I'd like a way to speed up station construction without mods

[jlehtone]

I'd say research and a minimum number for modules to build before you can add multiple Builders.

Additionally, a "detach after current module completes" checkbox for the Build order to allow a "stop build" action.


The question is, how to sell these to the devs?

[Falcrack]

I'd say research and a minimum number for modules to build before you can add multiple Builders.

Additionally, a "detach after current module completes" checkbox for the Build order to allow a "stop build" action.


The question is, how to sell these to the devs?

The research could be called "enhanced station construction techniques", or something like that. It allows you to add extra builders to a project.

This is a game. If we can get build construction materials to the site fast, then why not allow us the ability to build it faster? What fun is there in requiring days of real time to pass before a large elaborate station can get built?

[Falcrack]

And a reasonable idea would be to do it through research. unlock parallel builds for 2, 3, 5, 10 and unlimited.

I think unlimited would be too much. Personally just considering space limitations, 10 should probably be the max.

[vvvvvvvv]

And a reasonable idea would be to do it through research. unlock parallel builds for 2, 3, 5, 10 and unlimited.

I think unlimited would be too much. Personally just considering space limitations, 10 should probably be the max.

The question is the same. What, specifically, does the game achieve by limiting construction speed? There is a fun building mechanism, so let the player use it. It is like it is with mass teleportation.

Besides. Material requirements are still there and did not disappear, so it won't be an instant construction. The player would still need to haul all the materials. Which, by the way, is a nice logistic challenge.

[grapedog]

how about a trigger for a station having over 100 production modules, you can then hire a second builder. each 100 production modules placed is another builder you can hire. in practical terms the easy way to run it is that each builder cuts the build time of the module being built. So with 3 builders on a 350 module station, your modules are getting built in 1/3rd the current time for example.

That way the people who don't build ugly mega stations will still have the current setup, and people who like to build abysmal looking monstrosities can add a builder for each 100 modules that get placed.

I'm also fine with it not getting changed at all, but I don't see a problem with a trigger at a certain point. That way the base game doesn't become even more easy, but the people who want to put down 1000 modules can do so and get a reduction in build time.

As long as the trigger is something like 100+ production modules, I don't care how much more broken or cheesy you make it at that point since it won't affect my games, or the vast majority of players games.

[Feloidea]

how about a trigger for a station having over 100 production modules, you can then hire a second builder. each 100 production modules placed is another builder you can hire. in practical terms the easy way to run it is that each builder cuts the build time of the module being built. So with 3 builders on a 350 module station, your modules are getting built in 1/3rd the current time for example.

That way the people who don't build ugly mega stations will still have the current setup, and people who like to build abysmal looking monstrosities can add a builder for each 100 modules that get placed.

I'm also fine with it not getting changed at all, but I don't see a problem with a trigger at a certain point. That way the base game doesn't become even more easy, but the people who want to put down 1000 modules can do so and get a reduction in build time.

As long as the trigger is something like 100+ production modules, I don't care how much more broken or cheesy you make it at that point since it won't affect my games, or the vast majority of players games.

Ignoring the judgemental tone for the sake of discussion: why do people argue against the feature if they don't intend to use as if it was something they'd have to use? Like any other game feature, it would be completely optional. Absolutely no one forces you or anyone else to use it.

Feel like pirating/boarding ships is too cheesy a way to get ships and millions of credits? Just don't do it.
Don't like the common META turret loadout of ARG M Flak and ARG or PAR L Plasma turrets on ships and stations? Pick whatever turrets you prefer and enjoy the lightshow.
Don't like how the TER shield generators look out of place on some ship models even though they're objectively the best shields in the game? Take another shield then (or perhaps ask for a way to change module colours to match them cosmetically, just a wild take for consideration) ... NO ONE FORCES YOU TO PLAY OPTIMALLY.

Seriously guys, it's a singleplayer sandbox game. No one, abso-positively NO ONE gets penalized by not playing the mathematically optimal way. You can play how you want. That also includes not taking advantage of a hypothetical construction reduction option. If you don't build large stations or mega structures and are perfectly content with the current build times for your needs ... THEN WHAT IS THE BLOODY PROBLEM?

A bunch of people in this topic seem to be less interested in making the game better for everyone and more motivated to act like fun police and gatekeep the enjoyment of other people whom they'll never interact with ingame simply because you seem to feel like it's too cheesy/broken/cheating to allow other players to speed up the constructions of stations. Even those who appear to grudgingly tolerate the proposal still seem hellbent on trying to gatekeep by suggesting arbitrary limits or prerequisites to be allowed to use this completely optional feature (and I will repeat this ad nauseum until everyone realizes this). Why? Why should other people only be able to speed up the construction time by some arbitrary factor, or only be able to use it after some arbitrary number of modules in the build plan, or only be able to use it after getting some arbitrary research, or need to pay an arbitrary disproportional amount of credits and/or resources to speed it up (all things I've seen mentioned in this topic). If you won't need it and it won't affect your game if you choose not to use it, what's the motivation in trying to limit access and efficacy (other than "I don't like the way you enjoy your game" I mean)?


I'll reiterate it for the group once more: it's perfectly fine if you don't need a particular aspect of the game improved if you don't partake in the relevant ingame activities to the degree it would affect you. No one's putting a gun to your head and forcing you to do it. But that's likewise no good reason to oppose a completely optional feature out of what appears to be purely subjective preference on how YOU like to play your game and then trying to enforce your vision of how to play the game correctly onto other players.

[GCU Grey Area]

why do people argue against the feature if they don't intend to use as if it was something they'd have to use? Like any other game feature, it would be completely optional. Absolutely no one forces you or anyone else to use it.

Optional features still require dev time to implement & make testing more complicated because from that point on changes to the game have to be tested with all permutations of optional features. People who don't feel they'll benefit from a change (even one that's optional & that they will never use) are still entitled to express their view, simply because they may prefer that dev time to instead be used on something they would find beneficial.

This is certainly true for me. I build vast stations (e.g. this monstrosity) that take several weeks of in-game time (often over a year of real time) to complete. However I'm absolutely fine with it taking a while & would prefer dev time to be used on other aspects of the game instead.

[vvvvvvvv]

Optional features still require dev time to implement & make testing more complicated because

I'd prefer people never tried to use this argument.

Devs can speak and decide for themselves, and in the first place users aren't deciding development course for the game. Developers do. Users provide data points. Devs decide which data points are interesting.

[BitByte]

When speaking of building multiple modules (either using multiple CVs or more drones from single ship) there's also need for priority module build list or build sync list.
Without it you can end up to situation that construction occurs in such way not all needed modules exist what you may need at specific point of station state so it would somehow operate during build time.

For example if building separate branches of station and storage modules are part of 1st branch then 2nd branch can already contain production / habitat modules but cannot be operate as there's no storage for food/meds or production wares.
With priority construction order this kind of critical modules could be identified and set to be build.

This might be more challenging situation if using multiple CVs than using single CV but utilize higher construction drone amount. But anyway it will exist in both of situations.

[vvvvvvvv]

When speaking of building multiple modules (either using multiple CVs or more drones from single ship) there's also need for priority module build list or build sync list.
Without it you can end up to situation that construction occurs in such way not all needed modules exist what you may need at specific point of station state so it would somehow operate during build time.

For example if building separate branches of station and storage modules are part of 1st branch then 2nd branch can already contain production / habitat modules but cannot be operate as there's no storage for food/meds or production wares.
With priority construction order this kind of critical modules could be identified and set to be build.

This might be more challenging situation if using multiple CVs than using single CV but utilize higher construction drone amount. But anyway it will exist in both of situations.

That's player responsibility. The original proposal was "module can be built when it is free floating or connected to another partially built module". Meaning there won't be gaps, and the build order will be similar to what you'd see if it was built by one builder. Except it will be more than just one module built at a time.

[Feloidea]

Optional features still require dev time to implement & make testing more complicated because

I'd prefer people never tried to use this argument.

Devs can speak and decide for themselves, and in the first place users aren't deciding development course for the game. Developers do. Users provide data points. Devs decide which data points are interesting.

Bingo.

[jlehtone]

WHAT IS THE BLOODY PROBLEM?

The fact that station build takes an arbitrary amount of time is a design decision made by the devs.
They either want it to take time or had technical implementation reasons to not offer "parallel build".
(With Boron it was the latter and we got them eventually.)

Since we can assume that devs do oppose "free cheese", is it not better to ask for something that does not outright look like it?

Well, perhaps I'm all wrong and one should start with demand for instant build. Would that make devs willing to a "compromise" that speeds up the build a bit?

[vvvvvvvv]

Since we can assume that devs do oppose "free cheese", is it not better to ask for something that does not outright look like it?

No, because we cannot make assumptions about what devs oppose. As mentioned before, the standard these days is instant build, as long as materials are provided. See Satisfactory and what people do with it.
It is also not a good idea to assume why something is implemented this or t hat way, because sometimes things just happened. Remember how L miners could carry 40 fighters?

Earlier proposal of parallel build being unlocked by research is a decent compromise. Player doesn't get the ability outright, and it as all things ends up tied to the magical rock in HQ.

For the record, Elite Dangerous right now allows user station construction. Elite Dangerous uses instant build (exception being the first station which needs weekly tick to fully activate). Stations and settlements appear the moment you deliver last material, though you might need to leave the location and return. In Elite, however, this accompanied by absurd amount of hauling. I.e. for the largest stations you'd need to do 200-300 trips, assuming you've got the largest hauler. In Elite such things cannot be automated.

Getting back to X4, stations still have material costs regardless of build time and those aren't going anywhere.

[Feloidea]

WHAT IS THE BLOODY PROBLEM?

The fact that station build takes an arbitrary amount of time is a design decision made by the devs.
They either want it to take time or had technical implementation reasons to not offer "parallel build".
(With Boron it was the latter and we got them eventually.)

Since we can assume that devs do oppose "free cheese", is it not better to ask for something that does not outright look like it?

Well, perhaps I'm all wrong and one should start with demand for instant build. Would that make devs willing to a "compromise" that speeds up the build a bit?

Can you bring an argument to the table that doesn't assume the intention of people that aren't you?

Because first of all, people aren't omniscient. Yes, the devs decided at some point that station module X is going to take Y amount of time to build. That doesn't automatically equate the devs also did the math on a potential mega structure people could build in their sandbox game, saw the calculator give them the total amount of ingame time to construct Z and then said to themselves "yes, this is exactly how I want this to be now and forever".

Secondly, devs change these numbers or other mechanics all the time if they have enough cause for it. Case in point: the flight model rework. The devs decided at the inception of the game things should fly this way and then a couple years later they decided to implement a new flight/physics model because they decided it fit their vision better (and they now have the material and technological means if that was a previous limitation). Things change and devs can change their minds. If users provide an appealing idea, the devs can freely decide wether they like or not. You don't have to do that for them based on what you think they want.

Thirdly, why would you define parallel construction via multiple builders as "free cheese"? Does that stand on its own merit or is it just a continuation of the above assumption that the devs decreed build times are fixed until the heatdeath of the universe?

Fourthly, no one in here is "demanding" "instant builds". Last I checked people are asking for a way to speed up construction and brainstorming ways this could be implemented. Trying to frame the narrative as if these users you disagree with were acting unreasonably is frankly insulting.

[BitByte]

When speaking of building multiple modules (either using multiple CVs or more drones from single ship) there's also need for priority module build list or build sync list.
Without it you can end up to situation that construction occurs in such way not all needed modules exist what you may need at specific point of station state so it would somehow operate during build time.

For example if building separate branches of station and storage modules are part of 1st branch then 2nd branch can already contain production / habitat modules but cannot be operate as there's no storage for food/meds or production wares.
With priority construction order this kind of critical modules could be identified and set to be build.

This might be more challenging situation if using multiple CVs than using single CV but utilize higher construction drone amount. But anyway it will exist in both of situations.

The original proposal was "module can be built when it is free floating or connected to another partially built module". Meaning there won't be gaps, and the build order will be similar to what you'd see if it was built by one builder. Except it will be more than just one module built at a time.

My post was pointing out exactly the challenge what change brings and I wasn't talking anything about gaps. When construction splits from 1 module (it can be dock, cross or whatever module that have multiple connection points) to own "branches" it can lead to unwanted results due module build times still vary (cross module is faster build than storage, dock or habitat).
If first module is for example E-pier dock (like in my case it is) that is already "cross" which creates 2 or 3 branches for station design. So allowing priority modules or sync points for costruction can make feature much more usable than just implementing it without any further thoughts and just saying it's player's responsibility.

[jlehtone]

Fourthly, no one in here is "demanding" "instant builds". Last I checked people are asking for a way to speed up construction and brainstorming ways this could be implemented.

I did not say that anyone would demand that. It was not even about implementation. It was about selling the idea to the devs. Demanding the impossible is fashionable Trump tactic, isn't it? Yes, atrocious.

That's player responsibility. The original proposal was "module can be built when it is free floating or connected to another partially built module". Meaning there won't be gaps, and the build order will be similar to what you'd see if it was built by one builder. Except it will be more than just one module built at a time.

So allowing priority modules or sync points for costruction can make feature much more usable than just implementing it without any further thoughts and just saying it's player's responsibility.

The build order, more specifically control over it, has been a topic of its own. It is related though.

Currently there is strictly serial order of build. If more than one module would start to build semi-simultaneously, then they could naturally start in that order, particularly if one does not take branching into account. If branching is used -- "module can be built when it is free floating or connected to complete module" -- then the serial order is not necessarily followed. Is the requirement for "free or connected" even technically necessary?

As noted, different modules take different time. Hence module that did start later can complete earlier.
E.g start Pier, then Cross. The Cross completes before the Pier.

As stated, there has been requests for UI/mechanics for player to set module B to build/complete before module A. With the current strict serial build, where player for whatever reason has placed A before B.

Such feature (ability to modify build order) would thus be useful independent of whether build can be parallel or not. With parallel build there is an additional use case for that: "Build Station" missions, where player may want to finish some unrequested modules before the mission completes and therefore need to postpone the build of the last requested module.

[vvvvvvvv]

Is the requirement for "free or connected" even technically necessary?

It isn't, but it would allow faster building than current linear order. It is not technically a problem either way, because the station will end up built. If it is partially functional while building, this won't be for long.

[hajko2]

Hi,

I would also like to be able to operate multiple construction ships simultaneously.

To achieve this, there could be minimum requirement for the station manager, and the player would have to own construction ships that can be used as a construction fleet only.

Station Manager Requirements:

3 stars – Can deploy 2 player-owned construction ships at their station
4 stars – Can deploy 3 player-owned construction ships at their station
5 stars – Can deploy 4 player-owned construction ships at their station

[Feloidea]

Fourthly, no one in here is "demanding" "instant builds". Last I checked people are asking for a way to speed up construction and brainstorming ways this could be implemented.

I did not say that anyone would demand that. It was not even about implementation. It was about selling the idea to the devs. Demanding the impossible is fashionable Trump tactic, isn't it? Yes, atrocious.

Yet you still somehow found it applicable enough to post it, along all the implications/insinuations that come with it.. Says a lot about how you see this discussion. Which is all I'm going to say about it at this point because what little constructive could be said on this topic has been said.

[vvvvvvvv]

Hi,

I would also like to be able to operate multiple construction ships simultaneously.

To achieve this, there could be minimum requirement for the station manager, and the player would have to own construction ships that can be used as a construction fleet only.

Station Manager Requirements:

3 stars – Can deploy 2 player-owned construction ships at their station
4 stars – Can deploy 3 player-owned construction ships at their station
5 stars – Can deploy 4 player-owned construction ships at their station

Builders aren't controlled by managers. They're controlled by builder ship captain.

I suppose another way to do it would be instead of assigning multiple builders to the station project, would be using builder fleet. I.e. flagship builder with subordinate builders. So you'd assign flagship to the construction project and then subordinates assist.