Forums » Suggestions
Similar to http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/1912 , yet so very different.
The general idea is to give players the options to build, siege and destroy stations. Sieges can be done by individuals, but due to Stations' defences it would be the most stupid thing in the galaxy to do. However, building a station has to be done either as part of a Guild or as part of a Faction. A, "perfect" construction will take a set amount of time depending on the amount of funding the Guild has designated to it, though construction can be delayed by enemy Guilds attacking the construction site.
The Guild-based stations are easiest to explain right now:
1. No enemy Guild stations may exist in the same system (I.E. any that exist must be sieged and destroyed first). Building stations in the same system as allied Guilds is permitted. Whoever is the first to exclusively own a station in a system will be marked as, "owning" the system on the Galaxy Map. If all their stations in the system are destroyed, the next to have built a Station there will be marked as, "owning" the system, and so on. If there are no stations in the system, the system becomes, "grey" (unclaimed territory). The amount of presence of individual Guilds DOES NOT define who, "owns" the system, since the Guild that originally conquered the system will have explicitly allowed other guilds to form a presence there (if at all). Ownership of a system may also be passed from the owning Guild to an allied Guild in the same system.
2. You MUST build 1 Capitol Station if your guild doesn't have one already.
3. Types of station (military, mining, research, commercial) and where they are built (in an asteroid belt, near a planet etc.) will determine what the station produces (trade goods/ships, military weapons/ships, bulk-trading goods, minerals/ores) and how much (a mining station near an asteroid belt will produce more ore than one far away). Guilds will also be able to define what to produce and how much (however, in the case of mining/trade goods, due to their nature the Guild will not be able to dictate what/how much of it is produced) and potentially, what to research (which may lead to cheaper production, cheaper services, or the production of certain trade goods).
4. The Guild Leaders/Council Members/whatever will determine what stations will buy, the price they will buy at, what they will sell, the price they will sell at and what they will stockpile for the Guild's exclusive use.
5. The Guild Leaders/Council Members/whatever will determine hostility levels of stations towards individuals, players of allied Guilds, players of neutral/unencountered Guilds, players of enemy Guilds, players of differing Nationalities etc., and members may allow temporary exceptions (e.g. to let an individual of a hostile Nation to stock up).
6. If stations lack common materials (some trade goods such as Purified Water/Food, ores or other materials), production rates may decrease on related items (low ores --> low weapon/ship production) or increase the cost of services (low Purified Water/Food --> increased Ship Repair cost). This motivates Guilds to either make wise choices about the type of Stations to build, or else forces them to request trade of certain materials (which will likely be produced/sold by other Guilds) at increased prices (otherwise, why might a trader sell produce to them?). This will create a player-driven economy, where guilds compete on price/quantity of produce to sell and buy produce to make up for lacks in stock. It also opens up the opportunity for heavily-specialized Guilds (Mining/Trading/Military/Whatever Guilds).
7. The Guild Bank records revenue and cost from trade and cost of manufacture/services. A Guild will be severely limited in its Stations' abilities if it cannot maintain its Stations well and may make massive profits to the benefit of its members if it makes the right choices and the right sacrifices at the right times.
How the current three Factions factor into this, I haven't entirely sussed out yet, as in theory guilds could wipe out the current Factions and build their own Stations to claim systems as their own. Additionally, this doesn't accommodate new players and new character creation.
'Twas fun to write, and I hope it was an interesting read and food for thought. Discuss!
The general idea is to give players the options to build, siege and destroy stations. Sieges can be done by individuals, but due to Stations' defences it would be the most stupid thing in the galaxy to do. However, building a station has to be done either as part of a Guild or as part of a Faction. A, "perfect" construction will take a set amount of time depending on the amount of funding the Guild has designated to it, though construction can be delayed by enemy Guilds attacking the construction site.
The Guild-based stations are easiest to explain right now:
1. No enemy Guild stations may exist in the same system (I.E. any that exist must be sieged and destroyed first). Building stations in the same system as allied Guilds is permitted. Whoever is the first to exclusively own a station in a system will be marked as, "owning" the system on the Galaxy Map. If all their stations in the system are destroyed, the next to have built a Station there will be marked as, "owning" the system, and so on. If there are no stations in the system, the system becomes, "grey" (unclaimed territory). The amount of presence of individual Guilds DOES NOT define who, "owns" the system, since the Guild that originally conquered the system will have explicitly allowed other guilds to form a presence there (if at all). Ownership of a system may also be passed from the owning Guild to an allied Guild in the same system.
2. You MUST build 1 Capitol Station if your guild doesn't have one already.
3. Types of station (military, mining, research, commercial) and where they are built (in an asteroid belt, near a planet etc.) will determine what the station produces (trade goods/ships, military weapons/ships, bulk-trading goods, minerals/ores) and how much (a mining station near an asteroid belt will produce more ore than one far away). Guilds will also be able to define what to produce and how much (however, in the case of mining/trade goods, due to their nature the Guild will not be able to dictate what/how much of it is produced) and potentially, what to research (which may lead to cheaper production, cheaper services, or the production of certain trade goods).
4. The Guild Leaders/Council Members/whatever will determine what stations will buy, the price they will buy at, what they will sell, the price they will sell at and what they will stockpile for the Guild's exclusive use.
5. The Guild Leaders/Council Members/whatever will determine hostility levels of stations towards individuals, players of allied Guilds, players of neutral/unencountered Guilds, players of enemy Guilds, players of differing Nationalities etc., and members may allow temporary exceptions (e.g. to let an individual of a hostile Nation to stock up).
6. If stations lack common materials (some trade goods such as Purified Water/Food, ores or other materials), production rates may decrease on related items (low ores --> low weapon/ship production) or increase the cost of services (low Purified Water/Food --> increased Ship Repair cost). This motivates Guilds to either make wise choices about the type of Stations to build, or else forces them to request trade of certain materials (which will likely be produced/sold by other Guilds) at increased prices (otherwise, why might a trader sell produce to them?). This will create a player-driven economy, where guilds compete on price/quantity of produce to sell and buy produce to make up for lacks in stock. It also opens up the opportunity for heavily-specialized Guilds (Mining/Trading/Military/Whatever Guilds).
7. The Guild Bank records revenue and cost from trade and cost of manufacture/services. A Guild will be severely limited in its Stations' abilities if it cannot maintain its Stations well and may make massive profits to the benefit of its members if it makes the right choices and the right sacrifices at the right times.
How the current three Factions factor into this, I haven't entirely sussed out yet, as in theory guilds could wipe out the current Factions and build their own Stations to claim systems as their own. Additionally, this doesn't accommodate new players and new character creation.
'Twas fun to write, and I hope it was an interesting read and food for thought. Discuss!
TL;DR :P
Please fix your link/reference, ".../1912," is not valid. Move tag before comma.
good dreams... Buildable stations, shipýwards and capships was interesting idea in 2003, and still is. Soon(tm)...
But despite clear advantages of fostering Guilds, Guild Software is against anything that favours Guilds over individual, lone players.
good dreams... Buildable stations, shipýwards and capships was interesting idea in 2003, and still is. Soon(tm)...
But despite clear advantages of fostering Guilds, Guild Software is against anything that favours Guilds over individual, lone players.
"Guild Software is against anything that favours Guilds over individual, lone players."
No, GS is against anything that a Guild can do but an organized group can't.
No, GS is against anything that a Guild can do but an organized group can't.
1. No. The devs intend for there to be multiple stations in the same sector, so no opposing stations in the same system is out of the question.
1A. Guild politics shift so it would be a PITA for the devs.
1B. Also, with the possible exceptions of ONE, ITAN and UPK... I doubt nations would want other factions (guilds) 'owning parts of their nation.
2. No. What if you don't want a capitol station? I suspect CHRN, CLM, The BLF or THC would want a big sign that says "HEY! PIRATES/REBELS/HOMICIDAL MANIACS HERE!!!". Apart from that, guilds are not nations. They need no 'capitol'.
3. No. I do not want to be limited and I suspect many others do not ONE, VPR and ITAN though militarily oriented, would likely want research as well. TGFT would almost certainly mining and commercial.
4. No. Simply because it excludes groups and individual players.
5. No. see 4 and 1A
6. No. VO is not a RTS. Unless player/group/guild owned stations can can hire on NPCs this is especially unrealistic unless you have about six thousand friends who are planning on joining VO.
7.No. See 4.
"How the current three Factions factor into this..."
They don't. Though UIT might sell space.
" in theory guilds could wipe out the current Factions and build their own Stations to claim systems as their own. Additionally, this doesn't accommodate new players and new character creation."
If you realize what a bad idea this is, why even bother with writing it?
"Guild-based stations are easiest to explain right now"
Right because a rich enough player with a group of friends or hirelings, could never build a station.
"building a station has to be done either as part of a Guild or as part of a Faction."
See above.
"The general idea is to give players the options to build, siege and destroy stations. "
+1
"Sieges can be done by individuals, but due to Stations' defences it would be the most stupid thing in the galaxy to do. "
+1
"A, "perfect" construction will take a set amount of time depending on the amount of funding the Guild, group or player has designated to it, though construction can be delayed by enemies (be they lone pilots, groups or Guilds) attacking the construction site." [EDITED] to include lone players and groups
+1
1A. Guild politics shift so it would be a PITA for the devs.
1B. Also, with the possible exceptions of ONE, ITAN and UPK... I doubt nations would want other factions (guilds) 'owning parts of their nation.
2. No. What if you don't want a capitol station? I suspect CHRN, CLM, The BLF or THC would want a big sign that says "HEY! PIRATES/REBELS/HOMICIDAL MANIACS HERE!!!". Apart from that, guilds are not nations. They need no 'capitol'.
3. No. I do not want to be limited and I suspect many others do not ONE, VPR and ITAN though militarily oriented, would likely want research as well. TGFT would almost certainly mining and commercial.
4. No. Simply because it excludes groups and individual players.
5. No. see 4 and 1A
6. No. VO is not a RTS. Unless player/group/guild owned stations can can hire on NPCs this is especially unrealistic unless you have about six thousand friends who are planning on joining VO.
7.No. See 4.
"How the current three Factions factor into this..."
They don't. Though UIT might sell space.
" in theory guilds could wipe out the current Factions and build their own Stations to claim systems as their own. Additionally, this doesn't accommodate new players and new character creation."
If you realize what a bad idea this is, why even bother with writing it?
"Guild-based stations are easiest to explain right now"
Right because a rich enough player with a group of friends or hirelings, could never build a station.
"building a station has to be done either as part of a Guild or as part of a Faction."
See above.
"The general idea is to give players the options to build, siege and destroy stations. "
+1
"Sieges can be done by individuals, but due to Stations' defences it would be the most stupid thing in the galaxy to do. "
+1
"A, "perfect" construction will take a set amount of time depending on the amount of funding the Guild, group or player has designated to it, though construction can be delayed by enemies (be they lone pilots, groups or Guilds) attacking the construction site." [EDITED] to include lone players and groups
+1
First things first: the fact that an idea has downsides does not make it a bad idea. I expect inclusion of ideas into the game would be cost-benefit analysis, and all ideas have a cost. Besides, those are details that could be worked out, not show-stoppers. There's a difference between a bad idea and a good idea that isn't suitable for this game.
6. was based on the principle that Stations automatically have mining craft, scientists (for Research Stations), engineers (for repairing/restocking ships) and the like, just as it is now.
I suppose that, no, this system mightn't work well if you want to choose single-player (e)quality over multi-player/guild-orientated play.
The main issue I have with individual players building and maintaining stations is that individual players don't have a, "bank" or, "reserve". So what, do we just make money appear and disappear out of their pockets whenever their station buys or sells stuff? Another issue I have is that, while an individual can build a Station, it would take a large, organized group or a Guild to destroy it. Additionally, if an individual wanted to build a station for themselves and it comes under siege from heavy forces, they'd either have to create and organize a large group faster than I've ever seen or be part of a Guild and plea for help if they have any chance of driving off the oppressors. In the latter case, it's very very likely cheaper and easier to maintain if built by the Guild anyway, with few benefits that would be exclusive to individual-built Stations.
But since you agree with at least some of my points (player-built stations, sieges, construction time/construction site attack cost), and are mostly against the Guild-focussed aspect of it, I'm interested in hearing what your implementation might look like. It could potentially implement a lot of the features I outlined, while moving the focus from player-run Guilds to the player's Faction (or a Faction for which they have a very high standing), for example. Still, I'm interested in your input.
6. was based on the principle that Stations automatically have mining craft, scientists (for Research Stations), engineers (for repairing/restocking ships) and the like, just as it is now.
I suppose that, no, this system mightn't work well if you want to choose single-player (e)quality over multi-player/guild-orientated play.
