Colonization needs a complete overhaul

[ꝁestrel]

Not really, if it's your own carrier. You still have to actively queue the jump every 20 minutes, spend resources on that jump (that Tritium doesn't appear in your fuel tank on its own), and so on.

With passive colonization, you still have to queue up new outposts to be built. And you still need to expend resources to do it.

The only difference is that carrier jumps are on 15-20 minute timeline and passive colonization is on a much larger timeline.

I'm merely pointing out that the concept of "queue up task, go do something else" is not unprecedented. I've personally traversed huge distances by barely actively playing the game. And, for what it's worth, I don't think something being unprecedented is reason enough to reject it as an idea.

Would you argue for passive gaining of ships, module grades and engineering grades? You pick the ship you want upgrading, set the engineering things you want on it, and then come back a week or two later and it's done, no need to collect materials, visit engineers, etc? Lots of people find engineering a "grind".

That's so reductionist. I thought we were having a nuanced discussion but here we are... par for the course these days.

Addressing your straw man: no, I don't think passive engineering is a good idea.

The difference is that progress on engineering can be done anywhere and by doing almost anything. We have material traders now. I've been able to fully engineer a ship in a single game session. Passive engineering wouldn't make sense because a casual player could get it done in a few sessions.

Colonization, on the other hand, is a long drawn out thing. Even if we were able to colonize with multiple tasks (combat, mining, etc) it would still force players to spend hundreds of hours in a single system to build out the system they want. Fully colonizing a single system is completely out of reach for casual players; or, more specifically, players that don't want to dedicate a huge chunk of their play time on the singular goal of colonizing a system.

If so, that's a much bigger question than merely passive colonisation. You should raise a more general "your account should progress while logged out" suggestion for that.
If not, I don't get the distinction you're making which makes passive colonisation fine and passive engineering not. Can you explain it in more detail?

Okay, your turn.

Explain to me how passive colonization is problematic without:

• Claiming that other game systems don't do it (straw man)
• Claiming that it will be exploited (easily solved)

I can respect that it's something you don't want because you just don't like it. If that's the case just say so and we'll agree to disagree.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

The difference is that progress on engineering can be done anywhere and by doing almost anything. We have material traders now. I've been able to fully engineer a ship in a single game session. Passive engineering wouldn't make sense because a casual player could get it done in a few sessions.

Colonization, on the other hand, is a long drawn out thing. Even if we were able to colonize with multiple tasks (combat, mining, etc) it would still force players to spend hundreds of hours in a single system to build out the system they want. Fully colonizing a single system is completely out of reach for casual players; or, more specifically, players that don't want to dedicate a huge chunk of their play time on the singular goal of colonizing a system.

Okay. I see that as a fair distinction - and it was a genuine question - you can gain most forms of progress in if not any system, then at least in a fairly wide spread of systems.

So what about a scenario where mission commodity rewards (pretty useless right now [1]) are replaced with a "construction credits" option which you can direct to any construction you're aware of (doesn't have to be one in your system, change which one you're pointing to at will), and set in value so that roughly speaking mission completion for the construction reward gives you as much progress as fairly-optimal hauling would have?

You can then run those missions in any (inhabited) system, you can use any type of mission which covers a substantial range of the game activities, so you're not tied to doing hauling in system A forever. But you still have to do something in-game per consignment, so it doesn't tick down at all if you're actually playing X4 for a month instead.

[1] A few obscure tech broker recipes and Marco Qwent's unlock requirements would need adjusting to use market-available commodities. No big deal.

With passive colonization, you still have to queue up new outposts to be built. And you still need to expend resources to do it.

In that in your original proposal you had a massive increase in the up-front credit costs of colonisation, yes. But at that point I don't see the point in having it be delayed at all. If you're spending 2 billion credits to build an outpost (to roughly match the time taken to haul the cargo for it, based on optimal credit earning rates), it might as well just construct immediately rather than gradually. You've already done the in-game work at that point to raise the credits. No need to then have an arbitary delay before it builds, or any separate commodity requirements at all.

My opposition to that one is because I think "credits as intermediate" is just going to lead to it changing from "hauling grind" to "this month's credit meta grind" which doesn't really do anything to solve the single-method problem, rather than displacing it. (And on a personal level, while hauling isn't my favourite activity, it still beats most of the things which have been meta credit grinds)

 

[BluePilot]

Okay, your turn.

