Building stuff in other empires' territory

[Germanic Heathen]

(Apologies if I overlooked something, just found one very old thread when I was looking two weeks ago or such)

So, now that MegaCorp allows us to do stuff in other players' territory (branch offices), how about adding some mechanism that allows that player 1 builds stuff in player 2's territory, provided that the two are buddies?

The probably most obvious reason would be gateways, if one player can build them already and the other would like to have one. I'd think other stuff (say, a habitat or ringworld) would be nice too to build for an ally. Naturally, one would have to think about how to prevent abuse of that feature if it gets added. As I understand it, one needs to be able to veto anything that:
1. might cost you some (upkeep or whatever, or strategic disadvantages - imagine a gateway that you can't prevent war enemies from using once they took that system)
2. can't be destroyed if you don't want it there
I had that thought some time ago already, and I see there's one rather old thread on the same topic. Now that with MegaCorp we are allowed to do at least some things on foreign soil, maybe it's time to re-examine that idea?

Your thoughts, fellow players? And devs, care to drop a line or two about how feasible / good-idea that seems to you?

 

[GamerGirl1125]

Eh. I don't know about that, i think branch offices are good enough.
I feel it could be exploited to harass another player that another player might think were friendly, (in some way, i think). If you are friends with an AI or a player you don't have a viable form of communications with they may mess up a plan of yours.
That's just me though, i don't know about other people.

 

[Masoz]

It would be nice if I could forcibly repair/build gateways as an Overlord though into my vassal's territory as well as unlock any L-gates they have.

 

[Germanic Heathen]

Eh. I don't know about that, i think branch offices are good enough.
I feel it could be exploited to harass another player that another player might think were friendly, (in some way, i think).

Yup that's always a possibility. That's why I said that if it costs you something and you can't just tear down the offending thing, you need to have some kind of veto right. In all other cases, as I see it, why bother about a thing that's no drawback to you, and/or why bother if you can just tear down the offending thing?

As for veto right, I'd think one can use the same mechanism that's in place for diplomacy already. Say, just like the option to transfer a system to another empire, you can ask for permission to build a gateway in system X, and if the owner of the system OK's that, you can proceed.

 

[Germanic Heathen]

It would be nice if I could forcibly repair/build gateways as an Overlord though into my vassal's territory as well as unlock any L-gates they have.

That would also be pretty sweet, agreed to that. What's the point of being an overlord otherwise?

 

[GamerGirl1125]

Yup that's always a possibility. That's why I said that if it costs you something and you can't just tear down the offending thing, you need to have some kind of veto right. In all other cases, as I see it, why bother about a thing that's no drawback to you, and/or why bother if you can just tear down the offending thing?

As for veto right, I'd think one can use the same mechanism that's in place for diplomacy already. Say, just like the option to transfer a system to another empire, you can ask for permission to build a gateway in system X, and if the owner of the system OK's that, you can proceed.

Hmm, never thought of a veto system. if they put a restriction on how often you could request to build/destroy to reduce spamming that may work.