Opinion: 10 LY range for colonization is ridiculously low.

The OED is dead to me since 1998 when they allowed split infinitives.

Sausage?!!!

blackadder-sausage.jpg
 
To be honest it looks like all this BGS is way above what I want to bother about, whether my occasional actions affect it or not it does not worry me.

If deep space colonisation does not become a viable option then I shall have to find another way to unload all these billions I keep accumulating:)
And that's the thing. You can be ignorant to it through your day-to-day, and that's genuinely fine.

That doesn't mean it's something FD can ignore when it comes to Colonisation.
Who defines what is "boring"?

The arguments against a long range are really starting to remind me of complaints that happen when a previously PvP only MMO adds PvE servers. "Force the other players to come to me, I shouldn't have to work to go to them!" In before "colonization should be open only", I guess.

Boring systems? You mean more generic PP and BGS systems in a bubble that has thousands already?
The irony is, if you want longer-range colonisation and don't want those colonies to be "more generic PP and BGS systems", then you must consider the BGS impact.

Otherwise the likely mechanics that will be needed to develop colonies beyond that initial phase won't function correctly. Of course, who knows what that will look like specifically, but you can still consider the rough shape of it.
  • You drop a beacon, colony ship arrives and there's a series of activities to establish it.
  • It's built. You then start development on a new thing in the colony, and a series of activities kick off to establish it.

If the BGS isn't a concern for this process, then this will be the same regardless of colony, regardless of where it is and regardless of the other things in the system.
If the BGS is a concern, then this will be unique to the conditions you chose, and will help shape what you can and can't do with that colony.... but equally... any very remote colony development would almost certainly be un-viable without essentially duplicating many aspects of the BGS, but just for colonisation, which is pretty kludgy.

So the way I see it:
You want more generic "PP/BGS systems" as you call it? Push for no limits on colonisation and nothing else.
You want your system to be uniquely yours and accepting of the surrounds to shape it? Stick with 20Ly tops, or push for an overhaul of BGS mechanics.

What's "boring" is going to be subjective to people, but I'd suggest that like in this case, if the want is not for "Generic PP/BGS systems" then the push for longer colonisation range is ill-advised.

Alternately: Don't listen to anything I'm saying. Just trust that FD probably picked this range for a good reason because they know the mechanics of their game.
Sometimes I like a person's post because they make a good argument, even if i don't agree with it. For example, I usually disagree with @Rubbernuke and @Rebel Yell on their stance on open only, but i'll give them a like for a well made argument.
That was at K Olley, not you.
 
Last edited:
The OED is dead to me since 1998 when they allowed split infinitives.
That is OK you can get the two volume Compact OED printed before that time, though you will need the magnifier as it contains the the full text of the complete dictionary at that time printed with four page images per page.
 
They do exactly what they need to do, which is make FD money.
Which is why they upped the arx costs ? They knew people would buy, would need to buy . I've always said generally Fdev don't know what the customer wants ( it's like they don't play the game ) but apparently I was incorrect in my assumption ....
 
I've actually thought about this, would be cool if the system architects could designate their systems as open only.

Then someone sets up a system at a very popular remote system, makes it open only, then either blocks explorers from entering unless they switch to open, where the owners is waiting for them to gank?

No, i don't think FD would ever go for that.
 
I've actually thought about this, would be cool if the system architects could designate their systems as open only.
Why ??? Because I may be in open but you are hiding in your instance of open ?? But if you want open only go to the open thread ?? I begining to understand what annoyed PC gamers about us consoles ?? 🤦‍♂️
 
Then someone sets up a system at a very popular remote system, makes it open only, then either blocks explorers from entering unless they switch to open, where the owners is waiting for them to gank?
And then the system would be popular and notorious, the forbidden fruit cargo being more tasty and all that.

No, i don't think FD would ever go for that.
Yeah obviously also for many other mechanical reasons that would make this unfeasible.
 
I would imagine something like a permit lock for those systems in solo/pg, the why is to increase the amount of control the players have over the game and its rules for better or for worse.

So why someone would even go into that system if doesn't want to play solo?
I think I get that idea, but it is like perfect to make more divisions between players. Shouldn't we rather make things more engaging to common play?
 
Back
Top Bottom