Elite Dangerous | Colonisation Facilities & Markets

[_herbie_]

Many complain that colonisation is work. That's a good thing. Elite has always been a game for workers and thinkers, even when it comes to discovery, trading and piracy. i don't want to know how many of you would still be here if you had started playing in 2014. most of you would probably have deleted the game from your hard drive in 2015. You tried and if it didn't work you looked for a new way. Just like in real life. there was also complaining. that's life too. but also much less. The game and its appeal were in the foreground.
Elite has never been an in/out/ready game and that's a good thing.
With the new CG, FD now has the courage to leave the bubble. Exactly what most people want, I think.

 

[S0rkvild]

At current point I quit colonization game. Tired of building stations and outposts that do not produce anything. Everything is too vague, not clear, lacks of documentation. Tired of building another structure to see maybe this it will work and make food or any basic stuff.

 

[Freyar]

You tried and if it didn't work you looked for a new way.

Except if I try this, it's about two weeks of work to go from nothing to what SHOULD be a system that produces an economy and doesn't, AND also is permanent with no way to undo mistakes even if it were more work.

 

[tomalus]

architect doesnt add anything new or fun for the time invested
people who help hauling get nothing
the weekly stipend is a joke
profits from hauling are a joke
the gameplay loop of hauling for no profit is terrible

needs more gameplay loops added to be viable

 

[Mersozz]

At current point I quit colonization game. Tired of building stations and outposts that do not produce anything. Everything is too vague, not clear, lacks of documentation. Tired of building another structure to see maybe this it will work and make food or any basic stuff.

I created a bounty hunting system.

My initial port was a Dysnomia criminal outpost. It’s producing Ononhead and similar commodities

Then I created a Laverna pirate base installation, and it’s pumping out wanted ships which make for a great bounty hunting spot.

My point is I agree, much is frustrating, but some things are working as hoped.

 

[_herbie_]

Except if I try this, it's about two weeks of work to go from nothing to what SHOULD be a system that produces an economy and doesn't, AND also is permanent with no way to undo mistakes even if it were more work.

That's where we have the problem. A game is only good if I can make mistakes without it being a problem for me. I know a lot of games and in most of them mistakes have consequences. It's certainly a pity about the good time until the mistake, but that's the way it is. Blaming it on a lack of documentation is unfair and calling for an ‘all back’ switch is pure convenience. Pick up an older game. There are solution manuals for it and you can play through it without errors. How boring.

 

[mkizub]

We are continuously iterating on the design implemented, and we will continue to investigate ways to allow all facilities to find a route to market elsewhere within that star system. We have read your feedback and we are taking it into account in our investigation.

Please, take in account stations near earth-like and water planets. They are beautiful and are pleasure to dock on orbiting stations, but these planets are not langable and we cannot build anything on them. Also, it whold be an enjoy to terraform planets (we allready have terraforming economic status, let colonization use it)! If terraforming will be added - I guess, it can boost system population too.

Also, gas giants with multiple moons (that usually have 1-2 slots for ground settlements) may be seen as one local ecosystem, this will make them as attractive, as planets with 5-6 slots for ground facilities.

 

[Razorback]

Greetings Commanders,

The current process for growing the market in a Starport is to build up facilities on or around the planetary body that it is orbiting.

We are continuously iterating on the design implemented, and we will continue to investigate ways to allow all facilities to find a route to market elsewhere within that star system. We have read your feedback and we are taking it into account in our investigation.

Thank you for continuing to share your thoughts during this Beta process and helping us to improve Trailblazers.

Perhaps this has already been asked 7 pages in, but does this include sub-orbital bodies?

Scenario: There's a Coriolis station in primary orbit around a gas giant. Is it's market looking for information based on the giant, or the giant's satellite moons?

Alternately, is a station placed instead around one of that body's moons pulling market information from just that moon, or the entire moon network of that primary planetary body?

What about binary planets?

 

[vicwarrior]

Perhaps this has already been asked 7 pages in, but does this include sub-orbital bodies?

Scenario: There's a Coriolis station in primary orbit around a gas giant. Is it's market looking for information based on the giant, or the giant's satellite moons?

Alternately, is a station placed instead around one of that body's moons pulling market information from just that moon, or the entire moon network of that primary planetary body?

What about binary planets?

If only the architect UI were useful, and provided information useful in well... architecting a system...

Althought, considering precedent in this update, the simplest and easiest answer, would be that just a planets surface and its immediate orbital slots interact, wouldn't bet stuff on moons interact with its parent surface/orbit, or twins with eachother.

 

[Knuttin Atoll]

Finding bugs is not strictly limited to "live beta" and "live beta" is a meaningless term. They called it a "beta" so people didn't freak out if some key numbers weren't to their liking because they were just placeholder values for Fdev, exactly like the FC rollout.

It's worth noting that if they never tell you what "working" is, you can't accurately assess when something is not working. See: Construction points increasing after some stations are built. There were a couple of days where no one knew if that was intended or a bug, because the one group that knows for sure, isn't telling the people who are doing the "beta testing".

The way Fdev handles this isn't defensible. It's bad from a business standpoint, a developer standpoint, and just a personal pride standpoint.

I'm grateful that people give their time and talent away for free to make Fdev's game actually playable, but they really shouldn't; it just encourages Fdev to keep doing it.

Completely agree.

On the whole opacity discussion, I kind of agree with @Jmanis on why it has a place in the game. On the other hand, I also believe it's needed in Elite in particular because the underlying systems aren't really all that complex. So, to make something feel complicated you just withhold the ruleset from the player.

While this works somewhat for the BGS, it really doesn't for Colonisation, in part due to the time investment required and the high risk of ending up in a proverbial cul-de-sac.

If I want to start a building project, I need to know what I can do, how I can do it and what the implications are.

I currently play X4 building stations, and Cities Skylines building cities. They both provide me with the ruleset (with varying degrees of complexity), it's very clear once I got my head around them, and I can apply those rules in realising (or failing at) my intended vision in those games - that's where the fun is in those games, not in trying to figure out how it all works (where the game, or rather, the developer actively tries to throw you off with ambiguity and lack of detailed info).

Colonisation is dead to me tbh. I built out a small, useless enough system (3 slots in total - name's Apep) with a single outpost, completed one additional facility, and started a second one which I can't even be bothered to complete any more. I didn't even have a vision for it, just wanted to try out the mechanics.

Reading all these issues after burning out on A>B hauling and taking a break I'm glad I didn't invest any more time into this. I just wish Frontier had a different vision for how to further develop the game, i.e. by fleshing out its universe by adding genuinely new 'places', scenarios and gameplay, instead of what we got here.

The core appeal is still there but I often now think of booting it up but then ask myself "to do what exactly, fly around aimlessly, engaging in the same stuff I did for the past 10 years?".

 

[CMDR Vhi]

Completely agree.

On the whole opacity discussion, I kind of agree with @Jmanis on why it has a place in the game. On the other hand, I also believe it's needed in Elite in particular because the underlying systems aren't really all that complex. So, to make something feel complicated you just withhold the ruleset from the player.

While this works somewhat for the BGS, it really doesn't for Colonisation, in part due to the time investment required and the high risk of ending up in a proverbial cul-de-sac.

If I want to start a building project, I need to know what I can do, how I can do it and what the implications are.

I currently play X4 building stations, and Cities Skylines building cities. They both provide me with the ruleset (with varying degrees of complexity), it's very clear once I got my head around them, and I can apply those rules in realising (or failing at) my intended vision in those games - that's where the fun is in those games, not in trying to figure out how it all works (where the game, or rather, the developer actively tries to throw you off with ambiguity and lack of detailed info).

Colonisation is dead to me tbh. I built out a small, useless enough system (3 slots in total - name's Apep) with a single outpost, completed one additional facility, and started a second one which I can't even be bothered to complete any more. I didn't even have a vision for it, just wanted to try out the mechanics.

Reading all these issues after burning out on A>B hauling and taking a break I'm glad I didn't invest any more time into this. I just wish Frontier had a different vision for how to further develop the game, i.e. by fleshing out its universe by adding genuinely new 'places', scenarios and gameplay, instead of what we got here.

The core appeal is still there but I often now think of booting it up but then ask myself "to do what exactly, fly around aimlessly, engaging in the same stuff I did for the past 10 years?".

If it were just a matter of sourcing and delivering commodities being boring, I'd go to the usual tactic of finding a podcast or audiobook to distract from the fact that I'm not really playing a game so much as looking at menus and loading screens for hours.

I think the root issue for colonization is that there's not really a point to it. It's not like colonizing my system is going to have any measurable effect on the rest of my game. I'll grind gathering engineering mats because it will help me enhance my ships to make other parts of the game easier. It can be boring (much, much better now, though!) but there's a point so I'll bite the bullet and just do it.

A few hundred thousand credits of passive income (even a few million credits of passive income) isn't going to cut it; credits are too easy to get just about any other way. They need to think about the game from a player's perspective. Give us things to build that will improve the game in other aspects, like an engineering workshop that gives the architect access to all their currently unlocked blueprints and experimentals in one place. There needs to be a reason to participate in the new game features other than "they're new".

 

[o2thaZ]

We are continuously iterating on the design implemented, and we will continue to investigate ways to allow all facilities to find a route to market elsewhere within that star system. We have read your feedback and we are taking it into account in our investigation.

So...uhm...yeah.
That doesn't make sense at all.
For my own protection I'll stay away from commenting further on this.

 

[3NitroT6]

A few hundred thousand credits of passive income (even a few million credits of passive income) isn't going to cut it; credits are too easy to get just about any other way. They need to think about the game from a player's perspective. Give us things to build that will improve the game in other aspects, like an engineering workshop that gives the architect access to all their currently unlocked blueprints and experimentals in one place. There needs to be a reason to participate in the new game features other than "they're new".

This!

 

[Knuttin Atoll]

If it were just a matter of sourcing and delivering commodities being boring, I'd go to the usual tactic of finding a podcast or audiobook to distract from the fact that I'm not really playing a game so much as looking at menus and loading screens for hours.

While I read about players doing other stuff while playing the game, I can't do it - I play a game to enjoy it and be immersed. If a game makes me want to surf the web or watch Netflix/Youtube while it's launched, then it kinda failed at its fundamental premise. Same way I don't multitask while watching a movie or TV series.

I think the root issue for colonization is that there's not really a point to it. It's not like colonizing my system is going to have any measurable effect on the rest of my game. I'll grind gathering engineering mats because it will help me enhance my ships to make other parts of the game easier. It can be boring (much, much better now, though!) but there's a point so I'll bite the bullet and just do it.

I can see a point for BGS players - and for the record, I'm no BGS player, I understand why it's there but I can't take it seriously given how fake the economy is - so I accept I'm not the target audience here. But it still sucks that this is yet more content (after PP2.0) that has failed to engage me beyond the initial 'try-it-out' phase.

A few hundred thousand credits of passive income (even a few million credits of passive income) isn't going to cut it; credits are too easy to get just about any other way. They need to think about the game from a player's perspective. Give us things to build that will improve the game in other aspects, like an engineering workshop that gives the architect access to all their currently unlocked blueprints and experimentals in one place. There needs to be a reason to participate in the new game features other than "they're new".

A lot of the game is a sort of perpetuum mobile of motivation for playing. Odyssey engineering is the worst and clearest example - gather mats to engineer your (limited) gear to make it easier to gather mats. On a previous CMDR save I managed to G5 all suits and weapons, it was a massive chore but it kept me busy, only to conclude with a 'now what?' when it was done. Raiding settlements and participating in on-foot arena combat became so trivial that I stopped shortly after.

Colonisation is giving me the same vibes even though I didn't try most of the content (i.e. building various stations/settlements in different types of systems).

When it was announced I could see straightaway that they appear to focus on content they don't have to develop from scratch - recycling existing content (even if in the form of dev tools only) and slap a few new UI menus on it with a new grind to go with is far less risky. It'll keep people busy, player numbers go up, at least temporarily, metrics will look good for their forthcoming annual results. Beyond that it's just another fiscal year, and if Colonisation drops off in popularity they'll just leave it as is. Plenty of examples like this in the game's long history.

It's a very cynical take I'm aware of that but if the shoe fits... I do think that not adding genuinely new gameplay content to the game will hurt the game long term but we're already past the 10 year mark so I can understand why Frontier are hesitant (especially after Odyssey) to take further risks by dumping more R&D into this aging IP.

 

[CMDR Vhi]

While I read about players doing other stuff while playing the game, I can't do it - I play a game to enjoy it and be immersed. If a game makes me want to surf the web or watch Netflix/Youtube while it's launched, then it kinda failed at its fundamental premise. Same way I don't multitask while watching a movie or TV series.

I agree; I'll do it but it's historically been a sign that I'm about to take extended break from the game, because at that point I'm not playing the game, I'm making the game tolerable with something else. I don't fault anyone who likes to multiscreen, but it does get a little fuzzy if they multiscreen and simultaneously talk about how that activity isn't boring.

I can see a point for BGS players - and for the record, I'm no BGS player

You could call me a BGS player, and colonization has been nothing but a headache. (As well as PP2.0). My squadron has paused all BGS activities because whole bubble is in disarray. From a BGS standpoint, it's not yet been a benefit, but I am assuming that once people get a taste for colonization and realize they don't like menus and loading screens, it will settle down. However, arguably the "fun" of the BGS is directly tied to conflict and challenge-- fighting for control of a system or finding a system to make a controlled expansion into that opens up new systems to take. Colonization has made that all moot. Now, if we need a new system to expand into, we can just make one. There's so much space and so little reason to fight over any particular system that I imagine the BGS is about to fall by the wayside. Each BGS group can just pick a direction and expand (essentially) forever without ever getting close to another group. I suspect it will get boring very quickly.

recycling existing content (even if in the form of dev tools only) and slap a few new UI menus on it with a new grind to go with is far less risky. It'll keep people busy, player numbers go up, at least temporarily, metrics will look good for their forthcoming annual results

I came to this same conclusion the other day. I have no issues with them gamifying some admin tool, but they kind of forgot to gamify it haha.

Edit: hilarious typo corrected.

 

[Kote BR]

E

I can't help but wonder how it works if the orbiting structure is around a body that can't be built upon. Is that just a waste of time?

Exactly.Same doubt I have. If this is the current effect, than what about planets that can´t be built anything upon it? Their orbital stations will never have their market up and running? Or should I consider building something not related to market, like a sattelite for exmaple, on these cases? Also, if this is the idea, what are the installations and statiosn taht can be consideredn dull (not market related)?

Also, it really doesnt make any sense all markets and stations not being related. They are on the same system, and even the System Map kind indicates that all bodies in the same line are "connected". It certanily gives his idea.

 

[Knuttin Atoll]

You could call me a BGS player, and colonization has been nothing but a headache. (As well as PP2.0). My squadron has paused all BGS activities because whole bubble is in disarray. From a BGS standpoint, it's not yet been a benefit, but I am assuming that once people get a taste for colonization and realize they don't like menus and loading screens, it will settle down. However, arguably the "fun" of the BGS is directly tied to conflict and challenge-- fighting for control of a system or finding a system to make a controlled expansion into that opens up new systems to take. Colonization has made that all moot. Now, if we need a new system to expand into, we can just make one. There's so much space and so little reason to fight over any particular system that I imagine the BGS is about to fall by the wayside. Each BGS group can just pick a direction and expand (essentially) forever without ever getting close to another group. I suspect it will get boring very quickly.

Reading this makes me grateful for not being emotionally invested in the BGS very deeply beyond basic gameplay (no squadron, no 'home' faction, etc.). Those all sound like implications that Frontier may not have properly thought of when they decided on Colonisation. Perhaps if they had asked people who play the game of their thoughts...

I still would've preferred Colonisation in a way that wouldn't be closely linked with the BGS and its restrictions (such as the 15-20LY rule).

The idea of very remote colonies in perhaps unique, pretty systems one would come across during an extended exploration trip (giving a new reason to explore the galaxy for starters) is still appealing to me - both as a large, end-game project (which also requires working towards a fleet carrier) if I were to engage in it myself, or even just to visit what other players have created.

But maybe the number of counter arguments why this is not a great idea just proves that the entire concept is just not a very good fit for Elite in its current shape. But Frontier went ahead and did it anyways so here we are.

I came to this same conclusion the other day. I have no issues with them gamifying some admin tool, but they kind of forgot to gamify it haha.

They gamified it, but the problem remains a lot of the gameplay DNA of Elite is still stuck in the 80s/90s and hasn't really evolved much beyond that.

Edit: hilarious typo corrected.

Shame I missed it

 

[Zimous]

I think the root issue for colonization is that there's not really a point to it. It's not like colonizing my system is going to have any measurable effect on the rest of my game. I'll grind gathering engineering mats because it will help me enhance my ships to make other parts of the game easier. It can be boring (much, much better now, though!) but there's a point so I'll bite the bullet and just do it.

A few hundred thousand credits of passive income (even a few million credits of passive income) isn't going to cut it; credits are too easy to get just about any other way. They need to think about the game from a player's perspective. Give us things to build that will improve the game in other aspects, like an engineering workshop that gives the architect access to all their currently unlocked blueprints and experimentals in one place. There needs to be a reason to participate in the new game features other than "they're new".

100% agree. Unless big changes are done, this will be like BGS and pretty much pointless fluff and just another gimmick for us nerds to add our names to the game. Like BGS unless we can actually create, own and manage our own player factions and then do colonization as a GROUP it's completely pointless. I'm hoping Vanguards will bring in player factions we can control and reap the rewards of our own systems, but I sincerely doubt we will get it.

And this is ignoring all the bugs, flaws and lack of documentation.

 

[Desirsar]

I love that BGS and colonization are "pointless" because you can't prohibit other players' actions with them. For any complaint I have about other design philosophy by Frontier, this is something they got absolutely right - you can influence things, but you don't own them.

 

[mkizub]

I love that BGS and colonization are "pointless" because you can't prohibit other players' actions with them. For any complaint I have about other design philosophy by Frontier, this is something they got absolutely right - you can influence things, but you don't own them.

Unfortunately, I cannot influence my NPC pilot to haul a bit, or mine asteroids or something like this.
I can control my ship, my fleet carrier (even if it's supposed to be rented). Why can't a group of players to control its faction? Why can't a player or a group of players control their space station?
The 'philosophy' you've mentioned is not consistent. Player's squads are the same kind of things as minor factions. Player's fleet carriers are the same kind of things as a space station - it can trade, it has services same as placed on stations, etc. So, why we can't own space stations or govern player-created factions?