Explain to me how passive colonization is problematic without:

• Claiming that other game systems don't do it (straw man)
• Claiming that it will be exploited (easily solved)

I can respect that it's something you don't want because you just don't like it. If that's the case just say so and we'll agree to disagree.

Passive colonization like you suggest would mean that everyone selects a system colonize and waits, after all, no effort is required for passive construction and there's no risk of failure. This lack of effort will mean players are less invested in the systems they claim, and there will be little if any prestige for system architects.

• Other game systems in fact do not provide progression passively, Fleet carrier movement doesn't provide progression it costs Tritium. Although colonization itself does with the passive income from claimed systems. (PS. What do scare crows have to do with anything?!)

• I agree that it doesn't seem particularly exploitable, but fail to see why it matters. The only thing that makes being a system architect special is the effort required to get there. Without which, everyone will be an architect and it'll be nothing of note. (No amount of balance changes will address this underlying issue)

 

[ꝁestrel]

So what about a scenario where mission commodity rewards (pretty useless right now [1]) are replaced with a "construction credits" option which you can direct to any construction you're aware of (doesn't have to be one in your system, change which one you're pointing to at will), and set in value so that roughly speaking mission completion for the construction reward gives you as much progress as fairly-optimal hauling would have?

Yes, this would also solve the problem!

I feel like a perfect compromise between our points of view is being able to turn in bonds. Combat bonds, trade bonds, etc. If you're building in system A you can still do activities in systems C, D, E, and F. You can then turn in bonds in system A to progress. It could be reworded in whatever way so it makes sense in the game's lore/universe.

There could even be a connection to BGS minor factions, right? eg: If you're colonizing for a particular faction then any work you do for that faction could contribute to that colonization. That might create undue complexity - not sure.

Either way the end goal would be achieved. I can mark a system for colonization, have fun doing all the game has to offer, and still contribute to the colony.

My opposition to that one is because I think "credits as intermediate" is just going to lead to it changing from "hauling grind" to "this month's credit meta grind" which doesn't really do anything to solve the single-method problem, rather than displacing it. (And on a personal level, while hauling isn't my favourite activity, it still beats most of the things which have been meta credit grinds)

Yea that's not ideal. The credit "economy" is so inflated at this point that I'm not sure it can ever be balanced.

 

[Therinfluffs]

Passive colonization like you suggest would mean that everyone selects a system colonize and waits, after all, no effort is required for passive construction and there's no risk of failure. This lack of effort will mean players are less invested in the systems they claim, and there will be little if any prestige for system architects.

• Other game systems in fact do not provide progression passively, Fleet carrier movement doesn't provide progression it costs Tritium. Although colonization itself does with the passive income from claimed systems. (PS. What do scare crows have to do with anything?!)

• I agree that it doesn't seem particularly exploitable, but fail to see why it matters. The only thing that makes being a system architect special is the effort required to get there. Without which, everyone will be an architect and it'll be nothing of note. (No amount of balance changes will address this underlying issue)

This obsession that you need to put in some excessive, absurdist level of work to enjoy an entertainment product is weird and unhinged and feels like it's tied to some sort of overarching obsessive merit based work culture that we consume these products to get away from. Why does everyone think games need to be a second job?

What is the issue with reducing the tedium of a system that is basically just repeating the most aggressively efficient point A to point B back and forth trip as few times as possible just so you don't have to do it as many times?

The literal goal is to do it as few times as possible, this is why hauling isn't a fun singular way to contribute to colonization.

 

[BluePilot]

This obsession that you need to put in some excessive, absurdist level of work to enjoy an entertainment product is weird and unhinged and feels like it's tied to some sort of overarching obsessive merit based work culture that we consume these products to get away from. Why does everyone think games need to be a second job?

What is the issue with reducing the tedium of a system that is basically just repeating the most aggressively efficient point A to point B back and forth trip as few times as possible just so you don't have to do it as many times?

The literal goal is to do it as few times as possible, this is why hauling isn't a fun singular way to contribute to colonization.

I don't understand why people keep claiming hauling isn't fun. It is fun, and it's nice there's finally an in game way to show off how much you enjoy it. Now we have it everyone else wants to take it away. Exploration has first discovery, let haulers have system Architecture.

