Release Notes - Maintenance 2024.02

Release date

The APEX update release will be released on July 10th, 2024

General Notes

If your APEX console is stuck in a loading state after the update, please make sure to refresh it once after the update to ensure you got the latest version.

New features

Burn rate

The workforces command WF shows the remaining days left for each consumable given the current consumption rate. This helpful tool has been in the community developed PMMG tool for ages and has finally made it into the game.

Base Repair Assistant improvements

Did you ever buy all the necessary repair materials for a base, but once you arrive there the repair bill increased and you cannot repair all the buildings? It has happened to all of us and it can be very frustrating. The updated BRA command now allows to select a time offset that will show the bill of materials in 24 or 48 hours.



  • Default buffer size for NOTS is increased
  • CoGC materials can now be contributed from a warehouse
  • Local Market ads now show the price per unit
  • BS, PROD, SFC and others now use the same order for addresses
  • Open contracts can now be terminated without a termination request from the contract partner
  • The CAT (category) sort order is now the default sort order for inventories
  • Commodity exchange charts now show the traded units per candle:
  • The upper limit for base establishment fees on starting planets is now 10_000. See corresponding page in the handbook.
  • We can now rename corporations. Just let us know if you require a new name/code.
  • During the creation of shipping contracts it is possible to select and auto-provisioning store. The auto-provisioning status is shown in the contract details


  • Reduced LHP weight to 4t (was 5t)
  • Reduced BHP weight to 9t (was 10t)
  • Reduced RHP weight to 10t (was 12t)
  • Reduced HHP weight to 10t (was 14t)
  • Reduced AHP weight to 10t (was 17t)
  • Increased output of ship shield recipes across the board by 2
  • Added +4 FLP to fixed ship repair costs
  • Amount of hull plates required for ship repairs is now reduced by applied shields (5% per basic shield, 10% per advanced shield, 15% per specialized shield)


  • Fixed a bug with the CXOS filter selection
  • Fixed a bug that prevented voting or renting warehouses as a FREE / BASIC licensee
  • Fixed a bug that prevented warehouses from showing up in system inventories command INV
  • Fixed a bug that prevented updating a contract condition in some circumstances
  • Fixed incorrect FX price preset when using german locale
  • Fixed a bug where the HQ relocation would not work properly if there is a newly found base
  • Fixed a stale data bug in the base repair assistant BRA
  • Fixed a bug with the Explorer’s Grace bonus that triggered the bonus on the second base, instead the first
  • Fixed a bug that allowed to get all building materials back after exactly seven days when demolishing a building
  • Fixed the endlessly loading upcoming term component in ADM when in government context
  • Made CONTD unavailable in government context
  • Fixed the bug, where the migration of the Realpolitik update unfortunately set the local rules in non-faction space to faction default values instead of 0.

Does this mean Shields dont need to be repaired any more, or do they still need to be replaced?

I wonder if it would make sense to have a separate damage calculator for the Shields or if that would be more confusing. Not completely sure how Shields work as I don’t use them right now.

Can we get a way to see the repair costs for a given ship at 80% hull while in the BLU screen? It would make gauging repair costs a lot easier.

Also, buffing LHP even further will probably not result in more use of the other hull types.

Much of the discussion about shield balancing is in this post.

1 Like

Reducing the mass of LHP isn’t a substantial buff (I would argue its not a buff at all in most cases) unless there is corresponding upgrades to the ship such as high G seats. Many ships are already maxed out for acceleration beyond reaching max performance of their engines.

My in system hauler has an empty mass of 494 t with 43 LHP. Adding in 500 t ore and 90 t of SF this is 1084 t. Reducing this to 1041 t is not a significant change. This becomes even less impactful when dealing with WCBs at 3000t and LCBs with 2000t of cargo.

Reducing the mass of RHP and beyond by 20% to 70% will improve the in system performance (acceleration) of ships with those hull plates (which was one of the arguments for avoiding their use - it took longer for those ships to get to speed).

1 Like

This game full of complex and confusing mechanics. Complicated not mean bad. And if think logically, when you install some shields on your ship to protect your ship from environment, you repair shields when they damaged. I also think separate integrity pools for internal components/hull itself/shields will be slightly better.
For example you have:

Internal components. They slowly worn off when you use your ship. Its your engine, reactor and systems like STS, drones and seats.
Hull. Something between shield and Internal components. The hull plates.
Shields. Something what protect Hull from environmental damage.

And if they balance costs of components so it will be around this to repair:
Internal - Expensive
Hull - Middle cost
Shields - Cheap

Plus, Shields while they intact protect Hull from some % of damage. And Hull while it intact(100%-95%) protect internal systems from damage(not from wear, but from damage)

So while shields can be expensive to install but cheap to maintain.


A lot of key meaningful changes in this, especially some balance changes to the ship parts. I can’t wait!

A one time cost of a BGS is far cheaper than continuing cost of HHP/RHP/AHP

In this case there is still a 100t difference, and I there is no gain from the higher hulls except in damage losses. But then those losses are countered by the more expensive part, so it’s a net negative still for intrasystem.

