Herewith my initial feedback on the Trailblazers update.
1. Quantity of goods and player time investment required for things that only consume T2 or no constructions points feels about right.
2. Quantity of goods and player time investment required for things that consume T3 construction points is too high. I would argue for somewhere between 50% and 66% of their current costs.
3. For the love of god, tell people how these systems work. To discover on reddit, at 85% construction, that my Orbis station will be a 202kt paperweight because I built it around the star and economies only work at the planetary body level is not a fun experience. At least allow us to connect installations that generate resources to stations that will sell those resources. Being a system architect is a big investment in time and effort, and we should be given enough information to allow us to plan for what we want.
4. Deployment of things when all the required goods are supplied is inconsistent. First station, settlements, installations appear straight away, but others do not. Stations do not always appear in the slot they were chosen for, and folks should be able to choose where their first station is deployed. Deployments should also be cancellable before completion (with the loss of all goods)
5. I like that construction zones on planets have big landing pads - well done for thinking about this ahead of time.
6. I also appreciate the breadth of installations that can be built. The system is complex, nuanced and requires significant planning to make the most of your system. This is a good thing.
7. Build requirements for certain installations are system-wide. Construction points are system-wide. Impacts of building installations appears system-wide. Why are economies not system-wide? If it's to allow different economies on different stations in the same system, then fine, but I would prefer you allow us to connect them individually. Failing that, refer to point 3.
8. The pricing of materials from the construction zone is good, it allows me to fund future expansion, and continue earning a little money as I build.
9. Trailblazer megaships are all well and good, and I like variety, but I will always buy my goods from a station you can park next to - when you're making 500+ stock transfers for a big station, journey time and simplicity counts for a lot.
10. Income from systems should be taxed (not punitively) over a threshold on a system by system basis, not overall. The current level of income feels way too low given the time and effort, but to counter this I would accept a one-time payment for each installation / settlement when you set construction going.
11. I would like to be able to see reports on system installations / settlements and where those goods are being used, and more detail on how the income and score calculation is performed for each system.
12. Fleet carrier jumping - the delays to fleet carrier jump planning need to be further reduced.
13. Naming rights is good, at last I have something else to spend ARX on.
14. Overall the architect system is the one that has gripped me the most. I love it, it scratches the perfect itch for me, but currently is slightly too-high in effort / time terms and too low in reward terms. I have spent money on ARX twice as a thank you in the past month, and you can expect more if you continue to polish / improve the system. Well done.
Integration for future in-game systems:
I would like to propose that player factions should be reintroduced in the coming big squadrons update, and you should be allowed to build stations for your faction. I would like that earnings from these stations should be larger than those from NPC factions, and paid to the player faction but that players should not be paid for the materials delivered, and can instead use faction funds to purchase materials for construction. A single system should be designated as the home system for that player faction (but we should be able to change which system that is, providing we control a station in it)
