Elite Dangerous | System Colonisation Beta Details & Feedback

[sakata_baba]

Never mentioned overwriting Stations, altering Hub's and Padless settlement's, will affect the BGS how? Last time I looked you had to do something tangible, that action would not be one of them.

all stations and installations (regardless of them being starports/surfaceports or without a landing pad) influence bgs. they change system attributes (like security or tech level), minor faction property and influence, missions or events available in the system and system economy (via strong/weak links to starports or surfaceports).

for example, you removing a military installation (space outpost without pads) will remove a leverage for both bgs and powerplay. refinery hub is the only way you can induce a strong economy link to a starport/surfaceport besides body property. all builds in system introduce and take away some build points (tier 1 build will introduce tier 2 points etc) and if you just remove something, will it destroy all other stations that rely on that point?

those are just some of examples. i believe i could think of more issues if i took some time.

 

[sakata_baba]

Then at least the option for an architect to remove an unfinished station.

like i said above, and you quoted me on it, i have no problems with removal of unfinished stations by the architect. those didn't enter the bgs yet so it's not like something is modified except for the placeholder structure existing and that's basically just cosmetics.

i do realize that it will introduce some issue with build points as they have to be translated to the end of the build cycle and that can be abused so i believe such a thing will not happen before we get some ability to cause station decay and ruin/removal or permanent deactivation through other means.

 

[K Olley]

i do realize that it will introduce some issue with build points as they have to be translated to the end of the build cycle and that can be abused so i believe such a thing will not happen before we get some ability to cause station decay and ruin/removal or permanent deactivation through other means.

Build points, simple, if you cancel you loose them, possibly a bit harsh with those that have got the wizzy stations, but you cannot please everyone.

 

[Shurimal]

-You build 3 tier 1 stations and get 3 tier 2 points.
-You build a Coriolis for the cost of those tier 2 points.
-You decide to delete one or more of your tier 1 stations.

Now what should happen? Do you lose your Coriolis because the supporting infrastructure is not there anymore? If you rebuild the tier 1 station would you get another construction point? Should nothing happen and rebuilding the tier 1 gives you no construction point (most benign way to implement this)? But what about replacing that deleted tier 1 with tier 2? Should it be allowed or is it only "like-for-like"? But what if you really need to replace a tier 1 with tier 2 and your situation wouldn't result in a deficit of construction points because you have some surplus?

It would be a messy situation and no wonder that any dev would say "you build what you build and there's no going back" because the potential for exploits and unforseen consequences is just not worth the effort.

Now, undoing unfinished constructions would be relatively safe and should not introduce any exploits or black swans. I'm all for allowing this, and maybe changing an existing facility like-for-like (eg changing a tier 1 industrial settlement to a tier 1 extraction one or civilian outpost to a scientific one) as long as it is not a pre-requirement for something else that exists in that star system.

 

[PilotB]

Now what should happen? Do you lose your Coriolis because the supporting infrastructure is not there anymore?

Just make delete cost points. If you don't have the free points to keep the system valid then you need to delete other stuff until you do. It's not a complicated problem. I really don't see why this keeps coming up as a argument.

So you can't delete the supporting ifrastructure so you either build one more thing and then delete the old one or you delete the coriolis and then delete the t1. Either way the system is always valid but you currently can go into negative points because the system calcualtes the points in a random order not your build order so keeping it valid doesn't even seem to matter when properly built systems are missing points.

 

[Dax Angel]

-You build 3 tier 1 stations and get 3 tier 2 points.
-You build a Coriolis for the cost of those tier 2 points.
-You decide to delete one or more of your tier 1 stations.

Now what should happen? Do you lose your Coriolis because the supporting infrastructure is not there anymore? If you rebuild the tier 1 station would you get another construction point? Should nothing happen and rebuilding the tier 1 gives you no construction point (most benign way to implement this)? But what about replacing that deleted tier 1 with tier 2? Should it be allowed or is it only "like-for-like"? But what if you really need to replace a tier 1 with tier 2 and your situation wouldn't result in a deficit of construction points because you have some surplus?

It would be a messy situation and no wonder that any dev would say "you build what you build and there's no going back" because the potential for exploits and unforseen consequences is just not worth the effort.

Now, undoing unfinished constructions would be relatively safe and should not introduce any exploits or black swans. I'm all for allowing this, and maybe changing an existing facility like-for-like (eg changing a tier 1 industrial settlement to a tier 1 extraction one or civilian outpost to a scientific one) as long as it is not a pre-requirement for something else that exists in that star system.

Well, just remove construction point completely. Let people build whatever they want to build from the available slots in the system.
Also remove the fixed primary port, let people build the first port anywhere they want.

 

[Shurimal]

Well, just remove construction point completely. Let people build whatever they want to build from the available slots in the system.

I actually like the construction point system as an abstraction for having supporting infrastructure before you can build a big project. Like first you need to figure out where to get potable water before you start building a city; or having enough population (read: customer base) before building a big shopping center. Adds a little strategic planning to the whole process.

Also remove the fixed primary port, let people build the first port anywhere they want.

That I agree with. Although, the primary port is one extra building slot, but most systems have plenty as it is. The primary port mechanic is opaque, but I think it goes to the largest mass planet in the system, or the largest star if no planets are available. Some tweaking of that would be nice at least, eg ignoring planets around secondary stars farther than 10k ls.

 

[sakata_baba]

Some tweaking of that would be nice at least, eg ignoring planets around secondary stars farther than 10k ls.

i like some systems having distant starports. i didn't chose taunetes as my home system by accident but because it has main starport 200kls from jump in point. sco did mess it up a bit but it still gives me time to intercept and privacy.

