Elite Dangerous | System Colonisation Beta Details & Feedback
- Thread starter Paul_Crowther
- Start date
I actually double and triple checked this in the Codex.
As far as I can tell, you're absolutely right. No in game clarification about this whatsoever.
Very displeased about this. Still waiting for Frontier's official FORUM based reply.
and where exactly would i find that little gem. i can't even find a basic Trailblazers Guide
It doesn't exist at all.
Mechan just posted this on his channel.
FULLY agreed on all points. It's a Beta. Let's change this particular mechanic as a priority.
Source: https://youtu.be/WdPWgUi9c_w
Mechan just posted this on his channel.
FULLY agreed on all points. It's a Beta. Let's change this particular mechanic as a priority.
Wanted to post this as a PSA to colonisers but also as feedback to FD. Hope they can fix this as it caused me some confusion.
A few images for surface settlements and installations (hubs) are mixed up. When trying to place a surface settlement or hub, there's an image which tells you what you're going to place but someone mixed up a couple between settlements (EDO) and hubs (EDH). These are the ones that are mixed up.
Extraction:
The selected facility is an EDO settlement but the image shows an EDH hub. The below image is what it is mixed up with:
Upon actually clicking into the chosen hub, the image does correct itself:
But it doesn't correct itself on the EDO settlement option.
To be clear: When you go to actually place these, the correct facility is selected. The only issue here is FD messed up the images.
These are the other ones:
Industrial (Medium):
No image at all for this one. So who knows?
Industrial (Large):
Likely this one:
Military (Large):
When you place this, you get this one:
A few images for surface settlements and installations (hubs) are mixed up. When trying to place a surface settlement or hub, there's an image which tells you what you're going to place but someone mixed up a couple between settlements (EDO) and hubs (EDH). These are the ones that are mixed up.
Extraction:
The selected facility is an EDO settlement but the image shows an EDH hub. The below image is what it is mixed up with:
Upon actually clicking into the chosen hub, the image does correct itself:
But it doesn't correct itself on the EDO settlement option.
To be clear: When you go to actually place these, the correct facility is selected. The only issue here is FD messed up the images.
These are the other ones:
Industrial (Medium):
No image at all for this one. So who knows?
Industrial (Large):
Likely this one:
Military (Large):
When you place this, you get this one:
Attachments
Last edited:
(continued as can only post 10 images)
There's a missing image for this one:
Military (Medium)
The rest are all fine.
It's a bit confusing, even to try to explain here. Hopefully, FD will fix these. I tested the large military EDO settlement and it did actually place the EDO settlement. It would just be nice if the images were correct so we could know what we're actually placing.
There's a missing image for this one:
Military (Medium)
The rest are all fine.
It's a bit confusing, even to try to explain here. Hopefully, FD will fix these. I tested the large military EDO settlement and it did actually place the EDO settlement. It would just be nice if the images were correct so we could know what we're actually placing.
TBH I'm OK with point cost increasing to prevent like 20 stations in a system, but it should be incremental not doubling. And tier 2 and tier 3 should be independent, as it sucks to get locked out of tier 3 just because of tier 2.
Is there any explanationas to how it works? Is it just tiers 2+3 doubling in point cost once 2 of em are built? Can t1s still be thrown all over the place?
Adding a few words of feedback for the FDEV Team:
1) the costs (commodities required) to build the first station is adequately balanced (yes it is very challenging but doable)
2) I would welcome a slight decrease in costs required to build another asset in the system (up to a certain threshold) - an incentive to invest in the existing system rather than moving to the next one
3) change the mechanism which demands more construction points after the 2nd port (i.e. as described in cmdr. Mechan video)
4) 16ly colonization radius seems to be adequate - neither decrease nor increase the radius
5) add some visualisation for the ports under construction (especially for the Tier 2 and 3 space stations)
thank you
1) the costs (commodities required) to build the first station is adequately balanced (yes it is very challenging but doable)
2) I would welcome a slight decrease in costs required to build another asset in the system (up to a certain threshold) - an incentive to invest in the existing system rather than moving to the next one
3) change the mechanism which demands more construction points after the 2nd port (i.e. as described in cmdr. Mechan video)
4) 16ly colonization radius seems to be adequate - neither decrease nor increase the radius
5) add some visualisation for the ports under construction (especially for the Tier 2 and 3 space stations)
thank you
i would vote for a range of 20LY, to correspond to the PP reach of a FT system
Very relieved that the cost doubling isn't for 10 buildings.
Not happy with the limitation overall regarding the increase of station cost points. You need 6 points for a Level3 station/port, three Tier1 buildings and then three large settlements that give three tier3 points. So that means at least 6 buildings as a prerequisite. The doubling will lead to a minimum of 12 prerequisite buildings for tier3.
When you compare that to existing in game systems, you have something like Mimurtudji - my neighbouring system - with 4 tier3 ports/stations, one tier2 Coriolis and surface port and 3 tier1 outposts. Even under the current rules without the doubling, this system would need a minimum of 24 buildings for the five tier3 stations alone, plus another three for the Coriolis, totaling 28 prerequisite buildings. It does, however, only have 11 installations and 10 settlements, plus 3 outposts. So the initial systems do not adhere to these rules, even without the doubling. With the doubling Mimurtudji would need to have a best case of 2x6 + 2x12 + 1x5 = 41 settlements, installations and outposts. For 4 tier3s and a Tier2 Coriolis.
That is pretty excessive. And don't forget, the new stations will still need to be built! Which is a hard grind.
Plus: You want to manage the system as well, the economies and the stats like security, development, standard of living, tech level and wealth.
Plus: The only way to get meaningful additional people into your system is to build those surface ports. Which will be a PITA anyway. Resources like an Orbis, but you have to land on a planet.
Not happy about that doubling.
Not happy with the limitation overall regarding the increase of station cost points. You need 6 points for a Level3 station/port, three Tier1 buildings and then three large settlements that give three tier3 points. So that means at least 6 buildings as a prerequisite. The doubling will lead to a minimum of 12 prerequisite buildings for tier3.
When you compare that to existing in game systems, you have something like Mimurtudji - my neighbouring system - with 4 tier3 ports/stations, one tier2 Coriolis and surface port and 3 tier1 outposts. Even under the current rules without the doubling, this system would need a minimum of 24 buildings for the five tier3 stations alone, plus another three for the Coriolis, totaling 28 prerequisite buildings. It does, however, only have 11 installations and 10 settlements, plus 3 outposts. So the initial systems do not adhere to these rules, even without the doubling. With the doubling Mimurtudji would need to have a best case of 2x6 + 2x12 + 1x5 = 41 settlements, installations and outposts. For 4 tier3s and a Tier2 Coriolis.
That is pretty excessive. And don't forget, the new stations will still need to be built! Which is a hard grind.
Plus: You want to manage the system as well, the economies and the stats like security, development, standard of living, tech level and wealth.
Plus: The only way to get meaningful additional people into your system is to build those surface ports. Which will be a PITA anyway. Resources like an Orbis, but you have to land on a planet.
Not happy about that doubling.
We have a bug in for this already. Thanks for highlighting : )
And why should they? The preexisting systems are not colonised by CMDRs. I am sure for whatever rule set Frontier settles on you will find a preexisting system that will break that rule set. That's very close to whataboutism. Those are the rules we have to deal with now, and what came before doesn't really matter. Now, you might disagree with those rules, you might not like them, you might love them, but that's the rules for now. We will see if Frontier caves to the moaning about it.
here ya go, confirmed by fdev themselves.
it should be noted, this is NOWHERE in the codex like they claim it is (because its not originally included, T3 could initially be built for 1 T3 point, then quickly 3 T3 points, then 6 T3 points, now it just infinitely increases after you've done 2 ports of any tier from 2 or 3), they are either gaslighting us or outright lying to us or more likely, doing both.
to all system architects, enjoy building your systems and also enjoy NEVER being able to build a proper system that comes anywhere close to the Core systems of the bubble., especially since this change directly screws us on how we can build population (largely locked behind T3 Orbis and Ocellus and more importantly T3 groundports that are the only real way to do this)
Attachments
Maybe that's exactly what is intended with this rule.
Agreed, at least for the near future. My group actually had a hard time getting a system to start in, and some other groups we have heard from have been blocked entirely with the current distance. I would like to see it increased at least to 20 if not more. To be honest PP 2.0 put some groups in a position of not having an asset with which to colonize from. We were among that group and it caused us to get started a little later than others. By the time we were able to colonize we had only one option to go with. I'm hoping that we will have more options once this system is completed.
Last edited:
this can still happen with T1 outposts, with the amount of commoditties needed for T2 and especially T3 if someone wants to spam them out let them, they would have worked super hard for it, if they dont build other supporting structures those "20" orbis for example wont be as good as they can be but that will be their choice.
theres nothing wrong with being able to build more T3's or T2's at all.
probably, which is a gut punch to those who took the "build your own colonia" to heart when fdev said that, that rule effectively makes that impossible without it being a truly bad place to be in.
Did they really say it that way? Genuine question, not insinuating anything. Wouldn't be the first time though players build grandiose fantasies based on a sentence that was, maybe, not too well thought out before saying it. Okay, I am insinuating
.
Thank you for confirming this, I have the same issue, mostly coming out of the system map. I have a 5700XT as well, thinking of rolling back a few driver versionsAlso with the update a graphical error began to appear, in other games there is nothing like that. (new video driver, rx 5700xt). Sometimes it appears upon landing, disappears when going into cruise.
