Systems abandoned by Architects

[Greasetrap42]

nope Sir - just now doing the finishing touches on a system with fully developed Indistry, Hightec and Refinery-Ecos. So even a system with some 40 Installations (incl. a Coriolis) can be done within a month (solo)...

Certainly a system can be fully developed by some cmdrs in a month. But I think the point you were replying to remains that it will be very common for systems to be developed over long periods of time. Especially when the Trailblaizers Beta is over and the game starts moving in other directions with other activities for cmdrs to spread their time on.

Also consider many systems that are "completed in a month" would be sitting idle (without further development) after being completed. Possibly (probably) with unused slots. Are they really 'completed'?. Are they 'abandoned'? Just because a cmdr is happy with their system and hasn't added to it in +12 months doesn't mean it is abandoned. I think the point you were replying to was saying there is no way to determine when a system is 'complete' and what is 'abandoned', when many players are doing a mixture of activities over extended periods of time.

 

[Xenia_K]

Certainly a system can be fully developed by some cmdrs in a month. But I think the point you were replying to remains that it will be very common for systems to be developed over long periods of time. Especially when the Trailblaizers Beta is over and the game starts moving in other directions with other activities for cmdrs to spread their time on.

Also consider many systems that are "completed in a month" would be sitting idle (without further development) after being completed. Possibly (probably) with unused slots. Are they really 'completed'?. Are they 'abandoned'? Just because a cmdr is happy with their system and hasn't added to it in +12 months doesn't mean it is abandoned. I think the point you were replying to was saying there is no way to determine when a system is 'complete' and what is 'abandoned', when many players are doing a mixture of activities over extended periods of time.

oh I was unclear in my post - sorry.
For me personally the whole discussion about wether or not a system is abandoned is absurd in itself.
The Architect of a system successfully claimed that system and developed it by finishing that primary port.
Anything else and/or more is up to him and not negotiable - except the architect is contacted e.g. by a present PMF and asked to place some new constructions for them to complete.

My answer just was pointing out the wrong claim that a larger system cannot be fully build up by solo player without it taking years....

 

[CMDR Darth Vater]

With what reason?
With reason that person claimed and built that system, it's his/hers. A pirate or whatever clan can throw tantrums but they can't have it.

You apply the same logic as in "there's an account from a player who stopped playing, why can't a pirate or a clan overtake it?"

There are things that don't belong to you and you can't have them.

this answer doesn't make sense. I am talking not about about pirating an account. Or stealing something out of your pockets.

This game is no single player. If you have "your own PMF" or you adopted one, then there's always an NPC or player faction you need to co-exist. The system architect doesn't make sense in a "realistic" multi player space game. What instance blocks me or anyone to build a station? Simply an outside of the game "rule". There's no ingame justification like NPC fighters attacking the new settlers.

If you start a rocket to land on any moon in the solar system and to start your colony there, absolutely nothing will prevent that. And if, then you'll see other ships attacking or blocking you.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

There's no ingame justification like NPC fighters attacking the new settlers.

Quite a lot of things don't have an in-game justification if it makes the gameplay more interesting / possible.

e.g. why do we get paid more than our ship is worth to haul some cargo ten minutes to another station?
e.g. why can we sit in a RES killing hundreds of pirates (which in some cases may be more than the entire registered population of the system) without them getting the hint that the risk of death in no way compensates for the ability to potentially steal 2t of Rutile from a miner?
e.g. what did that "Criminal Passenger" possibly do to get a bounty with 70,000 separate minor factions and yet be some no-name NPC you'll never hear of before or again?
e.g. why do we still have human-piloted spaceships at all when we can barely find a justification to do that in the 21st century?

Now you can certainly handwave that by the Treaty of Alcor all constructions have to be signed off by a particular process, and no legitimate or even deniably corrupt construction company is going to work on an unauthorised construction, and only the consultant who has bribed their way into the Architect contract has the special stamp needed to authorise them under subsection 8 (c) (iii) paragraph 17 of the Treaty. But that's the sort of detail no-one really cares about and Frontier are better leaving to some very niche fanfic authors.

But the out-of-game justification is fairly straightforward: it's not intended (at all!) as a competitive feature, and the way the various dependencies, slot limits, etc. are set up in a system it would be really easy for two people working on the same system to get in each other's way (accidentally or otherwise) far more than they could actually improve the system. Whereas if they intend to cooperate, they can already both haul to the construction sites the one with the Architect role sets up, so there's no problem there.

 

[Greasetrap42]

The system architect doesn't make sense in a "realistic" multi player space game. What instance blocks me or anyone to build a station? Simply an outside of the game "rule". There's no ingame justification like NPC fighters attacking the new settlers.

If you start a rocket to land on any moon in the solar system and to start your colony there, absolutely nothing will prevent that. And if, then you'll see other ships attacking or blocking you.

What also doesn't make sense is an entire solar system having such an incredibly limited number of locations to build.

• Why can an entire planet larger than Planet Earth have only a couple settlements?
• Why can a planet only have a couple items in orbit?

Obviously because of game limitations. Certainly it would be really amazing if an ED solar system could have hundreds or more realistically... 10's of thousands of building locations. But it can't.There are relatively few building locations in a system. And to avoid player frustration of having their colony design easily messed with by other players, making it almost impossible to do anything worth while... the game was designed to have one architect per solar system. Because it is a game with limitations.

 

[Doctor Dread]

this answer doesn't make sense. I am talking not about about pirating an account. Or stealing something out of your pockets.

This game is no single player. If you have "your own PMF" or you adopted one, then there's always an NPC or player faction you need to co-exist. The system architect doesn't make sense in a "realistic" multi player space game. What instance blocks me or anyone to build a station? Simply an outside of the game "rule". There's no ingame justification like NPC fighters attacking the new settlers.

If you start a rocket to land on any moon in the solar system and to start your colony there, absolutely nothing will prevent that. And if, then you'll see other ships attacking or blocking you.

OK, I will try again, in a simpler way: without analogies, examples etc that might confuse you.

• in this game, a single player acquires the system, makes initial build and by doing that he/she makes it it's own. Pay attention, makes it his own.
• no one else can have that system.
• there are things people own, that no one else can have.

Can you grasp this concept?

 

[Zador]

If you start a rocket to land on any moon in the solar system and to start your colony there, absolutely nothing will prevent that. And if, then you'll see other ships attacking or blocking you.

The faction that sold the contract to the System Architect would not allow you, and would not support you, so you would not have a hope of starting a colony.

 

[Starshot_Jigawatts]

System Architects don't own the system. They don't own the buildings in that system. Other factions/Organizations do. System architects only do one thing, pick a spot for colonizing/improving a system. That's it. Once the construction site is up, the architect part of this whole thing is done. Now it's up to the ENTIRE COMMANDER BASE to deliver goods. The fact that architects choose to take on the space trucking part themselves is NOT a part of the system architecting. Much like real life, as an architect, you get a paycheck, and your name on a plaque. That's it. You are making something for everyone else, not yourself. You don't own anything. At best all you own is the rights to architect the colony.

So many players only speak in terms of owning everything in "their" system. It's not yours, period, the end.

Whatever you have to tell yourself. If a million players help build a system, none of their deeds will be recorded and displayed. It's the Architect who for all intents and purposes "owns" that system.

Your analogy doesn't even fit. We aren't merely "Architects" are we? We pick the site, we plan what goes where, and we also Architect. That's not JUST being an "Architect" now is it?

 

[Desirsar]

How do you tell the difference between an abandoned system and one where the player is happy not filling every slot?

How did this thread get three pages without the obvious answer to this question?

The player will have logged in sometime in the past year or two.

 

[Starshot_Jigawatts]

It's hilarious you say we're not architects, then describe almost to a T what the definition of an architect is. I don't even know how to respond to this. The label in the game is literally Architect. You also don't get anything permanent except a recurring paycheck, and your name on a box in the system map. You don't own anything even by the game's rules lol. Like, how do I even respond to your comment. This is what I'm talking about. How can people have productive discussions when the frame of mind is so far away from what is objectively there in the game?

EDIT: If you still think you "own" your system then stop me from going to it. Stop me from landing at the stations. Stop me from using the markets. Stop me from playing the BGS in "your" system. Stop me from bounty hunting in it. Stop me from doing signatures in it. Stop me from doing ANYTHING. You can't. You want to know why? Because you don't own it, objectively.

