Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Uhlang]

I agree that stations need some additional features to make them more worthwhile to construct.

Going back to this for a moment... how about adding a station-exclusive structure that improves accessibility on all colonies in the system the same way gatekeeper stations do?
In my mind, it would basically be a separate-slot extension to Spaceports/Megaports. It could be called a "Starhub" or something and be justified with a description that says that it's designed to take full advantage of the lack of surrounding gravity and atmosphere, allowing the station to act as a hub that greatly improves the local space infrastructure.
For the accessibility bonus, I imagine something like 20% for the station itself and 10% or so for the other colonies. The system-wide bonus could get ridiculous in systems with many gas giants or massive planets, but I think that an empire that can build that many siphon stations and astropoli is probably already so rich that it wouldn't benefit from the extra accessibility all that much, anyway.

[boggled]

This is the 'native' world I tried editing and terraforming.

Here you can see the lobster pens condition, and the commodity list.

Spoiler

[close]

The tooltip for the aquaculture.

Spoiler

[close]

The colony stockpile.

Spoiler

[close]

And the commodity tooltip.

Spoiler

[close]

Volturn doesn't have the lobsters listed in its commodity exports either.

Spoiler

[close]

Volturn's industry tooltip shows the same.

Spoiler

[close]

And the commodity tooltip.

Spoiler

[close]

Looks like I've mis-remembered the commodity list, but I'm fairly certain that a colony with lobsters should be appearing on the places to buy list.
I don't currently have an example of a 'non-native' water world, but I'll change that shortly.

[edit]
And the terraformed colony, complete with exports in the commodity tooltip.

Spoiler

[close]

Thanks for taking the time to help me look into this. It appears that everything looks identical to Volturn except on one of your planets the lobsters aren't listed under "best places to buy". I noticed on your second colony you appear to have the commerce industry constructed, while on your other planet you don't. I think that on player-controlled planets, there is no market for you to buy from, whereas on your second planet the independent market is stocking lobsters, which makes them appear under "best places to buy". This should be easy to confirm: deconstruct the commerce industry on the second planet and built it on the first. The "best places to buy" should update accordingly.

I agree that stations need some additional features to make them more worthwhile to construct.

Going back to this for a moment... how about adding a station-exclusive structure that improves accessibility on all colonies in the system the same way gatekeeper stations do?
In my mind, it would basically be a separate-slot extension to Spaceports/Megaports. It could be called a "Starhub" or something and be justified with a description that says that it's designed to take full advantage of the lack of surrounding gravity and atmosphere, allowing the station to act as a hub that greatly improves the local space infrastructure.
For the accessibility bonus, I imagine something like 20% for the station itself and 10% or so for the other colonies. The system-wide bonus could get ridiculous in systems with many gas giants or massive planets, but I think that an empire that can build that many siphon stations and astropoli is probably already so rich that it wouldn't benefit from the extra accessibility all that much, anyway.

I think system-wide accessibility increases are very powerful, and even two or three stations stacking that bonus will become very overpowered very quickly. I like this idea, but maybe limiting it to one per system would prevent it from creating ridiculous 300% accessibility markets late in the game.

[Uhlang]

I think system-wide accessibility increases are very powerful, and even two or three stations stacking that bonus will become very overpowered very quickly. I like this idea, but maybe limiting it to one per system would prevent it from creating ridiculous 300% accessibility markets late in the game.

Limiting it to one per system is fair, but that would only partially fulfill the purpose of making stations worthwhile. You'd only need one to get the bonus and that's it.
I'd suggest just lowering the accessibility bonus instead(to 5%, maybe?), but that would mean that the first one built would be rather useless, basically making it a bonus that's only worthwhile to those who are already wealthy enough to freely build multiple stations.
If possible, I think the best solution would be implementing diminishing returns. E.g. 10% from the first one, 7% from the second, 5% from the third, 3% from the fourth, and then 1% from the fifth onwards. The first four combined would give a nice 25% increase, and I'm not sure how many people would bother getting it higher when each new one starts giving just 1%, so I'd say it's a nice middle ground between locking the bonus to a single station and allowing the insane bonuses from multiple stations with flat stacking.
And if you find it OP, you have the option of putting the structure behind a hefty price tag or harsh upkeep/demand.

