Elite Dangerous | Trailblazers Update 3 - Wednesday April 30

Will there be any opportunity to make changes to the locations or types of ports that were placed wrongly before any information was available?

i.e. change a Coriolis for an Asteroid base, delete/change or move a space facility.
 
Last edited:
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.
As long as the folks wanting the Trailblazer ships to jump every few days to mess up FC parking don’t get their way this isn’t needed, we can just bookmark the body they orbit or an adjacent station then rename the bookmark.
  • 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.
 
Much appreciate everyone's comment, yours in particular, Ian.

I have thousands of hours taking positive actions in BGS and I really like that. My "undermining" consists of working harder towards the faction I want to help. Even in Powerplay, I've managed to not do much of illegal activities but instead work on positive actions to improve my Power's standing. With all of that the same, my efforts to reinforce systems will be cut by 35%. I would be much better off going to my neighbor's system and setting it on fire. That'll get me merits, and also fines, bounties, dropping my reputation with the BGS faction, and possibly affecting their system influence. I'm not doing that.

This all helps, thank you. I'll wait for FDev to one day fix the Power reward packages so I can take my money and mats out and make it easier to quit Powerplay altogether.

Hey everyone plays their own way, but are you aware that the offense bonus includes acquisition too? And that many effective undermining methods are legal? You can help your bgs neighbors and attack or compete with your power play neighbors at the same time.
 
Last edited:
Yes, storing data to "surprise" opponents just before the tick is possible. But that's part of tactical Powerplay gameplay - and always has been. Just like in real conflicts, intelligence gathering, deception, and surprise actions are crucial tools. Not everything should be perfectly visible and predictable 24 hours in advance.
That’s not how I remember it.

Snipes in power play 1.0 were detectable if you visited the system and checked the news.

You could also lose all the banked merits by dying.

Big difference to now where Odyssey data bombs have no risks and no detection methods. They are the exception to the rule of making acquisition and UM progress visible.
 
Last edited:
But there is in this game, fortifying over the cap.
The cap applies to the system upgrading to the next level of reinforcement (Exploited > Fortified > Stronghold); it can't upgrade more than one tier per cycle. But when it comes to the tug-o-war bar, additional reinforcement score beyond the weekly upgrade cap is still counted against any undermining score. So it is not wasted merits as long as one values defending their systems.

Here's the proof through math:

Per @Danieros' screen shots of the Barnard's Star end-of-cycle scores, Aisling had amassed 1,523,747 reinforcement score while Archer had tallied 1,554,650 undermining score.

Based on the white marker, Aisling had started the cycle at the point where the system had become Acquired and moved into the the Exploited category. So that's our starting point; our zero mark.

To move an Exploited system to Fortified requires 333,000 reinforcement control points.

A few hours prior to cycle end, Aisling had racked up 1,474,529 reinforcement control points while Archer had 1,059,806 undermining control points; a difference of +414,723 points in Aisling's favor.

On the tug-o-war graphic we see this accurately reflected: Aisling has filled the entire Exploited zone of the bar (333,000 controls points) and then pushed a little into the Fortified zone with the remaining surplus of 81,723. She can't leap frog two tiers in one cycle (Exploited + Fortified), but those extra points are still taken into account with regard to the fight playing out on the tug-o-war bar, as will be demonstrated.

We move to the end of the cycle where Archer beats Aisling's score 1,554,650 to 1,523,747, respectively; +30,903 in Archer's favor. This pushes the yellow tug-o-war tracking marker slightly to the left of the white starting marker, down into the Unoccupied portion of the bar. The amount of control score required to Acquire a system is 120,000 Merits. Make note of that as it's critical to an understanding of what is to follow.

Now, if what you and @Danieros are claiming were true (fortifying over the cap is "wasted merits"), then Aisling's reinforcement control score would have capped out as soon as it reached the right-most end of the Exploited portion of the tug-o-war bar. In other words, no further Merits contributed to Aisling's reinforcement effort would have been counted against Archer's undermining; only the first 333,000 to go from zero Exploited to fully Exploited.

That means, with Archer's undermining score - which suffers from no cap - of 1,554,650 control points, not only would he have erased Aisling's gain of 333,000 reinforcement control score from the right-most, fully Exploited mark down to the left-most zero Exploited mark, he would have ALSO completely annhilated the original Acquisition score of 120,000 Merits; with ample points to spare:

333,000 fully Exploited + 120,000 Acquired = 453,000 control points (Aisling's "cap" if what you are claiming were true)

1,554,650 (Archer's undermine score) - 453,000 (Aisling's "capped" reinforcement score) = 1,101,650 undermining control score in Archer's favor.

In this scenario Archer would have not only overcome Aisling's Exploited score, but would have blown her Acquisition score out of the water 9 times over! The yellow tracking triangle would have moved all the way to the left-most end of the tug-o-war bar's Unocuppied grey section.

BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED

Instead,THIS is how it was calculated:

Archer earned 1,554,650 undermining score, Aisling earned 1,523,747 reinforcement score:

1,554,650 - 1,523,747 = 30,903 points in Archer's favor.

This was enough to overcome Aisling's score, erasing her gains in the Exploited section of the bar (along with the spill over into the Fortified section), and push the yellow tracking triangle a bit into the grey Unoccupied section of the bar.

This is what we see reflected in the screen shots and that is how these scores are calculated.

The tug-o-war bar and the caps imposed on moving into the next tier of reinforcement (Exploited > Fortified > Stronghold) are DECOUPLED from one another. The weekly tier promotion cap does NOT impact the tug-o-war scores playing out between the two Galactic Powers. It is this fundamental misunderstanding of how these numbers are being calculated and the belief that one limits the other that is leading to the erroneous claim of "wasted merits" from "over reinforcing". They are two separate systems and calculations which - regrettably - are being represented through a single graphic, understandably leading to confusion.

Though the cap exists to prevent a Galactic Power from leap frogging ahead from zero to Stronghold status in one week, you better believe that if your opponent earns more undermining score than what your Galactic Power's current tier cap will allow only with respect to upgrading to the next tier, you better match or exceed it with your own reinforcing score if you want to hold onto the system.


The reinforcement control points which exceed the weekly tier cap won't allow you to prematurely advance to the next tier, but they WILL counter the undermining being applied to the system. Thus, there is no such thing as "wasted merits" or "over reinforcing" when it comes to defending your holdings against undermining (assuming you're invested in defending them in the first place).


EDIT: Added link to the Barnard's Star tug-o-war post for reference.
 
Last edited:
Too much debate about PP that should be in its own thread. guess this thread is useless now...
Agreed I am supremely bored at all the colonization posts. Call me when it’s out of beta and involves more than just hauling. Lock and split threads pretty please.
 
Back
Top Bottom