Changes are needed for making claims at new outposts

[Shadowsnog]

they're not going to give System Architects a permanent right to lock everyone else out of their systems' colonisation contact

never did i suggest anything like that.
im not currently in position to do any deep think about think about this, nor do i know technical limitations, but where theres will, there is way.
and if there is a way and if there is a will, id like frontier to consider the options.

seems like colonisation can recognise your squadron and its affiliate faction.
you could attribute each system a hidden score per every colonised/civilised system in range. if the score is high enough, anyone can colonise from the system. if the score is low enough, there would be one tick window (be it weekly or daily) for members of the faction-squadron owning the system to use the colonisation contact exclusively. tick passes, anyone can colonise.
in the bubble you can just go for it, as there isnt a prerequisite of people slaving over hauling to be able to get to the system.
if you are building a bridge, you would have small window of opportunity to capture high value targets.
if you want to piggyback on someone elses efforts and just reap what you didnt sow, you would have to at least wait for a bit.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

but where theres will, there is way.

Indeed. But that's only true if there's the will, and there isn't: Frontier absolutely do not view "preventing colonisation sniping" as the absolute top priority for Elite Dangerous to which all other features and gameplay may be subordinated (or they wouldn't have released Trailblazers with the design it has in the first place). So therefore some ways get ruled out because they have too many side-effects.

They could prevent it very easily by allowing the Architect exclusive access to the Colonisation Contact in new systems on a permanent or at least long-term basis. But there's not the will to do that.
They could prevent it by converting Elite Dangerous to a local-server multiplayer game. But there's certainly not the will to do that.

So ... is there a mechanism which would stop some high-resource group racing from four systems back which wouldn't cause massive side-effects elsewhere which stop there being the will? In short: do the ends justify the means?

seems like colonisation can recognise your squadron and its affiliate faction.
you could attribute each system a hidden score per every colonised/civilised system in range. if the score is high enough, anyone can colonise from the system. if the score is low enough, there would be one tick window (be it weekly or daily) for members of the faction-squadron owning the system to use the colonisation contact exclusively. tick passes, anyone can colonise.

Since - as of the Ascendancy update - you can realign your squadron at any time to any faction you're Allied with, this will take someone about five minutes to bypass. And they can spend those five minutes well in advance of the contact actually coming online.

 

[Jinx Chrome]

With the same right to to claim a 'desired system' just because you already colonised near that system, an explorer who discovered it or first footfalled it, could 'demand' the right to first colonisation. What happens when two players are near a desired system they both want to claim? Or the pilot who first honked a system may 'demand' that the right to first footfall also becomes their own and no one can land for a given time.

Long story short: Any claims beyond a first come - first serve policy lead into a rabbit hole.
In one year, most of us will have moved on from colonisation and those current claims will sound pretty ridiculous because only a few will really care.

 

[Shadowsnog]

Indeed. But that's only true if there's the will, and there isn't

as a pretty prevalent fdev critic lately, id say that with trailblazers fdev showed that there is still at least some will going around. you dont think so?

Frontier absolutely do not view "preventing colonisation sniping" as the absolute top priority for Elite Dangerous to which all other features and gameplay may be subordinated (or they wouldn't have released Trailblazers with the design it has in the first place). So therefore some ways get ruled out because they have too many side-effects.

once again you are pushing and stretching your arguments to the absolute. noone is claiming top priority for this. im just asking to consider the options, especially while we are in beta. you are referring to things you made up. ian please. i think you are one of the best of elites analysts, so lets stay with the facts and dont push personal. you are just losing yourself a great deal of respect.

They could prevent it very easily by allowing the Architect exclusive access to the Colonisation Contact in new systems on a permanent or at least long-term basis. But there's not the will to do that.
They could prevent it by converting Elite Dangerous to a local-server multiplayer game. But there's certainly not the will to do that.

im not asking for that. im not advocating for that. once again you are just making egregious claims that have nothing to do with what i said. i gave you a suggestion, you never adressed it and instead are making extremist arguments to try to prove something you from your position cant prove. either you relog to your fdev account and make official statement or adress what i am saying without making stuff up. you are just doing yourself a disservice.

