As of the last devpost, molp elaborated on the intention behind base establishment fees which can be read here or relevant sections screenshotted below.
I would like to emphasize that the base establishment fees were intended to compensate players that contributed or developed a planet’s population infrastructure. However, the community currently utilizes the fee as a barrier of entry and a means to keep other players out.
In a multiplayer game about economics and production, I am of the opinion that a “One Person, One Planet” model is not beneficial for PrUn in the long term. When presented with a 10 million base establishment fee, a player’s options are limited to:
- Look for an alternative.
- Reach out to the Governor and arrange a “buisness deal”.
- Settle the base, pay 10 million, and roll the dice.
Here is a spreadsheet which lists all planets that have a settlement fee based on currency used. A quick breakdown shows:
Antares: 7 Planets
Benten: 5 Planets (add +1 for a cheeky 9.9M)
Moria: 34 Planets (add +1 for a cheeky 9.9M)
Insistor: 59 Planets (add +3 for a cheeky 9.5M)
NOTE: Insistor is over-represented because the void sectors default to their currency.
This makes for a total of 105 planets as of 8/13/2026 with a 10 million establishment fee.
The OOG Infrastructure Calculator puts an ADM+COGC at roughly 3 million leaving 7 million for the various POP buildings. For low tier and resource extraction planets, the expense to develop is significantly smaller than the base establishment fee that can be charged per player.
Higher tier planets cost more to develop but with just a single player settling those expenses are essentially reimbursed in full.
For example, EvoV breaks down the cost of building a TECH/ENG planet as shown below:
The total cost to develop this plant was approximately 11 million which is broken down to 6.82 million for infrastructure and 4.2 million for technician and engineer growth. As shown at the beginning, Evo indicated a 5 million fee would have been sufficient yet a 10 million base establishment fee was still implemented. This demonstrates the establishment fee is being utilized as a barrier to entry to prevent other players from settling. While one of EvoV’s planets was the example used to illustrate the situation, there remain many other planets that are operated with similar styles of play.
Once a base establishment fee is established, it’s essentially permanent as there is a lack of counter-play options, maintenance requirements, or expiration date(s) in place. If the only player on the planet leaves the game, the base establishment fee remains until someone else settles, pays, and potentially removes it upon electing themselves to governor. There is no detriment to implementing a base establishment fee, which are inherently a “Get off my lawn” or “Enter at your own Risk” sign.
I am for players having the ability to invest into new planets and protect their investment to a reasonable degree, but how much protection should be afforded such investments? For all the mechanics recently implemented to assist with settling planets farther away from the CX (E.G. gateways, colony ships, new resources, etc), high base establishment fees on non-faction planets do the exact opposite. It stymies development of surrounding systems as players erect walls and lock-down desirable planets for their personal use.