Based on my math, you’d want to use the shields first before you upgrade your hull. Once you get the damage types reduced down to only common wear, you’re stuck using drones or hull plate upgrades to reduce that damage further.

They do still need to be replaced (but still in the previously reduced amount).

Is this the correct math?

Before (at 80%) with 43 BHP and 43 BWH

  • Repair 11 BHP and 11 BWH (43 * 0.2 = 10.6 and that rounds up)


  • Repair 11 BHP and 11 BWH (43 * 0.2 * 0.95 = 10.2 and that rounds up)

I am using these numbers as an example since this is the only ship that I use (an in system hauler) where one damage type has noticeable accumulation.

This still effectively doubles the cost of repairs and it appears that even where it might get used, still doubles the cost of repairs if a single shield type is applied. For ships with multiple shield types, this continues to increase the costs.

They’ve made the equations more complicated this year so far, so it’s not as simple as that.
Right now it should be:

BHP = 43 * .75 *.2 = 6.45
BWH = 43 * .75 * .2 * .66 = 4.257

That’s what you should be seeing in game, live. A 25% reduction is from Liquidity release, and the 33% on shields is from Maintenance 2024.01

But the question you have is good. Does the hull plate reduction cascade into shield reduction too? Are the number of shields needed for repair based on the number of hull plates needed for repair, or for the initial construction? If the latter, then the shields will see no change here.

The changes have been deployed on the test server.

Shield amount is tied to the ship’s blueprint.

But also when comparing with hull plates, you have to consider which hull plates are used exactly, how much damage is being saved over time via your shield / hull plate combination (also depends on what your regular flights look like), and then (new with this patch) how much you’re saving on hull plate repair amount (which is up to 45% based on shields, though of course this number is something we’ll keep an eye on to see if it should increase further in the future).

Without a better understanding of the mechanics of shields and the forecast of repair costs, I don’t believe that this change has made “should I put shields on a ship” into a question that is “sometimes yes, sometimes no” rather than “in all likelihood, no.”

Even for my in system haulers that are constantly taking micrometeorite damage, and seeing about 0.5% - 1% damage accumulate each day of use … I don’t know if BWH is something that would be cost effective to put on a ship.

… And that’s for a ship that sees that damage constantly. Should I put it on a FTL capable hauler that sees less than an hour transit time in system each day if I have to repair them regardless of if this month I was just doing MOR - HRT runs (0 micrometeorite damage in those systems)?

Until that is better understood… its unfortunate, but shield mitigation and repair are not things that I can model well enough to consider putting on my next ship.

The devs prefer to make changes in increments to avoid unintended consequences. So with future updates what is now barely worth considering will eventually be a viable option.

That being said, the changes that have been made so far has brought it to a point where there are some cases that would benefit from shields. Your example of .5-1% daily damage is certainly not one of them but there are potential in-system flights out there that cause significantly more damage and thus have been avoided. Shields could be an economic way to make those flights now.

I’ve not yet seen the repair costs for a ship with shields that would make me confident of that statement. That there are only 24 units of BWH for sale on the CXs across the entirety of the universe also does not provide confidence that I would be able to repair ships in a timely manner if ship and shields needs to be repaired at the same time.

Depends on micrometeor density and whether you’re flying to nearby inner planets or the far off outer planets. Flying from Midway-Sand to Gasworld causes 4.6% damage one way. HP-454a–>hp-454g is 6%. I considered making a ship with shields for that flight but, as you said, limited availability made that a non-starter.

Yes, the micrometeorite density is an issue. I often fly into YI-705c and have to deal with it. It hurts to see a 0.197% on approach making up 2/3s of the accumulated damage for that flight.

The questions I have are:

  • What is the repair cost of a ship at 80%? with BWH and without BWH?
  • What is the availability of BWH (or any other shielding)?
  • Is there any situation where this would make sense on a general use ship (e.g. a LCB that doesn’t do in system hauling)

These three questions then lead to the fourth:

  • Is there ever a reasonable choice of “should I put a shield on the ship or not?”

For in system shipping, currently my ships are at 46% (18 LHP and 16 SSC), 55% (15 LHP and 14 SSC) and 88% (4 LHP and 4 SSC) because the other question is “does it make sense to repair those ships?” The ship in Bastion system (at 46%) changes from a 5h flight to a 4h flight (if repaired). And even taking it down to 10%, its a 6h flight. Does it make sense to repair these ships - and if no, does adding shields to them make sense?

I think another segment of the damage discussion is that I think ships are too cheap to repair. That’s a huge part of why these buffs and upgrades feel weak, the repair costs are literally a rounding error. I think if we increase the size of the denominator too, we can get powerful results.

There should be a more sophisticated damage model requiring more components and ongoing repair. Doing this would make damage mitigation much more effective and IMO be more enjoyable, along with supporting a even more healthy\diverse shipbuilding industry.

Imagine if the requirements were to replace major components like the cargo bay or engines. Not as frequently as hull plates, but every other or every third repair you need to do something major. Adding shielding\repair bots can lengthen these times greatly. A top-of-the-line ship could last a whole year without needing to be repaired making investments into this hardware super worthwhile. I see nothing but positives.