Ridiculously high REing times of Armoured Transporters.

General discussion about X³: Farnham's Legacy.

Moderators: Moderators for English X Forum, Moderators for the X3:FL Forums

Ramdat
Posts: 124
Joined: Sun, 1. Jun 14, 02:53
x4

Re: Ridiculously high REing times of Armoured Transporters.

Post by Ramdat »

Midnightknight wrote: Mon, 7. Jun 21, 16:03 Yes you are the one using the hyperbole here, using the "Motto" of X3 to show i'm stupid and my opinion is irrelevant, and what you were saying could be easily used against you. Think, you want a mule, you can buy it in mission at discounts, you can force them to bail, you can use an agent to raise your rep to +4 with split, send 1 or 2 ozias in split core system, stuff them full a mules you bought and jump back home. Yes that's annoying, yes that wouldn't fit every gameplay and but it's exactly the same than what you said. Resources are not an issue you could have plenty of them, use your brain. Ships aren't a problem you can have plenty of them. Yes i'm hostile to your position cause you are mocking people with biased statement just to prove you are more intelligent and your point is the only one right, i'm simply returning you the favor.
I didn't say that you are stupid. Nothing I have said has been mocking. I believe my messages to be neutral in tone, but you are interpreting it as hostile/mocking. I am a little frustrated because you are personally attacking me and are seemingly not understanding my point, but my intention is to not be hostile or make it personal. I am simply explaining my position.

If CBJ's response was towards me as well because he believes that I have been hostile/personal, then I encourage him to state what I have done wrong so that I can be more careful in the future.

Anyway, I was saying that for every other mechanic in the game except for HQ ship production, you can scale it up to meet your needs. If you need more crystals, you build more crystal fabs. If you need more lasers or shields for your fleet you build those appropriate factories. You don't have this ability with the HQ. As we've both said, you can buy or capture the Mule. But, due to the HQ timer being too long, you can never really build it. Thus, only TRADE and FIGHT are viable, not BUILD.

The variety that you have indicated with acquiring the Mule is not the same as the variety you have with the HQ, due to the timer. You can capture or buy as many Mules as you want because they are not artificially locked by anything. They can be infinitely purchased at Shipyards, and are relatively common to find in space. To compare it to the HQ problem, it would be like if there was a 12 hour cooldown at the AI Shipyard each time you buy a Mule. In this circumstance, buying Mules is a mechanic which exists, but its implementation makes it virtually useable. This is how the HQ currently exists. You can never use the HQ to reasonably produce Mules because it has a 12 hour cooldown between each one. The same is true for most other ships. If you change the cooldown timer to based on resources rather than a static time limit, then you can reduce the cooldown by providing resources at a quicker rate. This results in less time overall, it just requires an initial investment. But, you would be making this investment anyway, because building stations is a large part of the game.
Midnightknight wrote: Mon, 7. Jun 21, 16:03 You don't like SETA but you will force people to use it to build complex they will never benefits from cause a full feeding complex for a PHQ is millions of millions credits. And you want to increase this even more, meaning more time passed into SETA or stupid farming to be able to get your HQ working. So once again, YOU want to mass produce at PHQ, and you want to harass people that actually are not especially using the PHQ except for a few extra ships. So you increase the resources needed, so they will have to farm those resources even more while they simply don't want to, and have better things to do while the time needed wasn't a that big issue for them. Fun fact, the devs mentionned they wanted to make the player less overpowered in end game to have more challenge and a bit stronger at the beginning, so you are just going completely against that.
They benefit from it by acquiring ships and earning money by selling the excess production to other races. The idea to shift the focus to resources does that mean that everything is much more expensive. It is a change in weight, not an increase in total. For example, if a ship normally costs 10 million credits to produce, and requires 5 million credits worth of materials, under the new system, it could cost 2.5 million credits and require 12.5 million credits worth of materials. Of course, this is just a quick example and the actual balancing would require more consideration. But, the point is that the total cost is similar, so it does not add more grind. It simply moves the timer from an unchangeable static variable, to the timer of station production cycles. This change has a low impact on players who only want to build a handful of special ships, but has a big positive impact for players who want to scale HQ production up. And, it has extra benefits such as more interaction with the NPC economy, especially in the early game before you have your own economy setup. In the late-game, since the focus is now primarily resources rather than credits, it adds more activity with the logistical system and encourages a real economy rather than sitting on a hoard of credits.
Midnightknight wrote: Mon, 7. Jun 21, 16:03 Read this topic, you will see some people actually use the PHQ as a bonus to get a few special ship here and there while they are playing. So you increase the resources needed, so they will have to farm those resources even more while they simply don't want to, and have better things to do while the time needed wasn't a that big issue for them.
If you read this topic, and others messages across the forum that are critical of the current implementation of the HQ, the consensus is that because the HQ production queue takes so long, it is only viable for these special ships. I used the HQ to produce all the special quantum processor ships, and a few small normal ships, but that is all it is useful for because the timer is too high. The goal is for the HQ to be viable to produce whatever the player needs, not only a small selection of special ships.
Midnightknight wrote: Mon, 7. Jun 21, 16:03 So you are telling me your proposition have nothing to deal with the OPs topic? Yes that's true, you are completely off topic from the very start. What you offer solves no issues and brings new ones. The issue with RE times are mostly how badly they scales, and a few oddities like the I being pretty fast to RE while some M6 takes forever. Reducing global RE time won't change this, raising resource needed won't change this, only a global rebalance of the RE time calculation formula will.
No, that is not what I am telling you. I was stating that the two problems are distinct so that they are not conflated together. The problems caused by scaling oddities such as the Mule shows the weakness of using a system that is strongly gated by a static time variable. No other mechanic in the game is gated in this manner. You could argue station resource production is gated by time, which it is, but you can alleviate the gate by building more factories. Comparatively, there is no recourse for the HQ. I directly said, multiple times, that the scaling of the Armoured Transports specifically makes them unviable to ever build. And, a rebalance to reduce these outliers, as well as other ships on the high-end of the scale is a good bandaid to fix the problem. Changing the gate from time to resources is one step further to improve the system, since it allows the player to engage with more of the game's systems. You don't agree with that, but that's ok. Don't take it personally.
atroces
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri, 28. May 21, 18:48

Re: Ridiculously high REing times of Armoured Transporters.

Post by atroces »

To sum this all up, changing RE/build times and/or material costs, can negatively impact one or more playstyles, and most of the controversy revolves around having to build a massive materials complex and invest a ton of SETA time towards that, or keep the long build times, and dedicate SETA towards that. Or you can be a pirate and board/bail ships to sell and use to build complexes or recycle, and use your SETA on that.

A lot of this controversy is dedicated to time investment, and being forced, as some players claim, to run at 10x overnight to get adequate profits, or adequate time to build ships. This is directly related to the age old X3 paradox I have experienced: the more self sufficient you are, and the more you produce yourself, the more time you spend in SETA, building ships, or ramping up production. An example, you decide to war on the galaxy, and you tuck yourself into your own sector, producing every possible ware in your own complex, and having the blueprint for every ship. Being entirely self sufficient means you gain no more profit through trade and are at a profit deficit. It also means you must wait for every ship to produce. This isn't an ideal situation, and cannot go on indefinitely, but ultimately you will lose money, time and resources just maintaining. The time, however, is the most valuable commodity, and this scenario will take the most of it, taking real life days on SETA just to build your warmonger fleet. It also isn't how the game is intended to be played. Sustainable gameplay comes from commerce with other races.

I think a balance of production time, resources, and extracurricular activities are probably the best solution. Boarding ships you wish to add to your fleet can be fun and exciting. Yes, I'll agree that the time investment for some ships is a bit radical, but then I am often forced to cap them, buy them, etc. while supplementing my fleet through HQ production. The armored trade ships bail like crazy, so my preferred method is to sit in a pirate sector and get my 2-3 every RL hour until I have enough, using my HQ to only reproduce destroyed ones. The larger ships shouldn't grow on trees, and need to be a time investment. Again this is easily supplemented by capping, but there is the time consuming lazy option of sitting in SETA all day for HQ production. I find my biggest time investment hasn't been producing ships at all, it has been acquiring equipment and stations/production necessary to outfit them. The new rep system makes things interesting, but it also gives you options like access to the rarer ships, where you can combine that with a discount and save up for a spending spree, and buy all the rare ships you want, so from a gameplay perspective, not so much of an issue.
bounty_hunter66
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue, 15. Aug 06, 13:36
x4

Re: Ridiculously high REing times of Armoured Transporters.

Post by bounty_hunter66 »

atroces wrote: Mon, 7. Jun 21, 21:41 To sum this all up, changing RE/build times and/or material costs, can negatively impact one or more playstyles, and most of the controversy revolves around having to build a massive materials complex and invest a ton of SETA time towards that, or keep the long build times, and dedicate SETA towards that. Or you can be a pirate and board/bail ships to sell and use to build complexes or recycle, and use your SETA on that.
It's not the same. Not even close. Again I repeat. Investing "a ton" of SETA to build massive complex to supply matterials is a one time investment. While the others are wasting your time endlessly. Your comparisons are flawed.

atroces wrote: Mon, 7. Jun 21, 21:41 The larger ships shouldn't grow on trees.
But they do. That is the problem. Given enough credits, you can buy an infinite number of ships from shipyards. No downtime, no waiting. It is an imbalance that makes absolutely no sense. It pushes the player ultimately towards one or two gameplay loops instead of allowing them to forge their own way.

This is what is being argued here. The acquiring of ships can be done in multiple ways but one greatly puts the player at a disadvantage. Thus the imbalance.
atroces
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri, 28. May 21, 18:48

Re: Ridiculously high REing times of Armoured Transporters.

Post by atroces »

bounty_hunter66 wrote: Mon, 7. Jun 21, 22:02 But they do. That is the problem. Given enough credits, you can buy an infinite number of ships from shipyards. No downtime, no waiting. It is an imbalance that makes absolutely no sense. It pushes the player ultimately towards one or two gameplay loops instead of allowing them to forge their own way.

This is what is being argued here. The acquiring of ships can be done in multiple ways but one greatly puts the player at a disadvantage. Thus the imbalance.
A disadvantage against whom? I can see that argument you just made as being for increasing the cost of capital ships, but still, buying them en masse may be easier, but requires its own time investment to put together a loadout, rather than automating that from the HQ. I am just sort of confused as to who this puts at a disadvantage? VS?
bounty_hunter66
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue, 15. Aug 06, 13:36
x4

Re: Ridiculously high REing times of Armoured Transporters.

Post by bounty_hunter66 »

It is a disadvantage towards players that like to build their own ships. I would not be arguing here if the HQ was only capable of producing rare/unique ships, since in that case it's use would have been clear. I have no problem with the resource cost and time it takes to build rare/unique ships. I have a problem however with the time it takes for non rare/unique ships that you can buy at shipyards anyways.
Midnightknight
Posts: 418
Joined: Sat, 12. Jun 10, 11:49
x4

Re: Ridiculously high REing times of Armoured Transporters.

Post by Midnightknight »

bounty_hunter66 wrote: Mon, 7. Jun 21, 22:02 It's not the same. Not even close. Again I repeat. Investing "a ton" of SETA to build massive complex to supply matterials is a one time investment. While the others are wasting your time endlessly. Your comparisons are flawed.

And what is the fastest? A one time investment of 200 hours or a 20 times investment of 10 hours? It's exactly the same, simply you feel more comfortable with this one cause it match beter you play style or how you simply feel about it. You prefer staying very long on SETA that's up to you, other people might not feel the same, don't you think? And since almost everyone agree that spending hours AFK on SETA brings nothing to the game, why even force this on player? Be it instant ships building with ton of resources needed or no resources needed and very long time to build a ship you will need, to AFK SETA massively to have the HQ work. I really feel there is a dialogue of the deaf here.
bounty_hunter66
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue, 15. Aug 06, 13:36
x4

Re: Ridiculously high REing times of Armoured Transporters.

Post by bounty_hunter66 »

Midnightknight wrote: Mon, 7. Jun 21, 22:42
bounty_hunter66 wrote: Mon, 7. Jun 21, 22:02 It's not the same. Not even close. Again I repeat. Investing "a ton" of SETA to build massive complex to supply matterials is a one time investment. While the others are wasting your time endlessly. Your comparisons are flawed.

And what is the fastest? A one time investment of 200 hours or a 20 times investment of 10 hours? It's exactly the same, simply you feel more comfortable with this one cause it match beter you play style or how you simply feel about it. You prefer staying very long on SETA that's up to you, other people might not feel the same, don't you think? And since almost everyone agree that spending hours AFK on SETA brings nothing to the game, why even force this on player? Be it instant ships building with ton of resources needed or no resources needed and very long time to build a ship you will need, to AFK SETA massively to have the HQ work. I really feel there is a dialogue of the deaf here.
Let's back up for a sec. SETA for building complexes? What? Why? It's quite the opposite. The more you play, the more money you make, the faster you will build your complexes. And with the new additions of automated complex building in FL, it has never been faster/easier. I feel like you have some flawed images of what it takes to build an empire in X.

Bottom line is, you most definitely do NOT need to stay AFK on SETA to progress in this game(except maybe for short bursts to navigate or move your ships around). You actually make more money by actively playing the game. And the more you invest and play the more money you have. Do you want to know the only thing you NEED AFK SETA for? That's right....using the HQ to build/repair/RE. And there is nothing you can do about that since you can't get multiple HQ's or upgrade it to scale up. And sure, you can make the argument that you don't need to wait on SETA for the HQ to finish a ship and you can go do something else. But the same argument applies to you. You don't need SETA to build complexes :lol:

However strictly speaking of the possible ways the player can aquire a ship, producing one at the HQ is the most imbalanced and nonsensical.
Midnightknight
Posts: 418
Joined: Sat, 12. Jun 10, 11:49
x4

Re: Ridiculously high REing times of Armoured Transporters.

Post by Midnightknight »

bounty_hunter66 wrote: Mon, 7. Jun 21, 23:00
Midnightknight wrote: Mon, 7. Jun 21, 22:42
bounty_hunter66 wrote: Mon, 7. Jun 21, 22:02 It's not the same. Not even close. Again I repeat. Investing "a ton" of SETA to build massive complex to supply matterials is a one time investment. While the others are wasting your time endlessly. Your comparisons are flawed.

And what is the fastest? A one time investment of 200 hours or a 20 times investment of 10 hours? It's exactly the same, simply you feel more comfortable with this one cause it match beter you play style or how you simply feel about it. You prefer staying very long on SETA that's up to you, other people might not feel the same, don't you think? And since almost everyone agree that spending hours AFK on SETA brings nothing to the game, why even force this on player? Be it instant ships building with ton of resources needed or no resources needed and very long time to build a ship you will need, to AFK SETA massively to have the HQ work. I really feel there is a dialogue of the deaf here.
Let's back up for a sec. SETA for building complexes? What? Why? It's quite the opposite. The more you play, the more money you make, the faster you will build your complexes. And with the new additions of automated complex building in FL, it has never been faster/easier. I feel like you have some flawed images of what it takes to build an empire in X.

Bottom line is, you most definitely do NOT need to stay AFK on SETA to progress in this game(except maybe for short bursts to navigate or move your ships around). You actually make more money by actively playing the game. And the more you invest and play the more money you have. Do you want to know the only thing you NEED AFK SETA for? That's right....using the HQ to build/repair/RE. And there is nothing you can do about that since you can't get multiple HQ's or upgrade it to scale up. And sure, you can make the argument that you don't need to wait on SETA for the HQ to finish a ship and you can go do something else. But the same argument applies to you. You don't need SETA to build complexes :lol:

However strictly speaking of the possible ways the player can aquire a ship, producing one at the HQ is the most imbalanced and nonsensical.
SETA to have the resources been produced and taken to the HQ, SETA to have money to build the factories ...

Once again i can say the same for ship building, you can let your ships be built while doing something else without SETA.


But you are right, last post here for me people are posting on a topic without anymore anything to deal with original post and not really listening.
atroces
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri, 28. May 21, 18:48

Re: Ridiculously high REing times of Armoured Transporters.

Post by atroces »

bounty_hunter66 wrote: Mon, 7. Jun 21, 22:37 It is a disadvantage towards players that like to build their own ships. I would not be arguing here if the HQ was only capable of producing rare/unique ships, since in that case it's use would have been clear. I have no problem with the resource cost and time it takes to build rare/unique ships. I have a problem however with the time it takes for non rare/unique ships that you can buy at shipyards anyways.
See, then there's no problem. Think of it this way, since you have no issue with it being able to produce rare/unique ships, it is exactly that, with the added benefit of being able to produce all other ships as well. It seems to be one of these arguments saying it is TOO functional. I disagree on that point, where a game like X3 is built on versatility and functionality. It has always been my opinion that if your playstyle involves just SETA timing ship production, then you really aren't doing very much ingame as it is. Your latest point that it is a good idea for rare ships, and that other ships are much easier to get in other ways - YES. Do just that :)

If that is really all it is, then only use it for rare ships? Keep in mind that even though it can be used to produce non-rare/unique ships, that it can also produce any ship you do not have the reputation to purchase outright, as well as stations. This is a major perk for people who mix and match fleets and production, and to me the time sink doesn't hurt that much. If you only build a minimal support complex, supplying the slower to find resources (rastar in my case) then investing the rest of your time in a trade fleet/ship building, you may find a smaller time investment overall than actually building a complex. I have done two playthroughs, the first one I had an M@ fleet within 50 hours of playing, half of them HQ produced simply because I wanted to have a minimal complex for the purpose. I then only produced weapons that I couldn't get elsewhere quickly, although got most of them from boarding and funding my quest by selling ships/weapons that I don't need. Because I am how I am, I find it easier to cap M2s than to scrape up rep and buy certain racials (Terran...*cough*) and I don't have to sabotage any race relations to do so, even if I am only getting 5-10 ships on a good day. The HQ really shines on carrier supplementation, when building a hundred M3+ with all the bells and whistles, and not having to micromanage it. This isn't every playstyle, but it is another example of how a HQ is mostly just fine how it is.
Ramdat
Posts: 124
Joined: Sun, 1. Jun 14, 02:53
x4

Re: Ridiculously high REing times of Armoured Transporters.

Post by Ramdat »

atroces wrote: Mon, 7. Jun 21, 21:41 To sum this all up, changing RE/build times and/or material costs, can negatively impact one or more playstyles, and most of the controversy revolves around having to build a massive materials complex and invest a ton of SETA time towards that, or keep the long build times, and dedicate SETA towards that. Or you can be a pirate and board/bail ships to sell and use to build complexes or recycle, and use your SETA on that.

A lot of this controversy is dedicated to time investment, and being forced, as some players claim, to run at 10x overnight to get adequate profits, or adequate time to build ships. This is directly related to the age old X3 paradox I have experienced: the more self sufficient you are, and the more you produce yourself, the more time you spend in SETA, building ships, or ramping up production. An example, you decide to war on the galaxy, and you tuck yourself into your own sector, producing every possible ware in your own complex, and having the blueprint for every ship. Being entirely self sufficient means you gain no more profit through trade and are at a profit deficit. It also means you must wait for every ship to produce. This isn't an ideal situation, and cannot go on indefinitely, but ultimately you will lose money, time and resources just maintaining. The time, however, is the most valuable commodity, and this scenario will take the most of it, taking real life days on SETA just to build your warmonger fleet. It also isn't how the game is intended to be played. Sustainable gameplay comes from commerce with other races.

I think a balance of production time, resources, and extracurricular activities are probably the best solution. Boarding ships you wish to add to your fleet can be fun and exciting. Yes, I'll agree that the time investment for some ships is a bit radical, but then I am often forced to cap them, buy them, etc. while supplementing my fleet through HQ production. The armored trade ships bail like crazy, so my preferred method is to sit in a pirate sector and get my 2-3 every RL hour until I have enough, using my HQ to only reproduce destroyed ones. The larger ships shouldn't grow on trees, and need to be a time investment. Again this is easily supplemented by capping, but there is the time consuming lazy option of sitting in SETA all day for HQ production. I find my biggest time investment hasn't been producing ships at all, it has been acquiring equipment and stations/production necessary to outfit them. The new rep system makes things interesting, but it also gives you options like access to the rarer ships, where you can combine that with a discount and save up for a spending spree, and buy all the rare ships you want, so from a gameplay perspective, not so much of an issue.
The balance of the time between production time, resources, and extracurricular activities is my intent. My goal is not to be entirely self-sufficient with my economy completely disconnected from the rest of the universe, and the HQ the only viable means to produce a large fleet. The goal is for the HQ to be an alternative that is competitive to buying and piracy, so that all three can supplement each other. But, currently, they are far from being similar. As you said, the time investment between capturing a Mule vs buying vs building is extremely uneven. So, in this case, capturing a Mule is always the "best" choice (until later when money is no longer an issue). Ideally all three choices are equally viable, but this is very difficult to balance.
atroces wrote: Mon, 7. Jun 21, 23:10 See, then there's no problem. Think of it this way, since you have no issue with it being able to produce rare/unique ships, it is exactly that, with the added benefit of being able to produce all other ships as well. It seems to be one of these arguments saying it is TOO functional. I disagree on that point, where a game like X3 is built on versatility and functionality. It has always been my opinion that if your playstyle involves just SETA timing ship production, then you really aren't doing very much ingame as it is. Your latest point that it is a good idea for rare ships, and that other ships are much easier to get in other ways - YES. Do just that :)
The problem is that compared to piracy and buying, building is never a viable option, except for things that you literally cannot buy or capture. There is less versatility and functionality when the build aspect is so far on the back burner. My playstyle does not involve AFKing in SETA to wait for my ships to be produced. However, the problem is that if I want to produce ships with the HQ, AFKing in SETA is the only choice due to how long it takes. If I am actively playing the game, then waiting 12 hours for the Mule to finish its queue delays whatever plan I had for it for 12 hours. If I let the queue run, then by the time the queue finishes, I probably don't need it anymore because I had 12 hours to either earn the money it costs or to pirate it. Since I don't AFK, my only option is to not use the HQ. It would be better if there was a choice between production and purchasing/piracy, rather than being forced to only use the latter. The time it takes to earn the money to buy a ship vs the time requirement to build the ship yourself is simply too unbalanced.
Midnightknight wrote: Mon, 7. Jun 21, 22:42 And what is the fastest? A one time investment of 200 hours or a 20 times investment of 10 hours? It's exactly the same, simply you feel more comfortable with this one cause it match beter you play style or how you simply feel about it. You prefer staying very long on SETA that's up to you, other people might not feel the same, don't you think? And since almost everyone agree that spending hours AFK on SETA brings nothing to the game, why even force this on player? Be it instant ships building with ton of resources needed or no resources needed and very long time to build a ship you will need, to AFK SETA massively to have the HQ work. I really feel there is a dialogue of the deaf here.
You are looking at it the wrong way. You don't AFK for 200 hours or grind for 200 hours and build an enormous complex all at once. You build it in pieces and use it's production to build more. The new systems in FL allow easy upgrading through automated complex construction and the station upgrade system. The time is also not equal, because as you build more stations, you reduce the time it takes to build more stations and ships in the future.

For example, you could start with a SSP. This provides easy jump energy for your traders/fleet and is required for the HQ production queue and every station. The SSP requires crystals, so the next step could be to expand it with a crystal fab. The crystal fab requires silicon, so maybe silicon mines are your next step. The HQ requires energy, crystals, and silicon to produce ships and stations, so you are already working towards HQ production. You sell the surplus resources as you go to buy ships and more stations to continue the cycle until you can more easily produce it yourself. Even at the "end" when you can produce everything, you still need money to build ships and stations, so you are still trading with the NPCs. And, the NPC Shipyard is still viable because it is instant and infinite.
Argent Valcendre
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed, 12. May 21, 09:27

Re: Ridiculously high REing times of Armoured Transporters.

Post by Argent Valcendre »

With enough credits, we can instant buy a large fleet from a shipyard, but we still need to produce enough weapons and shields to outfit the fleet and make it visit several space equipment docks for equipment.

It would be fair if the shipyard also takes time to build a fleet. Maybe one ship is available to purchase immediately and, if you want to command three more, they need to be built, within a timeframe comparable to the Spacelab.

I like the idea of an upgrade possibility for the Spacelab.

I don‘t understand why the Spacelab needs credits to build ships. It would be more logical if it used ressources only.
atroces
Posts: 79
Joined: Fri, 28. May 21, 18:48

Re: Ridiculously high REing times of Armoured Transporters.

Post by atroces »

Argent Valcendre wrote: Tue, 8. Jun 21, 00:19 I like the idea of an upgrade possibility for the Spacelab.

I don‘t understand why the Spacelab needs credits to build ships. It would be more logical if it used ressources only.
These two arguments mesh well with the current game concept.

1. the Spacelab PHQ should be able to function creditless. I can see expending resources in exchange for Ship Equipment, rather than paying... yourself? credits that you never see. I can also see resource cost expanded to replace credits.

2. Production lanes make sense. In a game version that touts customizability and upgrading of stations, upgrading a station that already has functional production, recycle and reverse engineering queues to have additional queues makes sense. Upgrading to Spacelab M could add an additional production queue. Spacelab L could add an additional reverse queue. Spacelab XL could add an additional recycle queue. Spacelab XXL could add one last production queue.
Have four blueprint crates scattered like pandoras, and each one allows you a one-time upgrade that you can choose to apply to the HQ, with the appropriate resources of course, each tier more expensive, and each tier also adding to the storage of the HQ as well. This continues to promote the concept of discovery, with one more reward for players to look forward to.

Return to “X³: Farnham's Legacy”