Really I wasn't aware architects commissioned the build themselves, picked their own build site, draw up the plans AND participate in the construction. Really, that's what architects do really?

So we aren't architects in any literal sense, and we don't "own" the systems in the literal sense. For all intents and purposes though we say we own the systems we colonize. We consider them "ours" and I don't care how you feel about that. You didn't make the 25 million payment and did the work. I did! So hush, sit down.

 

[Starshot_Jigawatts]

Stop me from doing ANYTHING. You can't.

Okay go to any of my systems and try to build anything you want See how far that gets you.

 

[Starshot_Jigawatts]

You didn't commission the build the faction that owns it did. You just picked a good spot and told the faction/brewer about it. You also didn't draw up the plans, that was done for you as well. You didn't participate in the construction, as you never hammered anything, riveted anything, put in any steel beams. You transported goods, that's it. You transported them, just like any other commander in the entire galaxy could. That was your decision as an independent commander not as an architect. The fact that you are also the architect is irrelevant. Mental gymnastics. You are free to see it as "yours" if you want, all I'm saying is that it is entirely fabricated in your mind and not supported by either the lore behind colonies nor the in game mechanics. You don't own squat except for exclusive rights to architect (pick building locations) the system.

I just have to ask but why are you this invested in taking the newest gameplay loop we have, and telling players they have no reason at all to be invested in it? What is your motivation here?

Is it SO terrible to you that people get a sense of ownership from Colonization? Why is that a problem? How does it hurt you? Removing player agency shouldn't be a goal of anyone in the community so I'm honestly confused.

You're fighting a losing battle here. I mean the sense of ownership from Trailblazers is ubiquitous among all commanders who participate. "My system this, my system that". Listen to ANYONE who's speaking about it, you'll hear it. The sense of ownership is baked into the cake, whether or not you like it or it meets your silly space-lawyer ramblings about it. Everyone feels the systems they claim, colonize, and build up is "theirs". And you know what? We're all the better for it. How is LESS personal investment in the game ultimately good for it?

I'm having fun claiming and owning Milky Way systems. Frankly I don't give neutrino how you feel about that.

 

[Niamhy]

Trailblazers is in beta. When it "releases", and Fdev move onto the next thing, it will probably have tie-ins to Trailblazers. eg Vanguards will probably add "Vanguard Settlements" or ports, which is more stuff you can build. maybe even eventually "player bases" that you actually own and can charge tarifs on like you do with your Carrier. So if you fill out every slot in your system now, you're not leaving room for that system to grow and expand as new stuff gets added down the line.

Also, almost guaranteed that eventually the Thargoid-Human hybrid refugees that are flying out to live in these systems are going to turn EVIL at some point, so if you have 30 installations in your sytem then that is 30 things you will have to fight/recover/restore. (ok, that one is maybe Headcanon more than roadmap lol). Just be mindful that Trailblazers is intended to be a long-term thing, over years.. maybe even the next decade of Elite Dangerous. Once you build your Primary Port... relax. take your time. we dont' even know how economies work properly yet (and a lot of stuff is still bugged)

 

[Xenia_K]

^--^its human. It is easier to say "my system" instead of (correctly) "the system I am designing/developing".
Why we should be aware of that?
Because that wrong perception also implies (and frequent discussions did happen already) that you should be able to rename "your" system or to decide which factions are present etc.
The fact that these are not possible shows clearly that you only own your imagination

 

[Niamhy]

yeah, you don't "own" the system, the BGS factions that are expanding into it do. You just bought the contract to build the system for them.

 

[Starshot_Jigawatts]

So many posts that discuss gameplay mechanics operate under the assumption that the player is a god king of "their" system, when no such gameplay mechanics exist to support that.

Only two parties can bring civilization to a star system: FDEV themselves and now us, the Commanders. I don't know if that makes us god-kings, but it feels pretty damn close. And I'm here for it.

 

[Jmanis]

The Hauling effeots needed to 'complete' a system are just too high. Lots of system will stay underdeveloped. Intended or not

The bigger problem (imo) isn't so much that, but rather there's no incentive to build up in the first place.... only incentive to expand out.

Take for example this recent example.

Spoiler

Preface: I'm not upset by any of this or think there's anything wrong.

I scouted out a clutch of three systems that were out of range of anyone at the time... but pretty close to a bunch of development. All good.

I built an outpost in one system, and that allowed access to the other two. I gave it a day and then claimed/built an outpost in the second one.

Now for the third. It was free a couple days after the second outpost... this was about the 21st March... but I decided "Nah, I'm gonna build up, coz that's what I feel like doing." I'm now taking pause from that as I've just cleared out a bunch of development tasks... but just the other day (29th March) the third system got claimed.

I'm not mad or anything... if I really wanted it I should've claimed it... but that's the point. We all share a canvas, and once we draw a shape on it, it's ours exclusively to colour it in. If you want to get the most out of it, you draw shapes on as much of the canvas as possible before trying to colour them in... because doing so just misses the opportunity to claim more canvas (systems) to colour in (build out) over a longer time.

Call it FOMO I guess... but at the junction between having "Two systems built up a bit more" or "Three (specific) undeveloped systems", noting that:

• If I build up those two systems, I may miss the opportunity to take the third; but
• If I claim the third system, I retain the exclusive ability to build them up.

it's kinda a no-brainer... even for someone like me who doesn't have particular location/system-based goals in mind... it just makes more sense to claim more systems, until I can't/don't want to claim any more.

That said, I think it's tricky to make a good incentivisation case that isn't ridiculously good, because the value difference of having two systems with 100 slots or one system with 50 slots is, well, significant.

I've made this suggestion a few times now, but there needs to be a minimum-occupancy on previously claimed system(s) before being able to claim a new one, IMO. Nothing oppressive, just 10% of slots used.

This means any system that's just a star-only/binary/trinary, or a star with one or two nothing-rocks (i.e up to 10 slots) still only need a single structure built before you can chain on... if that's what you're doing. But go beyond that... and you need to then build some more things before you can claim your next system. 10% still wouldn't be too oppressive... but if your last claim was a 100-slot system, doing 10 builds if you're solo is going to hurt your time a bit... meanwhile if you're a big group coordinating... it's not a big overhead to chuck down something besides a single outpost... giving the system at least something else in it.

But either way... if you're just chaining out one-outpost nothings... you'll want to make sure they're in otherwise less-valued systems in order to expedite your next step.... even if you occupy a 200-slot world as a "natural beauty" location... a few satellites around the place RP'ed as "ecological monitoring" and such is surely an accessible idea.

That's I guess more on the punitive side... the other idea being building up then makes further expansion from that location easier, and not just in the sense of "I made the right economies to buy stuff from"... i mean things like increasing colonisation range , or maybe even passive effects to reduce the amount of resources for colonies launched from that system (dedicated support vectors and such)... basically reward systems internalised to colonisation itself[1]... this could be tricky to balance... as you need to make sure that doing that keeps you ahead of someone applying the same effort just to expand out... but it could work.

[1] This is the problem with powerplay... the rewards are externalised... if the current merit-reward pools weren't there would people do PP? I doubt it... but people do Colonisation despite low tangible rewards (because the intangibles are desirable)

 

[Jmanis]

How about killing off the dead PMF's and abandoned FC's?

Abandoned FCs, sure (doesn't that happen already?)

Dead PMFs? No such thing. There's just factions, and if you killed off every faction that was "dead[1]", you'd get a very empty galaxy.

[1] Even if some definition existed for that.

 

[Xenia_K]

The bigger problem (imo) isn't so much that, but rather there's no incentive to build up in the first place.... only incentive to expand out.

you may add or subtract incentives as much as you like, the basic reason for all them Outpost-Only systems is that ridiculous 15 Ly claim-range.
It leads to zig-zagging through the void, littering the galaxy with Outpost that were build only to bridge the gap.
To bridge 200 Ly currently you need (at latitude of the bubble) anything between 20 to 30 stepstones. By increasing claim-distance by only 5 Ly, in the most cases you would cut that requirement in half.....and thus the garbage-production

 

[Mako Kai]

nope Sir - just now doing the finishing touches on a system with fully developed Indistry, Hightec and Refinery-Ecos. So even a system with some 40 Installations (incl. a Coriolis) can be done within a month (solo)...

I'd be curious to see this system, mind naming the system so we can take a look? Also what's your income from said system?