Maxim Kammerer

The main problem with schematics is not the price but the way they are implemented. If you are happy with manually moving schematics in and out of industries everytime you switch to another product, than 35 million might be enough (I didn't check that). My factories are designed to make as many products as possible without moving stuff between containers. In order to make that working again I would need to buy much more schematics than I ever use at once. That makes no sense. A single schematics container for all industries within a construct would solve that problem. If you have N schematics for a specific receipt, than N factories could run it once without moving them around. And that is just one problem I have with this 'feature'. If players are asking to remove schematics than they are talking about schematics as currently implemented and not about hypothetical schematics without such design faults.

Better don't play it right now. The last patch is full of game-breaking bugs. Yes, it's not just DU. But CIG is at least honest about SC beeing alpha.

Your examples above have been hyperinflations. A moderate inflation is good for the economy. Deflation is much worse. We had that after 0.23 when everybody pushed stuff on the market to get cash for schematics.

For different reasons - for example to have "a limit on how many industry machines a player can have running at once" (something you seem to agree with).

Energy management is one of the most requested features. Nobody asked for schematics.

There will always be players who circumvent such restrictions or exploit loopholes. But it would still be better than nothing.

Energy management could do the job. But it is not on the roadmap.

A main problem with the EU is that it failed to develope with growing size and influence. A prime example is the veto right for all member states. That made sense with the 6 founding members. But how is that going to work with 27 member states with very different economical, political and cultural background as well as contradicting national and geopolitical interests? I don't think that the EU will fail. But its global political and military power will always lack behind its economic strength. It is a bureaucratic monster and a lesson of how not to build a large organisation (irl or in game).

Communism has never been achieved on that scale because it doesn't work. It's a nice idea to make all people equal. The problem is that they don't want to be equal. That does not fit the human behaviour. Our natural social structure is a hirearchy with an alpha on the top. That is hard-wired in our brains and very hard to overcome - especially in large organisations (in real life or in game) which needs to be hierarchic in order to be effective.

They wanted to build a game engine and hoped that the players will use it to build the game. Neither of them turned out all right.

I would silently cry into my pillow. When I manage to pick up courage I would ask the developers what they have and how to turn it into something that has a chance on the market. That's not what I want as a player but what the investors expect from a CEO. If that is successful enough for a return of investment there might be a chance to get additional funding for a second attempt to realise DU (many years in the future and with new technology).

That is the new industry standard - complete with game-breaking bugs at release.

How about moving all parts of the ship into the linked container, making it your primary container and than to deploy the blueprint?

That would be no problem if tunnels would have a limited lifespan. They should be removed unless cores are placed to keep them open. That would solve a major part of the data problems with minimum impact on the gameplay. But this has already been suggested before and nobody listened.

You can mine the environment. In return, the environment can bore you. Interactivity confirmed.

I never understood why it has been implemented that way. It makes no sense. The core limit for an org should depend on its size and not on the talents of a single member. A possible limit would be the sum of the org core limits of all members (which of course would need to be adjusted accordingly). This way the upper limit for the number of cores (and corresponding server resources) in the entire DU would scale linear with the number of subscriptions. There could be no single-player orgs with hundreds of cores and we would have no reason to speculate about the possible exploit above.

That's what happed to my personal cores when the talents got lost with the last talent reset. It seems the limit is checked when you try to place a core. I expect the same logic for org cores (not tested).

You seem to assume that automining will be way faster than manual mining. But it will most probably the other way around. As you already mentioned it is NQ that defines the speed and we know that they deem the current mining speed as to high. Thus, I expect them to set the automining speed so low that additional balacing becomes obsolete.

That's indeed a basic problem. There should be more restrictive rules for static and dynamic constructs (e.g. no floating voxels or elements or even complete static constructs, no flight elements completely covered with voxels but still being functional, no asymmetric lift or thrust without resulting torque and so on). Maybe it could even be possible to implement simple rules for structural analysis (as far as possible without decrerasing performance too much) making weak structures collapse or brake apart. That would open a market for those who are specialised in designing and optimising specific types of constructs. However, implementing such rules would brake most existing constructs. That would be even worse than a full whipe and is therefore not going to happen in DU.

How about connecting the market with all tiles that are directly or indirectly joined with the market tile and providing the possibility to trade with connected markets without physically going there (maybe with a fee or time delay)? That would reduce the traffic on the markets, encourage players to get closer together (instead of claiming tiles as far a away from other players as possible) and in the long term connect all markets on a planet. That should even be acceptable for JC because - together with other cooperative mechanics (like common defence or boost of production, automining, energy or research for connected tiles) - it might result in cities.

Is it even possible to do that with all ships, including the content of containers? I seem to remember that there are some limitations.

No, I'm afraid I don't really get it. Alone the schematics for the production of the ships that are required to get the ore of the meganode from Ion to Allioth with reasonable effort (nobody wants to do that with S elements only) would drain out the 15 mill quanta available in the entire game. In order to show that it works you would need to do the math. For example you can't just assume that buyer and seller agree on the arithmetic average of their offers. You need to show that the price actually has a window with profit for both sides and that this window doesn't close or goes to zero over time. That is far from being trivial - not even for just 10 players.

At least not with this complexity. But it could be possible with a simplified system. Just allow for a limited number of qualifiers for each item type that are shown in the search results. The item type would still be a Basic Space Engine L (for example) but the result would not only show the prices and locations but also the individual stats like maximum thrust, fuel cosuption and so on and you could sort the result by these qualifiers. That should be possible without fundamental changes to the current market system. That could be a bit easier with the possibility to group items of the same type in the inventory and to select the group instead of the element type.

Either use docking mechanics or - more rigorous - check if the core is inside the market hex. That shouldn't be a problem. NQ already qualified for it by implemented a timer for the maneuvering tool. That depends on the first points. If the timer is based on docking, it restarts if the ship undocks and docks again. If it is based on the hex it doesn't restart until the ship exits the hex and anters it again. The latter means that even flying around within the hex wouldn't reset the timer. That depends on the timer duration. With 48h (for example) it would be sufficient to cycle thouth the constructs once per hour. There is an existing relocation mechanics where all these issues are solved or at least not be game breaking. Use it to move the ships to a distant parking area or even to a deticated junk moon. Of course that would result in performance problems in the parking locations. But that's OK. It should be a pain to go there - as a punishment for littering the markets.

Yes, market bots are really that bad with the current implementation. There will never be a healthy market with bots not adjusting their prices on supply and demand. That doesn't mean market bots are not required. A fully player driven market wouldn't work either (unless we get player controlled issuing banks and regulating authorities). But they need to behave completely different.