Separate the T2 and T3 construction counters

[Mako Kai]

So I have managed to secure four systems right next to each other, and I plan to build them out with one economy each. For my purposes, since I’m an independent player, I really won’t need much more than a T1 planetary port, a hub or two, and a Coriolis in orbit in each system.

However, if I ever decide to join a squadron, and we decide that we need to build up those planets and add a T3 planetary port and a T3 orbital, we have a problem. Because I built Coriolis first, one out of those two T3‘s is gonna be really expensive.

So if I wanted to” future proof “ my systems, I would need to build out enough facilities to get 12 T3 points, start construction on a T3, planetary port, and a T3 orbital (that at present, I have no intention of finishing), and then build my Coriolis.

I get the concept of why we have a counter in the first place, to prevent T3‘s everywhere, which are supposed to be relatively rare. But what I propose is we separate the T2 counter from the T3. That way I could build my Coriolis, and it not affect The T3 counter, so that I could in the future build a planetary port and a T3 orbital if I ever wanted to, without the price doubling for those stations.

 

[Greasetrap42]

So if I wanted to” future proof “ my systems, I would need to build out enough facilities to get 12 T3 points, start construction on a T3, planetary port, and a T3 orbital (that at present, I have no intention of finishing), and then build my Coriolis.

Or... if you are thinking long term... design around a grouping of systems. You can build in neighboring systems. IMO when making a claim a triplet of "good" neighboring systems is much better than a single "amazing" system. Each system can focus on specific economies, and has a couple different things to offer. And it is often quicker to jump to another system than to supercruise between stations within a system.

Also, if this is all for a group of players it might be nicer to allow the other group players to claim and archetect the neighboring systems, rather than one player overlord over everybody else. Cooperating and helping each other but allowing other players some freedom. Personally I wouldn't want to be the underling peasant doing the bidding of another player.

 

[KRISXR]

Or... if you are thinking long term... design around a grouping of systems. You can build in neighboring systems. IMO when making a claim a triplet of "good" neighboring systems is much better than a single "amazing" system. Each system can focus on specific economies, and has a couple different things to offer. And it is often quicker to jump to another system than to supercruise between stations within a system.

Also, if this is all for a group of players it might be nicer to allow the other group players to claim and archetect the neighboring systems, rather than one player overlord over everybody else. Cooperating and helping each other but allowing other players some freedom. Personally I wouldn't want to be the underling peasant doing the bidding of another player.

I haven't thought much about or tried trailblazers yet, that is an intelligent, fun, strategic approach to the colonization premise. Ya, it would be more secure, more structured, and more fun because it would be more collaborative.
Your avatar gets me every time i see it, btw.

 

[Mako Kai]

Or... if you are thinking long term... design around a grouping of systems. You can build in neighboring systems. IMO when making a claim a triplet of "good" neighboring systems is much better than a single "amazing" system. Each system can focus on specific economies, and has a couple different things to offer. And it is often quicker to jump to another system than to supercruise between stations within a system.

That’s exactly what I’m trying to do, maybe I didn’t explain it clearly. I have 4 systems, they each will have one specialized (not mixed) economy: extraction, refinery, industrial, and high tech.

Also, if this is all for a group of players it might be nicer to allow the other group players to claim and archetect the neighboring systems, rather than one player overlord over everybody else. Cooperating and helping each other but allowing other players some freedom. Personally I wouldn't want to be the underling peasant doing the bidding of another player.

Again, I think something is lost in translation here. I’m great with others claiming the systems around me and cooperating with them. I don’t need to own more than I have.

What I was trying to say is that while me building my T1 surface port/T2 Coriolis is fine now, one day I might want to build T3s. With the existing system, if I ever wanted to build T3’s in the system, I need to work to build up 12 points and start them and THEN build my Coriolis, as opposed to just building my Coriolis now.

With a separate T2 counter, my Coriolis would count as my first T2 build, and not count at all to a T3 build (like it is now).