Elite Dangerous | System Colonisation Beta Details & Feedback
- Thread starter Paul_Crowther
- Start date
Except you can. When you log back in after quitting, you'll still be landed there.
It makes building a 2nd t2 or t3 port take twice as many lower tier settlements and hubs to build. This makes it so that a lot of systems will never be able to have more than 1 large port unless you started the colonization with one of the larger ports since it bypasses the point requirement.
I agree that there is a lack of depth, or Rather lack in showing the Depth of colonization. Missing Menus with information etc.
I find that you are oversimplifying it by stating it's only "Claim a System, Place a Facility and Hauling, Hauling, Hauling..."
Beyond the Hauling and Building we have plenty more we currently don't fully understand. Such as what Does Tech Level Influence, Wealth change, Standard of living, Development, Security change. How does Certain buildings in a single system combine. How to get a System to produce CMM composites, or other material. How can the Player Influence the state of the system, Anarchy, Food scarcity, Boom etc. There is some depth in those systems that we currently don't understand fully.
In time we are gonna learn those. Much like any game. Instead to me I feel that the game does a horrible job at showing the depth of Colonization. Menu's that provide some "Hidden" star system information that players can use to effect their star system. to start I would like a Menu that Shows What all combined buildings provide for my system. Is there low security? is my potential population high, but standard of living low so I can't keep up with the cap? There is currently no menu showing that information. I've made 1 such suggestion before here for a mockup: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...on-beta-details-feedback.634055/post-10571183
Not to mention how my system will tie in with the influences we have as pilots in the galaxy.
tldr: There is Depth to the system. We lack proper menus to show the depth. therefore it feels shallow.
I've seen the comments about build costs increasing for more than 2 stations and haven't waded in yet but I think I will now.
Most of the complaints seem to be suggesting that it's bad because there's no clear indication that this is how it will work, both beforehand, during and after. I agree with that. But this is Elite Dangerous and I'm amazed some of you aren't already acutely aware that this game doesn't do "in house" very well, in general. That said, I think all of the data should be available in game. Even just deciding whether to build a type of ground settlement demands that you fly to a surface... just to browse the options, costs and related benefits! This is not good.
But... and I stress this again... if there's a game on the planet that heavily relies on third party support (to the point where I'd say most players outright love it for that fact), then this is that game. I don't like it, nor have I ever. But it's just how it's always been and I doubt it'll change with this new feature. Nonetheless... I wish for this to not be the case and so would fervently support better in game data/documentation. I'm just tired of asking for it, having spent years doing so with little success.
My issue with the complaints so far is many have said the above but... it's clear that wouldn't make them happy at all, so why mention it? Like, the paraphrased argument of "this is ridiculous! Why can't we just do what we want? It'd be OK if it was even made clear to us! But it's not!" to me just reads as "I want to do what I want". The part about obfuscation is irrelevant to that person. Hard disagree with that sentiment because I lump them into the below category of complaint.
I think a soft cap, which this is, works better than a hard cap (which some have suggested would be better, but I have no idea why). No one said, before this went live, that we would be able to blithely blast up 25 stations in a system and nothing else, if we decided that would be fun. The feature needs to work well within the framework of the game. This soft-cap means systems will be balanced. You still get the option to build lots of stations if you desire, but you need to balance it. A hard cap of just 2-3 stations wouldn't work either, because then you'd still have players throwing up three stations with no infrastructure to support it. This is obviously aimed at achieving balance across systems, which is based on the game's existing framework. Anyone just saying "let us build what we want!" don't seem to me to be particularly interested in any of that and I simply don't think it's their call. The number of configurations commanders can utilise within their own systems is hugely varied, despite this soft cap. I think asking for the soft cap to be removed entirely is unreasonable and I don't support it.
The only argument remaining is whether doubling the cost is reasonable. And to that... I can't argue either way. It's not my game, it's FD's. They know better than I do as to whether that's right or wrong. I think players asking for scraps (i.e. conceding that the soft cap is required but just want it to be reduced so they can build more stations) are welcome to ask but I fail to see why it's so important, either. That said, if FD agree and reduce the scaling then, cool.
I just don't see it as a huge deal breaker, either way. It is, by far, the lowest concern I have with this feature.
Most of the complaints seem to be suggesting that it's bad because there's no clear indication that this is how it will work, both beforehand, during and after. I agree with that. But this is Elite Dangerous and I'm amazed some of you aren't already acutely aware that this game doesn't do "in house" very well, in general. That said, I think all of the data should be available in game. Even just deciding whether to build a type of ground settlement demands that you fly to a surface... just to browse the options, costs and related benefits! This is not good.
But... and I stress this again... if there's a game on the planet that heavily relies on third party support (to the point where I'd say most players outright love it for that fact), then this is that game. I don't like it, nor have I ever. But it's just how it's always been and I doubt it'll change with this new feature. Nonetheless... I wish for this to not be the case and so would fervently support better in game data/documentation. I'm just tired of asking for it, having spent years doing so with little success.
My issue with the complaints so far is many have said the above but... it's clear that wouldn't make them happy at all, so why mention it? Like, the paraphrased argument of "this is ridiculous! Why can't we just do what we want? It'd be OK if it was even made clear to us! But it's not!" to me just reads as "I want to do what I want". The part about obfuscation is irrelevant to that person. Hard disagree with that sentiment because I lump them into the below category of complaint.
