this3ndup

Welcome to the Federated Colonies of Nova Promissa; we are now accepting applications for citizenship!
 
The FCNP will be a federation of semi-autonomous colonies governed by democratically-elected officials, committed to promoting three key pillars of free society: life, liberty, and property. Building off of these core principles, the mission of the FCNP will be threefold:
 
1. To protect citizens from those who would do them harm, while holding citizens accountable for harming any member of another peaceful organization;
 
2. To uphold the right of its citizens to free and unrestricted activity insofar as it does not violate the principles of the federation or the sovereignty of another organization; and
 
3. To provide its citizens with opportunities to obtain and develop personal property as stakeholders in its colonies, while ensuring that every colony remains a safe and secure location for the holdings of those citizens.
 
The FCNP is not a guild, clan, or corporation, but an organization that aspires to become a legitimate government elected by its citizens to represent their interests and resourced by their contributions in order to secure those interests. More information on organizational structure, citizenship, and regulations will be coming soon!
 
Motto: A Posse Ad Esse ("From Possibility to Actuality")
 
Demonym: Promissan

One area in which the benefit of multi-crewed ships would be apparent in combat is with respect to repair.  The devs have already mentioned the role of players in actively moving around large ships repairing damaged systems in real time, and this is likely something automated systems in the game would not be able to accomplish.

While there is a lot of interesting theoretical discussion here, I don't think any variation of unlimited speed is even on the table.  The reason space MMOs have embraced the unrealistic notion of a speed cap in space is because unlimited speed--no matter how you balanced it for gameplay--would be impossible from a technical standpoint.  There will be a speed at which the game itself simply won't be able to keep up (try playing Space Engineers with extreme speed mods, for example).  This is why it's necessary to have different speed "tiers" that are governed by different game mechanics.  It's a workaround dictated as much by technical constraints as by gameplay.

One area in which the benefit of multi-crewed ships would be apparent in combat is with respect to repair.  The devs have already mentioned the role of players in actively moving around large ships repairing damaged systems in real time, and this is likely something automated systems in the game would not be able to accomplish.

While there is a lot of interesting theoretical discussion here, I don't think any variation of unlimited speed is even on the table.  The reason space MMOs have embraced the unrealistic notion of a speed cap in space is because unlimited speed--no matter how you balanced it for gameplay--would be impossible from a technical standpoint.  There will be a speed at which the game itself simply won't be able to keep up (try playing Space Engineers with extreme speed mods, for example).  This is why it's necessary to have different speed "tiers" that are governed by different game mechanics.  It's a workaround dictated as much by technical constraints as by gameplay.

Like what we say to all other federations, republics and other democratic forms of interplanetary governments, Vulture Corporation (and its various corporate and industrial partners) is able to design and develop various classes of ships, from drone fighters, advanced superiority fighters, transports all the way up to small scale (at first) frigates and light carriers.
Our ethos is by providing all democratic governments the ability to purchase our designs, or order more advanced using their own research if more advanced, we might garuntee as many civilians as possible the right to freedom and democracy across the galaxy. We will be selling access to blueprints, which means that once you aquire the blueprint the more ships you build, the cheaper each unit is (of course you will need to gather resources... I believe Chromium Industrial will be well equipped for that, and is one of our partners for larger scale projects including space stations and jump gates)
 
I hope you choose to do business with us, and we hope to provide your federation with an excellent array of space craft.
Steve
Corporate Facilities Manager and Cheif Product Developer
Vulture Corporation

Welcome to the Federated Colonies of Nova Promissa; we are now accepting applications for citizenship!
 
The FCNP will be a federation of semi-autonomous colonies governed by democratically-elected officials, committed to promoting three key pillars of free society: life, liberty, and property. Building off of these core principles, the mission of the FCNP will be threefold:
 
1. To protect citizens from those who would do them harm, while holding citizens accountable for harming any member of another peaceful organization;
 
2. To uphold the right of its citizens to free and unrestricted activity insofar as it does not violate the principles of the federation or the sovereignty of another organization; and
 
3. To provide its citizens with opportunities to obtain and develop personal property as stakeholders in its colonies, while ensuring that every colony remains a safe and secure location for the holdings of those citizens.
 
The FCNP is not a guild, clan, or corporation, but an organization that aspires to become a legitimate government elected by its citizens to represent their interests and resourced by their contributions in order to secure those interests. More information on organizational structure, citizenship, and regulations will be coming soon!
 
Motto: A Posse Ad Esse ("From Possibility to Actuality")
 
Demonym: Promissan

As a disclaimer, I realize the mechanics of what I'm proposing below may not be entirely "realistic," but I think they're plausible enough to pass muster for a sci-fi game like this and provide compelling gameplay implications.  I’m personally okay with the fact that it’s to some degree sci-fi technobabble loosely based on scientific principles.
 
The basis for these ideas is the fact that there are (currently) two primary ways of detecting things in space: visible light and radio waves.  There are other methods based on inference, but to directly detect an object, it must be visible or emitting radio waves.  With that in mind, I think there should be two different categories of sensors that are generally available:
 
1. Optical Sensors
 
Optical sensors would would only be able to detect objects that within direct line of sight.  These sensors would monitor the surrounding visible space within a certain range for anomalies in the visible light spectrum as well as infrared using advanced video analytics.  The advantage of these sensors would be that they are completely passive; they do not emit anything that could be detected by other sensors.  The disadvantage would be limited range (“visual range”).
 
Optical Countermeasures - Passive
 
One technology for evading optical sensors could be active camouflage.  This could come in the form of an element that bends light around the ship.  It could be counterbalanced by high power consumption and limited in duration by a “heat sink” used to store excess heat to mask the ship’s IR signature.  If the player lets the system run too long, the excess heat could be released in a sort of IR “plume” that would flag the ship over an even longer distance than normal.
 
Optical Countermeasures - Active
 
Another option could be a “dazzler” that blinds targeted optical sensors using a laser, preventing them from pinpointing the construct’s location, but alerting them to its presence.
 
2. Radar
 
What I'm calling radar here could exist as both an active and a passive system.  On the active side, radar would be able to identify objects at long range by bouncing radio waves off of them.  On the passive side, these sensors could also pick up radio waves when emitted by other constructs, either from their own active radar or from communications.  The advantage of these sensors would be their range.  The disadvantage would be the fact that other sensors could detect the radio waves emitted in active mode.
 
Radar Countermeasures - Passive
 
One “stealth” technology for evading radar could be the application of advanced Radar Absorbent Material, or RAM.  Perhaps this could be an actual material that can be added to other voxel materials (depending on how the refining/crafting system works) that would reduce the distance at which they can be detected by radar systems.  This would be expensive initially, but also a permanent solution with no ongoing cost.  
 
Along these lines, some materials without RAM could be inherently more reflective than others, meaning that there could be an inverse relationship between hull strength and radar signature.
 
Perhaps an even more advanced countermeasure could be a shield function that would mitigate incoming radio waves electromagnetically.  This could be even more effective than RAM, at the cost of increased power consumption.
 
Radar Countermeasures - Active
 
A radar “jammer” could be employed, interfering with all radar sensors in a given area (unless the construct has a particular tag).  This would prevent any radar from pinpointing the construct’s location, but would alert them to its presence.
 
Any of these countermeasures could be defeated if a construct broadcasts anything, making “running silent” a legitimate tactic for stealth constructs.
 
However, there could be a third tier of sensor that--while prohibitively expensive and difficult to manufacture--could defeat any of the above countermeasures:
 
3. Quantum Sensors
 
Quantum sensors could detect the gravitational radiation of objects, making it impossible to hide the existence of any mass by masking its electromagnetic signature.  The advantage of these sensors would be their range and resistance to stealth technology.  The disadvantage would be the astronomical initial cost, use of rare materials, and significant power consumption relative to detection range.

I agree that a full-blown survival model with food and water would be a bit much for what this game is. That being said, the need for sustenance would infuse more complexity into the economy and introduce a new consideration to weigh along with other cargo, fuel, ammunition, etc.
 
What I might like to see is "sustenance" simplified into a single item, much like a future MRE, that would need to be carried on your person or in your construct as a sort of solid fuel for your character. You'd simply consume them over time, and if you went too long without access to one, there would be some sort of negative effect. If not damage and outright death, at least some sort of debuff.
 
To craft this item, special food resources could be required, meaning some degree of simplified, low maintenance farming and gathering would be necessary for production. This is surely something many players would largely automate eventually, reducing the burden on play time while retaining the impact of that infrastructure's existence in the game world.
 
In my opinion, some sort of sustenance model could be an important balancing element, and would lead to some compelling economic opportunities and geopolitical dynamics in an emergent game world such as this.

From what I've gathered, it seems most likely that most buying and selling will take place via some sort of player-built transaction terminal.  I would propose that any terminal allowing transactions involving physical resources should be tied to a physical inventory.  In other words, if you're going to sell a certain amount of a particular resource, it shouldn't be magically conveyed through the terminal from one virtual inventory to another via the terminal.  It has to actually be there, in a storage container, and provisions must be made for transferring it to another storage container.  It's a simple mechanic with far-reaching implications.
 
Practically, this might look like a container connected to some sort of connector (like a docking ring, perhaps).  The terminal would be linked with these components, and a player would need to link their container (probably most often a ship) with the connector in order to transfer resources as the result of a buy or sell order from the terminal.  This would ensure that players looking to trade physical resources would have to actually be present at the location to either deposit those resources or retrieve them.  This means that trade would be grounded in the game world and not some sort of economy overlay, with a fundamental need for real shipping routes and centralized trade hubs.  This would in turn mean that well-resourced stations and colonies with solid infrastructure would have an essential place in the game world, as they do in the real world.
 
This simple requirement would drive many other pursuits that would grow up around supporting (or exploiting) living, breathing trade networks where physical resources are being ferried between locations and stored on site.  Real-world civilization has largely been shaped by the need for access to physical trade routes and infrastructure, and I think this would be a simple but necessary mechanic for driving a dynamic in-game society and diversifying the number of viable roles for players.  This may be what the developers have planned, but I just wanted to throw this out there and see what sticks!

From what I've gathered, it seems most likely that most buying and selling will take place via some sort of player-built transaction terminal.  I would propose that any terminal allowing transactions involving physical resources should be tied to a physical inventory.  In other words, if you're going to sell a certain amount of a particular resource, it shouldn't be magically conveyed through the terminal from one virtual inventory to another via the terminal.  It has to actually be there, in a storage container, and provisions must be made for transferring it to another storage container.  It's a simple mechanic with far-reaching implications.
 
Practically, this might look like a container connected to some sort of connector (like a docking ring, perhaps).  The terminal would be linked with these components, and a player would need to link their container (probably most often a ship) with the connector in order to transfer resources as the result of a buy or sell order from the terminal.  This would ensure that players looking to trade physical resources would have to actually be present at the location to either deposit those resources or retrieve them.  This means that trade would be grounded in the game world and not some sort of economy overlay, with a fundamental need for real shipping routes and centralized trade hubs.  This would in turn mean that well-resourced stations and colonies with solid infrastructure would have an essential place in the game world, as they do in the real world.
 
This simple requirement would drive many other pursuits that would grow up around supporting (or exploiting) living, breathing trade networks where physical resources are being ferried between locations and stored on site.  Real-world civilization has largely been shaped by the need for access to physical trade routes and infrastructure, and I think this would be a simple but necessary mechanic for driving a dynamic in-game society and diversifying the number of viable roles for players.  This may be what the developers have planned, but I just wanted to throw this out there and see what sticks!

In a game like Star Citizen (a common comparison), the experience primarily revolves around spaceflight.  You're flying a ship, docking at stations, and landing on planets, but you're not exploring planetary surfaces for resources, gathering, building, and fostering ground-based civilizations.  It's a very limited sandbox, and emergent world-building is limited.  In a game like this, there will be entire worlds to explore and colonize without ever setting foot in space.  There will be infrastructure to be developed on a grand scale.  Discovering a single planet could open up a land grab contested by a vast number of players and organizations.  
 
While discovering a new planet in many other procedural space games is a novelty for the player discovering it that might offer some new resources, opening up access to a new planet in a game like this would bring with it an entirely new round of emergent gameplay on a grand scale.  New civilizations, politics, and economies would rise up and exert their influence.  A shift in the previously established balance of power would follow.  The consequences would reverberate throughout the game world and players and organizations would have to adapt accordingly.  This possibility is tremendously exciting, but it also means that discovering new worlds should be a task demanding a significant investment of time and resources.  Every time you stumble on a new world, you have done more than add another point on the galaxy map.  You've opened up an entirely new--but connected--game world.  
 
There will be players who are turned off by the fact that they can't slap an FTL drive on their single-person ship and jet off alone to all corners of the galaxy discovering interesting worlds, but there are other games for such endeavors that are much closer to fruition (e.g. No Man's Sky).  This game is something different, and it seems like a lot of people are coming to this expecting to play a voxel-based version of their favorite sci-fi space game subgenre.  Unfortunately, this game can't be everything to everyone, and I'm personally excited for the possibilities inherent by what is unique about this game, as opposed to re-creating experiences that are being addressed well by other developers.

I think the core philosophy of a game like this is providing a robust framework for emergent building gameplay on a massive scale, as opposed to providing a realistic spaceflight simulator.  It's about building constructs, organizations, economies, and societies.  It's a civilization simulator.  Some things like limited Newtonian physics for spaceflight would be really nice, but beyond that a full-blown physics model governing planetary bodies wouldn't serve the actual purpose of the game and would (IMO) just be a distraction for developers and a barrier for less technically inclined players.  The important thing is creating a universe immersive and plausible enough that players can suspend disbelief and enjoy the canvas they've been given on which to create.
 
That being said, the suspension of disbelief would require something to create the illusion that planetary movement is happening.  Perhaps each world could rotate on a fixed axis, providing a day/night cycle and creating a passable illusion that other planetary bodies are rising and falling in the sky.  

In a game like Star Citizen (a common comparison), the experience primarily revolves around spaceflight.  You're flying a ship, docking at stations, and landing on planets, but you're not exploring planetary surfaces for resources, gathering, building, and fostering ground-based civilizations.  It's a very limited sandbox, and emergent world-building is limited.  In a game like this, there will be entire worlds to explore and colonize without ever setting foot in space.  There will be infrastructure to be developed on a grand scale.  Discovering a single planet could open up a land grab contested by a vast number of players and organizations.  
 
While discovering a new planet in many other procedural space games is a novelty for the player discovering it that might offer some new resources, opening up access to a new planet in a game like this would bring with it an entirely new round of emergent gameplay on a grand scale.  New civilizations, politics, and economies would rise up and exert their influence.  A shift in the previously established balance of power would follow.  The consequences would reverberate throughout the game world and players and organizations would have to adapt accordingly.  This possibility is tremendously exciting, but it also means that discovering new worlds should be a task demanding a significant investment of time and resources.  Every time you stumble on a new world, you have done more than add another point on the galaxy map.  You've opened up an entirely new--but connected--game world.  
 
There will be players who are turned off by the fact that they can't slap an FTL drive on their single-person ship and jet off alone to all corners of the galaxy discovering interesting worlds, but there are other games for such endeavors that are much closer to fruition (e.g. No Man's Sky).  This game is something different, and it seems like a lot of people are coming to this expecting to play a voxel-based version of their favorite sci-fi space game subgenre.  Unfortunately, this game can't be everything to everyone, and I'm personally excited for the possibilities inherent by what is unique about this game, as opposed to re-creating experiences that are being addressed well by other developers.

Basically the crux of my problem with having a more traditional skill path in a game like this is that its a relic of older games that don't simulate things to the degree that Dual Universe will.
 
It seems like they want to lock technologies behind the skill trees so that everyone can't do everything at once. But I think the nature of the infrastructure needed for advanced technology and space flight will be enough of a barrier in of itself.
 
In Space Engineers for example you technically have the ability to build a jump capable spaceship as soon as you spawn. Except that you're on a planet, with very little refined minerals to hand. And you need a significant mining operation. And a lot of rare elements that take ages to refine. And the rarest elements for the best engines can only be found in space. So you have a long path ahead of you before you can even dream or making that first jump.
 
And that's without contending with potentially thousands of other players and their organisations.
 
As for skill specialisations. I don't think that handing out skill based stat bonuses is the way to go. You don't become the best fleet admiral in the verse because you have a leadership bonus +5. You get there through experience leading fleets of other players into battle. You don't need an arbitrary number to tell you because you are doing it yourself.
 
Likewise tech specialists, artists, and engineers will arise naturally if the crafting system is deep enough to allow for it.
 
For combat specialisation I think in a sci fi game your special abilities are better defined by your equipment. How well you fight (and the gods of ping) will be the real measure of how good you are in a fight.
 
Honestly this is what I think you need on your character sheet for a game like this:
 
Page 1
Bio (name, appearance, backstory etc
 
Page 2
Assets (money, controlled organisation ships/stations etc)
 
Page 3
Status (organisations, granted tiles etc)
 
Page 4
Contracts (buy/sell orders, jobs, alliances etc)

When we hand build everything, negotiate with other real people, and fight with our own reflexes, that's all we need.

I'm interested to see what the devs say on the matter when they blog about progression in more depth.

While I'd agree there needs to be a degree of skill involved, it's also reasonable to assume that advanced energy weapons would use an equally advanced targeting systems allowing users to track targets, calculate targeting solutions in real time, and avoid friendly fire.  We're also talking about laser weapons, which travel too fast to incorporate pilot skill in the way some are suggesting.  Assuming they're modeled with a modicum of realism, there will be no ballistics involved, and you won't need to lead targets.  These weapons would almost have to be partially or fully automated to be truly effective.  The cold, hard truth is that even today skill is increasingly less of a factor in warfare than technology, and weapon deployment is an increasingly push-button affair.  So tab-targeting makes sense on some level as a realistic representation of advanced warfare.
 
Something like what Ripper suggests strikes me as a reasonable compromise; skill would be required in bringing weapons to bear and trying to avoid other players' firing solutions, which is fairly analogous to contemporary dogfighting anyway.  Once within an enemy's sights, however, the technology would take over.  Hardly anything is strictly point and shoot anymore, and this would be even more true in the far future.
 
That being said, the element of player skill levels in determining the damage applied and/or the effectiveness of the targeting itself seems problematic to me.  I would rather see the hits based on the quality of the weapon and the components used in the ship as opposed the skill level of the pilot.  A higher level targeting computer--perhaps one built by a player with a higher level building skill--could result in a higher hit percentage, for example.  This would further encourage building-related specializations while removing artificial handicaps on player skill in combat.  Theoretically, a highly skilled new player with a top-tier ship could compete effectively with veterans, but doing so would be expensive for a solo player.
 
I would like to see potential damage and hit percentage seperated, with one based on the weapon quality, and the other based on the targeting computer quality.  Player skill would come into play with repect to maneuvering those weapons into position, evading the enemy, and possibly manipulating defensive countermeasures (such as shields).  I feel this would be a reasonable compromise that would further stimulate various roles within the in-game economy (skilled building, rare resource mining, high-quality refining, etc.) to provide the highest quality components and satisfy pilots looking for a more traditional sim-like experience where skill still plays a significant role in dealing damage.

This may all fall under the potential applications of the RDMS, but I couldn't confirm that from what I read.  If this would all be possible under that system, these suggestions are redundant, but I wanted to put them out there independently for discussion.  The following options would (in my opinion) bolster the player-driven economy by facilitating new incentives and potential sources of revenue.  If the goal is a truly emergent experience, these options should be considered for inclusion as integrated features.  While these ideas could always be arranged informally between players, in many cases these mechanics would be very hard to track or enforce without some sort of in-game system for handling these types of transactions, especially on a large scale.
 
Contract Payments
 
Players or organizations should be able to set up in-game payments for other players or organizations in exchange for fulfilling certain pre-determined requirements.  This means that players or organizations could actually employ other players or organizations for certain tasks.  While these things could certainly be done anyway as a sort of handshake agreement between players, introducing this as an actual game mechanic could allow for a degree of automation for large organizations (or players with many tasks and payees).  This would lend some legitimacy and stability to "employment" in the game world.  Some tasks would still need to be arranged informally by players, but activities that could be objectively tracked by the game--such as mining, trading, or even killing certain players or players of a certain faction--could have pre-determined payments attached to them that would be automatically transferred from one entity to another upon completion.  Practically, this would probably look like some sort of player-generated quest system.
 
Taxes
 
Organizations should be able to impose recurring taxes on members in order to fund the organization, which would be binding and enforced by the in-game taxation mechanic unless the member left the group.  For example, an organization could impose a flat rate (essentially membership dues), or it could demand a certain percentage of each member's income.  Since such taxation options would otherwise be difficult to keep track of or downright impossible to enforce, this would be a good candidate for a built-in game mechanic.  Like contract payments, this would allow the game to simply continue extracting payments as long as the condition of membership is met.  If a player wants to stop paying, they can leave the group.  This would encourage organizations hoping to sustain themselves through taxation to treat their members well and provide benefits worth the requisite cost.  This could also open the door to some legitimate nation-building with tax-paying citizens.  This might be a feature limited to organizations of a certain size, and not individual players or small guilds; for accountability, perhaps any official in-game taxation would require allowing all members to have access to some sort of balance sheet for the organization showing its income, balance, and where it's spending that money.
 
Fees
 
This could also be considered another form of taxation, but one based on access, not membership.  One of the most significant applications I could see for this is the option of imposing an automated access fee for players entering an independent safe zone.  Players would be notified of the amount required to enter the zone, and could either choose to pay it or be restricted from entering in some way.  Of course this would be optional, but it could also encourage enterprising players to find strategic locations to establish new safe zones (where safety itself might be worth paying for) or build up infrastructure to provide valuable facilities and/or resources that other players would pay to access.  Another option might be a transaction fee on trades or purchases made in that safe zone.  Like taxes, there could be options, such as a flat rate or a percentage rate based on a ship's weight or cargo.  This would make the development and administration of colonies, stations, and outposts a viable pursuit in its own right, and add a new layer of economic competition to the game world.  In addition, exemptions could be made by the owner of the safe zone for members of a particular group as a potential incentive for membership.
 
In my opinion, the combination of these various mechanics would add a lot of depth to the economic model beyond trading resources and buying and selling constructs.  Crucial to these sorts of options would probably be some form of universal currency, as depending on payment in raw resources that players might not have would be problematic.  I'd be curious to hear your thoughts!

This may all fall under the potential applications of the RDMS, but I couldn't confirm that from what I read.  If this would all be possible under that system, these suggestions are redundant, but I wanted to put them out there independently for discussion.  The following options would (in my opinion) bolster the player-driven economy by facilitating new incentives and potential sources of revenue.  If the goal is a truly emergent experience, these options should be considered for inclusion as integrated features.  While these ideas could always be arranged informally between players, in many cases these mechanics would be very hard to track or enforce without some sort of in-game system for handling these types of transactions, especially on a large scale.
 
Contract Payments
 
Players or organizations should be able to set up in-game payments for other players or organizations in exchange for fulfilling certain pre-determined requirements.  This means that players or organizations could actually employ other players or organizations for certain tasks.  While these things could certainly be done anyway as a sort of handshake agreement between players, introducing this as an actual game mechanic could allow for a degree of automation for large organizations (or players with many tasks and payees).  This would lend some legitimacy and stability to "employment" in the game world.  Some tasks would still need to be arranged informally by players, but activities that could be objectively tracked by the game--such as mining, trading, or even killing certain players or players of a certain faction--could have pre-determined payments attached to them that would be automatically transferred from one entity to another upon completion.  Practically, this would probably look like some sort of player-generated quest system.
 
Taxes
 
Organizations should be able to impose recurring taxes on members in order to fund the organization, which would be binding and enforced by the in-game taxation mechanic unless the member left the group.  For example, an organization could impose a flat rate (essentially membership dues), or it could demand a certain percentage of each member's income.  Since such taxation options would otherwise be difficult to keep track of or downright impossible to enforce, this would be a good candidate for a built-in game mechanic.  Like contract payments, this would allow the game to simply continue extracting payments as long as the condition of membership is met.  If a player wants to stop paying, they can leave the group.  This would encourage organizations hoping to sustain themselves through taxation to treat their members well and provide benefits worth the requisite cost.  This could also open the door to some legitimate nation-building with tax-paying citizens.  This might be a feature limited to organizations of a certain size, and not individual players or small guilds; for accountability, perhaps any official in-game taxation would require allowing all members to have access to some sort of balance sheet for the organization showing its income, balance, and where it's spending that money.
 
Fees
 
This could also be considered another form of taxation, but one based on access, not membership.  One of the most significant applications I could see for this is the option of imposing an automated access fee for players entering an independent safe zone.  Players would be notified of the amount required to enter the zone, and could either choose to pay it or be restricted from entering in some way.  Of course this would be optional, but it could also encourage enterprising players to find strategic locations to establish new safe zones (where safety itself might be worth paying for) or build up infrastructure to provide valuable facilities and/or resources that other players would pay to access.  Another option might be a transaction fee on trades or purchases made in that safe zone.  Like taxes, there could be options, such as a flat rate or a percentage rate based on a ship's weight or cargo.  This would make the development and administration of colonies, stations, and outposts a viable pursuit in its own right, and add a new layer of economic competition to the game world.  In addition, exemptions could be made by the owner of the safe zone for members of a particular group as a potential incentive for membership.
 
In my opinion, the combination of these various mechanics would add a lot of depth to the economic model beyond trading resources and buying and selling constructs.  Crucial to these sorts of options would probably be some form of universal currency, as depending on payment in raw resources that players might not have would be problematic.  I'd be curious to hear your thoughts!