So ... is there a mechanism which would stop some high-resource group racing from four systems back which wouldn't cause massive side-effects elsewhere which stop there being the will? In short: do the ends justify the means?

this is what we are discussing, arent we? what mechanism there could be...
so what are the massive side effects of the suggestion i made?

Since - as of the Ascendancy update - you can realign your squadron at any time to any faction you're Allied with, this will take someone about five minutes to bypass. And they can spend those five minutes well in advance of the contact actually coming online.

this is the only reasonable argument you made and i thank you for that. its a good point. and an incredibely easy fix to make in the game, isnt it?
once you align your squad with a faction, you stay with that faction permanently. no big deal. all of us who have our squadron faction are aligned with that faction in long term and dont need such service. you want to realign yourself, you be a good boi and ask very nicely and politely the amazing people at fdev support and maybe you will get your request approved, just like with commander renaming. you are trying to realign yourself too often, you get a fat no as a response to your request. thats a 90 seconds tops job for the support operator to do.

With the same right to to claim a 'desired system' just because you already colonised near that system, an explorer who discovered it or first footfalled it, could 'demand' the right to first colonisation. What happens when two players are near a desired system they both want to claim? Or the pilot who first honked a system may 'demand' that the right to first footfall also becomes their own and no one can land for a given time.

thats once again a difference in the effort. how much effort it takes to jump 1k ly to a system, honk/scan/disembark from a ship?
how much effort would it take to make a colonisation bridge there 15ly a time?
is that effort comparable?
i understand first explorers would like to make some claim on things they discovered and i would fully support more ingame recognition for explorers. i always thought that something like planting a flag for first footfall could be a thing. but when, eg, theres a group of dozen of cmdrs that each work 4 hrs daily to make a bridge to a system, i dont think you should get any primary hold on that system just because you did a honky driveby on it 7 years earlier.
how would you even resolve multiple first discoveries in the system? rhetorical question.

Long story short: Any claims beyond a first come - first serve policy lead into a rabbit hole.

so whats the rabbit hole on the suggestion i made?

In one year, most of us will have moved on from colonisation and those current claims will sound pretty ridiculous because only a few will really care.

if sniping isnt adressed, in 6 months all the high value target in relative vicinity will be claimed and if snipers will actually get the prized targets in lieu of people actually putting the effort in, nobody will be colonising anymore. in one year there will be noone interested in colonising anything other than bubble, because why put the effort in to move the claims all the way some way, if your work will get devalued by someone doing a last minute miniscule amount of effort compared to you? all the people that came back for this will abandon the game again, all the people that put the work in will be demotivated to do any more of it, and everyone will be just expecting someone else to make the stretch for them and wait for the last second snipe to not get screwed again.
do you think this is in the best interest of the game? of the players? of the developers? of the investors? does any good guy win over the bad guy in this scenario?

maybe.
maybe more like this, maybe less like this, maybe it will be completely different in full release.
maybe im too making too extreme things up, but this forecast is based on currently engaged mechanisms in the game, and actual human behaviour. in case you missed it: if people will have a way how to cheat and skip effort (bonus points for getting on someones nerves), they will. dont have to go that far back for a proof even within colonisation, right?

 

[Greasetrap42]

How could I possibly realize I am sniping a system?

I am a regular Joe cmdr looking for an amazing system. I want it far out on the edge. I spend hours searching systems that have recently opened up because of other cmdr colonies. And WOW! I found the perfect spot... this is amazing! I can't believe nobody else found this!

I'm not trying to be evil. I didn't do anything with bad intent. I just innocently found this super awesome cool system.

Am I supposed to ignore this awesome system and just look for a mediocre system that other cmdrs probably don't want?

 

[Jinx Chrome]

[…]
maybe im too making too extreme things up,

This.

It isn‘t the end of the world when you don’t get your system. The were enough arguments listed by @Jmanis above.

 

[Kathryn Kando]

It’s a cutthroat galaxy not a Gentleman’s club, I‘m afraid.
But then, this is how this game is advertised.

 

[Shadowsnog]

This.

It isn‘t the end of the world when you don’t get your system. The were enough arguments listed by @Jmanis above.

i admit it, perfectly possible. i agree, its just a game. but as i said, im not just a pixel, my time isnt unlimited. and when there is an effort required from me to get to a thing and someone gets the thing piggybacking on me for no cost, its not a good design. and if there are feasible options how this could be adressed, id like fdev to have a look at them.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

as a pretty prevalent fdev critic lately, id say that with trailblazers fdev showed that there is still at least some will going around. you dont think so?

In the general sense, sure, absolutely. There is a will to keep developing the game.

On the other side, there's clearly a maximum amount of side-effects they're willing to tolerate for any change, and a maximum amount of effort before they say "this doesn't come up often enough to worry about, let's focus on the next new feature instead". So their will is finite.

I think it's reasonable to state that based on what Frontier have said that they see Colonisation as a purely collaborative feature
- you can't permit-lock your systems or stations or otherwise restrict them to your squadron's use only
- you can't attack or reverse another player's colonisation effort in any way
- you can't prevent someone colonising with "your" PMF
- etc.
So adding features which give one group or another an advantage in attempting to use it competitively - but which might interfere with a purely collaborative use - don't seem to be ones they're thinking there's a will for right now.

Of course they could change their mind on that. But it's not just an abstract matter of general-purpose will to do so.

so what are the massive side effects of the suggestion i made?

Since I don't think it works in the first place as a way of preventing "race to the finish" snipes at long range, I don't think the side effects aren't the main problem.


But the first side-effect if it did work is the obvious one: it stops people branching off long chains of colonies, so the chain doesn't just achieve its "intended" goal of reserving its final destination in 100 LY time, it also reserves every other system that group doesn't consider important for quite some distance around. That's a highly disproportionate way of "protecting" a single target system.

The two longest chains of colonies at the moment, as far as I can tell, are:
- Canonn's towards Polaris
- Mikunn's towards Lagoon Nebula
Both pretty cool group projects.

Neither of these chains are snipable anyway in terms of their final destination because they're heading for regions. But I don't get the impression either group has any objection at all to someone going "hey, that's a cool system and it's only two hops sideways from that chain - I'll go for it!": indeed, their projects may be doing well because they haven't been all "and don't try to follow us" about it.

Giving a way to allow people making a series of steps towards a single final goal system a way to somehow reserve that system? Sure - I can't see a good way to do it, but it's not an unreasonable outcome if it can be done. Giving a way to allow people making a chain in that direction to have exclusive use of that chain and all the systems it brings into range for a significant time, just so that they can protect a single one? Incredibly disproportionate.



Another side effect:
- you're in a squadron, which is aligned to faction A (or maybe unaligned - it's not required) or maybe you're not even in a squadron at all
- you do some colonising to make a chain, and it happens that the suitable edge of bubble system belongs to faction B
- you don't actually care who owns the systems on the chain (you might even not care that much about the endpoint either...), so you've not been BGS-flipping them to faction A as you go along, so B still controls all of them
- you suddenly lock yourself out of being able to extend the chain
- cue bug reports, support tickets, forum threads, etc.

You could avoid that specific case with a "doesn't apply to the architect" rule, but now what about the case where four people from four different squadrons are working on a chain, and want to share out the architect roles (they don't want to leave their current squadrons and make a new single-purpose squadron together for this, that's at best unnecessary paperwork and might stop them taking part in other squadron activities they want to do in-between hauling runs). At some point outwards, the chain controller doesn't match (any of) their squadrons, and all future expansions have to be done by the same architect.

Not everyone is colonising in a single squadron with a single purpose, so once you start making rules which benefit that specific use-case, they have the potential to inconvenience everyone else, especially those not involved in a snipe/race scenario.

once you align your squad with a faction, you stay with that faction permanently. no big deal. all of us who have our squadron faction are aligned with that faction in long term and dont need such service. you want to realign yourself, you be a good boi and ask very nicely and politely the amazing people at fdev support and maybe you will get your request approved, just like with commander renaming. you are trying to realign yourself too often, you get a fat no as a response to your request. thats a 90 seconds tops job for the support operator to do.

That is how it used to work before Ascendancy. Frontier changed it because the previous method was just unnecessary for a squadron which might have reasons to want to change allegiance (more so in terms of Powerplay switches, but others too). So ... is there the will to add inconvenience to everyone not involved in a race-to-the-finish by changing it back?

