Worlds are divided into one or more ‘communities’. This is a very loose description covering everything from infrastructure through to population and even their opinions. In most cases a world will only have a single ‘community’.
Infrastructure for a world is considered as five separate although interactive fields. Each of these can be controlled separately as a position and it is not necessary to control all fields. Control of four of the fields is through starport complexes relating to the type of area and represent embassies. These directly relate to infrastructure and how civilian assets are governed. The fifth field directly relates to the population and is motivated internally. As this field is independent of embassies, players can have these positions on worlds that they do not own assets on. This will allow for the inclusion of black markets, slave revolts and various other politically motivated events.
Together these aspects combine to determine the nature of the government of the world.
Introduction
This is a working document primed mainly at discussion level. While certain features such as splitting infrastructure into fields is a must, quite what they are and what they do is not carved in stone at this level. Development of infrastructure, much like the rest of the game will be an ongoing process so it is important to get ideas for inclusion at this stage.
Two years constant debate and deletion of old ideas has progressed the model from simply statistic building through to interactive features that are aimed at not only giving a world better resources for the controlling player but a reason for outsiders to visit the world. Bear in mind when making suggestions that will we tend to judge their merit based on their ability to draw players into the game improving interactively rather than simply give more assets to the controlling player.
Communities
A community is a catchall term to describe a civilian based conglomeration that is self-defined. This can be a city in a single sector or an entire world under the banner of a government. It can theoretically even be the ruins of an ancient civilisation. A planet can therefore have zero, one or many communities although for the purposes of most worlds, it will be confined to a single community per world (notable exception of Inversion and possibly a few others). Just because it is a single community, it does not mean that everybody is singing from the same hymn-sheet. There is plenty of scope for multiple control and even skulduggery through the manipulation of the population.
A community will be defined by policies implemented by those in control of the various fields. This means a liberal state will be one with lax laws as opposed to players announcing that the community is a liberal despite ruthlessly pursued draconian laws.
Fields of Control
Fields of control are divided into five spheres that interact in order to produce an overall functioning society. There is some overlap and in many ways each field cannot be considered to be independent. They have been divided in this manner to give players the concentrate on the areas that interest them but also on some worlds certain fields may not actually be appropriate, e.g. military/judicial in Yank.
The five fields are:
Civil Engineering/Treasury
As controllers the players receive demands for revenue, lists of resources available for the community and in-depth reports on what is going on in the region covered by the community.
In many ways this is the most important as it is through this field that all revenue generated by the community is allocated to the fields responsible for building up the community. These funds are raised through the judiciary and through donations from starbases.
While the controlling player or players cannot ignore minimum allocation, they do have some flexibility in where they assign this accumulated revenue.
If this position is uncontrolled, then the assets are simply divided based on an algorithm appropriate to the world.
The role also includes the building of specific structures that lay outside the field of general infrastructure. This can include conversion of sectors, construction of monuments, stadiums and in fact any number of conceivable features (to be discussed).
· Knowledge of who wants what and why. Knowledge of who needs what.
· Allocation of planetary revenue.
· Construct specific civilian structures and features.
· Determining sectors for terraforming/development.
· Expansion of community into new sectors.
· Writing descriptions to features developed as part of the development.
· Pollution – basic budgeting costs.
· Terraforming the atmosphere and other large planetary developments.
Commercial/Industrial/Agricultural
This field covers at the most basic level, the feeding of the population. Beyond this though there is the improvements to the commercial, industrial and agricultural aspects of the community. The controlling players determine into which areas the treasury budget is sunk.
The industrial aspect of the community deals not only with improvements to itself but also sale of free production to starbases. The controlling players determine how this is allocated and the sorts of fees involved. Note that civilian production is always more expensive than starbase production in stellar costs although the more heavily industrialised a planet is the closer this draws to starbase running costs (see notes on wages in health/education).
Commercial areas include the development of planetary markets for trade as well as merchandising returns. As this is developed for a community the revenue merchandising for the community increases as does the import capabilities. Eventually however merchandising develops and the world becomes more civilian oriented through planetary distributors. At this point the role of starbases becomes importers. The allocations of rights and how this is achieved is defined through the players controlling this field.
Sell to local population will be scrapped. The community will instead by from starbase markets. What they buy, what they are prepared to pay etc, can be influenced through control of this field although they will never purchase en masse what they simply do not want.
Not only does agriculture field deal with feeding the masses but also the development of exports and imports of infrastructure based trade goods. These range from crops through to minerals and even include unique items.
· Allocation of food to population groups.
· Allocation of merchandising to local and global factors.
· Influence trade item markets. This will weight the types of items they will buy from player markets (note that this will replace sell to local population).
· Allocation of budget resources to commerce/industrial/agriculture areas for maintenance of current infrastructure values and further development.
· Allocation of spare civilian industry to starbases.
· Allocation of spare planetary mineral/special resources within community domain to starbases/outposts.
Health/Education
Money from the treasury deals with education of the population as well as the maintenance of the technology that is present on the world. How this is allocated will determine how much can be used to improve the population, keep them healthy, train them but also how much technology.
Technology will have activation budgets that can be allocated by the controllers. Once the technologies have been activated, they can be assigned for the use of starbases for the next cycle.
Education determines the availability of employees and the general level of education. It also determines the mean expected wage of the general populace. Where a community contains a native population the education covers their upgrade to competent users of technology.
Education also dictates the basic wage of the population. Even at its most basic level industrial production is more expensive than starbase production. With a highly skilled population, the wage demand increases which in turn can mean that civilian production by a small population is even more expensive. This can even have the knock-on effect of drawing employees out of starbases towards the more highly paid civilian industries. This is normally the only way of improving the output of a planet that is overcrowded.
On the health side of things this area deals with resistances to the various plagues and illnesses that will be present in the game. This will also deal with discovering them, narrowing down the sectors they are present in and containing the spread of the plagues through the community. It will deal with the manufacture of certain pharmaceuticals if this is appropriate.
This will also deal with civilian casualties that have been inflicted through war.
· Population housing, development of urbanised areas and coping with immigration.
· Where to spend the budget resources developing technologies, maintaining current technologies and how much production the technologies can generate.
· Who gets access to these technologies in conjunction with industry for production or simply for research benefits.
· Which part of the population is educated treated first. Determine which job areas are pushed.
· Construction of medical facilities and sanitation.
· Assigning of budgets to deal with plagues, purchase of medical equipment and distribution of given supplies.
Military/Judicial
The judicial section of the field deals with the smooth running of the day-to-day operations of the community. Its role is to ensure that there are laws to prevent anarchy and social collapse but also to gather taxes for allocation through the treasury to the other fields. This means that while this field gathers the taxes, at the end of the day, it is still bound by the treasury to use a proportion of the taxes collected. These are then split between the military and the judicial system. The judicial system as well as collecting taxes sets laws, but more importantly has to have sufficient budget to enforce these laws. The more draconian the laws the greater the cost to impose them. Certain items if present in a community will always be detrimental to some aspect of the society. Drugs for example may well improve morale, but certain ones will cause negative impacts on other fields. Banning them will help to a certain extent although this can backfire in the long run as a civilised community gradually descends into a dictatorship.
Then there is the ongoing problem with dealing with the prisoners generated by implementation of the law. Death penalties may not be socially acceptable in certain societies.
This is a very powerful section as it even allows the player to set limits on the other fields through the implementation of laws. They can for example dictate that health budgets are used to treat the faction that generates the greatest wealth per person for the community. It can impose laws stating that food and shelter go to those that can pay.
Military is concerned with maintaining a civilian defence to protect the community. Unlike starbases, this is never defined by separate items although there will be an interface that can generate items on the fly for use against player positions. The controller determines where bases are constructed, which areas will be developed, i.e. marine, land, air, space and the alert status. The player also determines which starbases will be protected and to what degree.
Military also counters the threat of invasion and the interface will determine how this occurs. Obvious there needs to be some outside spying that will allow people to determine the civilian strength in a sector.
· Set taxes on imports, exports, wages.
· Set laws, prohibit items.
· Control military, set alert status, construct bases in sectors. Defend starbases/outposts, set alert status, change alert status.
· Increasing alert status before a clear and present danger is determined increases population resistance due to appearing as a police state. Decreasing alert status is seen as being liberal and leaving the community unprotected.
· Drugs undermine commerce, industry and population control by the majority. The amount is based on the type of drug.
· Enforcing laws is based on the budget of the judicial system, while making laws is simply a facet of policy.
· Military can also use technology to train civilian troops to higher levels, i.e. soldiers etc. Pay however will determine how many leave this service. By the same token, overpaying will draw troops away from starbases.
· Laws can apply to specific races, e.g. humans may be educated and hive may not etc. Laws can also dictate who is eligible for civilian military service (Kastorians only in Yank).
· Laws can dictate what complexes can be built by starbases and where starbases can be built.
· Laws can restrict where off-worlders can go on a world.
· Laws can determine which items can be slaved. Laws also have a response level, this determines the punishment for the crime. This can be anything from fines through to death. There is also a level of enforcement that determines how much of the budge allocated to the judiciary that will be used for this particular area. This may be per item or per item type?
Population Manipulation and Management
This is probably the most fun to control simply on account of its ability to cause chaos, overthrow governments and generally annoy the hell out of other factions without so much as firing a shot. This field covers everything for immigration to emigration, loyalty to the regime or to the enemy within. It is the criminal elements and the zealots to the cause. It also defines who can have control of the other fields.
As well as all this it covers rumours, desires and needs of the population and general spying on what is happening and who is doing what.
As these deal with civilians and civilian assets, depending on the area covered by the community, this can also expand into orbital range and possibly beyond. This is very important for illegal activities.
· Legitimate Immigration – itinerant workers, ex-employees, civilians, mercenaries etc. How many and of what type can be seeded into the population. These people will support your faction and contribute to the community.
· Illegitimate Immigration – freedom fighters and general scallywags. How many and of what type can be seeded into the population. While these support the player controlling the faction they always have a negative impact on the community. Note that freedom fighters are actually the equivalent to loyal mercs and should there be a revolution they will no longer have a negative impact.
· Legitimate Emigration – through exodus, work policies. This dictates the potential for people to leave the community under the guidance of the controller.
· Illegitimate Emigration – sneaking out fleeing refugees etc. How many and what type.
· Black Markets – selling of any item although the illegal ones go for the best prices. Note that all revenue generated from black markets negatively impact on legitimate markets. They also add to crime levels and drain judicial resources. They undermine commerce and even have their own transport capabilities defined by the boundaries of the community (deliver items for sale without even entering orbit!).
· Dictator, revolts, determination of control – getting a modest control is very easy, especially where the population is diverse. Getting a majority along with military and judicial control can allow a player to set up their own dictatorship. Being in a minority but with a strong loyalty can allow the instigation of riots, revolts and other forms of protest against the governing body.
· What part of the population you control – whether you have access to starbase employees, off-site troops etc.
· Spying on civilian assets. Determine of military strength and even how they interact with starbases on the world.
Colonisation
As an unpopulated world does not have a community, one has to be created. Seeding a population onto a new world can be achieved through one of two methods. There is the player dictated method and the natural seeding process. The former requires the starbase to form a colonisation program (essentially a ground party). This ‘stockpile’ is then used to develop the new community in much the same way as above. The other method is a natural product of being on a world. Currently wages are paid to employees. These are currently accumulated and recorded. Once there is sufficient stellars and a sizable group present, a faction will break away from the starbase and seek to make it on their own. The type of world relative to the starbase wages will dictate these thresholds. A barren asteroid for example will have extravagantly high levels – only insane people want to live there) whereas hospitable planets have employees, troops and the likes leaving just as soon as they have enough money.
Implementation
Communities move at a much slower pace than starbases. For this reason changes dictated by controllers will never be immediate. These changes are called policies and once submitted take approximately a month to process, however during this period they can be amended, scrapped or forced through.
The process works something like this:
Controllers submit a new issue. This is shown at the end of the weekly report, much like an issue is on political reports.
Over the coming weeks, other controllers have the ability to amend the policy, vote for it and vote against it.
Certain areas have a more expedient method of implementation although these by necessity have a much higher cost in pushing the issue through. These are classed as emergency measures. There may be measures for allowing power of Imperium, effectively producing a dictator. This is generally the case in hive mind societies controlled by a single queen.
I have a big BUT though. The amount of detail that we have in running starbases already is fairly big (production, raw materials, markets, resources, etc.). I think that a lot of players would probably suffer a bit when they are running a lot of starbases. The infrastructure upgrade in the current form seems to add a lot of detail to the game and my personaly felling is that we should maybe consider a simpler infrastucture upgrade based on the current interaction system that one has with the native populations.
The merchandising values could be a lot more influenced by how you interact with the people on the planet. They could fx. drop, if you dont sell any items to the population. Selling structural modules could maybe improve infrastucture on the planet and long term increase merchandising values. We have also lots of ways to influence the planets via special actions, which have direct effects on merchandising on the planets.
I think that we could generate a minor infrastructure upgrade within the current system. We could use exchange complexes, which could give a way of interacting with local population and their could be effects when selling items on planets.
This is just a few ideas from my part on a more simple approach to the infrastructure upgrade.
I got a felling from a few people which I talked to at the pub meet that the current work load in running starbases is sufficient and another layer of detail could be to much in the end. I would personally end up converting starbases into outpost, if I cannot keep up the workload of running 5+ starbases.
Best regards,
Brian
Will races have any default stats? For example, Flagritz could be naturally healthier and more intelligent than Felines (as an example<g>) so get bonuses to those fields. Similarly, will races have natural enemies/allies with whom their community will have internal problems/bonuses with? or are they all to be classed as the same(which is a bit boring!)?
Religions too - will this be a feature of communities/infrastructure? Their implementation might take a while, but they could have profound effects on all the fields.
Mark
You mentioned that Communities will be positions (a new position type) so I presume they will belong to an affiliation. This could cause irritations where a government includes sub-affiliations (like the CIA) or where a given affiliation, while independent, does not define itself as a government/ruling body (like the IND, AFT, RIP, SMS, RAT?).
It might be a good approach to treat Communities not as positions, but as a "feature", i.e. not under direct player control but with indirect ways for players to influence them.
I am thinking of starbase gouvernors using complexes to indirectly interact with communities, special actions, etc. - this way you never know what effect it might have, and what part your actions may have had if an effect becomes visible.
The acutal control should either rest with the GM (preferred!), or be an automated process based on the algorithms mentioned.
From a player point of view, playing a Community is blowing the scope in a game designed to play individual starships. Already now there is mention of a decentralized infrastructure production pool and of interfaces that will generate surface battle groups in case of a player position attacking. This is precariously close to the proverbial "Play Game" button: Sooner or later Communities will want to have their own starbases and warfleets. You need to draw a line here.
To me, player control of a Community would be over the line.
EDIT: Re-reading Mica's post I think I misunderstood it and it is actually exactly as I just wrote it should be - indirect control by means of starbase complexes.
Spot on Mica!
| QUOTE (Frabby @ Nov 23 2004, 01:11 PM) |
| Although I appreciate this is just a working draft of the proposed rules, it looks very promising. Two thumbs up Mica! You mentioned that Communities will be positions (a new position type) so I presume they will belong to an affiliation. This could cause irritations where a government includes sub-affiliations (like the CIA) or where a given affiliation, while independent, does not define itself as a government/ruling body (like the IND, AFT, RIP, SMS, RAT?). It might be a good approach to treat Communities not as positions, but as a "feature", i.e. not under direct player control but with indirect ways for players to influence them. I am thinking of starbase gouvernors using complexes to indirectly interact with communities, special actions, etc. - this way you never know what effect it might have, and what part your actions may have had if an effect becomes visible. The acutal control should either rest with the GM (preferred!), or be an automated process based on the algorithms mentioned. From a player point of view, playing a Community is blowing the scope in a game designed to play individual starships. Already now there is mention of a decentralized infrastructure production pool and of interfaces that will generate surface battle groups in case of a player position attacking. This is precariously close to the proverbial "Play Game" button: Sooner or later Communities will want to have their own starbases and warfleets. You need to draw a line here. To me, player control of a Community would be over the line. |
i think the Community itself is not player controlled, only influenced through the 5 infrastructure fields. Those 5 fields are player controlled.
In a way, we have this now at a simple level ie a player can influence the planet/community through SA. The new system doesnt change this, but makes it more interesting (I think).
Mark
Just because the population of that community work and live together as a cohesive entity, doesn't make them mindless drones for the player to control -there will almost certainly be unexpected side-effects and results from player-instigated changes, which adds to the fun
Dan
I still think that we have to be a bit careful not making everything to complicated, which I think that another layer like the complete infrastructure upgrade would be. This could scare off potentially new players as they have a difficult time trying to run starbases due to the level of detail which you need to know about.
I do admit that it would make the game very realistic and very cool, but I think it would be to much work running starbases, if you also have to worry about planatary governments and the like.
The conclussion from my part is that we can improve the current way of running starbases in the way the effect and interact with the local populations rather than creating a completely new layer with planatary governments.
Brian, DTR
I supect Mr Toridan is licking his lips
Geoff
| QUOTE (brian kreiser @ Nov 24 2004, 08:16 AM) |
| But Dan you can already do this via special actions |
True - that is the point, the infrastructure update will make it more mainstream.
I forgot to highlight the converse - you can also choose to have NO controling influences for a specific area (or even all of them!) then the planetary community gets any of those areas controlled by a template based on the type of world etc. SO for those who really can't be bothered with it, it will be a pure "upgrade" to the starbase's interactions with the civilians (without the £1.70 cost each time).
But for those of us who want to have that extra depth, it offers up a completely different aspect to the game. It won't be a case of everybody having to have complete control of every community they can - it will be an option that gives a little bit more to those who bother to make the effort (as with just about every other aspect of the game). Will it cost a turn fee? I expect so, but hopefully only in proportion to the benefit gained, comparing it to the £2.10 a week (soon to be) fee for a starbase
Dan
Like the new combat features that still haven't made it to the manuals yet!!!
Pete
As a draft, I can see no major problems with this. Conceptual wise, it's a major boon to the game. I am glad that things like Pollution are being included, and I can already feel the SAs backing up...
Prehaps (as has been queried before) we need more of an idea on HOW these things are manipulated/interacted with. Just so it's really clear what you're proposing.
Eg, Are most of them standard Starbase orders?
Will specific complexes be needed to affect different areas?
Will Outposts have the same "influence" as a starbase?
Can a GP influence these things without an SA?
| QUOTE (nortonweb @ Nov 24 2004, 10:33 PM) |
| But will any of these "mainstream" new features be documented. |
yes - before it is coded....
Dan
| QUOTE (nortonweb @ Nov 24 2004, 10:33 PM) |
| But will any of these "mainstream" new features be documented. Like the new combat features that still haven't made it to the manuals yet!!! Pete |
We are going to go back over all the manuals. We have been discussing how best to do this horrible, horrible job. We think that a read only customised forum will be the fastest and simplest method allowing us to update it on the fly and giving everybody the ability to just click the 'read new posts' and see and modifications to the rulebook.
When I was first starting Phoenix it was quite hard to get information from my first affiliation and as such I relied quite heavily upon the manuals, which I printed out as a reference while doing turns.
The problem was that even then (just over a year and a half ago) the manuals were out of touch with what the order editor and what the program were doing. If I wasn't of the code head, I'll keep trying type I would have given up which I'm sure (and have seen from two friends) others do.
This brings me to two points, again sorry this is off topic, that an online manual may not be best for bringing new people in (thus increasing revenue for KJC) and to document BEFORE coding is not a good idea as due to bug fixes and changes in mind and spec its bound to change once coded.
This is in no way a comment on either David or Mica who both do most outstanding jobs and are (as far as I can see) hard working with a back log of jobs to complete, but why not ask/get KJC to pay for a documenter/copy writer to produce the manual/documentation. It will give it a polished look (not that Mica couldn't but would he want to spend time on a manual or SA's) and its always best to get documentation done by some one other than the person who completed the work (there is less chance of misunderstands and things being missed)?
Once again sorry for the topic shift...
Pete
| QUOTE (nortonweb @ Nov 25 2004, 10:14 AM) |
| This brings me to two points, again sorry this is off topic, that an online manual may not be best for bringing new people in (thus increasing revenue for KJC) and to document BEFORE coding is not a good idea as due to bug fixes and changes in mind and spec its bound to change once coded. This is in no way a comment on either David or Mica who both do most outstanding jobs and are (as far as I can see) hard working with a back log of jobs to complete, but why not ask/get KJC to pay for a documenter/copy writer to produce the manual/documentation. It will give it a polished look (not that Mica couldn't but would he want to spend time on a manual or SA's) and its always best to get documentation done by some one other than the person who completed the work (there is less chance of misunderstands and things being missed)? |
Although I disagree about the document after point, being that you should document first and correct as you go, not that i do that myself but just as an ideal
. The point about needed good documentation espeically for a game as complex as phoenix is a valid one, however rather than going to the expense (and obvoiusly further need for a price increase) of hiring a professional documention writer, how about just setting up a wiki-style document and let the players keep it up to date as well as Mica and David. The advantage would be any obovius mistakes would be quickly fixed by our active playerbase, espeically when you consider how much knowleage players such as steve and dan have.
Also you could easily use the same system to keep an (ic) history/overview of the game which would only help to give background to the game for new players... but thats another matter.
There are a couple of pinned topics under the Questions/Rules Discussion forum relating to rulebooks and manuals (and updating thereof).
| QUOTE |
| yes - before it is coded.... |
We are talking about software developers here, not technical writers. Miracles aside, the general trend is 'like a telecomms engineer', they make things work, create fancy widgets etcetera..... all the while trying not to buckle under the pressure of user demands. As you are all aware, we are still trying to complete the QA stages of the new code changes leaving little time to catch up with documentation on existing updates.
Sadly, user documentation is a 'evil' we all need.
I myself have over 30 years software development experience and fully understand the frustrations the developer experience in trying to create the necessary time to complete what is often a very mundane task.
I would like to propose that the players themselves form a unit to assist Mica and partners with the development of a new set of documentation.
In this I am willing to offer my services if KJC and the players consider this as a feasible solution.
Note I do understand that some may argue that since this KJC do derive an income that implicitly current documentation is a reasonable expectation, but in the end, it is not so relevant as to who authors the document set, as to its availability and accuracy.
Further, it becomes possible to create supplemental documents detailing the intent and correct usage of all commands and the circumstances in which they could/should be used.
A feature of most forums is that they can also provide a print-friendly version, for printing, thus solving the problem of having two documents to maintain.
I have limited geographical knowledge of the systems, but I got the impression at the pub meet that there are plenty of systems claimed by an AFF purely by a little outpost somewhere. There may be an odd ship that patrols the system every now and then - but otherwise it is just a no go area for enemy affiliations or a future battle ground.
To me it just seems a little too easy to claim a system - and I am not really sure I like the entire system blanketed by an AFF flag - especially if there is a local native population there. Surely - they might like a say in it...
What I would like to see is a planet's population decides which of its starbases it aligns with politically (whether by force or fair election etc) - that Aff then can consider that planet as belong it to it until such a time as the population changes its mind (by manipulation or change in public opinion).
If there are just asteroids for example in a system - then simply having an outpost on them would be sufficient to claim the system.
The system flag can then be worked out on dominance of political support from the planets that make up the system. Who ever has the most influence can then decide the rules for that system.
This way - there is the potential for someone to gain or loose political power within the game and it would actually make the Political positions more interesting that just being a mass number with a bank account attached.
It would also be amusing to role-play a revolution in a system - especially if the affiliation loosing power wants to resist the changes.
A bit of a vague description I know - will work on it if people like the idea.
| QUOTE (MOH_Floaty @ Nov 25 2004, 12:22 PM) |
| I think the question of system ownership should be addressed in these changes. |
Awww... Bless...
Seriously though, you have some good points, but I'm not sure I like the idea of code dictating politics/role-play that way. I suppose something like that could be implemented, but it should not effect anyone claiming anything.
You can claim what you like, doesn't mean it's true or you can defend your claim
| QUOTE |
| I suppose something like that could be implemented, but it should not effect anyone claiming anything. |
Sorry - you are right. I didn't mean that you shouldn't be able to claim what you want - but wouldn't it be interesting if the code told you that the population of the system hated you and all of a sudden they decided to avoid your markets etc...
In any good role-playing game it is the Non Playing Characters (like the local polulations) that add that little extra bit. Give them a bit of a say - who they like and who they don't and then let the playing characters deal with that.
All I really want to see is system claiming being more than just who got to build a command post first and then who has the biggest fleet. Have the locals object - or at least question who the people with the spacecraft are. Let them have a civil war etc.
You could then have true IND systems like in local politics here where we have many No Overall Control councils.
All we need is a piece of code that does everything and simulates everything from local farming and national politics to coronal mass injections and metaphysics. David: Can you do that?
There will be a nobel prize in it for you...PS: I have been thinking this for a while - nothing to do with IC events...
| QUOTE (MOH_Floaty @ Nov 25 2004, 12:32 PM) | ||
Sorry - you are right. I didn't mean that you shouldn't be able to claim what you want - but wouldn't it be interesting if the code told you that the population of the system hated you and all of a sudden they decided to avoid your markets etc... In any good role-playing game it is the Non Playing Characters (like the local polulations) that add that little extra bit. Give them a bit of a say - who they like and who they don't and then let the playing characters deal with that. All I really want to see is system claiming being more than just who got to build a command post first and then who has the biggest fleet. Have the locals object - or at least question who the people with the spacecraft are. Let them have a civil war etc. You could then have true IND systems like in local politics here where we have many No Overall Control councils. All we need is a piece of code that does everything and simulates everything from local farming and national politics to coronal mass injections and metaphysics. David: Can you do that? There will be a nobel prize in it for you...PS: I have been thinking this for a while - nothing to do with IC events... |
I might be wrong (I usually am<g>) but didnt this happen when the FCN took over the Krell system (sorry, forget its name!) from the DNA - they used politics with the locals to change who they wanted?
So I cant see any reason why it wont work in the new infrastructure changes as its already there.
it also depends on how the Communities aspect works - can you have cultural elements of a community that are per system - or per Periphery? This would influence who they want in to the systems, etc.
On a game mechanic issue, when the changes come in, I assume they will have default values, modified depending upon circumstance. Will planets with existing bases be treated differently ie. they are assumed to have already been heavily influenced by the existing affiliations who are there. Same goes with system claims - if an affiliation claims a system, will the local community (when they are created) have an existing loyalty to that regime?
I realise the answers dont exist yet, but how this is handled could greatly influence galactic politics. An affiliation claiming a system, but only has a mining outpost - would it get the civilians in the system loyal to them, neutral - or even against them for ignoring them? Could make the status quo very interesting
| QUOTE |
| An affiliation claiming a system, but only has a mining outpost - would it get the civilians in the system loyal to them, neutral - or even against them for ignoring them? Could make the status quo very interesting |
Exactly my thoughts. I know it is one more things for people to worry about - but it is something that would work on quite long times scales of months or even a year or so.
I don't know of the example you gave - this is one of the problems I have as a relatively new player - I am not sure how a lot of things work at the moment.
| QUOTE (brian kreiser @ Nov 24 2004, 09:16 AM) |
| This could scare off potentially new players as they have a difficult time trying to run starbases due to the level of detail which you need to know about. ... but I think it would be to much work running starbases, if you also have to worry about planatary governments and the like. Brian, DTR |
I can see your point, but when I started out, there was no way I felt I could handle a basic starbase. It wasn't until I was seasoned with my affiliation assisting me in learning the ropes so to speak (FET).
In the same mannerism, a new player is not expected to run a starbase from day 1. With the inclusion of the Infrastructure, sure, it's more complicated, but it to a lot of players will make the game more interesting to play.
This is where aff leadership and responsibilities come to play. If I give a starbase to a new player without explaining to him how they work and he messes it up, whose really to blame
Talking off the top of my head here, but running the Planetary Governments etc... should mainly be a matter of organization. The pubmeet will probably address some of these concerns of yours-- realistic concerns they definitely are too.
Also, rules make a difference. The better set up rules will help everybody.
IMHO
Llywelyn
I assume the plagues will (do?) have a major impact on the planetary population, and that Health-Care budgetting is a factor in that. I also assume that Medical Supplies (and probably some other items) will be usful in managing these events. Confirmational comment?
Drugs... Will the population suffer problems due to drug use on the planet, as originally sugguested? How will this work with the new planetary trade system? If I have 300 mus of Heroin in my starbase, can I control it's use? Heaven Herb = Yes! Heroin = No!
I don't mind my Wimbles being stoned and having the major munchies (can YOU tell the difference?), but I don't want them going to war because they found the PCP stash!
The civilian use of the 'recreational' drugs comes down to the addiction factor of the drugs and the law prohibiting their use. Of course you can ruthlessly prevent all use of hard drugs.... it's called a draconian dictatorship.
Another quick one though....
What are the Negative effects of high pollution planned to be? Will it effect mortality rates, happiness, resources?
| QUOTE (Clay @ Dec 4 2004, 04:41 AM) |
| What are the Negative effects of high pollution planned to be? Will it effect mortality rates, happiness, resources? |
Health issues. Basically higher costs keeping people in work. Failure to meet health budgets means less people to do jobs and drops in output.
If a planet cannot support life, the population will be isolated from the environment anyway (domes etc)?
| QUOTE (Rich Farry @ Dec 6 2004, 12:34 PM) |
| Will this be less of an issue on planets that cannot support life? If a planet cannot support life, the population will be isolated from the environment anyway (domes etc)? |
If we assume that pollution is caused by the inhabitants (i.e. there is no such thing as "natural" pollution) and the inhabitants only live within domes, it would be logical to also assume that the pollution is also only within the domes.
Or it would be to me anyway
Granted my logic may be a bit off at times... In game terms it means that different locations (within the domes, on this continent etc) can have different values - i.e. what do we in Europe care if all the rivers in Japan are polluted
A new community will have the planetary values and can work its way from there. Obviously there should be some mechanism by which the general planetary values can be altered (terraforming).
It seems sensible to count any planetary conditions that are adverse to colonisation to be brought under into the same bracket as pollution. So tackling local pollution, hostile planetary conditions becomes one and the same, e.g. build domes, sector clean-up etc.
If a player spends time and effort making their community the Las Vegas of the Peripheries they should certainly have some orders applicable to their unique location, or possibly visiting positions should be able to issue orders specific to the location.
Please I beg you. Forget about tweaking and changing things that already work. Instead bring in this much needed aspect of the game that we are waiting for.
So, at idea when this will happen. I'm just wondering if I should stop playing now and come back in 5 years time when it maybe close to being finished
Gareth, SMS VPD
Presentation
The first thing that strikes me is essentially 'compartmentalisation' (If that's a word) of the planetary market - EG: Different 'sectors' of the market (Light Industry, Heavy Industry, etc etc) can/will buy different quantities and types of items?
Sounds like it will add a lot of depth to the game though.
Not sure how the new trading orders would effect tools like the den trade site either, but i'm sure we can work around it.
ie if you pay less than this then employees may leave and find work in the cilivian sectors?
| QUOTE (ptb @ Dec 1 2005, 09:06 AM) |
| One query, the comments on planetary wages, I assume these will affect base starbase wages too? ie if you pay less than this then employees may leave and find work in the cilivian sectors? |
That was one of the original ideas that did not survive first contact. Too complicated and too much of a pain in the arse for players.
It is always assumed that employees/troops are at the top end of wages.
| QUOTE (Mica Goldstone @ Dec 1 2005, 11:59 AM) |
| That was one of the original ideas that did not survive first contact. Too complicated and too much of a pain in the arse for players. It is always assumed that employees/troops are at the top end of wages. |
One less thing to worry about then
Assuming only minor changes from the pubmeet discussions (probably unlikely but still) what kind of timescale are you looking to have this going in?
I said it in a private email, but Id like to repeat it publically that the changes look great! I can see why its taken solong asthere is obvious depths to it.
I, personally, will be embracing working with the new system everywhere I can, but I can see why some people don’t want to be involved at this level.With that in mind, the “road of no return” approach (once the infrastructure is played with you cant go back to the “old” method of brokerage) makes it inevitable that most players will have to get involved.
In the combat system you can build a certain amount of defence at a base and then forget about it and still be able to hold your own for awhile…could a similar “defence” not be possible with the new infrastructure to make it that bit harder for others to change the economy if you want it to remain brokerage-based? Eg. When the “conversion” of mechant complexes occurs to the new system, a % look after the “status quo/security” of the brokers, thus protecting that income stream. It could still be broken by someone else, but would require some effort/planning.
Or a simpler method might be to say the current Local Factor can always be obtained from brokerage if that’s what a player wants, with only the current Global Factor being affected by others changing the infrastructure?
Mark Lightburn
1) will we get tons of examples, as i dont get more then 5-10% of what i could do or how others would effect me <g>
2) about pollution (yeah i am krell so have to ask) will we get info on every single sector on inversion, like almost all of them are polluted or how does that part work, if its all sectors, then thats 1250 alone there, will be hell to be on more planets with problems as well <g>
As with Garg, could do with more examples before I cause havoc with my infrastructures!
weenie
| QUOTE (Garg @ Dec 1 2005, 01:45 PM) |
| will we get tons of examples |
Yup.
Anyways, credit where credit is due. The current stuff is much better than the initial proposals from last year.
Very very well done indeed.
| QUOTE (Archangel @ Dec 2 2005, 03:14 PM) |
| this document defines a principle design |
If this is a principle then I demand my researchers can copy 16 pages of A4 faster than once a year
I *knew* they were slacking off
The implication is that it will take several weeks to be able to sell a given product as it will need to build up demand, but the perishable nature implies that there is more pressure on the base to sell the goods.
To some extent, I think Booker Steaks will be okay because I produce them in large enough quantities that there could be many bases that will take a gamble that they can get a fairly regular supply
However, Governors are not going to want to try to establish goods with a limited shelf life that they cannot be sure they will get a regular supply of (as the implication is that initially a base should sell at a discounted price). In particular high value perishable goods produced in lower quantities.
I suspect the biggest impact on trade this will have is that it could further encourage private deals - much safer to organise a steady supply of trade goods, than to risk investing in a good when future supplies become difficult to get hold of.
It would be interesting to see whether the rumours element could be used in relation to some higher-end luxury foods (and possibly other goods). For example, real world, I've never tasted caviar, but if it suddenly became available I would be tempted to try it, and wouldn't neccessarily wait to see if it was available over an extended period before I decided to buy.
It will also be interesting to see what kind of levels of demand for specific goods there will be - I suspect that markets will need to shift towards a more diverse range of goods, in lower quantities. That implies a lot of fiddly trade routes, more time planning them. In game terms that further implies an increase in the number of Buy/Sell/Pickup and Deliver orders which makes me wonder whether there could be some pressure for these orders to move from a standard 10 TU's to a quantity related time (for example should it be quicker for a ship to pickup 10,000 MU's of a single item than two lots 50 MU's)
| QUOTE (Duckworth-Lewis @ Dec 2 2005, 03:34 PM) |
| ...which makes me wonder whether there could be some pressure for these orders to move from a standard 10 TU's to a quantity related time (for example should it be quicker for a ship to pickup 10,000 MU's of a single item than two lots 50 MU's) |
Now that is an interesting concept. It would certainly make sense that it should take longer to pickup 1000 40mu items, than it would to pickup 3 employees / lifeforms.
Although if everything is transferred via hi-port then does the size of the items affect that or is it that one hi-port transaction take 10tus, no matter how much 'matter' is actually being transferred in the process?
Phil
Just as a reference: Take an 8000 MU cargo hauler. If I wanted to fill that up with 8000 MU of one type it would cost 80 TU under such a system - and if I wanted to fill it up with 2 x 2000 MU and 1 x 4000 MU 'lots', I'd be looking at 80 TU also.
This linear progression is a bit more in keeping with realistic cargo loading times perhaps than the flat 10 TU per transaction. The downside of this, of course, is that freighting/trading with large job lots will take the same length of time whether you use large cargo haulers or multiple small cargo haulers - for 8 ships each with 1000 MU freight, I'd still be looking at 80 TUs total to shift that cargo.
However, because each individual ship would only be losing 10 TU, effectively it would be faster for large squadrons of small trade ships to shift goods en masse than it would be for a large superhauler. Which I suppose WOULD help the smaller trader...
In keeping with earlier comments though - surely it SHOULD be easier (1 TU) for 1 crew member to come aboard a ship than 8000 MU of cargo (80 TU)? As opposed to a flat 10 TU regardless?
Or in otherwords, material density of the items moved have a real impact on the time taken to move an equal mass. In addition to this, certain types of really dense matter are likely to need special equipment to move them.
The real difficulty here is where does one draw the line. How does one rationally separate the really useful game mechanism from one that could very easily become a darned nuisance under the right set of circumstances?
Archangel
How about...
Define the 'standard cargo unit' as equal to a mark I module, 40 MU's.
Time to load/unload = square root of number of units + 1TU (the bookeeping).
Thus: a 1 MU officer 'item' boards the ship in 1TU.
A 200 MU courier could be loaded with a single item in 3 or 4 TUs (small ships come into their own).
A standard 3,600 MU Caravel comes in with a single cargo full load time of 10 TU's.
And a 200 extralight AFT Super-carrier comes in at 18TU's, to load with 12K MU's of a single item.
TonyH
10TU's is very fast, so any changes to the mechanics would be along the lines of xTU's for all transactions plus yTU's per line + zTU's per mass, where x+y+z > 9TU's.
At the end of the day I am fairly certain the arse factor became too much to justify changing the system.
The simple formula should be relatively easy to implement, it's just the justification which might have to be long-winded. But justification doesnt have to be coded.
Theres an argument for adding to the fixed element of my proposal; adding 3 Tu's rather than 1, for instance.
One 'nice' spin-off from the adjustment would be that 'trade specialist' officers would tend to be moved up to larger ships, where their -10% or -20% transaction time might have more of an impact (or actually have one) - which again seems more 'natural'.
But all-in-all, it's a nice-to-have, rather than an essential.
TonyH
| QUOTE (Jumping_Jack @ Dec 5 2005, 04:25 PM) |
| But all-in-all, it's a nice-to-have, rather than an essential. TonyH |
Couldn't agree more.
| QUOTE (Mica Goldstone @ Dec 5 2005, 05:09 PM) |
| At the end of the day I am fairly certain the arse factor became too much to justify changing the system. |
Sounds reasonable
| QUOTE (Archangel @ Dec 5 2005, 03:43 PM) |
| On the other hand a ready counter argument here is that this opens the door to considering cargo types as well. It is far less time consuming to move a ton of gold than a ton of feathers. Also current mechanisms consider only total mass of cargo, no consideration is given to sufficient volume to load a specific mass in available cargo space. Or in otherwords, material density of the items moved have a real impact on the time taken to move an equal mass. In addition to this, certain types of really dense matter are likely to need special equipment to move them. |
From the rules:
Mass
In Phoenix, the term mass unit (usually written as mu – pronounced: em you) is used to represent a combination of volume, mass and inertia. A single mu cannot be truly expressed in terms of cubic metres or even kilograms, it is a kind of compromise. It also takes into account other factors. For example a single life form is classed as one mu. As well as the physical mass of the life form the mu also accounts for living space required by the life form, possibly tools of trade such as weapons and even an environmental suit. An mu of ore on the other hand will include some kind of suitable storage device or cargo pod.
| QUOTE (Jumping_Jack @ Dec 5 2005, 08:51 AM) |
| Something to be said for the idea, as long as it doesn't add to complexity too much... How about... Define the 'standard cargo unit' as equal to a mark I module, 40 MU's. Time to load/unload = square root of number of units + 1TU (the bookeeping). |
I think your definition of complexity is vastly different than my own...
If I'm understanding you correctly, you are suggesting:
TU's required=sqrt(Cargo MU's/40)+1
...being a representative of the minority who have not memorized root tables to 300, this suggestion would ADD far too much to the complexity of the game with no appreciable benefit. I use a calculator on too many of my turns as is...
I do like Ro'a-lith's idea about flat-rate progression:
TU's required=(Cargo MU's/100)+1
Real easy to figure out at a glance based upon what you're delivering/picking up and sets a minimum level that doesn't become affected by high level officers - it still takes time to perform the transaction.
Just my 2p into the mix.
Cheers,
Rich Fanning
aka
Lawrence Scrimm
CIA Intelligence Director
| QUOTE (Lord Scrimm @ Dec 5 2005, 09:37 PM) |
I think your definition of complexity is vastly different than my own... If I'm understanding you correctly, you are suggesting: TU's required=sqrt(Cargo MU's/40)+1 ...being a representative of the minority who have not memorized root tables to 300, this suggestion would ADD far too much to the complexity of the game with no appreciable benefit. I use a calculator on too many of my turns as is... I do like Ro'a-lith's idea about flat-rate progression: TU's required=(Cargo MU's/100)+1 Real easy to figure out at a glance based upon what you're delivering/picking up and sets a minimum level that doesn't become affected by high level officers - it still takes time to perform the transaction. Just my 2p into the mix. Cheers, Rich Fanning aka Lawrence Scrimm CIA Intelligence Director |
..It seems to be different to your own, yes. I wouldn't describe it as particularly complicated, and I think it produced a nice 'spread' with loading times on a par with orbit times for a vessel. And, the only time you'd actually need to calculate the actual TU value is when you needed to plan ahead to the exact last TU. Otherwise, a rough rule of thumb would be: 200 MUs = 4TUs, 3000 MU's = 10 TUs, and 12,000 MUs = 20 TUs. I could interpolate to within a TU or so in my head, and dont consider myself particulaly gifted mathematically. Anyway, as you're already having to use a calculator...
Its complication is nothing compared to the combat changes that have been introduced, and even though I'd rate it only as a 'nice to have', it would improve my enjoyment of the game when rated against the inumerable past enhancements to the combat system and weaponry. It gives a nice niche for the small/fast 'lightcargo' ships... which we might well need when the infrastructure merchandising comes in.
I'd be strongly against any system which put a large freighter on an 80 or even 40 TU load, simple to work out, or not.
TonyH
| QUOTE (Lord Scrimm @ Dec 5 2005, 10:37 PM) |
| TU's required=(Cargo MU's/100)+1 |
Personally i would not be happy with any system that makes a fleet of small ships better at moving large loads than a single large ship. Any flat mass -> tu system would do this.
I would suggest as an alertnative that it takes 10 or 20 tus to move any amount of cargo and any number of item types from a single position to another. Basicly the first is 10/20 tus and each one after that is free while it's from hte same position and you havn't run another order.
I imagine this would be *very* easy to code as well.
Goth
| QUOTE (Goth @ Dec 6 2005, 07:18 AM) |
| When do the new infrastructure rules start? Goth |
Based on a report I read, the infrastructure changes require a years worth of work to complete. So far only about 3 months development work has been completed.
Hence the implication here is ETA >= 9 months.
| QUOTE (Rich Farry @ Dec 5 2005, 07:42 PM) | ||
From the rules: Mass In Phoenix, the term mass unit (usually written as mu – pronounced: em you) is used to represent a combination of volume, mass and inertia. A single mu cannot be truly expressed in terms of cubic metres or even kilograms, it is a kind of compromise. It also takes into account other factors. For example a single life form is classed as one mu. As well as the physical mass of the life form the mu also accounts for living space required by the life form, possibly tools of trade such as weapons and even an environmental suit. An mu of ore on the other hand will include some kind of suitable storage device or cargo pod. |
HI, I think the point of my comment here has been missed.
The implication of my remark was to indicate that should we wish to look to modifying loading times of goods onto ships of different classes, then it would not necessarily be out of line to debate the impact of specific density of items moved.
My thoughts were essentially that the suggestions mentioned by others with respect to load time adjustments would naturally lead to re-examination of other related aspects of this.
For example, in addition to the specific density issue above, it can also be suggested that a constraint be implemented on the total mass that can be handled by docking bay facilities or a highport. This would parallel the contraints currently applied to shipyard manufacturing rates.
Or, more simply, this could be opening the proverbial Pandora's Box which while reasonable arguments could be deferred until after we have the infrastructure mechanisms implemented.
It seems very silly to me to change a functional and simple system to one that is complicated and unweildy.
Goth
| QUOTE (Jumping_Jack @ Dec 5 2005, 04:25 PM) |
| One 'nice' spin-off from the adjustment would be that 'trade specialist' officers would tend to be moved up to larger ships, where their -10% or -20% transaction time might have more of an impact (or actually have one) - which again seems more 'natural'. But all-in-all, it's a nice-to-have, rather than an essential. TonyH |
I like this bit, as at the moment a 20% ability of trade on an officer saves a whole 2tu, lets say you load 4 different items at one end of the journey and off-load the other at the other end. So in total you save.... 16tus.
Another way of looking at this is by spending a minimum of 1+2+4+8 (15), experience points and 500+1000+2000+4000 (7500) stellars, on the 'Trade' skill you can save 20% of the tus, which is 2tu per transaction.
Now I am a trader at heart, but even I have better places to use 15 skill points, and $7500 (minimum), than to save a mere 2tus per transaction.
The way I see it this isn't because the 'reward' of having the skill isn't big enough, (as being able to save 20% tus is very reasonable), but possibly more that the tu's taken to perform the pickup/deliver without any bonuses is maybe to few? It ALWAYS takes 10tus, and even 20% of 10tus isn't much because 10tus isn't much in the first place.
On an action that only takes 10tus to perform anyway, it is a bit hard to give any worthwhile reward to an officer that has the 'trading' skill.
Phil
| QUOTE (Goth @ Dec 6 2005, 03:56 PM) |
| Wouldn't changing the loading times simply be adding complexity just for the sake of complexity? It seems very silly to me to change a functional and simple system to one that is complicated and unweildy. Goth |
I wouldn't describe it as 'complicated and unwealdy' compared with other elements in the game.
I would however rate it as adding depth and a bit of character to the mutch-neglected trading side of the game. It wouldn't particularly advantage or disadvantage me, but it would make small ships more 'worthwhile', at the expense of larger ships... but each in keeping with their 'character'.
If simplicity is what you want, why wasn't it applied apply it to the combat element of the game?... We could reduce all the different weapons to, maybe, three: missile/beam/fighter. and just have each weapon do x number of hulls of damage, adjusted by accuracy and hull type. Anything else is just overly complicated, in my opinion, and adds nothing to the game - because any serious in-game combat is restricted to those factions who can afford to throw several thousands of hulls into battle, or make suicide attacks. i.e. not me.
To be honest, this proposal doesn't have widespread, or more importantly, GM support, so it's not going to happen. I'll be content as long as the next game improvement isn't another intricate variation the the weapons or combat process.
TonyH
| QUOTE (Jumping_Jack @ Dec 6 2005, 05:04 PM) |
| To be honest, this proposal doesn't have widespread, or more importantly, GM support, so it's not going to happen. I'll be content as long as the next game improvement isn't another intricate variation the the weapons or combat process. TonyH |
Why pursue it then? Every proposal you make in one way or another is an effort to improve your position through a game change....why not work within the rules?
Goth
| QUOTE (Goth @ Dec 6 2005, 07:47 PM) | ||
Why pursue it then? Every proposal you make in one way or another is an effort to improve your position through a game change....why not work within the rules? Goth |
This is rubbish. This proposal, as most of mine would be fairly neutral, and benefit everyone - because everyone has more small ships than large.
Please contribute when you've actually generated some experience by your own efforts, rather than just wasting the inexhaustable resources of the GTT and then trying to get the rules changed because your plans dont work.
TonyH
| QUOTE (Jumping_Jack @ Dec 6 2005, 08:13 PM) |
| Goth [/QUOTE] This is rubbish. This proposal, as most of mine would be fairly neutral, and benefit everyone - because everyone has more small ships than large. Please contribute when you've actually generated some experience by your own efforts, rather than just wasting the inexhaustable resources of the GTT and then trying to get the rules changed because your plans dont work. TonyH |
Personally, I am conservative about rule changes. If you check back you will find that I opposed most combat and economic changes because I tune my plans long term. I have yet to suggest a new rule, I only respond when I rule change effects my existing ships.
As far as your issues with the resources of the big affiliations, you should know better. If you think they are so great, join one, there are plenty of resources available to new and experienced players. As you already know, those resources come with a price... A price that you are not willing to pay.
All I am saying is that you should not expect the game system to adapt to your loner game style...it is a game of affiliations.
Goth
So how does altering the TU costs of pickups benefit me, particularly? As I say, I think it adds 'character', which is a bit lacking.
TonyH
| QUOTE (Guest @ Dec 6 2005, 08:51 PM) |
| Look, I was PD of a major aff ten years before you joined the game - and was offered the chance to be one before BSE started. Ran all of the AFT starbases... virtually at the same time at one stage and was first to replicate 'alien technology' (the photon gun). The first to get a baseship. . I started out writing new-starter greetings, longhand, because I had to save up and by a £386 PC... for £800. I fancy a change, and consider myself to have paid any price required to propose rules changes, OK? So how does altering the TU costs of pickups benefit me, particularly? As I say, I think it adds 'character', which is a bit lacking. TonyH |
I was only discussing the merits of your proposed change. I never said that you didn't have the right to make the proposal.
As far as your efforts to save the game 10 years ago and your in game achievements, I'll take your word for it.
What are you doing now?
Goth
| QUOTE (Archangel @ Dec 6 2005, 04:32 PM) | ||
Based on a report I read, the infrastructure changes require a years worth of work to complete. So far only about 3 months development work has been completed. Hence the implication here is ETA >= 9 months. |
So we shouldn't put plans on hold for them then
Can anyone write up a quick overview of any changes brought up in the pub meet?
There was a secondary idea to expand the role of mercantile contacts to have 'virtual assets'. The theory is that the merchant owns or has shares in civilian operations. This means that he can purchase items from the civilian population and store them in civvy warehouses. A ship landing in the appropriate sector with the appropriate codes could then pick up the items. As the items are not part of a starbase they do not exist in the standard sense until such times as they are picked up. This allows independent players to exist alongside large affiliations without the risk of building hard targets i.e. outposts and starbases.
The downside was that the mercantile contact would also be subject to the economics of the civilian population (one good nuke...
)The final point regarded the basic investment-return on developing a world. Essentially clear targets should be set into the design such that any standard stellar-based development would pay for itself within a two year period. i.e. 104mu donated to a planet's infrastructure (within tolerence levels) would increase the potential output by 1$ per week.
The rest of the discussion (outside inter-affiliation politics and beer) were generally along the lines of clearing points and alleviating concerns that the infrastructure would undermine current achievements.