I don’t think we would want to lock early players out of specialization - I think we would encourage them to specialize as early as possible - taking advantage of COGC, etc. I do agree that Fuel Refining should be merged into Resource Extraction.
2 Likes
Yeah some buffs should be made if needed vs just removing it as a starter option.
Fuel should probably be its own topic though.
1 Like
As a newer player, I’d like to add my two cents. I agree with what lowstrife suggested. I played back in 2021 and ended up quitting because there was virtually no market liquidity for new players to meaningfully participate. Combined with the slow early-game progression, there just wasn’t much incentive to stick around.
I recently returned, and the improved coordination to support new players has helped a lot. That said, for someone who is completely new, simply trying the game without digging into the forums, I think retention will still be very low. Outside of basic goods, there isn’t much market liquidity, which makes it hard for new players to really engage with the economy.
2 Likes
It highly depends on what cx you’re on how much liquidity there is. Moria and antares are substantially better than hortus\benten.
2 Likes
In some ways, I wish new players would be funneled into Moria or Antares to make it easier for them - but this would match with my earlier proposal to have ‘points’ for bases - instead of a 1-1 HQ to base - and this would help ‘encourage’ senior players to leave the area and go to other places. But the player base just isn’t big enough to support four different CXs with enough liquidity that new players have ample volume.
1 Like
I think an interesting specialization mechanic could be reducing the area on bases for the players specialization. This would mean that players that lean into their specialization would see mainly a ppa advantage. Their profit margins would be the same as non-specialized players.
I dislike this. I think specialization should come from a base bonus applied. I think simply reworking the HQ system to provide meaningful benefits would go a LONG way to fixing this issue.
We could also merge this idea with my earlier idea about having an HQ Point system where bases away from the core would be cheaper to encourage players to slowly move out from the core - we could also say that the cost of a base on a planet with a COGC that matches your specialization the base is ‘cheaper’ in terms of points then a different base. 
2 Likes
This would be interesting.
I like it because it increases profit for specialization without increasing margin.
I think fundamentally the issue with straight production modifiers is since they improve your margins, they could create situations where a specialized player can make something profitably while a non specialized player can’t.
This means non specialized players would be somewhat punished.
An ideal system would effectively only increase ppa while not touching margins.
That way you’re encouraged to specialize vs being punished for not specializing.
I mean I’d take a modifier over having no system at all like we have now though.
I think this may be a difference in definition, so pardon: isn’t this the point? Yeah, I agree in principle that specialization should only reward, not punish, but those are two sides of the same sword. A player who has specialized should do better than one who hasn’t, and so that second player is “punished” in that they can’t compete as effectively.
1 Like
Remind me again how the point system would work? I think you mentioned it somewhere else, I can’t seem to find it on this post.
Production modifiers do not scale consumable & bfab usage, so they improve your margins.
Meanwhile reduced area does scale both of those.
With strong production modifiers a specialized player would be able to drive prices low enough that a standard player can no longer make a profit, while the specialized player can still continue making a profit.
This means that a production modifier has to be more conservative, which is problematic as weak specialization modifiers won’t really do much (see the existing hq bonus)
This also means with modifiers players would have a tougher time vertically integrating (which is kinda needed if you are a larger player.)
The point system would separate the HQ level from the number of bases - instead you would get “points” that you would then spend toward making bases. A base at Montem (triple green system, CX location, etc) might cost you 100 points. But if you settle on YI-265j (for example) - you would get discounts because the base is (A) away from anywhere (it is over 24 hours from Montem) and (B) is needs both INS and SEA and (C) I was the first one to settle it - so maybe the points for that base are only 50.
The general point of the idea is that as a player climbs the HQ levels they are faced with a continuous tradeoff - because the points get more and more expensive is one base on Montem worth two bases out in the “sticks” - it creates an incentive for those players to move their bases from heavily populated systems and out to settle new planets. (There are lots of other possibilities for both awarding points as well as how much a base costs - maybe you can make micro-bases (ie 100 space) if a planet has the one material you really need (ie F, NE, etc) but you don’t want an entire base down there) or you can scale it bigger without the huge penalty of today (first permit is 475, second permit is 250 space)
We could add “matching COGC” to a list of bonuses - although if you settle a new planet you wouldn’t get that, but would get the “first on planet” bonus instead. (That bonus is because settling new planets is a pain in the butt - and this helps encourage more of that).
Also, I get what AGM-114 is getting at with the “margins” - basically my proposal does not change how much it “costs” a player to make an item, but gives them a different incentive - one that does scale with size (a starting player won’t be much interested in it). In effect this allows them to make MORE of the corresponding item but without changing the price structure. Ie what AGM-114 is trying to avoid is that with specialization bonuses a player who specializes in Metallurgy making AL at 500 NCC per item versus an different player with a different specialization who tries to make AL and can only make it at 1,000 NCC per item (I am exaggerating here - but I think you get my point).
Now to counter my own point - production bonuses don’t change the cost of the inputs - and for most of my calculations (outside of really crazy goods) the largest input cost is the input goods and not the “consumable-time” thus I don’t think even heavy specialization bonuses would tip the scale that far - but I think a blended approach where we have multiple small(er) bonuses will give the players the most flexibility in choosing how to run their empire.
Having done some rough estimates, I’m inclined to agree. Only about 15% of my expenditures are from consumables and degradation.
Inputs vs. degradation & consumables will highly depend on the item.
PCB or SAR have far higher cashflow requirements than for example IDC. These recipes will all be impacted differently.
Even with consumables being 15% margins, if you had a higher throughput vs annother player that’s margin you could use to undercut them. This could be interesting, but I think the main thing it would do is limit how strong the bonus could be. Highly specialised play is more micro intensive so IMO it’s better if it increases profit through volume and not margin (which could make specialization needed to run some low profit goods)
Annother thing worth mentioning. The ability to specialize would be something that under virtually every proposal most players would have the option to engage with providing more gameplay to everyone.