And ... it still doesn't help prevent snipes if you add that restriction, because you can:
- leave your current squadron (easy if you're not the leader)
- create a new squadron for 10 million credits (pocket change)
- align that squadron instead
- do the colonisation contact to get the branch claim
- close your 1-person squadron and rejoin your real one

It also doesn't help, of course, if you're a squadron that is or has been actively recruiting new members, doesn't have an ultra-paranoid background check policy, and therefore one of your members is someone's alt who adds in the second claim in the appropriate direction, then leaves the squadron so that by the time it completes, it's in the name of a different squadron who gets their own "faction 3" inserted.
(Or, at that point, possibly just snipes the final system because they're in the squadron so there's no restriction on them rushing the new contact)
Might not be a risk for your group personally, but it's hardly a general snipe prevention method for this sort of scenario.

 

[Shadowsnog]

How could I possibly realize I am sniping a system?

I am a regular Joe cmdr looking for an amazing system. I want it far out on the edge. I spend hours searching systems that have recently opened up because of other cmdr colonies. And WOW! I found the perfect spot... this is amazing! I can't believe nobody else found this!

I'm not trying to be evil. I didn't do anything with bad intent. I just innocently found this super awesome cool system.

Am I supposed to ignore this awesome system and just look for a mediocre system that other cmdrs probably don't want?

if you are 1k ly from the bubble, looking at system being available to colonisation only thanks to a group of people from one squadron who made the bridge there, and you take the only elw system in the vicinity the very moment they complete the last system in the chain required to get there, you would have hard time convincing me it was by accident.
ignorance is a choice.

 

[Jinx Chrome]

if you are 1k ly from the bubble, looking at system being available to colonisation only thanks to a group of people from one squadron who made the bridge there, and you take the only elw system in the vicinity the very moment they complete the last system in

Of course, it isn’t fair in any way but it is what it is. Cutthroat Galaxy was mentioned many times in this thread.

As a counter argument, one could say that your solution approach would enable you and your gang to endlessly chain forward to interesting/valuable systems and leave no one else a chance. Also not fair.
You mentioned that an explorer has less claim to a system than the daisy chain builders but without the explorer you wouldn’t even KNOW that there’s a valuable system in the black.

From my commander’s perspective, I don’t care or give a rodent’s behind who colonised the system because it is only a name on a station wall. The system doesn‘t belong the architect and if I really, really want to make it mine, I could even take it over through the BGS (don’t worry, I am not interested a bit in anyone’s colony). What then? Also demand from FDev that this mechanism needs to be changed because you invested a lot of effort into colonising it?

I‘d say that for the time being the best strategy is to sit back and do something else in ED. With every week, there will be a bigger radius of settled space with even more interesting systems. Let others do the work for you or wait until they lose interest in sniping systems and don’t be too invested when you fail to get that special system of those 400 billion around.

 

[Shadowsnog]

So adding features which give one group or another an advantage in attempting to use it competitively - but which might interfere with a purely collaborative use - don't seem to be ones they're thinking there's a will for right now.

i fail to see how group effort isnt collaborative and how attempt at sniping isnt cometetive.

it stops people branching off long chains of colonies

literally nothing would change in this regard, except there would be a day/week wait time for unaffiliated

The two longest chains of colonies at the moment, as far as I can tell, are:
- Canonn's towards Polaris

if polaris wasnt permit locked and i got in there last second and got polaris for myself, built an outpost there and nothing else, would that be competetive or collaborative? would canonn like me for that or not?
(presuming they want to colonise the system more than just the outpost)

Neither of these chains are snipable anyway in terms of their final destination because they're heading for regions. But I don't get the impression either group has any objection at all to someone going "hey, that's a cool system and it's only two hops sideways from that chain - I'll go for it!": indeed, their projects may be doing well because they haven't been all "and don't try to follow us" about it.

there are more groups than the two you mentioned. and the argument isnt "i want to prevent people from branching from my claims" nor "i dont want people to follow". quite the opposite, its i dont want people to get ahead of me when they didnt put the same work as me to get there. literally follow me, as in get behind me, if i have to say it that way.
but im not making a commotion to lock out people of space. just to give respect and recognition to those that do stuff. becase doing stuff in here is a pretty significant doing and, imo, deserves a bit more significant respect.
going for an area is cool, but each area has only so many attractive systems. if i get to the area and dont get the "make me happy" systems in lieu of some leech, i wont be happy about it...

Giving a way to allow people making a series of steps towards a single final goal system a way to somehow reserve that system? Sure - I can't see a good way to do it, but it's not an unreasonable outcome if it can be done. Giving a way to allow people making a chain in that direction to have exclusive use of that chain and all the systems it brings into range for a significant time, just so that they can protect a single one? Incredibly disproportionate.

i dont know if some kind of lock on a system would be good idea. im not talking about a lock. im talking about a wait.

- you suddenly lock yourself out of being able to extend the chain

once again you keep referring to the lock, when there is none.

You could avoid that specific case with a "doesn't apply to the architect" rule, but now what about the case where four people from four different squadrons are working on a chain, and want to share out the architect roles (they don't want to leave their current squadrons and make a new single-purpose squadron together for this, that's at best unnecessary paperwork and might stop them taking part in other squadron activities they want to do in-between hauling runs). At some point outwards, the chain controller doesn't match (any of) their squadrons, and all future expansions have to be done by the same architect.

Not everyone is colonising in a single squadron with a single purpose, so once you start making rules which benefit that specific use-case, they have the potential to inconvenience everyone else, especially those not involved in a snipe/race scenario.

i feel like once again you keep adressing the issue like im trying to imply permalock on systems. im not. id like a wait time. i think daily tick would be good enough, in which case if you are part of a multi-squad group that colonises somewhere together and you finish a system without its architect immediately around, you would just have to wait. nobody would be locked out of anything permanently...
good argument tho. i feel like there could be some kind of equilibrium established, but im just not in the right mind rn to make anything better out of it...

That is how it used to work before Ascendancy. Frontier changed it because the previous method was just unnecessary for a squadron which might have reasons to want to change allegiance (more so in terms of Powerplay switches, but others too). So ... is there the will to add inconvenience to everyone not involved in a race-to-the-finish by changing it back?

And ... it still doesn't help prevent snipes if you add that restriction, because you can:
- leave your current squadron (easy if you're not the leader)
- create a new squadron for 10 million credits (pocket change)

if you left squad, you will have a cooldwon to create/join another.
when theres will theres a way applies to you as well
these hurdles really arent that high.

It also doesn't help, of course, if you're a squadron that is or has been actively recruiting new members, doesn't have an ultra-paranoid background check policy, and therefore one of your members is someone's alt who adds in the second claim in the appropriate direction, then leaves the squadron so that by the time it completes, it's in the name of a different squadron who gets their own "faction 3" inserted.
(Or, at that point, possibly just snipes the final system because they're in the squadron so there's no restriction on them rushing the new contact)
Might not be a risk for your group personally, but it's hardly a general snipe prevention method for this sort of scenario.

recruitment handling is in the hands of sqadron, not the system. but if the squad started a colonisation, and architect changed squads-factions during the process, wouldnt the system still be under the original group? is this known?

 

[Greasetrap42]

if you are 1k ly from the bubble, looking at system being available to colonisation only thanks to a group of people from one squadron who made the bridge there, and you take the only elw system in the vicinity the very moment they complete the last system in the chain required to get there, you would have hard time convincing me it was by accident.
ignorance is a choice.

I 100% disagree. A big long 50 system path to god-knows-where and we don't know where it is headed (maybe 50 more systems to its final glorious destination? How I am supposed to know?) should have defacto claim to any system along the path it is traveling by?

No. An innocent cmdr looking for a fantastic system can not possibly know the intentions of this random group. Unless your suggestion is that it is required to contact the group and gain permission prior to claiming any system in their "region of space".

 

[Bigmaec]

Unless your suggestion is that it is required to contact the group and gain permission prior to claiming any system in their "region of space".

That's exactly what some PMFs would prefer

 

[Shadowsnog]

Cutthroat Galaxy

i myself have been mentioning this multiple times. my argument is that this is beyond just cutting a throat. in this game throats have rebuy. colonisation doesnt. if you permanently lost your ship on death the cutthroat discussion would be different too. (but thats wholly another topic)

As a counter argument, one could say that your solution approach would enable you and your gang to endlessly chain forward to interesting/valuable systems and leave no one else a chance. Also not fair.

im not suggesting locking out anyone permanently. im suggesting a wait time. that would indeed give a spearhead advantage to a very active and very dedicated group. you could, after the wait, still claim another system, be it parallel to the og groups way of colonisation, and go your way along them from any point of the chain. but not at the very second they finish the previous system. as i mentioned i feel like there could be an equilibrium achieved in there.

You mentioned that an explorer has less claim to a system than the daisy chain builders but without the explorer you wouldn’t even KNOW that there’s a valuable system in the black.

and without the builders the explorer alone would never get there. both are fair points. but one of these requires vastly different amount of effort to achieve and that effort could be recognised.
if there was a way how to, lets say, make a plaque on the controlling station on the system with names of its first explorer, id be 200% down for it.
but since we are on this topic, and you seem like an explorer from what i read, and you value your first discoveries, how would you feel if you were thousands of ly out in the black, going for a particular discovery and i teleported to you and claimed it right before your nose? would you shrug and say cutthroat galaxy or would you be irked?

From my commander’s perspective, I don’t care are rodent’s behind who colonised the system because it is only a name on a station wall. The system doesn‘t belong the architect and if I really, really want to make it mine, I could even take it over through the BGS (don’t worry, I am not interested a bit in anyone’s colony). What then? Also demand from FDev that this mechanism needs to be changed because you invested a lot of effort into colonising it?

this isnt about bgs control. this is about shaping the system. what would it matter to me if i want to make a grand system in, idk, crab nebula, with many stations and big population and whatever, and you skedaddle yourself in, build an outpost, make a middle finger graffiti in the concourse and leave?

Let others do the work for you

that is the best point.
not even being sniped, yet already encouraged to not play the game, not engage in the content, not give flying buzz about whats happening, just wait for your opportunity to leech.
i know you didnt mean it that fatalistically, but that is the inevitable conclusion for any concsious cmdr that isnt addicted (or has stockholm syndrome) to the game...
from the player pov it makes sense. it is a perfectly fine advice and a reasonable solution to this situation.
but im also making the suggestion from the pov of a gm and a dev.
this is not good.
if it can be adressed, i think it should.
can it tho...

 

[Rat Catcher]

That's exactly what some PMFs would prefer

The "Rightful Rulers" would demand it, for sure!

 

[Greasetrap42]

this isnt about bgs control. this is about shaping the system. what would it matter to me if i want to make a grand system in, idk, crab nebula, with many stations and big population and whatever, and you skedaddle yourself in, build an outpost, make a middle finger graffiti in the concourse and leave?

This sounds like the ability to future claim a pathway of choice, along with whatever is on that path. And of course the path might have multiple destinations along the way, and because the path doesn't necessarily have an absolute final destination because the group making the path keep deciding to go further.

So really this is an idea to reserve a region of space expanding out from the bubble for future development.

 

[Shadowsnog]

I 100% disagree. A big long 50 system path to god-knows-where and we don't know where it is headed (maybe 50 more systems to its final glorious destination? How I am supposed to know?) should have defacto claim to any system along the path it is traveling by?

not here
^
bubble . . . . . . . . . . . . you are here > this is the way of expansion > . . . . . . . . . . . nebula
↓
not here

ignorance is the night of the mind, but a night without moon or star.

you can still expand from any point of the way, you could even expand the way of the og expansion. but if you want to sit at the last construction point before the nebula and wait for completion so you can get before the og group, you would have to wait.

 

[Shadowsnog]

This sounds like the ability to future claim a pathway of choice, along with whatever is on that path. And of course the path might have multiple destinations along the way, and because the path doesn't necessarily have an absolute final destination because the group making the path keep deciding to go further.

So really this is an idea to reserve a region of space expanding out from the bubble for future development.

you are reading it wrong.
im not making claims on any future pathway. im just saying that if you want to colonise from a system thats way out there, and you arent part of the group that made the way out there, you would have to wait for a little before being able to colonise from the last point.
if you just want to intentionally make up things to argue i couldnt care less.

 

[Rat Catcher]

can it tho...

No, not really, not without gating all expansion off to the architect (remember, nobody actualy 'owns', nor has any claim but a name in the local news section, any particular system, nor do they have 'first dibs' on a particular system.

It is something to do with it being a multiplayer game, not just a 'clans' game, you may not like it (which it is pretty obviously the case), but it is the game as FRONTIER designed it, not a player.