Elite Dangerous | System Colonisation Beta Details & Feedback

[Helmut Grokenberger]

Making posts little more polite may significantly increase positive outcome for us players ... mistakes can happen and happens all the time for everyone.

Calling it a lie implies malice. Which usually is a ridiculous assumption that stems from a certain hostility towards Frontier. It's the default go to: Frontier goofs something up - Bam! They did it on purpose or lied to us.

No offense to Frontier, but I can totally see the conversation:

Bob: You put the paragraph about the build point increase into the tutorial and codex, right?

Tom: I thought you did that. I was on vacation last week!

Bob: No, the boss said you had to do it, I had to move my office last week and had no time for it!

Tom: Crap.

Bob: Crap. The forums will be on fire.

Hanlon's Razor and all that.

 

[GarlicFresh]

Overall, I have nothing more to say, сolonization came out as another minimally (un)finished product. In its current state with doubling points, lack of normal gameplay mechanics and alternatives to hauling and in general some fresh ideas, besides the old grind-rails, I personally, pretend that it does not exist (although this will be difficult, considering how many things in the game are now broken), thank you very much.

 

[Martind Forlon]

@Helmut Grokenberger ... I thought exactly something like this

but we have to draw a line into how much ports we can build

Interesting and well thought. Nice post! +1

 

[Wisho]

I'll try to be factual, objective and reasonable as to express an opinion FDev could possible hear. Hello if you read this

1) Being unable to place the first construction is absurd, both regarding in-game mechanics and common sense. What architect lets workers start in a random place, above all if it can lead to a useless (="colony" economy) construction ?
That same reason also makes any system with a >10k ls secondary star utterly condemned to RNG.

2) The cost increase is way too steep and early because except for megalomaniac plans in unicorn dozens-moons systems involving a hundred constructions to stockpile those 12 3rd T3 points, it literally constrains the order of the first buildings, and to the hardest ones within the initial 4 weeks.
a) Starting T1 to make sure both starports are cleverly placed makes reaching T3 badly remote with a single M pad, so
b) either start "little" with a T2 port and have a single affordable T3 option left, or
c) if you ever hope for 2 T3, roll the dice on your Big First hitting a body that can give it sense - bad luck meaning 200k tons out the window.
So : make it something like, dunno, +1 point for every building, or double every N, or... but not brick the whole thing right at the 2nd useful building.

3) The cost increase, whatever it is, has to be obviously stated anywhere it can possibly be triggered - I mean each and every text of every new T2/T3 port option, right next to the "Begin construction" button. Not supposedly buried somewhere in tutorials, whether it's actually there or not is irrelevant if even half the players fly past it.
Basic UI design : make 100% sure the user knows 100% of the effects of clicking there, no less.

Though...

4) I have only read and not yet played this part of the game for one reason : 100% hauling for weeks/months is not appealing. I'd expect colonizing to require much more that could fill an overall progress bar : defending against attackers (=bounty hunting), DSSing the whole system, exploring USSes, delivering engineering materials, donating, scooping up things in nearby systems through missions, roam planets in an SRV collecting or scanning whatever, even hauling through high-progress delivery missions from nearby systems... Not even asking for new activities, just even recycling the same as forever would be okay as a start. I dunno. Brainstorm.
As it is now, It just sounds like "let's give'em something to dream of and turn it into a trucking nightmare before they understand it".

 

[Exeider]

Making posts little more polite may significantly increase positive outcome for us players ... mistakes can happen and happens all the time for everyone.

Oh that was polite. I could have been ALOT more brutal about it and in the past, have been. But I'd rather focus on being constructive and more to the point, focus on the fact it's bad idea in general, regardless of whether it was mentioned in the tutorial or not (which it wasn't.) So let's keep our focus on THAT, rather than the manner in which I say it. Thank you.

 

[Leigh Lightyear]

How much do you need?

Hi, I've made very good progress today my build is in Trianguli Sector YF-N A7-2 as of this moment I need 25072 Aluminium 38943 Titanium 57263 Steel and 51470 CMM Composites. I've got all the rest of the required commodities. I'm concentrating on Steel at the moment. Thanks an O7 Leigh

 

[CMDR Mechan]

You don't, because that is a lie frontier told. CMDR Mechan and a bunch of people have been through the player's handbook in game several times. That is a demonstrable lie frontier just told. I don't know why they told it, or to what purpose they think it will bring them, since this is a beta and the entire point is to balance ideas like this. But it is a lie.

Continuing on from that, regardless of whether it's in the tutorial or player's guide or not. The idea is honestly stupid. Colonization is already hard enough in term of the sheer amount of resource sourcing and resource hauling to build the system of my dreams. And I'm willing to put the time, and more over the money in ARX for the naming rights of every single settlement, outpost, starport, installation, etc into the system. I have been waiting for this expansion since before Frontier ever thought it up. This is the one they are going to make a ton of money off me from.

Jacking up the point requirements, thus gimping my end result, so I dont get my new home system of my own construction is one way they are going to torpedo their own success on this expansion.

@Paul_Crowther Paul, I'm telling you this as both a player and as a game developer myself, tell the number crunchers on the dev team who came up with this idea to let this one go. People are having fun, even WITH the steep difficulty curve and long hours to build these dream systems, they are still having some of the best times of their lives I've ever seen from the player base in this game since ever. You guys really nailed it this time, DON'T sabotage yourselves. Just let this point double thing go, don't question it, don't think about it, just ride the wave of success. You guys didn't listen to me when I screamed on the forums about letting Odyssey out in the state that it was in, I even SAID that it was very likely going to cause a stock value drop. (And yes, I remember other people saying I was being melodramatic) But guess what, I ended up being right because that's exactly what happened.

So please , please , please listen to me THIS time. Don't shoot yourselves in the feet again and snap defeat from the jaws of victory. Prioritize fun over numbers. Let people just live the dream.

"Lie" is a bit harsh (as it presumes intent). I wouldn't personally call it that.

My hunch is what happened here is that they planned to add that to the Pilot's Handbook, but somehow that revision didn't make it in, even though they thought it did.

Let us assume good faith. People make mistakes. It happens to all of us.

Based on what I know at this time, I think this may be a documentation oversight more than anything else. It's one with a big impact. But I don't think there's an intent to mislead at play here ...

 

[Leigh Lightyear]

Most of these are
- mining exclusive commodities not available through any normal market (Alexandrite, Bromellite, Void Opals)
- raw materials, which aren't a market commodity at all (iron, nickel, etc.)

Frontier never stated "your stations in colony systems will have exciting new capabilities unavailable to the existing NPC stations - have fun finding out what!" or similar, so to me the assumption in the absence of anything to the contrary should be that if you build a station of type X it will act pretty much like the existing stations of that type do.

...so, on to Tritium, the one of those which is sold through existing markets.


Tritium is sold by orbital refinery stations, and nowhere else. (This is shown on the in-game market screen)

So if you want your system to sell Tritium, you need to construct an orbital refinery. This isn't possible directly, so you'll need to:
- construct an orbital station of type Colony (Tritium is fairly low supply, so if you can build a Coriolis, that's probably better than using a Commercial Outpost)
- construct some Refinery Hub surface installations (same planet/moon seems to give them greater influence) to switch that orbital to being a Refinery
- (avoid construction of installations with a non-Refinery "System Economy Influence" as far as possible, or at least try to make the Refinery ones outnumber them)

This is all either documented or implied by the in-game content, and was confirmed to work about as soon as someone had managed to build enough bits to test it.

An Industrial Settlement will give you System Economy Influence: Industrial which you don't want in this case (though you may be able to get away with it depending on what the rest of your system has) - though of course that doesn't apply to the pre-existing NPC systems, where the orbital refinery was built directly in 2014, and the Industrial Settlement not added until Odyssey's release in 2021.


