Elite Dangerous | Trailblazers Update 3 - Wednesday April 30

While that's possible, assuming demolition was a feature, who in their right mind would undertake such a transition?
I've just completed a tier lll at 300+ trips.
So let's say 20 assets in a given system are replaced by tier lll's.
That's a shedload of hauling! (6000+ trips) assuming a type 9 or cutter 750t capacity +.
An application process for demolishing stuff would be doable.
The admin of it is another story.
Justifying demolishing assets is a requisite.
But I think it's a nessesary evil. And should in my opinion have been included in the rollout, much like the primary being undone.
I guess we will have to wait n see.
It would be an extreme haul for one player but no more effort for a group of twenty than your one station was for you and there are bigger groups than that around.

Cancelling builds before completion is one thing and is possibly reasonably straightforward with only the question of why they didn’t get the contributions back raising salt.
 
Bearing in mind the construction points system, if you could remove an arbitrary station you could create system builds that aren't achievable otherwise (like create a bunch of settlements to get T3 points, build Orbis, remove settlements - you now have a "free" Orbis and can repeat the process indefinitely to fill all your orbital slots up with T3 starports)

If you introduce a constraint that stops you getting a system build inconsistent with the points system (i.e. you can remove a facility only if there is a valid build chronology resulting in that system build) this then requires a search over all possible system histories and is likely to result in systems with actual build histories wildly different from the virtual build history their existence is now predicated on. IOW an over complex and unsatisfying mechanic.

Allowing arbitrary demolitions which instead trigger additional demolitions of facilities which depended on the chosen facility for points at the time of construction is even worse!

A kind of "undo" system which lets you demolish the last-built facility avoids these problems, though other problems like evaporating missions which involve the facility, etc., surely exist.

I think the best we can reasonably hope for is a "cancel ongoing construction" feature, which is a lot cleaner and simpler than any of the above, and already exists for the primary starport iirc.
I agree. Or an option to change/modify/upgrade an existing structure (might not be applicable to all structures).
 
I'm also a bit curios about the override mechanic. If you for example build a colony port on or above a HMC it will get an extraction economy by default. But if that HMC is terraformable and have organics (and is not tidally locked), then agriculture facilities would be the best option to build on and above that planet, as those facilities will be boosted a lot by those conditions. You would think that port would have an agriculture (and maybe also terraforming) economy then.

Edit: I think it will get those economies as well then. At least if it has organics.
 
Last edited:
Agreed, but I don't think in this case it's a good representative example due to how it was lost by Archer in the first place.
True, it was very much out of player control with that one. But powerplay does badly need a reason to be #1 and expand, as currently everything is still revolving around PP1 territory. Its a shame that the Pilots Fed / Shadowy organisation / The Club / Dark Wheel don't act as some Dune Emperor of the Known Universe[tm] and grant something for really pushing your power to #1.
 
something about PP care package would have been great, fixing the freeze bug or even just adding just a small functionallity each time you earn one, the possility to accept it or not.
 
View attachment 427672View attachment 427677

Right, I suppose every system needs to be fortified even beyond its weekly limit, wasting merits beyond the cap in order to "vigorously defend" against something that may or not come. This is just a few hours before a cycle ends versus what really happened once the servers came back and is the kind of thing I'm talking about that should not become easier to do - more than a full segment coming from the sniping. The tug of war completely loses its meaning.

I'm not talking about low percentage systems because these are also vulnerable to other undermining levers (the few ones that are viable, at least) coming from a true surprise attack. Not a handing in of like 20 hours worth of settlement data collected over the entire week at the final hour, and calling it a surprise attack.

Powerplay 2 losses should not continue getting decided by a single undermining activity having such exploitable merit-hiding capability... and while at it also being the best undermining merits/hour.
Even worse I tried undermining with settlement data today, and you can drop 150000 control points WITHOUT being within 50ly of the system. So sitting on the couch in docked in your system should be an achievement? or and intended strategy for powerplay, for sure not, it suppose to be a fight and not someone 50ly away destroys several systems before the tick, without any chance to respond. It means nothing if the come in a group to the system sometimes during the week if they 50ly away to destroy the system. Even with exploration data I have to be at the station and if it would be patrolled before the tick I would have a hard time to land and drop the data. My first approach was a max of 20 data stored before you have to reach them in and now after I know you don't even need to be in the system to do so. It is enough.
 
Powerplay is a tug-of-war, the constantly updating progress bar on the system map is there for a reason. Data sniping is like ignoring the tug/progress bar for 7 days (or more, there is no time limit) by putting all your force on a near-infinitely stretching rubber-band, then connecting it to the tug at the last moment. And thinking it's somehow fair that the other side could not react to it. The defenders already have the natural disadvantage that they're the ones at constant threat - failure to keep the bar above a certain point is the lose condition.

It is essentially an exploit and needs to go, especially if Frontier wants Undermining vs Reinforcement time investment to be anywhere close to 1:1. They have already fixed most sniping loopholes of Powerplay 1 - ship kills award merits on death instead of voucher for hand-in, and FC storage was later changed in PP2 so that anything going in it won't reward merits. Since the Odyssey gameplay loop is new, I suspect Frontier just haven't imagined that the 1000 storage per commander would be used to such an extent.
yes plus the 1000 of powerplay data from the 2 containers in the settlements. All this talk about wars and different tactics in real world, than all the features FDEV blocked need to be opened again if there are no rules, settlement data is just like a nuke shot from 50ly away while all the others fighting with machine guns. But then NOBODY gonna invest the several month to build up systems anymore, which can be destroyed right before the tick.
 
Any word on when BGS ticks will be fixed? Many folks are waiting for Elections & Wars to end (or even start) so they can get the desired Faction in control of the system before building new facilities. (Apologies if this was asked already: I'm not reading through 18 pages of "thank you!"/"looks great!" (which is what the "Like" feature is for) and Powerplay Debates that should be in their own threads...)
 
The update should make a big difference to colonisation and as one who went all out on TB launch and now has a system full of poop factories, I'll be intrigued to see the results. Reading the pages above, I can see folk already getting upset about multi-economic systems and commodity consumption but these are things that ED has had baked into the systems in the bubble for years. It makes for variety and interest and cuts down on the min-maxing of pedantic players. I get from the notes that FDev and the community have similar aims in making colonisation meaningful and I think there will be ways to tweak and control system economies but in ways that may seem more natural.

Things I'd like to see implemented that don't appear to be in the patch notes:
  • ability to cancel a construction prior to completion.
  • ability to 'move' space constructions once complete. This will cost hard cash and will require time for Brewer Corp to tow the outpost/installation/starport from one orbital slot location to another. It would help with systems that we've already borked, or where the primary port is in a very poor location. Obviously, this would not be possible for planetary builds.
  • ability to view and possibly bookmark trailblazer megaships in the galaxy map / system map.
  • ability to choose economy for orbital colony port if no 'strong' link. Choices limited to economic influences already present in the system.
  • commodity requirements for construction written to log and made API accessible for 3pa.
  • an idea of how population variation affects production, wealth, security, QoL etc as some of these are settlement (local) and some are system wide.
 
  • ability to 'move' space constructions once complete. This will cost hard cash and will require time for Brewer Corp to tow the outpost/installation/starport from one orbital slot location to another.

I wouldn't mind having a space tug 😁

1000003155.jpg
 
Not super concerned with the PP changes myself, but the problem being raised here seems obvious and some seem to dance around it intentionally - Not all powerplay tasks can be saved for dropping just before a ticket, and not all of them occupy the same inventory space. Put settlement data as a regular inventory item, along with everything else that can be turned in for merits, and I do believe we're as balanced as we can be. Exploration and exobiology is a little rough, but they wouldn't be getting a buff if they were overpowering any aspect.
 
Right, I suppose every system needs to be fortified even beyond its weekly limit, wasting merits beyond the cap in order to "vigorously defend" against something that may or not come. This is just a few hours before a cycle ends versus what really happened once the servers came back and is the kind of thing I'm talking about that should not become easier to do - more than a full segment coming from the sniping. The tug of war completely loses its meaning.

I'm not talking about low percentage systems because these are also vulnerable to other undermining levers (the few ones that are viable, at least) coming from a true surprise attack. Not a handing in of like 20 hours worth of settlement data collected over the entire week at the final hour, and calling it a surprise attack.

Powerplay 2 losses should not continue getting decided by a single undermining activity having such exploitable merit-hiding capability... and while at it also being the best undermining merits/hour.
"Right, I suppose every system needs to be fortified even beyond its weekly limit, wasting merits beyond the cap in order to "vigorously defend" against something that may or not come."

Aside the fact you wrote that sentence ironically, that's exactly what you should be doing if you want to protect your systems. You also - conveniently - cheery-picked a system that is highly contested with household name recognition as your exemplar. Of COURSE players are going to fight for Barnard's Star tooth-and-nail using every means at their disposal! Also, the attempt to paint Aisling as the victim here doesn't wash. Barnard's Star was opportunistically taken from Archer's control following the devastation caused by Titan Cocijo; this is simply them taking it back.

Furthermore, that sentence reveals your true sentiment: you view reinforcement as "wasting merits". Given the way Power Play is structured, you may certainly acknowledge its necessity if you want to hold on to your systems. But the whole tug-o-war thing? You find it an annoying distraction, that you'd much rather claim a system and have it stay claimed in perpetuity, never being inconvenienced by having to continually reinforce it against future challenges, to include data download sniping.

In a war - and that IS what this is, regardless of any attempt to paint it as something else - there is no such thing as a wasted effort when it comes to shoring up defenses. In real-world militaries it's drilled into soldiers' heads that the job of fortifying a position never ends, that's there's no such thing as defenses that are "good enough". As this game is a simulation and part of that simulation is attempting to mimic real-world conflict scenarios, the comparison is valid.

If you view reinforcing your position - not over reinforcing, but simply the act of constant reinforcing that is fundamental to any effective military campaign - as "wasting merits", then that right there is the crux of your problem. You can't claim ignorance; you knew your Galactic Power's claim to Barnard's Star would be challenged and would include last hour data download sniping. The opportunity and mechanisms existed for Commanders pledged to your GP to have reinforced even more than they did, potentially retaining their claim to the system. They didn't and they lost it; simple as.

If the effort to accomplish this is greater than what your Galactic Power's pledgees are able or willing to achieve - and this applies to any system within the GP's territory, not just Barnard's Star - then perhaps your GP's territory is too big to adequately defend; the GP has greatly over-extended, controlling a plethora of barely reinforced systems, making itself vulnerable. And whose fault might that be?

At which point it should come as no surprise when your GP loses some of its systems due to inadequate defense against what are currently wholly valid and legitimate undermining methods per the game's mechanics (i.e. NOT an exploit). And FDev, with the coming 5% increase to undermining and 35% decrease to reinforcement, have made it loud and clear they agree. They want us fighting over systems rather than playing Galactic Garden Tender 2.0, all nice and neat in a row. And that includes all the clandestine, dirty, "dishonorable", and underhanded methods among which data download sniping is counted.
 
Last edited:
How can I in future, proactively quicklycheck what is bugged and what is not? (Needs to be via frontier, not via 3rd party spreadsheets)
As I understand things, you simply can't. This sucks, obvs. (Many of us have complained bitterly that the game UI has continued for 5+ months to advertise things that had been disabled. Hopefully this changes on Wednesday...)
Also, When do we get a fix for the Care Package Bug. Any CMDR over Rank 100 is unable to get any Care package benefits.
Would be nice for it to be fixed, but I'm over rank 100 and I cleared out my care packages in recent weeks to avoid hitting the bug that you sound like you've hit. This means you have no option but to wait for a fix, but others can proactively clear their care packages to avoid reaching the (unclear?) limit. I spent a couple of hours clearing probably 60+ of the little buggers and it wasn't much fun, but I did get a lot of mats out of it. (At rank 1800+, you might need to spend days clearing your care packages!)
 
Put settlement data as a regular inventory item, along with everything else that can be turned in for merits, and I do believe we're as balanced as we can be.
Allow the settlement data to be transferred to a Fleet Carrier without losing the metadata that marks it as redeemable for Merits and I could agree with this. Nothing about moving it from inventory space A to inventory space B should magically make it no longer valid.
 
  • ability to 'move' space constructions once complete. This will cost hard cash and will require time for Brewer Corp to tow the outpost/installation/starport from one orbital slot location to another. It would help with systems that we've already borked, or where the primary port is in a very poor location. Obviously, this would not be possible for planetary builds.
This so much! And not only move, but also change. With some kind of build/credit cost. With the new information from the patch notes, people likely already know that some installations are in wrong/bad locations.
 
Back
Top Bottom