I think a soft cap, which this is, works better than a hard cap (which some have suggested would be better, but I have no idea why). No one said, before this went live, that we would be able to blithely blast up 25 stations in a system and nothing else, if we decided that would be fun. The feature needs to work well within the framework of the game. This soft-cap means systems will be balanced. You still get the option to build lots of stations if you desire, but you need to balance it. A hard cap of just 2-3 stations wouldn't work either, because then you'd still have players throwing up three stations with no infrastructure to support it. This is obviously aimed at achieving balance across systems, which is based on the game's existing framework. Anyone just saying "let us build what we want!" don't seem to me to be particularly interested in any of that and I simply don't think it's their call. The number of configurations commanders can utilise within their own systems is hugely varied, despite this soft cap. I think asking for the soft cap to be removed entirely is unreasonable and I don't support it.
The only argument remaining is whether doubling the cost is reasonable. And to that... I can't argue either way. It's not my game, it's FD's. They know better than I do as to whether that's right or wrong. I think players asking for scraps (i.e. conceding that the soft cap is required but just want it to be reduced so they can build more stations) are welcome to ask but I fail to see why it's so important, either. That said, if FD agree and reduce the scaling then, cool.
I just don't see it as a huge deal breaker, either way. It is, by far, the lowest concern I have with this feature.
Last edited:
Well heck, now I'm jealous! I'll have to come and visit that one day. I wish we had a cancel button. I only have so many planetary settlements to play with in my system and I don't want to waste them gambling on placements which may or may not end up allowing me to place others closer than 200km.
They should make the minimum distance between settlements only a few km, because some players want to build cities by placing them together.
While the update has been great, i am a bit dissapointed that we can't build a small HUB for ourselves. All we can build are things that are gonna be used by other NPC's. I wish we could build a small home somewhere in our Systems.
Onto Feedback that I hope can be taken constructively and in the best possible light.
- Please reconsider and work to compromise on the increased point cost to either a flat rate increase or a linear one, not just doubling.
- Longer term additions can be to add other gameplay loops like generating missions that will reward supplies directly to a construction effort (without the need to haul them over yourself) which will allow things like mining or combat to be used to advance the construction. Think things like rescuing a convoy that delivers supplies or providing mined materials to someone who will turn them into items that get contributed to the construction.
- The new Refinery contact is a great new addition as a concept but the conversion rate and the items it is usable for are not very useful as they are widely available supplies. Taking it to the next level could be to introduce the addition of the mining specific materials like Bromellite and Alexandrite etc being refined with things like steel or titanium to create other products like CMMs. This would give mining a more direct boost and keep it player engaged as miners can fill carriers with these ores and then other people can come buy them and do the refining themselves using purchased steel/titanium/etc. This makes it so CMMs cannot be spammed but giving mining a direct usage that drastically can help colonization.
The fact that it wasn't in any screen affected multiple players in planning their system. What measures are going to be in place for those affected.
Also. After probably seeing that large parts of communities feel like it has now been deemed an unnecessary punishment and should be removed. How or what has the Dev team been considering about this point cost metric? Is it considered in the balancing process or won't be touched at all? If not what are you looking for in balancing the Trailblazer update so we can help you better with the testing.
I've seen very negative reactions to the point cost increase when it was found out from those that are against it. Along with discussions of it leaving as is or changing how much it increases from those for it.
although its understandable as loads of systems would be spammed by Coriolis and Orbis, Sim-Wise it doesn´t make to much sense.
If I get a large System (and there are several with 50 to 100 bodies) gradually populated by building settlements, infrastructure etc. there should be an adequat number of markets as well.
I agree that it makes no sense to have 3 or 4 Markets (Coriolis/Ocellus/Planetary Ports) for a System holding 10K Population, but limiting the number of markets for a System which can hold Millions? Thats the same as if you would say "sorry Guys, just one Oxfam and one Walmart for whole London Area"
I guess you get my point.On the other hand - if one populates a System to that point the increased number of points wouldn´t be a problem I guess......
All the hauling will be....
Since this potentially important information is not currently included in the game, can you perhaps enlighten us what this is?
I see nothing wrong with the idea that this could be added. I do think it should be limited. I don't think we should just be able to throw up dozens of homes for ourselves. But absolutely one is reasonable.
Oh really. My game told me if I logged out my ship would be moved to a "safe" place. I didn't try it though and instead moved to another place proactively so I knew exactly where I was at. That is very weird then.
The wrong is in the semantics already - IT IS NOT YOUR System !!!
You are only planning/developing it.
Actually, as Architect, I just would build the primary Port and than set up the construction-sites as proposal. If the Factions in Primary Port are interested in that architectural proposal, they will deliver the Mats to establish the Installations - if not, well so be it, I am the architect, not the general contractor.
RP off - off course I develope my Systems - but what I wrote above is what an Architect would do.
Last edited:
Intended process, and terrible idea, that undermines the whole point of the feature.
Feedback:
- All planetary hubs I've build so far are floating off the ground.
(Not that I care to much, but just a FYI to the devs)
- All planetary hubs I've build so far are floating off the ground.
(Not that I care to much, but just a FYI to the devs)
- Could we pls get rid of the fluff "lights" at the orbital construction sites?
- Overview panel of what the influences are of constructions. (dynamic)
- Add landing pads and related gameplay to hubs idc if people are still on horizons. (no one cares about the horizons scan "gameplay" loop)
Last edited:
thats the same message you get if logging out at the Tharg-Sites - and the same result - your ship stays where it is/was