Rules for tier points doubling

FDEV, can we please have explicit rules when and how required tier points increase? I could not find any official info about this, except one line in codex: "Tier 2 and tier 3 port construction point costs increase as more are built in a system, this increase starts after the second port has begun construction"

Does this apply only to starports?
What about planetary ports?
What about tier 2 installations?
What about tier 2 settlements?
How much is this increase for t2 and t3?
Is this permanent for that system from the moment of increase?
And last but not least - CAN YOU PLEASE REMOVE THIS INCREASE - THIS DOES NOT MAKE A SINGLE BENEFIT TO THE GALAXY
 
The only logical reason I can think of for it is FDev are trying to avoid having excessive amounts of systems full of tier 3 stuff because of what it does to weekly server maintenance.

Maybe more stations etc. in a system takes up more time to tidy up than many systems with not a lot of stuff in.
 
I think the premise of these rules is a justifiable design decision that on balance probably makes sense. We'd have to be able to see the big picture to debate it with any authority, of course.

What is not justifiable, at all, is the failure to communicate or signpost any of this information. Whether in-game (but ok let's handwave that because "beta"), or even in a text document here on the forums or anywhere else, we have nothing. All we've gotten from Frontier is the occasional social media post telling a person in distress that yes, their system building plan isn't viable (surprise!) and this is exactly how the devs want it. Even these driveby bits of clarification come only after people have put significant time and effort into dead-end projects; after the whole community has come together to try and troubleshoot something which should in any sane world be absolutely crystal clear from the start.

It's been like this every step of the way so far, and it's so disappointing to see. On the one hand, Frontier are unveiling this ambitious and logistically rich update to the game, something many of us never would have dared dream they might create; and at the same time their apathy towards communications shows a contemptuous disregard for their players' time, emotional investment, and goodwill.

Seriously. Obviously the devs KNOW how their game works. When they deign to answer questions about it, those answers become major milestones in what is at present a frankly excruciating community investigation into foundational play mechanism which it would be really, really, really easy to type out into a bullet pointed list and post somewhere.

The fact that this hasn't happened, and consistently doesn't happen, is baffling to me only because I continue to want to extend the benefit of the doubt towards the devs' motivations. When something so small as describing how your game is supposed to work is just not worth the time; it speaks volumes about your attitude towards the people that play your game, and what you think their experiences are worth.

I still like the game. I'm still excited to see what else the devs do with it. But this kind of stuff feels icky in a way that is really difficult to shrug off. I wish I could square that circle.
 
The only logical reason I can think of for it is FDev are trying to avoid having excessive amounts of systems full of tier 3 stuff because of what it does to weekly server maintenance.

Maybe more stations etc. in a system takes up more time to tidy up than many systems with not a lot of stuff in.
I mean if you look at the way those tiered restrictions work, it does help ensure that systems are built out in a certain way.
  • It means you won't get a system full of big giant stations and no plausible infrastructure around it.
  • It also ensures that as we the players are traveling around the margins of this growing bubble, we're going to see lots of small outposts, points of interest, and other interactible play spaces rather than a bunch of large, long-term construction sites.

Remember that most construction projects will take place over months of time. By encouraging many small projects as a prerequisite to the larger ones, it ensures that up and coming systems go through a legible series of configurations and they grow and build out. And as the bubble expands and CMDRs start, stop, complete, or give up on these projects at their varying stages of development, it will naturally trend towards a more lore friendly and honestly player friendly collection of environments to move through.

So I get it. Or at least I think I get it. In my mind's eye, I prefer the type of game world that these incentives and disincentives will bring about, and I prefer them much much more than the kind of environment that we would get if the loudest parts of the playerbase got the changes they've been asking for (eliminate or expand LY restrictions, allow faster construction of T3 sites with fewer or not prerequisites, allow any kind of economy or structure in any quantity at any location, etc)
 
first two ports cost 6 each
3rd and 4th cost 12 each
5th and 6th costs 18 each
Well when you do look at it from a realism point of view it doesn't seem too unreasonable to be honest. How many low population systems have 3 tier 2 spaceports?

Although additional clarification on what the rules are would be very helpful because this whole colonisation thing seems far too complicated to carry on with without a manual.
 
Back
Top Bottom