Just during this intermission.... i do feel like there's a lack of incentive for developing a system compared to just expanding out more.
Explicitly, I'm not talking about "rewards" like being given credits, discounts and such, but rather a direct comparison of the value of developing an existing system, vs colonising a new one, since its the same work for two different outcomes.
With each system colonised, it's another system you can architect, and arguably being the architect of more systems closer together has more utility than architecting many systems split up.
So as a system architect, there's no downside to me claiming many systems, with the intent of "developing them later"... they'll always be there to develop later on. But nearby or particular systems... they may not be there. There's an urgency to expand that doesn't happen with development of a system.
Towards that end, is there maybe a need to couple the two, with some sort of buff to counteract.
Right now, we can only initiate development of one system at a time... so it's a rush to get that done so we can start the next, and have construction run in- parallel.
Maybe what's needed is the ability to initiate up to three systems at a time, but you can only initiate a new one for 1 x Tier 3 construction point, or if one of your existing systems has all its slots exhausted (for systems with insufficient space to even reach tier 3 facilities).
I dunno... just my 40c... it just feels like right now there's an implicit urgency for "horizontal" expansion, but no urgency at all for "vertical" development.
Suffice to say... i don't think timeouts to potentially lose architect status... rather, it sounds be better if lack of vertical development halts further horizontal development.