Changes are needed for making claims at new outposts
- Thread starter winchester1188
- Start date
Right. And that feeling of being "stabbed in the back" is drastically increased when there are conditions put in place that can be, for some volume of effort, worked around... due to the feeling that the actions taken to get around that are somehow against the "spirit of those rules".
That's because those rules create that sense of entitlement, that sense of "there's something protecting me from my efforts being wasted".
So when someone else, somehow, manages to "get that system from under their nose" despite those rules, what then? Historically, it results in threads like this asking for yet more restrictions.
Better to have no rules, and therefore much less to be disappointed about.
TBH, the fact that someone was able to snipe directly out from under the OP, literally as they did the last load, smells fishy to me. Not saying I don't believe the OP, but it just sounds like a very specific circumstance that's happened here, and the idea that this would just happen on the regular to any rando seems somewhat doubtful, which to my point means if it's someone putting a lot of effort to do this, then a few rules won't stop them.
EDIT: FWIW, my motivation here is that I don't want to go around the galaxy on tenterhooks about starting a colony, because someone's nose gets out of joint and starts going "Oh No JmAn ThE nAstY Gr33fer!". Already worried about the first time someone names a station after their dead budgie or something, and the faction gets flipped on them...
Last edited:
I swear people are purposely avoiding replying to this point which has been repeated a few times so far. The arguments against architects getting screwed over are adhoms essentially.
I know it's purely anecdotal, but I don't think it's as isolated as you might think. There are several people in this thread that have heard of other instances of this. I think given the current distance restrictions, there are more cmdrs looking for ideal systems than there are ideal systems. We're all probably using spansh and making our shortlists of systems to keep an eye on. Again, that might be mitigated a bit by increasing the range restrictions, but there are certainly cmdrs who are stockpiling resources waiting for beta to end, or for a possible restriction increase, before taking part in colonization. There might be an even bigger gold rush when that happens.
... which kinda just proves my point.
We're really already calling anyone who is questioning the use of these sorts of rules as simply using ad-hom attacks? Beggars belief what people will think if someone still gets the claim despite these rules. It just amplifies resentment and feelings of betrayal and fosters a toxic game environment.
I personally don't want that.
Last edited:
I'd want to know more about these instances before making that call, tbh. Were they going for well known/prolific systems in nebulas that others would definitely have an interest in pursuing? Were the searched up on EDSM or Inara, and therefore anyone using those tools to find "good" systems would be pursuing the same ones? And there's always "insider threat" grabbing a system with a silent alt.
Like you said, "we're all probably using spansh"...... I have a few "first discovered" systems that I like, in the middle of nowhere (literally) that would make great colonisation systems. And i've never published that information anywhere. I find it terribly unlikely anyone would snipe those were I heading in that direction.
Last edited:
Players are being called entitled for wanting equal footing for architects. Yes that's an adhom.
If that happens it will be an invalid complaint, but wanting equal footing for architects isn't one.
Who's saying that? Not me. The suggestion as far as I can see is for an architect to get first dibs, and make everyone else wait. That's literally what entitlement looks like.
I completely acknowledge the current situation is not ideal... but the suggestions are not any better either, nor do they promote "equal footing".
I don't believe that one bit, given how the player base generally acts (or rather, reacts).
Yeah, there's no denying that deliberately following a CMDR whilst they do all the work and then sniping the system is dirty, but not everyone is going to be doing that. There will be players that contribute. Also, there will be players building stations near systems others like and that in turn will allow them to grab it, etc.
I can get behind a cooldown, but it has to be very short. I've been thinking about it, and I whilst I originally thought 24 hours would be fair, I think it should be a lot shorter than that. Say a 10 minute timer for the architect to make the first claim from the station, as I don't agree that any one CMDR can claim first dibs on a system just because they like the look of it and decided to build towards it.
Naming systems ourselves would be nice. I think it will get added eventually. But, you're also kind of proving my point with that. There's a lot of systems with names akin to Col 285 Sector BC-R L15-9 that that are really good prospects for a colony, but people are avoiding them because of the names. I get it, but people are being too picky.
I agree, but I can understand the frustration if a player has deliberately followed someone because they know what they're working towards. Fair enough if they're also contributing, which is why I think a very short cooldown could balance it out; 10 minutes for the architect to make the first claim, perhaps? Because like you say, how long are people meant to wait? No one has a claim to any system until they claim it. I think there's a little bit of entitlement going around where people are seeing systems they like, and they're thinking that if they daisy chain towards it, that it gives them the right to it. It doesn't.
Last edited:
For what it's worth, I just read a reddit post complaining that they had "dibs" on a system because they parked their carrier there. Talk about entitlement.
The hype is going to ebb down, soon and the colony sniping will be less frequent. Just give it a month or two.
Whether someone has a valid argument or not, calling them entitled will always be an adhom. The equal footing argument has been made by some, and some suggest the architect should have an advantage. The point I made that you replied to first, is that many are ignoring that the architect is disadvantaged in claiming the next system. If something is not ideal then it should be fixed no? A slippery slope fallacy that people may complain in the future or demand more than equal footing is not a good argument for this situation to remain as it is.
I think the best suggestion so far is a five minute pause after the build completes, to give everyone a chance to get to the colonization contact. Then whoever gets it first gets the next system. There will be complaints of course, it's an online game so it's unavoidable, but at least have it be fair to everyone.
Last edited:
While I agree that nobody "owns" or should "have dibs on" a system that's currently beyond reach, I don't think that's really the argument here.
The issue doesn't arise in the target system, it arises in the daisychain system. And in the new outpost that is in fact "owned" by the system architect, who commissioned it and has just finished building it (possibly with help).
The game mechanics currently guarantee that he can't possibly use it before another player has the opportunity to do so (because he can't get from the constuction ship to the outpost fast enough).
One possible fudge is to have two accounts, and two instances of the game running, deliver the last load with an alt, then immediately switch to your main to land at the outpost. It seems to be the only way (other than having help from another player ally delivering the last load) to eliminate the unfair advantage that a competitor has.
The issue doesn't arise in the target system, it arises in the daisychain system. And in the new outpost that is in fact "owned" by the system architect, who commissioned it and has just finished building it (possibly with help).
The game mechanics currently guarantee that he can't possibly use it before another player has the opportunity to do so (because he can't get from the constuction ship to the outpost fast enough).
One possible fudge is to have two accounts, and two instances of the game running, deliver the last load with an alt, then immediately switch to your main to land at the outpost. It seems to be the only way (other than having help from another player ally delivering the last load) to eliminate the unfair advantage that a competitor has.
That would be annoying, yes.
However, we generally can't tell whether or not the owner of a Carrier parked in a target system is actually at work in another system, building a daisychain outpost. All we know is that IF he's doing that, then he's probably not using his Carrier to do it. As others have remarked, actually using a Carrier for this tends to be inefficient (as everything needs to be loaded/unloaded twice).
Who did I call entitled? All my comments so far are about behaviours and positions, not individuals. Ad-hominem is targeting individuals rather than the positions being made.
Honestly, I feel like you're just "ad-homming" me right now.
I didn't say you called anyone entitled, but if you want to be sure check your post history.
Did you have any thoughts on the proposed solution to the problem though, or any solutions of your own?
Nah. OP is right. A change is needed. It’s idiotic to put the system architect last in line to access services on the station they literally JUST BUILT.
Architect gets a whole month to load materials into the Colonization ship to build their Primary Port.
Then - BOOM! Port instantly appears . . . Somewhere other than the Colonization ship where the architect has been dropping off materials to build the Port.
If everyone in the game decided to race for that new Primary Port and use it to access the colonization contact residing there: Architect would lose every time because they are the ONLY person in the galaxy guaranteed to be starting from the Colonization ship.
Again - a month to build the station.
And then we wait until the next tick, up to a week, for the station to come out of “deployment” and go online for real. And when a claim is first made, the Architect can sit on it for 24 hours and maintain “dibs” without even deploying the nav beacon.
So up to 5 weeks and one day from first claim to functional station.
We’re all OK with this already existing state of affairs, right? That’s not too much time for “everyone else in game to have to wait whilst you procrastinate?”
We already have 24 hours on the front end. How about 24 hours on the back end?
Colonization Contact could be inaccessible to everyone else for 24 hours or until the architect has landed at the station and departed again; whichever comes first.
This brings the grand total of how long “everyone else in game have to wait” up to . . .
Minimum time: same as before
Maximum time: 5 weeks and 2 days. A less than 3% increase in potential wait time.
Now, there ARE potential consequences for this kind of change. It’s not neutral, it incentivizes and disincentives different behavior from the current situation, that maybe Frontier doesn’t want to encourage.
But it would definitely be nicer and fairer to the people who are, you know, actively putting effort and thought into their system claims.
No. The architect will win most of the time if the service comes online just as building is finished. Only the architect himself knows he is online or not/hauling or not. Others won't know how much time they have to wait and even what timezone you are at. The architect himself gets the message of finish at first and is able to claim in a line infinitely in this situation.
Don't let the fact that it has happened dissuade you from telling us it wont happen.
I think this scenario is infinitely more interesting than what we have now. People might still get upset about the outcomes, just like they do with everything that resembles adversarial play, but it certainly sounds much more like a GAME that is being played, here. Also - in your scenario the end result is more players engaging with the mechanics and more systems being developed in close proximity to each other, which I see as a win for everyone.