[Mayhem 3] Renegades Add-Ons v2.1.2a - 23 August 2026

[Betelgeuse97]

Hotfix 2.0.2e released to fix pirate bases spawning massive groups of ships on hard difficulty.

[Betelgeuse97]

I am back from hiatus. 2.0.3 is out!

Highlights

• Normalized bail chances.

• FBL hull damage increased (1:3 hull-to-shield damage ratio -> 1:2).

[Betelgeuse97]

2.0.3a released to fix writing inconsistencies.

EDIT: 2.0.3b released to fix an exploit with unknown sector reveal potentially revealing the Renegade sector.

[Betelgeuse97]

2.1 is out!

Highlights

• New Kha'ak quest.

• Reworked Pirate Base spawning and placement for greater variety and reliability.

• Rebalanced starting Xenon defenders.

• NPC Outposts have a small chance to come with the Extra Support perk, granting +2 station support in their sectors.

• Fixed bugs regarding initial galaxy generation and the Ministry of War (Sector Viewer).

[Betelgeuse97]

2.1.1 is out!

Highlights

• Expanded terraforming with new planetary effects and the new anomalous rarity.
  • Anomalous planets require Terraforming efficiency 3 to terraform.
  • Added Barren, Molten, Toxic, Gaia, and Tomb Worlds.

• Added new Population-to-Research and Research-to-Population uncommon terraforming effects.

• Coordinated invasions can now prioritize sectors with terraformed rare or anomalous planets, as well as sectors with 2+ terraformed planets (previously 3+).

• Recycling time is now displayed and can be reduced by Toxic Worlds.

• Fixed several Outpost population, production, and ship construction inconsistencies.

• Improved Terraforming, Logistics, and Production Capacity information.

[Betelgeuse97]

2.1.2 is out!

Highlights

• Transferring sectors now awards +1 additional Favor Point for every 2 terraformed planets.

• Ship Purchase and Quantum Tube trading at Trading Stations are now disabled on Insane difficulty.

• Removed the resource-free factories modifier.

• Improved Favor and sector transfer information.

• Organized the 9972 and 9973 configuration files for easier navigation.

• Fixed writing and capitalization inconsistencies.

• EDIT (30 minutes post-release): Re-released 2.1.2 to fix inconsistencies in the 9972 t-file.

EDIT 2: Hotfix 2.1.2a released to remove a duplicate command entry from the 9972 t-file.

[Calahan]

I think* I've come across a bug with the Dragon (M6) and the range it moves into when on autopilot attack, and when you're both in-ship and during in-sector combat when the AI is controlling the ship. Here are two screenshots to highlight the problem (I can provide a save file and universe map for this screenshot save if need be). This is with the most recent version 2.1.2a. But I don't know if this is a new bug with this version, or a bug that was there before.

The target is stationary with my Dragon firing at it while on autopilot attack. But it never lands any hits because the target is not in range. The PALC's it's equipped with have a range of 6,000m, but as can be seen in the first screenshot, the Dragon stopped moving towards its target at 6.86km. The second screenshot is when I'm in another ship. And before the screenshot was taken the Dragon had fired a good half a dozen shots at the target, but as can be seen in the target info, its Shields are still at 100%. So the Dragon didn't move into range when I was in-ship or out-of-ship.

If I'm OutOfSector, then there's no bugs and combat proceeds as expected.

*I added "I think" because I've only very recently started playing this game and the Mayhem mod after nearly 10 years (circa 2018 was my last time). So I'm still in the re-learning phase for the game in general, which is on top of learning all the Mayhem 3+ changes introduced as well. So I can't rule out I've overlooking something. But if I am, then I have no idea what it is.

And many thanks for keeping this mod series alive. One day, and on days when I fancy playing the X-series, I might play X4 rather than X3, which has been sitting unplayed in my Steam library for many years. But until that day arrives I remain thankful that this X3 mod and mod series exists, and that modders like you are not only maintaining it and expanding it as well.

[Betelgeuse97]

I think* I've come across a bug with the Dragon (M6) and the range it moves into when on autopilot attack, and when you're both in-ship and during in-sector combat when the AI is controlling the ship. Here are two screenshots to highlight the problem (I can provide a save file and universe map for this screenshot save if need be). This is with the most recent version 2.1.2a. But I don't know if this is a new bug with this version, or a bug that was there before.

The target is stationary with my Dragon firing at it while on autopilot attack. But it never lands any hits because the target is not in range. The PALC's it's equipped with have a range of 6,000m, but as can be seen in the first screenshot, the Dragon stopped moving towards its target at 6.86km. The second screenshot is when I'm in another ship. And before the screenshot was taken the Dragon had fired a good half a dozen shots at the target, but as can be seen in the target info, its Shields are still at 100%. So the Dragon didn't move into range when I was in-ship or out-of-ship.

If I'm OutOfSector, then there's no bugs and combat proceeds as expected.

*I added "I think" because I've only very recently started playing this game and the Mayhem mod after nearly 10 years (circa 2018 was my last time). So I'm still in the re-learning phase for the game in general, which is on top of learning all the Mayhem 3+ changes introduced as well. So I can't rule out I've overlooking something. But if I am, then I have no idea what it is.

And many thanks for keeping this mod series alive. One day, and on days when I fancy playing the X-series, I might play X4 rather than X3, which has been sitting unplayed in my Steam library for many years. But until that day arrives I remain thankful that this X3 mod and mod series exists, and that modders like you are not only maintaining it and expanding it as well.

Hi! Thanks for the report.

2 things I need to better reproduce the bug:

• Would you attach your save and galaxy?

[list)Also, if you modified weapon stats in ZMap, would you also attach TBullets.txt (addon/types/TBullets) please?[/list]

[Calahan]

I think* I've come across a bug with the Dragon (M6) and the range it moves into when on autopilot attack (snip)

Hi! Thanks for the report.

2 things I need to better reproduce the bug:

• Would you attach your save and galaxy?

[list)Also, if you modified weapon stats in ZMap, would you also attach TBullets.txt (addon/types/TBullets) please?[/list]

Yes, no problem (or at least I hope it won't be).

Here's a link to a .rar file (MediaFire) with the relevant folder from the /mayhem_galaxies folder, and the .sav file from the Documents/Egosoft/X3AP/save folder.

Galaxy name: New RennyGades v4
Save file: X05.sav
https://www.mediafire.com/file/t4h8p0uh ... g.rar/file

- I have not modified the weapon stats with ZMap.
- The game was created with v.2.1, and later updated to v.2.12a (I missed v.2.11 due to not seeing it during its brief lifespan).

The save is just before the above screenshots were taken, and when the game loads you will be flying a Jaguar Raider and you will see the Dragon closing in on its target. And on my end at least, you will then see the Dragon stop short of firing range and start firing. But none of the shots ever hit. (Note there's a squad of M3's en route as well.)

If you need any other info, or if I've uploaded the wrong files, then please let me know.

[Betelgeuse97]

I think* I've come across a bug with the Dragon (M6) and the range it moves into when on autopilot attack (snip)

Hi! Thanks for the report.

2 things I need to better reproduce the bug:

• Would you attach your save and galaxy?

[list)Also, if you modified weapon stats in ZMap, would you also attach TBullets.txt (addon/types/TBullets) please?[/list]

Yes, no problem (or at least I hope it won't be).

Here's a link to a .rar file (MediaFire) with the relevant folder from the /mayhem_galaxies folder, and the .sav file from the Documents/Egosoft/X3AP/save folder.

Galaxy name: New RennyGades v4
Save file: X05.sav
https://www.mediafire.com/file/t4h8p0uh ... g.rar/file

- I have not modified the weapon stats with ZMap.
- The game was created with v.2.1, and later updated to v.2.12a (I missed v.2.11 due to not seeing it during its brief lifespan).

The save is just before the above screenshots were taken, and when the game loads you will be flying a Jaguar Raider and you will see the Dragon closing in on its target. And on my end at least, you will then see the Dragon stop short of firing range and start firing. But none of the shots ever hit. (Note there's a squad of M3's en route as well.)

If you need any other info, or if I've uploaded the wrong files, then please let me know.

Great news - the bug is fixed and will be included in the next version (2.1.3).

While investigating this bug, I found 2 related issues:

• Ships could attempt to fire their main battery while still outside its actual firing range. (This is the bug you reported.)

• The approach logic could consider its destination reached even when the ship was still outside firing range. There was already a workaround for this behavior against stations and huge ships, but it did not cover cases like your Dragon attacking another M6.

