please explain why you feel that way.
Elite Dangerous | System Colonisation Beta Details & Feedback
- Thread starter Paul_Crowther
- Start date
I just think people will overuse it to build - delete - build - delete - build - ... over and over because you just can.
I think that if you can only delete before you have transferred any material, it will be fine. (Or perhaps even before jumping to supercruise after having selected the location, ie. it's still just showing the green hologram.)
What problem does this cause? Is it instead better than they build partially finish and then move on to a new system over and over because they can't delete?
This would present as a potential exploit for credit generation (as you are paid for depositing materials) ...
and this neatly addresses it
You don't get paid much differently to what you'd get at a normal market and you still have to haul the cargo each time, though.
No more an exploit than "you can run most A-B trade routes indefinitely because the markets regenerate considerably faster than a single player can haul", I think.
I didn't say it was a good exploit
I think the bigger hurdle - should it be one - would be the technical aspect rather than any unwillingness because of exploits or what have you. Trading gold or silver into a system, particularly with a boosting BGS state, would yield you more in one haul than probably most of the colonization materials for a single station…
… and even if you’re putting together a T3 you’d still come out better just trading normally anyway, in terms of pure profits (and faster at that). At least I cannot imagine a different reason for why support would tell me that they are incapable of deleting a construction site even, that was placed twice as a result of bug or servers acting funky at the time of placement - other than unwillingness to set a precedent.
But it’s my assumption they currently just don’t have the ability to. Whatever the reason for that may be, and I’ll withhold my particular feelings on the idea of that subject.
… and even if you’re putting together a T3 you’d still come out better just trading normally anyway, in terms of pure profits (and faster at that). At least I cannot imagine a different reason for why support would tell me that they are incapable of deleting a construction site even, that was placed twice as a result of bug or servers acting funky at the time of placement - other than unwillingness to set a precedent.
But it’s my assumption they currently just don’t have the ability to. Whatever the reason for that may be, and I’ll withhold my particular feelings on the idea of that subject.
I have difficulty seeing a downside to being able to remove a station/build/location. If there's fear of exploitation, perhaps just move it where the deletion will only occur during maintenance. It's already a time and material sink. There's many more profitable options that are easier.
- What happens to people's ships stored at a station that gets deleted? They get shifted to somewhere else without their consent?
- What happens to outstanding missions involving the station? Imagine someone's been ferrying a VIP halfway across the galaxy to see Sag A, they begin the return journey only to receive a message that the mission has been cancelled... or worse yet, they return all the way home and find it can no longer be turned in.
- What happens if the removed station is the "control" station for the system i.e. the station that decides which faction controls the system? Seems like an exploitable way to flip a system to a different faction if the architect feels like being a troll...
It's relatively easy to add a station to the game. But once it's part of the system, wired in to all these possible gameplay loops... removing it can break loads of things.
Same this as when a carrier is decommissioned or thargoid shuts down a station game already handles it.
They become impossible to complete like already happens if something happens to the faction or station you get penalised for being slow but most missions have a timer so it's trivial to shut down the mission board more than 24 hours before decommissioning which the game already does. It's already handled.
Just delete it if someone wants to wait out the decommissioning and then haul at the primary port price instead of spending several days flipping the BGS they can. It'll just be more effort and more time. It'd allow you to upgrade your primary port and not allow anything you couldn't already do.
The usual empty complaint of what happens if you've spent the points is covered by delete costs points make the points or delete other stuff until you can afford delete.
Which in turn possibly disables station services that have already been used - meaning it's another exploitable loophole.
Not an exploit, loophole nor a reason to block delete.
It almost feels like you're grasping at straws trying to find an exploit or excuse for why it shouldn't exist. It's all already in the game. All this would do is allow people to reconfigure their layout or remove systems that don't mesh. They're not getting an easy way out. Rebuilding most of the installations might be even more difficult due to the increased cost with each additional structure.
You're not making it convincing to not have this implemented. If anything, your concerns are more valid for arguing against the existence of colonization in the first place and that's already done and here to stay. It's already different, so might as well make it useful. Being afraid of change isn't going to do you any favors.
You're not making it convincing to not have this implemented. If anything, your concerns are more valid for arguing against the existence of colonization in the first place and that's already done and here to stay. It's already different, so might as well make it useful. Being afraid of change isn't going to do you any favors.
A few more items for the colonization wish list.
-bigger tritium storage on carriers and crew being able to transfer from general storage to trit storage (mentioned many times before).
-carrier being able to carry out a full scan system when jumping into a system so it can 'see' the primary. Its a 5 billion credit vessel. This should be a basic capability.
-Being able to share system scans between squadron members.
-Apex taxis introducing a premium 'Frontier service' using say Mandalay's with 60 LY jump range and say 15 jump trips to allow easier travel between the bubble and the colonization frontiers (900 LY per trip before needing to change a taxi).
-bigger tritium storage on carriers and crew being able to transfer from general storage to trit storage (mentioned many times before).
-carrier being able to carry out a full scan system when jumping into a system so it can 'see' the primary. Its a 5 billion credit vessel. This should be a basic capability.
-Being able to share system scans between squadron members.
-Apex taxis introducing a premium 'Frontier service' using say Mandalay's with 60 LY jump range and say 15 jump trips to allow easier travel between the bubble and the colonization frontiers (900 LY per trip before needing to change a taxi).
@Ian Doncaster Wouldn't it be great if we had numbers on colonization hauling prior to the Panther Clipper launch? A per-day hauling summary snapshot. Then, another summary after the Panther Clipper changes hauling.
Obligatory horror song from the 70's:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkDBjR3oKf4
en.wikipedia.org
Obligatory horror song from the 70's:
The Morning After (Maureen McGovern song) - Wikipedia
I've found that a carrier can help consolidate hauling jumps, but not the total hauling.
So, very few exploits would be worth the lost hauling. Also, I'm beginning to want my five billion back (yes, I finally got one back).
So, very few exploits would be worth the lost hauling. Also, I'm beginning to want my five billion back (yes, I finally got one back).
Here's hoping for a meaningful architect upgrade from basically having naming rights and being a hauling jockey. A meaningful update to trailblazers in my humble opinion would include (in no order);
1. ability to decommission built stations/installations
2. ability to upgrade a structure - e.g. outpost to starport
3. ability to change an outpost type , e.g. military to civilian
4. ability to commission moving of orbital station from point A to B in same system
5. using the in game orary map system to simulate what a planned system development would look like before committing to build it - e..g to test outcomes
There would be a cost to all of the above naturally. Upgrading an outpost for example would need more materials. Moving a station would cost credits and timescale so something like 1M credits per x distance, only active after next Thursday server refresh etc. Decommissioning means loss of materials hauled unless some recycling loop could be instigated. I'm sure there are a lot more quality of life improvements better minds than mine can come up with.
Trailblazers has the potential to be really awesome with some tweaks and love.
1. ability to decommission built stations/installations
2. ability to upgrade a structure - e.g. outpost to starport
3. ability to change an outpost type , e.g. military to civilian
4. ability to commission moving of orbital station from point A to B in same system
5. using the in game orary map system to simulate what a planned system development would look like before committing to build it - e..g to test outcomes
There would be a cost to all of the above naturally. Upgrading an outpost for example would need more materials. Moving a station would cost credits and timescale so something like 1M credits per x distance, only active after next Thursday server refresh etc. Decommissioning means loss of materials hauled unless some recycling loop could be instigated. I'm sure there are a lot more quality of life improvements better minds than mine can come up with.
Trailblazers has the potential to be really awesome with some tweaks and love.
There should be no issue with cancelling an incomplete construction. Maybe all constructions should delete after a certain time with no deliveries.