 

[Therinfluffs]

I don't understand why people keep claiming hauling isn't fun. It is fun, and it's nice there's finally an in game way to show off how much you enjoy it. Now we have it everyone else wants to take it away. Exploration has first discovery, let haulers have system Architecture.

I say this as someone with 600 hrs of truck sim, and 1600 in Elite/

Elite's version of hauling isn't fun unless you are easily entertained by bare minimum repetition.

Going to very slight retextures of the same thing over and over as the only genuine difference in hauling gameplay isn't fun.

Hauling ship progression is completely and totally linear aside from very minor differences in handling and the niche cases of needing to land on medium pads.

There are only two commodity types that interact with your ship differently in any way (corrosive and illegal), and these are very hyper specific as to whether you will ever haul them in your career in game or not. You can play for 1k+ hours and never touch these. Neither are even included with Trailblazers either.

Elite, and Trailblazers in general weren't sold to us as a hauling simulator either. But here we are with hauling still being the only option we are given to everything, again.

No-one is even asking for trailblazers to have hauling removed from it either, we just want more options to progress colonies than J U S T hauling for when the constant repetition becomes too boring.

 

[Dragsham]

Let's hope fdev do listen.
To the proposed additional content to make colonisation more appealing to those not content with hauling 200,000 tons (300+ trips) to complete a tier lll.
Quite how anyone can say this is as it should be amazes me.
I love the fact that new content is coming out thick n fast. I just wish some of it was better fleshed out. As I've said many times there's just way too much emphasis on hauling in elite not so dangerous unless it's open only hehehe.

 

[ꝁestrel]

I don't understand why people keep claiming hauling isn't fun. It is fun, and it's nice there's finally an in game way to show off how much you enjoy it. Now we have it everyone else wants to take it away. Exploration has first discovery, let haulers have system Architecture.

People are saying that hauling isn't fun for them. They are not saying it isn't fun for anyone.

The distinction is really important.

No one is suggesting that hauling is taken away from colonization. The two main suggestions are:

1. Allow other activities to contribute to colonization. Hauling would still be included.
2. Allow activities from outside of the system to contribute to that system's colonization.

My suggestion was to add passive colonization. But, as Ian correctly pointed out, there are other ways to achieve a similar outcome that still requires engagement. I still like the idea of passive colonization for other reasons but it's a valid point.

You don't need to create a "us vs them" dynamic. It's not "haulers vs non-haulers" or "explorers vs non-explorers". This notion is not necessary: "they gave us [haulers] something and now they [non-haulers] are trying to take it away".

How about everyone gets to have fun?

 

[BluePilot]

No one is suggesting that hauling is taken away from colonization. The two main suggestions are:

1. Allow other activities to contribute to colonization. Hauling would still be included.
2. Allow activities from outside of the system to contribute to that system's colonization.

You don't need to create a "us vs them" dynamic. It's not "haulers vs non-haulers" or "explorers vs non-explorers". This notion is not necessary: "they gave us [haulers] something and now they [non-haulers] are trying to take it away".

How about everyone gets to have fun?

I'm not creating a haulers vs. other professions dynamic, you are. Imagine someone suggesting that it's not fun to fly out to beagle point so they should be allowed to have first explored tags on a few stars out in the black by fighting NPCs in a system of their choosing instead. That's exactly what you're advocating for when you say you want contribution points towards colonization by killing NPCs. No one is arguing that you're not allowed to have fun playing elite, just that colonization isn't about combat and shouldn't be made to be so. Combat pilots have already gotten the thargoids and the second thargoid war, let hauler have colonization. It's not even unreasonable to pay haulers to build your claims with noney you earned fighting, especially given how much of it is handed to combat players on a silver platter.

 

[Cmdr Travers]

Engineering 1.0 needed it. Power Play 1.0 needed it. Now Colonization 1.0 needs it.

Problem:
Hauling is the only way to interact with the Colonization feature.

Solution:
Passive colonization.

Here's how it works:

• Set a very high credit cost to initiate construction of a structure (eg: 1 billion credits for a Coriolis starport)
• Construction becomes passive/automatic but takes a long time on its own (eg: 1-3 months for a Coriolist starport)
• In order to speed up construction you can perform various tasks.
  • Hauling commodities just like you can do today.
  • Combat signal sources that spawn near construction sites where you defend supply ships.
  • Passenger missions for transporting workers to construction sites.
  • Donating raw mining materials to speed up construction.
  • Donating on-foot building schematics (settlement loot) to speed up construction.
  • Donate credits to speed up construction.
    • Grows exponentially to as high as 20 or even 50 billion.
    • Initially starts as low as 50 million but grows very high.