I've extended the range correction to regular ship attack runs and added an explicit range check before the main battery can fire. I also found and fixed a related issue where the main battery range was determined using only the weapon installed in the first weapon bay instead of checking the entire main battery.

Thanks for the save!

[Calahan]

Great news - the bug is fixed and will be included in the next version (2.1.3).

Thank you for the bug fix(s).

I also found and fixed a related issue where the main battery range was determined using only the weapon installed in the first weapon bay instead of checking the entire main battery.

Ah, so that is (was) a bug then. As I encountered this bug very soon after picking the game up again earlier this month. As I found a bailed M6 that had no lasers but it was before I had Ascended, so I didn't have an Outpost to manufacture new ones (and didn't want to buy any). So I just kitted it out with whatever lasers I'd managed to salvage to that point, and which had quite varying maximum ranges. But when on autopilot, I couldn't get the main bays to fire. As when I ordered it to attack it would just come to a stop (which was also new behaviour for me, and very different to the scripts used in Mayhem 2) and not fire any of its lasers. I messed around with the laser layout and worked out that I could get the main bay to fire if it ONLY contained all the same lasers, and that any mixture would prevent firing (pretty sure I didn't factor in the order they were installed).

In the end I filed it under 'I have no idea yet exactly what the Mayhem 3+ changes have brought with them', and so just wrote it off as a user error on my part rather than it being a bug. And I've used Quickstarts in my two restarts since then, so always had the option to manufacture any lasers I need rather than needing to rely on salvage, hence removing scenarios where I would have encountered this bug again.

Thanks for the save!

My pleasure. And glad I managed to upload all the necessary files.

(btw, the start of that particular game was initially going to result in me posting to ask if there was a bug in with the bailing rates, as I found the M2 I have in that game ~1 hour into the start, and then two M7's soon after, both one hour apart. So 3 bailed capital ships within the first 3-4 hours of a new game. But I haven't found any bailed capital ships since then, so I've since put it down to some freaky, but incredibly lucky RNG.)

---

Edit: p.s. Can I ask please about the scaling of Defense missions, and whether or not they offer the player too much opportunity to cheese its mechanic?

As while I've come nowhere near the point of engaging in faction wars yet, but when as test I put all my fleet in the same sector, and a sector which had a Defense mission listed for it, the size of the Xenon fleet that spawned was not inconsiderable, consisting of an M2 and several M6's. And it seems to me the player can exploit Defense missions to soften up the defences of any neighbouring factions by purposely sending all their ships to its sectors before then accepting a Defense mission listed for it. And given these 'extra' Xenons are only spawning due to a player's action rather than a more natural 'during the course of play' gameplay mechanic, they feel too artificial IMO, and too easy to exploit as a free 'softening up the enemy attack' if the player chooses too. (Although because it's a choice, the player can choose not to make that choice it as well.)

[Betelgeuse97]

Ah, so that is (was) a bug then. As I encountered this bug very soon after picking the game up again earlier this month. As I found a bailed M6 that had no lasers but it was before I had Ascended, so I didn't have an Outpost to manufacture new ones (and didn't want to buy any). So I just kitted it out with whatever lasers I'd managed to salvage to that point, and which had quite varying maximum ranges. But when on autopilot, I couldn't get the main bays to fire. As when I ordered it to attack it would just come to a stop (which was also new behaviour for me, and very different to the scripts used in Mayhem 2) and not fire any of its lasers. I messed around with the laser layout and worked out that I could get the main bay to fire if it ONLY contained all the same lasers, and that any mixture would prevent firing (pretty sure I didn't factor in the order they were installed).

In the end I filed it under 'I have no idea yet exactly what the Mayhem 3+ changes have brought with them', and so just wrote it off as a user error on my part rather than it being a bug. And I've used Quickstarts in my two restarts since then, so always had the option to manufacture any lasers I need rather than needing to rely on salvage, hence removing scenarios where I would have encountered this bug again.

Mayhem 3 changed combat AI; the scripts were rewritten from the ground up. Since Zero Hour (Mayhem 3's first extension mod), the game uses the laser with the most range to determine a ship's attack range. Since only players can mix-and-mash weapons in the main battery and/or turrets, only the player has this problem. NPCs do not have this problem since all their ships come equipped with weapons.

(btw, the start of that particular game was initially going to result in me posting to ask if there was a bug in with the bailing rates, as I found the M2 I have in that game ~1 hour into the start, and then two M7's soon after, both one hour apart. So 3 bailed capital ships within the first 3-4 hours of a new game. But I haven't found any bailed capital ships since then, so I've since put it down to some freaky, but incredibly lucky RNG.)

---

Edit: p.s. Can I ask please about the scaling of Defense missions, and whether or not they offer the player too much opportunity to cheese its mechanic?

As while I've come nowhere near the point of engaging in faction wars yet, but when as test I put all my fleet in the same sector, and a sector which had a Defense mission listed for it, the size of the Xenon fleet that spawned was not inconsiderable, consisting of an M2 and several M6's. And it seems to me the player can exploit Defense missions to soften up the defences of any neighbouring factions by purposely sending all their ships to its sectors before then accepting a Defense mission listed for it. And given these 'extra' Xenons are only spawning due to a player's action rather than a more natural 'during the course of play' gameplay mechanic, they feel too artificial IMO, and too easy to exploit as a free 'softening up the enemy attack' if the player chooses too. (Although because it's a choice, the player can choose not to make that choice it as well.)

Thanks for bringing this up. Defense missions scale with the game difficulty and the player's fleet strength present in the mission giver's sector, so concentrating a large fleet there can indeed generate a substantial Xenon attack.

This interaction has been tested before. While it can potentially be used to weaken the local faction, there are several limitations: the player cannot control where the Xenon enter, the local faction will respond to the attack, failing the mission costs 500 reputation and 1 Loyalty, and Defense missions cannot be used this way against a faction with which the player is already in a Permanent War.

For now, I'm inclined to leave this behavior unchanged. It can be exploited to some extent, but in testing the benefits have been unreliable enough that I don't consider it a sufficiently strong strategy to warrant additional restrictions.

[Calahan]

Thank you for the reply Betelgeuse97.

Mayhem 3 changed combat AI; the scripts were rewritten from the ground up. Since Zero Hour (Mayhem 3's first extension mod), the game uses the laser with the most range to determine a ship's attack range. Since only players can mix-and-mash weapons in the main battery and/or turrets, only the player has this problem. NPCs do not have this problem since all their ships come equipped with weapons.

Thanks for confirming this. I'd read some posts about Xenon ships spawning with different laser layouts, but can't recall when those posts are from in relation to Mayhem 3's full history (it was about whether Xenon M2's hit the PSP jackpot when they spawn), so wasn't sure if this applied to non-Xenon ships as well, and which might then have extended to mixed laser bays. (I thought some of the Yaki capital ships might spawn with mixed bays, as they use a wide variety of lasers.)

Edit: p.s. Can I ask please about the scaling of Defense missions, and whether or not they offer the player too much opportunity to cheese its mechanic? (snip)

Thanks for bringing this up. Defense missions scale with the game difficulty and the player's fleet strength present in the mission giver's sector, so concentrating a large fleet there can indeed generate a substantial Xenon attack.

This interaction has been tested before. While it can potentially be used to weaken the local faction, there are several limitations: the player cannot control where the Xenon enter, the local faction will respond to the attack, failing the mission costs 500 reputation and 1 Loyalty, and Defense missions cannot be used this way against a faction with which the player is already in a Permanent War.

For now, I'm inclined to leave this behavior unchanged. It can be exploited to some extent, but in testing the benefits have been unreliable enough that I don't consider it a sufficiently strong strategy to warrant additional restrictions.

Thanks for the detailed reply.

I doubted the exploitative potential of Defense missions had been overlooked, but still mentioned it on the off chance it had been, or hadn't been re-evaluated for a while. And mainly because of the struggles I've been seeing in-game with factions dealing with some of them.

Although the struggles have actually been more in relation to Patrol missions than the Defense ones. As each time one triggers, and right now in my game it's usually 8 P's and about 2-3 times that number is fighters, it seems to cost the faction several T-ships along with the economic disruption. And if their sector fleet is only one or two M6's, then that entire fleet is usually lost. I've since stopped taking on all Defense and Patrol missions due to them feeling too accommodating for the player, and too one sided in the player's favour. I don't think the player can actually fail Patrol missions either. As I've triggered some simply by flying through a sector that I'd forgotten I'd taken a Patrol mission for, and the Xenons have still been in the sector one, two, several hours later (although all were dealt with by the faction... eventually). So if there are fail conditions, they're certainly generous, and not a disincentive from spawning some free Xenons to harass other factions. (Which is why I've put a house rule on not accepting any again.)

[Betelgeuse97]

I doubted the exploitative potential of Defense missions had been overlooked, but still mentioned it on the off chance it had been, or hadn't been re-evaluated for a while. And mainly because of the struggles I've been seeing in-game with factions dealing with some of them.

Although the struggles have actually been more in relation to Patrol missions than the Defense ones. As each time one triggers, and right now in my game it's usually 8 P's and about 2-3 times that number is fighters, it seems to cost the faction several T-ships along with the economic disruption. And if their sector fleet is only one or two M6's, then that entire fleet is usually lost. I've since stopped taking on all Defense and Patrol missions due to them feeling too accommodating for the player, and too one sided in the player's favour. I don't think the player can actually fail Patrol missions either. As I've triggered some simply by flying through a sector that I'd forgotten I'd taken a Patrol mission for, and the Xenons have still been in the sector one, two, several hours later (although all were dealt with by the faction... eventually). So if there are fail conditions, they're certainly generous, and not a disincentive from spawning some free Xenons to harass other factions. (Which is why I've put a house rule on not accepting any again.)

Over the weekend, I thought about mission exploits. Next patch will address mission exploits. My current solution is to clean up the ships upon mission failure.

• For Patrol missions, only the player ship (not fleet leaders) will be allowed to spawn the Xenon ships. If the player leaves the sector, the player fails the mission and all spawned enemies will despawn.

• For Defense and Bait missions, enemies - including the Jump Beacon - will despawn if the mission fails. As for the Jump Beacon, I will need to verify if Police patrols attack Jump Beacons; only raider and task force fleets currently do.

• Suppression mission is tricky. I found an issue there where the player can take the mission, have the spawned patrol disappear somehow either via combat or recycling (cleanup), and the player wins without involvement. I'm thinking of reworking the mission to select an existing military target from a faction's enemy. Planned candidates include but are not limited to: Pirate Base, Xenon Station, enemy Outpost in a claimed sector, or a fleet leader.

As for the remaining 11 missions, I currently do not see any other issues. For example, for Delivery, the pirate ships are weak enough that they are easily cleaned up when they become regular pirates upon mission failure. The mission is also more sensitive to station destruction (either by combat or periodic cleanup).

[Calahan]

Over the weekend, I thought about mission exploits. Next patch will address mission exploits. My current solution is to clean up the ships upon mission failure.

Thank you for taking the time to give the current missions a once over.

For Patrol missions, only the player ship (not fleet leaders) will be allowed to spawn the Xenon ships. If the player leaves the sector, the player fails the mission and all spawned enemies will despawn.

That sounds like a good change to me. It could be deemed a bit harsh that the player leaving the sector fails the mission, but then that's on the player to ensure they're able to actually deal with the mission they agreed to take on. And if, like I was guilty of for a time, the player is taking on so many Patrol because 'hey why not, no downside!' that they lose track of them and inadvertently trigger one by flying through the sector, then that's on the player again. Downsides are good.

And +1 for the no fleet commander trigger change. That was more than a little easy to abuse IMO just by making any random ship in the area a fleet commander solely to trigger the mission remotely. Another product of the previous no downsides.

For Defense and Bait missions, enemies - including the Jump Beacon - will despawn if the mission fails. As for the Jump Beacon, I will need to verify if Police patrols attack Jump Beacons; only raider and task force fleets currently do.

I can't vouch for it too strongly because the sample size is too small, but the result of quite a few of the Defense mission I spam-accepted went along the lines of: single Xenon fighter spawned, sometime later it got destroyed (not by me), I then got a message about needing to find and destroy the beacon, with the mission remaining on the list until I either destroyed it myself or sent a ship to 'wherever' to attack it. i.e. I can't recall any forces ever destroying the beacon, and if I didn't destroy it it remained there.

As I said, though, it's a low sample size. Plus I usually send a Jaguar Raider to attack it just to get the mission off the list, so I can't add anything like 'the beacon has remained for several in-game days', as maybe 3-4 hours in-game has been the maximum.

I've tended to avoid the Bait missions as the reward is rarely worth it... I think. (As I've literally just typed that sentence, I've started to wonder if the Bait ship has cargo the player gets to keep, which would completely change the value of the reward. Haven't got access to the game right now to check, though.)

