Since in ED MRWs often have big ol' seas of lava all over the surface I think this might be a bit of a circular argument... they are in fact HMC but with all volcanism all the time, rather than just "some" like an HMC with vulcanism has.Makes sense for HMC, but MRW is 100% metal, so should be metal everywhere. But maybe volcanism does something more, I'm not a geologist, so I dont know.
Elite Dangerous | Trailblazers Update 3 - Wednesday April 30
- Thread starter Phil W
- Start date
You would think a colony port on or above a terraformable HMC would create a terraforming economy and an extraction economy. Not sure if fdev haven't thought of that or if there's a reason it doesn't. Terraformable bodies also have an agriculture boost, so would make sense that ports on or above terraformable bodies also get an agriculture economy?
This is great. But I have a serious question that I would appreciate help with.
After having not played for very long, I gave up recently after wasting a weekend trying to find out what I was doing wrong with escape pods, only to find out the devs deliberately disabled them, but didn't reflect that with the in game info and UIs. this was not the first time I wasted my time on something that was a known bug.
How can I in future, proactively quickly check what is bugged and what is not? (Needs to be via frontier, not via 3rd party spreadsheets)
After having not played for very long, I gave up recently after wasting a weekend trying to find out what I was doing wrong with escape pods, only to find out the devs deliberately disabled them, but didn't reflect that with the in game info and UIs. this was not the first time I wasted my time on something that was a known bug.
How can I in future, proactively quickly check what is bugged and what is not? (Needs to be via frontier, not via 3rd party spreadsheets)
This is great. But I have a serious question that I would appreciate help with.
After having not played for very long, I gave up recently after wasting a weekend trying to find out what I was doing wrong with escape pods, only to find out the devs deliberately disabled them, but didn't reflect that with the in game info and UIs. this was not the first time I wasted my time on something that was a known bug.
How can I in future, proactively quicklycheck what is bugged and what is not? (Needs to be via frontier, not via 3rd party spreadsheets)
After having not played for very long, I gave up recently after wasting a weekend trying to find out what I was doing wrong with escape pods, only to find out the devs deliberately disabled them, but didn't reflect that with the in game info and UIs. this was not the first time I wasted my time on something that was a known bug.
How can I in future, proactively quicklycheck what is bugged and what is not? (Needs to be via frontier, not via 3rd party spreadsheets)
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.
According to spansh there are only two systems where reservelevel is not null and reserveLevel != 'Pristine' and population = 0:
MCC 515
Col 285 Sector FN-H b11-2
both have major reserves.
This looks really good.
Thank you Frontier for the detailed notes and for listening to the feedback for Trailblazers.
I like the idea of Strong and Weak Links and am really looking forward to next Wednesday to see how this affects my colonies.
I am sure there will be some issues, but this looks like a great development to what we have now.
Why Have Aisling Duval's ethos activities been replaced with Odyssey/ Surface activities, but no other power has to do any surface activities in their Ethos bonuses???
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. I have about 1800 care packages waiting to be claimed, that's a lot of Creds and mats that I now need to go back to the farming grind to obtain.
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. I have about 1800 care packages waiting to be claimed, that's a lot of Creds and mats that I now need to go back to the farming grind to obtain.
I do not have a problem with settlement data, only that you can collect them by 1000 plus 1000 goods to drop them before the tick that there is no chance to counter, it suppose to be a fight, that i why they block exploration data since you can collect them and wipe out whole areas without a fight. It suppose to be a fight not a exploit, where you can not loose since the tick protects you from any other counter action. If they have to deliver the data and the system is monitored by someone it will be visible and can be countered, granted 20 data and 20 goods is low but 1000 is way to high so drop it down to 60 or 100 gives settlement data still an big edge on anything else especially with the 40% boost now, but at least there could be a fight and not just a winning guaranty for the sniper.
I am a little concerned about this patch, the more I think about it. With this change, defenders will have roughly a 2.5 to 1 disadvantage against hostile powers able to take advantage of their ethos. Settlement Data is particularly painful, since attackers can use all forms while defenders can only use 2/5 forms.
In practice, many systems simply will not be worth having at all, unless they're literally unreachable by the enemy, but that will tend to heavily bias towards the larger Powers. Torval, for example, has virtually no territory that's unreachable by enemies.
In practice, many systems simply will not be worth having at all, unless they're literally unreachable by the enemy, but that will tend to heavily bias towards the larger Powers. Torval, for example, has virtually no territory that's unreachable by enemies.
If your aim is "never lose any systems under any circumstances", then yes. If this is a reasonable goal for a Power to contemplate having there is a fundamental problem with Powerplay as "the competitive feature".
None of that reinforcement in Barnard's Star was wasted [1] - it forced Archer to put together a much bigger attack on the system, which is then effort which couldn't be used to act on systems elsewhere instead.
[1] Except in the "peaceful" sense that both sides spent 1.5M CP on the system which could have been used to reinforce 5 other Exploited systems to Fortified, or Acquire another 10 new Exploited systems. Conflict is always wasteful in that regard and that's probably a bigger challenge for Frontier to overcome than the precise balance of in-system activities. (Especially since they decided to introduce Trailblazers and therefore guarantee everyone an endless supply of blank systems which no other Power has any real interest in or capacity to capture)
At Standard:Standard, yes. A High system strength penalty (and a lot of Fortiifed/Stronghold systems have that) would negate that back to just being the effect of "the attacker uses their ethos bonus but the defender can't". Throw in a Moderate or High BFP as well (which might be necessary to find an attacker who can use their ethos bonus) and the numeric advantage is still with the defender.
In that respect, still much less painful than Bounty Hunting (and now Rares again) is the other way, where defenders can use all forms and attackers can use none. Direct comparisons of individual methods aren't as important as how the entire set of available methods lines up.
once again: i understand how sniping can be frustrating, but
wasnt barnards star one of the systems taken from federation by goids? iirc this could be reason for an... increased focus on recapturing these systems... im not saying this doesnt/wont happen anywhere else, but especially with these systems id say its somewhat justified. you certainly werent complaining about fairness when goids wrecked federal systems and you all flocked to those like vultures and captured left right whatever you could.
aisling has by far the largest number of commanders. archer, for example, not so much. if we focus one system, we lose another. we cant be everywhere. as it was well demonstrated when the sol area systems were lost. while we recaptured what we can, we still lost a good amount of them. we work hard and we take our wins as well as we take our losses.
so while id generally agree that something like a time limit on the data could be established, i find it hard time to feel sorry for you. especially when its the power that generally rejects any talks about ethos and morals in conflicts with the argumentation of using any and all available advantages they can get.
just because you dont see it in the changes doesnt mean that no other power has ody activities in their ethos...
this i very much agree with. the care packages are a... situation... i personally have not claimed any for a very long time. its just easier to ignore them than to go through the headache of managing the menuing, compiling list of mats that i have to trade to make space for the package, going through the traders...
@Paul_Crowther
sorry to bother you with this, and its probably too late to expect it on wednesday anyway, but could the trailblazer megaships be reclassified as dockable megaships so we can bookmark them? or at least give them some icon on the map... we still do have icons for titans and rescue megaships. they are pretty significant for great many cmdrs engaged in colonisation and if they are to be permanent assets, this would be really helpful as now as in the future.
Last edited:
Will there be a point in time that we will be able to remove structures we don't want/need? Even if it means paying like 50mil to Brewer to have it removed
Exactly, I think the issue here is less to do with gameplay mechanics and more to do with a lack of awareness that players will prioritise a response to attacks that occur in the middle of their territory.
If you're going to take a system like that, you better be willing to fight tooth and nail to keep it, because it will get focused.
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 think FD need to steer PP2 pledges into caring less about losing territory, and more about what you gain if you risk bigger stakes. Territory should be a means to an end, not the end itself (which fosters gardening tendencies).
Yah, this seems the least problematic. The other options have the potential to generate unintended chain reactions.
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.
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.