Fwurg

[Brend]

As a tangent on the discussion of property and ownership, Mercury and I discovered that there are two problems with the Holonet Repeaters technology.

1. The technology has acquisition badness: something something upon acquiring this technology. It has been discovered that this is bad design, and should be avoided whenever possible.
2. There are two different interpretations of the technology's effect: I read it as 'from now on, you can upgrade your existing holonet relays', while Mercury intended 'you can have as many relays as you want, but you only pay upkeep for one'. These different views have some impact in how you approach the rest of the holonet trade rules (especially with regards to ownership).

To solve both problems, I propose that we model the Holonet Relay Station structure in a different way, and that we update the rules and the Holonet Repeaters technolgy to use the new model. Just for the record, this is a new way of modelling the same thing, with slightly more detail added in to allow players more control over their stuff.


The idea is that Holonet Relays are built up from two parts: a Holonet Relay Base Station with zero or more Holonet Relay Upgrades.

• The Holonet Relay Base Station is the basis of a the holonet infrastructure. It has a capacity of 500 , and is capable of supporting any number of upgrades.
• The Holonet Relay Upgrade offer in increase of +500 , and require support from a Holonet Relay Base Station.
• Holonet Relay Upgrades without a supporting Holonet Relay Base Station do not offer any capacity, but do not require upkeep either.
• Both Holonet Relay Base Station and Holonet Relay Upgrades cost 100 .
• Upon completion, a Holonet Relay Upgrade can be attached to a base station immediately.
• Upkeep is paid by the owner of the Holonet Relay Base Station: (25 + 25 per supported upgrade). Just like in the current rules, there is a special case for a Holonet Relay Base Station in the home sector: (0 + 10 per supported upgrade).
• It is possible for your upgrade to be supported by the base station of another faction, with their permission. This increases their upkeep, so they will most likely ask for compensation.
• It is possible to retarget an upgrade, switching it to another base station. This is done by noting this in your turn report, when the turn report is approved the station is switched to the new base.

• The Holonet Repeater tech will be changed to 'Factions with this technology need only pay upkeep for the Holonet Repeater Base Station, any upgrades supported by their base stations can be maintained for free.'

This model offers the same holonet trade capacity for the same price, while allowing more detailed technologies and deals. The model also gets rid of the badness of the acquisition effect.

There are two things of note that I haven't yet completely solved:

Design question: upgrades without a supporting base station require no upkeep right now. This doesn't feel right. Maybe they should have a minor upkeep to keep them repaired and ready to be attached to a base? Say 5 per turn?

Technology note: the Holonet Repeaters technology is extremely cheap with respect to other technologies that would give such a cost break. Not really a problem, but if the tech would be proposed as new right now, I would probably call for a special project on the Holonet Relay Base Station of another 500(:tax) + 50 to allow this cheapness. As per On technology design roughly calculated:

• 52 * 25 = 1300 saved assuming a single upgrade
• Amortization of the current tech cost over 4 players: 2000 / 4 = 500 per player
• 1300 - 500 = 800 unaccounted for
• So a special project of 500(:tax) + 50 = 725 .

I invite everyone to comment, criticize, post ideas to solve the last two points, and/or request clarifications.

[Gerben]

I like this refashion of the innerworking of the relays, it clarifies a lot.

As to your notes:

I have no objections against a small ( as you propose 5 ) for upgrades without a supporting base station. In fact i would say that even though their capacity cannot be used, minimal maintenance must still be done. A small upkeep would indeed fix that issue.

As to the design note of the Holonet repeater technology, I've always felt the technology was way cheaper then others in comparison with the benefits, so perhaps we should indeed fix it we a special project as you propose. Looking at the availability of the technology and current increases in holonet trade, I assume it won't be long before the technology is known by all PCs. Once that happens we might perhaps use the alternative method (as done before with the old MTCF technologies) and declare it common knowledge.

[Brend]

Once that happens we might perhaps use the alternative method (as done before with the old MTCF technologies) and declare it common knowledge.

I do not like this approach. For the MTCF it was effectively necessary because the technologies balanced the normal rules, but for most things I'd rather have the technology in the game still. We might give it to the Union and make a note in the rules, but just 'dismantling' technological progression feels wrong; it diminishes the sense of accomplishment if the tech disappears.

[Brend]

It seems nobody else really objects to these changes, or has any idea on how to resolve the two issues I pointed out. I would really like to put these changes through, but I'm afraid I will have to postpone this until after my vacantion. I do not want to push these changes through with two open 'issues'.

I implore others to have a look at the original post, and see if they can think up a solution for the technology issue.

[Elmer]

I have taken a look at it, and the proposed rule changes looks good to me.

Design note: I am in favour of adding a small upkeep to a upgrade without base station. It feels right that you have to pay for maintenance and such, even if you do not actually use it.

Technology note: I take that this special project is for every single relay station? Given the benefits it creates, I think I am in favour of such a special project. Although the usefulness of the special project would be severely diminished on your home system with these proposed rules, as the upkeep there is only 10 instead of 25 . Do we see this as a problem or not? personally I have no issue with this. Your home system already provides an incredible cheap holonet relay.

For the implementation of the special project, I think every member who want these benefits should invest in these special projects the moment the rule changes are active? (This might cause some financial issues for the IO protocol?)

[Brend]

I would like to draw attention again to the technology issue noted in the first post:

Technology note: the Holonet Repeaters technology is extremely cheap with respect to other technologies that would give such a cost break. Not really a problem, but if the tech would be proposed as new right now, I would probably call for a special project on the Holonet Relay Base Station of another 500 + 50 to allow this cheapness. As per On technology design roughly calculated:

• 52 * 25 = 1300 saved assuming a single upgrade
• Amortization of the current tech cost over 4 players: 2000 / 4 = 500 per player
• 1300 - 500 = 800 unaccounted for
• So a special project of 500 + 50 = 725 .

I feel that, since the Holonet Repeaters technology was designed so early in the game, it might be a good idea to rebalance it. Especially now that we now how we should balance technologies and special projects.

For the implementation of the special project, I think every member who want these benefits should invest in these special projects the moment the rule changes are active? (This might cause some financial issues for the IO protocol?)

As this is a retroactive rules change, we might want to be careful with saying that all members who want this should invest.

A month ago I was hoping that those with a lot of Holonet Relays might offer their opinion.... That didn't work out as well as hoped, so this time round, I'll just see if I can get two more opinions. If not, I'll be posting these rules changes in the weekend of September 7-8.

[Chriz]

Normally we would say things like you get this for free in your home system if you have the tech. This would not change the problem for the players that have 3+ holonet relay stations.

Will they start paying upkeep when the rules have changed?

All though I think the cost of the special project is now a bit high.

Since we never actually researched the technology ourselves we could also increase the price of the technology to 4000 . Since it is actually a more powerful technology than we expected. That would mean the amortization is 1000 per player and the base station special project would only have to cost 50 . I think this is more reasonable, and should even be doable for the IO Protocol.

[Mercury]

I am in favour of the repricing of the technology.

I am in favour of rephrasing the Relays for clarity. However I am unclear on what the actual technology is now supposed to be, so I'd rather see a complete proposal first so I can get a better feel for it.

I am not very happy with the distinction between base stations and upgrade stations, which is a very strange distinction atm since both do exactly the same thing - seems to me like this could be solved more elegantly.

Here's my suggestion:

• Base Stations cost 100 and provide 500 (:holonet-capacity)
• Base Station upkeep is 25 / turn
• The home system is special for base stations:
  
  • First one in home system is free of upkeep
  • Additional ones in home system require only 10 / turn upkeep

• Upgrade stations cost 100 and provide 500 (:holonet-capacity)
• Upgrade stations require a base station (any base station) in the sector to work
• Upgrade stations have an upkeep of 25 / turn
• Holonet Repeaters removes the upkeep cost of Upgrade Stations

This is basically the same thing but more explicit.

[Brend]

I am not very happy with the distinction between base stations and upgrade stations, which is a very strange distinction atm since both do exactly the same thing - seems to me like this could be solved more elegantly.

(list omitted for brevity)

This is basically the same thing but more explicit.

Why do you want to get rid of the fact that a faction can deny another faction the use of their base station (since you can use 'any base station')? This is most definitely not the same thing...

The way the holonet relays are currently modelled (in the rules currently on the wiki), you can have a one or more relays in the sector and the faction controlling them has to pay the upkeep. I think your proposal takes a very important facet of negotiations out of the equation: the fact that not every faction has a base station in the desired sector, and that all the upkeep is put on the plate of the controller of the 'primary' holonet relay.

In your proposal everyone will just toss some Upgrade Stations next to any already existing Base Station if the controlling faction has the Repeaters tech. Next to that, the cooperative benefits of the Analytical racial characteristic are lost (since every Upgrade Station has its own upkeep, instead of increasing the upkeep of the Base Station).

I do not like the idea of having the upkeep separated from the Base Station, as that takes away a large part of the negotiation and cooperation options of the controller of the Base Station.


That being said, I like your distinction between Base Station and Upgrade Station. Though the fact that upgrade stations in your home sector still cost 25 upkeep makes it a bit awkward to 'upgrade' in your home sector: if you have the Repeaters technology, you want to have Upgrade Stations, but if you don't you want Base Stations -- and there is no way for one to become the other.

I think that we will be at a suitable endpoint with one more round of rewriting. I'm willing to put in the time, but I would like to have your reply on the points I highlighted first.

[Mercury]

I noted upgrade stations require a base station in the sector to work. I meant this to mean a base-station they have permission of accessing. An inaccessible base-station (which is denied by its controlling faction for example) would not be operational, but if another party installed a base-station and allowed access, it would work.

I deliberately place the maintenance burden on the keeper of the base station. It's their problem to get payment from third parties using their relay.

Because it is not inherently disadvantageous to the owner of the base station, the base presumption is the owner of the base station allows access and must deliberately deny access in order to override this default situation. This prevents people from getting locked down in negotiations with a semi-active party.

[Brend]

I don't understand...

Your earlier proposal says "Upgrade stations have an upkeep of 25 / turn", which appears to indicate that the upgrade station has an upkeep cost.

Now you say "I deliberately place the maintenance burden on the keeper of the base station. It's their problem to get payment from third parties using their relay.".

As far as I see these two statements are in direct conflict.

Then you continue with "Because it is not inherently disadvantageous to the owner of the base station,": paying an extra 25 / seems to be disadvantageous to me...

Might it be that there is a miscommuncation or misplaced word somewhere that confuses me?

This prevents people from getting locked down in negotiations with a semi-active party.

I think this also allows one to take advantage of either a) the inattentiveness of active players, and b) the left-overs of fringe worlds...

Maybe we should add a 'duty of notification' like we did with building in someone else's ? That way the burden to check all turn reports and sectors isn't on the controller of the sector, but on the party desiring to attach their upgrade to the base station. (For reference: Proposed rules change: Sovereignty, we did the notification part in Law, so failure to notify would not lead to OOC drama, but to an IC Ministry of Justice procedure.)

[Mercury]

Why would the owner of the base station have to pay the upkeep of an upgrade station? The upgrade station upkeep is paid for by the owner of the upgrade station, just as the owner of the base station pays the upkeep of the base station.

An upgrade station is a separate entity. You can build it without a base station. It just doesn't work without one. This way the owner of the base station can stop playing without issue - the upgrade stations remain intact, the owner of the upgrade stations just needs to put a new base station there. Moreover, it solves the issue where the player owning the base station has the tech to reduce upkeep while the owner of the upgrade station does not or vice versa - you pay for your upgrade station iff (sic) you do not have the technology.

I do agree on a notification requirement.

[Brend]

Confusion

I still don't understand how your explanation explains your contradiction of saying "I deliberately place the maintenance burden on the keeper of the base station. It's their problem to get payment from third parties using their relay." To me this statement follows in no way from your explanation T_T

In fact, you directly contradict it with "The upgrade station upkeep is paid for by the owner of the upgrade station, just as the owner of the base station pays the upkeep of the base station."

Regardless, I think I understand why I do not like your proposal. The next section explains this.

Aha! I found it.

As I understand it, you do not place any of the maintenance burden on the base station controller. You place the burden of the upkeep squarely on the shoulders of the controller of the upgrade station. What you propose is not only a remodelling, but a change of how Holonet Relay Station upkeep is calculated!

Instead of the controller of the base station having to pay everything (which is currently the case!), you want to shift part of this upkeep to the controller of the upgrade stations (which currently do not exist). Next to that, because of your upkeep redistribution you want to have the technology work on a upgrade level, instead of requiring the base station be upgraded with a project.

In my opinion, this detracts from the cooperativeness of the holonet relay stations mechanic as a whole. In your proposal it doesn't matter a single iota whether the base station controller has the technology, or any other way to reduce upkeep (such as Analytical).

Clarification (hopefully)

Based on what I gather from Mercury's proposal, I'll try to clarify. Below is a reworked verison of my original proposal :

• The Base Station costs 100 and offers 500 to its controller, and costs 25 of upkeep.
  • As a special case, upkeep 10 in the home sector of the controller
• The Upgrade Station costs 100 and offers 500 to its controller. It increases the upkeep of the associated Base Station with +25
  
  • Without a Base Station the Upgrade Station won't function.
  • Without a Base Station, the Upgrade Station has a 5 upkeep payable by its controller
  • As a special case, Upgrade Stations in its controller's home sector add only +10 to the upkeep of the Base Station.
• You can attach your Upgrade Station to any Base Station in the sector, provided its controller allows it (note the attachment in your turn report)
• The Holonet Repeaters Technology will work by building a project on the Base Station: Ignore all attached Upgrade Stations of that Base Station for calculating its upkeep

Looking at our two proposals, I can spot only three differences between mine and yours:

• My system puts the burden of upkeep fully on the controller of the Base Station / Your system distributes the upkeep and places the burden of upkeep on the controller of the station (regardless of type)
• My system allows upgrade stations on the home sector to benefit from the 'home sector advantage' / Your system has full upkeep for Upgrade Stations no matter their location
• My system requires the Base Station be upgraded with a project to benefit from the Holonet Repeaters tech / Your system requires the controller of the Upgrade Station to possess the technology

I have already explained why I am not in favour of redistributing the upkeep burden. (If that is the only thing we disagree on, I'm willing to compromise by looking at a solution for the Analytical issue; but right now the tech implementation is in dispute as well.)

On the technology front, I am in favour of an actual project on a station, instead of only requiring possession.

I think it would be best if others had a look as well? Right now it doesn't seem Mercury and I are going to agree on this (I don't understand why he thinks what he thinks, and he most likely doesn't understand why I don't understand him).

[Elmer]

I have read the differences, and I think that Brend's clarification makes a fine explanation of the situation.

For now I ignore the contradiction of Mercury's words because I assume he made a mistake of words there.

I am in favour of increasing the upkeep of the base station, for a very simple reason: With the current proposal an upgrade station is equally expensive as a base station, so if I have to pay for my own upgrade station, than I have no reason to make an upgrade station. A base station gives me the same benefits, but no downsides like being denied access to the station.

Only when the other party has the holonet repeater tech to remove the upkeep cost of the upgrade station it will become beneficial for me to make an upgrade station, but with that tech we have no discussion any more who has to pay the upkeep, as there is none.

[Mercury]

I could make a long and elaborate explanation which would clarify that all I said is internally consistent (it is), but I think it would be a bother that wouldn't add anything in the way of clarity so I'll avoid it.

My proposal is simple:

The owner of the base station is responsible for the upkeep of the base station (and only the base station)
The owner of the upgrade station is responsible for the upkeep of the upgrade station (and only the upgrade station)

It seems to me that this is the most simple and reasonable method - each player keeps track of their own upkeep.

As an additional feature, the upkeep of an upgrade station an be reduced to zero if the owner of the upgrade station has the Holonet Repeaters Technology.

This creates a benefit imbalance - the keeper of the upgrade station is advantaged over the keeper of the base station. However, the keeper of the base station is likewise advantaged - they can disable the upgrade station at their leisure.

This situation is modelled in an existing psychological experiment known as the ultimate game, with the upgrade station keeper making the division while the base keeper approves or denies it.

You mention your proposal detracts from cooperation, but I disagree. This situation (as the rest of Fwurg) rewards cooperation with savings for both parties involved.

My system allows upgrade stations on the home sector to benefit from the 'home sector advantage' / Your system has full upkeep for Upgrade Stations no matter their location

My system actually allows this benefit, you just require the Holonet Repeaters Technology to make (indirect) use of it. I'm willing to add an exception for upgrade stations in the upgraders home sector, but I don't think its necessary.



I don't care about the Analytical aspect of the situation. However, I do think we need to have a clear separation of property (including the cost of ownership). Having upgrade stations increase the upkeep of base stations seems convoluted to me and in case the owner of the base station is away, it would require the upgrade station owner to adjust the data of the base station owner, who may be confused by the higher upkeep cost they now have upon their return.

Note: We can significantly simplify the issue if we eliminate the Holonet Repeaters Technology entirely as if everyone has it. I don't think this is a big sacrifice especially since the technology was created by an NPC (Niom).

[Brend]

(PS. Mercury meant "ultimatum game" where he wrote "ultimate game" -- The Ultimate Game is, of course, FWURG itself :P)

@Mercury: Your reasoning of why the upkeep should be distributed makes sense to me. (I'll inquire about the consistency thing out-of-band, as I am interested in knowing where we missed each other.)

@All: In the past I was against abolishing the Holonet Repeaters Technology, but given the ubiquitous nature of the technology (and the amount of special-casing it creates) I am now in favour of removing it completely.

Incidentally, as Mercury already remarks, the removal of the tech simplifies things enormously, as the removal of all upkeep on Upgrade Stations aligns my proposal and his proposal to become the same thing.

The final proposal then becomes:

• The Base Station costs 100 and offers 500 to its controller, and costs 25 of upkeep.
  • There is no longer a special case in the home sector, as the first Base Station is free of upkeep there!
• The Upgrade Station costs 100 and offers 500 to its controller.
  
  • Without a Base Station the Upgrade Station won't function.
• You can attach your Upgrade Station to any Base Station in the sector, provided its controller allows it (note the attachment in your turn report)
• The Holonet Repeaters Technology will be removed completely.

There is only two things that we need to determine:

1) Everyone involved has agrees that we should repricing the technology, because it was generally felt that the technology as-is is too good. If we give everyone the technology by removing it and adding its effects into the rules, we do not remove the too-good-ness of the technology.

The original proposal was a project on top of the Base Station (costing around 500 and 50 ). Chriz' counter-proposal was only a 50 charge and a more expensive technology.

I see the following options:

• Given that the technology was basically free to begin with, I think we can safely increase the cost of the Base Station to 150 + 500 .
• Alternatively, we could slightly increase the upkeep of the Base Station to tone down the goodness. In that case I propose to increase the upkeep to 35 . (That is an increase of +10 per , which is less than the projects price of (50 * 4.5 a piece + 500 ) / 52 = 13.942 )
• A combination of parts of the above could also be done, for example adding +50 to the Base Station, and increasing upkeep with +5

2) We need to determine how we translate the current situation to the new situation. I think that players whose factions have agreements with regards to Holonet relay stations will have to hash it out between them. The guideline would be: If you are currently paying upkeep in a sector, you have a Base Station there. (When the time comes, I think this will have quite some impact, depending on how we change the Base Station costs).

I hope to update the wiki and the rules in the weekend of 2013-9-21 (which is in 120, so the changes would go into effect starting (turn) 121), so let's keep this rolling.

[Gerben]

Either way its clear that this fix is going to cost me and im fine with that.

My biased favour would be to increase the upkeep of a basestation to 35 / , as its give me more benefit on the analytical characteristic in the long run. But I would also consider both other options a viable choice, with the first seeming the better one. It calls for significant investment to match the new rules, as I have to pay for 7 relay's, but it is the least invasive in terms of upkeep and rule changes.

[Chriz]

I think increasing the upkeep to 35 / is the most simple change to balance this all. This way the value of the base station does not change. And this will make sure that nobody has to add any extra special goods to their holonet relay stations on short notice.

[Elmer]

So far I have no problem to increase the upkeep, this seems to be the most simple solution.

[Mercury]

I don't understand this part:

1) Everyone involved has agrees that we should repricing the technology, because it was generally felt that the technology as-is is too good. If we give everyone the technology by removing it and adding its effects into the rules, we do not remove the too-good-ness of the technology.

Why is the too-good-ness of the technology not removed by making it standard? Note: this isn't criticism, I genuinely don't understand.

That said, I do not mind increased upkeep.

[Brend]

The too-goodness is not removed because the technology made Holonets too good in the context of the other options. Since the technology did not adhere roughly to the 52 repayment scheme, it became better to use than other methods of transporting goods. Since we now plan to give everyone the effect, the imbalance against other forms of trade is still there.

I see that upkeep increase has support from 5 players already. If no one objects, I will update the rules (and post the 'Rules Changed' thread where you can announce your retroactive changes as per the meta rules) in the weekend of 2013-9-21 (the end of 120)).

[Mercury]

I do agree Holonets are better at transporting information and information based products than trade fleets, but I disagree that Holonets are inherently better than trade fleets.

Say we have 2 planets A and B who have 2 sectors between them for a total of 4 to travel through.

To transport for a year 1000 goods from planet A to planet B requires 4000 (:holonet-capacity) in total (1000 (:holonet-capacity) in each zone), for a price of 800 plus twice 10 base maintenance in the two home sectors and twice 25 maintenance in the sectors in between is 70 for 52 .

Calculating 5 per , the total price is 5 * 800 + 70 * 52 = 7640 total cost of transportation.

To transport for a year 1000 goods from planet A to planet B requires 1000 in total plus 2000 for a zone to support the fleet (not calculating the other benefits of such a zone since it does use up a zone.

Calculating 5 per , the total price is 5 * 1000 + 2000 = 7000 .

This is roughly in the same scale with Holonet actually coming out a bit worse.

It should be noted that adjacent worlds would have a lower cost for Holonet connections. It would then - using the same calculation methods - come to 3040 which is much cheaper than 7000. Its not an order size, but it is a significantly lower cost.

However, this does not take into account that Holonet Relays cannot be used for 83% of raw materials and 75% of products and that Holonet Relays, unlike Trade Fleet, cannot be moved to different locations should a trade partner change.

I agree the technology was likely to have been too cheap. However I don't think Holonets in and of themselves - with or without the technology - are too cheap.

As such, I question the validation behind raising the upkeep for holonet relays, but I am open to hearing the arguments on this. Please change my mind!

[Brend]

Intersting.

However, I feel you are forgetting a few factors. See below for my calculations (based on the same amounts to transport over the same distance).

Holonet

To transport for a year 1000 goods from planet A to planet B requires:

• 4000 in total (1000 in each zone), which is 800
• twice 10 base maintenance in the two home sectors, for 52
• twice 25 maintenance in the two sectors in between, for 52

Calculating 5 per , the total price is 5 * 800 + 2* 10 * 52 + 2 * 25 * 52 = 7640

However, with the integration of the technology, it becomes very advantageous to share the upkeep. For example, if another relay is already available in the two in-between sectors, you could split upkeep 50/50, in that case the cost would be:

Calculating 5 per , the total price is 5 * 800 + (2* 10 * 52 + 2 * 25 * 52) / 2 = 5820

MTCF

To transport for a year 1000 goods from planet A to planet B requires:

• 1200 in total (taking into account bozzy spine (0.2) and q2 lanes in both sectors (for another 1.0))
• 2000 for a zone to support the fleet (not calculating the other benefits of such a zone since it does use up a zone)
• 10 tax per turn of opportunity cost from the zone; for 52 (OM capacity does not generate income)

Calculating 5 per , the total price is 5 * 1200 + 2000 + 520 = 8520

Weighing advantages and disadvantages

If the distance is longer, MTCFs will quickly overtake Holonet Relays in effectiveness (in fact, with the 50/50 upkeep split, the holonet relays are overtaken in effectiveness at distance ~ 2.31).

The fact that the Holonet Relays can not carry anything other then and -based goods, is a disadvantage. Personally, I feel that the Holonet's ability to trade with multiple partners over the same relay weighs heavily in its favour; because any extra capacity in a fleet can only be used if others also invest in extra fleets (to get stuff to you so that you can ship it the rest of the way has an additional 2000 + 520 = 2520 cost in OM zone).


To be honest though, based purely on the 4 sectors 1000 goods example, I do not think that an upkeep increase of +10 is in order. Instead, I would propose to slightly increase the construction cost of a Holonet Base Station instead. I think this neatly offsets the difference in setup cost -- the MTCFs are about just under 900 heavier right now.

By adding +50 to the cost of the base station, we get:

Calculating 5 per , the total price is 5 * 1000 + 2* 10 * 52 + 2 * 25 * 52 = 8640

This neatly keeps the awesomeness of the Upgrade Stations and the upkeep sharing intact, while putting them on equal footing. (Note that ONLY the Base Stations are more expensive!)

What do others thinks?

[Chriz]

I think that Brend's calculations give a more realistic view.

I guess that increasing the basestation construction cost does make the Holonet trade more viable in long term which is better than the upkeep increase which just makes it easier in short term. This combines the proposal we had for the implementation of the special project and the ignoring of the technology.

[Elmer]

Although I have nothing against increasing the base cost of a holonet relay station, I prefer to increase the cost of the upkeep to balance the benefits. This to make a clearer distinction between the two types of transport. I think it is nicer to have a clearer distinction.