I leave open construction sites in those little systems that I don't care about. If anyone actually cares they're welcome to finish the sites and develop out the system into something more. I won't be doing it because there's no motivation to do so. I do not enjoy the hauling loop nearly enough for what little reward there is for owning a system. So far nobody actually cares some people want to steal the good systems and justify it with some vague morality but nobody really cares about the people.
Colony Failure
- Thread starter deleteduser
- Start date
The path of a new Colony is certainly filled with obstacles.
Not getting off the drawing board due to a lack of interest/resources is certainly one way a Colony can fail.
But rather a moot point.
Having filled ships with and then landed millions of settlers on distant shores, there are yet more obstacles for Colonies to overcome...
If an Architect has no objective other than to erect a staging post for further expansion, so designs a Colony with zero regard to long-term viability, or...
If an earnest Architect's designs failed to account for the realities of the system they've colonised, planning to establish one type of economic endeavour, while the system is only suited to a different type.... as a couple of for instances.
As for Darien...
Settlers made landfall late in 1698
The Colony was abandoned by the settlers early in 1700
Over a year between establishment and abandonment.
We are mere weeks into to this new program of expansion. In the timeframe that the few hundred settlers of Darien were barely half way across the Atlantic ocean, the Architects have ferried billions of souls, hundreds of billions of tons of resources and completed initial constructions in thousands of systems, LYs from their nearest neighbours. Yet already we hear Architects lack of committment, bemoaning their lack of understanding or the viscitudes of the powers that be... and their own consequent inadequate planning for Colonies they've established.
Last edited:
There is/should be no distinction with regard to the type of foundation, an unviable Colony is just as unviable regardless of who designed it or when.
But I think it's safe to say that Colonies with more history than Earth's most persistent historic 'Civilisations', have proven their longevity, no?
Last edited:
It matters not to the victim if their killer was motivated by pure hatred, or sheer reckless indifference.
Dead, is dead.
So... let me ask again.
What to you defines an "unviable" colony? Noting the things I would presume make up that definition mean more than half the bubble's going to depopulate in a few weeks.
Laying the hyperbole on a bit thick are we? Genocide? Damned souls? No race is being wiped out nor are anyone being damned to hell because of some ghost towns.
Will you read it this time?
And yes, as I've just said, unviable is unviable.
Colony Failure
A number of unsustainable Colonies have been established across the galaxy in order to facilitate the separatist agendas of a certain few CMDRs. With millions currently migrating out of the bubble, there will inevitably be vast numbers consigned to a miserable and terminal existence in dead-end...
I wonder if they've ever considered the monotony of nearly every system we come across in the 'bubble' (whatever that even is anymore) being fully built up with Orbis's and large ground installations and such. I mean why is it such a crime having systems with a few things here and there?
I don't get the point of this....
Will you read it this time?
And yes, as I've just said, unviable is unviable.
Colony Failure
A number of unsustainable Colonies have been established across the galaxy in order to facilitate the separatist agendas of a certain few CMDRs. With millions currently migrating out of the bubble, there will inevitably be vast numbers consigned to a miserable and terminal existence in dead-end...forums.frontier.co.uk
Actuallly we can probably take this a bit frurther:
In lieu of frequent interstellar traffic, a viable Colony requires 1 earth like world.
Will you read it this time?
And yes, as I've just said, unviable is unviable.
Colony Failure
A number of unsustainable Colonies have been established across the galaxy in order to facilitate the separatist agendas of a certain few CMDRs. With millions currently migrating out of the bubble, there will inevitably be vast numbers consigned to a miserable and terminal existence in dead-end...
This is called a "circular argument". You actually haven't fleshed this idea out nearly enough. Frankly I don't think you are even considering the implications and instead of answering our questions, you just keep repeating your original argument.
Who determines what is "viable" other than the system architect?
My metal producing Coriolis is producing tens of thousands of tons of the metals required for future building. As the frontier moves outwards, you are likely to see more such sources of building stuff to be found close to new colonies.
Sure. Because nobody would want to look at that system with lots of ringed gas giants full of resources next door. Or that terraformable high metal content/water world. Or a system with lots of material-rich landable planets…
… if only to say that there should be less one-dimensional criteria to judge it by. Although personally I have some plans to revisit the colonies I used as transit points (particularly those which have landable planets) eventually. I’d be a lot more motivated to if it didn’t require hauling and only hauling to accomplish, however.
To repeat "In lieu of frequent interstellar traffic, a viable Colony requires 1 earth like world."
Pristine rings are great and all, but you cant eat them.
If you can terraform something into an ELW before the 4 horsemen finish reaping their own harvest, then for sure the knife starts to lose its edge.
But how long does that take?
Last edited:
You don't terraform an ELW the whole planet class by definition is Earth like. It's instantly and immediately in a state where humans can inhabit it no terraforming required because it's already like terra.
Let's ingore that we have interstellar trade space farms and short distances between colonies that even the most basic has large amounts of traffic in and out. What do you actually want for a system to be viable and how do you achieve that in 3 slots or less because many valid systems only have 3 slots total. Unfortunately outposts and stations are self sufficient all of them have a market and can trade for goods they don't produce locally. They're all viable most are just boring. Standard of living already reduces the number of people who can live there so they're free to leave and will do so as the standard of living goes down.
NPCs generate for all those things though.
Or are you talking about player activity? In which case, again, virtually the entire bubble will fail before you can blink.
None of that means anything in the context of the game.
So... your definition of unviable is... unviable I guess?
ELW is ELW, yes...
"Terraform an ELW" therefore suggests that you started with something that was not an ELW, no?
"Humans have terraformed many planets and moons in the galaxy into Earth-like Worlds.... A number of planets and moons, such as Rho Phoenicus 8 a, are actively being terraformed as of the 34th century. While in most cases these bodies are still decades away from becoming Earth-like Worlds"
I'm repeating answers I've already given, to questions you've already asked here but yes... viable is viable. Unviable is unviable. There's no reason why any system, regardless of when or by whom it was colonised, which does no trade and which lacks the resources for self-sufficiency, should have any kind of population at all.
So... you're suggestion is that systems of potentially millions, even billions, of people should die out, because a couple individual commanders didn't enter them and do anything.
That's beyond stupid.
No actually that suggests you are performing the terraforming on an ELW. Terraforming means converting to ELW. the An suggest a target and then you say ELW terraforming a terraformable would be what I was expecting with what you meant but languages are complicated I now understand what you meant.
qweqwe
Either with the new expansion efforts, or just next door.
Its a little bit more difficult to migrate from a system who's closest neighbours are other traffic & resource free husks of dead colonies though.
Within the bubble its perfectly reasonable, as we're currently seeing, for those people to migrate.
Either with the new expansion efforts, or just next door.
Its a little bit more difficult to migrate from a system who's closest neighbours are other traffic & resource free husks of dead colonies though.
Last edited: