Why Advanced Satellite trading is illogical and exploitish

[Falcrack]

There are a couple reasons why advanced satellite trading is such an overpowered way to make money.

1. The shipyard/wharf you sell to pays you as if you are giving them the entire cost for each advanced satellite (ie 5 advanced electronics, 5 scanning arrays, 10 energy cells per advanced satellite), but only receives half that amount back in wares (2.5 advanced electronics, 2.5 scanning arrays, 5 energy cells per advanced satellite). If they only paid you for what they receive back in wares, then trading advanced satellites in this manner would result in the player losing money. In addition, this means that each trade cycle restocks the station less than it should, meaning you can repeat the trade cycle more frequently before the prices at the shipyard or wharf fall to the point where it is unprofitable.

2. Small fighters can hold way too many advanced satellites (50) considering the size of the wares needed to make advanced satellites. 50 advanced satellites requires 250 advanced electronics, 250 scanning arrays, and 500 energy cells. That's never gonna fit in a small fighter, that is what a freighter with a large cargo capacity can accommodate. Having ships that hold this many advanced satellites make satellite trading that much easier.

[GCU Grey Area]

Don't care in the slightest about #1. It's not something I ever do in my games because, as noted, it's detrimental to NPC economies. Would therefore be counterproductive to my efforts to support them. There are many other ways to earn credits that are beneficial to NPC factions instead.

I am however very concerned about #2 being proposed as the solution. Would not want the capacity of S ships reduced because I generally use one to deploy my satellite networks. Usually takes 19 adv sats to get full coverage of a sector with it's default borders. Current capacity of S ships means I can carry enough to cover 2 sectors before I need to fly to a wharf to restock. Would be bloody annoying to have to do this more frequently just to fix a problem that Falcrack has with how other people play their games.

[Nanook]

There are a couple reasons why advanced satellite trading is such an overpowered way to make money.

1. The shipyard/wharf you sell to pays you as if you are giving them the entire cost for each advanced satellite (ie 5 advanced electronics, 5 scanning arrays, 10 energy cells per advanced satellite), but only receives half that amount back in wares (2.5 advanced electronics, 2.5 scanning arrays, 5 energy cells per advanced satellite). If they only paid you for what they receive back in wares, then trading advanced satellites in this manner would result in the player losing money. In addition, this means that each trade cycle restocks the station less than it should, meaning you can repeat the trade cycle more frequently before the prices at the shipyard or wharf fall to the point where it is unprofitable.

2. Small fighters can hold way too many advanced satellites (50) considering the size of the wares needed to make advanced satellites. 50 advanced satellites requires 250 advanced electronics, 250 scanning arrays, and 500 energy cells. That's never gonna fit in a small fighter, that is what a freighter with a large cargo capacity can accommodate. Having ships that hold this many advanced satellites make satellite trading that much easier.

I don't understand why either of these are a problem for you. If you don't like them, don't do them. It's not like the game forces you to do so. And since it's a single player game, what others may or may not do in their games has no effect on you.

It's the crystal nerf all over again. Some players didn't have the willpower to avoid collecting all those nice crystals, so eventually convinced the devs to nerf them badly. That ruined the game for a number of players who used them in their games. I personally don't even bother looking. Crystals have become totally irrelevant and a waste of game coding, IMO.

Bottom line, if you feel some aspect of the game is 'exploitish or cheaty', don't take advantage. There's no need to ruin the game for others who may want/need those features to make the game enjoyable to them.

[Manawydn]

I've spoken about this numerous times in my VODs (linked in sig) as well. There are several solutions, but it basically boils down to this.

1 - Reduce profit margins on Adv Satellites

2 - Reduce the number of deployables ships can carry.

[Nanook]

I've spoken about this numerous times in my VODs (linked in sig) as well. There are several solutions, but it basically boils down to this.

1 - Reduce profit margins on Adv Satellites

2 - Reduce the number of deployables ships can carry.

Why??? Don't like it, don't do it. Why should the devs nerf the game to suit your personal preferences?

[Manawydn]

I've spoken about this numerous times in my VODs (linked in sig) as well. There are several solutions, but it basically boils down to this.

1 - Reduce profit margins on Adv Satellites

2 - Reduce the number of deployables ships can carry.

Why??? Don't like it, don't do it. Why should the devs nerf the game to suit your personal preferences?

Because it's healthy for the game. Cheesing, such as Drive-by boarding bypasses the intended early-game.

Likewise, the mission system along with payouts should be revamped/buffed to offset the difference, which would result in a net-positive overall.

Why should the devs leave cheese in the game? Because that is your argument as far as I am aware. Why should/did they nerf drive-by boarding then? Because it's healthy for the longevity of the game's pacing.

[VincentTH]

It's a single player game, for God sake!!!! There is no need to worry about unfairness!!!!

[GCU Grey Area]

Cheesing, such as Drive-by boarding bypasses the intended early-game.

Likewise, the mission system along with payouts should be revamped/buffed to offset the difference, which would result in a net-positive overall.

Not for me it wouldn't & I do a LOT of missions: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/c02lbv7b ... ojfh4&dl=0
Would absolutely hate it if mission rewards were 'rebalanced' to be as lucrative as the sort of cheesy fly-by boarding I hear about. It would essentially ruin this aspect of the game for me by providing far too much far too quickly. For the most part I'm absolutely fine with the mission rewards as they are now. Incidentally, I don't care in the slightest if other people want to do cheesy fly-by boarding as a quick route to huge piles of cash. Maybe they prefer the end game more & appreciate a quick means to get there? Not for me to say they're playing the game wrong, even if I prefer to play the game at a much slower pace.

[LetMeIn11]

I risk to open up a pandora box but the idea of equipment docks is that ALL equipment is cheaper there, not only satellites. This means you can equip all Mk3s at an equipment dock and then fly and sell everything(by striping to Mk1) at a wharf making ~x1.5-x2 in profits(this is additional extra millions to your satellite trade run).

Developers probably expected that we would buy minimal presets at wharfs and then upgrade them at equipment docks not the other way around

[Nanook]

...
Because it's healthy for the game.

Nonsense!

Cheesing, such as Drive-by boarding bypasses the intended early-game.

And what's "the intended early-game"? Your playstyle or someone else's? Certainly not mine! I would never try to force my playstyles on other players.

Why should the devs leave cheese in the game? Because that is your argument as far as I am aware. Why should/did they nerf drive-by boarding then? Because it's healthy for the longevity of the game's pacing.

The game doesn't really have a "pacing". It's an open world single player game, which means anything goes, really. As has been pointed out many, many times, if you don't like some aspect, cheesy or not, no one is forcing you to play that way. It's not a contest.

[Manawydn]

...
Because it's healthy for the game.

Nonsense!

Cheesing, such as Drive-by boarding bypasses the intended early-game.

And what's "the intended early-game"? Your playstyle or someone else's? Certainly not mine! I would never try to force my playstyles on other players.

Why should the devs leave cheese in the game? Because that is your argument as far as I am aware. Why should/did they nerf drive-by boarding then? Because it's healthy for the longevity of the game's pacing.

The game doesn't really have a "pacing". It's an open world single player game, which means anything goes, really. As has been pointed out many, many times, if you don't like some aspect, cheesy or not, no one is forcing you to play that way. It's not a contest.

Intended early-game // Scouting, gaining access to your first autominer/traders, scanning stations and general exploration, capsizing small and medium ships, starting your satellite network, manual trading/mining, doing non-guild missions that are accessible to you (deploying satellites, taxi services, killing laser towers etc) getting your first +10 reputation with your chosen faction(s), gathering inventory items, fighting small and medium ships for reward money/reputation.
--- It's not about a singular playstyle, it's about accessible mechanics in the early game, independent of playstyle. --- \\

I will reiterate just so we are clear // --- It's not about a singular playstyle, it's about accessible mechanics in the early game, independent of playstyle. --- \\

The game clearly has an intended pacing to it, for example a brand new player on a non-creative start "shouldn't" gain access to a full economy, shipyard, and wharf all self-sufficiently supplied within the first 10, 20, or even 50 hours of the game. It is impossible to scale yourself to that size without either a creative start, or "cheesing" boarding and advanced satellite flipping.

Please, think about what you are saying. You are implying that mechanics which aren't considered fun or enjoyable by the wider community shouldn't be changed or adjusted because they don't negatively affect you. Here, I even made a post in reddit to see if the community on that end was in agreement with me or not. Spoiler alert, by-and-large, the feedback is fairly unanimous with rare exception.

https://www.reddit.com/r/X4Foundations/ ... points_as/

Stop trying to "win" arguments and start trying to understand them.

[Manawydn]

Cheesing, such as Drive-by boarding bypasses the intended early-game.

Likewise, the mission system along with payouts should be revamped/buffed to offset the difference, which would result in a net-positive overall.

Not for me it wouldn't & I do a LOT of missions: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/c02lbv7b ... ojfh4&dl=0
Would absolutely hate it if mission rewards were 'rebalanced' to be as lucrative as the sort of cheesy fly-by boarding I hear about. It would essentially ruin this aspect of the game for me by providing far too much far too quickly. For the most part I'm absolutely fine with the mission rewards as they are now. Incidentally, I don't care in the slightest if other people want to do cheesy fly-by boarding as a quick route to huge piles of cash. Maybe they prefer the end game more & appreciate a quick means to get there? Not for me to say they're playing the game wrong, even if I prefer to play the game at a much slower pace.

I agree that missions should not be cheesy like fly-by boarding. However, I will point out that newer players are more often than not confused by both objectives and rewards (which is a much bigger issue than rewards themselves) and some missions are worth so little that they are "useless time sinks". A prime example is repair satellite missions. The monetary reward of 30k credits would require ten of those missions completed in order to afford your first small-size ship. That would take about 2 hours or more to complete, especially as a new player. People quit the game because of this, as expressed by the Reddit mob below when I reposted my feedback from a different forum thread to reddit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/X4Foundations/ ... points_as/

I'm clearly not in the minority if both Egosoft forums and Reddit are largely in agreement with me.

It's a single player game, for God sake!!!! There is no need to worry about unfairness!!!!

This is about fun and engaging game mechanics, not some obscure notion of fairness, if your response is directed at me that is. It still applies to OP however.

[Zloth2]

Bottom line, if you feel some aspect of the game is 'exploitish or cheaty', don't take advantage. There's no need to ruin the game for others who may want/need those features to make the game enjoyable to them.

Then why did the devs nerf the crystal mining? Why is there even a concept of 'budgeted' starts? Because they've got to keep a lid on the gameplay balance, or many people will ruin their own fun.

The question is, are people doing that a lot with this exploit? I presume not, because the developers are well aware of it and aren't doing anything to nerf it.

[Caedes91]

...

2. Small fighters can hold way too many advanced satellites (50) considering the size of the wares needed to make advanced satellites. 50 advanced satellites requires 250 advanced electronics, 250 scanning arrays, and 500 energy cells. That's never gonna fit in a small fighter, that is what a freighter with a large cargo capacity can accommodate. Having ships that hold this many advanced satellites make satellite trading that much easier.

You are definitely right about this. The ship stats are so nonsensical and have been since release, way back in 2018. Small fighters hold 50 sattellites etc. while they should barely fit one. Destroyers and large miners somehow hold 40 small ships?! but 10 drones at most??? Destroyers should use the cargo space for missiles instead. For carriers it is the opposite: They should be able to hold more fighters than destroyers and miners. So all ships should either be rebalanced or redesigned to visually make sense with these numbers.

Or Egosoft can go the lazy route and retcon "Magic dimensional Harry Potter bags" into X-lore...Seriously, don't do that please.

Off-topic: copy-paste turret stats across the board. Especially bad for Terrans, who are supposed to have been isolationalits. Instead they ape after other lesser factions and races while still lacking weapon types instead...

[Nanook]

Or Egosoft can go the lazy route and retcon "Magic dimensional Harry Potter bags" into X-lore...Seriously, don't do that please...

You've obviously never played any of the games up to and including the X3's. There was this thing called 'cargo bay compression' that allowed players to add massive amounts of cargo space to their ships, at a price. That's your "Magic dimensional Harry Potter bags" already in X-Universe lore.

[GCU Grey Area]

However, I will point out that newer players are more often than not confused by both objectives and rewards (which is a much bigger issue than rewards themselves) and some missions are worth so little that they are "useless time sinks". A prime example is repair satellite missions. The monetary reward of 30k credits would require ten of those missions completed in order to afford your first small-size ship. That would take about 2 hours or more to complete, especially as a new player.

If you don't think a mission is worth your time I'd suggest doing a different one. As for myself I frequently do those satellite repair missions in the early game. They're easy & risk-free (hence the low pay) but still noticeably improve the speed at which I gain faction rep. I do not consider that a "useless time sink", far from it. For me the rep gain's a far greater reward than the monetary one since my overall objective as regards missions at that stage of the game is to raise my rep to the point where I can start doing guild missions. As for 2 hours to get a new ship by doing something so easy, frankly that seems fair.

I'm clearly not in the minority if both Egosoft forums and Reddit are largely in agreement with me.

You most definitely are, as am I & everyone else who posts anything here, on Reddit, or elsewhere. Overwhelming majority of players say absolutely nothing about the games they play. Of those who do there's a far greater incentive for people who dislike something about a game to whinge about it, than there is for people who enjoy that aspect of a game to post something favourable about it. Usually only occurs as a counterpoint in threads demanding changes which would spoil their own enjoyment of the game, as is the case for my posts here.