Fwurg

[Brend]

At this moment, we're assuming that sectors have practically infinite locations that can be used for the construction of things. Part of this is due to the fact that they are very large. In fact, the map page (as this information is not on the wiki) clearly states that a sector is roughly 2500 light years (wolfram alpha has some nice comparisons) in diameter and has on average 140 000 star systems in it.

I feel that although it is realistic to assume that there is infinite space, it does little to enhance the game. In fact, it takes away an important aspect of the game: the handling of limited resources based on locality.

By putting constraints on the amount of things that can be in a sector, and having things depend on the amount of available space, we open up interesting avenues of IC discussion and technological development. For starters, a world will care if you start construction of an outpost in their galactic back yard, as this will take some of the free space that they might be wanting to use.

Sector Capacity - Mechanics

When I first came up with this mechanic it didn't really work as expected. After some back and forth between me and Chris, we settled on a system which measured two things: realspace and hyperspace. Realspace is the name we give 'normal' space to differentiate it from hyperspace. Hyperspace, of course, is the name for the hyperspace parallel to realspace. Having both a realspace and a hyperspace metric allows for a much more interesting interplay between projects and technologies, and increases the relevance of choices by players.

The notation I use in this post for the realspace and hyperspace amounts is (7|2), meaning 7 realspace and 2 hyperspace. If I quickly want to indicate only realspace I will use (7| and if I want to indicate only hyperspace, I'll use |2).

I propose the following:

• An empty sector has (20|20) capacity available.
• Systems take up (7|2)
• Settlements take up (7|2)
• Outposts take up (3|1)
• Space Habitats take up (1|0)
• Holonet takes up (1| and |1) per 5000 (rounded down) and another |1) per base station in the sector
• Hyperspace lanes take up (1| and |1) per lane quality point
• Hyperspace Monitoring Grids take up (0|1)

Let's look at some examples.

Excaria + Heimgol [ 15 -4 ]:

• 2 systems → 2 x (7|2)
• the Bozzy Spine as a quality 10 hyperspace lane → (1|10)
• There is holonet → (1|
• 3 Holonet base stations (one for each NPC, and one owned by Sundarian Federation) → 3 x |1)
• 9000 holonet capacity (8000 by PC's 500 by each of the NPCs) → |1)

15 -4 contains stuff taking up (16|18), so (4|2) is left.


Veolian Commonwealth [ 10 -5 ]:

• 1 system → (7|2)
• Quality 2 hyperspace → (1|2)
• There is holonet → (1|
• 1 Holonet base station → |1)

10 -5 contains stuff taking up (9|5), so (11|15) is left.


A Bozzy Spine location [ 12 -7 ]:

• the Bozzy Spine as a quality 10 hyperspace lane → (1|10)
• There is holonet → (1|
• 3 Holonet base stations (one for each NPC, and one owned by Sundarian Federation) → 3 x |1)
• 3500 holonet capacity → nothing

12 -7 contains stuff taking up (2|13), so (18|7) is left.

Sector Capacity - Changes to existing rules

If we introduce the system above, we might also want to update some of our existing rules. I propose to discuss at least at the following changes:

• All surveying currently takes into account the presence of Systems, Outposts and Space Habitats in the scanning time with "This time is increased by 2 turns for every other site in the sector and by 3 turns for every system in the sector." I propose to update that to "This time is increased by a number of turns equal to the amount of realspace taken up by other things in the sector."
• The Holonet Universal Base Code Analysis should not reduce the the |1) cost per base station. Instead a new technology should take up that job, since it is very specific.
• Space Habitats and Outposts might generate more output in sectors with less used realspace. This would promote building outwards, instead of focussing purely on trade factor.

[Elmer]

Interesting, I think I like the proposal.

I think the rules changes sounds reasonable, however, do I understand correctly that holonet upgrade stations with the Universal base code Analysis will only take up |1) space, but function as a base station as well? (Effectively be a more beneficial base station) or does the Duplex station need a rules change as well?

[Brend]

I am having a hard time understanding your question.

Holonet upgrade stations don't take up any hyperspace... Holonet trade capacity does, at |1) per 5000 . And then there are base stations, those take up another |1) per base station.

The 'more beneficial base stations' case is already list as something we should remedy:

Sector Capacity - Changes to existing rules

...

...

• The Holonet Universal Base Code Analysis should not reduce the the |1) cost per base station. Instead a new technology should take up that job, since it is very specific.
  ...

[Elmer]

As I understand it now, the costs are as follows:

holonet base station: (1|
5000 capacity (effectively 9 upgrades): |1)
+|1) per base station in the sector

So if you have a single upgrade station (which uses 0), and make a Duplex station out of it, the amount of space it will take is still 0, while it functions as a base station. So with the Base code Analysis tech you can effectively remove the (1| cost from a base station.

[Brend]

No. That is not what we intended.

When you have a single upgrade station (which uses |0) ), and make a Duplex station out of it, the amount of space taken is |1), because it should not fluctuate the amount of hyperspace used. Because it can now act as a base station, it will immediately cost the |1) for a base station.

And you can certainly not remove the realspace cost of (1|, because that will be there the moment there is any holonet infrastructure in the sector.

A new technology will be necessary to allow the removal of the |1) for the Duplex station.

[Elmer]

So:

a base station cost (1|, +|1) per base/duplex stations in the sector (the second cost (1|1), the third one cost (1|2), the fourth one costs (1|3) etc.)
upgrade station cost (1|, +|1) per 5000
duplex station cost (1|1) +|1) per 5000 +|1) per base/duplex station in the sector

?

Or takes any kind of holonet infrastructure a total of (1|, no more no less not matter how much there is in the sector? (So a million base stations in a sector takes (1|, and one upgrade station in a sector also takes (1|.) So no matter what kind of holonet configuration you have in your sector, the cost of having holonet infra structure will be strictly (1| concerning the real space part?

[Brend]

Your second interpretation is correct, and is exactly what the original post says:

"Holonet takes up (1| and |1) per 5000 (rounded down) and another |1) per base station in the sector"

So a sector with 1000 base stations would require (1| + |1000) sector capacity for the base stations alone + |100) for the 500000 in the sector: (1|1100).

Indeed, the holonet configuration doesn't matter, all that it will take is (1|, regardless of the amount of base stations, relays stations or duplex stations.

(For the record, this is different from Hyperspace Lanes, which take up (1| per lane!)

[Fedor]

On the sector of Excaria + Heimgol [ 15 -4 ]:
With your calculation they have 2 hyperspace left, but this assumes that both Excaria and Heimgol have only their base holonet station and never upgraded it to above 5000 , wouldn't it be more realistic to assume that 2 of the biggest factions in the union would have increased their rather more, and that as a consequence they go over the hyperspace limit?

[Brend]

I have assumed that, since no NPC actually does anything, they only have the basic equipment. In fact, for factions that are located on the Bozzy Spine itself, you could argue that it would much more profitable for them to do everything with .

After all, they don't suffer from an additional trade factor to get onto the Bozzy Spine.

[Gerben]

While I support the idea for a system capacity limits in order to force people to make choices concerning their special projects, I feel that this step towards sector capacity limits, is a 'bridge too far'.

I understand the reasoning that there is only limited, and still very much, space in only 1 sector, and the need to make some sort of arrangement to prevent the endless stacking of outposts, systems and other real-estate in the same area; I fear that this solution will create more problems and significantly more bookkeeping then the real gain.

I also believe that this system will eventually limit (holonet)trade, limits our own creativity, and in turn hampers economic growth in the long term on a Union wide scale.

So instead I propose that we look along the lines of simply declaring that their can only be a limited amount of planetary systems ( either systems of settlements) and outposts in one sector. [Say 3 and 2, or something like that] After all, these are the things that really take up space, and need room for their orbits. I think it is unreasonable to compare the size of planet with a much smaller holonet-stations, monitoring grids or hyperspace lanes, which are often stationary.

Upgrading these smaller things is done by putting in more products, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they take up more space as a consequence, for example: consider a holonet base station with 1 antenna, if I were to apply an upgrade to said station, I could declare that it is done via the add-on of a module with another antenna, slightly increasing the amount of space the stations needs. However I could also declare that the upgrade results in a 2nd antenna to be put next the first, together with a software upgrade to make the whole more efficient and more powerful. Or I could simply declare that the upgrade replaces the 1 antenna, with a more powerful one which can in reality be smaller then the first.

The same reasoning could hold for Hyperspace lanes, sensor grids and other infrastructural developments in sectors.

[Brend]

I understand the reasoning that there is only limited, and still very much, space in only 1 sector, and the need to make some sort of arrangement to prevent the endless stacking of outposts, systems and other real-estate in the same area; I fear that this solution will create more problems and significantly more bookkeeping then the real gain.

The bookkeeping is really very simple, and can be done automatically.

I also believe that this system will eventually limit (holonet)trade, limits our own creativity, and in turn hampers economic growth in the long term on a Union wide scale.

The whole point is to introduce limitations. The fact that (holonet) trade is somewhat limited does not limit our creativity, it forces us to consider alternative solutions. The hampering of economic growth of the Union in the long term scale is not a thing, since we can invent new technologies to deal with our problems.

I fail to see how limitations limit our own creativity; in fact, I am of the opinion that restrictions such as this promote creativity: the fact that you immediately spot problems with long term trade are an indication of this. Instead of seeing the rules as a set of immutable directives, we are able to devise technologies to bend or break the rules. If there are no limitations, there are no limits to break!

Upgrading these smaller things is done by putting in more products, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they take up more space as a consequence, for example: consider a holonet base station with 1 antenna, if I were to apply an upgrade to said station, I could declare that it is done via the add-on of a module with another antenna, slightly increasing the amount of space the stations needs. However I could also declare that the upgrade results in a 2nd antenna to be put next the first, together with a software upgrade to make the whole more efficient and more powerful. Or I could simply declare that the upgrade replaces the 1 antenna, with a more powerful one which can in reality be smaller then the first.

This proposal is but an abstraction. This system of realspace and hyperspace does not represent actual physical volume. It instead represents the availability of economically viable bandwidth and locations. You are free to fluff your holonet upgrades any way you want, but the fact remains that if you have more holonet capacity, hyperspace will become more and more suffused with signals. Until, in the end, the only thing you can receive is static because of the interference of a million million youtube videos of cats with lightsabers.


Don't get me wrong. I get that you are afraid that you'll no longer be able to trade through the holonet. After all, with only another meagre 10000 the excaria sector is filled... When that happens, you will have to find new solutions to your problems. Think, for example of:

• Technologies to compact holonet traffic from the normal |1) per 5000 to |1) per 10000
• Improved cooperation to get rid of the multiple base stations, freeing up hyperspace for more holonet trade
• Union-subsidized sector improvements and hyperspace jump control stations to increase the amount of hyperspace capacity of the sector.

And I'm sure that you can come up with several other solutions if you don't let your creativity be limited by the idea that these rules are 'not to be broken' (tm).

[Gerben]

Don't get me wrong. I get that you are afraid that you'll no longer be able to trade through the holonet. After all, with only another meagre 10000 the excaria sector is filled... When that happens, you will have to find new solutions to your problems. Think, for example of:

• Technologies to compact holonet traffic from the normal |1) per 5000 to |1) per 10000
• Improved cooperation to get rid of the multiple base stations, freeing up hyperspace for more holonet trade
• Union-subsidized sector improvements and hyperspace jump control stations to increase the amount of hyperspace capacity of the sector.

And I'm sure that you can come up with several other solutions if you don't let your creativity be limited by the idea that these rules are 'not to be broken' (tm).

Fair enough, your explanation is reasonable. I'm willing to reconsider my position considering this rules change and while I still have some reservations, I stand behind the general idea of this change.