Elite Dangerous | System Colonisation Beta Details & Feedback

@Jmanis I see what you are saying about using in game tools to find insulating membrane.

I do think you are glossing over the change in market pressures created by colonization and FC commodity hoarding. A commander that has an FC, and has plans to build multiple structures in a system is not just going to take what they need for the current project, they are going to exhaust all of the high-demand resources within the shell of the bubble closest to expansion.
No, I actually fully acknowledge the increased demand on the markets. It's simply something players haven't had to deal with, which is why I've written that guide and trying to show people how to do it.

If you take nothing else out of this comment, take this: I hope these new dynamics are the impetus for FD to finally do the economic and UI rework that people like me have been asking for for at least 6 years now.

All the complaints I see which almost always stem from "I did this search in Inara and found nothing" are an artefact of never having to deal with market turbulence in the game before. It's new... change is hard, but this is a good thing.
If there were true market forces at work, prices in that shell would skyrocket - they have not. This is a game, and to keep things balanced for all players, it may be appropriate to cap per player the number of resources purchasable at a site for a given resource over a given time period IF FDEV wants everyone to access the mechanic. Stores in RL definitely have caps on purchased quantities of high demand items to prevent hoarding. The alternative is to increase production, which is a natural market response to increased demand.
Which is, bluntly, now in the hands of the players, thanks to this. If we want more sources of these goods in the universe, we're now empowered to make them.

As I said before, a player driven market (like many have been seeking) requires player driven demand. We now have player driven demand because NPCs can't keep up with that demand. I firmly disagree the fix to that is to buff NPC production rates.

I acknowledge your suggestions about RL things, but this is a game. The challenge here is logistics and the sourcing of both readily available goods in bulk, scarce goods in low volumes, and also a blend of those two causing things like CMMs and Insulating Membranes. These all pose different challenges to source effectively and efficiently.

But if we just buff everything, suddenly this is all homogenous. The challenge is gone. It's like removing all the different types of ships in the game and just having one ship.
I was able to find the insulating membrane doing a rank order search by quantity, and with the pre-engineered SCO and FSD booster the 200+ ly trip to pick them up in my Cutter wasn't too bad. If I hadn't used inara though, doing a price evaluation search with in game tools at those ranges would have been unpleasant.
Does price really matter that much on this occasion? We're talking a maximum price differential if you were building, say, an Orbis, of just 3 million credits (being generous). A single assassination mission would award nearly three times that much... so if you're having to take an inordinately longer period of time to get the cheapest goods instead of just picking them up from a more expensive location(and, when scarcity exists, items hold much higher value than their purchase price may suggest... noting if we want to tie back to your RL examples, businesses are also generally prevented from price-gouging during scarcity events, but individuals aren't tethered to that)

What commanders hording goods to resell for max profit will find is, if they are hording, they aren't readily selling them, because they can't stem the continual tide of these things respawning in their thousands, across tens of thousands of locations, they simply won't be able to sell them for a good enough price. Contrast against something like TDCs, where there was a much more genuine scarcity, and so pricing of 40m credits per unit was entirely achievable.

On it being unpleasant, is that because it genuinely is (and to some degree, it is, the UX is definitely not great), or simply that the techniques are mismatched with your expectations, creating discordance that can be eased just through further use? i.e you're so used to "search X in inara" that doing it another way feels unnatural?
 
Last edited:
Not sure if this is currently doable by FDev. We already have a problem with people getting stuck loging off on the carrier after its completed and getting an error. Thats the one they are in.

Now imagine if you have multiple ships in a station that suddenly goes POOF. Id think it would error out and you'd lose them in the current design.
Not sure this relates to a new different ship design being implemented when you are talking about a bug, that needs to be fixed. I accept I suggested the new ship would be a smaller version of the carrier but it would work slightly differently so a different implementation. Also I watched a video the other day that stated you could have all your ships on a carrier with no issues so the bug you described where people loose ships seems to be at least not common since it was not mentioned in the video.
 
I watched a video last night that was talking about reducing the grind to a more doable volume.
I think if changes are made the grind for claiming a system should certainly be harder than the constructs later on but I did wonder if instead of reducing the grind by reducing the amount of materials it might be better to have they system population auto build constructs. I'll suggest one chosen at random each month as an example and you could also make it so they only help build structures that the player has delivered X amount of the resources, I'll suggest 25% as the value for an example. That would allow players not enjoying the grind to finish colonizing systems by doing only part of the grind while rewarding those who do the grind with completed systems faster.
Just though I'd suggest an alternative to reducing values needed.
 
Construction points need serious rebalancing, and what is with the doubling of costs when you achieve the so-called "discount?"

I have a small system. Eight planets and 1 moon, and only the moon is landable. This means I had to do some very precise planning in order to map out a pathway that would allow me to build a large station. First of all, I only have a total of 14 construction slots. One of the planets - the Earth-like - doesn't have any. I submitted a ticket and was told this would be fixed, but it so far hasn't been. Also, my only landable body only has 2 slots for construction despite having a radius of over 3,000 kilometres, making it only slightly smaller than Mars.

So I plotted out a pathway that in the end would only grant me 1 Coriolis and 1 Orbis/Ocellus. Then I find out that this will all be for nothing, as by the time I earn enough construction points, the number of points needed will double, effectively making the entire venture pointless.

I understand that the points system is in place to stop every commander building 20 Ocellus starports in every system, but for it to be SO restrictive as to make the process of building out a system a complete waste of time kind of defeats the purpose.

I think I speak for most Commanders when I say I would rather have the ability to build the starport I have worked to afford than to get a system-wide discount of about 2% on ships and modules.

If this is by design it's a very poor choice and is the kind of thing that makes people rage quit, and you need to stop punishing people for doing the thing you want them to do. As it stands, if it remains the case I will likely abandon colonisation entirely as I see no point in continuing the project if it is impossible to complete even a single system by virtue of the goalposts being moved out of reach.
 
If it weren't for "Inara" we wouldn't be able to play this game normally here. Who's stopping the developers from making a NORMAL TRADING INTERFACE?!?!?!?!?!? WHOOOOO?!?!?!?! I'm not talking about trading information, I'm talking about a NORMAL INTERFACE! They don't have money? Well, let them tell us, let's chip in! I'm ready! But they don't want to! That's why you shouldn't criticize third-party resources, these people make the game better.
I've never used inara to trade. Not needed at all.
 
I haven't been watching this Thread scrupulously so I may have missed discussion on this: What is the right mechanism for reporting suspicious Colony build activity please? I have some examples, but I feel it would be wrong to post them in this Thread because public 'name and shame' is generally not a good idea in case of an innocent error. I'm aware of the exploit that was published openly in reddit and led to a rapid intervention but I'm not generally a contributor to 'soshul meeja' ! Thanks.
 
I haven't been watching this Thread scrupulously so I may have missed discussion on this: What is the right mechanism for reporting suspicious Colony build activity please? I have some examples, but I feel it would be wrong to post them in this Thread because public 'name and shame' is generally not a good idea in case of an innocent error. I'm aware of the exploit that was published openly in reddit and led to a rapid intervention but I'm not generally a contributor to 'soshul meeja' ! Thanks.
there's a report system inside the game itself on the title page. You would have to know the CMDR's name for that, though. Otherwise I think a support ticket might be the next best option?
 
Not sure this relates to a new different ship design being implemented when you are talking about a bug, that needs to be fixed. I accept I suggested the new ship would be a smaller version of the carrier but it would work slightly differently so a different implementation. Also I watched a video the other day that stated you could have all your ships on a carrier with no issues so the bug you described where people loose ships seems to be at least not common since it was not mentioned in the video.
I think you misunderstood. That was about people getting stuck on the colony carrier ship. Not their FC. It was also a referring to the suggested ability to revoke an entire claim on a developed system. If people had stuff stored on that station that now was deleted when claim was revoked. It would cause an error because their ship location would equal null. Right now you can do an unstuck command. You cant do that with ships that you are not active in.

So there would be nothing relatable to a different ship design. Unless I am the one misunderstanding or quoted the wrong post.
 
Construction points need serious rebalancing, and what is with the doubling of costs when you achieve the so-called "discount?"

I have a small system. Eight planets and 1 moon, and only the moon is landable. This means I had to do some very precise planning in order to map out a pathway that would allow me to build a large station. First of all, I only have a total of 14 construction slots. One of the planets - the Earth-like - doesn't have any. I submitted a ticket and was told this would be fixed, but it so far hasn't been. Also, my only landable body only has 2 slots for construction despite having a radius of over 3,000 kilometres, making it only slightly smaller than Mars.

So I plotted out a pathway that in the end would only grant me 1 Coriolis and 1 Orbis/Ocellus. Then I find out that this will all be for nothing, as by the time I earn enough construction points, the number of points needed will double, effectively making the entire venture pointless.

I understand that the points system is in place to stop every commander building 20 Ocellus starports in every system, but for it to be SO restrictive as to make the process of building out a system a complete waste of time kind of defeats the purpose.

I think I speak for most Commanders when I say I would rather have the ability to build the starport I have worked to afford than to get a system-wide discount of about 2% on ships and modules.

If this is by design it's a very poor choice and is the kind of thing that makes people rage quit, and you need to stop punishing people for doing the thing you want them to do. As it stands, if it remains the case I will likely abandon colonisation entirely as I see no point in continuing the project if it is impossible to complete even a single system by virtue of the goalposts being moved out of reach.
What do you mean by the doubling of costs after getting the discount? Is it the construction points that double in cost or the cost in materials?

I think I speak for most Commanders when I say I would rather have the ability to build the starport I have worked to afford than to get a system-wide discount of about 2% on ships and modules.
Also you don't speak for most commanders. Just yourself on that one.
 
Last edited:
What do you mean by the doubling of costs after getting the discount? Is it the construction points that double in cost or the cost in materials?


Also you don't speak for most commanders. Just yourself on that one.
Mechan just made a video about it the points requirements inexplicably increase as your "reward" for industriousness.
Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EKkVUW0fF0Y
 
What do you mean by the doubling of costs after getting the discount? Is it the construction points that double in cost or the cost in materials?


Also you don't speak for most commanders. Just yourself on that one.
The construction points required doubles. In my case this means it becomes impossible to build as I would need effectively twice the real estate.

And you're actually telling me that you would happily lose the ability to build in your system in order to get a token discount? I think YOU'RE alone on that one.
 
Mechan just made a video about it the points requirements inexplicably increase as your "reward" for industriousness.
Source: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EKkVUW0fF0Y
I just watched that.

WHAT THE HELL FDEV. Who the hell thought that was a good idea.

All this will do is cause a bunch of systems stop at the 10 structure build limit and than STOP REGARDLESS OF THE SIZE.

I have a system with 143 total slots. Had a plan to build it up as a massive trade hub for an colonization expansion hub. NOW. I aint doing anything after 10 structures. That means 134 slots are going to have nothing because i have no idea if it will double again after 20 slots.
 
Last edited:
Just gonna say this. If this is actually intended. I will be another one of those people that builds one station to claim than not touch it again. I without a doubt will not be the only one too.

This is just PUNSHING the person who just did nothing but haul constantly to build up a system only to be taxed on income over 5mil credits and taxed on having more than 11 total structures built. Ive spent a week and a half solo to build a T3 as a primary in a T9 to 50%. Now this. Done....
 
Doubtful. The doubling of Tech points are not worth the 10% "discount".
Since Fdev hasn't explained this mechanic anywhere, we shouldn't assume it's working as intended because we have no idea what was intended. That said, as we have the opportunity to comment on balance, this doesn't make sense from either a balance or a roleplay perspective as the more developed a system is, the easier it should be to develop it further (as NPCs have moved in and start doing stuff) and also, the game shouldn't punish players for developing a system up. The physical caps on infra already exist there isn't a need for soft caps by making things inexplicably more expensive from a "construction points" perspective.
 
Construction points need serious rebalancing, and what is with the doubling of costs when you achieve the so-called "discount?"

I have a small system. Eight planets and 1 moon, and only the moon is landable. This means I had to do some very precise planning in order to map out a pathway that would allow me to build a large station. First of all, I only have a total of 14 construction slots. One of the planets - the Earth-like - doesn't have any. I submitted a ticket and was told this would be fixed, but it so far hasn't been. Also, my only landable body only has 2 slots for construction despite having a radius of over 3,000 kilometres, making it only slightly smaller than Mars.

So I plotted out a pathway that in the end would only grant me 1 Coriolis and 1 Orbis/Ocellus. Then I find out that this will all be for nothing, as by the time I earn enough construction points, the number of points needed will double, effectively making the entire venture pointless.

I understand that the points system is in place to stop every commander building 20 Ocellus starports in every system, but for it to be SO restrictive as to make the process of building out a system a complete waste of time kind of defeats the purpose.

I think I speak for most Commanders when I say I would rather have the ability to build the starport I have worked to afford than to get a system-wide discount of about 2% on ships and modules.

If this is by design it's a very poor choice and is the kind of thing that makes people rage quit, and you need to stop punishing people for doing the thing you want them to do. As it stands, if it remains the case I will likely abandon colonisation entirely as I see no point in continuing the project if it is impossible to complete even a single system by virtue of the goalposts being moved out of reach.


The F Fdev?! This is incredibly stupid. It's hard enough to build a T3 station without doing this. Doubling costs is unnecessary and will only HARM system development. This needs to be changed immediately. This is an absolutely trash idea that undermines the entire point of this feature.
 
I haven't been able to log in at all today. Now that the update is done, which I thought was at 11am this morning, it has errored out consistently since then. Won't connect to the servers. Is anyone else in the east coast US having connection issues? I'd wanted to log in and finish the 10 delivery missions I had to left on my roster. It'd be great if I could play.
I am on the east coast. I have had no problems. Did deliveries for 3 hours this afternoon. No issues at all.
 
The F Fdev?! This is incredibly stupid. It's hard enough to build a T3 station without doing this. Doubling costs is unnecessary and will only HARM system development. This needs to be changed immediately. This is an absolutely trash idea that undermines the entire point of this feature.
Agreed the whole idea to increase the construction point costs after 10 structures should be abolished immediately. Who knows what happens after 20, 30, or more? Does it keep doubling?

If anything. It should be halved or discounted itself.
 
Agreed the whole idea to increase the construction point costs after 10 structures should be abolished immediately. Who knows what happens after 20, 30, or more? Does it keep doubling?
pretty positive its just a discount after 10 builds. Also i feel like the points were meant to be halved but instead were doubled accidentally. Lets just make sure Fdev knows so we can get to the bottom of this.
 
Back
Top Bottom