Leaving aside spurious cross-genre comparisons, maybe consider that "not a frontier" would be a gigantic Coriolis space station in the middle of somewhere ?
Colonization seems to have destroyed the frontier
- Thread starter sidereal6
- Start date
Leaving aside spurious cross-genre comparisons, maybe consider that "not a frontier" would be a gigantic Coriolis space station in the middle of somewhere ?
And Jaques only "failed" because his hyperspace jump was ridiculously ambitious - presumably Coriolis stations or even Orbis stations had been previously hyper-jumped much smaller distances within or near the Bubble without incident.
Are you making an effort to understand?
I worry that you feel you need to "defend" this game because you enjoy it.
I believe that if we were talking about a different game, this would be very obvious to you. Imagine a game like Red Dead Redemption. Imagine there's some kind of city in the game. Imagine there are regions far, far away, that are totally uninhabited.
If you travel from the uninhabited regions to the city, what is the first settlement you would encounter?
The magnitude of the difference is irrelevant. Think about the Red Dead Redemption thought experiment. Try not to be defensive.
Yeah, that's fair. FDev messed up by making Jaques an orbis with a ring. There is another orbis type that actually has engines attached to it. At least that would have made sense within the environment of the game.
Also, I can kind of understand that a multi-trillion credit organization like Siris can build a large station far away, but here's the deal: it's only realistic if they have a compelling reason to do so.
What's fundamentally broken about colonization is that people select the big stations because they're cool ...and there's no in-game reason for them to be there. What that means is, if you imagine the game models a real human civilization - why would any people migrate to that station??
Colonization could actually be fixed by updating the BGS to move populations based on economic opportunity ...and for the people who put up Coriolis stations in the middle of nowhere, their station should be a ghost town that eventually can't keep its lights on.
Realistically, the colonies farthest away from Sol should all be tiny extraction facilities. Realistically, they should develop slowly into larger economies.
The effect of this would be a gradual transition from "wilderness" (the black) to "city" (the core worlds)
Colonization brings more dynamics to a largely static galaxy.
Of course it was going to upset some people. Like when Thargoids attacked some people's systems ruining their BGS play or when powerplay was introduced, affecting other groups' interest in people's systems.
Should FD then not make any changes that might upset some people? I think the answer has to be no. Otherwise FD couldn't really implement anything.
Of course it was going to upset some people. Like when Thargoids attacked some people's systems ruining their BGS play or when powerplay was introduced, affecting other groups' interest in people's systems.
Should FD then not make any changes that might upset some people? I think the answer has to be no. Otherwise FD couldn't really implement anything.
The colonization feature enabled a wonderful recent community event: Shoulder of Orion. In this event, a new frontier was created that was not possible before, and boy does it feel "out there", despite an Ocellus being the station of Orion's Gate. So while the feature might have destroyed the old frontier, it also tremendously helped in creating new ones. I think this is a natural consequence of colonization: moving the front-line. I have to admit that I vastly enjoy this new dynamic galaxy over the old static one. YMMV.
The population of the new systems is pretty small, though. Total pre-colonisation bubble population is 6630 billion, total post-colonisation population is 0.6 billion. The mean population of a new system is about 16,000 people, which on the scale of the bubble as a whole is tiny. [1]
Anything BGS-level which actually moved populations around would be much more likely to increase colonised system populations rather than decrease them, since there isn't really much of a "down" for them to go, while you could fill their entire current populations from a single high-population system without noticeably affecting it. (The mess it made of the pre-colonisation systems would be more impressive, I think)
However, since Frontier were pretty explicit pre-release about there not being any "upkeep" equivalent for systems (though there is the "happiness" metric to play with if you do want to build somewhere nice to live in a RP sense) I don't think it'd be practical for them to introduce anything like that in future either.
[1] The mean population of a pre-colonisation system is about 300 million, which is heavily skewed by the billion-plus ELW agricultural systems, since the median population of a pre-colonisation system is about 200,000.
On the numeric scales involved, an appeal to "because they're really weird" actually works pretty well. It's only 1 in 10,000 people across the galaxy as a whole, and more people than that are really weird.
(But there are so many ways in which the game's modelling of population led to bizarre conclusions if you thought about it too much, pre-Colonisation, that it just doesn't make sense as a framework to try to build anything more concrete than its current extremely abstract model on top of)
"Travel times" is also a factor, of course: you can cross the entire bubble in under an hour in a moderately fast ship. The sorts of patterns of settlement where the frontier was actually a frontier happened when the equivalent travel times might be multiple days, not an extra ten minutes on the morning commute.
