More Feedback:
Auto-Placement of megaship is a problem.
When summoning a mega ship for building our first colony, we aren't given the option to choose its location. This seems, quite frankly, like a bug. If it's not a bug, it warrants explanation.
In one system, we might get a megaship parked right by the main star, and in another - 40,000 ls or more from the drop in point.
Given that we are able to choose the build location of everything else in the system, and given that the whole premise of colonization is that we are hiring people to deploy these resources for us, I really don't see how it could possibly make sense to leave such a crucial strategic early decision like megaship placement up to chance.
Personally, I would prefer that we get to pick the location of our megaship when we make our initial claim. It doesn't seem in-lore plausible nor in-game reasonable to leave this up to random chance especially when the volatility is so high as to potentially make ALL the difference between picking one candidate system over another.
If this is intentional, then this is the kind of information that you need to lead with and broadcast front and center:
- Before we even click on one of those dots to see the info about a colonization candidate, we need to be able to filter the galaxy map by "starter megaship distance from main star" or something.
- Right now, there's no way to know ahead of time what the placement of a megaship is likely to be. So when we are evaluating systems as potential candidates, we can't factor that in while we are surveying and "shopping around." This flattens the gameplay rather than deepening it, because it renders most other considerations irrelevant and therefore reduces the incentive to plan.
- Do you want us to fly around probing planets, checking out different systems, and then picking them for colonization based on characteristics we have learned through game play? Or do you want us to just click around in your new galmap filter, start a claim, see that it has unsatisfactory megaship placement, cancel that claim, repeat?
By all means, keep the volatility as an additional strategic element if this is important to your design - but don't spring it on us after we've already made a decision, and don't make us drill down through multiple click holes in order to compare different systems. And at some point, if you keep that volatility in place, you are going to need to justify it in-game as well, because at the moment it reads as nonsense from a play mechanical perspective as well as an in-fiction "lore" perspective.
Right now this issue is doing double duty at hindering engagement with your game's new flagship feature.