(01-26-2018, 01:37 PM)Thyrzul Wrote: [ -> ]One of the main issues with this proposal is that there are inherent flaws in the entrety of it. Intra-system distances are not addressed, there are no proposals for intra-system locations for the new jumpholes, no regard to what possible economy balance may be required not to screw up things even more, without these it's just - no offense - half-assed.
It's a work in progress, for which I asked for suggestions.
It's also designed to make as little work as possible for devs, so it can be done as soon as possible. Intra-system JH layout should logically follow the concepts of vanilla (not too close to bases, not too far apart or close together).
Economy concerns are valid, and have been partially taken into account by making smuggle routes like cardamine and artifacts shorter and/or focusing them through choke points. Everyone, including you, were invited to express any concern with JHs they had, regarding the economy or any other aspect.
With the current player count however, I think it's perfectly controllable to do the JH overhaul first and, do the economy adjustments later in another update. Especially since the impacts of the overwhelming majority of theoretically necessary economy adjustments will remain purely theoretical in a nearly empty sector/server.
(01-26-2018, 01:37 PM)Thyrzul Wrote: [ -> ]On the other hand, as I said before, the general concept of mainstreaming traffic into tighter areas and through bottlenecks already exists. There are single most efficient trade routes between the houses including, but not limited to:
● Omega-3 and Omega-7,
● Sigma-13,
● Tau-29 and Tau-31,
● Tau-23 and Tau-31,
● Rishiri,
there are also prioritised pathways between Liberty and the other three Sirian houses for various reasons, namely:
● Cortez over Magellan because of the GRN's advance and one less lane in Manchester,
● Hudson over Bering because of the destroyed Hamburg gate and the takeover of the freeport,
● Kepler over Galileo because of one less lane and Ames, (though I wouldn't mind something interesting in Galileo)
and then there are the bottlenecks including, but not limited to:
● California, Colorado, Texas,
● Manchester, Cambridge, Leeds, (though the latter is a bit of a special case)
● Kyushu, Hokkaido, Honshu, Shikoku,
● Hamburg, Frankfurt, Stuttgart,
● Languedoc, Dauphine, Lyonnais, Lorraine,
and by extension, the capital systems the above are connected to, in case they are and there are no viable shortcuts around them:
● New London,
● New Tokyo,
● New Berlin.
This long part seems to serve no other purpose than to explain things that I, like most people who look at the map, already know, with the intention of making me look like I didnt know it. I think the word for that is "mansplaining". Tbh most of your post seems motivated by bitterness over me not supporting making Sirius a sphere rather than "flat" so you can attach Gallia to everything in the hope of making Gallia and your faction more important and populated. I hope you can stop taking that so personal and stop making it a "my proposal vs your proposal" thing. Even if you've successfully sunk "my proposal" as you'RE obviously trying to do (which isnt "mine" but my attempt at a practical implementation of something that many people have asked for while asking others to please contribute), "your proposal" still has the problem that it requires MASSIVE amounts of work, and MASSIVE undoing of old lore, plus is takes the story into a direction that the devs obviously dont want.
Quote:What I agree about is that Gallia needs a bit of a restructuring to resemble the other houses in regards to both intra-house and inter-house connections, which is the core of my ancient proposal.
But in order to remain constructive, possibly with a proposal unrelated to Gallia and matching the OP's proposal in quality and detail:
Redo the Ontario-Colorado jumphole connection so New York can join the rest in the above list. How it's done, complete removal, distance increase, restriction to snubs only, I don't care, and given the depth of your proposal, you don't seem to care either.
Thank you for making a concrete suggestion. However at this point I find the justification "so it can join the above list" is outweighed by the negative impact of people using it to avoid interaction. If you have better justifications I'm glad to read them and hope you can voice them in a less emotionally driven way.