Your station was taken over by the federation, that's just how they label their starports.
Elite Dangerous | Trailblazers Update 3.3
- Thread starter Paul_Crowther
- Start date
- Additional fixes for positional errors resulting in fleet carriers and constructions being placed too close to dangerous stars.
I don't think it's that bad - and there's a fair bit of evidence that discounting the system primary station it was doing most of this already - if it works as documented.
- Social/Criminal station owners will open a market with no need to jump through further hoops
- an Outpost Hub (no economic influence) opens everything unconditionally if it exists anywhere in the system
- for planet-influenced outposts the Civilian type has a market by default, so using that instead of the Commercial can also avoid the issue
Compared with the hoops needed to keep those T1s to a single economy type this seems much more straightforward.
Will we ever be able to SEE our tech level, development level etc. specifically represented in game UI? It's a bit frustrating to see specific numbers required to achieve something, but no way to see our specific numbers. All we have to go by right now are the chevrons, and there is conflicting information all over the place as to how to add those up. (linear vs. non-linear etc.) It would be really helpful if when we are in the architect view we could see our current values displayed. That said, the update looks great otherwise.
Yeah, Frontier really needs to be offering some sort of way for CMDRs to request to deconstruct stuff or even have their system reverted back to fresh state because people may have their systems built in such a way at this point that these changes will irreversibly damage their systems with no way to fix it due to running out of slots and no way to free slots back up.
Especially on some of these requiring strong links, if you already used up all the slots on that planet back when strong links weren't required for something, welp, RIP system.
since "Tech level" is essential at this point,
can we please have an in-game summary to review all the stats involved?
also, does the tier2 starport grant itself 35 tech points or grant the entire system 35 tech points?
added point. does security installation count as military installation?? it does almost the same thing and has the same economy factor
can we please have an in-game summary to review all the stats involved?
also, does the tier2 starport grant itself 35 tech points or grant the entire system 35 tech points?
added point. does security installation count as military installation?? it does almost the same thing and has the same economy factor
Last edited:
From what I've seen some of these changes appear to have rolled out already - a couple of T2 stations I helped a friend build did not have shipyards previously and now do (the first one in the system got a shipyard on construction, but then lost it when other things were built). Another T2 that was the only construction in it's system had a shipyard and outfitting but previously didn't sell any ships or modules, and now has a (very) basic selection.
The Outpost Hub doesn't have any economic influence itself, but it requires a space farm which does. Admittedly agriculture is one of the less instrusive economies, but it still has some negative effects.
And why would a civilian outpost be better than a commercial? They will still both have commodity markets by default.
I'm hoping that the omission of T1 planetary ports in the commodities market section is an oversight and they will keep their markets (maybe they're being included as settlements?). Other than that I agree that there are some good points here, and some much needed clarity.
Good point.
They do - I misread "criminal" as "commercial" there.
I was super confused by the formatting at the start but I think now I'm getting it, and these changes are looking better and better. I'm taking a wild guess in that they forgot to put the T1 Planetary ports in the commodity market section because they assumed they were Tier 2. Just FYI those 'planetary outposts' (Ports) with Large landing pads and a similar build cost in commodities to a Coriolis are actually Tier 1, while the big ones are Tier 3.
By the way, are there any plans to add more buildable assets in the future? Some economies seem a little under-appreciated. The Terraforming economy for example is one that, in the bubble, tends to give a lot of great 50 million credit trade/mining missions. I was kind of excited to build a project like that to generate some money-making missions in our 'squadron bubble', but it turns out there are no terraforming-economy related assets to give any strong or weak links to such a station.
It's something that would also actually make terraforming candidate planets some extra value in seeking out systems to build on.
By the way, are there any plans to add more buildable assets in the future? Some economies seem a little under-appreciated. The Terraforming economy for example is one that, in the bubble, tends to give a lot of great 50 million credit trade/mining missions. I was kind of excited to build a project like that to generate some money-making missions in our 'squadron bubble', but it turns out there are no terraforming-economy related assets to give any strong or weak links to such a station.
It's something that would also actually make terraforming candidate planets some extra value in seeking out systems to build on.
... if Frontier had tied "Terraforming" to actual terraformable planets. Instead they went a roundabout way of tossing it onto biological signals which isn't even accurate in a lot of cases. Nobody's going to terraform an ice world or a high metal content/rocky world outside the human habitable zone. (Unless they have a different idea of what the term means all of a sudden, despite the economy consuming/importing primarily commodities related to making a planet habitable, or their machinery, as I recall)
And I don't think I see it listed as being changed in this patch's notes.
Well , I 'd suggest putting pirate outposts to the list as well; since it would be easier to procure a weapon from a shady dealer, rather than getting it from a military base or its factory.
A few questions below:
- will there be a difference between civilian and commerical outposts, or is there a bug in stats ? A commercial outpost has same stats than the other one plus happiness. There is no point in building a civilan outpost.
- will there be a use for outpost hub and colony hubs?
- can you please remove or reduce the high-tech influence of the relay stations? It is a cheaper alternative to have high tech items in the system, where other high tech buildings have a higher cost than it. I mean we shouldnt be getting hundreds of items in all system markets because of just 1 relay station; which is actually a prerequisite for a security station
Which stats are you looking at?
A commercial outpost gives 3 wealth and 5 standard of living. A civilian outpost gives 1 wealth, 2 standard of living and 1 development level. Neither of them affect happiness as that is related to BGS states.
Can we quit pretending that commanders are non-sentient autonomous algorithms, please? The way Trailblazers has been designed the entire way is as if it's alpha development of Stellar Forge, in preparation for releasing Elite: Dangerous and populating an entire galaxy with stations and services. How every property propagates is based on an intricate network of value checks, so that billions of star systems could receive billions of stations and their properties, features and markets could emerge autonomously out of the existing procedural values with zero human interference.
The thing is, it's ONLY based on those properties. As if at no point real human players are ever expected to touch anything. There is no interface. There are no options. You put a station somewhere, and its inhabitants will do whatever they please based on some esoteric ritual that you have no say in for no reason. Why doesn't the architect get to choose those things? Why can't the architect walk in and say: "NO. STOP. YOU DON'T GET TO WASTE LITERALLY ALL OF THE MATERIALS THAT I SPECIFICALLY COMMISSIONED THIS STATION TO MANUFACTURE IN ORDER TO FUND YOUR SIDE PROJECT OF SLAPPING TOGETHER SOMETHING THAT I NEVER ASKED. PUT DOWN MY SEMICONDUCTORS, TAKE YOUR CROP HARVESTERS AND SIT IN THE CORNER THINKING ABOUT WHAT YOU DID." ? My giant planetary port refinery shouldn't be sacrificing 9 million tons of ceramic composites to volcanoes without my permission. Just because a planetary property can support an additional market influence shouldn't mean that the architect shouldn't get to choose, especially when that tiny side market consumes literally all of the commodities that the station manufactures to sustain itself.
TL;DR: Please add an interface that allows the architect to opt out of specific features that interfere with the basic properties of a station. If a planet's features are capable of altering a station's market, I should have the choice to not engage with them.
The thing is, it's ONLY based on those properties. As if at no point real human players are ever expected to touch anything. There is no interface. There are no options. You put a station somewhere, and its inhabitants will do whatever they please based on some esoteric ritual that you have no say in for no reason. Why doesn't the architect get to choose those things? Why can't the architect walk in and say: "NO. STOP. YOU DON'T GET TO WASTE LITERALLY ALL OF THE MATERIALS THAT I SPECIFICALLY COMMISSIONED THIS STATION TO MANUFACTURE IN ORDER TO FUND YOUR SIDE PROJECT OF SLAPPING TOGETHER SOMETHING THAT I NEVER ASKED. PUT DOWN MY SEMICONDUCTORS, TAKE YOUR CROP HARVESTERS AND SIT IN THE CORNER THINKING ABOUT WHAT YOU DID." ? My giant planetary port refinery shouldn't be sacrificing 9 million tons of ceramic composites to volcanoes without my permission. Just because a planetary property can support an additional market influence shouldn't mean that the architect shouldn't get to choose, especially when that tiny side market consumes literally all of the commodities that the station manufactures to sustain itself.
TL;DR: Please add an interface that allows the architect to opt out of specific features that interfere with the basic properties of a station. If a planet's features are capable of altering a station's market, I should have the choice to not engage with them.
Technically they've just given it one to activate markets (providing landable planets) in the military, pirate and high tech outposts (to be clarified or determined if that includes planetary T1 outposts for the HT port). The colony/civilian hub, I guess you'd build it for its (not very good) stat bonuses at a lower security penalty? Dunno. /Edit - the outpost hub is actually the one with the lesser security penalty so the colony hub is actually even worse than first thought.
Knowing this patch, it makes me glad I didn't yet spend a significant (or any) time developing a high tech or military system. And haven't built a pirate outpost, so, yeah.
Last edited:
My first port was a Military Outpost. It has a commodity market, which has been there since I first built it. There's nothing else in the system or at that body that will give the Military Outpost a commodity market, so I expect that market will be removed with this patch. Since that outpost is orbiting a body with only one orbital slot, I'll have to build a Military outpost elsewhere in the system and put a Comm Station next to it to get that market back.
I have an idea for how this could be done. See this thread for more details.
Yes - one big change does appear to be that previously primary ports always got a commodity market, and now they won't.
That, I certainly don't think is a good idea.
(Or at least, it's a big advantage to those of us colonising with Social/Criminal factions who will always get markets on all our stations no matter what)
Criminal isn't getting it's market do you mean something else?
Or build an outpost hub somewhere in the system. Of course, that requires a space farm somewhere.