 

[Ned Flandalorian]

The construction points definitely need a rebalance after the changes caused by the introduction of station links. Having the cost of tier 3 constructions jump by 6 points is ridiculous, especially when you can't do anything with leftover points.

(Remember how the opening post of this thread said the only changes that would be made would be for rebalancing... and there hasn't been a single change to any of the relevant numbers?)

 

[Shurimal]

i like some systems having distant starports. i didn't chose taunetes as my home system by accident but because it has main starport 200kls from jump in point. sco did mess it up a bit but it still gives me time to intercept and privacy.

I also colonized a sustem where the primary is 280k ls away, just for lulz. With Panther it's not bad, especially if you choose an outpost instead of Coriolis, but without Panther it'd be a pain—my old cargo Cutter in SCO overheated within ten seconds and wiggled around like a drunken snake. I still think that primary ports should be either freely freely placeable or restricted to the 10...50k ls from the main star. You can always build that remote pirate or scientific outpost later

 

[holdenballs]

I also colonized a sustem where the primary is 280k ls away, just for lulz. With Panther it's not bad, especially if you choose an outpost instead of Coriolis, but without Panther it'd be a pain—my old cargo Cutter in SCO overheated within ten seconds and wiggled around like a drunken snake. I still think that primary ports should be either freely freely placeable or restricted to the 10...50k ls from the main star. You can always build that remote pirate or scientific outpost later

Personally I find around 700ls to be the perfect distance. I'm often arriving in my home system with a cargo hold full of whatever the port is asking for and a bunch of pirates waiting for me. 700ls is a good distance for me to get some speed up and go about evading interdiction, whereas stations close by don't give me that wiggle room by default.

 

[Ned Flandalorian]

I also colonized a sustem where the primary is 280k ls away, just for lulz. With Panther it's not bad, especially if you choose an outpost instead of Coriolis, but without Panther it'd be a pain—my old cargo Cutter in SCO overheated within ten seconds and wiggled around like a drunken snake. I still think that primary ports should be either freely freely placeable or restricted to the 10...50k ls from the main star. You can always build that remote pirate or scientific outpost later

It's a complete non-issue for someone carrying everything they need on a carrier.

 

[Greasetrap42]

I am certain Frontier will fix this bug that renders colonization broken in mid-developed systems along with the release of Vanguards next week.

I am looking forward to adding some more facilities to this system.

Issue Tracker Report - Colonization Error - "Invalid Placement"

 

[Capt. Hook]

I am certain Frontier will fix this bug that renders colonization broken in mid-developed systems along with the release of Vanguards next week.

I am looking forward to adding some more facilities to this system.

Issue Tracker Report - Colonization Error - "Invalid Placement"

View attachment 437113

Dibs on FDEV giving commanders ability to delete/ decommission existing stations built.

 

[Kzak]

Dibs on FDEV giving commanders ability to delete/ decommission existing stations built.

Fingers crossed for the ability to demolish existing stations, if the architect can cover the construction point lost with the points in that system.

 

[DazeDreamer]

I am certain Frontier will fix this bug that renders colonization broken in mid-developed systems along with the release of Vanguards next week.

I am looking forward to adding some more facilities to this system.

Issue Tracker Report - Colonization Error - "Invalid Placement"

View attachment 437113

How do mate I've been trying to grab anybody's attention from Frontier to see if there's anything happening on fixing this as it's been going on for a while nearly four weeks now. As is usual though it's the silent treatment but like my relationship at home not sure what I've done wrong . Here's hoping it's sorted next week

 

[JayDoc]

Same issue here. I can't build anything in my home colony (but can in others) due to the "Invalid Placement" bug. Interestingly INARA lists a different commander as system architect, even though the game lists me. I wonder if there is some data corruption on the back end that's causing us to not be able to build/place installations.

 

[Capt. Hook]

Fingers crossed for the ability to demolish existing stations, if the architect can cover the construction point lost with the points in that system.

I think that would end up being a negative sum game as some systems would not have the capacity to generate let's say a new t2 point to cover a t2 destruction. I'd much rather see the station decommissioned/ taken off line/ destroyed so that a new structure could be put in place. Heck even new gameplay could be employed in this; abandoned stations could mean new ground missions to retrieve tech, stations could be recycled for materials, maybe abandoned stations become haunts for outlaws etc.

 

[Artie]

Same issue here. I can't build anything in my home colony (but can in others) due to the "Invalid Placement" bug. Interestingly INARA lists a different commander as system architect, even though the game lists me. I wonder if there is some data corruption on the back end that's causing us to not be able to build/place installations.

That may be an error on Inara's end - as the star system architect information is in the game's journal only when the star system is claimed, it may happen that the old claim/architect is still present as the newer claim wasn't imported. Also, Inara is trying to determine the architects by construction deliveries when no claim information was provided and although it has a very low error rate, there may be a few issues present.

 

[Kzak]

I think that would end up being a negative sum game as some systems would not have the capacity to generate let's say a new t2 point to cover a t2 destruction. I'd much rather see the station decommissioned/ taken off line/ destroyed so that a new structure could be put in place. Heck even new gameplay could be employed in this; abandoned stations could mean new ground missions to retrieve tech, stations could be recycled for materials, maybe abandoned stations become haunts for outlaws etc.

Let me clarify - if e.g. a T2 ground structure is demolished, the architect is refunded the point spent to build that structure. What complicates things is if a structure is the prerequisite for another structure that has been built, and demolishing that prerequisite structure would invalidate the other structure in question.

There would have to be rules, yes, and checks to avoid such cases.