Check the grocery prices in Point Barrow, Alaska.
Elite Dangerous | System Colonisation Beta Details & Feedback
- Thread starter Paul_Crowther
- Start date
It must affect some systems and not others, I have had no trouble landing on a friend's carrier in my system-architect system.
I have a sneaking suspicion it is systems that had facility placement issues[1], that got fixed with Update 3.
I suspect it is related either to the original problem or the fix that was implemented.
[1] Systems with asteroid field. Facilities got placed in wrong positions, additional slots magically appeared, and completed stations got mashed together.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nope, my suspicion is wrong. I just brought my Alt's Fleet Carrier into another very basic system belonging to my main cmdr. My main cmdr can't land on it. Disconnect with Orange Sidewinder.
My alt must park the fleet carrier in a neighboring system to be useful.
Last edited:
I have a sneaking suspicion it is systems that had facility placement issues[1], that got fixed with Update 3.
I suspect it is related either to the original problem or the fix that was implemented.
[1] Systems with asteroid field. Facilities got placed in wrong positions, additional slots magically appeared, and completed stations got mashed together.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nope, my suspicion is wrong. I just brought my Alt's Fleet Carrier into another very basic system belonging to my main cmdr. My main cmdr can't land on it. Disconnect with Orange Sidewinder.
I've fallen foul of this too - very frustrating
Is the fact that having biologicals on a planet makes it give terraforming economy influence, but actually being terraformable doesn't, intentional?
As it stands you can have a terraforming economy in a system that has no terraformables, or no terraforming economy possible in a system that does have terraformables.
It seems like these two influence sets are the wrong way round.
As it stands you can have a terraforming economy in a system that has no terraformables, or no terraforming economy possible in a system that does have terraformables.
It seems like these two influence sets are the wrong way round.
Agreed (although I missed the bit about bio signals giving a terraforming boost). I have just completed a T1 surface port on a rocky body with bio signals (the body is below the primary port). There are no terraformables in the system, but I have strong links for refinery, agri and terraforming. The port does not produce polymers or semiconductors, as these are eaten by the TF influence.
I have 2 more surface slots on this body, so I could build 2 refinery hubs to increase the refinery influence, but the increased production may result in increased demand.
I have some 1 slot rocky bodies elsewhere in the system, but I am still going to get weak links from the rest of the system.
But it may be a more honest portrayal of supply vs demand and distance from sources. I routinely pay more for things in Del Rio, TX, than I do in San Antonio. The price differences just aren't enough to make me stupid enough to drive to San Antonio.
Yesterday I have delivered cargo to one of construction sites (Security Station) which was listed as illegal in system where I am the architect. I got scanned on orbital construction site and then graciously given a galaxy-wide fine of around 54k credits for delivering cargo needed in construction. My questions are:
1. Is it working as intended?
2. Should be system architect exempted from fines while delivering required components to construction sites which are considered illegal there?
1. Is it working as intended?
2. Should be system architect exempted from fines while delivering required components to construction sites which are considered illegal there?
Battle Weapons & Combat Stabilizers, ha? You naughty boy!
Please do not ruin Colonia, it's the perfect escape from the bubble with a character of it's own.
In the sense of "all the individual rules are intended", I think that yes, this is working exactly as designed. It's not called the "Crime and Fun Gameplay" system, after all.
Given that they've moved the construction sites over to a sole-purpose virtual faction, changing that faction's government type to one which doesn't make any of the construction goods illegal would make sense, though!
Silent running and a heat sink should see you right, unless you autodock and get caught up in the construction structure for too long. It does seem funny that we build security installations but get fined for improving the security of our systems (if caught.)
I’m just finishing one myself and had to ‘smuggle’ the battle weapons and combat stabilisers in, thankfully one run gets it done.
No problem in an anarchy system - but also pointless building security structures (they don't do anything there) unless intending to flip the government type later.
Alright, i feel like its about time i updated my thoughts and feelings about colonisation a few months in...
Update 3: Overall good improvement over the previous economy influence model.... It however has some flaws, bugs (like recently just built refhubs apparently turning an economy to 100% colony), however those seemingly are getting fixed...
The more lasting, and harder to fix issue from that update is the imbalance between supply and demand of commodities.
Supply vs Demand: Currently, a small stray weak link influence (5% eco influence) or two can easily strip supply of some commodities from other strong economies, ive got a 120% refinery with no insulated membrane supply due to pre-update scientific outpost to claim system and a medium industrial settlement to farm t2 points and juice system dev.
While for future developments i can plan to avoid stray weak links, it does add some rather restricting limitation in system planning, particularly opressive under the current lack of building variety. For example, even if in the previous system i built more refhubs to overpower the current demand, i would still be pretty low in supply, and locked out of building security installations to compensate the security malus from refhubs and to bring the system into highsec....
Current supply and demand was balanced for trade, but in colonies it really ought to make more sense, some stray constructions shouldn't nuke the supply of a dedicated refinery, so demands really ought to be toned down on economies....
I understand devs dont want to have "rainbow" systems, capable of holding a serviceable economy of each type capable of supplying everything in a single system (which IMHO, is not a problem due to the point scaling of t2/3s point cost, making more than 2 economies extremely hauling intensive, more than they already are).
So if they dont want to rebalance supply vs demand, another fix would be either an option to turn off weak links from some buildings meant to be point/stat fodder for the system, or to add more building variety, so that we can get stats/points without economy influences we may not want.
Innate planet influence, while still not making ELW the precious jewels of life in the galaxy they should be, atleast keep them from being poop factories, atleast an ok quick fix.
Building stats, while not quite a rich and useful architect UI, is a step in the right direction.
Those points aside, my previous feedback remain largely relevant: Colonisation feels sorta unrewarding, systems lack identity....
But more relevant than ever ITS STILL ALL JUST HAULING.
And this increasingly vexes me, since they refuse to acknowledge it on devstreams, and instead celebrate the larger cargo hold theyre going sell (for $$$)....
This is extremely worrying to me.
Yes, i understand the devs have a right to monetize their game, im not going to bash station customization and paintjobs (even if warframe has taught me the customization system could be way better). I am glad the game is getting new ships/content... I have hooned in my cobra mk5, zipped around in a mandalay....
However, they made colonisation a feature that can only be engaged with by hauling, putting in hours of A->B->A hauling back and forth mind-numbingly, the only reprieve being a larger cargo hold and an FC to reduce the tedious hours of hauling for a construction. Rather than flesh it out, allow to contribute towards the construction with different activities, even if conditional on the environment (and they are capable, just look at PP2 or BGS), they would rather sell a bigger cargo hold.
This, is selling a bandaid to a problem they created.
Is this the direction the monetization and development of the game is going to continue? People are celebrating the panther clipper, and again, while more ships are good, are we certain this is the direction we want FDEV to take? For them to create awful grinds and sell bandaids? Did the mandalay's and cobra mk5s not sell well enough? Make no mistake, im not bashing the panther clipper, if it were releasing under different circumstances id be glad to have an SCO capable large ship, but we are getting into rather scummy dev practices....
Last edited:
It would be nice to get comm message like this:
"Commander, scan revealed illegal cargo on board. However those are ordered by authorities of the system therefore there will be no fine unless You get scanned outside of this construction site"
The funny thing is, stronghold carrier security already turn a blind eye if they happen to scan you while carrying contraband. Assuming you're pledged to their Power of course.
So the mechanic is already there
Doesn't sound like a problem to me, but if it shouldn't be just hauling...
Construction puzzle minigame. Waste commodities if you fail, meaning even more hauling! They should not insult us, and the puzzle should actually be difficult.
Given that we have loads of unused odyssey materials (specifically including building schematics) and a cutter tool that could easily have a secondary welder function, you'd think there would be some sort of on-foot activity involved when building an odyssey settlement. Nope, just 100% hauling. We don't even need to power-up the settlement when it's done.
Regarding this from the patch notes - it would be nice if Brewer Corporation no longer considered battle weapons and combat stabilisers (or indeed any other commodities I may have forgotten that are required for any types of construction sites) to be illegal goods.