Michi continues working on a maintenance release, adding new storage buildings, fixing some bugs and showing a prototype.
You can find the full issue of the development log here.
3 Likes
There will be many cheers for the new storage options.
For STE the description appears to be worded differently in two places. Is it {Expansive}, {Extensive}, or {Expensive}?
I am really excited for the new storage options! I think it’s really cool to have more high cost buildings- they give high capital players a different opportunity to spend resources to grow their effective area.
But we were doing some math on the new Expansive Storage STE and it came up like this:
Ignoring the RE alloys, the STE saves you 10 area over 2x STO at the cost of ~6.2m.
So that’s about $620k per unit area saved.
As your HQ increases the size to add one area goes up:
- Level 20: $65k
- Level 30: $448k
- Level 35: $717k
Generally, I’d say I’m fine with costs being that high, except for one thing:
You can also make STL HCB ships for around 7m each, and they use zero area, and have a lot of potential side utility. I like the poetry of including two HCBs, but it’s 1200 WAL so it really overpowers the other alloys, so I’m not sure if a rational actor will ever choose the STE.
If you want to keep the recipe the same, bumping up the size or decreasing the area could also help.
Open to other thoughts on this. I have been using HCBs for storage on Heph for a while on and off, but it’s probably uncommon.
4 Likes
I do agree with the usage of more RE as a building item, but I feel that this building would make much more sense if both HCB were removed, that lowers the cost for its dramatically but still makes it a pretty expensive building which regular players would be able to use and see a benefit from, not just the top echelon.
1 Like
The cost/benefit of a HCB ship vs STE is even greater if you ever want to shut down that base. The money spent on the STE is gone forever while the ship can continue to be used for other things.
1 Like
Love the changes, love how expensive it is. Great to see this change, my metallurgy bases will rejoice.
1 Like
I agree, the cost for the STE is significantly over a useful value, though I do like that it is a decent improvement at a high cost, perhaps that ratio is a bit too high to be used outside of building it for prestige.
I will say that parking a HCB ship in orbit has it’s downsides, as like a WAR it is not part of the STO and is not as convenient as a STO, but that is outweighted by the benefits, as Ogrebeef points out, the HCB ship can be moved and not lost when scrapping a base.
On a side note, only ~1% of it’s cost is the RE alloys.
The STW and STV are around 20% RE alloys and are an excellent addition, I expect they will be built on a significant numbers of bases as players optimize their STO’s - I would still suggest raising the RE cost (and prefer adding pure RE into the recipe along with RE alloys) as rough calculations based on number of player bases and expected STO’s added/swapped show the RE demand from the new STO’s will only be equivalent to the RE demand from the major Gateway construction (20-30 Gateways), which in my opinion isn’t enough to provide significant long-term demand for RE from the new sectors, though it is still a great improvement over the RE used for Gateway upkeep.
2 Likes
bothers me slightly that STO and STA build material order doesn’t match each other.
would be really nice if there was an even smaller option, say… 1-2 BBH, BSE, BDE and 5 area for 1k t/m. heck, i’d even settle for 500 t/m. maybe STP for storage pod? or STC, storage container
1 Like