This will enable every type of player to enjoy the feature:

• Players that don't mind waiting a long time can fund their systems with credits.
• Players that enjoy hauling can continue doing it like they can today.
• Players that enjoy combat can help defend supply ships.
• Players that enjoy passenger missions can haul workers.
• Players that enjoy mining can mine anywhere and donate materials.
• Players that enjoy on-foot gameplay can raid settlements for loot and donate it.

I'm currently sitting on more than 35 billion credits that I've gained from a fair few exobiology trips, and there is absolutely nothing in the game I can spend it on. I've got a carrier so I can't buy another one, and when I thought colonisation would be expensive, because let's face it that seemed logical, I only ended up making even more credits than I had before.

I completely agree with you but I'd add one more suggestion, that being that the cost of passive construction increases the further away the colony is from an existing inhabited system. This means that I could build the colony I want waaaayy out deep in the black, but it would cost me that 35 billion credits to do so.

 

[yianniv]

I don't understand why people keep claiming hauling isn't fun. It is fun, and it's nice there's finally an in game way to show off how much you enjoy it. Now we have it everyone else wants to take it away. Exploration has first discovery, let haulers have system Architecture.

Maybe people claim hauling isn't fun because it isn't. It's a boring, repetitive activity that becomes mind numbing after a while. You may enjoy it, good for you, but others don't.
What people are suggesting is not to take it away but to supplement it with other active forms of colonization progress. There are examples throughout the various threads.
That way you can keep your hauling and we can stay awake while playing ED.

 

[Tharrn]

It should make sense though. How bounties contribute to the construction of space installations isn't obvious to me. Not all game activities can contribute equally to every game loop. Colonization in it's current form is about building stuff.

 

[Therinfluffs]

It should make sense though. How bounties contribute to the construction of space installations isn't obvious to me. Not all game activities can contribute equally to every game loop. Colonization in it's current form is about building stuff.

Bounties: "Less pirates = less shipping lanes interdicted = more resources being delivered to the colonies progress"

 

[Nowski]

It's a boring, repetitive activity that becomes mind numbing after a while

This is how I feel about combat, most of the time. Does that mean combat isn't fun? It's purely subjective and absolute claims have no basis.

 

[Therinfluffs]

This is how I feel about combat, most of the time. Does that mean combat isn't fun? It's purely subjective and absolute claims have no basis.

Repetition isn't fun, I think this is why multiple approaches in general are being advocated for.

 

[Nowski]

Repetition isn't fun

A lot of players regard mapping systems and exobiology as repetitious, but I find these fun activities. If the gameplay is interesting to you the repetition takes a back seat. It's a subjective matter.

With respect to "multiple approaches" I have no particular views except if they were implemented (which I very much doubt will happen at the current time, because "feature complete" implies the development budget has been spent outside of bugfixes, polish and tuning) I hope they are very carefully balanced so as not to make it any less effortful for the player. The big "reward" of colonisation for me, such as there is one outside of "more sand", is being able to dock at a facility you constructed with a substantial effort in game and enjoy the sense of having built it, which IMO would be significantly reduced if it were able to be accomplished with less input from the player.

 

[Dragsham]

Knowone is saying we should replace hauling !!
Supplement it !
Why do folks just get it wrong?
Mis quote, twist things.
If your going to post please please have a read before posting. Because it's really frustrating time & time again thread upon thread, to see good ideas trashed because someone didn't bother to digest the overall discussion.
I read all the thread posts relevant to what I'm posting. I don't just pick out a a sentence here or a point made there. I try to get the complete picture.
I don't agree with alot of what's being said, but l do take the time to read it!

 

[Cmdr Travers]

Repetition isn't fun, I think this is why multiple approaches in general are being advocated for.

I think you should write the words "repetition isn't fun" 100 times on the board

Just kidding, I completely agree with you.

 

[Therinfluffs]

I think you should write the words "repetition isn't fun" 100 times on the board

Just kidding, I completely agree with you.

Idk what peoples insistence on diving directly into hyperbole is on forums in space games. Not a single argument against this has been made with any nuance, it's all "you're going to remove hauling entirely".