Suppression mission is tricky. I found an issue there where the player can take the mission, have the spawned patrol disappear somehow either via combat or recycling (cleanup), and the player wins without involvement. I'm thinking of reworking the mission to select an existing military target from a faction's enemy. Planned candidates include but are not limited to: Pirate Base, Xenon Station, enemy Outpost in a claimed sector, or a fleet leader.

I'm not sure I've accepted any Suppression missions yet, so I can't comment on this one.

As for the remaining 11 missions, I currently do not see any other issues. For example, for Delivery, the pirate ships are weak enough that they are easily cleaned up when they become regular pirates upon mission failure. The mission is also more sensitive to station destruction (either by combat or periodic cleanup).

To me, the Defense and Patrol missions have felt the most 'off' due to feeling a bit too exploitable.

The Delivery missions are... a bit odd I've found. On paper, they should 'feel' the same in respect to being a bit exploitable as the above two, as they're also free enemy ships that the player, and only the player is responsible for spawning (by accepting the mission), and which can disrupt the economy of another faction. But yet in practice they haven't felt the same. Although no doubt that is due to the comparative weakness of the Pirates that spawn versus the Xenons. Although one thing I'd ask is whether you are able to add time limits to completing missions? It's so long ago now that I played either vanilla X3 and/or just Litcube's Universe that I can't be sure my memory is accurate, but I could have sworn certain missions had time limits before. And if time limits are a thing, and a thing you can add, then I feel they're be perfect for several missions, especially Delivery. As another thing I've been very guilty of (and before I house ruled myself) was accepting Delivery missions, waiting for local forces to deal with the Pirates, before sending the ship that came with the mission to make the deliveries in complete safety. Which trivialised the mission.


The only other mission I'd flag is Collections, and due to the Artefacts that spawn not being tied to a specific mission, which can result in the following minor issue:

A-B-C-D-E
F-G-H-I-J
K-L-M-N-O

Imagine a 3x5 grid of sectors all connected, and the player has poor satellite coverage of these sectors (such as due to Renegades). The player has two active Collection deliveries. One set of Artefacts are to be found in and around Sector-G, the other set in and around Sector-I. The player then finds Artefacts in Sector-H, but the player doesn't know which mission they are linked with, and those Artefacts can be used to complete either mission because the mission is to 'Find Artefacts' and not 'Find Specific Artefacts'. Then say the player tosses a coin and completes the mission related to Sector-I, which leaves them a mission on the list to find Artefacts in and around Sector-G. Except those Artefacts are now gone, and the only Artefacts left to find are in Sector-J, and linked to that other, now completed mission. Result being there's a mismatch between the information that the listed mission is telling the player in respect to where the Artefacts are to be found, and where the only-Artefacts-left can actually be found.

This is not a massive problem by any means due to the pop-up message about the sector containing Artefact when the player enters it, but is still a little annoying nonetheless, and enough so to warrant mentioning it. So if you're able to change this mission slightly so that each set of Artefacts is unique, and can only be used to complete the Collections mission that spawned them, then that should nicely clean up this minor issue.

Otherwise, and other than all the above, and factoring in the forthcoming changes, missions should me in a good spot from my experience so far (and in my humble opinion).

[Betelgeuse97]

I can't vouch for it too strongly because the sample size is too small, but the result of quite a few of the Defense mission I spam-accepted went along the lines of: single Xenon fighter spawned, sometime later it got destroyed (not by me), I then got a message about needing to find and destroy the beacon, with the mission remaining on the list until I either destroyed it myself or sent a ship to 'wherever' to attack it. i.e. I can't recall any forces ever destroying the beacon, and if I didn't destroy it it remained there.

As I said, though, it's a low sample size. Plus I usually send a Jaguar Raider to attack it just to get the mission off the list, so I can't add anything like 'the beacon has remained for several in-game days', as maybe 3-4 hours in-game has been the maximum.

NPC fleets destroy those beacons, but only the task force and raider fleets actively do so. I will need to check Police and Rearguard to verify if they do too, but I don't think they currently do so.

I've tended to avoid the Bait missions as the reward is rarely worth it... I think. (As I've literally just typed that sentence, I've started to wonder if the Bait ship has cargo the player gets to keep, which would completely change the value of the reward. Haven't got access to the game right now to check, though.)

The bait ship is more rewarding on Insane difficulty, where freighters (TS, TP) cannot be built until the main plot is completed.

There is a secret reward while doing bait missions...if you can do some convincing.

I'm not sure I've accepted any Suppression missions yet, so I can't comment on this one.

Currently, these missions spawn only if you have negative reputation with a commonwealth faction. This will be reworked so a real fleet target is selected. As the consequences will naturally be higher, the reward will be adjusted in the next version.

To me, the Defense and Patrol missions have felt the most 'off' due to feeling a bit too exploitable.

The Delivery missions are... a bit odd I've found. On paper, they should 'feel' the same in respect to being a bit exploitable as the above two, as they're also free enemy ships that the player, and only the player is responsible for spawning (by accepting the mission), and which can disrupt the economy of another faction. But yet in practice they haven't felt the same. Although no doubt that is due to the comparative weakness of the Pirates that spawn versus the Xenons. Although one thing I'd ask is whether you are able to add time limits to completing missions? It's so long ago now that I played either vanilla X3 and/or just Litcube's Universe that I can't be sure my memory is accurate, but I could have sworn certain missions had time limits before. And if time limits are a thing, and a thing you can add, then I feel they're be perfect for several missions, especially Delivery. As another thing I've been very guilty of (and before I house ruled myself) was accepting Delivery missions, waiting for local forces to deal with the Pirates, before sending the ship that came with the mission to make the deliveries in complete safety. Which trivialised the mission.


The only other mission I'd flag is Collections, and due to the Artefacts that spawn not being tied to a specific mission, which can result in the following minor issue:

A-B-C-D-E
F-G-H-I-J
K-L-M-N-O

Imagine a 3x5 grid of sectors all connected, and the player has poor satellite coverage of these sectors (such as due to Renegades). The player has two active Collection deliveries. One set of Artefacts are to be found in and around Sector-G, the other set in and around Sector-I. The player then finds Artefacts in Sector-H, but the player doesn't know which mission they are linked with, and those Artefacts can be used to complete either mission because the mission is to 'Find Artefacts' and not 'Find Specific Artefacts'. Then say the player tosses a coin and completes the mission related to Sector-I, which leaves them a mission on the list to find Artefacts in and around Sector-G. Except those Artefacts are now gone, and the only Artefacts left to find are in Sector-J, and linked to that other, now completed mission. Result being there's a mismatch between the information that the listed mission is telling the player in respect to where the Artefacts are to be found, and where the only-Artefacts-left can actually be found.

This is not a massive problem by any means due to the pop-up message about the sector containing Artefact when the player enters it, but is still a little annoying nonetheless, and enough so to warrant mentioning it. So if you're able to change this mission slightly so that each set of Artefacts is unique, and can only be used to complete the Collections mission that spawned them, then that should nicely clean up this minor issue.

Otherwise, and other than all the above, and factoring in the forthcoming changes, missions should me in a good spot from my experience so far (and in my humble opinion).

Don't think it's possible to track what Artefacts are what once they're picked up. A crate or any object in space has metadata, but wares don't have any metadata to track once the ware is collected and placed in the ship's cargo hold. (Only passengers and marines have metadata as they're objects.)

So I agree the mission text can become inaccurate in that situation, but I don't think I can solve it by making the collected Artefacts mission-specific.

Unlike vanilla or LU, I don't think a timer works well with the mission system. There are three reasons why:

1. There is a soft cap: no new missions are offered if there are 24 or more stations with missions, whether the missions are accepted or not.

2. The mission can still fail if its specified ship is no longer alive, which can sometimes be out of the player's reach if the player takes too long.

3. It's intended for the mission giver to disappear if its faction recycled the station. The missions are more of an available job that's open to you as long as the mission giver is relevant.

#3 goes back to mission offers and delivery missions. Delivery missions have several dependencies, so the longer you wait, the more likely one of the stations that needs delivery may be destroyed or recycled, thus rendering the mission impossible to complete. Sure, you may be waiting for NPCs to clean up the pirates, but you're giving up potential bails, Renegade clues (killing Pirates has a chance to give you information about the Renegades), and completion time.

So waiting for NPCs to clear the Pirates is a valid low-risk approach, but I don't necessarily consider it an exploit because the player trades speed, mission capacity, combat rewards, and some mission reliability for that safety.