you are indeed correct
this first station is the claiming finalization, after that, system is yours
Elite Dangerous | System Colonisation Beta Details & Feedback
- Thread starter Paul_Crowther
- Start date
this first station is the claiming finalization, after that, system is yours
It’s the same with orbital construction sites. Makes little sense when you can just fly a kilometer away and the game lets you close up just fine, but yeah, not a significant thing. Just a bit annoying (these wouldn’t be any safer than most Odyssey settlements your ship is exposed to attack in, but apparently it’s totally fine there).
This will probably be some unpopular thoughts but I can understand, and even agree a bit with, the construction cost increases and not being able to destroy/remove things already built. How this information was conveyed (and not conveyed) and the impact that has had to the past game play (last 2 weeks or so since launch) is debatable but the actual limits themselves are a different matter to my mind.
I started with a simple outpost and received a population of about 5k. Others did the same and for the weekly income received about 9k. For my weekly income I received about 30k. The difference seems to be that I built a mining installation which adds 3 wealth. While we don’t fully know what these numbers mean or do they seem to have an impact. To get a Tier 3 construction you only need 6 other builds (3 Tier 1 and then 3 Tier 2). The Tier 3 star port gives a very large increase to wealth (+7) along with other things like population (+5/+1) and more. If the price stayed the same you could very quickly build out a system with many Tier 3 star ports and massive boosts to these numbers and probably explode the system benefits/adjustments in weird ways. Adding to the construction costs is a mechanism to keep the system design and benefits/drawbacks a bit more balanced.
Similar to the above if we are able to destroy or remove things already built I think it would ultimately be a detriment to the game. After the various aspects are figured out there will likely be an optimal way to build a system to get the “most” out of it. Once that is known if we could remove and rebuild our systems then you would likely have just a bunch of systems that all look and act alike. These systems interact with each other and the broader game (without knowing or getting into deep details of the BGS). If all colonization was the same and/or could be moved to the same setup then the impact to the game interactions could be very harmful or one note leading to a very boring game anywhere you look at markets, NPCs, and the like. I already fear a little for new systems once this information is know but that’s a future, and maybe far LY away, problem.
Do I wish we would have known about some of these things in advance? Yes. I’ve also seen various posts about not knowing something when it was actually specified and people didn’t bother to read the pages but we’ll put that aside. Information is always good but then again there will always be unhappy people with the way things work even if information was given.
Should these things change? Maybe but I’m not convinced it would help the game as a whole big picture vs just an immediate need to have things be a certain preferred way in a person’s little scope of experience or impact.
I started with a simple outpost and received a population of about 5k. Others did the same and for the weekly income received about 9k. For my weekly income I received about 30k. The difference seems to be that I built a mining installation which adds 3 wealth. While we don’t fully know what these numbers mean or do they seem to have an impact. To get a Tier 3 construction you only need 6 other builds (3 Tier 1 and then 3 Tier 2). The Tier 3 star port gives a very large increase to wealth (+7) along with other things like population (+5/+1) and more. If the price stayed the same you could very quickly build out a system with many Tier 3 star ports and massive boosts to these numbers and probably explode the system benefits/adjustments in weird ways. Adding to the construction costs is a mechanism to keep the system design and benefits/drawbacks a bit more balanced.
Similar to the above if we are able to destroy or remove things already built I think it would ultimately be a detriment to the game. After the various aspects are figured out there will likely be an optimal way to build a system to get the “most” out of it. Once that is known if we could remove and rebuild our systems then you would likely have just a bunch of systems that all look and act alike. These systems interact with each other and the broader game (without knowing or getting into deep details of the BGS). If all colonization was the same and/or could be moved to the same setup then the impact to the game interactions could be very harmful or one note leading to a very boring game anywhere you look at markets, NPCs, and the like. I already fear a little for new systems once this information is know but that’s a future, and maybe far LY away, problem.
Do I wish we would have known about some of these things in advance? Yes. I’ve also seen various posts about not knowing something when it was actually specified and people didn’t bother to read the pages but we’ll put that aside. Information is always good but then again there will always be unhappy people with the way things work even if information was given.
Should these things change? Maybe but I’m not convinced it would help the game as a whole big picture vs just an immediate need to have things be a certain preferred way in a person’s little scope of experience or impact.
A possible solution could be to restrict further colonization from any system that is settled beyond a set distance from the bubble’s edge—say, 100 light-years. These systems would remain locked for expansion until they reach a certain level of development, such as Tier 2.
Hi - I do not like the construction point double mechanic as illustrated here:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdPWgUi9c_w
Now my system plan is ruined and there is no way to edit the design with this new information. I wish I could delete the two unconstructed stations till we have accurate info with which to design the systems architecture. Def wont be building anything else. Honestly makes me consider taking a break from the game again.
Now my system plan is ruined and there is no way to edit the design with this new information. I wish I could delete the two unconstructed stations till we have accurate info with which to design the systems architecture. Def wont be building anything else. Honestly makes me consider taking a break from the game again.
Last edited:
While I’m not sure about the destroying finished structures idea, it should be possible to remove ones that have not yet been constructed. Like when the game, without an accidental input on my part, placed two surface port constructions in, effectively, exactly the same spot when it failed to place twice and gave me a success notification on the third one. Yet when I came back later there were two construction sites.
(Mostly this would remove the need to send a support ticket in for such occurrences, assuming it wasn’t a bug that can be fixed)
I think the point total increase would be viewed much less negatively already if putting down (orbital?) T2 stations didn’t also make it significantly harder to build a T3 station. That seems both a little counterintuitive and… not exactly fun, for lack of a better expression. You’d already be getting limited by the increasing cost of T2 starports (which in turn needs more T1 structures), why then also make T3s harder to obtain for T2 construction?
It being entirely undocumented remains though. That should at least be addressed short term.
There is a good deal of planning that goes into a system. Getting all those pre-reqs, and the tier 1/2/3 builds done in the correct order whilst leaving the best slots free for the tier 3 stations. Using DaftMav's great speadsheet I've planned out out my entire system, complete with 79 build locations. I had planned to fill them all.
These construction point changes completely derail all my plans. I now have no idea what my system would look like as I don't know the pre-req formula between tier 1/2/3 settlements any more.
Constructions points should be static. If anything, the more settlements a system has the lower the material costs should be, as more populated systems would have more NPC ships moving cargo.
Finally, 25ly expansion range doesn't seem excessive to me. There are a lot of systems that can't be reached by the 15ly limit as no other systems are within that range.
These construction point changes completely derail all my plans. I now have no idea what my system would look like as I don't know the pre-req formula between tier 1/2/3 settlements any more.
Constructions points should be static. If anything, the more settlements a system has the lower the material costs should be, as more populated systems would have more NPC ships moving cargo.
Finally, 25ly expansion range doesn't seem excessive to me. There are a lot of systems that can't be reached by the 15ly limit as no other systems are within that range.
This drastic increase in Construction points makes many systems impossible to build out or greatly reduces their usability and none of this was made clear. It is not listed in game nor made clear before hand. There was a claim that it is in the handbook but it is not and proof can be submitted. Personally, I am not saying increased costs shouldn't be done at all, but straight up doubling the costs as well as t2 affecting t3 is not a good player incentive to continue playing the game when our time is being disregarded like this. Increase the costs if you must, but not doubling them, a flat rate or even a linear increase is more amendable.
Please Fdev, don't dig your heels on this, listen to criticism, reconsider and compromise.
Please Fdev, don't dig your heels on this, listen to criticism, reconsider and compromise.
So, I'd agree that some type of incentive to build vertical depth to the system is good. Systems would otherwise just be slammed up with the most well paying ports and the meta will be established immediately. But all this aside a meta WILL emerge. There will likely be a handful of 'right' ways to build up to maximize income, production, etc and once known almost all systems can be expected to follow those patterns.
So the direction i would argue for is that doubling is over-the-top. It should increase as each new orbital goes up but double is a bit much. The multiplier should be shown and actions that will affect it should be highlighted as they are being planned (just like power or DPS consequences are displayed when outfitting). Also I would have the settlements or installations both provide a certain number of points towards more grand starports but also downward pressure on the multiplier if several are built without building higher tiered structures between them. In that way a person that paints into a corner has a way out by building some depth to thier system rather than winding up in a situation where they will be completely unable to develop what they wanted.
Also I strongly think that a new system should need to reach a certain threshold to be able to further colonize from it. Be that a tier 2 other than the main station, a certain population, or some other metric. This would provide a bit of natural brake pumping to the expansion as well as provide systems that are not just empty outposts strung out at maxiumum colonization range.
I would like to see the commodity list for builds in trailblazer show in the ship inventory I e. Named the settlement then what is needed.
The gut-punch-to-pleasant-surprise ratio for this update is remarkably high. Greater than one, for sure.
I would love to see a ship with at least 1100 tons in the game. Also a midsize carrier that we could use in trailblazers
I can agree on those points. A corrective measure for mistakes (bugs) with multiple placement is good. Even something that is not completed I could possibly see cancelling perhaps since it's not really a fixed asset or participating in the game yet beyond the construction aspect.
The point cost being by category make a lot of sense to me too. I haven't see anything that says building multiple Tier 2 increases the Tier 3 cost so far. Either I missed it (certainly possible) or that is being assumed. Most of the talk so far seems to be when adding another Tier 3 the costs go up. It does raise the cost of Tier 2 along with Tier 3 so it's probably a reasonable assumption it works in reverse too.
I'm completing a Tier 2 installation later today (security) and plan to start a Tier 2 start port next. That will be the second Tier 2 in the system (6 overall) so I'll be able to see if it changes costs.
It isn't even close to the majority of posters on this thread, and there are certainly not tens of thousands of individuals posting here...
My thoughts on Trailblazers so far
Cargo requirements for construction
I feel a more in depth discussion needs to be had about the volume of cargo required to construct things. I have a strong love for the immersion and realism of Elite and I personally find it insane I was able to build an entire Science Outpost, solo, in my own system, in 24 hours of game time. To me, this is infeasible from an 'in universe' lore perspective.
But I do also see how trying to balance 'realism' with fun is something that developers need to do to appeal to a broader market. I personally am kind of happy with where the cargo levels are at, however the feedback I mostly hear is people saying they wish it was all less/easier.
On this point, I think a serious discussion about how 'soloable' colonisation is supposed to be would go a long way to allaying much of this feedback. IMO, this is an MMO with the option to play solo. And colonisation should be a feature that essentially requires you to group up with other players.
Colonisation distance
In the version I played when we could claim a system, the range seemed reasonable to me with one caveat. It is important that it remains the case that when the first station is completed, the system colonisation service is available. Otherwise, the weekly bottleneck in expanding takes the wind out of players sails and it will just stagnate the feature imo. Let us bull charge across 300ly in one week if we are prepared to plan the logistics. Do not limit us to x ly/week of expansion.
The whole 'beta' thing
I have to say the most opinionated bit of feedback I have, is the way in which this beta has been forced on the entire PC player base; it feels pretty ham fisted to me. I wouldn't mind if there were transparent expectations set about outage timings etc, and with a 19 year background in automated software testing, I do empathise deeply with the challenges of predicting these things. But the way in which servers keep going down, being brought down for indeterminate periods of time, I feel is pretty shocking for a mature, decade live game in production. But ultimately, this was the dev teams call and I feel they are probably regretting it with the pressure they were invariably put under last week with the Friday outage. No team wants to sign up to that stress imo.
On a genuine level I would love to speak to leadership about this decision as to me I struggle to imagine a dev team WANTING it this way.
Maybe you're gluttons for pressure, which I commend in some respects, but when you have customers out there who have already paid for the service, it's rough for everyone involved. If this is the tone for the foreseeable future, I will likely play Elite less and less until this beta is finished.
I simply do not wish to test in production and there is a reason this is an incredibly frowned upon approach in software development generally.
I genuinely would have preferred, and would have signed up for, a bespoke, throw away server with an NDA (see the Escape from Tarkov, 'Early Test Server' model) where people that wish to engage with colonisation and provide feedback in this manner, are vetted and can contribute to it under an NDA. Maybe give me a nice ship skin or something to commemorate the commitment.
As a career tester who loves this game, I would have tested it for free for you, something I have literally earned £100k's over the last 2 decades doing.
Wider impact on the entire game platform
The issue I am focusing on here is how trailblazers has introduced some quite serious regressions in functionality only recently deployed. For example all mega ship interactions are currently totally broken, they just CTD if you scan them. An excellent feature, PP 2.0, has had 20% of the weekly incentive to interact with it removed due to this (or at least for me 2/10 weeklies are to scan mega ships..). For newer players only now entering the Elite universe, for whom 'architecting' is slightly out of reach, this hugely sucks and things like this must be caught prior to new code being deployed.
Likewise, the fleet carrier scheduling service is utterly overwhelmed by the level of player activity trailblazers has attracted. There has been speculation in the community that this is a result of the colonisation ships using this service, although given this hasn't been resolved since claims were disabled, this is demonstrably unlikely to be the case. I do again empathise with the challenges of scaling a microservice to demand, but frankly the current status quo must change. There is clearly a consistent demand for more frequent scheduling and whatever the bottleneck in meeting this demand is, it needs either a public explanation (be technical, we are nearly all massive nerds) or just a fix that means FC jumps are simply a 15 minute wait away. I should be able to schedule my jump and if the system has room, in 15 minutes it is there. If there is tech debt making this not possible, tell us about it. If there are server costs making this not possible, tell us about it. Speculation breeds contempt and in fighting in the community. Being vulnerable with us let's us know that you do see these things and you do care.
Try to remember that whilst this is 'only a video game', there are many spending their real world finite lifetime trying to schedule a FC jump. Looping through the UI over and over, getting rejected. There are dozens of reports of people doing this. They love what you have created and they want to enjoy it and share it with others. It is critical this is respected and issues like this are aggressively resolved, or explained to the point where the average Elite fan knows WHY they cannot schedule the jump.
If it's $ for servers, just put an ARX cost for a guaranteed jump and watch the cash roll in. Hell for busier systems, set up a dutch or blind auction for ARX and watch FCs become IRL money printers when you do CGs etc
. Just be careful if considering this approach not to end up making jumping a fleet carrier a paid feature which this could rapidly descend into.
Cargo requirements for construction
I feel a more in depth discussion needs to be had about the volume of cargo required to construct things. I have a strong love for the immersion and realism of Elite and I personally find it insane I was able to build an entire Science Outpost, solo, in my own system, in 24 hours of game time. To me, this is infeasible from an 'in universe' lore perspective.
But I do also see how trying to balance 'realism' with fun is something that developers need to do to appeal to a broader market. I personally am kind of happy with where the cargo levels are at, however the feedback I mostly hear is people saying they wish it was all less/easier.
On this point, I think a serious discussion about how 'soloable' colonisation is supposed to be would go a long way to allaying much of this feedback. IMO, this is an MMO with the option to play solo. And colonisation should be a feature that essentially requires you to group up with other players.
Colonisation distance
In the version I played when we could claim a system, the range seemed reasonable to me with one caveat. It is important that it remains the case that when the first station is completed, the system colonisation service is available. Otherwise, the weekly bottleneck in expanding takes the wind out of players sails and it will just stagnate the feature imo. Let us bull charge across 300ly in one week if we are prepared to plan the logistics. Do not limit us to x ly/week of expansion.
The whole 'beta' thing
I have to say the most opinionated bit of feedback I have, is the way in which this beta has been forced on the entire PC player base; it feels pretty ham fisted to me. I wouldn't mind if there were transparent expectations set about outage timings etc, and with a 19 year background in automated software testing, I do empathise deeply with the challenges of predicting these things. But the way in which servers keep going down, being brought down for indeterminate periods of time, I feel is pretty shocking for a mature, decade live game in production. But ultimately, this was the dev teams call and I feel they are probably regretting it with the pressure they were invariably put under last week with the Friday outage. No team wants to sign up to that stress imo.
On a genuine level I would love to speak to leadership about this decision as to me I struggle to imagine a dev team WANTING it this way.
Maybe you're gluttons for pressure, which I commend in some respects, but when you have customers out there who have already paid for the service, it's rough for everyone involved. If this is the tone for the foreseeable future, I will likely play Elite less and less until this beta is finished.
I simply do not wish to test in production and there is a reason this is an incredibly frowned upon approach in software development generally.
I genuinely would have preferred, and would have signed up for, a bespoke, throw away server with an NDA (see the Escape from Tarkov, 'Early Test Server' model) where people that wish to engage with colonisation and provide feedback in this manner, are vetted and can contribute to it under an NDA. Maybe give me a nice ship skin or something to commemorate the commitment.
As a career tester who loves this game, I would have tested it for free for you, something I have literally earned £100k's over the last 2 decades doing.
Wider impact on the entire game platform
The issue I am focusing on here is how trailblazers has introduced some quite serious regressions in functionality only recently deployed. For example all mega ship interactions are currently totally broken, they just CTD if you scan them. An excellent feature, PP 2.0, has had 20% of the weekly incentive to interact with it removed due to this (or at least for me 2/10 weeklies are to scan mega ships..). For newer players only now entering the Elite universe, for whom 'architecting' is slightly out of reach, this hugely sucks and things like this must be caught prior to new code being deployed.