[Mondaymonkey]

I'd suggest just lowering the accessibility bonus instead(to 5%, maybe?), but that would mean that the first one built would be rather useless, basically making it a bonus that's only worthwhile to those who are already wealthy enough to freely build multiple stations.
If possible, I think the best solution would be implementing diminishing returns. E.g. 10% from the first one, 7% from the second, 5% from the third, 3% from the fourth, and then 1% from the fifth onwards.

If we started to dig that deep... Why not differentiate bonuses entirely (instead of decreasing bonus increase rate), based on amount of hubs available in a system? I try to explain, but you should consider this is a bad example, I just unable to propose better:

1. First hub in a system will provide nothing than stockpile size increase, similar to waystation do.
2. If you have two hubs in a system, both will achieve bonus 1 and additional in-factional import capacity. (not sure if it actually possible to adjust).
3. If there are 3 hubs in a system, all stations with them get bonuses 1 and 2 and +20% extra accessibility for stations with hubs. All non-hostile markets in systems gain flat +10 accessibility bonus.
4. Network of 4 hubs will provide all the bonuses 1-2-3 and additionally increase burn level of all non-hostile non-military (in other words - traders only) with a factor of 2. In the system, of course. Alternatively - increase fleet strength for non-hostile trade fleets, generated in that system.

Well... Yeah... That is terrible...

But the point is: give entirely different bonuses, based on amount of hubs, and not get hung up on accessibility only.

[boggled]

I think system-wide accessibility increases are very powerful, and even two or three stations stacking that bonus will become very overpowered very quickly. I like this idea, but maybe limiting it to one per system would prevent it from creating ridiculous 300% accessibility markets late in the game.

Limiting it to one per system is fair, but that would only partially fulfill the purpose of making stations worthwhile. You'd only need one to get the bonus and that's it.
I'd suggest just lowering the accessibility bonus instead(to 5%, maybe?), but that would mean that the first one built would be rather useless, basically making it a bonus that's only worthwhile to those who are already wealthy enough to freely build multiple stations.
If possible, I think the best solution would be implementing diminishing returns. E.g. 10% from the first one, 7% from the second, 5% from the third, 3% from the fourth, and then 1% from the fifth onwards. The first four combined would give a nice 25% increase, and I'm not sure how many people would bother getting it higher when each new one starts giving just 1%, so I'd say it's a nice middle ground between locking the bonus to a single station and allowing the insane bonuses from multiple stations with flat stacking.
And if you find it OP, you have the option of putting the structure behind a hefty price tag or harsh upkeep/demand.

I'd suggest just lowering the accessibility bonus instead(to 5%, maybe?), but that would mean that the first one built would be rather useless, basically making it a bonus that's only worthwhile to those who are already wealthy enough to freely build multiple stations.
If possible, I think the best solution would be implementing diminishing returns. E.g. 10% from the first one, 7% from the second, 5% from the third, 3% from the fourth, and then 1% from the fifth onwards.

If we started to dig that deep... Why not differentiate bonuses entirely (instead of decreasing bonus increase rate), based on amount of hubs available in a system? I try to explain, but you should consider this is a bad example, I just unable to propose better:

1. First hub in a system will provide nothing than stockpile size increase, similar to waystation do.
2. If you have two hubs in a system, both will achieve bonus 1 and additional in-factional import capacity. (not sure if it actually possible to adjust).
3. If there are 3 hubs in a system, all stations with them get bonuses 1 and 2 and +20% extra accessibility for stations with hubs. All non-hostile markets in systems gain flat +10 accessibility bonus.
4. Network of 4 hubs will provide all the bonuses 1-2-3 and additionally increase burn level of all non-hostile non-military (in other words - traders only) with a factor of 2. In the system, of course. Alternatively - increase fleet strength for non-hostile trade fleets, generated in that system.

Well... Yeah... That is terrible...

But the point is: give entirely different bonuses, based on amount of hubs, and not get hung up on accessibility only.

These are both options, although I would still need some plausible description for the structure itself. Spaceports can already be built on stations and zero-g industry is represented by the orbital works.

