I think it's not a good thing now to hike Security to a high level regardless of whether the system really needs it. Specially if you have to build many military facilities to do it. You really need to plan carefully which influences you want in your system the way weak links are working currently.
"Development Level >>"? Figuring out what all these numbers do.
- Thread starter Ian Doncaster
- Start date
They really need to do something about the mixed economies. The update is very welcome (And I CONGRATULATE them for giving us proper documentation, this is awesome!) but I STILL feel like the player doesn't have enough input on the links. I feel like you should just be able to manually link and unlink facilities so that you just always get the economy you want.
Or just manually set the kind of economies that the station can accept, or anything. I don't think Frontier has quite thought out just how awful it is to have mixed economies, and why. The whole thing with development level, security, etc... is quite constricted because building stuff for the sliders works against you with the economy links.
Or just manually set the kind of economies that the station can accept, or anything. I don't think Frontier has quite thought out just how awful it is to have mixed economies, and why. The whole thing with development level, security, etc... is quite constricted because building stuff for the sliders works against you with the economy links.
That seems to be a relatively common sentiment I’m seeing in regards to this. Though of course confirmation bias could be playing a role here because that’s what I think has happened here. Not enough or no consideration to what happens when certain or most economy types get mixed, especially in the presence of a necessity to build security-related infrastructure (to some extent, even just to keep it neutral/slightly positive).
Planetary/stellar body economies are still an even worse offender here. They should not be so completely hard-locked to stations with a basic colony economy, and/or not be so excessively powerful.
The system I am looking at developing currently (extraction/refinery) with how I intend it to be set up does need at least 1 security station, two (T1 medium) military settlements, and some government installations to break even or be slightly positive in security. So there is no way around them.
In my intended build scenario, it would look like this in the end for structures which reduce security :
Asteroid base - 1x, -1 sec
Commercial outpost - 3x(primary included), -3 sec
Civilian [orbital] outpost - 2x, -2 sec
T1 Medium mining settlement - 7x, -7 sec
Mining outpost installation - 3x, -3 sec
Refinery hub - 14x, - 14 sec
T3 orbital - 1x, -3 sec
Planetary ports - at least 1x T1 civilian, possibly a T3 instead of second T1, so -4 to 5 sec
Coriolis orbital - 1x, -2 sec
So, I’d be looking at, at minimum, a security level of -39. I don’t think I can just ignore that and say it’s fine. That tends to end up in a room filled with flames, and a dog with a teacup. I would also like to have it as a high security system, not a pirate’s dream looting spot. My intended solution…
1x Nemesis Military outpost (+2)
1x relay station(+1)
2x T1 medium military settlement (+8)
3x security station (+27)
7x comms installation (+7, this might be a bit overkill but I can still change it)
1x government installation (+2)
According to the spreadsheet I get a positive of 17 security with that setup. Some agri settlements on a moonlet (2 C a*) to cover standard of living more and a space farm elsewhere, too.
*Also planned to hold third security station. Since moons of main planets don’t have strong link influence (currently) on their parent body, this shouldn’t cause a strong link on the orbital port of the moon, right? Otherwise I will have to rethink the plan slightly and put it elsewhere, or replace with government installation. +10 should be enough to get a high security rating anyway, if I understood correctly how things work in that regard.
Last edited:
Ouch. Yes, you definitely have to address that.
I was thinking of more modest systems that can get by with low/medium security and a minimum of security facilities. Unless FD tweaks the strong/weak link mechanics, large complex systems will always have messy interlinks which introduces a degree of unpredictability into the markets.
New version of EDDiscovery is out with improved support for Trailblazers, PowerPlay and the new Corsair ship.
forums.frontier.co.uk
Release - EDDiscovery 18.X is now out! New modules panel upgrade and Engineering
more: *** Unknown Module { "paintjob_empire_eagle_tactical_blue", new ShipModule(-1,ShipModule.ModuleTypes.VanityType,"Paint Job Empire Eagle Tactical Blue") }, - this is item unknown to EDD, but IT WILL not affect operation of the program. It would be nice to report it to us so we can add it...
That system "only" has 51 combined build slots too (52 if counting primary). My planned agri and probably high tech build next door, it's got 71, though the hi-tech and agriculture structures shouldn't carry as many security penalties with them. Makes it easier to keep under control though I have some concern about the weak links eating into agricultural. Likely will stick to the theme though. Hope that the strong links are enough to overcome it along with boosts by terraforming (unfortunate that the planet does not have biologicals because it is also tidally locked). ... and I haven't actually really planned it out in a solid way yet, either. Like what I'll put on planet C1 with its 6 build slots. Probably wouldn't be the best spot for a T3 ground port(~141k ls) but I would like to have the high tech stuff there while star B has agriculture. And A handles the security stuff.
Anyway, looking at my original refinery (the one currently plagued by oppressively unavoidable and strong, arbitrary industrial), it's probably going to remain low sec simply because of what I set out to do with it. But at least... it remains in the positive once done, with just one relay and security installation.
Last edited:
Yeah, the interlinks need some more time in the oven. As it is, if you have a pure refinery world, even one 5% weak military/high-tech/industrial influence seems to eat things such as Insulating Membranes, which seems a little harsh to me. Letting the players decide which weak influence we'd accept for a given station/surface port would help.
I have relay+security installation combo, and honestly its minor loss.
Refinery that has that plus biosignals and extraction lost polymers/superc/semic/minerals
Gained water,food.
There is also a thing where a ty little system can have a refinery on first planet (rocky or HMC or Metalrich)
and be useful as pure refinery.
Refinery that has that plus biosignals and extraction lost polymers/superc/semic/minerals
Gained water,food.
There is also a thing where a ty little system can have a refinery on first planet (rocky or HMC or Metalrich)
and be useful as pure refinery.
For what it's worth, with my big refinery system plan I'm just hoping between the weak links shared by other refineries, it will overpower the weak link consumption through sheer brute force (the other location I have my eyes on is "cleaner" in having an atmospheric HMC with no volcanic activity, might have some bios but not in that system right now). Would rather still prefer if said weak links only applied to a matching economy type (so agricultural helps agricultural, for instance), or just had their demand component removed. Same thing for planetary ones, really...
Last edited:
In my current system, 3.6 strong refinery influence is not enough to overpower 0.15 High Tech and 0.05 Military, they stlil eat the Insulated Membranes. I have most other refinery goods, though, it's just a point of irritation that the insulating membranes vanish so easily. Too easily.
Weak links are very definitely a "give the players exactly what they asked for" feature.
I suppose the counter to that is that with the new population levels and corresponding markets, you don't necessarily need to build big systems to get all the commodities you need.
- find rocky planet
- build colony orbital and surface port
- stick a few government installations down to get security back above zero
...that's all the refinery products you need sorted out with no weak link interference
You can supply all your industrial or high-tech needs with a single baseline outpost.
I suppose the counter to that is that with the new population levels and corresponding markets, you don't necessarily need to build big systems to get all the commodities you need.
- find rocky planet
- build colony orbital and surface port
- stick a few government installations down to get security back above zero
...that's all the refinery products you need sorted out with no weak link interference
You can supply all your industrial or high-tech needs with a single baseline outpost.
They are definitely a particular pain point, yes. But my concern mainly lies in keeping the bulk commodities available which some weak links should (should) not do with sufficient refinery influence.
It works both ways - an orbital won't display the strong links with the surface assets if there is a ground port, and a ground port won't display they the strong links with the orbital assets if there is an orbital port.
But - it is just a display error - in reality the economy is influenced. At least in my case.
The main issue I'm seeing when there is a planetary port strongly linked to an orbiting station, is that the orbiting station effectively receives double the planetary economic influence - it's applied directly to both the port and the station, and then the port applies it again to the station via the strong link. None of this is indicated via the UI but can be verified by viewing the economy ratios in the journals. I'm hesitant to call it a bug so much as a very large oversight, especially when the strong links are subject to environmental boosts which can amplify the planetary influence even further.
If you previously had refinery hubs on a high-metal content body with both a port and station, this makes it practically impossible for the station to get a decent refinery economy rather than extraction regardless of how many hubs you build.
Last edited:
Saw it and updated last night.New version of EDDiscovery is out with improved support for Trailblazers, PowerPlay and the new Corsair ship.
View attachment 428290
Release - EDDiscovery 18.X is now out! New modules panel upgrade and Engineering
more: *** Unknown Module { "paintjob_empire_eagle_tactical_blue", new ShipModule(-1,ShipModule.ModuleTypes.VanityType,"Paint Job Empire Eagle Tactical Blue") }, - this is item unknown to EDD, but IT WILL not affect operation of the program. It would be nice to report it to us so we can add it...
I went overboard on this, building my first system. With two months of experience, I would just plunk down a police station (if there were slots).
True. But, why not give us a refinery outpost?
This could be useful if used properly, if we don't build against the planet's influence.
For example, a Rocky world with only 2 slots, ca be used to build one single refinery hub and one ground port, and the orbital station will have full refinery economy.
Good news!
forums.frontier.co.uk
Shipyards Offline After Trailblazers Update 3
Thanks Mate and sorry for seeming impatient. I have no choice but to hold on to it. I wish I could sell it. I just can't be bothered to do this level of grind to get a shipyard back that I was locked out of after the fact. I don't appreciate being chumped by a video game. At least I got a plaque...