In the context of the dearth of negative impacts on the BGS... we've now got the various sliders and happiness measurements which exist alongside Influence, for representing states.
Historically (pre-3.3), things like trading for profit at a station has been a "positive" outcome for the station owner, increasing influence and generating the "Boom" state. That's consistent in 3.3 as well. Likewise, increased security and influence is generally caused by claiming bounties or combat bonds.
In reality, this is kinda back-to-front. Without getting into lengthy discussions about economic modelling... most businesses focus on "buy low, sell high" for success. Whether that's daytrading, or purchasing materials for an end product to be sold for profit, the principle still applies. With the advent of "Void Opal Rushes" where single stations are paying out literal billions for a rush of commanders mining them, such a scenario should absolutely tank the economy, not strengthen it. Likewise, pilots destroying "enemies of the state" in a war would increase the security of that faction, there is nothing to be gained for the faction by issuing combat bonds, other than weakening their own economy. A sudden rash of commanders supporting a particular faction is comparable to a Bank Run, and should trash that factions economy, though they would win the war.
While undertaking activities for a faction would naturally benefit that faction, any payout received by that commander benefits only that commander, particularly if they remove it from that faction and spend it elsewhere. In other words...
Cash Received by a Faction = Stronger Economy
Cash Lost by a faction = Weaker Economy
Meanwhile
Activities undertaken supporting a faction = A stronger aspect
Activities undertaken against a faction = A weaker aspect
At present, we have the following activities:
Trade for profit at a station: ++ Influence, ++ economy
Trade for loss at a station: -- Influence, -- economy (presumably)
Hand in combat bonds/bounties: ++ Influence/War outcome, ++ security
Hand in exploration data: ++ Influence
It never made sense to have *negative* impacts from the credit loss for a faction associated with the sale of Exploration data, as Influence was the only measure of a faction pre-3.3. Now, economy and security is separated. So I propose the following:
For Trade:
Buying goods off a market: ++ Economy
Selling goods to a market: -- Economy
In addition to this:
Selling goods to demand commodity: ++ Influence (they need it for their operations)
Selling goods to a supply / no demand commodity: -- Influence (it's virtually junk, or even interferes with their own markets)
Selling goods to a Black Market owned by Anarchy: ++ Influence, -- Economy for owner
Selling goods to a Black Market owned by non-Anarchy: -- Influence, -- Economy for owner
Hand in exploration data: ++ Influence, -- Economy
Destroying any ship: -- Influence, -- Security for owning faction
Handing in Bounties: -- Economy, ++ Security for issuing faction[1]
Handing in Exploration data: ++ Influence, -- Economy
In all cases such as Exploration Data/Bonds/Trade, there should be the option to "donate" the goods which voids the economic penalties. Conversely, "Donation" missions should be removed from the game, and replaced with the ability to donate arbitrary credits and goods (only goods in demand) in exchange for Reputation and the appropriate economic increase.
In this case, missions become *vitally important* for propping up a faction. Sourcing goods demanded in a mission or undertaking deliveries should still carry the overall positive benefits to both influence, rep and economy, as it's a specified activity that will purpotedly aid the faction beyond the realms of standard trade arrangements.
I'd also argue handing in Combat bonds should be ++ rep and -- economy for the issuer, and -- rep for the opposition, but Hostile is still a broken rep state in this context. Until Fleet Carriers come in (provided they're implemented correctly) there's no way to address the lack of rep loss with opposition during a war.
[1] This is a tricky one. Ideally the security effect would occur on destruction, but the ships destruction is really only relevant for the bounty issuer's security, and without knowing more about the game's internals, it would probably be the only way to perform a ++ Security for the appropriate faction.
Note: A lot of this is copy/paste from here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/471432-Famine-and-outbreak-are-they-possible/page2 , and thanks to Dommarraa for the original suggestion.
Historically (pre-3.3), things like trading for profit at a station has been a "positive" outcome for the station owner, increasing influence and generating the "Boom" state. That's consistent in 3.3 as well. Likewise, increased security and influence is generally caused by claiming bounties or combat bonds.
In reality, this is kinda back-to-front. Without getting into lengthy discussions about economic modelling... most businesses focus on "buy low, sell high" for success. Whether that's daytrading, or purchasing materials for an end product to be sold for profit, the principle still applies. With the advent of "Void Opal Rushes" where single stations are paying out literal billions for a rush of commanders mining them, such a scenario should absolutely tank the economy, not strengthen it. Likewise, pilots destroying "enemies of the state" in a war would increase the security of that faction, there is nothing to be gained for the faction by issuing combat bonds, other than weakening their own economy. A sudden rash of commanders supporting a particular faction is comparable to a Bank Run, and should trash that factions economy, though they would win the war.
While undertaking activities for a faction would naturally benefit that faction, any payout received by that commander benefits only that commander, particularly if they remove it from that faction and spend it elsewhere. In other words...
Cash Received by a Faction = Stronger Economy
Cash Lost by a faction = Weaker Economy
Meanwhile
Activities undertaken supporting a faction = A stronger aspect
Activities undertaken against a faction = A weaker aspect
At present, we have the following activities:
Trade for profit at a station: ++ Influence, ++ economy
Trade for loss at a station: -- Influence, -- economy (presumably)
Hand in combat bonds/bounties: ++ Influence/War outcome, ++ security
Hand in exploration data: ++ Influence
It never made sense to have *negative* impacts from the credit loss for a faction associated with the sale of Exploration data, as Influence was the only measure of a faction pre-3.3. Now, economy and security is separated. So I propose the following:
For Trade:
Buying goods off a market: ++ Economy
Selling goods to a market: -- Economy
In addition to this:
Selling goods to demand commodity: ++ Influence (they need it for their operations)
Selling goods to a supply / no demand commodity: -- Influence (it's virtually junk, or even interferes with their own markets)
Selling goods to a Black Market owned by Anarchy: ++ Influence, -- Economy for owner
Selling goods to a Black Market owned by non-Anarchy: -- Influence, -- Economy for owner
Hand in exploration data: ++ Influence, -- Economy
Destroying any ship: -- Influence, -- Security for owning faction
Handing in Bounties: -- Economy, ++ Security for issuing faction[1]
Handing in Exploration data: ++ Influence, -- Economy
In all cases such as Exploration Data/Bonds/Trade, there should be the option to "donate" the goods which voids the economic penalties. Conversely, "Donation" missions should be removed from the game, and replaced with the ability to donate arbitrary credits and goods (only goods in demand) in exchange for Reputation and the appropriate economic increase.
In this case, missions become *vitally important* for propping up a faction. Sourcing goods demanded in a mission or undertaking deliveries should still carry the overall positive benefits to both influence, rep and economy, as it's a specified activity that will purpotedly aid the faction beyond the realms of standard trade arrangements.
I'd also argue handing in Combat bonds should be ++ rep and -- economy for the issuer, and -- rep for the opposition, but Hostile is still a broken rep state in this context. Until Fleet Carriers come in (provided they're implemented correctly) there's no way to address the lack of rep loss with opposition during a war.
[1] This is a tricky one. Ideally the security effect would occur on destruction, but the ships destruction is really only relevant for the bounty issuer's security, and without knowing more about the game's internals, it would probably be the only way to perform a ++ Security for the appropriate faction.
Note: A lot of this is copy/paste from here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/471432-Famine-and-outbreak-are-they-possible/page2 , and thanks to Dommarraa for the original suggestion.
