Add Building Deletion to Elite Dangerous System Architect

Daniel Dusk

Daniel Dusk
We, the Elite Dangerous community, are frustrated by the inability to delete buildings in the System Architect feature, introduced in the Trailblazers Update. This lack of flexibility locks players into choices that clash with the unstable in-game economy, limiting strategic options and enjoyment. We urge Frontier Developments to implement a building deletion or repurposing tool to enhance gameplay freedom. Please address this issue with a clear update or timeline.

First Edit: removed the petition link as per guidance.
Second Edit:
Context.
CMDRs invested weeks hauling and building systems, only for Update 3 to arrive with planetary links and wipe out hundreds of hours of progress.

How can players trust the game’s long-term viability when a single update can erase their work without recourse or corrective action? The developers must address this.

Proposed solutions:
  • Add a monetized “delete” button (using Arx) to discourage misuse, or at minimum, implement a one-week grace period before the weekly rest.
  • Provide an in-game tool or external site that accurately calculates build outcomes. Architecture begins with planning, not guesswork. Give players proper tools to plan before they build.
 
Last edited:

Daniel Dusk

Daniel Dusk
Dragsham said:
I already posted a long thread on this. Fell on deaf ears. Also upset a lot of folks who, for some reason, thought it was a bad idea.
But lll +1 this Op
Click to expand...
Why would anyone think a delete button or, at the very least, a grace period would be a bad idea? If you fumble and missclick, there goes your entire system. Also, I fail to understand why Update 3, which changed how planets relate to Orbital stations, didn't come with a one-time reset. Frankly, I'm baffled.
 

Probablysane

Probablysane
Dont like the idea of delete at all... Dismantle though, which should realistically take half the time that building did, should be possible imho. So the installation should go into 'closed for the forseeable future' then vanish entirely once the resources have been taken away completely.
 

CMDR_UKmouse

CMDR_UKmouse
I'm all for a cancel button if the build has not been completed.
The issue is if the installation has been completed. What happens to the tier points you received upon completion? Do they get deducted? What if you have already used them to start another build? Do you go into negative build points?
Repurposing a build could work (to change economic influence), but only for the same tier structure.
 

project23

P
Yeah if it's not been completed (or even started), this should be a no brainer. Of course there should be a cancel button. People make mistakes clicking through UIs. The system claim can be cancelled!
 

PilotB

P
CMDR_UKmouse said:
The issue is if the installation has been completed. What happens to the tier points you received upon completion? Do they get deducted? What if you have already used them to start another build? Do you go into negative build points?
Click to expand...
Just make the delete cost as much as the building provided and return what it cost. if it cost 1 T1 and provided 1 T2. Then it costs 1 T2 to delete and provides 1 T1 once deleted. Now systems can't go negative if you spent the points you need to delete something else to free the points for the delete.
 

Daniel Dusk

Daniel Dusk
PilotB said:
Just make the delete cost as much as the building provided and return what it cost. if it cost 1 T1 and provided 1 T2. Then it costs 1 T2 to delete and provides 1 T1 once deleted. Now systems can't go negative if you spent the points you need to delete something else to free the points for the delete.
Click to expand...
Considering how many resources and time it takes to build a system, and how Update 3 fundamentally changed economies, not having an undo button destroys any confidence. What happens after a Trailblazer update 4 when more changes are implemented, and you wake up to a system you can’t recognize? A delete button is not just necessary, it’s common sense. There are reasonable concerns about abusing such a feature, and the answer is: Put it behind a paywall. I wouldn't mind if they made it cost Arx to undo/repurpose a building. If there is a real money cost/buffer, people won't abuse it.

Ultimately, there needs to be a solution because the bubble is becoming a cluster of unusable systems. As it stands, the game punishes trial and error, and this is unsustainable.
 

PilotB

P
Daniel Dusk said:
Ultimately, there needs to be a solution because the bubble is becoming a cluster of unusable systems. As it stands, the game punishes trial and error, and this is unsustainable.
Click to expand...
they're unusuable for colonisation but that doesn't matter in the bubble they're just fine for most of the other game activities. It can be frustrating but the single minded feedback loop of colony markets into more colony markets isn't really any better than what we have long term.

A delete button would be nice but the reason you want one is that the system is currently flawed. I'd like to see them also fix the flaws so that people don't feel like they need to dismantle whole systems even when they finally can do so.
 

Dragsham

Dragsham
What would happen in normal beta circumstances after such a huge shift in assets interaction and cmdrs layout, is a hard reset.
Course that can't happen. There would be an uproar of global proportions.
So with that mechanic missing it's patently obvious something needs to be done, addressed.
 

Daniel Dusk

Daniel Dusk
PilotB said:
they're unusuable for colonisation but that doesn't matter in the bubble they're just fine for most of the other game activities. It can be frustrating but the single minded feedback loop of colony markets into more colony markets isn't really any better than what we have long term.

A delete button would be nice but the reason you want one is that the system is currently flawed. I'd like to see them also fix the flaws so that people don't feel like they need to dismantle whole systems even when they finally can do so.
Click to expand...

(I added this to my original post to give more context. Posting it here as a follow-up response.)
CMDRs invested weeks hauling and building systems, only for Update 3 to arrive with planetary links and wipe out hundreds of hours of progress.

How can players trust the game’s long-term viability when a single update can erase their work without recourse or corrective action? The developers must address this.

Proposed solutions:
  • Add a monetized “delete” button (using Arx) to discourage misuse, or at minimum, implement a one-week grace period before the weekly rest.
  • Provide an in-game tool or external site that accurately calculates build outcomes. Architecture begins with planning, not guesswork. Give players proper tools to plan before they build.
 

PilotB

P
Daniel Dusk said:
How can players trust the game’s long-term viability when a single update can erase their work without recourse or corrective action? The developers must address this.
Click to expand...
I do have to ask. Were you not watching the changes during the entire beta? Nothing that happened during update 3 hadn't already been tested silently live? Update 3 didn't cause it and everything except for the links we had already seen before the emergency reset. It doesn't make it better but update 3 should not have been a surprise.
 

Daniel Dusk

Daniel Dusk
PilotB said:
I do have to ask. Were you not watching the changes during the entire beta? Nothing that happened during update 3 hadn't already been tested silently live? Update 3 didn't cause it and everything except for the links we had already seen before the emergency reset. It doesn't make it better but update 3 should not have been a surprise.
Click to expand...
Your point assumes players ignored the beta, but that’s not accurate. Many of us followed the changes closely. You fail to acknowledge that Update 3 introduced planetary links with new multipliers and economic changes that players could not fully and timely account for during the beta. These changes fundamentally altered outcomes post-launch, rendering prior calculations and builds obsolete.

This discussion isn’t about perfection. It’s about design that respects human error and allows for adjustment. Missclicks happen. Miscalculations happen. Systems should allow for correction, especially in a game where we invest hundreds of hours in one activity.

Repurpose tools tied to ARX present a fair balance. They prevent abuse, provide flexibility, and future-proof colonization. Instead of assigning blame to players for not anticipating every variable, we should focus on the actual problem: the game currently lacks the tools needed to adapt and recover from unpredictable change. Whether the crux of the problem stems from a design gap or players’ shortcomings, the fact remains that a solution must be implemented.
 

Therinfluffs

T
Dragsham said:
I already posted a long thread on this. Fell on deaf ears. Also upset a lot of folks who for some reason thought it was a bad idea.
But lll +1 this Op
Click to expand...
It got shot down by the people stating you don't own your colony without any actual input from the devs saying you don't own the colony. Even though we should have the option to at least change the position/type of structures that aren't even finished being constructed as well, and there is literal ingame lore precident for things like an entire coriolis + it's population having the ability to at least be jumped to another system via witchspace (we should be able to decomission and sell stations for a portion of the material cost).
 
Last edited:

PilotB

P
Daniel Dusk said:
Your point assumes players ignored the beta, but that’s not accurate. Many of us followed the changes closely. You fail to acknowledge that Update 3 introduced planetary links with new multipliers and economic changes that players could not fully and timely account for during the beta. These changes fundamentally altered outcomes post-launch, rendering prior calculations and builds obsolete.
Click to expand...
No as far as I'm concerned update 3 showed us the links be we already had them at various stages before hand. I wasn't making a point I was actually curious as to if you'd see the writing on the wall or not. Update 3 simply updated the information to tell us what had already happened and force all the old stuff that hadn't been rebuilt to actually do a market update. The effects were sadly predictable.

A company should never monetise incompetence and you should never accept it. Delete for ARX is some peak toxic . Paying them so you can fix their error. Not acceptable behaviour for me. Delete is important but delete should not be a crutch to cover crappy behaviour and poor mechanics and we should never encourage them to maintain half cooked stuff by accepting that we have to pay when they ruin stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom