I think perhaps have a hierarchy of ownership- the principal architect can do what they like, while others can put a station on the planet but then pay the principal a fee of sorts.
Problems with permanent "System Architect" Status
- Thread starter BardBowman
- Start date
A system is colonized when the first starport is finished. If you fail to the construct it in the time limit then you lose the system and have to start over. Once there is a starport, there needs to be no further development.
The way for squadrons to deal with it then is everyone who wants to be a system architect grabs their own system in the same region and one by one help each other construct that first startport, then help each other develop the systems further should they desire. A squadron member drops out, then the other systems can still be developed further, and the squadron get their own mini-bubble.
That's how it could be handled in squadrons based on what we understand so far.
Should there be an option for a system architect role be assigned to a squadron leader, that can be passed on to others? Well, you can still run into the same issue as when a squadron leader quits the game, without passing on the role, unless you make it so that anyone of a certain rank can make decisions on behalf of the whole squadron and share ownership, so its fine as long as everyone with rights doesn't quit.
Overall though, i suspect this won't change. So yes, there will be systems that are only partially developed, ones which you possibility contributed to helping develop at some point. So the onus will be on the players to decide if they want to develop their own systems or help others who you want to help, knowing there is a chance they could quit playing the game, maybe tomorrow, maybe next month or year, or maybe you'll quit before they do.
The way for squadrons to deal with it then is everyone who wants to be a system architect grabs their own system in the same region and one by one help each other construct that first startport, then help each other develop the systems further should they desire. A squadron member drops out, then the other systems can still be developed further, and the squadron get their own mini-bubble.
That's how it could be handled in squadrons based on what we understand so far.
Should there be an option for a system architect role be assigned to a squadron leader, that can be passed on to others? Well, you can still run into the same issue as when a squadron leader quits the game, without passing on the role, unless you make it so that anyone of a certain rank can make decisions on behalf of the whole squadron and share ownership, so its fine as long as everyone with rights doesn't quit.
Overall though, i suspect this won't change. So yes, there will be systems that are only partially developed, ones which you possibility contributed to helping develop at some point. So the onus will be on the players to decide if they want to develop their own systems or help others who you want to help, knowing there is a chance they could quit playing the game, maybe tomorrow, maybe next month or year, or maybe you'll quit before they do.
This is just making my point though. Britain had a navy to enforce its claims. At no point in history have you been able to claim land, and then just leave forever with zero maintenance or defense. Having permanent player claims to systems in a multiplayer game makes no sense.Except that's exactly what did happen...
This is what drove the construction of the Royal Navy's vast fleet of 'economically designed' frigates to 'show the flag'.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
While that may be the case in RL, it's not relevant to a video game where we all control an immortal space pixie as an avatar.
I think you're misunderstanding my point. All I'm asking is that someone's claim expire eventually if they abandon the game. At that point it would be up for grabs by anyone, including their former squadron, or anyone else if they're faster. I'm not expecting Frontier to somehow manage the transition and make sure it goes to the "right" people. I'm just asking that there be a transition in the first place.
If this was a single player game you would be 100% correct. It's not. And with only a 10 ly expansion distance, space is going to get crowded, and Fdev literally said it would be a "gold rush" situation. There is no reason to allow a player to forever exclude other players from building things in a particular system without some sort of upkeep by that player (even if the "upkeep" is just literally logging into the game).
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Not misunderstanding at all - simply disagreeing with the notion that the System Architect should lose the sole ability to modify their colonised system due to a period of inactivity.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
In a game with 400 Billion systems there's no compelling reason not to.
Comparing this to BGS actually proves my point. When a player minor faction is abandoned, it is possible for other player factions to do some BGS work and move into those systems, because they are no longer there to defend them. I don't see why colonized systems should be different.
I'm not proposing that anything that you've done as the architect be overwritten, and I don't see any issue with the player who initially colonized the system forever having their name on it. The problem i have is that no one can ever do anything else to that system, even if you abandon it.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Players supporting other Factions (player, or not as the case may be) can do BGS work and move into those systems regardless of whether there are players actively supporting a PMF or not - whether or not the PMF is actively supported is irrelevant in that case.
For some that may pose a problem, for others it's a feature.
Last edited:
I agree with all of these points. I hope no one is reading my original post as asking the devs to allow people to demolish the original architect's work, because that is not at all what I am suggesting. I'd sort of compare it to exploration. If you discover a system, you will forever be listed as the person who discovered it, even if you didn't go and map all the planets, etc. But that also doesn't prevent other people from coming along later and in turn getting credit for scanning the individual planets, getting "first footfall," etc.
You've entirely missed the point. The treasury eventually built that fleet because colonies changed hands regularly.
From a British perspective the most famous example being the "Malvinas" or Falklands Islands. Discovered and colonised by Spain then left. When the Brits turned up there was no one.
The situation was even worse beyond the Horn of Africa where the Monsoon dictated that ships could visit once a year if they were high priority and nothing happened to the ships on the way. Want to take a bet how many just got left?
And because of that abandonment the Brits proceeded to take it and still hold it today! And they still hold it because they've taken action to keep it (Falklands war). How on earth do you think these examples you keep citing weigh against a claim expiration/abandonment mechanic?
Or am I just dense and we actually agree with each other and I'm arguing with you about nothing?
Last edited:
And a system would become available if an architect abandons it in the first month. After that, on your way.
Ok. And that's a fine opinion to have, but the historical examples you keep citing (especially the Falklands one) literally do not support this "forever ownership" idea in any way. So I'm not sure why you keep citing them.
This isn't the case though. Fdev have plainly stated in the streams that the architect can continue to develop the system by building additional space and ground stations. In other words, future placement of new stations in the system seems to be locked to the architect.
I'm just saying that if the architect leaves, someone else should be able to continue the work. I'm not asking that their progress be erased or that their name be removed from the system.
Well I could use this same argument against the whole colonization feature. We can't colonize other systems right now so why should we be able to in the future?
(to be clear, I want to be able to colonize other systems. I am just pointing out that appealing to the current state of the game as authority for your argument is not logically sound).
The problem with this is coming up with an acceptable enough definition of abandon the game.
Obviously a signed and witnessed declaration by the architect might do but that is a lot of hassle.
The trouble with an established colony being up for grabs is going to be all the rules lawyers in the game claiming that Shin Dez should be up for grabs because the architect hasn't logged in for over 10 years.
It seems like FDev is giving the system architect flexibility concerning the system once it is colonized. The clock is ticking for 30 days initially; I think that is a sufficient motivator for the SysArch. But if there were some mandatory time commitments beyond that it could put a damper on creating the daisy chains that were repeatedly discussed by FDev. Stringing together a chain of systems will require a lot of time and patience and if those colonized systems “expire” that would create a lot of grief.
I think if there were scarcity of resources an appeal for expiration dates could be made for necessity, but there will be thousands of systems along the periphery of the bubble that can be colonized. I know an absent SysArch will not cause me much concern.
Last edited: