Accol6

Getting rid of schematics sounds like a bad idea. I do not see how you can have market for items when you can flood them so easy with no schematics. As a solo player i have a factory with a very rough estimate of 5-10 billion in schematics without using any exploits. I think you could do some alternative ways to craft things. For example, you could add in lesser schematics that cost much less but use 3-4 times more mats to craft their item. This would keep normal schematics the only to profit off the market but would pretty much cap the profits people can make to 3-4 times the ore cost.

(123 L base rate * 113% efficiency ) * 20% adjacency = 166,79 L You want to multiply efficiency then multiply adjacency. if you want to factor calibration/optimal I guess it would be (( base rate * efficiency) * adjacency) * (Calibration +(100-optimal))

If I have a static construct that overlaps 2 territories do I only need to worry about the one where the core unit is on or is it at risk unless i upkeep both territories?

It looks like claiming a new territory costs a flat 140k and it gives you 3 days tax free. It would cost you 2x+ more in calibrate charges but could be used if ore prices crash and cannot maintain 1m a week. I noticed Sinnen now has limestone instead of malachite- not sure if there are any other changes. I think airbrake clearance zone should be a few tiles outside of the visble area of the element so we can continue to completely cover them but would still need to be near the outside and not stacked. The requirement of having them be on the outside ruins the look of many ships and makes all ships look the same. I would like the idea of making a new territory unit item. Keep current Territory units the same- scaling claiming cost and no taxes- but lock mining to those tiles. The new territory unit would cost the flat fee and allow mining but needs taxes.