[majorfreak]

uhm...so i have this installed but not DYI. anyone have both mods installed?

[Mondaymonkey]

plausible description for the structure itself.

Oh, that would be hard. I could make a long physics lesson to explain what is the difference between low-orbit zero-G and deep-space zero-G (BTW that reason can not be applicable to siphons, as they are 100% not in deep space...), and it's impact on logistic. But translation it into english - far beyond my possibilities.

And even if I would be able - that would be boring to read. SS is barely scientific fiction, rather fantasy, with [REDACTED] instead of orks and nanoforges instead of magic. So, I suggest just "invent" some space-opera thing, that will fit in SS without breaking the lore.

Always could be performed a trick, called "ear feint" (can not translate that better), similar to what Alex did with comm relays: description said they could not be placed on a potentially habitable planets (or near them) because of the pernicious radiation relay emits. Why not just say hubs "uses an extreme precision navigation matrix that allow much faster and safer docking procedures. That calculations are absolutely impossible in ordinary conditions without crossing of AI red line. But far away of massive stellar objects, that creates interference, it is possible to use low-energy negative gravioli detector, to create an accurate map of all objects in close space with minimal calculations needed".

Yup, that's the biggest *** I ever propose... 

[Mondaymonkey]

uhm...so i have this installed but not DYI. anyone have both mods installed?

Some guys reported they are full compatible. No guaranties, tho'.

[Uhlang]

Spaceports are probably constructed based on similar specifications regardless of whether they're on planets or stations. The structure, on the other hand, would be designed specifically with zero-g and no atmosphere in mind, letting it utilize the three-dimensional freedom as well as lack of air resistance and escape velocity to turn the station into a true hub on the interstellar highway.

[boggled]

Spaceports are probably constructed based on similar specifications regardless of whether they're on planets or stations. The structure, on the other hand, would be designed specifically with zero-g and no atmosphere in mind, letting it utilize the three-dimensional freedom as well as lack of air resistance and escape velocity to turn the station into a true hub on the interstellar highway.

See the description below for the Jangala orbital station. I don't think having a specific "zero-g spaceport" structure would make sense when some planet-based colonies already have them according to the lore.

"Orbiting megacity, naval yard, and port; the unquestioned cosmopolitan center of civilization and culture in the Corvus system as well as the seat of the Hegemony military district encompassing the local systems. Heavy commercial and naval traffic swarm the station at all times. Formed of a vast tiered structure, the first ancient fueling and repair gantries are hidden among corroded industrial hangars that lie in the shadow of a huge ring of laboratories and associated support systems. Higher still, commercial concourses, metroplex districts, and many-winged shipyards are all watched over by a command & control spire bristling with communications arrays and weapon pods."

[Uhlang]

Seeing as it's "ancient," I think it's debatable whether it can be compared to the hypothetical structure in question.

Consider the old towns of major European cities. They're often important hubs of trade and transport, but many of them have been built in a time when we didn't even have cars, so their streets are cramped and woefully unfit for modern infrastructure, forcing the authorities to adopt road rules that make the process of just getting around them extremely inefficient.
I imagine that Jangala station also has a lot of pre-Collapse quirks that prevent it from being the effective hub it could be.
The "zero-g spaceport" I'm proposing would be the Starsector equivalent of a new town built with proper city planning that's considerate of our modern infrastructure.

[Mondaymonkey]

...With one problem here: "Modern" Persean Sector state is decay, so any "ancient" means "superior to modern".

[Uhlang]

...With one problem here: "Modern" Persean Sector state is decay, so any "ancient" means "superior to modern".

Key term: "pre-Collapse quirks."
Jangala station was obviously built with the gate system in mind, and although technically superior, its design probably doesn't suit the modern state of the sector.
You can have the best heater in the world, but it's not gonna help you much if you live in the Sahara.

[Mondaymonkey]

You can have the best heater in the world, but it's not gonna help you much if you live in the Sahara.

Offtopic

Nights are cold in Sahara.

[close]

[Uhlang]

Offtopic

That somehow slipped my mind, but you know what I meant. Replace it with the Amazon or something. I doubt heater salesmen are making much of a profit in Manaus.

[close]