Add Building Deletion to Elite Dangerous System Architect

[Daniel Dusk]

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.

I appreciate your perspective, but the distinction you're drawing between Update 3 and the lead-up to it misses the central concern. Predictability only matters when the system communicates its rules clearly and allows time to adapt. Since system building takes weeks, players had no meaningful opportunity to respond.

At this point, assigning blame solves nothing; we should move on and focus on solutions.

On monetization: this proposal addresses a practical need in a system that currently punishes long-term investment without offering recourse. Ideally, the feature would cost nothing; however, given the game's existing monetization structure, this provides a reasonable balance between player flexibility and game integrity.

The bottom line is this: we need resolution, not rhetoric. Whether free or tied to Arx, a delete or repurpose option is necessary to protect investment and support stable, long-term gameplay.

 

[Therinfluffs]

I appreciate your perspective, but the distinction you're drawing between Update 3 and the lead-up to it misses the central concern. Predictability only matters when the system communicates its rules clearly and allows time to adapt. Since system building takes weeks, players had no meaningful opportunity to respond.

At this point, assigning blame solves nothing; we should move on and focus on solutions.

On monetization: this proposal addresses a practical need in a system that currently punishes long-term investment without offering recourse. Ideally, the feature would cost nothing; however, given the game's existing monetization structure, this provides a reasonable balance between player flexibility and game integrity.

The bottom line is this: we need resolution, not rhetoric. Whether free or tied to Arx, a delete or repurpose option is necessary to protect investment and support stable, long-term gameplay.

I'd like to not pay real world currency when Fdev randomly changes how all my structures for my economy functions. (again)

 

[aRJay]

1. Delete/cancel before construction starts is fine.
2. Deleting a build before it completes would be fine if the architect was the only one hauling and providing the commodities used, it could be OK if all the commodities were returned to the commander who delivered them but that is unlikely to be possible meaning this is dubious.
3. After a build has completed deleting it opens up additional issues such as what if you have already used that build to build something else does that get deleted as well or merely get locked out until a replacement precursor is built.
4. If someone has started a colony using the contact in the now deleted station is that affected.

I understand why people feel there is a need for a delete, but apart from case 1 I see too many cans of worms for an ingame button to do this.

 

[Daniel Dusk]

I'd like to not pay real world currency when Fdev randomly changes how all my structures for my economy functions. (again)

I feel your frustration, I really do. No one enjoys paying to fix something they didn’t break. But changes take time, and developers operate within real constraints. They’re human; like all of us, they have bills to pay. That said, we also need safeguards against abuse and system instability. A paywall, however unpopular it may sound, offers a workable compromise: it deters exploitation, gives players a path to correct mistakes, and provides developers with resources to refine colonization over time. It’s not perfect, but it’s practical.

 

[Therinfluffs]

1. Delete/cancel before construction starts is fine.
2. Deleting a build before it completes would be fine if the architect was the only one hauling and providing the commodities used, it could be OK if all the commodities were returned to the commander who delivered them but that is unlikely to be possible meaning this is dubious.
3. After a build has completed deleting it opens up additional issues such as what if you have already used that build to build something else does that get deleted as well or merely get locked out until a replacement precursor is built.
4. If someone has started a colony using the contact in the now deleted station is that affected.

I understand why people feel there is a need for a delete, but apart from case 1 I see too many cans of worms for an ingame button to do this.

Imho primary ports should remain incapable of being deleted.
Installations/undockable and non-interactible installments in general should be freely movable under any and all circumstances.
Secondary and Tertiary ports, etc should act like carriers and have a decommission period before they can be removed.

 

[Therinfluffs]

I feel your frustration, I really do. No one enjoys paying to fix something they didn’t break. But changes take time, and developers operate within real constraints. They’re human; like all of us, they have bills to pay. That said, we also need safeguards against abuse and system instability. A paywall, however unpopular it may sound, offers a workable compromise: it deters exploitation, gives players a path to correct mistakes, and provides developers with resources to refine colonization over time. It’s not perfect, but it’s practical.

They've already monetized colony names, and intend to monetize colony skins for stations and installations.

They're going to be selling the panther clipper exclusively for arx for several months, as a solution to the issues they've created with the colonization grind. They have figured out how to fund colonization development enough already I feel.

 

[Dragsham]

They've already monetized colony names, and intend to monetize colony skins for stations and installations.

They're going to be selling the panther clipper exclusively for arx for several months, as a solution to the issues they've created with the colonization grind. They have figured out how to fund colonization development enough already I feel.

I hear you. And your right. This is a question of Money vs time/resources that the gods have.
If their to take the time to alter what we the paying customer want, it'll happen.
that's the bottom line.
Deletions, alterations to a given colony that we want, can & probably will happen IF their allowed to monetise it.
it's that simple much as we don't like the idea.
I for one would begrudgingly go down this road if it makes the huge time invested in a given system worthwhile.

 

[Starshot_Jigawatts]

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.

Well it's not just that. It's that a LOT of changes have been made to Colonization after people have already built structures that are now broken, irrelevant, or have no purpose. Or act as a counter-purpose to the goal of a system.

 

[Greasetrap42]

We, the Elite Dangerous community, are frustrated by the inability to delete buildings in the System Architect feature

Petitions are against the forum rules

No need for a petition. Apparently the OP speaks for the entire community.

While I agree that the ability to remove a facility is a good idea, I don't agree with some rando dude on the internet speaking on behalf of everybody. Feel free to quote others and present substantiated stats. Otherwise speak for yourself. Don't assume how I feel.

 

[Titler]

1. Delete/cancel before construction starts is fine.
2. Deleting a build before it completes would be fine if the architect was the only one hauling and providing the commodities used, it could be OK if all the commodities were returned to the commander who delivered them but that is unlikely to be possible meaning this is dubious.
3. After a build has completed deleting it opens up additional issues such as what if you have already used that build to build something else does that get deleted as well or merely get locked out until a replacement precursor is built.
4. If someone has started a colony using the contact in the now deleted station is that affected.

I understand why people feel there is a need for a delete, but apart from case 1 I see too many cans of worms for an ingame button to do this.

2.) But if the CMDR has already delivered them, they've already been paid; returning the cargo would open an exploit with earning money for delivery but keeping the goods.
The only issue is being given tonnage credit for deliveries; if the News section which lists tonnage delivered is permanent, this isn't a problem, but if it's station only/removes the tonnage when the station is deleted that would remove some incentive. Obvious answer is make sure it is permanent.
3.) Which is another reason why "Pay to Beta Test" is always a terrible idea. Basic functionality should be nailed down before players ever get their hands on it. Still, that doesn't excuse Frontier not offering a way to roll back when these bad systems are already on live. Where a single station breaks the construction order, they need to allow a larger reset.
4.) Not a problem as the Brewer ship becomes the new control for the new colonisation, and allowing people to demolish systems behind where they aim to actually build opens it up for other people. But it does open up a problem that what if someone has taken a mission from that station (Kill X, Deliver Y)? If the station is gone they can't hand it back in. But... again, don't go to live if basic functions aren't nailed down. This isn't the players fault, and FDev should be doing what ever it takes to smooth out the gameplay for its players, not refusing to allow fixes for broken features they couldn't avoid.

No, even if it's a one time event, there needs to be a chance to sort out your colonies. I've been somewhat lucky in that, when the duplicate Coriolis are deleted, my system is mostly how I intended it to be. One agricultural where I wanted a tourist, but I can excuse that as being a bar for hungry visitors... still, there are people who have entirely the wrong station in a place they can't move, and they should get the chance to actually build without permanent reminders of bugs and issues.