Elite Dangerous | System Colonisation Beta Details & Feedback

Hi everyone
I've got my system colonization gray. Is it ok or what do i need to do to ungray it?
I have no colonies

1741188247773.png
 
would be nice idea especially if a system you wanted had already been taken over

but could see this would open up aftermarket sales on systems probably out of Fdev's control
Yes, it would have to revert back automatically every Thursday tick. But it would be useful for friends who want to work on a system together.
 
I built a Space Bar but unfortunately there's not really any indicator of what it is on the system map apart from Civilian Installation... and you can't land at it, never mind disembark :( . Shame as I wanted to do a full system of Bars and Tourism but not really worth it now if you can't see what all those installations are :(... unless will there be some sort of change after the weekly tick?
 
Last edited:
I don't know why people were happy about building ports that are pointless and don't carry any load? 15 light years from the settlement? Are you serious? A million people play the game? NO! If they make the system and ports personal property with full control, then the game really makes sense.
I saw that the Architect still doesn't work, the systems are empty, there is a bug.
Forecast for the game: In a month, everyone will stop colonizing because of the pointless waste of time.
 
I don't know why people were happy about building ports that are pointless and don't carry any load? 15 light years from the settlement? Are you serious? A million people play the game? NO! If they make the system and ports personal property with full control, then the game really makes sense.
I saw that the Architect still doesn't work, the systems are empty, there is a bug.
Forecast for the game: In a month, everyone will stop colonizing because of the pointless waste of time.
'personal property with full control [...]' Think of the consequences: I as a random pilot who wants to fly in your system, cannot dock and repair? That mechanics would be the worst and soon create a shell of 'private' systems around the bubble.

I suggest that after you have built a publicly available starport / outpost in the system, you can build your very own base which you and your squadron can access but never block players for accessing at least one installation in the system. With lots of customization and ARX supported livery.
 
I built a Space Bar but unfortunately there's not really any indicator of what it is on the system map apart from Civilian Installation... and you can't land at it, never mind disembark :( . Shame as I wanted to do a full system of Bars and Tourism but not really worth it now if you can't see what all those installations are :(... unless will there be some sort of change after the weekly tick?
Installations are not Stations in that sense. They are used for conflicts between minor factions in the BGS. Basically like the old Horizon Surface Outposts that you can scan, they do not serve a functional purpose for the player outside of being a target for Missions/Faction war.

For the Architect however building them influences the Economy and other System stats.
 
'personal property with full control [...]' Think of the consequences: I as a random pilot who wants to fly in your system, cannot dock and repair? That mechanics would be the worst and soon create a shell of 'private' systems around the bubble.

I suggest that after you have built a publicly available starport / outpost in the system, you can build your very own base which you and your squadron can access but never block players for accessing at least one installation in the system. With lots of customization and ARX supported livery.
A small Settlement for myself would be enough for me, i'm not interessted in lock out other Player.
 
The tether system is pointless. Rip it out, prevent player-settled systems from having a System Colonization contact, and install a cap of X settled systems per squadron. I'd recommend 10 + the number of players in said squadron.

You'd have far less kruft with this system (We've already settled 8000+ systems? How many of those were just stepping stone systems to get to where someone wanted to go? All three of mine have been so far.) and players would have far more freedom to choose where they want their little bubbles to be.

Keep the 24 hour requirement to light the candle and call in the colonization ship (or FC, if those suspended modules are to be believed). If someone can hotfoot it to Beagle in 24h, file their claim, and get a station built in a month, then they've earned it. (Could also put a multiplier on needed resources relative to distance from nearest settled system -- this is a mechanism the game engine already handles in part to determine whether or not a system spawns certain POIs, for example.)

Unlimited systems + short AF tether = a whole lotta stations no one's ever gonna see again. We're already up to 8k. Won't be long until players double the bubble at that rate.
 
"hotfoot to Beagle"

why should that be tied to colonisation?
Oh, there's already a debate on that one. One of the reasons the pro-tether crowd likes the tether is because it slows development of further-flung systems. Some people would prefer that some places like Beagle Point never be colonized. (I'm not one of those people, I just don't wanna go out there and do all that work for it.)
 
The tether system is pointless. Rip it out, prevent player-settled systems from having a System Colonization contact, and install a cap of X settled systems per squadron. I'd recommend 10 + the number of players in said squadron.

You'd have far less kruft with this system (We've already settled 8000+ systems? How many of those were just stepping stone systems to get to where someone wanted to go? All three of mine have been so far.) and players would have far more freedom to choose where they want their little bubbles to be.

Keep the 24 hour requirement to light the candle and call in the colonization ship (or FC, if those suspended modules are to be believed). If someone can hotfoot it to Beagle in 24h, file their claim, and get a station built in a month, then they've earned it. (Could also put a multiplier on needed resources relative to distance from nearest settled system -- this is a mechanism the game engine already handles in part to determine whether or not a system spawns certain POIs, for example.)

Unlimited systems + short AF tether = a whole lotta stations no one's ever gonna see again. We're already up to 8k. Won't be long until players double the bubble at that rate.
How will you solve the mess of Minor Factions a system like that would create?
Why limit a player's freedom with an artificial upper limit of colonized systems?
We already have loads of single outpost systems in the bubble, what is the issue with players creating more?

In the end this is a beta to test the waters, I am sure that deep space stations will get a colonization contact in the future if it makes sense in the greater scheme of things (Economy, BGS, Faction Balance). Allowing a Minor Faction (especially a big PMF) to expand to a random part of the galaxy or an entirely different part of the bubble would have huge implications in that regard.
 
The tether system is pointless. Rip it out, prevent player-settled systems from having a System Colonization contact, and install a cap of X settled systems per squadron. I'd recommend 10 + the number of players in said squadron.
People keep wanting to make colonization a squadron-oriented feature that solo players can dabble in. It is not. It's a personalization feature that squadrons can use to influence BGS play. One architect launches the beacon. One architect has authority. One architect collects profits and pays taxes. "Your new empire" is the tagline. Variations on the word "you" (you, your, etc.) appear on the Trailblazers page 47 times. The word "Squadron" appears once in reference to the token connection to BGS gameplay. Colonization is an individual play feature. The squadron-oriented feature is coming next (and could conceivably link with colonization in a few token ways from within the Vanguards UI, one might suppose, as in setting a squadron goal of completing X construction in X system...).

I would love to see the tether removed and leapfrogging to be prevented in terms of making the feature suitable for building remote bases for exploration, but the game-lore goal of colonization is expanding human territory, and FDEV has already stated that rapid expansion of the bubble by leapfrogging player colonies is an intended design of the feature (https://issues.frontierstore.net/issue-detail/72326), so I think we are out of luck with that.
 
Oh, there's already a debate on that one. One of the reasons the pro-tether crowd likes the tether is because it slows development of further-flung systems. Some people would prefer that some places like Beagle Point never be colonized. (I'm not one of those people, I just don't wanna go out there and do all that work for it.)
Beagle Point can't be colonized anyways, look at it in the colonization view in-game, it's invalid, just like every other system that has a tourist beacon in it.
 
People keep wanting to make colonization a squadron-oriented feature that solo players can dabble in. It is not. It's a personalization feature that squadrons can use to influence BGS play. One architect launches the beacon. One architect has authority. One architect collects profits and pays taxes. "Your new empire" is the tagline. Variations on the word "you" (you, your, etc.) appear on the Trailblazers page 47 times. The word "Squadron" appears once in reference to the token connection to BGS gameplay. Colonization is an individual play feature. The squadron-oriented feature is coming next (and could conceivably link with colonization in a few token ways from within the Vanguards UI, one might suppose, as in setting a squadron goal of completing X construction in X system...).

I would love to see the tether removed and leapfrogging to be prevented in terms of making the feature suitable for building remote bases for exploration, but the game-lore goal of colonization is expanding human territory, and FDEV has already stated that rapid expansion of the bubble by leapfrogging player colonies is an intended design of the feature (https://issues.frontierstore.net/issue-detail/72326), so I think we are out of luck with that.
I'd love to have it, like you can claim your first colonization stuff, then there will be a cooldown AND you need to collect points. From building in the systems. And you should be able to claim another system ONLY IF you have built something in value in the previous system. You will have basically all your systems rated and all your systems would must have some kind of rating or better, so you can claim another.
 

O7,
🙃
Nope, that's not it but thanks for trying. As I said it described what happens if you cancel your colonisation. There was a 3 day cool down mentioned whereby you couldn't try to take that system again and some other stuff along those lines.
 
CMDR Mechan: "they look pretty cool I like them. I still will never do this again because the grind is absolutely awful, but for once it was a fun thing to do and it was an incredible amount of running, but it was made kind of bearable by the amount of people who will come together."

I think this is the sentiment of many players. They will do colonization once, twice or thrice and then never again due to the tiresome hauling grind. Suggestions have been given to make colonization less grindy (more activities, hire NPCs). Will Frontier do anything about it or just watch the active players decline again?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom