This sounds Great!
Elite Dangerous | Trailblazers Update 3 - Wednesday April 30
- Thread starter Phil W
- Start date
Have pods been removed from power wreckage signal sources? This was my main complaint with pods being turned off, that it made salvage half as effective.
Which way?
Best patch so far, well done folks.
Particularly love that you're giving link information to the player before construction
does the weak link introduced economy eat into some of the commodities though?
example your main port is 100% refinery, and a weak link economy of Industrial from another planet 200000 ls away enters the port and totally eradicated the metal production.
This is outstanding! Thank you, thank you for the detailed description of the economics and linking. The update will answer pretty much every question I've had so far while experimenting with Trailblazers.
I'm now going to pause what I'm doing and explore a bit while I wait to see the state of my systems next week.
LP
I'm now going to pause what I'm doing and explore a bit while I wait to see the state of my systems next week.
LP
Last edited:
Ohhh, fun. Let's play!
Placing refinery hubs on the planet will buff the Refinery side (strong links), so that Industrial is now Industrial/ Refinery and the other is Industrial/Refinery+. How much for a strong link has yet to be revealed.
The orbital body patch note is definitively an "override" on "Colony" economy. Once something is built, the "colony" is changed to whatever economy type the facility is orbiting or on. Everything else listed (links, body details) is "enhancing" and/or "buff/debuff" economies (and makes no specification of a "colony" economy). I assume the base is the planetary override (or specified port economy) and you add/subtract everything else onto that. This allows a single "colony" port in an otherwise empty system to be "something" beside POO-POO-PRODU(cer).
You want an Industrial port? Start around (or on) Gas giant, Rocky Ice or Icy. Bonus for geologicals. Place in a system with pristine or major resources (boost). Place facilities with "industrial" economy on and around the local body (strong links), to overcome weak links from the rest of the system. If you want a mono economy, place nothing but "colony" and "industrial" facilities in the system.
With careful planning, and the right system, you could eventually have two ports, one Industrial 90%/Refinery 10% and the other Industrial 10%/Refinery 90%.
Yes. As well as everything built on the body (strong link) and everything in the system (weak links). Depending on what economy types are present via strong links, other details can enhance or decrease those influences.
Let's start with the basics. Placing a port with "colony" on an ice world is now "Industrial" once it completes. A port on a rocky ice world is "Industrial/Refinery".
Placing refinery hubs on the planet will buff the Refinery side (strong links), so that Industrial is now Industrial/ Refinery and the other is Industrial/Refinery+. How much for a strong link has yet to be revealed.
If you are placing a port with a default economy of "industrial" and not "colony", there would be no override, no matter where you put it. Say, a Tier 2 Industrial Outpost.
The orbital body patch note is definitively an "override" on "Colony" economy. Once something is built, the "colony" is changed to whatever economy type the facility is orbiting or on. Everything else listed (links, body details) is "enhancing" and/or "buff/debuff" economies (and makes no specification of a "colony" economy). I assume the base is the planetary override (or specified port economy) and you add/subtract everything else onto that. This allows a single "colony" port in an otherwise empty system to be "something" beside POO-POO-PRODU(cer).
In the case of the patch, all systems will be refigured for existing builds. As you add facilities going forward, the calculations will be reworked as you finish the facility. Like a Jenga game, everything you add has the potential to change everything in the system.
Probably not. If they were going to allow an architect to decide, they would have gone to none of this trouble. Because, technically, you cannot tell the population of your system what to do.
You want an Industrial port? Start around (or on) Gas giant, Rocky Ice or Icy. Bonus for geologicals. Place in a system with pristine or major resources (boost). Place facilities with "industrial" economy on and around the local body (strong links), to overcome weak links from the rest of the system. If you want a mono economy, place nothing but "colony" and "industrial" facilities in the system.
With careful planning, and the right system, you could eventually have two ports, one Industrial 90%/Refinery 10% and the other Industrial 10%/Refinery 90%.
Icy body starts with "industrial". 2 refinery hubs will upgrade it to "Industrial/Refinery". What the percentages will be are unknown at this point.
Nope. Weak and strong links will add % to the coriolis economies. Again, no idea at proportions yet. Population will determine how much is produced, while I believe the existing method of how close to 1 an economy is will determine proportions of products.
I don't believe that's totally necessary. It depends on what's happening in the rest of the system. You can certainly add facilities elsewhere in the system with refinery economy to increase the weak link percentage (again, I assume 1 is the goal). Without know what you've done so far, and what your system layout looks like, it's hard to answer.
