My apologies if this duplicates an already-existing discussion, but I wasn't able to find one. I am really hoping a dev sees this, because I wanted to express some major concerns I have about the colonization feature from the perspective of the leader of a medium-sized squadron (and player minor faction). Specifically, I am concerned about the following Q&A from the 19 December 2024 Frontier Unwrapped:
Q: "What system will be in place for a colonized system if the architect goes inactive for a prolonged period of time?"
A: "Well, nothing really...."
This approach poses serious problems for any group that is wanting to expand. As I mentioned, I'm the head of a medium-sized squadron, and we have a player minor faction that controls several dozen systems. Since squadrons themselves cannot have "system architect" status, we will have to coordinate our members to individually colonize nearby unoccupied systems that we have an interest in. But one thing you quickly learn as a leader of a player group is that members come and go all the time. You'll have members that are regular for years, and one day their life gets hectic and they are just done with Elite, vanish, and we never see them again. If "system architect" status could expire due to inactivity, then that wouldn't be a problem at all. The systems that player was in charge of would "time out," and we could put someone else in charge. But with permanent system architect status, that is impossible. If a player that was developing a system leaves, then development of that system is apparently lost to us forever unless that player literally hands us their Frontier account login when they leave (which for obvious reasons I would never ask someone to do).
This gets even worse if your group undergoes a some sort of schism or falling-out and a bunch of players leave. About a year and a half ago, our former BGS head and several of our most devoted BGS players left due to irreconcilable differences in our visions for the group, and they formed a new squadron operating out of an entirely different part of the bubble. If that happened post-colonization, we'd all of a sudden have a whole set of abandoned systems that we can no longer develop.
In addition to members coming and going, other player groups come and go. We have had other player minor factions in our backyard just completely wither up and die, and under the existing BGS mechanics, that's not a problem, because we can just expand into those systems. But now, there's a realistic possibility (or probability) that other player groups will coordinate colonization around the same areas we are, and will then go defunct. We'll then stuck with barely-developed neighboring systems with maybe a single starport, that we cannot further develop, ever.
All of this also completely deviates from any system of colonization we've seen in human history. On a large scale, when European countries formed their empires, they had to fight to keep them. Like Britain couldn't simply show up in the New World, plant a flag on an island, and then just leave for decades and hope the Spanish and French would never take it. And on a smaller scale, when individuals would homestead or develop gold/mineral claims, they had to use them. Imagine if a settler in the American or Canadian west in the 1800s would have showed up, plopped down a cabin on a homestead site, and then left for a few years. Would they expect their land to still be theirs when they came back? Absolutely not.
All that could be avoided by a simple expiration mechanic. Maybe have some requirement that the System Architect do something with their system periodically to keep architect status, even if it's as simple as logging into a menu and pushing a button. Just something in place to give other players or groups the chance to continue developing a desirable system if its abandoned.
Finally, this post is not intended to be a complaint, and I am only posting because in the recent dev videos it has been obvious that Fdev wants player feedback on the new systems and is probably willing to make changes. My group is very excited about the colonization mechanic, and between colonization and the recent end to the Thargoid war, we are finally active again after a pretty long dead spell. Colonization is a feature that could really continue to bring player groups together, cooperating toward common goals. But my group and I are seriously concerned that the lack of any kind of claim expiration mechanic is going to result in a ton of "ghost town" systems that simply can't ever be restored.
EDIT: I wanted to clarify a couple things because I think some folks are misunderstanding me. I am NOT asking that players be able to UNDO or demolish what the original architect has done. I also have no problem with the original architect's name forever remaining on the system map, just like is currently the case with the person who first discovers a system. The ONLY point I'm making is that people should be able to further develop the system at some point if the architect completely abandons it.
Q: "What system will be in place for a colonized system if the architect goes inactive for a prolonged period of time?"
A: "Well, nothing really...."
This approach poses serious problems for any group that is wanting to expand. As I mentioned, I'm the head of a medium-sized squadron, and we have a player minor faction that controls several dozen systems. Since squadrons themselves cannot have "system architect" status, we will have to coordinate our members to individually colonize nearby unoccupied systems that we have an interest in. But one thing you quickly learn as a leader of a player group is that members come and go all the time. You'll have members that are regular for years, and one day their life gets hectic and they are just done with Elite, vanish, and we never see them again. If "system architect" status could expire due to inactivity, then that wouldn't be a problem at all. The systems that player was in charge of would "time out," and we could put someone else in charge. But with permanent system architect status, that is impossible. If a player that was developing a system leaves, then development of that system is apparently lost to us forever unless that player literally hands us their Frontier account login when they leave (which for obvious reasons I would never ask someone to do).
This gets even worse if your group undergoes a some sort of schism or falling-out and a bunch of players leave. About a year and a half ago, our former BGS head and several of our most devoted BGS players left due to irreconcilable differences in our visions for the group, and they formed a new squadron operating out of an entirely different part of the bubble. If that happened post-colonization, we'd all of a sudden have a whole set of abandoned systems that we can no longer develop.
In addition to members coming and going, other player groups come and go. We have had other player minor factions in our backyard just completely wither up and die, and under the existing BGS mechanics, that's not a problem, because we can just expand into those systems. But now, there's a realistic possibility (or probability) that other player groups will coordinate colonization around the same areas we are, and will then go defunct. We'll then stuck with barely-developed neighboring systems with maybe a single starport, that we cannot further develop, ever.
All of this also completely deviates from any system of colonization we've seen in human history. On a large scale, when European countries formed their empires, they had to fight to keep them. Like Britain couldn't simply show up in the New World, plant a flag on an island, and then just leave for decades and hope the Spanish and French would never take it. And on a smaller scale, when individuals would homestead or develop gold/mineral claims, they had to use them. Imagine if a settler in the American or Canadian west in the 1800s would have showed up, plopped down a cabin on a homestead site, and then left for a few years. Would they expect their land to still be theirs when they came back? Absolutely not.
All that could be avoided by a simple expiration mechanic. Maybe have some requirement that the System Architect do something with their system periodically to keep architect status, even if it's as simple as logging into a menu and pushing a button. Just something in place to give other players or groups the chance to continue developing a desirable system if its abandoned.
Finally, this post is not intended to be a complaint, and I am only posting because in the recent dev videos it has been obvious that Fdev wants player feedback on the new systems and is probably willing to make changes. My group is very excited about the colonization mechanic, and between colonization and the recent end to the Thargoid war, we are finally active again after a pretty long dead spell. Colonization is a feature that could really continue to bring player groups together, cooperating toward common goals. But my group and I are seriously concerned that the lack of any kind of claim expiration mechanic is going to result in a ton of "ghost town" systems that simply can't ever be restored.
EDIT: I wanted to clarify a couple things because I think some folks are misunderstanding me. I am NOT asking that players be able to UNDO or demolish what the original architect has done. I also have no problem with the original architect's name forever remaining on the system map, just like is currently the case with the person who first discovers a system. The ONLY point I'm making is that people should be able to further develop the system at some point if the architect completely abandons it.
Last edited:
