Whew! Glad I got my claim down before that change.
Today should be the day we get our taxes to I beleive. Maybe we can come up with some way to gauge what affects the income from todays deposit.
Elite Dangerous | System Colonisation Beta Details & Feedback
- Thread starter Paul_Crowther
- Start date
Today should be the day we get our taxes to I beleive. Maybe we can come up with some way to gauge what affects the income from todays deposit.
Ian, control of facilities and systems seems to be (based on my very limited sample of two) determined rather random or proportinate to influence. The main station went to the nearest large NPC faction and all four surface sites, that I built solo, all went to the second placed player faction, despite them having absolutely no involvement as system architect or builder of any facilities.
It apparently relies on other assets existing. (a great guide was posted earlier)
Which is useful, if one wants to tailor a system to their own wants.
Yes - very hard to tell which of the two, especially in a single system.
Odyssey settlements seemed to be allocated randomly, but weighted approximately based on influence so the controller got more. But there we had hundreds of thousands of them added at once to check distributions of.
I think it would be a good idea. Obviously it is a very popular mechanic and FD, and the game, should profit from that.
The blue hologram is when placing it initially.
So renaming premium still doesn't work. I know it works for some players but it didn't work for me. I tried renaming an outpost, it said it would take 6D etc (I did this last cycle), and tried renaming an Orbis claim and it said it would be instant. Neither worked last week (after today's tick) and neither worked just now.
Renaming using Arx isn't working for everyone.
Renaming using Arx isn't working for everyone.
I believe this has been said a lot but we really need a way to deconstruct facilities, in the event of bad planning or making a mistake. As not all of the mechanics are clear right now, it's especially important. But if a system wants to change economies later, we should be allowed to do that - even if deconstructing means losing all the commodities used in the build.
They are not.
Maybe I'm blind, but the placement template only shows the green outline of the base buildings and landing pad, nothing more. Can you post an example screenshot?
Sure, here you go:
It goes green when you've committed to it.
Also, this is an example of a previous settlement I placed right by the lip of a massive crater, and it turned out fine:
You can see a slight bump and that is the "border" of the settlement slightly protruding. But it still looks good to me, quite like a natural outcrop they chose to build on.
That is a medium settlement. Perhaps small settlements still require that much "flat area" and so might need to be placed further from the edge.
I agree. I think there should be a leeway "cooling off" period though. I don't think it's reasonable for us to, potentially, entirely redo an entire system from scratch a year later.
I think any completed placement should have a cool down period of 4 weeks and then it's permanent.
So today i got just over 111k for a system population of 112k that equates to more or less 1 credit per person living in my system, so if i can get my population to 1b i will get 1b per week meaning 52b per year.
Good luck with that, "colonisation" cannot be done on terraformables, or earthlikes, so its impossible to make popballs, earthlikes are worthless, good luck spending the rest of your mortal life hauling.
sure, a cooling off period suffices but if you're going to put in the effort to redo an entire system, you should be allowed to. you'd literally have to put in all the effort in again, plus losing the commodities/benefits of the previous ports
I got near 600k for a system with 58k population. I have a high wealth and standard of living. My T3 is still under development