The main issue I have with individual players building and maintaining stations is that individual players don't have a, "bank" or, "reserve". So what, do we just make money appear and disappear out of their pockets whenever their station buys or sells stuff? Another issue I have is that, while an individual can build a Station, it would take a large, organized group or a Guild to destroy it. Additionally, if an individual wanted to build a station for themselves and it comes under siege from heavy forces, they'd either have to create and organize a large group faster than I've ever seen or be part of a Guild and plea for help if they have any chance of driving off the oppressors. In the latter case, it's very very likely cheaper and easier to maintain if built by the Guild anyway, with few benefits that would be exclusive to individual-built Stations.
But since you agree with at least some of my points (player-built stations, sieges, construction time/construction site attack cost), and are mostly against the Guild-focussed aspect of it, I'm interested in hearing what your implementation might look like. It could potentially implement a lot of the features I outlined, while moving the focus from player-run Guilds to the player's Faction (or a Faction for which they have a very high standing), for example. Still, I'm interested in your input.
"6. was based on the principle that Stations automatically have mining craft, scientists (for Research Stations), engineers (for repairing/restocking ships) and the like, just as it is now."
But not Station guards, turrets and a strike force?
But not Station guards, turrets and a strike force?
If an individual builds a station, it will likely have either weak or strong-but-expensive defense. If a group of individuals builds a station, it will have strong, if possibly less coordinated, defense.
Yes, a guild-run station can potentially be more easily managed. However, if people choose to take the harder route of doing it themselves, that is their choice to make. You do not have the right to take that choice from them.
People who follow your way of thinking are why the world has to to have bloody revolutions from time to time.
Yes, a guild-run station can potentially be more easily managed. However, if people choose to take the harder route of doing it themselves, that is their choice to make. You do not have the right to take that choice from them.
People who follow your way of thinking are why the world has to to have bloody revolutions from time to time.
"People who follow your way of thinking are why the world has to to have bloody revolutions from time to time."
Wow, way to blow the whole thing out of proportion. Your attitude stinks.
Besides that, I've asked you how you would implement it to accommodate individual-built stations and heard... zip. Are you genuinely interested in getting such a feature implemented, or are you just here to troll me?
Wow, way to blow the whole thing out of proportion. Your attitude stinks.
Besides that, I've asked you how you would implement it to accommodate individual-built stations and heard... zip. Are you genuinely interested in getting such a feature implemented, or are you just here to troll me?
"But not Station guards, turrets and a strike force?"
Well, would you like to discuss whether it's better or worse to include those? No, I don't have every single detail formulated, and no, the way it's suggested isn't set in stone, and no, I won't bite your head off for saying, "I think [this/that/the other] would be better".
Well, would you like to discuss whether it's better or worse to include those? No, I don't have every single detail formulated, and no, the way it's suggested isn't set in stone, and no, I won't bite your head off for saying, "I think [this/that/the other] would be better".
Heh. The first several renditions of that line were much stronger than the one that eventually got posted. Maybe I'm just getting really sick and tired of people coming along and saying, "Oh hey, let's restrict a bunch of stuff to only guilds! Whee!"
"Besides that, I've asked you how you would implement it to accommodate individual-built stations."
Oh yeah, I was going to mention your comment about lack of guild-bank for individuals, but forgot. The way I figure it, each station would have its own bank (perhaps if you build multiple stations you could tell them to merge their banks into a larger shared bank). This would be independent of guild banks, because as far as I'm concerned guilds are completely orthogonal to stations, so their banks shouldn't be utilized by them.
Station banks would probably have a restriction that you must be docked at the station to access the bank (or perhaps just be in the same sector). Ability to withdraw and deposit would be individually controlled options via station keys, so that you can authorize your grunts to make deposits, but only specific trusted individuals could withdraw (one of these people would then have to be in charge of distributing paychecks if needed).
Beyond that issue, I don't see what else I need to comment on. Ryan already mentioned the issues with your restrictions on where to build and such, and we both voiced objections to the evil guild requirement you were espousing.
Maybe I should comment further on the solo building of a station vs. group destruction of the station that you seemed to not like: stations should be very expensive to construct, in both money and materials, which would deter people from building one on their own. Even if they do build one on their own, it would not be overly difficult for a small group of people to capture or destroy it, unless that person hires some cronies to defend it. So as long as the requirements are set up right, you wouldn't see a mess of singly-owned stations floating around causing clutter. And of course if you ignore that idea you had regarding guilds owning the entire system, there would be plenty of space for stations (keep in mind the universe is going to grow larger as the playerbase increases - the devs intend for greyspace to eventually extend as a ring around the existing universe, and perhaps they'll add more systems to nation-space as well).
I don't see a problem with the possibility for a single rich individual to construct a station of his own, or perhaps even several stations, and then hire people to defend it (perhaps even on a "anybody who defends this station from attack will be paid" type basis - they aren't hired in advance, just paid if they happen to help defend it).
<off-topic-rant>
I happen to have very strong feelings on the topic of independence, as my previous post illustrated. What I said was not over the top, it was the truth. The mindset of trying to force people into a group and not allow independent action is one of the largest sources of malcontent and violence in this world. It is fundamentally wrong. And unfortunately many otherwise Good People slip into thinking that way without even realizing it.
</off-topic-rant>
"Besides that, I've asked you how you would implement it to accommodate individual-built stations."
Oh yeah, I was going to mention your comment about lack of guild-bank for individuals, but forgot. The way I figure it, each station would have its own bank (perhaps if you build multiple stations you could tell them to merge their banks into a larger shared bank). This would be independent of guild banks, because as far as I'm concerned guilds are completely orthogonal to stations, so their banks shouldn't be utilized by them.
Station banks would probably have a restriction that you must be docked at the station to access the bank (or perhaps just be in the same sector). Ability to withdraw and deposit would be individually controlled options via station keys, so that you can authorize your grunts to make deposits, but only specific trusted individuals could withdraw (one of these people would then have to be in charge of distributing paychecks if needed).
Beyond that issue, I don't see what else I need to comment on. Ryan already mentioned the issues with your restrictions on where to build and such, and we both voiced objections to the evil guild requirement you were espousing.
Maybe I should comment further on the solo building of a station vs. group destruction of the station that you seemed to not like: stations should be very expensive to construct, in both money and materials, which would deter people from building one on their own. Even if they do build one on their own, it would not be overly difficult for a small group of people to capture or destroy it, unless that person hires some cronies to defend it. So as long as the requirements are set up right, you wouldn't see a mess of singly-owned stations floating around causing clutter. And of course if you ignore that idea you had regarding guilds owning the entire system, there would be plenty of space for stations (keep in mind the universe is going to grow larger as the playerbase increases - the devs intend for greyspace to eventually extend as a ring around the existing universe, and perhaps they'll add more systems to nation-space as well).
I don't see a problem with the possibility for a single rich individual to construct a station of his own, or perhaps even several stations, and then hire people to defend it (perhaps even on a "anybody who defends this station from attack will be paid" type basis - they aren't hired in advance, just paid if they happen to help defend it).
<off-topic-rant>
I happen to have very strong feelings on the topic of independence, as my previous post illustrated. What I said was not over the top, it was the truth. The mindset of trying to force people into a group and not allow independent action is one of the largest sources of malcontent and violence in this world. It is fundamentally wrong. And unfortunately many otherwise Good People slip into thinking that way without even realizing it.
</off-topic-rant>
Hey now... lets be fair! History is full of examples of one person trying to force others into a group that have worked perfectly well with no bad results! Take Afghanistan, Iraq, most of Central and South America, Adolph Hitlers subtle restructuring of Europe, Napoleon, Kuwait, Rome and... oh wait, those were all disastrous cluster fucks. Never mind.
+1 to OP
I don't think you can call the Pax Romana a "disastrous cluster fuck[]." The Mongols, Alexander the Great, and the Ottoman Turks also did a pretty great job of bringing stability and rule of law at the point of a sword. Just saying.
The idea of limiting anything to group or guild aligned players, however, would be a disastrous cluster fuck. Set the build and maintenance requirements for various types and sizes of stations, and let the chips fall where they may.
The idea of limiting anything to group or guild aligned players, however, would be a disastrous cluster fuck. Set the build and maintenance requirements for various types and sizes of stations, and let the chips fall where they may.
I'm completely demotivated to even bother discussing this any more because people seem to be commenting out of spite rather than a desire to be constructive. At least Pizzasgood got around to it eventually, but not until after I shoved a fork up his ass about it. It's a game forum, not the House of Lords, for God's sake.
I'm completely demotivated to even bother discussing this any more because people seem to be commenting out of spite rather than a desire to be constructive
aw, I didn't know you're ninny. -1 to OP.
aw, I didn't know you're ninny. -1 to OP.
My only spite came when you pushed the issue. I gave my opinion in a reasonable manner. I am under no obligation to continue a pointless debate on this. I have much more important debates.
I thought ryan's posts were pretty good.
Thanks. I thought so too. I felt this was one of the more productive/civil threads I've seen in a while.
I'm not talking about your post specifically, Ryan. It was only marginally disappointing in that it consisted of (valuable) critique while omitting correction or alternative, but at least it was on topic. I was referring more to the sudden diversion of the conversation from a feature in a game to, of all things, corrupt dictatorships (did guilds become dictatorships behind my back or something?). I was especially referring to Pizzasgood subtly blaming me for bloody revolts, based entirely on a suggestion for a game. Really?
Anyway, in the interest of steering this capsized train back on the rails, let's discuss the fundamental idea (building, attacking and destroying stations) with the assumption that the advantages of Guilds shouldn't come from Guild-specific features but from the natural benefits of being part of a community of like-minded players.
I still believe the following ideas apply and therefore should be the focus of discussion:
1. Different types of station will generate different produce automatically, as defined by factors such as the budget put towards the produce and the vecinity of said resources from the station (trade goods from planets, ores from asteroids and the like)
2. Goods will be bought and sold by default at a, "base value", but ultimately the types of goods that the station purchases especially, along with the goods they sell, will be defined by the owner.
3. A, "perfect" construction of the station will take a predefined amount of time based on budget, though this can be extended by opposing players attacking the construction site (question: should it be possible to destroy the construction site completely? Given the assumed expense of building a station, I think this would be unwise).
4. Policy towards other players of varying types (default, members of guild XYZ, various faction standings etc.) can be set by the owner of the station (including hostility, trade etc.). Exceptions can be made by the owner for individual players.
5. A lack of certain types of produce might hinder certain activities.
x. Potentially others that I'm too lazy to think of right now.
New considerations:
1. Each station will have its own bank that is used for trade and that the player can deposit/withdraw money from (it's important to note that the bank belongs to the station: the player deposits money in the knowledge that it will be used for trade). If the player wants the station to be able to buy certain products, the station must have enough cash to buy them (Players will also be able to set higher prices at their stations to make it more appealing to other players (who take the assumed role of the traders) to sell the products to them). Obviously, players able to manage their finances well will do better than those that are less able.
2. Budgets can be set to different aspects of the station, such as automated defenses and defense forces or production. These could all be part of the station's bank.
x. More stuff that I'm too lazy to think about right now.
Anyway, in the interest of steering this capsized train back on the rails, let's discuss the fundamental idea (building, attacking and destroying stations) with the assumption that the advantages of Guilds shouldn't come from Guild-specific features but from the natural benefits of being part of a community of like-minded players.
I still believe the following ideas apply and therefore should be the focus of discussion:
1. Different types of station will generate different produce automatically, as defined by factors such as the budget put towards the produce and the vecinity of said resources from the station (trade goods from planets, ores from asteroids and the like)
2. Goods will be bought and sold by default at a, "base value", but ultimately the types of goods that the station purchases especially, along with the goods they sell, will be defined by the owner.
3. A, "perfect" construction of the station will take a predefined amount of time based on budget, though this can be extended by opposing players attacking the construction site (question: should it be possible to destroy the construction site completely? Given the assumed expense of building a station, I think this would be unwise).
4. Policy towards other players of varying types (default, members of guild XYZ, various faction standings etc.) can be set by the owner of the station (including hostility, trade etc.). Exceptions can be made by the owner for individual players.
5. A lack of certain types of produce might hinder certain activities.
x. Potentially others that I'm too lazy to think of right now.
New considerations:
1. Each station will have its own bank that is used for trade and that the player can deposit/withdraw money from (it's important to note that the bank belongs to the station: the player deposits money in the knowledge that it will be used for trade). If the player wants the station to be able to buy certain products, the station must have enough cash to buy them (Players will also be able to set higher prices at their stations to make it more appealing to other players (who take the assumed role of the traders) to sell the products to them). Obviously, players able to manage their finances well will do better than those that are less able.
2. Budgets can be set to different aspects of the station, such as automated defenses and defense forces or production. These could all be part of the station's bank.
x. More stuff that I'm too lazy to think about right now.