specific asset. It doest change system ownership or allows factions to stay in a system after a retreat rather making access to a faction more convient at the cost of reducing overall effectiveness when using this method.

 

[Chrystoph]

Mission boards are one of the Principle methods to " change system ownership" because that is a direct manipulation of the statuses of Factions in that system. Even if you do nothing else, being able to shorten the gameplay loop with a quicker turn-in provides a pay-to-win advantage because you aren't having to fly across the system to make turn in.

You haven't specified, but, if your representation can be switched between stations, that advantage becomes noteable. Think about stacked FCs with different stations parked right outside a Combat Zone, and massacre missions; gameplay in that scenario suddenly loses whatever time period your flight loop needs from the CZ to the station hosting the missions.

 

[EWanderer]

Mission boards are one of the Principle methods to " change system ownership" because that is a direct manipulation of the statuses of Factions in that system. Even if you do nothing else, being able to shorten the gameplay loop with a quicker turn-in provides a pay-to-win advantage because you aren't having to fly across the system to make turn in.

You haven't specified, but, if your representation can be switched between stations, that advantage becomes noteable. Think about stacked FCs with different stations parked right outside a Combat Zone, and massacre missions; gameplay in that scenario suddenly loses whatever time period your flight loop needs from the CZ to the station hosting the missions.

I mean yeah but then again this would give fleet carriers a real purpose besides being shiny, allowing money transfer or being used as a movable storage/taxi service.
And if we keep in mind that the original fleet carrier was supposed to support squadrons, the nod towards bgs convince fit to the picture.

As I said there should be downsides for using the envoy: cut in direct rewards to offput the logistical cost of outsourcing to the FC. And yeah if influence actions could be dived below 1 also decrease the value of mission influence.