Profanity is one thing, out of game names like this one: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...tations-after-finishing-the-first-one.634227/ or violation of copyrighted names is another aspect why I think it was not a good decision.
Elite Dangerous | System Colonisation Beta Details & Feedback
- Thread starter Paul_Crowther
- Start date
Oh I know, I am just agreeing with you that someone is going to ruin it for the rest of us unless FDev put something in place to prevent it such as reporting station names or requiring review of names (but only if it gets out of hand, which I hope it wont)
![[VR] Goooost](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/111/111637.jpg?1589354934){kind=avatar}
I desperately need to know if we are able to create an asteroid base outside of a ring, just out in space.
I also need to know if we can stake a claim on a system that already has stations.
There is important work that needs to be done in the Pareco system.
I also need to know if we can stake a claim on a system that already has stations.
There is important work that needs to be done in the Pareco system.
My understanding is:
- initial population of the system is done by the station owner of the station used to colonise
- once the first station is built, then the BGS is enabled and you get:
- the colonisation contact faction (60%)
- another faction from that system (20%)
- the squadron faction of the architect (if not already present, 13%)
- an Anarchy faction from a nearby system (7%, or 20% if the squadron faction is one of the first two)
Doesn't matter if it's a PMF or an NPC faction in this respect.
(There do seem to be some issues with simultaneous claims, so maybe someone else got a claim in there first?)
Asteroid belt clusters also work, but you don't appear to be able to put one just anywhere.
No. Systems must be unpopulated to be claimed as colonisation targets.
Loving the update so far, great work Fdev, there are a few things that i think should be rebalanced.
ill mention the more important one first.
Construction Credits require too much effort to get
so something i haven't seen any mentions on yet, Construction credits, mainly how many smalls and mediums we have to build to get a single T3 structure is too much, we currently need 3 T3 credits which requires 3 T2 structures to be built which requires a quite large number of T1's to be built.
please reduce the number of T3 credits we need to build Orbitals and ground T3 structures to at least two, and reduce T2's down to one, having to split T3 credits between Orbitals or ground facilities massively screws over those who are doing this solo or aren't lucky enough to get a system with more than 20 slots combined.
currently the high cost on T3's building credit wise will put too much of a damper on smaller systems trying to be at least just half decent, while some could argue thats the point of having an initial T3 starport that still doesnt really change the scenario all that much.
with what i suggested above it would be 2 smalls and 2 mediums before getting to place a Tier 3, for a total of 5 slots being used and i do believe with the steep amount of materials being needed to build them anyway this is more reasonable and doesn't allow small systems to be godly Overpowered on economy they would just be, ok, decent, worth the effort but nowhere near the perfect economic system.
^ this is the feedback that i see as way more important than the one underneath as theoretically implementing the above would make the below more irrelevant sooner rather then later.
now for the less important feedback
Good old CMM's
CMM's, you love them you hate them, the stations require too many of these and they are insanely hard to get, even with your boosts there's too many times I've seen stations chilling at 0 stock with CMDR's just waiting on the pads for them to regen, some waiting up to 6 hours.
I saw some people suggesting that Copper and CMM's could have the values swapped or just outright decrease CMM's to a more reasonable level.
ill mention the more important one first.
Construction Credits require too much effort to get
so something i haven't seen any mentions on yet, Construction credits, mainly how many smalls and mediums we have to build to get a single T3 structure is too much, we currently need 3 T3 credits which requires 3 T2 structures to be built which requires a quite large number of T1's to be built.
please reduce the number of T3 credits we need to build Orbitals and ground T3 structures to at least two, and reduce T2's down to one, having to split T3 credits between Orbitals or ground facilities massively screws over those who are doing this solo or aren't lucky enough to get a system with more than 20 slots combined.
currently the high cost on T3's building credit wise will put too much of a damper on smaller systems trying to be at least just half decent, while some could argue thats the point of having an initial T3 starport that still doesnt really change the scenario all that much.
with what i suggested above it would be 2 smalls and 2 mediums before getting to place a Tier 3, for a total of 5 slots being used and i do believe with the steep amount of materials being needed to build them anyway this is more reasonable and doesn't allow small systems to be godly Overpowered on economy they would just be, ok, decent, worth the effort but nowhere near the perfect economic system.
^ this is the feedback that i see as way more important than the one underneath as theoretically implementing the above would make the below more irrelevant sooner rather then later.
now for the less important feedback
Good old CMM's
CMM's, you love them you hate them, the stations require too many of these and they are insanely hard to get, even with your boosts there's too many times I've seen stations chilling at 0 stock with CMDR's just waiting on the pads for them to regen, some waiting up to 6 hours.
I saw some people suggesting that Copper and CMM's could have the values swapped or just outright decrease CMM's to a more reasonable level.
It's not a wipe, but a bug. Report it.
Violation of copyrighted names sounds ridiculously Orwellian to me. Do you think Disney will sue if you call your port Tatooine? AFAIK, there is only the concept of a trademark, and this is pretty specific to the usage attached. I'm sure FDEV knows how to deal with that.
Do we know that each T2 structure requires its own set of supporting T1s, or is it just that you need to build a certain number of T1s to enable T2 building, but once you have you can build as many T2s as you like?
Think you misunderstood. My idea was absolutely not a fleet carrier. Loading our FCs only to unload them again is just drudge work, and they don't hold all the resources needed anyway.
I’m unable to cancel a claim on a system right now.
I‘have gone through the claiming process and choose a station. The construction material the station needed turned out to be prohibitive (50’000, some even 60‘000 and difficult to find). When I realized that I wouldn‘t be able to fulfill the demands within 4 weeks, I wasn‘t able to switch to a less costly station model. So I choose to abandon the entire claim.
Now I‘m stuck, because
… after I abandoned the claim, the system immediately became blocked for a reclaim. After some time, the colonization ship has left,
but the system remained inaccessible for a reclaim.
Later, I‘m again filed as the architect of the system. The construction ship is still gone and the system seems empty and claimable when I visit it. But as I‘m still (and not anew) filed as the architect and I still have 3 weeks and 5 days remaining to finish a construction (which is no longer there), I cannot reclaim this system or claim any other. Also I cannot resume the construction. Abandoning the construction claim again results in an error red flag saying „cannot release system claim“. Looks like I‘ll remain stuck for the remaining of the 4 weeks right now.
I‘have gone through the claiming process and choose a station. The construction material the station needed turned out to be prohibitive (50’000, some even 60‘000 and difficult to find). When I realized that I wouldn‘t be able to fulfill the demands within 4 weeks, I wasn‘t able to switch to a less costly station model. So I choose to abandon the entire claim.
Now I‘m stuck, because
… after I abandoned the claim, the system immediately became blocked for a reclaim. After some time, the colonization ship has left,
but the system remained inaccessible for a reclaim.
Later, I‘m again filed as the architect of the system. The construction ship is still gone and the system seems empty and claimable when I visit it. But as I‘m still (and not anew) filed as the architect and I still have 3 weeks and 5 days remaining to finish a construction (which is no longer there), I cannot reclaim this system or claim any other. Also I cannot resume the construction. Abandoning the construction claim again results in an error red flag saying „cannot release system claim“. Looks like I‘ll remain stuck for the remaining of the 4 weeks right now.
Last edited:
they did say some buildings but didnt specify which need a prerequisite building built which i forgot about, this sort of makes the higher cost of the construction points worse as well, i would assume this applies to certain T2's and T3's with certain T1's and probably some T2's being said prerequisite's, i havent dived into land based buildings heavily yet, theres alot to unpack with this feature.
The other way to look at it is that some things in this game just are designed to be multiplayer activities.
Look at taking down a thargoid titan: If you tried to do that solo, with nobody else's help, it would have taken probably 10 years. We needed literally thousands and thousands of commanders spending dozens and dozens, often even hundreds of hours each, in order to take down one single titan.
If you had to take down a titan completely solo, that would even more be classified as "an unacceptable amount of grind", but titans were never even supposed to be taken down by a single player. It was always designed from the ground up to be a massively multiplayer activity.
When it comes to colonizing a system, at least you can do it solo. It takes effort, but it's possible. But obviously it's easier with friends.
The rando other faction is placed there as a default. Once the colony ship arrives, the faction you expanded with will also be there.
Singular faction systems are problematic, so they randomly assign another nearby faction (this sounds like a very good reason for the range limit)
To see custom names should be a toggleable option.
Players can decide to see names created by a universal automated name generator which falls within the themes of Elite Dangerous, while those who want to see custom names could choose to see them.
End of story.
Then if custom names are approved by FDev for being acceptable and not one which ruins the immersion, can then be added to the non-custom view for everyone.
Players can decide to see names created by a universal automated name generator which falls within the themes of Elite Dangerous, while those who want to see custom names could choose to see them.
End of story.
Then if custom names are approved by FDev for being acceptable and not one which ruins the immersion, can then be added to the non-custom view for everyone.
Hi 
Naming a station (and for Arx) is perfectly acceptable, but I have to agree with you here, the only trouble is, and as you point out, you're totally reliant on the Player to not only name that station in keeping with the spirit of the game, but also produce a name that is acceptable in a social and 'mature' sense as well.
Of course, what is seen as in the spirit of the game and a mature approach to naming is wide open for criticism and what individual players personally see as 'acceptable'.
Unless Frontier vet every name submitted, and look at this naming feature in detail then perhaps a compromise could be achieved for each player participating.
I've played Elite from the first release and quite frankly on my travels around the galaxy I've seen various player named systems that I would consider to be neither of the terms mature or in the spirit of the game itself (and also so called commanders names to be honest).
There as I've said is the problem, it's really in Frontiers control of what names are submitted and accepted in all aspects of the permanent naming features, and imho the track record of the past 10 years as regards this is somewhat questionable.
Jack
Naming a station (and for Arx) is perfectly acceptable, but I have to agree with you here, the only trouble is, and as you point out, you're totally reliant on the Player to not only name that station in keeping with the spirit of the game, but also produce a name that is acceptable in a social and 'mature' sense as well.
Of course, what is seen as in the spirit of the game and a mature approach to naming is wide open for criticism and what individual players personally see as 'acceptable'.
Unless Frontier vet every name submitted, and look at this naming feature in detail then perhaps a compromise could be achieved for each player participating.
I've played Elite from the first release and quite frankly on my travels around the galaxy I've seen various player named systems that I would consider to be neither of the terms mature or in the spirit of the game itself (and also so called commanders names to be honest).
There as I've said is the problem, it's really in Frontiers control of what names are submitted and accepted in all aspects of the permanent naming features, and imho the track record of the past 10 years as regards this is somewhat questionable.
Jack
You picked ONE of my three arguments. Please reply to the other two arguments with a good counter argument.
Let me add to 'ridiculous' violation of copyrighted / trademarked names: https://www.popsci.com/technology/apple-swiss-trademark/ , https://sparkslawpractice.com/blog/trademark-basics-part-1-disney-sues-famous-dj-for-infringement/
That list could go on and on. And I believe that we're already post-Orwellian.
And no, I don't believe that FDev has thought it through end-to-end. They will have to deal with it. But this will cost resources = money.
That and different countries have very different views on use.
One thing that I'm finding quite annoying (although not unsurprising) is how angry many people seem to be when they encounter an apparent bug. Rather than calmly report that they encountered what appears to be such and such a bug, to help improve the game, they completely lash out at the developers like they were the worst people in the world and this is the most horrible game in existence.
It's called a "beta" for a reason. Perhaps you didn't get the memo? A "beta" release is bound to have bugs. If you don't want to experience the bugs, if you find them so utterly annoying that you are going to lash out at the developers for having made them, then don't participate in the beta. Do something else, if it bothers you so much.
If you do participate in the beta testing, then expect bugs. Being angry that you found a bug makes no sense. Have some common sense.
It's called a "beta" for a reason. Perhaps you didn't get the memo? A "beta" release is bound to have bugs. If you don't want to experience the bugs, if you find them so utterly annoying that you are going to lash out at the developers for having made them, then don't participate in the beta. Do something else, if it bothers you so much.
If you do participate in the beta testing, then expect bugs. Being angry that you found a bug makes no sense. Have some common sense.