CMM Composites are produced by Surface Refinery stations - and since some earlier changes, in very large amounts: it's the Steel and Titanium which are running out faster than CMM in my bit of the bubble. So you just need to find a nearby Surface Refinery or two. If you're using third-party tools, they probably aren't all that updated with availability of CMMs - but do know a lot about where Surface Refineries are if you use the station search rather than the commodity search.

Hi, thanks for the assistance, I used Inara to source a supply of CMM Composites. O7 Leigh

 

[Kira Goto]

One thing I'd like to know about this point doubling - though I think it seems a little excessive if you don't have a system with a significant amount of building slots - is if it applies to only large T2 spaceports? Because if Odyssey settlements (infinitely easier to get and build) at T2 also count toward that limit, I can wave the idea of creating an Orbis station in my first system bye bye.

I haven't done any precise maths on the feasibility but realistically, with 7 build slots both in space and planetary - with two of the space ones locked to asteroid stations (more on that below) and not being in the knowledge of that point doubling beforehand, makes it realistically impossible to build a T3 starport if the Odyssey settlements cause doubling to come into effect. I'd just check but I actually logged off about an hour ago and am not about to go back in to look.

My idea would be to make it so that the point doubling/increase only applies to structures of the same type/tier instead of you building say, a Coriolis and asteroid port but suddenly you have to put in twice the previous effort only to put down an Orbis station. It doesn't seem very logical to me, either, that establishing infrastructure of a preceding tier causes the one of the tier following to become more expensive to build.

On the note of feedback - please allow building of other things than asteroid bases at an asteroid cluster. The bug(?) where placing a thing, say an installation, in orbit around a star but it somehow ends up in an asteroid cluster, makes it look like a needlessly artificial restriction. Especially so in light of the build points for T2/3 structures going up once a certain number are present in system. I'd have to just build T1 structures in order to gather the points for asteroid bases I would not necessarily want, because nothing else is allowed to be built in them. Meaning I'd use at least 6 of the already limited 12 build slots just to put down those asteroid bases, when perhaps I'd rather be using them for other T2 structures (like the Odyssey surface sites, installations or Horizons settlements/"hubs").

 

[Darth_Zaicev]

So, my second feedback. I have finished constructing several structures in the system, as well as a second station—Coriolis (around 12 hours of gameplay). What can I say again? It’s simple:

Dear developers, in its current form, the colonization mechanic will not be able to keep a significant number of players engaged for long. The process of achieving the goal of constructing a particular object is far too repetitive. And once again, having to personally transport cargo makes absolutely no sense. What’s the purpose of in-game credits if I can't spend them to hire workers to transport cargo for me? I previously suggested a mechanic with an "Order" button in a separate column of the construction menu: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...on-beta-details-feedback.634055/post-10560680

This is like saying that instead of coordinating the development of Starship, Elon Musk should personally do the work of welders, janitors, machinists, and all other SpaceX employees. Obviously, that would be absurd. But this is exactly what you're asking me to do as a "System Architect." And on top of that, the required points double after constructing 10 buildings. Wonderful! So, you really thought that the already tedious process of hauling cargo for dozens of hours was too easy and needed to be doubled? Seriously?

Dear developers, are you aware that video games are meant to be fun? Apparently not. The colonization mechanic, as it currently stands, is not entertainment—it's a second job. Without alternative ways to ensure the delivery of construction materials other than personal transportation, this mechanic is doomed.

 

[CMDR Mechan]

Calling it a lie implies malice. Which usually is a ridiculous assumption that stems from a certain hostility towards Frontier. It's the default go to: Frontier goofs something up - Bam! They did it on purpose or lied to us.

No offense to Frontier, but I can totally see the conversation:

Bob: You put the paragraph about the build point increase into the tutorial and codex, right?

Tom: I thought you did that. I was on vacation last week!

Bob: No, the boss said you had to do it, I had to move my office last week and had no time for it!

Tom: Crap.

Bob: Crap. The forums will be on fire.

Hanlon's Razor and all that.

This is precisely the movie I've also pictured in my head.

 

[Exeider]

Calling it a lie implies malice. Which usually is a ridiculous assumption that stems from a certain hostility towards Frontier. It's the default go to: Frontier goofs something up - Bam! They did it on purpose or lied to us.

No offense to Frontier, but I can totally see the conversation:

Bob: You put the paragraph about the build point increase into the tutorial and codex, right?

Tom: I thought you did that. I was on vacation last week!

Bob: No, the boss said you had to do it, I had to move my office last week and had no time for it!

Tom: Crap.

Bob: Crap. The forums will be on fire.

Hanlon's Razor and all that.

Ok I'm gonna say one last point on this and then move on. It's not from hostility, it's from the fact they've pulled this move before. If you want the villagers to stop believing that it's dishonesty, stop crying wolf.

If they they had just said "Ok we thought we put it in there and looks like we didn't". Ok cool, no problem, it's a beta it happens. Or had they said nothing, the players would have just been left to wonder.

Whether this was a last minute thought or some knee jerk attempt at a balance pass or again, it was just lost in the huge amount of documentation they needed to get out there. The point is, it wasn't. But to proactively say that it was always in there when it wasn't just comes of as "pulling a fast one" and now makes people think "dishonesty" when it started out as a legit mistake.

They don't have to do that, and for the sake of maintaining the trust they worked hard on rebuilding they shouldn't do that.

 

[threepwood007]

Since I am a fallible human, the idea that I can make a mistake after playing for hours and hours and hours and not being able to undo that mistake and permanently ruin my colony feels extremely bad.

 

[Bullrax]

So, my second feedback. I have finished constructing several structures in the system, as well as a second station—Coriolis (around 12 hours of gameplay). What can I say again? It’s simple:

Dear developers, in its current form, the colonization mechanic will not be able to keep a significant number of players engaged for long. The process of achieving the goal of constructing a particular object is far too repetitive. And once again, having to personally transport cargo makes absolutely no sense. What’s the purpose of in-game credits if I can't spend them to hire workers to transport cargo for me? I previously suggested a mechanic with an "Order" button in a separate column of the construction menu: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...on-beta-details-feedback.634055/post-10560680

This is like saying that instead of coordinating the development of Starship, Elon Musk should personally do the work of welders, janitors, machinists, and all other SpaceX employees. Obviously, that would be absurd. But this is exactly what you're asking me to do as a "System Architect." And on top of that, the required points double after constructing 10 buildings. Wonderful! So, you really thought that the already tedious process of hauling cargo for dozens of hours was too easy and needed to be doubled? Seriously?

Dear developers, are you aware that video games are meant to be fun? Apparently not. The colonization mechanic, as it currently stands, is not entertainment—it's a second job. Without alternative ways to ensure the delivery of construction materials other than personal transportation, this mechanic is doomed.

What do you think of the things i've suggested?
I briefly touched the matter of adding a system where someone hauls the goods for you.

Elite Dangerous | System Colonisation Beta Details & Feedback

i've noticed the planetary ports where we buy CMM composites have extraction and industrial settlements I've just had a look on Inara are 10 random systems selling tritium, and they all have an industrial settlement. I'll monitor the market for a while as I'm moving on to something else now...

forums.frontier.co.uk

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

My hunch is what happened here is that they planned to add that to the Pilot's Handbook, but somehow that revision didn't make it in, even though they thought it did.

Exhibit A: Powerplay journal events. Probably in the same category (was it powerplay? It was powerplay events, right?).

 

[WINGBACON]

Since I am a fallible human, the idea that I can make a mistake after playing for hours and hours and hours and not being able to undo that mistake and permanently ruin my colony feels extremely bad.

I 'goofed' and built two small stations and a construction platform. At this point I want to cancel the entire system LP 782-16. I WANTED a LARGE STATION but now need a third construction point. I reached the maximum build for the system and thus makes this a waste of time. I know I could had built an ocellus first but I thought 50,000 cmm composites during the 'defeceit' was ridicoulous! : (

 

[vanFace]

Maybe FDEV meant those introductory pages we've all seen the first time we opened the maps or features. Is there a way to revisit them?

 

[Гуляка]

"Lie" is a bit harsh (as it presumes intent). I wouldn't personally call it that.

My hunch is what happened here is that they planned to add that to the Pilot's Handbook, but somehow that revision didn't make it in, even though they thought it did.

Let us assume good faith. People make mistakes. It happens to all of us.

Based on what I know at this time, I think this may be a documentation oversight more than anything else. It's one with a big impact. But I don't think there's an intent to mislead at play here ...

Every time, they break something and don't report it.
We never know if it was a bug or if it's the feature.
What are you talking about? They again "forgot" to report something. I would say otherwise, a miracle, when they give at least some information at all

 

[Xenia_K]

Adding a few words of feedback for the FDEV Team:
1) the costs (commodities required) to build the first station is adequately balanced (yes it is very challenging but doable)
2) I would welcome a slight decrease in costs required to build another asset in the system (up to a certain threshold) - an incentive to invest in the existing system rather than moving to the next one
3) change the mechanism which demands more construction points after the 2nd port (i.e. as described in cmdr. Mechan video)
4) 16ly colonization radius seems to be adequate - neither decrease nor increase the radius
5) add some visualisation for the ports under construction (especially for the Tier 2 and 3 space stations)

thank you

1, 2, 3 agree
4 nope, unless FDev wants a pancake-civilisation. Above and below y: +/- 350 Ly the average Distance between Stars quickly exceeds 25 Ly, so that would not be able to be colonized/daisy-chained. I strongly oppose this limitation.
5 based on percentage of completion? not a bad idea, but jeez, the download size of updates is big enough already, you seriously want to multiply all the related files by factor 10?

 

[Galt Rand]

Greetings Commanders,

With the launch of our Trailblazers update we will be bringing System Colonisation to Elite Dangerous! The launch of System Colonisation will be as a live Beta for the feature, allowing us to review data and make adjustments over time. This is a significant update to Elite Dangerous and whilst we are very happy with the feature we do understand that some fine tuning may be required initially.

Though this is a Beta it will be on the live version of the game and any actions/progress made will NOT be wiped unless a significant issue is identified. Here is a brief explanation of how the Beta works:

What the System Colonisation Beta is

• Feature complete
• All actions/resource payments made are final and will not be refunded
• A period where we can monitor data and make balancing adjustments

What the System Colonisation Beta is not

• A work in progress
• There will be no progress wipes
• There will be no resource refunds

The aim of the Beta is to gather data and feedback specifically focused on resource balancing. We are happy with the System Colonisation feature itself and whilst we are always happy for you to share your feedback the aim of this Beta is aimed firmly at resource balancing and not changes to the feature itself.

To help us in our balancing we will be using this thread for you to share your feedback on the following areas:

• Amount of resources required
• Amount of time/distance taken to complete tasks

As always you are welcome to share additional feedback on the forums or to raise an issues you encounter on our Issue Tracker.

If there is truly a points doubling that occurs to limit the number of stations built in the system after two large stations are already built then not only is this bad gameplay, but also bad game design because it leads to an over abundance of useless satellites in space for commanders to gather enough points to be able to build a useful station. Filling out a system with non-landable space debris should be discouraged, not encouraged through a bad mechanic like arbitrarily increasing the point score in the system. Space, if we talk about a role-play then if anything, it should be easier to build in a system that has other large stations because the resource gathering and population has already increased.
This sentiment represents five accounts that I own in the game and the thousand of real $ spent on Arx.