Exciting update, I look forward to seeing how this plays out in complex systems.
FDev it would be great if architects had the opportunity to re-specialise settlements or orbital facilities by re-paying a portion of the facility cost. We will have a lot of poorly performing systems out there that would benefit from some tinkering. It would also give players an ongoing play loop of managing systems for optimal output depending on their goals. I could see this playing into powerplay or BGS. A system architect discount on commodities in the system would also be attractive.
FDev it would be great if architects had the opportunity to re-specialise settlements or orbital facilities by re-paying a portion of the facility cost. We will have a lot of poorly performing systems out there that would benefit from some tinkering. It would also give players an ongoing play loop of managing systems for optimal output depending on their goals. I could see this playing into powerplay or BGS. A system architect discount on commodities in the system would also be attractive.
I suppose it could and probably should since you are benefiting from the push it should not be a free one. But this all generally scales linearly. Just build more of the thing you want a surplus for.
Brilliant. Awesome. Thank you.
I'm sure that there will be some faults in this release. I'm OK with that. Having some basis so that we can go "That seems to match the design" vs "That might actually be a bug" is going to make life a lot saner and less stressful for everyone involved.
I'm sure that there will be some faults in this release. I'm OK with that. Having some basis so that we can go "That seems to match the design" vs "That might actually be a bug" is going to make life a lot saner and less stressful for everyone involved.
Fdev could this opportunity for piracy and smuggling of stolen goods be thus..
That an all anarchy colony, (anarchy controlled), with pirate bases etc have stolen commodities sold at a much higher price. Making theft & smuggling far more worthwhile once more. I mean it wouldn't nessesarily need a black market, as the colony is as bent as a nine bob note so selling dodgy stuffz openly would be ok? Within the system.
Thanks for fixing the concord cannon reload bug.
And wow what a patch this will be. Legend!
That an all anarchy colony, (anarchy controlled), with pirate bases etc have stolen commodities sold at a much higher price. Making theft & smuggling far more worthwhile once more. I mean it wouldn't nessesarily need a black market, as the colony is as bent as a nine bob note so selling dodgy stuffz openly would be ok? Within the system.
Thanks for fixing the concord cannon reload bug.
And wow what a patch this will be. Legend!
Another point..
Anarchy systems currently are targeted for merits data and missions on the ground (tourist bases for example) cmdrs farming without incurring a bounty or noteriety.
So it'd make sense for anarchy colonys to NOT build any lootable planetary bases.
So is there a mechanic whereby anarchist colonys (pirates, smugglers etc) can circumvent this issue? Perhaps a local militia that only responds to attacks in a police like fashion to waylay these passing marauders hehe? In effect... security. Who in turn would not respond to the controlling anarchy factions misdeeds locally?
We're bent! So it's ok. But the goody two shoes brigade which up till now have had total impunity, are way out of character.
Literally the lore makes sense.
Thus allowing us to build ground bases which would have considerable consequences if attacked (farmed).
Anarchy systems currently are targeted for merits data and missions on the ground (tourist bases for example) cmdrs farming without incurring a bounty or noteriety.
So it'd make sense for anarchy colonys to NOT build any lootable planetary bases.
So is there a mechanic whereby anarchist colonys (pirates, smugglers etc) can circumvent this issue? Perhaps a local militia that only responds to attacks in a police like fashion to waylay these passing marauders hehe? In effect... security. Who in turn would not respond to the controlling anarchy factions misdeeds locally?
We're bent! So it's ok. But the goody two shoes brigade which up till now have had total impunity, are way out of character.
Literally the lore makes sense.
Thus allowing us to build ground bases which would have considerable consequences if attacked (farmed).
Last edited:
So on that last note of tidal locks, if you're building agricultural economy structures on a tidally locked moon of a non tidally locked planets (like most gas giant moons) the agricultural economy won't suffer a decrease in effectiveness?
On a related note we'll have to test how boosts and decreases effect one another. For instance if you are doing agriculture on a tidally locked planet with organics is that a net 0 or does one have a bigger effect than the other?
One thing I didn't see in the list and I'm wondering about is on controlling factions in a colonised system. After changing the faction, new constructions are still under the control of the previous faction. Has this been addressed or is it still being worked on?
Yeah, they probably looked at the statistics and deduced that it's currently too hard to undermine a system, which disincentivizes players from doing so. When it becomes easier hopefully players will engage more in it.