I know what you mean. But I'm not the one mixing the two things. Why does an architect get a weekly bonus?
Elite Dangerous | System Colonisation Beta Details & Feedback
- Thread starter Paul_Crowther
- Start date
Trailblazer Promise is out of Steel. Again. Left, returned, hasn't recovered in about 15 minutes.
For what system you need steel?
Not sure how this responds to it needs fixing - space military installations need to allow for it too or the secondary military installation needs to not be displayed in systems that do not have planets. Seems more like a personal attack?!
It's not a personal attack it's a simple question. You asked about a Military outpost requirement. In English it says Military Settlement. They're clearly different so I was wondering if someone had messed up a translation because the words are similar and it's an obvious lost in translation thing.
It does not need to be hidden in systems where it's invalid. You'd like it hidden. It being visible lets them tell you in all systems what you need to do to build it so that you can use that information for your next claim. By hiding it's existence you prevent anyone from learning that it's an option until they happen upon a valid system by chance. It's disabled but clearly shows why. It's a valid choice.
Dunno, they just do, but it's still a separate issue from being able to control material prices. I guess because it's the faction running the installations, not you, so they make the profit on sales, not you. being an architect is less like ownership and more like getting royalties for being part of its creation.
I had just come back to edit my reply because I was thinking about your post and decided you must think all facilities are shown in the menu for all systems. I was going to change my reply to say that actually all surface installations are not visible in my architect view as shown below:
This means I had no knowledge of what any of the surface structures are called and this being a beta with limited documentation its quite reasonable to assume names are not going to be similar throughout all the documentation yet (I am assuming more documentation is going to follow).
However, I have found your post doubling down on your reply being absolutely fine. Unfortunately it is not mainly because the post you replied to did ask anything of the kind and indeed the post before that stated I though it was a bug and had no question in it at all. If you had been replying to the first post I would have thought you rude and still made the second post, which is the one you were replying to.
It needs fixing - space military installations need to allow for it too or the secondary military installation needs to not be displayed in systems that do not have planets.
Edit: Suggesting another structure to build in no way replies to the fact the military installation structure is visible in my build list when everything else shown I can build, while anything I cannot build is hidden. This should be fixed: Either they allow space military outposts to work or they should hide the military installation along with all the other structures that cannot be built, that have already been hidden. To be clear this is just a suggestion, the DEV's might decide they want to just put some text in the building box saying 'The military Outpost is not a prerequisite' etc. The outcome will be a decision they make, I am only trying to outline the inconsistency of having on structure visible that I cannot build, whereas the rest are buildable in my system.
I am hoping to end this thread of irrelevant posts by simply editing this reply instead of replying directly to the reply to this post, so anyone actually interested can read what is actually important instead of what someone else would like this to be about.
Last edited:
IMHO one or more of the following three things are needed for the long term viability of colonization, at least among us solo players, because I'm pretty sure many of us are burning out from all this mindless hauling:
1. Paid NPC hauling.
Use the missions page as a template for a hauling missions sub-page, where missions are generated involving NPCs offering to help haul such and such to your construction site such and such for a set amount of credits and/or expensive/rare commodities. Take the mission, pay them, and the commodity will be added to that construction site after a reasonable time delay due to distance and rarity of the commodity. I think paid NPC hauling is the best of the three, though it may be hardest to implement. While you're at it, add the much requested Tritium hauling to FC missions if the player owns an FC. This also adds a credit sink, and there aren't enough of those.
2. Vastly reduced commodity requirements, like 50% of what they currently are.
3. A huge freighter design that can carry 2 to 3 thousand cargo. i.e. Give us the much loved Panther Clipper, please.
Thanks for your attention.
1. Paid NPC hauling.
Use the missions page as a template for a hauling missions sub-page, where missions are generated involving NPCs offering to help haul such and such to your construction site such and such for a set amount of credits and/or expensive/rare commodities. Take the mission, pay them, and the commodity will be added to that construction site after a reasonable time delay due to distance and rarity of the commodity. I think paid NPC hauling is the best of the three, though it may be hardest to implement. While you're at it, add the much requested Tritium hauling to FC missions if the player owns an FC. This also adds a credit sink, and there aren't enough of those.
2. Vastly reduced commodity requirements, like 50% of what they currently are.
3. A huge freighter design that can carry 2 to 3 thousand cargo. i.e. Give us the much loved Panther Clipper, please.
Thanks for your attention.
Last edited:
I'd just like to see what I have actually built in the system map, instead of having to land at the landable ones to see what they are., which is nonsense. If I build an extraction hub that should be in the description in the map, and the nav panel, not no info at all or under a different label.
Let's have some consistency in the naming conventions as well as the rules and placements.
Let's have some consistency in the naming conventions as well as the rules and placements.
Last edited:
NPC hauling sounds great, and for a credit sink it should be sufficiently expensive as I have absolutely no idea what to do with my 9+ billion cr. However this would be a new "feature" and I'm pretty sure FDev won't be adding anymore of those to Trailblazers. Also, there is a relatively heavy bias against automation amongst not just FDev but the community as well. I won't bank on this one.
I've been doing this entirely solo, and while it is a grind, I would say the only reduction necessary is for T3 ports. The 200k+ commodities is way out of line with the net benefit they give to a system. About half that value sounds right, making it sit at 100k and twice the value of a T2 port. Maybe bring the T1 surface outposts down in line with the orbital outposts - I know their markets are supposedly more useful but hauling through the planetary landings is already more work.
As for the other structures, I'm actually very fine with those. You can drop an orbital outpost to perm your claim with less than a carrier-load worth of commodities, and can do it in just one evening's worth of dedicated hauling. I'm not sure I want outpost spam to accelerate.
This isn't happening. For one, it would be very unbalancing for hauling in the rest of the game aside from colonization. I'm not sure if there will ever be further hauling community goals, but such a ship would effectively shut down entire markets within 1 hour and CG tiers would be knocked out of the park just as quickly, leading to further goal-moving and bloat. You're effectively asking for an equivalent ship with 3x the number of hardpoints as an Anaconda.
Because the faction he designed and built the system for give him a cut of the profits it is making them.
Consider it like a retainer to keep the architect around, just in case.
I feel like of all the things that came with Trailblazers, the architect stipend is the most laughable. It's not enough for the people who actually need credits, and it's a drip-drop into an ocean of credits for serious colonizers with carriers who don't even have a place to spend it.
Like the NPC's we can't use.
Many of us are wondering about the lack of information regarding Trailblazers at the start.
The hidden "other half" that seems to be missing in terms of gameplay is probably Vanguards.
Frontier is notorious for holding out on what they consider "surprises".
The hidden "other half" that seems to be missing in terms of gameplay is probably Vanguards.
Frontier is notorious for holding out on what they consider "surprises".
And how is the faction from which an architect works determined?
My goal was to get more random people to build the first station. Seeing more profit for themselves, they will help build the first station faster.
whichever faction has the highest percentage influence in your origin system will be the faction that summons the Colonisation Ship. the other factions come along later as you build stuff.
eg:
Faction A is 60% infuence, so the Colony Ship and first Starport you build will be under their control (at first).
Faction B has 21% influence, and comes along and grabs that spacefarm you build second
Faction C has 19% influence, and grabs the industrial settlement you build next.
something like that. that's what i've noticed anyroad
eg:
Faction A is 60% infuence, so the Colony Ship and first Starport you build will be under their control (at first).
Faction B has 21% influence, and comes along and grabs that spacefarm you build second
Faction C has 19% influence, and grabs the industrial settlement you build next.
something like that. that's what i've noticed anyroad
There is a second military installation that can be built in systems without planets.