What's the installation in orbit around the same body?
Elite Dangerous | System Colonisation Beta Details & Feedback
- Thread starter Paul_Crowther
- Start date
Why not both? Or even more things?
Flexibility with constructions would be nice. All in one we could have the option to 'delete' stuff, losing the commodities we traded in but recieving back the construction points spent on it.
And we could have an option to 'relocate' a station. Could use credits, could be free or expensive, could need a few extra hauls for good measure, whatever frontier decides since in the end they are the developers that can work out what's an appropriate cost, if anything.
We could have a 'repurpose' option instead where you can change the already finished construction into something else at the price of, say, 20% of its commodities. You would only be able to do it between stuff of the same type (tier 1 installations with tier 1, tier 2 with tier 2, hubs with hubs, settlements with same tier settements, etc)
We could have an 'upgrade construction' option where we can jump it up a tier and make it something better. Like you start out with an outpost, then upgrade it to a coriolis and then to an orbis, instead of doing the orbis all at once.
I'd also love it if we could have a button to 'turn on' or 'turn off' a construction having links with markets. What if I just want a security installation to raise security, but I don't want to give the system a military influence? What if I want a few agri settlements to raise standard of living but I don't want agri influence? Etc, you get the idea.
It's a little stress-inducing knowing that one bad thing, one bad placement, one undesirable construction and you can 'brick' your system forever and you can never fix it. I probably spent more time in the colonisation planner spreadsheet than I should. I should be able to fix it up however I want.
I understand some people might say 'but muh realism, you don't own the station you have no right to delete it!' but my counterpoint is: This is a videogame and I'm a player doing a videogame activity for fun. This would just improve it and remove a lot of the headache. I frankly couldn't give a damn about realism or headcanon implications of me deleting an installation I don't want
Demolish previous build (you owe us this, FDevs - we were working blind at the beginning)
Choosing the starting location
Refinery outpost
Choosing the starting location
Refinery outpost
Last edited:
They just might go for it...How would we feel if we didn’t get a delete option but instead we got a deconstruct option where you have to take the materials away load by load?
I can see the devs devilishly considering that idea
...with a Small Landing pad.
Another commander had posted a very good suggestion for colonization missions so that colonisation can be more involving for other commanders. He has nice ideas; linking here as well:
forums.frontier.co.uk
Tie the various mission and scenario systems into colonisation
I posted this elsewhere last night and after waking up, decided it actually wasn't a terrible idea, unlike most I have. The colonisation requirements should be expanded to provide alternative pathways. While I do not necessarily dislike the hauling aspect of colonisation (I try to focus on...
Not sure if it's just me but the Tellus Industrial Hub cannot be placed, it doesn't seem to have a working blueprint (facility placement screen just says "Signal Lost" no matter where I try to deploy it).
If not a removal or perhaps move option, how about and upgrade option so the station turns back into a construction site until we deliver the required materials for the change to other station or base type.
I was informed by support "the closest slot nearest to the body", unless facility and port placements differ, and if they do, it would be helpful for this to be made apparent.
Can the nodes of gas giants (and similar objects with rings) be delineated in parenthesis to clearly distinguish (e.g. Slot 0 Ring A, Slot 0 Ring B, Slot 0 Gas Giant, etc) which ring the starting structure will be placed in or around?
and/or
Can we get the option to choose on the system map which ring for objects to reside in or orbit around?
and/or
Can we get the option to alter or reorient the locations of orbit based facilities, construction sites, or ports, in regards to their localized body?
and/or
Can there be a limit for influence generated from weak links towards port economies that have an innate or inherited (colony) market type(s), and prevent it from being replaced or diminished? (i.e. preventing the initial market from losing its full range of goods, while still allowing additional economies, if it can co-exist).
and/or
Can structures that generate system influence for an economy only effect economies that have the same respective market type?
Placements for gas giants have, to my knowledge, changed between March 17th 2025 (10:49:22 in-game time) and the last few patches, and in each of those notes I could not find any mention or documentation in specific of gas giant(s) or their rings.
Before: B Ring -> A Ring -> Gas Giant
(This was my first Asteroid Base)
But when I placed an installation, it chose the A Ring, not the gas giant to orbit. I wanted to place the Asteroid Base in the Metallic Ring, with the 'Space Bar' installation in the Rocky ring and then a 'Pirate Base' installation around the gas giant itself. This did not go as expected based on previous experiences or the impression from what I was told.
Whereas now: A Ring -> B Ring -> Gas Giant
As opposed to what I interpreted as meaning from support: Gas Giant -> A Ring -> (if applicable and present) B Ring. Which seems to be the case for primary ports selected by the game for colonization?
(The gas giant above has a metal rich ring)
To summarize:
I hope this information helps prevent unnecessary irritation, but perhaps it was obvious to others, it just wasn't to me, as I had some difficulty finding out online the 'true' configuration structures would be given. It's quite convoluted to deliberately choose the variation of an Asteroid Base, because of lacking consistency that would allow the player to effectively know, under the current modus operandi of colonization.
Trial and error is not the ideal or respectful path; these issues could have been identified, simulated, relayed and resolved in isolated development, where no loss would have occurred, considering at the present time, there isn't any remediation in this beta, just finality. More information leads to less, otherwise avoidable, 'mistakes'.
Can the nodes of gas giants (and similar objects with rings) be delineated in parenthesis to clearly distinguish (e.g. Slot 0 Ring A, Slot 0 Ring B, Slot 0 Gas Giant, etc) which ring the starting structure will be placed in or around?
and/or
Can we get the option to choose on the system map which ring for objects to reside in or orbit around?
and/or
Can we get the option to alter or reorient the locations of orbit based facilities, construction sites, or ports, in regards to their localized body?
and/or
Can there be a limit for influence generated from weak links towards port economies that have an innate or inherited (colony) market type(s), and prevent it from being replaced or diminished? (i.e. preventing the initial market from losing its full range of goods, while still allowing additional economies, if it can co-exist).
and/or
Can structures that generate system influence for an economy only effect economies that have the same respective market type?
Placements for gas giants have, to my knowledge, changed between March 17th 2025 (10:49:22 in-game time) and the last few patches, and in each of those notes I could not find any mention or documentation in specific of gas giant(s) or their rings.
Before: B Ring -> A Ring -> Gas Giant
(This was my first Asteroid Base)
But when I placed an installation, it chose the A Ring, not the gas giant to orbit. I wanted to place the Asteroid Base in the Metallic Ring, with the 'Space Bar' installation in the Rocky ring and then a 'Pirate Base' installation around the gas giant itself. This did not go as expected based on previous experiences or the impression from what I was told.
Whereas now: A Ring -> B Ring -> Gas Giant
As opposed to what I interpreted as meaning from support: Gas Giant -> A Ring -> (if applicable and present) B Ring. Which seems to be the case for primary ports selected by the game for colonization?
(The gas giant above has a metal rich ring)
To summarize:
- 0 (outer) -> 1 (inner) - > 2 (planet)
- 0 (inner) -> 1 (outer) -> 2 (planet)
- 2 (planet) -> 1 (inner) -> 0 (outer)
I hope this information helps prevent unnecessary irritation, but perhaps it was obvious to others, it just wasn't to me, as I had some difficulty finding out online the 'true' configuration structures would be given. It's quite convoluted to deliberately choose the variation of an Asteroid Base, because of lacking consistency that would allow the player to effectively know, under the current modus operandi of colonization.
Trial and error is not the ideal or respectful path; these issues could have been identified, simulated, relayed and resolved in isolated development, where no loss would have occurred, considering at the present time, there isn't any remediation in this beta, just finality. More information leads to less, otherwise avoidable, 'mistakes'.
Last edited:
Welcome to Elite Dangerous.
I'm not sure they've ever actually fixed the bug where you place a building in a slot and it takes that under advisement and then places the building where ever it wants to. It's somewhat more visible with rings. Rings are double bugged as building on a ringed world will almost always spawn addition slots as the game randomly assigns stuff to the hidden ring slots that are supposed to be for asteroid bases and leaves the slot open. At the moment just keep slapping down construction sites until you get the ring you want which is even worse than trial and error as your results will vary.
Only if the resulting materials are Scrap, Toxic Waste and Chemical Waste.
Any idea might cause a sudden mess up of my system's stats ? After weeks of bug-free work, my Construction Points are now negative (I should have 0 Tier-3 points at the moment) which is clearly a bug, and my faction influence graph has just taken an abrupt swing, more sudden that should be possible in game.
System : Col 285 Sector AH-B c14-19
System : Col 285 Sector AH-B c14-19
That just looks like the controlling faction finished expansion - check the news at one of the stations. The points I have no idea about without knowing what is in the system or what order you built everything.
Last edited:
True, the leading faction did just go through an expansion, good stuff thank you. That's one explained.
This happened to me after I placed a Tier 2 (Coriolis) station, while having two other unfinished Tier 3 ports (Orbis station and Planetary Port - Hera) in the system. Though I cannot tell you for certain if that's the actual reason. It is possible however, as you might have already seen or attempted, to get back to positive values by constructing and completing relevant facilities that award those points.
Before:
After:
What I'm thinking is: the point doubling (which I initially thought as x2, not +2, the latter being what I've seen in-game) is recalculated erroneously for one or both Tier 3 ports. From what I can tell it took 3 of the Tier 2 points, (when it should've taken the entire 5) and 6 Tier 3 points. (5 - 3 = 2) and (1 - 6 = -5) respectively.
Hope this helps.
Last edited:
That's interesting. I haven't seen the system map from the coloniser's view before. Plus, your screencaps kinda remind me of old PAL consoles with the vertical screen squishing.
It's the native resolution (1680 x 1050) of this old (by today's standards) display/monitor. My apologies if that impacted its legibility. It was my intention for the screenshots to be concise; failing that, my words.
It wasn't a complaint. It was kinda nostalgic since I replaced my UK SNES for a US SNES.