FDev make colonization worthwhile in terms of credits please

Mr Lindsay

M
Just in the last couple of days I've made roundabout 20 million from construction delivery profits of T1 installations, so I think my colony overall has now repaid the 25 million downpayment and I'm now in profit just from engaging with the system itself, not counting any passive income or ability to make big money via missions, etc. By the time I've filled out my system (which will probably take me the rest of the year in real time doing the T3 constructions) I'll be hundreds of millions in profit.

If that's not rewarding enough for you go and do some other gameplay loop that you prefer instead. Colonisation profits enough to pay for itself, and that's good enough to make it worthwhile if you enjoy the gameplay. My only concern was that we'd need to stop doing colonisation and go do other gameplay in order to fund it, and that isn't the case.
 

Topo Estepario

Topo Estepario
I sincerely think it should be the other way around. The tax should be designed to make it unprofitable to have a system with only one station, incentivizing colonizers to develop the systems they want. This could alleviate the desire to hoard systems without the intention of developing them for use as a bridge or to support a BGS expansion. For example, the tax would have a two-month grace period from the time you finish the first orbital base. If you haven't built anything else in those two months, the Treasury would hit you with a weekly tax of 10% of the construction cost.
 

Ian Doncaster

Ian Doncaster
Xwall said:
and im missing some informations about what "my" people need i gave them food but it seems they are not happy
Click to expand...
Since a few people have managed to get negative happiness scores, it looks like that "0%" is neutral rather than "really unhappy".

If it works like BGS happiness does, then trading and bounty hunting in your system to get the "Boom" and "Civil Liberty" states might cheer them up even further.
 

Ydiss

Ydiss
angusmadmac1 said:
Making money is far too easy in Elite nowadays why would you want it even easier ?? I would prefer it that these colonies have to be paid weekly like FC upkeep ??
Click to expand...
Oh god no.

I agree that I don't think we need more credits but I do not want to have another offline credit commitment, thanks.

It doesn't make sense anyway. These are actual, working BGS locations in the game. Having them randomly vanish/stop working because players go offline for a year would be nonsense and would ruin the experience for everyone else.
 

Ian Doncaster

Ian Doncaster
Ydiss said:
It doesn't make sense anyway. These are actual, working BGS locations in the game. Having them randomly vanish/stop working because players go offline for a year would be nonsense and would ruin the experience for everyone else.
Click to expand...
This. The one way they could have done "system upkeep" would have been to make it dependent on in-system activity. So do anything BGS or PP-affecting (for any side!) in a system, and it counts towards upkeep; do absolutely nothing and then that drains away. So it doesn't rely on any particular individual keeping it going.

But:
- they'd have had to apply it to the existing systems too (I'd say "except maybe a few important ones" but those would be the ones which didn't need protecting anyway)
- they'd have needed to make Colonisation a lot less player-directed at all - instead having some sort of thing which just happened if a system had a "surplus" of upkeep activity and a clear system nearby - so that it wasn't direct player effort being lost when a system vanished, and the bubble just changed size and shape in response to how many players were around
- the overall effect of this would have probably been to shrink the bubble over time, not expand it, which is clearly not the direction they wanted to go in

Frontier wanted expansion. Frontier wanted a lot of expansion (or they'd have stuck an extra zero on the station prices so that it was mostly out of range of individuals and small groups). Upkeep doesn't fit with that at all.
 

Jmanis

Jmanis
Topo Estepario said:
I sincerely think it should be the other way around. The tax should be designed to make it unprofitable to have a system with only one station, incentivizing colonizers to develop the systems they want. This could alleviate the desire to hoard systems without the intention of developing them for use as a bridge or to support a BGS expansion. For example, the tax would have a two-month grace period from the time you finish the first orbital base. If you haven't built anything else in those two months, the Treasury would hit you with a weekly tax of 10% of the construction cost.
Click to expand...
My suggestion was that you couldn't get another colonisation claim until 10% of your last claimed system's construction spots were occupied with constructed facilities.

That way, if you're trying to get somewhere, you err on picking unary/ binary star systems with scant anything else as that's all you need... meanwhile if you want to develop good systems, you need to at least give it a decent crack first... found something with 100 slots? That's 10 facilities.

Right now, there's no incentive to stop and build up, or rather, no drawback to continuously expanding out . If you stop to build a system up, you slow down your attempts to get more good systems you can build up later.... while claiming more and more systems is just banking future development constantly.

Personally, I'd prefer it to look more like an incentive to build up, but thats hard when the economy is a busted waffle... why spend a month building up a system to get you 5m/week passive income, when one hour of massacre stacking gets you an equivalent of a full year of that passive income, at 250m for that hour.

Buffing the architect cut isn't the answer there because the competition with the more ridiculous incomes possible is too high.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom