You had me going until I read the fine print!
Elite Dangerous | Colonisation Facilities & Markets
- Thread starter Paul_Crowther
- Start date
and I have another problem, I installed the last part of the complex for the production of steel, titanium and aluminum, and in place of the mining installation, a production one was installed, because of this, I can say that my metal production stopped. The question is what should I do.I'd like the ability as an architect to cancel a station construction, but keep the other ones I worked on in my system. I hope fdev gives us this!
What I did was, I built a large station and an agriculture base, I have a refinery being built AND at the same time the one I want to cancel is an industrial outpost.. simply because its above the agriculture planet. SO what I'm saying is I'm trying to get an agriculture/refinery economy. I want my large station to sell food and tritium. I feel like I made a small mistake putting the 'indy outpost' "above the 'agri' planet". I do not want an indy/refinery economy. Edit: I just found out you can build multi role economies by the placement of your stations! So if I finish my outpost it will make my system industrial/agriculture, then build another Coriolis above the refinery to produce tritium. ?? I think that's how it will work out.
Last edited:
Since it is beta it would behoove them to allow your builds to move within the system and relocate them. You cannot change what you built but you can move them around. Maybe have a system redo/ undo similar to the rename cap. It can be as simple as one move for each facility. This would solve the bad initial build being trapped in a bad location and rearranging dead facilities to somewhere useful. You can make it a lock out as well so if you want to move it, you must go to the surface location or choose the new orbital location before continuing any other builds and it resets it as if it is newly built. Heck I bet we would be ok waiting for the server tick if it means being able to move it. The issue we have here is the unwillingness to give direction to players until after we have wasted so much in resources and time. It would also eliminate the need to break the system for these bad choices we had no idea we were making.
Hi 
I agree, especially in the situation where the default position the game selects when first claiming a system.
For example the station selected is orbiting a single un-landable planet with no other orbiting moons attached., and it would clearly be better placed orbiting a more suitable planet, more in keeping with the players calculated choice!
Jack
I agree, especially in the situation where the default position the game selects when first claiming a system.
For example the station selected is orbiting a single un-landable planet with no other orbiting moons attached., and it would clearly be better placed orbiting a more suitable planet, more in keeping with the players calculated choice!
Jack
Yeah, with as broken as colonisation is, 1 opportunity per place to move it would be nice, i wouldn't even care if it took 2 weeks or the like, with how broken colonisation is, how sometimes stuff is randomly placed in the wrong slot, or how you can't choose primary port location, being able to move a station could be a decent bandaid for those issues. And the tech is there, FCs move around from slot to slot no issue, would just have to limit it to be within the system and recalculate economy influences after every move.
Hell, they even have lore to set it up ingame, after fixing lantern light station, brewer corp realises that a lot of infraestructure could be better exploited with a simple move, due to lack of documentation given to the architects from brewer corp.... In compensation for this screwup, brewercorp offers their newly tested tugging fleet to architects for 1 move per construction.
Hell, they even have lore to set it up ingame, after fixing lantern light station, brewer corp realises that a lot of infraestructure could be better exploited with a simple move, due to lack of documentation given to the architects from brewer corp.... In compensation for this screwup, brewercorp offers their newly tested tugging fleet to architects for 1 move per construction.
Found this on the ED Reddit forum. It's a response of customer support to one commander's request for an undo/redo option:
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangerous/comments/1jpmzfw/i_contacted_frontier_about_stations_in_the_wrong/
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangerous/comments/1jpmzfw/i_contacted_frontier_about_stations_in_the_wrong/
Attachments
2,000,000% agreed
Right...because having INTERSTELLAR SPACE TRAVEL completely limits you to trading goods to the planet you're closest too. It's like we don't have to jump to several systems to complete trade missions or something. What a concept!!!!
So, any update on this as of yet that I missed?
Any hope that my system will ever function in a similar manner to NPC systems?
Any timetable at all for a fix or even when the Beta will end?
Any hope that my system will ever function in a similar manner to NPC systems?
Any timetable at all for a fix or even when the Beta will end?
I have this strange nagging feeling someone from Fdev is going to say "Technical Limitations" as to why they can't.
I know you guys are busy, but I want to offer a simple straight forward solution.
I think any and all markets in the system need to take a holistic view of the system, and weight the stock amounts and production speed in relation to the spread between industries of a given system. So if it's 50% Agriculture, 25% Industrial, 20% Extraction, 5 Tourism for example. It just produces the goods of those respective industries in those proportionate amounts in a system market.
That way, you can have either of these examples and they would make sense
"jack of all trades; ace of none": The system designer balanced every industry out, and the market produces all industries goods, but in moderate amounts. Since they didn't specialize in any one thing, they aren't min-maxing any particular sector.
"Givin' it all she's got Captain.": The system designer, specialized in one sector, they produce one industries worth of goods and produce alot of it, and very little or in fact nothing of any other industry.
"Good, Better, Best": The system designer semi specialized, meaning they put MOST of their effort into one industry, and have one more they put SOME effort into. They produce alot of the their "Primary" sector, and a decent amount of their "Secondary" sector. There may or may not be a "Tertiary" sector, but if there is, it's in spare amounts.
Unless they also make Colonisation markets work very differently to how every NPC market in the game works, this would be very very bad indeed.
NPC markets with multiple economy types (and similarly, Colonisation markets with multiple economy types) consume their own production if one side of the economy imports what the other is exporting. This makes e.g. two Industrial-Refinery stations produce a lot less of both Refinery and Industrial goods than a separate Refinery station and Industrial station would. (Assuming the same size of stations throughout, of course)
And it's very difficult to go for a pure economy system, because the various system variable boosts are attached to different economies, and you need at least some of all of them to get production (in any economy) operating semi-normally.
- you have very few options for boosting Security without building military
- you have very few options for boosting Development Level (critical for overall production levels) without building industrial or refinery
- you have very few options for boosting Tech Level (station services) that aren't high-tech
- if you build a bunch of extraction or refinery your Standard of Living plummets, and you're going to need to build some agricultural or tourism to get you out of that
Fixing the problem "I built an Orbis around an ELW and now I have no way to change its economy" is easy.
Fixing the problem without breaking the economies of any system built in accordance with the current principles (of which there is an ever-growing number, as people get used to how it has worked for the last month) may well be impossible. I can't think of any "obvious" way to do that which won't break at least one common way to lay out existing systems to at least some extent.
First and foremost, credit where credit is due, everything you just listed, honestly NEEDS to be in the UI, providing active feedback of the status of the system at any given time. So that a system designer can see in real time, what's being produced and what is being consumed. What is boosting and what is nerfing any particular stat. So kudos on that.
Continuing that thought, this in turn will inform the designer in what shore falls they need to account for, and what plenty they can move focus away from. The idea is that the system should be treated holistically. What is the system producing/costing/using at any given time, and not treat it on a per body basis.
You're going into minutiae when the overall issue at hand is, Fdev doesn't even have a general working general principle yet. As evident by the fact they are rethinking it, it's not a fault, that's what the feed back request is for. So there is no 'good' or 'bad', so you shouldn't judge it that way.
Their issue at hand is they the current iteration of colonization is treating each facility, installation, etc as separate disconnected objects when they should be treated as pieces of a larger whole which is the system at large.
I don't see why "are there influencing slots? Yes: take influence from them as and when filled; No: take influence from the planet the facility is orbiting (productive agriculture economy in the case of an ELW)" won't fit the bill here?
Giving planets a default influence does seem to be a direction Frontier have just headed in, judging by recent reports.
So now everyone building systems has an extra undocumented source of influence to content with.
Yay.
EDIT: actually, this looks like it might be rather more than just a default influence, so now after 5 weeks of building the rules are changed in a way that's going to change up almost all existing systems. Give the players what they ask for, whether or not they want it, etc.
Usual advice of "don't build anything if you care about outcomes" is redoubled.
"Influence is confined to the local body" is a perfectly good general working principle - Frontier's fault was burying this information in a paragraph in the Pilot's Handbook and giving "System Economic Influence" a name which really doesn't reflect the primary effect, when it really needed a quick diagram of exactly which slots influenced which.
I agree with the suggestion that Frontier should show the wealth, etc. levels of a system somewhere (and perhaps give us a sentence on each of them describing roughly what they do)
The thing is, this isn't how Elite Dangerous' economy has ever worked. All economic simulation has always been done at the station level. That's not to say that a change to simulating at the system level (a return to the FE2/FFE way of doing things) isn't a valid idea, but it's an absolutely major change ... to keep literally a few people happy? There has to be an easier and more proportionate way to do it than either rewriting the entire Economic BGS, or writing an entirely separate one which only applies to colonised systems and therefore means that all existing knowledge on how economies work has to be thrown out entirely.
In the sense that "any set of rules, clearly explained, can be worked with", no, sure, whatever is done could work.
In the sense that "this is a Beta, so complete changes to the rules might happen if necessary", also, sure, that's true. No-one "should" be building systems expecting them to turn out in any particular fashion and anyone to whom "wasted hauling" is a concept should be holding off on any construction until Beta is declared over.
But in practical terms, changing the rules in any significant way will make a large chunk of existing system build plans, some of which may have significant quantities hauled already, stop working as designed by their Architect. This would make the current complaints look mild.
So Frontier have to be very careful how they go about this to not "break" more systems than they "fix".
Last edited:
Is there any update on how and what a planetary "thing" will manufacture? Are there any pre-requisites to manufacture CMM Composite, for instance?
I share your enthusiasm!
(Actually, assuming this is the case, I like this change, especially if it is only used as a backup influence where none are possible in the previous mechanic. It would be grossly unfair to previously undocumented mechanics if they were to document this one, right?)