I don't buy it. It seems to me to be balanced around Powerplay, ergo competitive yet team focused.
It's pretty clearly meant to keep the powerplay game board fresh, otherwise colonization range would be much longer.
Powerplay is loose group play. Your power isn't really going to help you colonise your star system. Your squadron/vanguard/friends would, especially if they had the incentive (i.e locking it behind squardrons/vanguards and sharing the passive income/Architects rewarding commanders for building stuff).
Its been implemented as a solo feature as the only time anyone would ever help you shift materials to colonise your system would be:
- If they were feeling particularly charitable.
- Or if you set competitive prices (even then that would only work for station -> carrier. You don't have enough price delta to get people to dump it from carrier to colonisation ship .. so ... Solo Task!).
I calculated to fully colonise a star system solo (10 installations) would take 600-700 hours of PURE hauling/carrier jumping. That is entirely unrealistic.
If you're a solo player that touches grass - there's no chance that you're comfortably colonising your system. That luxury is only for those within established groups.
There's a contradiction in how this has been implemented. It has been implemented as a solo feature, but has group level hauling requirements. Something will have to give as leaving it like this would be a disaster for the feature. I think a change will be either:
- A reduction in material cost/offer alternatives to hauling grind to meet the solo expectation
- An actual multiplayer framework around the feature to allow for shared passive income, multiple system architects, sqn/vanguard based colonies, community goal like rewards for players helping build, etc
Not doing this will kill the feature imo with a graveyard of unfinished, underdeveloped, forgotten systems.