Likewise, the fleet carrier scheduling service is utterly overwhelmed by the level of player activity trailblazers has attracted. There has been speculation in the community that this is a result of the colonisation ships using this service, although given this hasn't been resolved since claims were disabled, this is demonstrably unlikely to be the case. I do again empathise with the challenges of scaling a microservice to demand, but frankly the current status quo must change. There is clearly a consistent demand for more frequent scheduling and whatever the bottleneck in meeting this demand is, it needs either a public explanation (be technical, we are nearly all massive nerds) or just a fix that means FC jumps are simply a 15 minute wait away. I should be able to schedule my jump and if the system has room, in 15 minutes it is there. If there is tech debt making this not possible, tell us about it. If there are server costs making this not possible, tell us about it. Speculation breeds contempt and in fighting in the community. Being vulnerable with us let's us know that you do see these things and you do care.
Try to remember that whilst this is 'only a video game', there are many spending their real world finite lifetime trying to schedule a FC jump. Looping through the UI over and over, getting rejected. There are dozens of reports of people doing this. They love what you have created and they want to enjoy it and share it with others. It is critical this is respected and issues like this are aggressively resolved, or explained to the point where the average Elite fan knows WHY they cannot schedule the jump.
If it's $ for servers, just put an ARX cost for a guaranteed jump and watch the cash roll in. Hell for busier systems, set up a dutch or blind auction for ARX and watch FCs become IRL money printers when you do CGs etc
. Just be careful if considering this approach not to end up making jumping a fleet carrier a paid feature which this could rapidly descend into.
Last edited:
Seems like it's straight forward. The above person built two T2 asteroid bases and has seen the point cost for T3 stations doubled to 12.
ETA: Sorry, I missed that your first T2 was an installation. Im curious if the T2 planetary ports count against it too.
Last edited:
AFAIK its only tier 2 and 3 ports (coriolis, asteroid, orbis, ocellus, and T3 planetary port) constructed after the intial port which count towards this. So building T1 and T2 installations does not affect the cost of ports, and their cost is not increased in any case. Once you've built 2 of those after the initial port, that's when the cost increases.
Hello, couple of points for feedback from me:
Please get rid of the points doubling requirements after a certain threshold. The material requirements and needing enough slots to even accrue enough lower tier stations is already enough of a barrier. You’re just going to end up with systems full of useless T1 junk.
Related to that is my second point that there really should be some mechanism to demolish a colony build or grow it into a higher tier. Appreciate that that’s not really a bug and more of a feature that is beyond incorporation into the gameplay you’ve built.
Thanks for the work on the game and keeping such an engaging galaxy going for a decade so far!
Please get rid of the points doubling requirements after a certain threshold. The material requirements and needing enough slots to even accrue enough lower tier stations is already enough of a barrier. You’re just going to end up with systems full of useless T1 junk.
Related to that is my second point that there really should be some mechanism to demolish a colony build or grow it into a higher tier. Appreciate that that’s not really a bug and more of a feature that is beyond incorporation into the gameplay you’ve built.
Thanks for the work on the game and keeping such an engaging galaxy going for a decade so far!
Oh yeah, I see what I was missing in his post. The first T2 was an installation. You are correct, in that the evidence there doesn't show that ALL T2's produce this result.
How many of the 8000+ were exploited?
You're gonna have to wipe it and start again, so here's what you need to do as we now know what a complete failure colonisation is right now.
1. You must own a carrier, and be "Elite" status in one field.
2. You can colonise anywhere in the galaxy (you got to cart the stuff right?)
3. You get to name the system and anything inside it. (apart from anything to do with Elon, Reeve and Musk)
This above will stop the constant outpost shed building leapfrogging and CMDR's can take their time, fully check out the requirements, not have to "rush" for a claim as if Maggie Thatcher just sold off the council houses, or gold is discovered in them thar hills so any peasant can claim the gold CMDR's have rightfully earned.
The whole thing so far seems to be a desperate bums on seats grab by FDev.
You're gonna have to wipe it and start again, so here's what you need to do as we now know what a complete failure colonisation is right now.
1. You must own a carrier, and be "Elite" status in one field.
2. You can colonise anywhere in the galaxy (you got to cart the stuff right?)
3. You get to name the system and anything inside it. (apart from anything to do with Elon, Reeve and Musk)
This above will stop the constant outpost shed building leapfrogging and CMDR's can take their time, fully check out the requirements, not have to "rush" for a claim as if Maggie Thatcher just sold off the council houses, or gold is discovered in them thar hills so any peasant can claim the gold CMDR's have rightfully earned.
The whole thing so far seems to be a desperate bums on seats grab by FDev.
Last edited: