Idea: Ownership of populated sectors gives sector owner an income

[Falcrack]

NPC factions seek ownership and control of sectors. But why? Owning sectors gives neither players nor NPC factions any sort of real bonus. They only seek sector ownership because they are scripted to fo so.

But what if sector ownership gave both the player and NPC factions some real, tangible benefits? I suggest that sector ownership gives the owner a steady amount of income, proportional to the amount of population in the sector. You could increase the population levels (and thus also sector income) through terraforming, or maybe diplomatic means to encourage migration.

It should probably be balanced so that sector ownership does not immediately flip once the previous owner's last administration module is destroyed. Maybe there could be a countdown timer to sector ownership change, to give the previous owner time to mount an offensive to take back full control of the sector. And would require some rebalancing of population levels across the map.

Of course, while the extra money would benefit the player, it would not currently benefit NPC factions, because they already have infinite money. But if factions had limited amounts of funds like the player, then owning sectors would directly benefit them. Factions that control more populated territories would have greater purchasing power, so even if they lack in their own resources, they could purchase materials from other factions to support their ship building.

This brings up another point, which is that if there is a constant flow of money into the game universe from sector ownership, there would need to be an equal flow of money out of the game universe, to reach a state of equilibrium. Orherwise money would simply keep accumulating until is is essentially infinite.

That's why I think the game also needs maintenance costs for ships and stations. Each ship and station would have an upkeep cost, proportional to its original cost.

If for example the total amount of income from all the sectors in the game is a billion credits per hour, the total maintenance costs for all ships and stations should be roughly equal to that. If factions build too much, then they would lose money to the point that they can no longer support all their ships and stations. At that point, they would slowly start selling off or dismantling their assets until they reach a point where their income levels and ship/stations levels are in a state of equilibrium. If they have a large excess of money, they would buy more ships and stations until their balance starts to decrease.

This way, without relying on any sort of unit caps or pre-programmed behavior, the total ship and station capacity of the galaxy could be kept balanced, simply based on the balance between population levels of the galaxy and the maintenance costs of ships and stations. It would be a fully dynamic, simulated economy, where both wares and credits truly matter. Your financial support of factions would directly influence their strength.

Perhaps for the player, they would not need to pay any maintenance costs for the ship they are currently piloting. And maybe until they reach a certain level of wealth in terms of credits and ships/stations, their maintenance costs would be reduced, so that it would not heavily impact the early game.

[vvvvvvvv]

NPC factions seek ownership and control of sectors. But why? Owning sectors gives neither players nor NPC factions any sort of real bonus.

That's not true.
Sector population affects workspace replenishment speed, which by default is very very slow. That allows you to print fully crewed ships faster. In sectors you terraform, population on the planet affects available sector population. Which is a reason for you to stay and build more habitats on the planet.
Sector ownership also blocks travel for factions owner is hostile with. And allows you to shut down transfer of goods. Or box factions in. That's practical reasons. Because you can blockade factions.

Regarding maintenance costs, those were discussed before here:
viewtopic.php?p=5282062#p5282062

Basically, you are currently asking for arcade-like mechanic from crafting games everything breaks after few uses. That is not very interesting because it is a fake challenge. So regarding everything you listed I'd rather not have any sort of sector income or maintenance expenses. Money is easy enough to make when you snowball, but an artificial challenge does not improve this situation.

It would be interesting to have something to do with the planets, like having planetary markets and civilian goods. But your proposals with maintenance and fees for me do not sound entertaining.

[Falcrack]

That's not true.
Sector population affects workspace replenishment speed, which by default is very very slow. That allows you to print fully crewed ships faster. In sectors you terraform, population on the planet affects available sector population. Which is a reason for you to stay and build more habitats on the planet.
Sector ownership also blocks travel for factions owner is hostile with. And allows you to shut down transfer of goods. Or box factions in. That's practical reasons. Because you can blockade factions.

Regarding maintenance costs, those were discussed before here:
viewtopic.php?p=5282062#p5282062

Basically, you are currently asking for arcade-like mechanic from crafting games everything breaks after few uses. That is not very interesting because it is a fake challenge. So regarding everything you listed I'd rather not have any sort of sector income or maintenance expenses. Money is easy enough to make when you snowball, but an artificial challenge does not improve this situation.

It would be interesting to have something to do with the planets, like having planetary markets and civilian goods. But your proposals with maintenance and fees for me do not sound entertaining.

Workplace replenishment speeds don't seem to be important enough of a reason to try to take over sectors. I would want sector ownership to have profound impacts on faction power, not marginal or theoretical impacts.

If a faction is hostile to you, they will traverse your sector whether you want them to or not. Sector ownership does not influence that. And blockading sectors does not provide any direct benefit to the owner of the blockading sector, other than harm their enemies.

How is what I am asking for "arcade-like"? What I love about X4 is the simulated universe. While X4 was a step up ftom X3 in terms of economy simulation, requiring ships to be made from wares sourced from the economy, the economic sim is still half-baked because there is not monetary simulation, aside from the player. How would everything break after a few uses, as you said?

I don't see maintenance as an artificial challenge. It could be a real challenge, where the player has to be careful to balance military assets with economic assets. What I proposed would not infinitely snowball, since there is a finite population, and thus a finite supply of new credits to support ships in the galaxy. Eventually, now matter how much you try to expand the economy to support your fleets, you would hit the upper limit where there simply isn't enough money generated by the sectors in the galaxy to support all the ships you want.

I do like the idea of civilian goods and planetary interaction. I think my ideas to improve the economic simulation could work with that as well.

[Feloidea]

NPC factions could get an increase fleet capacity for additional sectors owned other than their default core sectors.

[Falcrack]

NPC factions could get an increase fleet capacity for additional sectors owned other than their default core sectors.

That works for NPC fleets. But does nothing to address the snowballing player fleets which have neither hard caps, nor soft caps (which is what maintenance costs for ships would function as). Also, would not incentivize players to become sector owners.

[Alan Phipps]

Money is a poor incentive by the time the player is likely to be claiming contested sectors. It means little to the player and the other factions don't use it at all in terms of influence anyway.

What might be a nice idea for populated sector ownership is an increasingly better supply of ship crew of the local main faction (better skills and general availability than current average) as you gain more sectors there. That could even be some incentive for your very first populated sector takeover.

[Feloidea]

NPC factions could get an increase fleet capacity for additional sectors owned other than their default core sectors.

That works for NPC fleets. But does nothing to address the snowballing player fleets which have neither hard caps, nor soft caps (which is what maintenance costs for ships would function as). Also, would not incentivize players to become sector owners.

I meant as a benefit for NPC factions conquering additional sectors instead of just changing the sector colours. Additional fleet cap for NPC factions would both aid whomever is expanding by giving them a larger potential fleet as well as stimulating the economy as addition fleet quotas increase the demand for the required wares needed to build and replace these fleets, something that can strenghten NPC economies as they expand to meet the demand with the needed supply or be something the player can profit from.

For the player: I would honestly like it if, similar to the terraforming feature, you could build some stuff to actively shape the sector. For example a mega-hab station which provides a huge workforce recruitment bonus in the sector it's build in (allowing players to make a sector a core production region where you don't have to wait ages for stations to reach maximum efficiency bonuses), or other things that can have tangible benefits and permanently alter the sector (simple brainstorm ideas could be a partial dyson swarm in a sector with above average sunlight intensity which functions as a solar power plant on steroids, or in sectors with resources increases the resource yield or replenish rate). Ownership of these features (where it would logically apply, like say the dyson swarm which would produce a ware) would be tied to whomever owns the sector (so one could for example take the sector, build the stuff and then have a NPC faction you wish to empower take it back).

I like the terraforming feature in general, but it's mostly just a prestige resource sink for players that already have everything, so something that's less resource intensive but also shapes the universe would be a neat addition.

[Falcrack]

Money is a poor incentive by the time the player is likely to be claiming contested sectors. It means little to the player and the other factions don't use it at all in terms of influence anyway.

Right now, money is a poor incentive for sector ownership. Because there are no maintenance costs. If I were to have my idea implemented, I think you would find that money would be a limiting factor and something that needs to be carefully managed at all times in the game, both early game and advanced games. You would very much be incentivized to become the owner of valuable populated sectors to help cover your maintenance costs. It would, essentially, make it a lot harder to become a multi billionaire, because with massive fleets, you would also have massive running costs.

With my idea, factions would directly benefit from owning sectors, because it would be the primary means by which they cover the costs of their fleets and stations. That would certainly affect their influence.

[Starlight_Corporation]

Your proposal is quite flawed imo. NPC factions aren't humans & cannot be at the same level as us for a long time. Hence the infinite money as a way to make sure factions don't collapse easy. Your proposal would also punish smaller factions harshly. Less sectors -> less income-> less ships & stations, so they stand no chance against the bigger factions.
Granting NPC factions limited credits would need a much smarter AI & limits imposed on the player to level the field & keep the game simulation afloat.

Sector ownership would be great with some extra bonuses, but doubt rewriting the credit economy from the ground up is the solution to it. Faster population growth for player/NPC would be nice & giving the NPC's a few extra shipjobs as a bonus for having extra sectors beyond their starting sector can add some nice benefits already. More NPC ships means they'll also buy more stuff from you to build them (or order more ships at your shipyard)

[vvvvvvvv]

NPC factions could get an increase fleet capacity for additional sectors owned other than their default core sectors.

This sort of mechanic will create death spirals. Where a faction will suddenly become overwhelmingly strong and wipe out all competition. That is not very interesting from player viewpoint. For me at least.

I meant as a benefit for NPC factions conquering additional sectors instead of just changing the sector colours.

Don't take it a wrong way, but there's no reason for NPCs to gain any benefits because they're robots and have no feelings. Their purpose, being robots, is to provide entertaining world for the player and not act in perfectly sensible way. Your mechanic with growing fleets will make very unstable world, where one faction will snowball and wipe out everybody else. So instead of xenon extinction we'll be dealing I guess at least with PAR/HOP extinction and similar events. Those are not fun. Actually even map painting is not very entertaining, because sectors have lore, but once they change ownership, lore becomes outdated.

The main issue is that "NPCs acting as agents with their own goals" does not produce entertaining gameplay. Their AI ends up too strong or too weak, but never reaches the sweet spot of fun.

For the player: I would honestly like it if, similar to the terraforming feature, you could build some stuff to actively shape the sector. For example a mega-hab station which provides a huge workforce recruitment bonus in the sector it's build in

That sounds more fun, but definitely a no to dyson swarm. The world does not seem to have this level of tech.

[Falcrack]

Your proposal is quite flawed imo. NPC factions aren't humans & cannot be at the same level as us for a long time. Hence the infinite money as a way to make sure factions don't collapse easy. Your proposal would also punish smaller factions harshly. Less sectors -> less income-> less ships & stations, so they stand no chance against the bigger factions.
Granting NPC factions limited credits would need a much smarter AI & limits imposed on the player to level the field & keep the game simulation afloat.

I agree the AI would have to be improved to more intelligently handle assets. But it need not make these calculations continuously. If the AI were to run a script every 10 minutes to assess whether it needed new ships or stations based on the economic situation, I think that would be sufficient.

As to the collapsing factions thing, there could be some code written into the game where factions will not attempt to entirely wipe out other factions. They will satisfy themselves going a few sectors deep, and could have restriction written in to prevent them taking sectors from a faction which is severely weakened.

[flywlyx]

I’d say adding mining charges, duty and tolls is more likely to happen than a complete overhaul of the economic system. In my view, sector ownership should serve as a point of interaction between players and NPC factions. This would not only make NPC factions feel more dynamic but also add depth to the diplomatic and economic gameplay.

For example, players could be required to purchase a mining license from the sector owner. Once active, the license would automatically apply a mining tax whenever the ship extracts resources. If the player lacks a license or the funds to pay the tax, their reputation with the faction would gradually decline. Additional mechanics could include tax refunds if the mined resources are sold to the owner's stations, supporting that faction's economy.

A similar system could apply to trade duties. Licenses would calculate charges based on cargo value, with different factions applying varying duty rates to reflect their economic preferences or strategic priorities.

