When making a contract on mobile, I do not get the option to select the type of template. By default the “buy” template is active.
Workaround is to have a desktop made contract including desired template than can be edited.
However, I beleive not seeing the drop down for the template is a bug. Right?
We should buff the starting $$$ given to new companies. Inflation has run its course over the last few years, and the starting monies they get doesn’t have the same purchasing power as it used to.
We should remove the parentheses workforce gained. The 8000th time this question has been asked and the answer is “x, but it doesn’t matter”. It doesn’t tell us any actionable information and its only purpose has been to confuse noobies.
You’re right, that question does get asked frequently by noobies. Then again, a lot of information that is documented in the handbook has been asked by noobies.
A better solution would be just to make info easier to find and do more to encourage newbies to look in the handbook before asking questions.
Maybe a handy AI search box that will pull up the appropriate handbook/wiki/fio section when someone types in a question.
I’d love to see another version of a planetary warehouse that provides additional space… to your base.
It works exactly as the normal warehouse does, but instead of being a separate inventory, it does what a STO does. Costs should scale and make it quite expensive, but very useful for just that little bit more space someone might need.
I would think that $2 per 1 area would be a sufficient daily cost in upkeep materials, which is around where the govt would set the taxes at. Along with very expensive upfront costs (rfabs).
Each company can rent up to 10 units (1000 storage space). Each unit would give +100 space. Total inventory size would grow from 1500 to 2500 units, with a daily cost of $2000.
I think doing this for base area would also be quite interesting as well. Allowing people to purchase up to 10 more area, raising the maximum to 510. I’d say a cost of $1000 per 1 unit of area would be sufficient. It would make “FUCK THIS PLAN NEEDS 501” so much less painful, as you could pay a $1000\day tax to achieve that. The limits are super low and expensive intentionally, to make it so that it’s a niche use case but very powerful in getting just that little bit more of utility. And, it would add more power to the governments and more resource consumption by them rather than into marketmakers.
Making a formal request for these things (along with repeating CONTD contracts, I’m sure many people would like that too)
Not sure if I understand your last sentence in that screenshot correctly. Are you saying that one cannot fulfill a condition if the contract is marked as “deadline exceeded”? Or are you talking about the contract termination?
Breached contracts can’t be fulfilled. The 1st party of the contact must extend the contact before the 2nd party can fulfill it. The change is that the 2nd party should be able to fulfill it regardless if it’s breached or not.
And, the breach timeline (currently 24hr) should be longer (I suggest 72hr, or, user definable).
I definitely support lowstrife on this:
Contracts definitely need some love, it’s one of the most used features.
Love this game!
Frentic o7
I think we have to get the terminology straight 
If a contract partner misses a deadline for a condition, that condition is violated. The contract is then in status deadline exceeded and can be extended or breached. It breaches automatically after 24 hours.
Once breached the contract has the status breached, which is a terminal status, e.g. the contract cannot recover from it. Other terminal status are fulfilled, terminated, cancelled.
Just to make sure, you want the “breaching partner” to be able to fulfill conditions if the contract is in deadline exceeded status, right?
My apologies for the confusion
Just to make sure, you want the “breaching partner” to be able to fulfill conditions if the contract is in
deadline exceededstatus, right?
Yes!
This sounds correct, yup. You got it.
The only notes I would have are
It breaches automatically after 24 hours.
This “automatically” or “24 hours” causes some issues as well. It’s a manual activity clock that means you must log in every day otherwise it automatically defaults. Especially for loans, which can’t be resumed cleanly, having the ability to extend this or some other configuration would be nice.
For me, personally, the breaching partner being able to fulfill conditions of a deadline exceeded status contract, combined with a change of 24 → 48 hours would eliminate 95% of the edge cases and be a super easy change to implement.
In terms of dev time, I think modifying these defaults is totally fine. I think people would want reoccurring contracts or multi-item contracts before they would want to be able to configure breaching status or the # or hours.
I agree with the needing either user settable breach timer (24hr min kept, but possible to extend to 7 days maybe) or just a set longer interval like 72hrs.
I deal with a load contracts and while most don’t breach, it happens as real world dictates your game time. The player is then stuck with either having to also not miss that 24hr window to keep cycling that extension over and over OR leveling a hit upon someone undeserving of it. its a shitty place to sit at times.
Recurring conts are very much needed as well. FAR MORE THEN GATES!!!
T+6 months, I think it’s time to hit the mm’s one last time.
Small nerf to EDC\IDC. 5 or 10% They don’t need much more to push. I think we should raise the tides of the other items instead of hitting the current existing base hard (which would upset many people too). Also, making EDC 9990 each makes them have a 0.1% tick size, making inter-cx arbitrate much more viable (at the cost of the fx market)…
Buff the rest of the complex systems, the more complex the more the buff. Encourage more complex supply chains. Reward people for making highly complex items. Another round of 20-40% buffs for these. The one exception I can see is that I don’t think LOG needs to be pushed as hard as some of the other ones (like CC, WR, etc).
EDC shouldnt be debuffed as much, as its already got lower profit margins. Even if only for sake of variation, I’d like to see EDC/IDC rather than just IDC for money printers
Suggestion: clarify “Conduct planetary exploration survey” in faction contracts, eg. ⓘ icon that displays “Land a ship on the planet and click the “fulfill” button” when hovered. Every week, someone asks on the HELP chat what it means.
A teeny tiny request: when you open a new buffer with the CXPO command (which is, by far, the most common command I use), the default buffer size is just a few pixels too small. Notice how the "buy and “sell” icons are cut off by a few pixels, so I’m always resizing this window. Can we make it just a little bit bigger by default
I’ve got 2 motions passed on YI-683e, both of which should start immigration programs. However, no faction contract has appeared for the government of said planet, which makes me think it’s a bug
UPD: a screenshot of said government context
UPD 2: new POPR hit today (2024-12-29) and completely ate my starting 200 PIO workforce 
If anyone finds a runaway pioneer, pls send them back
UPD 3: the bug has been fixed with manual population reset, business is booming again
When sending a ship on a flight, you get a list of all of your storage spaces.
The order of this list is:
Bases
Warehouses
CX’s
Pending contracts
This sorting should be reversed. Half of my flights are to the same location (moria cx), as it’s the hub of my entire shipping empire. I would like that to be the #1 suggestion as it’s by far the most common place I am sending a ship, and so, CX’s and pending contracts should be the #1 and #2 items IMO.
