indeed, im finish up my last primary port and will drop all colonisation effort until further information or communication has been given. kinda pointless to have them go ahead and wreck all the effort in existing system without a single word
Elite Dangerous | System Colonisation Beta Details & Feedback
- Thread starter Paul_Crowther
- Start date
Yes, please! And please make the commodity filters I select in my carriers inventory PERMANENT, until I'm actively chanching them again. It's really a pain, to see almost every commodity listed in the start screen with "0" availability and the need to scroll endless lists of goods without stock to find out what I was searching, until I go to "Filters => Clear all Filters => Show only goods with stock" to reduce the view to just things I really have in stock on my carrier.
Lucky settlement you found
My Research Bio T2 L Settlement I finished almost 2 weeks ago does have no goods to sell at all. Beside that fact, that it has no shipyard and no universal cartographics, as well
It's just a joke to me right now.
Frontier didn't announce the change - we don't even know yet if it was an intentional one! - but the flood of reports since Wednesday make clear that something has been altered.
There are sufficiently different reports to make clear that we don't yet know exactly what the rules are, but the following can be said fairly confidently:
- planets and other bodies now give their own very strong economic influence (equivalent to 2-5 constructions in one or two types of influence)
- this influence will apply the next time you build something on/around that body
- there is no way to find out what the influence will be in advance
- there seems to be a correlation between body type and the economic influence it gives, but the rules for this haven't been worked out fully yet
It makes sense to have an economy based on the raw materials of your planet. The present state may be what was supposed to exist from the beginning, but was too buggy and just now getting fixed... or they might just be throwing spaghetti at the wall.
naaah - the Spagetti are in the code already - they can´t be stuck to the wall....
It does. I think proximity to resources is, in the vastness of space, unarguably an important factor in determining economy.
However, the original influence mechanic:
was very workable (once understood) excepting the single problem that unchangeable algorithmic primary port placement could make some choices of primary port untenable (like an orbis orbiting a single-slotted water world, for example) because of the impossibility of creating a useful market economy for them.
Clearly, the new influence mechanics were designed to address this:
However, though previously untenable (new) primary ports will now be less so, many other facilities are adversely affected and, what is worse, the potential flexibility for the architect to design system economies is badly impacted by the change.
A better approach (imho) would be to keep the planetary influence, but either severely weaken or eliminate it entirely where other influences from the original mechanic exist (or, even better, where they potentially exist), so that the advantages of both original and current mechanics are retained, but little or none of their disadvantages.
It makes sense in isolation, and has some neat touches - but it completely goes against other bits of the system design. The rest of the build dependencies, etc. seems to strongly encourage building mixed systems with installations, hubs, settlements, etc. to tune body economies to what you want.
Now that the planet itself provides influence equivalent to 2-5 other constructions, there's almost no point in doing any of that - just pretend it's 2015 again and just add orbital outposts and surface ports to whatever planet has the right economy, and ignore all the smaller stuff.
Having something like 0.5 economic influence come from the planet would be thematic (if documented...) and certainly encourage systems down certain routes based on their planetary set - but could largely be overridden by building deliberate facilities if you really wanted something else. But at up to 2.15 influence and apparently suppressing the effectiveness of hubs on top of that, it's just too overdone to fit with the rest of their design.
(I'm still 50:50 on whether this was an intentional change or something they were trying out in a development build - with deliberately excessive levels for testing, perhaps - that accidentally got deployed to production by mistake, and that's why they haven't told us anything yet)
In which case you would have expected them to have had that in the documentation - preferably with highlights when you select a planet saying what it will lean towards. I don't recall anything in there even hinting at planet types being important.
I also don't think their choices make a lot of sense - metals come from refineries, yet refineries at the moment have to be built on Rocky planets, not High Metal Content ones.
This feels more like them attempting to fix the 'I built a Coriolis around an ELW and it produces nothing' complaints, and forgetting an 'is_landable=False' restriction when looking at the planet.
Now I just need to try and finish this Coriolis around a rocky planet before they change the rules again
yep - especially with Refinery beeing from Rockys - how to support an Ocellus? If you are lucky a rocky has 3 slots....Now I just need to try and finish this Coriolis around a rocky planet before they change the rules again
Yeah - found a 4 slot rocky moon, but would be interested if people are finding any 6+ Rocky planets
I see alot of people here and on reddit have no idea how things work,and will never do.
This info has to be in the UI. When you build a coriolis, it should say what you gonna get when you build the station.
When in architect mode you should see the "planet pressure economy" listed.
Hiding this info just makes uninformed people mad.
This info has to be in the UI. When you build a coriolis, it should say what you gonna get when you build the station.
When in architect mode you should see the "planet pressure economy" listed.
Hiding this info just makes uninformed people mad.
I am lucky to have a 5Slot one, three systems further out in my chain - will become a Depot-System, also has a 6Slot HMC which will support Industry (I don´t mind the extraction influence) and Hightec will be by Outpost....
Last edited:
I built my first outpost. There are plenty of places to build stations and ports in my system, if I'm not interested in money (passive income) there's no point in me building here anymore? Will this system stay with one outpost forever?In which case you would have expected them to have had that in the documentation - preferably with highlights when you select a planet saying what it will lean towards. I don't recall anything in there even hinting at planet types being important.
I also don't think their choices make a lot of sense - metals come from refineries, yet refineries at the moment have to be built on Rocky planets, not High Metal Content ones.
This feels more like them attempting to fix the 'I built a Coriolis around an ELW and it produces nothing' complaints, and forgetting an 'is_landable=False' restriction when looking at the planet.
Now I just need to try and finish this Coriolis around a rocky planet before they change the rules again
If you have completed the initial construction, and do not add anything else, the system will stay like that forever, yes.
So far as I can tell "rocky" is "HMC, but a moon" - I don't recall ever seeing a rocky planet of any size.
Given a big enough thing for it to be a moon of, you might be able to get a 6+, of course.
well, the Icons in Sysmap are different though (HMCs got that ingots, Rockies just an empty Body) ?
Also they only got half of the Metal-content (roughly)
Yes - the game certainly treats them as different types, but part of that difference seems to be "you never get a rocky body directly orbiting a top-level star"
There's some overlap, though - Rocky bodies go up to about 30% metal (very rarely higher) whereas HMCs can be as low as 25% (and very rarely much lower)
Maybe it is not the change itself, just a bug, even visual bug, and it was just before the weekend....
And... a lot of players want to have economy influence with more range than just local body. So everything will change again and create a lot of mess in existing systems.
Maybe Frontier started to implement something, and this is just sie effect for a while, and ppl are like cray with that, no patience at all, and even some of Frontier Partners acts like they want to do revolution and hated the game, because of some unexpected situation in BETA state of one feature.I feel sometime like I just need a popcorn more than explanation
And.... I've read a lot of comments, how 40.000 systems are bricked, and now you say it is just for new builds... It is like communication skills needs to be improvement on both sides
I really hope Frontier will not sink in all that unnecessary comments, and really will get the point what is the real problem here.
Last edited:
the real problem is FDev´s refusal to admit that with that pre-determined location of primary port they made a massive mistake. If that wouldn´t be, the whole mess would not have been necessary.....
Did they refuse or they did just not say anything YET...
It is Sunday
It is just a game
It is beta fature with a lot of problems
They can fix it the same way as they implemented (if even they did it and it is not just a state between some other changes they are working on, and noone from Frontier probabley even thought about that huuge insane reaction here)
So guys... relax...