Tolls, on the other hand, should apply only to military vessels. It's always felt odd that players can march an entire fleet through an NPC faction's core sectors without consequence. While tolls may not be an ideal solution, they would at least introduce a sense of accountability.

Once the player gains control of a sector, they can begin collecting mining taxes, trade duties, and tolls—at the cost of reputation. The higher the rates, the greater the diplomatic penalty. However, after establishing an embassy, players could negotiate trade agreements with NPC factions to adjust mutual tax and duty rates based on diplomacy, trade volume, or political alignment.

This system could be layered onto the existing game mechanics without requiring a full economic overhaul. It would naturally slow down early profits from mining and trading—though this could be mitigated through tax refund incentives—and, if implemented carefully, could extend to NPC factions as well. Such a system would introduce political tension and emergent narrative into the X4 universe: for example, Argon resenting Teladi for over-exporting into their economy. Players could then influence whether the two factions strike a duty deal—or spiral toward open conflict. It could also introduce significant uncertainty to trade. For example, selling hull parts from Avarice was highly profitable until the VIG imposed a 50% export tax. This added unpredictability will greatly increase the depth of the economic gameplay.

[Feloidea]

NPC factions could get an increase fleet capacity for additional sectors owned other than their default core sectors.

This sort of mechanic will create death spirals. Where a faction will suddenly become overwhelmingly strong and wipe out all competition. That is not very interesting from player viewpoint. For me at least.

I meant as a benefit for NPC factions conquering additional sectors instead of just changing the sector colours.

Don't take it a wrong way, but there's no reason for NPCs to gain any benefits because they're robots and have no feelings. Their purpose, being robots, is to provide entertaining world for the player and not act in perfectly sensible way. Your mechanic with growing fleets will make very unstable world, where one faction will snowball and wipe out everybody else. So instead of xenon extinction we'll be dealing I guess at least with PAR/HOP extinction and similar events. Those are not fun. Actually even map painting is not very entertaining, because sectors have lore, but once they change ownership, lore becomes outdated.

The main issue is that "NPCs acting as agents with their own goals" does not produce entertaining gameplay. Their AI ends up too strong or too weak, but never reaches the sweet spot of fun.

For the player: I would honestly like it if, similar to the terraforming feature, you could build some stuff to actively shape the sector. For example a mega-hab station which provides a huge workforce recruitment bonus in the sector it's build in

That sounds more fun, but definitely a no to dyson swarm. The world does not seem to have this level of tech.

1.) Doesn't need to, it all depends on how the numbers are tweaked. Extra fleet capacity doesn't directly translate into getting stronger. Additional sectors means more sectors they need to police and defend. Depending on how much higher their fleet cap gets per surplus sector, it could just aswell stay at a merely self-sustaining level.
Plus, just getting a higher fleet cap doesn't mean they have those fleets. Unless the player actively supports the faction economy, most NPC factions barely have the economy base to max out their default jobs or sustain their numbers after losses. Conversely, factions already can easily steamroll others if the player supports them. Really the only reason they don't are the static relations between NPC factions.

2.) I rather obviously meant it as a mechanical benefit, not as an emotional incentive to coerce them ... and your assumption that it will inevitably result in a faction snowballing to complete dominance is a rather sweeping assertion. Nothing I said would necessarily facilitate such an end result, nor do I think I implied my suggestion would intend to result in such so I don't really understand what warrants such hyperbole. You don't have to like my suggestion (or parts of my suggestion as is) but I'd thank you not to reduce it to a hypothetical worst case scenario as if it were a foregone conclusion. I understand that you and others may prefer a passive world state that players can shape as they wish, but I personally prefer it if the world were a bit more alive and proactive in shaping itself without necessitating player input as the impetus for nearly all change (as of yet, the only gameplay element in the game that fulfills such a purpose are the Xenons and more often than not their influence on the universe swiftly peters out to the point of players making Xenon sanctuaries to stop their extinction).

3.) The dyson swarm was merely a brain storm idea thrown into the void as an example. Considering the mega structures that do exist in the universe as per lore I don't see how it would be out of the scope of its tech level (especially considering I said "partial dyson swarm", i.e.: a fraction of what a complete dyson swarm, let alone a dyson sphere would be), but it's merits or lack thereof as an asset in the gameworld is something that's subject to detailed discussion if this suggestion ever were considered in depth.

[vvvvvvvv]

1.) Doesn't need to, it all depends on how the numbers are tweaked.

Well, the idea here is that "if something can go wrong, it will go wrong" and tweaking those numbers takes time.

Basically in the ideal world we would get a perfect version with no flaws. But we are not living in that ideal world.
The initial release will inevitably have oversights, those will take time to fix, and that's when death spirals will be happening. Or another crippling problem of similar magnitude.

So it will be a mess which will wreck saves and likely it will last months if not more. The chances of that not happening are low.

[Falcrack]

I remember back maybe around 2012 waiting for a mod for X3 which never came, called Timelines. I was excited about it because the goal was to have all ships produced made from wares in the economy. I remember advocating for this idea long ago, and having people shoot down my ideas as saying it was too impractical, the AI could never handle it, and questioning how it would make the game any more enjoyable.

Well here we are with X4. Ships and stations are made with wares from the economy, and somehow, it works. I feel the game is light years better for the extra level of simulations. If that same focus could also be applied to the economic simulation of the game (ie factions need to managr money, and are not just given infinite money), I think it could work, and the game would be better for it.

[vvvvvvvv]

I remember back maybe around 2012 waiting for a mod for X3 which never came, called Timelines. I was excited about it because the goal was to have all ships produced made from wares in the economy. I remember advocating for this idea long ago, and having people shoot down my ideas as saying it was too impractical, the AI could never handle it, and questioning how it would make the game any more enjoyable.

Well here we are with X4. Ships and stations are made with wares from the economy, and somehow, it works. I feel the game is light years better for the extra level of simulations. If that same focus could also be applied to the economic simulation of the game (ie factions need to managr money, and are not just given infinite money), I think it could work, and the game would be better for it.

Timeframe matters. I don't exactly want to wait 12 years for a better version, because 12 year wait is no longer exciting when you're no longer a kid.

For that reason I'd prefer a tactical surgical fixes that can be implemented quickly. The idea with rewards, benefits, like I said, will produces some unexpected "failure cascades" which will take eternity to implement. "Surgical features" add things that work NOW and on t op you'll get your much better game 12 years later.

For example, it will be a LOT easier to:
* Add planetary docking hubs (elevators) which consume resources.
* Make them buy civilian resources.
* Add said resources to the game.

A lot of resources persisted but got renamed, like Stott Spices became spices, Delexian(?) Wheat is probably wheat (needs a double check) and so on. But the world won't end if you add Cloth Rimes, again. Past that point it would be possible to add planetary economies with basic dynamics like events driving consumptions of this or that. Again, this will not cause spirals and cascades. This, I think, would be the right way to go.

Egosoft, as far as I can tell, is doing exactly that, because their last updates came with surgical tweaks, although some were bigger than others. One small improvement at the time.

[Falcrack]

Timeframe matters. I don't exactly want to wait 12 years for a better version, because 12 year wait is no longer exciting when you're no longer a kid.

For that reason I'd prefer a tactical surgical fixes that can be implemented quickly. The idea with rewards, benefits, like I said, will produces some unexpected "failure cascades" which will take eternity to implement. "Surgical features" add things that work NOW and on t op you'll get your much better game 12 years later.

For example, it will be a LOT easier to:
* Add planetary docking hubs (elevators) which consume resources.
* Make them buy civilian resources.
* Add said resources to the game.

A lot of resources persisted but got renamed, like Stott Spices became spices, Delexian(?) Wheat is probably wheat (needs a double check) and so on. But the world won't end if you add Cloth Rimes, again. Past that point it would be possible to add planetary economies with basic dynamics like events driving consumptions of this or that. Again, this will not cause spirals and cascades. This, I think, would be the right way to go.

Egosoft, as far as I can tell, is doing exactly that, because their last updates came with surgical tweaks, although some were bigger than others. One small improvement at the time.

I'm not saying I need to see my ideas implemented right now. I'd be happy for a more fully simulated economy (including tracking credits for factions) in X5. I'm making no demands, just setting forth my ideas for what I think would make the game better.

Part of the appeal of X4 is that what you do really matters. You blow up a shipment of goods to a shipyard, and ship production is delayed.

I want that same logic extended to economic activities. Right now, you buy a ship from a shipyard, and how does it benefit the NPC shipyard? It doesn't, it is a 100% loss for the shipyard, because while wares are limited, credits for the shipyard are unlimited, therefore, worthless. Same with buying wares from one faction and selling to another faction, the selling faction in effect suffers a 100% loss with no recompensation, because money is worthless to them.

Money only has value because of scarcity. Take away scarcity, and money has no value at all.

But if buying ships or wares from NPC factions gave them cash, and they were short on cash before, now your purchase of ships or wares enables the NPC faction to buy something else it might not have been able to afford before. Your economic activities and purchases would have a real, tangible effect on the universe.

If owning a sector gave NPC factions money, and money is not unlimited for them, then owning sectors would also have real, tangible effects on the universe.

I'm prepared to wait for the game I want. Just trying to give the devs an idea of what I would like, for future consideration.

[spankahontis]

NPC factions seek ownership and control of sectors. But why? Owning sectors gives neither players nor NPC factions any sort of real bonus.

That's not true.
Sector population affects workspace replenishment speed, which by default is very very slow. That allows you to print fully crewed ships faster. In sectors you terraform, population on the planet affects available sector population. Which is a reason for you to stay and build more habitats on the planet.
Sector ownership also blocks travel for factions owner is hostile with. And allows you to shut down transfer of goods. Or box factions in. That's practical reasons. Because you can blockade factions.

Regarding maintenance costs, those were discussed before here:
viewtopic.php?p=5282062#p5282062

Basically, you are currently asking for arcade-like mechanic from crafting games everything breaks after few uses. That is not very interesting because it is a fake challenge. So regarding everything you listed I'd rather not have any sort of sector income or maintenance expenses. Money is easy enough to make when you snowball, but an artificial challenge does not improve this situation.

It would be interesting to have something to do with the planets, like having planetary markets and civilian goods. But your proposals with maintenance and fees for me do not sound entertaining.

It would be better if the system/sector has a unique buff, like a mining colony on the planet that increases Ore production for stations with a refinery in that sector. Or a Sector with a higher concentration of Space Flies in the asteroids.

I mean you already have sectors close to suns that increase energy production ratios and populated worlds that increase workforce recruitment.
it would be interesting to have a tactical element for factions. How does a faction that produces energy faster fare against a faction that mines ore faster?

[vvvvvvvv]

It would be better if the system/sector has a unique buff, like a mining colony on the planet that increases Ore production for stations with a refinery in that sector.

Those are already present in form of sunlight and ore being present or not present. Having ore is a buff because ships will not need to travel far.

Mining colony increasing ore production, however, is something I wouldn't want. If it boosts production by existing, thats "it works by power of magic" type of thing. How does it work, exactly? Ships would need to go there and sell ore to use it. I mean if you have a bakery in your building it won't make you any better at making pancakes. or something like that.

[spankahontis]

It would be better if the system/sector has a unique buff, like a mining colony on the planet that increases Ore production for stations with a refinery in that sector.

Those are already present in form of sunlight and ore being present or not present. Having ore is a buff because ships will not need to travel far.

Mining colony increasing ore production, however, is something I wouldn't want. If it boosts production by existing, thats "it works by power of magic" type of thing. How does it work, exactly? Ships would need to go there and sell ore to use it. I mean if you have a bakery in your building it won't make you any better at making pancakes. or something like that.

I don't understand your analogy mate.

I mean like the planet itself is a mining world that has settlers there.
It makes mining in that sector faster. Using sectors as strategic points in a war.
Also sectors with other perks like Space fly breeding ground, more likely to find space flies there.

I know we have sunlight buffs/debuffs there with Avarice having the highest and Sol with less past the asteroid belt.
Be good to see systems with more Averice like hazards like meteor storms or solar storms, or being too close to a black hole