Needing to dock large ships. There I gave you an in-game reason, thus your premise is false.
I build large stations over bodies with the potential for several ground facilities - the effort involved (as a solo player) precludes the option of doing it for any 'cool factor'.
There is stuff that appears iffy (or broken) about colonisation right now.
Is this actually erroneous behaviour or just our current poor understanding of the mechanics involved? My jury's out, I suspect a bit of both.
I struggle to put player station construction choice in any problem category.
Civilised space is expanding.
As you travel further from the core, system separation increases. Previously this system separation has limited Galaxy Edge explorers' efforts (near 100ly jump limit on ships, later 500ly jump limit on FCs).
It will now naturally limit colonisation efforts, but far far closer to the core with a 15ly system separation limit.
No problem here officer
Yes though I admit to struggling at times, I do wonder if you are making a compable effort though.
If I didn't enjoy the game we wouldn't be having this conversation as I see no point of being on the forum of a game I didn't enjoy.
I feel the need to defend the game against your accusations because I feel they are wrong due to you having a model of a frontieer based on 19th century technology and capabilities.
OK but I will base my model on western movies and books rather than the game, but I have that picture of a region that is weeks or months of travel away from one of the many cities. Difficult to come up with places that sort of time difference from the bubble to transfer the model though.
It depends but the answer you want me to give is obviously a small one produced by a handful of people from locally sourced materials as there is no way for them to move large volumes of materials from elsewhere. Note I am ignoring things like trans continental railroads, which would allow larger volumes of more sophisticated materials and a workforce to be utilised.
I have thought about that experiment and have concluded that the only common factor is that they involve something referred too as a frontier.
I am not the one trying to defend an untenable archaic idea of what a frontier would be like given the levels of technology in ED.
Same for me. I feel he's been very poor at accurately communicating his objections with Colonization. It's very vague and the Red Dead Redemption "thought experiment" just epically fails.
If you are still referring to your original post, what is left to understand?
You are disgruntled that your outlying system now has development going on in the region - other players are so inconsiderate!
You claimed that every system in the bubble was colonised, which was obviously untrue and examples were given to support the fact (not wild supposition)
So what, exactly, are others here (me too) not making an effort to understand? (and it is pointless making examples from the cowboy game, I have never played it, and have no intention of ever doing so)
It rivals Bannerlords for being the best horse slaughtering game, if you’re into that.
So far as OP, as someone who has over the years enjoyed nurturing systems on the edge of the bubble, mostly to learn the BGS and create lucrative trade routes with one destination missions, I initially had a bit of sadness all of my favorite spots would like be consumed by manifest destiny.
Take solace though, as geometry is alive and well and ready to offer edge of bubble enjoyers great comfort. The larger the bubble grows, the greater diameter it will have from which edge of bubble systems can reside. It should be nothing but growth for the hermit’s playground.
To be fair we voiced concerns about this when FDEV announced the ridiculous mechanic of colonization being tied to 'X distance from populated system'. That idiocy guaranteed the "bubble" as we know it will just turn into a bigger and bigger and bigger bubble. And that any distant places players want to reach will be littered with useless "chain" systems along the way.
I would have loved to travel to the other end of the Milky Way, far from the OP's cries, and setup shop somewhere and maybe make my own little "bubble".
I would have loved to travel to the other end of the Milky Way, far from the OP's cries, and setup shop somewhere and maybe make my own little "bubble".
By 'we' do you mean a certain subset of people on the forums?
Because this portion of the 'we' (the portion that is currently typing) was not concerned. Not even a little bit. And thinks this discussion thread is nonsense.
Nope. I do not see your point.
Just because something is slightly more difficult doesn't mean it isn't done.
Yes lots of people thought the 10/15LY limit on colonization was stupid. And two things can be true at once:
1. The 10/15LY colonization limit is dumb
2. This discussion thread is nonsense and the OP is wrong.
Not a particularly large subset, but a vociferous one - in my most cynical assessment, mainly those with an exploration preference and with a system in mind that is 'off the beaten path' somewhat.
I think once the realisation that the Architect doesn't 'own' the system, some of the complaints subsided...
We have pretty definitive proof that's not the case...
Key word being "MY" and "YOURS". In English these are possessive pronouns.
and "Manage" is what, exaclty?
Unfortunately there isn't a 'universal English", I'm just happy to be a native speaker of English and understand the nuances we use.
Manage and own isn't mutually exclusive though. I'm owner and proprietor of MY colonies
