Fwurg

[Brend]

While investigating possibilities for new technologies I found some things on the Hyperspace Lanes page that I found inconsistent or unclear. These things were never spotted since the hyperspace lane rules are really old (the last edit was on 26 January 2013) and nobody really uses them at the moment because the Bozzy Spine rules supreme. But with colonisation taking off, they might have increased relevance.

These questions are mostly aimed at Mercury since he designed the Hyperspace Lane rules, but others are welcom to add their two cents!

Question 1: Having multiple hyperspace lanes in a sector.

I the first paragraph the rules state:

Any Sector can have at most one hyperspace lane.

Down in Other players and hyperspace lanes the wiki states:

Furthermore, you cannot block other players from building their own, competing hyperspace lanes in neutral sectors.

These two statements seem conflicting. What is the intended meaning here?

I'm guessing that any faction is not allowed to have more than one hyperspace lane in a sector, to prevent the multiple construction of Quality 2 lanes. Closer inspection of the upkeep and construction costs point out that this would be nice to do, but it does not seem overly broken. If this is the intended constraint, it would make for a good venue for technologies, I would say.

Question 2: 'Home system'?

At the top, the rules state:

You may develop Hyperspace Lanes in other Sectors than your own, but maintenance there is doubled.

In Maintenance the rules state:

Maintenance is doubled if your home system is not in the same Sector as the lane.

The term 'home system' is nowhere to be found in the rest of the rules, and seems to stem from pre-colonization times. Does this mean "doubled upkeep in sectors without a system under your control", or does this mean "doubled upkeep everywhere except for a single sector that is special even though you can have multiple systems in your faction"?

In my opinion, the earlier statement seems to indicate that it would be normal upkeep in any sector in which you have Sovereignty, and double upkeep everywhere else.

Regardless, doubled upkeep seems harsh (I haven't yet done the full math though). I'm predicting that this will be a fruitful venue for technologies.


Overall it might be good if the page is rewritten with current rules in mind? This would include recasting the 'double outside your sector' upkeep thing as 'half upkeep in your sector' to make it feel less bothersome. I'm willing to put in the time once these questions are cleared up.

[Elmer]

I'm guessing that any faction is not allowed to have more than one hyperspace lane in a sector, to prevent the multiple construction of Quality 2 lanes. Closer inspection of the upkeep and construction costs point out that this would be nice to do, but it does not seem overly broken. If this is the intended constraint, it would make for a good venue for technologies, I would say.

please let it be so that you may only construct 1 hyperspace lane, as I have the perfect technology in mind for a faction to improve this.

For a long time now I have been walking around with the idea of a super computer thech as part of the Cradle improvements, and even worked on it with Chriz, but never finalised it as it always felt wrong. But I think a supercomputer tech is perfect to allow players the construction of multiple hyperspace lanes.

This is the end of my hopeful plead ^^


Home system: I think that a home system as stated in these rules are nowadays comparable with independent systems and settlements. So the cost will be halved when a system is independent.

[Brend]

Home system: I think that a home system as stated in these rules are nowadays comparable with independent systems and settlements. So the cost will be halved when a system is independent.

Sounds logical, but I'd rather express it in terms of Sovereignty, since that is a clearly defined concept within the rules.

Note that having sovereignty is defined as: "If a faction is the only faction with a System in a sector, that faction is said to have sovereignty in that sector.", so begin the only one with an independent system in the sector. This also means that sharing a sector leads to higher hyperspace lane upkeep...

[Elmer]

Because sovereignty is different defined as independence (for as far independence is defined) I think independence is a more logical way to describe the hyperspace lane rules. I think it is a little bit weird that your hyperspace lane costs rise when a second faction emerge in your system.

Maybe we can clearly define independence in the rules? It sounds a logical and obvious part of the rules (and we might be able to focus techs, like colonisation techs to enable independence).

[Brend]

Because sovereignty is different defined as independence (for as far independence is defined) I think independence is a more logical way to describe the hyperspace lane rules. I think it is a little bit weird that your hyperspace lane costs rise when a second faction emerge in your system.

Maybe we can clearly define independence in the rules? It sounds a logical and obvious part of the rules (and we might be able to focus techs, like colonisation techs to enable independence).

While I agree that it sound weird, I think the whole difference in upkeep thing is weird anyway. And I do not like introducing more concepts unless they have a clearly define purpose. Adding 'independence' purely to support the hyperspace upkeep rules is not something I would support.

[Gerben]

On question 1:

While investigating possibilities for new technologies I found some things on the Hyperspace Lanes page that I found inconsistent or unclear. These things were never spotted since the hyperspace lane rules are really old (the last edit was on 26 January 2013) and nobody really uses them at the moment because the Bozzy Spine rules supreme. But with colonisation taking off, they might have increased relevance.

These questions are mostly aimed at Mercury since he designed the Hyperspace Lane rules, but others are welcom to add their two cents!

Question 1: Having multiple hyperspace lanes in a sector.

I the first paragraph the rules state:

Any Sector can have at most one hyperspace lane.

Down in Other players and hyperspace lanes the wiki states:

Furthermore, you cannot block other players from building their own, competing hyperspace lanes in neutral sectors.

These two statements seem conflicting. What is the intended meaning here?

I'm guessing that any faction is not allowed to have more than one hyperspace lane in a sector, to prevent the multiple construction of Quality 2 lanes.

I currently read these rules as: "any faction is not allowed to have more than one hyperspace lane in a sector", since any other explanation does not make sense in my opinion.

On question 2:

Home system: I think that a home system as stated in these rules are nowadays comparable with independent systems and settlements. So the cost will be halved when a system is independent.

Sounds logical, but I'd rather express it in terms of Sovereignty, since that is a clearly defined concept within the rules.

Note that having sovereignty is defined as: "If a faction is the only faction with a System in a sector, that faction is said to have sovereignty in that sector.", so begin the only one with an independent system in the sector. This also means that sharing a sector leads to higher hyperspace lane upkeep...

Sovereignty would be the way to go here, even if it means that sharing a sector means a higher upkeep for hyperspace lanes. This could then be solved with a technology, one both Komès and Meritonia would be interested in.

overall

Given the fact that most of the rules concerning transportation of goods are of a similar age, and new concept such as a trade hub are considered but risk tipping the balance (because of scale and power of the Bossy Spine); I'm in favour of a full rework of the transporation rules.

[Brend]

Given the fact that most of the rules concerning transportation of goods are of a similar age, and new concept such as a trade hub are considered but risk tipping the balance (because of scale and power of the Bossy Spine); I'm in favour of a full rework of the transporation rules.

I am in complete agreement with the suggestion of a full rework of transportation rules.

[Mercury]

A full rework will be helpful and interesting. I think in this we should take into account trade hubs, holonet relays, how to deal with current infrastructure in the conversion, as well as the broader impact of new transportation rules on the Union as a whole. I have some other idea's as well.

[Chriz]

I agree that most of the transportation rules can use some rework. I have no idea what direction they will be going in however.

The fact that we require this rework now and the constant OOC questioning of the trade hub however invalidates some of the IC questioning about the workings of the trade hub since we don't even know how they will be working OOC at the moment.

On a related note, my fwurg time is still very limited at the moment so those discussions are already passing me anyway.

[Brend]

(Off-topic)

The fact that we require this rework now and the constant OOC questioning of the trade hub however invalidates some of the IC questioning about the workings of the trade hub since we don't even know how they will be working OOC at the moment.

I agree that the OOC unclarity does not help, but you simply all-out ignored the IC questions... The questions of "Why that location" is still a valid one. And at the moment of the questions, the Trade Hub was not actually doubted as widely as now.

The current issue raised by Niom stems not from unclarity about the Trade Hub rules, but from the fact that they were completely ignored. Had you actually posted somewhere in the OOC forums that you have limited time, I would not have opened this topic with Niom. (Furthermore, if you have limited time maybe you shouldn't be trying to open votes that I have to clean up for you :P)

[Mercury]

Chriz -> to clarify, we're not trying to subvert your trade hub with this OOC discussion.

Personally, I like the generic idea of a trade hub. Having places where there is an enormous amount of goods changing hands is very Star Wars (the Star Wars characters are always at "trade ports" and such). I think by having more detailed rules in this area, we can make the trade hubs even cooler, and create not just an opportunity to create efficient trade now, but additionally we can make options to make trade even -more- efficient later on!

That being said, I fully understand that sometimes you cannot focus on Fwurg primarily as other things demand attention. Sometimes it gets in the way of intended stuff and you might miss something. That's okay, we'll sort it out ^_^ Everyone here has always been very understanding of my own limits in regards to time!

[Elmer]

Although I believe a revamp of the trade rules are not really necessary, I think it will be beneficial to have a discussion about it, especially since I have the feeling that the relay stations are getting a little bit complex with the current 3 or more providers.

I also agree that the trade hub requires some thinking. Therefore what about holding a 'small' think-a-ton were we or some of us can brainstorm about the current trade rules and the trade hub?

[Brend]

To come back to the matter at hand: There's two open issues.

First, the rules are unclear about whether two factions can both built a Hyperspace lane in a sector.

I suggest that we go with the "One hyperspace lane per faction per sector" interpretation.


Secondly, the upkeep of the Hyperspace lane is ill-defined.

I suggest that we go, for now, with the "If you have an indepent system in the sector, you use the reduced rate." interpretation.


Unless objections are raised. I will update the rules page to reflect these disambiguations in the weekend of August 29-30.

[Brend]

Done and done.