The problem is - we don't know how it's intended to work. And you keep silence even for simple question - whether construction cost increase after building a few stations is a bug or a feature? And if it's a feature - what was the intention, the purpose of this cost increase? And then we can report it as a bug, or discuss whether there is a better way to achieve the same goal.
Elite Dangerous | System Colonisation Beta Details & Feedback
- Thread starter Paul_Crowther
- Start date
I posted in suggestions but i probably should have posted it here because this is the beta feedback area but I thought it would be a cool idea if you could designate system architect status to your squadron instead of yourself.
I think that would encourage more cooperation for system building instead of just having individuals getting burned out hauling for their own system over and over. Many hands make light work and all that.
I wouldn't mind splitting my weekly income with the people who helped me build my colony.
I think that would encourage more cooperation for system building instead of just having individuals getting burned out hauling for their own system over and over. Many hands make light work and all that.
I wouldn't mind splitting my weekly income with the people who helped me build my colony.
Scaling tier construction points
I actually think that the way the points increase is okay. However, only if there is in fact other functionality behind it.
To my mind, the construction points are a proxy for system development. They are an artificial way of ensuring that commanders do not just simply build tier 3 ports and settlements ONLY.
Parsing the game into the real world for a second, if a corporation or group of independent commanders decided to pre purchase all the materials required to build all these tier 3 settlements etc, they could do it, but if no one lives there and uses them, they would fall into disrepair.
I feel like the whole construction point debacle only exists because the feature lacks that depth.
I would love to have more clarity on the long term implications of colony population growth. In my mind, it should be fine to build all of these faciilities unmitigated. If people are willing to sink the time into it, why not. But those facilities should absolutely not simply 'turn on' at the weekly tick and then be 'fully operational'. They should have other, logical prereqs.
Kind of like province development in games like EU4/CK3. Sure, you CAN build a university in this desert tile with no people living there, but it would be insane to do so and a massive waste of resources.
To me, this would make more sense in colonisation than the currently developed approach.
Or a hybrid of the 2. So, over time, as the population and development of a system increases, the construction point cost should also decrease. I see it like an inverse multiplier. As pop/dev increase, the construction point multiplier should decrease.
Yes, on day one, to build multiple tier 3 ports is insane. But in 3 years time, when the system has 2m people living in it? Why should that cost as many construction points as a brand new system freshly colonised..
I actually think that the way the points increase is okay. However, only if there is in fact other functionality behind it.
To my mind, the construction points are a proxy for system development. They are an artificial way of ensuring that commanders do not just simply build tier 3 ports and settlements ONLY.
Parsing the game into the real world for a second, if a corporation or group of independent commanders decided to pre purchase all the materials required to build all these tier 3 settlements etc, they could do it, but if no one lives there and uses them, they would fall into disrepair.
I feel like the whole construction point debacle only exists because the feature lacks that depth.
I would love to have more clarity on the long term implications of colony population growth. In my mind, it should be fine to build all of these faciilities unmitigated. If people are willing to sink the time into it, why not. But those facilities should absolutely not simply 'turn on' at the weekly tick and then be 'fully operational'. They should have other, logical prereqs.
Kind of like province development in games like EU4/CK3. Sure, you CAN build a university in this desert tile with no people living there, but it would be insane to do so and a massive waste of resources.
To me, this would make more sense in colonisation than the currently developed approach.
Or a hybrid of the 2. So, over time, as the population and development of a system increases, the construction point cost should also decrease. I see it like an inverse multiplier. As pop/dev increase, the construction point multiplier should decrease.
Yes, on day one, to build multiple tier 3 ports is insane. But in 3 years time, when the system has 2m people living in it? Why should that cost as many construction points as a brand new system freshly colonised..
As much as I think the colonization mechanics are horribly done, but hey, I at least appreciate that you've finally started talking to the community and say such things directly, rather than staying silent for months/years like before.
So only groups of players are allowed to power grab and players who don’t play in some form of group are effectively penalised.
It might be easy to implement but it would be difficult to justify.
^^ THAT ^^ I am 100% in agreement with you - that would be a logical setup!
And in that context also the pre-requisitions of some building types make sense at least. Currently it hovers a little in the air "it is as it is...."
edit: from same logic it should be a requirement to start with Outpost only
It's a feature.
There is no link to bug report ticket, not anything official. And the "answer" refers "tutorial" in which this "feature" is not found either. And, pardon me, you are not the officia source of information as well.
Where is this feedback being collected? Who do we, collectively, tell that we are unhappy or happy with something so that changes can be made? Yes, there's this forum, but that doesn't make anything clear and concise. It all becomes a jumble of everyone's opinions, and some will become lost in the hundreds or more posts. There needs to be an area to submit a form such as this:
These can then be collected and consolidated to see what the player base is most concerned with, other than things that are broken or not working correctly, such as the required materials being too much or too little, building point requirements being too much or too little, etc. We know y'all are only human, but there has to be two-way communication. There needs to be at least a perception of, hey they care about the individual. The issue tracker and all is great, but we need a way, that is visible to the community, to let you all know what we like and dislike as well as telling you about things that are broken. Hopefully, the team isn't too stressed out. Y'all have a great day.
P.S. an actual explanation of how everything is intended to work would be great. The codex is woefully lacking.
Last edited:
Cap population? Ho much an Orbis station will add to population? 100k peoples. You'll need 10 Orbis stations to get only 1 mln. Compared to systems with billions humans. What you want to cap here?
I agree. It would be even better to transfer maximum amount allowed of certain commodity while holding shift key (both ways).
There is also another solution which would be to add option to use FC cargo space on market interface. That would eliminate many freight runs necessary to unload/load cargo from FC- personally I think such ability would be a great boon in colonization process and fleet carrier could serve as transporation hub in system undegoing colonization- transportation fees could be simply added to weekly upkeep.
My personal preference is to move bulk quantities of materials like steel, titanium, CMM Composites etc. which are above T8 cargo limit through fleet carrier, while delivering smaller amounts through normal cargo runs.
We shouldn't cap populations, places with habitable planets should absolutely be desirable to make big pop hubs eventually whenever that gets patched in, even if there should be a whole process of terraforming planets and attracting new populations to boost the local economy.
Perhaps we could have a mix of maximum large structures that get raised as the population of a system is developed.
Perhaps we could have a mix of maximum large structures that get raised as the population of a system is developed.
Ability to upgrade stations/settlements will allow population/tech level grow, without the need to build new stations.
I'm worried this will lead to us being forced to build small settlements in order to go into M>L.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
given its a long term feature i would have no trouble with that at all..... Also given the size of stations i do not think they should reduce the required amounts either....... that said tho npcs to help out would be a welcome addition.
It would deffinitely be long term with that much hauling lol
I feel like this would be a lot nicer when it comes to progression however. I would however have a seperate Landing pad available for when you're upgrading your Settlement/Installation/etc, that is always a Large Pad. Therefore it wont be biting people in the rear.