Well, those are interesting thoughts but this will not go towards the solution from my perspective but rather circle it continuously without meeting it.
First we go and give factions rights to decide over own development through ingame actions. We know that some factions have less members then the others w\o taking into account the actual size of the NPC faction. Then we'll see another problem with some factions totally annihilating other factions in stupid way like Xenos taking over Manhattan because they had more players then LN. This is totally not right. Factions are cool and *****, but honestly IN GAME actions must have ZERO word in development. Today you're playing, yesterday you're not because of vacation, work, party, health issue, relatives, etc. Do you want all your work to be void because you're not around? Guess not. This promotes grinding, not creativity. Grinding = bad. Creativity = good.
Then we make capships cost ***** if they die. Man, then who will be killing all those stupid POBs? POB can really be totally destructive for the gameplay if it's in the wrong position. Also POB promotes only grinding and not creativity a well as caps. I don't see how this will help to solve anything because consequences are far troubling then the initial problem. And again. Grinding = bad. Creativity = good.
Then we go and give players are say in commodity prices. Well, that's not how the exact economy work. Prices are determined by the demand of the good and by it's accessibility. We don't have both of those terms in the game. Players will just make few super profit routes to abuse and make crap ton of cash in no time. This don't promotes not grinding nor creativity and just useless and fool.
Going straight head for the random solution is not helping much when one thing is attached to another by the strings of consequences.
If a group of players in fighters and bombers can push the Liberty Navy out of Liberty, it's called a revolution. Good luck doing that against the combined lawful ships and bases that they could field.
I'd make planet bases virtually indestructible or introduce a shut down period as other people suggested. A move like the one you suggest by the Xenos would be a massive event and would require gargantuan effort to succeed.
All of these proposals would be overseen by administrators to prevent ridiculous scenarios. Careful planning for specifics would avoid abuse (as opposed to clever exploitation) of any set up.
Trade could be determined by a dynamic economy linked to base needs. It's doable with some calculations. It would initially mean stripping down the economny to a handful of essential items and building up from there,
If you can see people making lots of cash in no time, how is it different from now? Why should there be a limit of time to play before you can acquire cash? Does some miracle occur at 100 hours of play time whereby you suddenly become a mature and reasonable and skilled player? Hardly.
This reluctance to allow in game action to influence development is because development and administration has continuously permitted in game behaviour that would make you blush. Writing stories about how faction x takes over system b is as unable to see the consequences as you or I. ( I should rephrase this, but I'm in a rush here.)
