Elite Dangerous | Trailblazers Update 3 | Now Live!
- Thread starter Phil W
- Start date
In my slowly and lonely developing system, changes are as expected so far:
Original outpost (Colony), Ice, 2x extraction (M) on the planet:
"StationEconomies":[ { "Name":"$economy_Industrial;", "Proportion":1.400000 }, { "Name":"$economy_Extraction;", "Proportion":1.200000 }, { "Name":"$economy_Military;", "Proportion":0.050000 }, { "Name":"$economy_Refinery;", "Proportion":0.050000 }, { "Name":"$economy_HighTech;", "Proportion":0.050000 } ]
Coriolis (Colony), still shows "under construction", but works (not rotating), shipyard present, HMC, 1x Refinery hub on the planet:
"StationEconomies":[ { "Name":"$economy_Extraction;", "Proportion":1.500000 }, { "Name":"$economy_Refinery;", "Proportion":1.200000 }, { "Name":"$economy_Military;", "Proportion":0.050000 }, { "Name":"$economy_HighTech;", "Proportion":0.050000 } ]
There are some relay/security which produce HighTech and Millitary
No waterworld in this system, so population is "normal". Available amounts of commodities are reasonable (including several k of metals, the same for most industrial).
So, for me:
Those with "500%" influence... better look into Journal.
PS. I can also confirm systems with waterworld have ridiculous population boost.
Original outpost (Colony), Ice, 2x extraction (M) on the planet:
"StationEconomies":[ { "Name":"$economy_Industrial;", "Proportion":1.400000 }, { "Name":"$economy_Extraction;", "Proportion":1.200000 }, { "Name":"$economy_Military;", "Proportion":0.050000 }, { "Name":"$economy_Refinery;", "Proportion":0.050000 }, { "Name":"$economy_HighTech;", "Proportion":0.050000 } ]
Coriolis (Colony), still shows "under construction", but works (not rotating), shipyard present, HMC, 1x Refinery hub on the planet:
"StationEconomies":[ { "Name":"$economy_Extraction;", "Proportion":1.500000 }, { "Name":"$economy_Refinery;", "Proportion":1.200000 }, { "Name":"$economy_Military;", "Proportion":0.050000 }, { "Name":"$economy_HighTech;", "Proportion":0.050000 } ]
There are some relay/security which produce HighTech and Millitary
No waterworld in this system, so population is "normal". Available amounts of commodities are reasonable (including several k of metals, the same for most industrial).
So, for me:
- auto industrial e of the first station does not influence the second station
- auto extraction e of the second station does not influence the first station
- auto planet e has factor 1.4
- strong M facility link has factor 0.6
- strong hub link has factor 1.2
- weak links from M (and alike) facilities have factor 0.05
Those with "500%" influence... better look into Journal.
PS. I can also confirm systems with waterworld have ridiculous population boost.
Now that I kinda understand the economy I will be abandoning 2 of my 3 systems and just concentrating my efforts on the one with the most potential for a strong economy. I don’t want to waste my time. It’s not even worth it for me to raise the tech level on my first system so my big port can get a shipyard. It would be nice to indicate my two systems as available (free or for sale) or my ports and installation removed and it becomes as it was before I claimed it.
That is quite interesting...
Two similar systems, similar facilities and differents economy, weak links, commodity ans shipyard.
My Coriolis lost all weak links after second strong link, my friend Coriolis with identical strong links still has weak links
Two similar systems, similar facilities and differents economy, weak links, commodity ans shipyard.
My Coriolis lost all weak links after second strong link, my friend Coriolis with identical strong links still has weak links
I might be nitpicking, but doesn't Corsair also have lower boost speed compared to other counterparts like Clipper that is heavier and has smaller thrusters? Is there some reason behind it?
I have a system where I was concentrating on High Tech. Starting outpost selected an non-landable body (glad I didn't put a Coriolis down,) added one military installation on another planet to boost security, and have a couple of "facilities" (which still show up as under construction) for t2 points.
I am in the process of completing a Coriolis above the "main" planet with 3/4 installations - 1 medium port (HT,) 1 bio pharma (HT) and a small agriculture to boost numbers.
Thanks to this latest update, system population before the Coriolis is finished is 23 million, the starting outpost has gone pretty nuts in terms of goods. The links make it pretty clear the Coriolis will go High Tech, I just have no idea if it will be adequate to make it have a shipyard from the off.
From my PoV there seems much less guesswork now, so that's a major plus, and the stutters are history, which is +++.
I am in the process of completing a Coriolis above the "main" planet with 3/4 installations - 1 medium port (HT,) 1 bio pharma (HT) and a small agriculture to boost numbers.
Thanks to this latest update, system population before the Coriolis is finished is 23 million, the starting outpost has gone pretty nuts in terms of goods. The links make it pretty clear the Coriolis will go High Tech, I just have no idea if it will be adequate to make it have a shipyard from the off.
From my PoV there seems much less guesswork now, so that's a major plus, and the stutters are history, which is +++.
I have a lot of facilities, but no weak link at all, only three strong links from two orbital facilities (agri and extraction) and planetary ref hub
When I had only ref hub I had weak links from high-tech instalation for an example (and 26 ships in shipyard, high-tech commodities etc.)
After I build extraction instalation weak links dissapeared and everything connected to high tech too (no commodities and ships decreaset to 19)
Any ideas? (HIP 78345)
When I had only ref hub I had weak links from high-tech instalation for an example (and 26 ships in shipyard, high-tech commodities etc.)
After I build extraction instalation weak links dissapeared and everything connected to high tech too (no commodities and ships decreaset to 19)
Any ideas? (HIP 78345)
Haven't read through the entire thread so this has probably already been answered. All my stored ships are now in a station without a shipyard. I imagine the only way to get them is take my one and only active ship to another shipyard and transfer the others over.
Do I really have to do this or is there some other solution I'm overlooking?
(IMHO this is a really stupid result of the update)
LP
Do I really have to do this or is there some other solution I'm overlooking?
(IMHO this is a really stupid result of the update)
LP
Would have been nice to know this before creating my first agri settlement, two weeks ago. Now I'm stuck with a zero production farm.
So let me begin with the stated goal of the update from its announcement, which is to "allow significantly more flexibility in building out systems to create any desired economy, and to significantly boost the economic output of colonised systems."
The second part has definitely been accomplished (arguably to an absurdly high degree, in many cases... but I won't split hairs over that).
For the first part, however - the new economic system, as implemented yesterday, achieves precisely the opposite of its stated goal to allow more flexibility to create any desired economy.
Let's take a look at example 1:
You can see the largest two economic influences in this station are Extraction (500%) and Industrial (225%), for a total of 725% economic pressure.
There are zero extraction and industrial facilities on this planetary body. In fact, there are zero extraction facilities in the entire system. And yet, the economy of this station is entirely dominated by these economies that have no facilities, no workers, and no infrastructure to provide them. From where are the minerals sourced, with no drilling platform or mining base to extract them? Where are the machines being built, with no factories to produce them?
Indeed, the facilities that do exist on the planet (in this case, multiple refineries) sit idle, with their output not sold at all. Even six(!) refineries would not come close to the 725% stacking magical extraction/industrial economy.
So how does this allow greater flexibility for players to create a desired economy? Well, it doesn't. In this case, the player has made the choice not to have extraction and industrial economies in this system, and yet, these are now the only economies present. With planetary economic influence so great (and, it appears, with stackable effects), players are no longer able to use Trailblazers facilities to create desired economic conditions. The system now restricts economies to specific planetary types, which is an antonym to flexibility. It also strongly disincentivizes players from building out larger, complex systems, as the economic output is derived almost entirely from the planetary model, instead of player-constructed facilities. Indeed, there is also no longer any reward for players to spend time bringing a system to a high level of development, as the population-model change means nearly all stations now have instant and infinite commodity output, but let's focus on one thing at a time.
So how can we recover player agency to determine economic output, achieving the stated goal of the update?
The good news is that this can be largely resolved just by tweaking numbers, namely significantly reducing the base planetary effect percentages, or giving them a hard cap at a number that is able to be overcome by strong-linked facilities on the body. Alternatively, the effect of strong-linked facilities could be significantly increased.
The most elegant solution however, at least in my opinion, is a bit different. As I mentioned above, it's a bit ridiculous to have massive commodity output in economic sectors that have no supporting infrastructure to provide them at all. The rationale to having bonuses provided by planetary characteristics is sound, but it should be just that - bonuses (and not magical, invisible facilities that produce things by default). For example, a mining base on a rocky moon may give 0.5 economic influence. That same base on a high metal content world? Let's add a multiplier 0.5 * 2 = 1.0. It's got volcanism as well? Maybe pristine reserves? Add some more multipliers and maybe we're now at 1.5 or 2.0, from a single mining facility. Great! The player has been rewarded by finding a suitable location for her facility, but critically, the player made the decision to build a facility of that type to achieve that type of market.
Economies being forced on players at such a high magnitude of strength does not create flexibility, nor does it create gameplay. Please have another look at the way the new planetary influences interact with player markets.
Thanks for your consideration.
The second part has definitely been accomplished (arguably to an absurdly high degree, in many cases... but I won't split hairs over that).
For the first part, however - the new economic system, as implemented yesterday, achieves precisely the opposite of its stated goal to allow more flexibility to create any desired economy.
Let's take a look at example 1:
You can see the largest two economic influences in this station are Extraction (500%) and Industrial (225%), for a total of 725% economic pressure.
There are zero extraction and industrial facilities on this planetary body. In fact, there are zero extraction facilities in the entire system. And yet, the economy of this station is entirely dominated by these economies that have no facilities, no workers, and no infrastructure to provide them. From where are the minerals sourced, with no drilling platform or mining base to extract them? Where are the machines being built, with no factories to produce them?
Indeed, the facilities that do exist on the planet (in this case, multiple refineries) sit idle, with their output not sold at all. Even six(!) refineries would not come close to the 725% stacking magical extraction/industrial economy.
So how does this allow greater flexibility for players to create a desired economy? Well, it doesn't. In this case, the player has made the choice not to have extraction and industrial economies in this system, and yet, these are now the only economies present. With planetary economic influence so great (and, it appears, with stackable effects), players are no longer able to use Trailblazers facilities to create desired economic conditions. The system now restricts economies to specific planetary types, which is an antonym to flexibility. It also strongly disincentivizes players from building out larger, complex systems, as the economic output is derived almost entirely from the planetary model, instead of player-constructed facilities. Indeed, there is also no longer any reward for players to spend time bringing a system to a high level of development, as the population-model change means nearly all stations now have instant and infinite commodity output, but let's focus on one thing at a time.
So how can we recover player agency to determine economic output, achieving the stated goal of the update?
The good news is that this can be largely resolved just by tweaking numbers, namely significantly reducing the base planetary effect percentages, or giving them a hard cap at a number that is able to be overcome by strong-linked facilities on the body. Alternatively, the effect of strong-linked facilities could be significantly increased.
The most elegant solution however, at least in my opinion, is a bit different. As I mentioned above, it's a bit ridiculous to have massive commodity output in economic sectors that have no supporting infrastructure to provide them at all. The rationale to having bonuses provided by planetary characteristics is sound, but it should be just that - bonuses (and not magical, invisible facilities that produce things by default). For example, a mining base on a rocky moon may give 0.5 economic influence. That same base on a high metal content world? Let's add a multiplier 0.5 * 2 = 1.0. It's got volcanism as well? Maybe pristine reserves? Add some more multipliers and maybe we're now at 1.5 or 2.0, from a single mining facility. Great! The player has been rewarded by finding a suitable location for her facility, but critically, the player made the decision to build a facility of that type to achieve that type of market.
Economies being forced on players at such a high magnitude of strength does not create flexibility, nor does it create gameplay. Please have another look at the way the new planetary influences interact with player markets.
Thanks for your consideration.
Apparently if you don't have a tech level of 35 you lose your shipyard. I'm lost as to how this is a positive feature.
And figuring out your tech level requires shaking some chicken bones over a spreadsheet because nowhere in the actual game does it show as a number.... we are supposed to infer from chevrons what the tech level is.
So, the time I was going to spend doing stuff I wanted will instead be used to get my Coriolis shipyard back, through a process that can only be described as stumbling through the dark.
I did not realize this latest update would come with a secret nut punch.
I agree. I noticed this as well. It’s the primary reason I have abandoned 2 out of my 3 systems. The makeup of the planets determine the industry which I have no interest in since they are all icy.
The one remaining system I am focused on has potential since I think I can do high tech industrial and refinery since they are rocky icy/icy rocky and almost all planets have geos. At least I think this is correct.
I've gotta be completely honest here the strong links work great but the weak links have to go. I had 3 separate planets I was working on planning out (Refinery, High Tech, and Agriculture) just to now find out that they will all consume each others resources due to the weak link influence exerted between them even though a weak link doesn't exert that much influence it seems it would still consume a decent amount of commodities.
So I messed up when this all atarted and built a Coriolis in the second slot, not the first. Now, all the links to it are weak. The planet it orbits has a large Extraction and a Refinery hub, but the links from those are also weak. The update notes imply that any orbital port will benefit from strong planetary links but apparently this is not the case.
Is there any way I can get the planetary links upgraded to strong for my Coriolis?
Is there any way I can get the planetary links upgraded to strong for my Coriolis?
Last edited:
Beside the forced link within the system this part here also should not be forced . Architect should have the option to chose whether to have the economy overridden by the body type OR flip it with the links. Body type economy can only cause drawback on the colonization progress.
I rather have my system with no rocky/HMC a surface refinery with meager 2-5k output for the useful commodities than a industrial with 7 digit of crop harvesters
I agree with this
So before this update I had a plan were to place an orbital station due to where the planets lined up. The looked like this:
I place a orbital installation in the first moon's 0 slot because before update 3. The stations placement meant that it would only pull from that previous body. Now it looks like this and messes up the "Strong" and "Weak" outcomes I would have preferred.
At this point. There needs to be a CANCEL / DESTROY (They should be big and bold with a safety "are you sure" too) option after this new update.
My personal opinion but I think taking a -35% hit to merits, which is how control points are calculated from, is completely unbalanced in a defensive stance when the attacker get a 5% bonus. That is an obvious 40% difference. Why bother doing twice the amount of work defending? Thats like trying to hold a stronghold in a valley against the attacker on the high ground. You're gonna have a higher chance to lose.
I place a orbital installation in the first moon's 0 slot because before update 3. The stations placement meant that it would only pull from that previous body. Now it looks like this and messes up the "Strong" and "Weak" outcomes I would have preferred.
At this point. There needs to be a CANCEL / DESTROY (They should be big and bold with a safety "are you sure" too) option after this new update.
My personal opinion but I think taking a -35% hit to merits, which is how control points are calculated from, is completely unbalanced in a defensive stance when the attacker get a 5% bonus. That is an obvious 40% difference. Why bother doing twice the amount of work defending? Thats like trying to hold a stronghold in a valley against the attacker on the high ground. You're gonna have a higher chance to lose.
Add a surface port to take the settlement links and pass them up to the orbital as a strong link?
Because:
"This is the first in a number of planned changes which are intended encourage and reward offensive actions within Powerplay. We will continue to monitor feedback and impact and adjust accordingly."
FDev came straight out and said in their Twitch stream when first announcing Power Play 2.0 was coming that they want more PvP. They do not want castling / trench warfare, static borders, and stagnation. Instead, they want a more dynamic Power Play with fluid borders and opportunities for conflict. They said they would release PP2.0, see how things develop, and then make tweaks and changes as necessary.
Granted it's been over a year since that overarching goal for Power Play was made public, but now here we are; they're starting to implement the changes they believe will move PP2.0 from a reinforcement-heavy defensive game to a more active offensive game. And, if the statement above is to be believed, the changes introduced with this update are just the beginning.