Problems with permanent "System Architect" Status

[Ceres_O7]

I think the 10LY range means that it's a system that is very hard to unintentionally or intentionally troll or block people with.

It actually seems like smart design.

If your faction is building out a bubble or a chain of systems to their own new bubble and needs a supply chain, even if somebody decides "I'm gonna ruin this faction's day" and somehow claims every available system within range permanently,

That faction can still then just expand again from that troll's system. At most they will be 20LY from their last one rather than 10LY. 20LY is not a disruption to the supply chain, most ships break that range easily.

Same goes if someone abandons and a system you wanted to be X economy is left with just a starport. As soon as that starport is there, you can just expand from it again and effectively leapfrog the abandoned system entirely.

It would only really be an issue for players who want a specific system to the exclusion of all others. But like, there's 400,000,000,000 of them, find another it's not that big a deal.

If you're trying to fill empty systems within the bubble rather than expand outwards from it, you'll run into real estate problems quickly for sure. But I would argue that's exactly why it makes more sense to expand outwards rather than inwards, especially if you're a faction who wants their own space.

 

[Weps]

So? There are enough systems in the game. Why change something someone else has done?

We can't change the existing occupied systems in the game, Sol for example, why should we be able to change others once they are also occupied? Makes no logical sense.

Someone mentioned decay somewhere a few replies back, and now suddenly the discussion became about deleting other players' effort.

The thread and my comments have nothing to do with such thoughts of course.

The issue addressed here isn't about changing the work of the initial architect - it's about allowing other players to CONTINUE the work of the first architect. Any starport / settlement / installation placed by the first architect would stay in game indefinitely. No demolish mechanics.

The idea addresses mostly the scenarios where an architect places an initial starport in a "good" system (many planets supporting complex economies, or ELW for agri etc. ) but then never expands the economy, for whichever reason (RL issues, in-game decisions or just lulz). This could interfere with the activity of other player groups, or simply create a desolate landscape of barren colonies, if left unchecked.

 

[Disemboweled Ego]

The solution to the original problem is to treat abandoned partially colonized systems like you treat crappy 1-outpost systems that are part of the existing bubble, if your grand game of BGS relies on developing a single system that could get abandoned part way through then that's probably a bad plan given the currently known mechanics and their limitations. Any kind of transfer of ownership would be way messier than just designing or playing around the fact that systems will get abandoned.

It does seem like FDev is going to treat colonized systems as more of a cheap commodity like carriers rather than a rare event with all the issues that brings, but that also means one system not getting developed won't be a big deal since there's many others out there.

 

[Jmanis]

I'd argue that the significance of the architect role decreases with time. It does matter, especially in the first months of colonisation.

If a larger squadron for example plans a long range colonisation effort, and they need certain economies / economic chains on that colonisation route,

to support moving forward - and this was a scenario specifically mentioned by FDEV - then, having John Doe come along and mess up their infrastructure real estate with other economies, installations etc. could spell ruin for their efforts. It would be mandatory fort the architecture of that system to be restricted to that player / group, until the work is complete.

I'm confident that it would be impossible for a logistic chain to be broken so irreparably that a single player awkwardly colonising a system, heck, even a concerted effort by multiple players.

Each step is 10Ly, and so the idea that an entire logistic chain could be "ruined" by a single colony because the other 49 systems in a single fleet carrier jump range that got you to this point, are useless.

If the colonisation mechanic is so restrictive that this could occur, then there's bigger problems with it.

It is more significant because it locks the system for any further colonisation / installation construction.

So what? If nothing else, the risk here doesn't seem to be players going inactive, rather, it'll be the wake of single-outpost systems big explorer groups leave behind that's a bigger issue. But I'm ok with this,

This is going to happen everywhere, with everyone regardless of player activity or not. Everyone will be unhappy with how someone established a colony, or the path they take it on.

Imagine a virtual gaia system, triple ELW, lots of HMCs to support industry, a hundred other bodies... basically the galaxy in a box. What should happen with it?

- colonise it as much as possible.. agri... extraction, industry, tourism, the works. Stations everywhere, tens of billions population; or

- a single outpost, simply a a place to rest for tourists who've come to admire this natural phenomenon.

Positions will vary greatly, but whatever turns out, the rest of the galaxy is still going to be ok for it. People, whether active or not, will leave behind undeveloped systems, or overdevelop a system against the wants of many... heck... pretty sure people will get sad when I break Robigo, but whatever... we don't play this game in a vacuum... it's with other people.

And to circle back around, if a long range colonisation effort, despite all other feasability that's likely to exist, somehow did get torpedoed by a single player, then that sounds like a bad plan that failed to acknowledge this isn't their own private world.

 

[Aratac]

How about a screen where someone can make an offer for your system to takeover the architect role or even having an auction site that you can list your system and people can place credit bids for it over say a 5 day period? Sort of like a Galactic Ebay. That would create a new game loop called 'System Developer". I agree however that you should not lose the architect role involuntarily.

 

[Freyar]

If I spend 3bCr and four weeks of my time to build up a system, it's mine and I won't endorse a timeout.

 

[the100thmonkey]

This approach poses serious problems for any group that is wanting to expand.

Fdev haven't stated that colonisation is a group mechanic. Indeed, their statements on the matter have implied the opposite - that it's something individual CMDRs can do, but that would obviously be quicker were a squadron involved.

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.

It might not be a problem for your squadron as a whole, but people stopping playing the game - for any period of time - is not a sufficient reason to negate their progress in it. Ever.

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).

The majority of the systems in the bubble are crap, with one or two outposts and (maybe) a ground base with a large pad. The development of those systems isn't an issue for you. I don't see how this is any different.

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.

You seem to be suggesting that you should get to keep someone else's stuff after they decide they don't like you.

I can't see that gaining traction with anyone.

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.

Your faction should be able to expand into the system. Then you can just stake a claim to a nearby system and develop that.

There is no indication as to what makes a system "desirable" as of yet. An Earth-like? My understanding of the system architect role is that they can determine the economy of the system. This might mean that many of the variables that could make a system "desirable" (I'd like to know what you mean by that) are determined by the player.

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.

This is the ad antiquitatem fallacy. In a computer game. It has no place here.

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.

The same simple expiration mechanic would also serve to disappropriate CMDRs who, for whatever reason, have to step away from the game for a period of time. I don't see a good reason given for why your wants should override those of other players who have never had anything to do with your group.

I suspect that you would prefer the gameplay to be squadron-focussed rather than CMDR-focussed. That's OK, but FDev's track record suggests that, based on the feedback they have received when it comes to such things, they don't necessarily see the game in the same way: Fleet carriers were initially announced as a squadron asset. That is not how they were implemented.

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.

This paragraph seems to suggest that you'd be A-OK with other groups getting your PMF's systems without effort if, as indicated above, it was dormant for a period of time. If you're OK with that, I'm OK with it too. Just let me know the name of the faction and we're set.

On a tangential note, I'd like to find the person who taught you to double-space the start of a new sentence and string them up by the balls.

 

[Mersozz]

I think if someone goes through the time and effort to colonize a planet they should retain founding status.

From what I have read and watched, the colonized system will be subject to the tidal forces of the BGS and PP2. So an architect will neglect their colonized system at their peril.

Considering how many systems will be available for colonization, I think there will be avenues for PMF/Squadrons to avoid any hassles posed by systems with absent architects.

 

[Darrack]

If I spend 3bCr and four weeks of my time to build up a system, it's mine and I won't endorse a timeout.

It wont be yours, a pmf or other faction can come in and occupy it just like other systems, you just plan how it looks.
As soon as folks realise it wont be 'their' system they will be better prepared for the meltdown.

O7

 

[Felix DiCestria]

It wont be yours, a pmf or other faction can come in and occupy it just like other systems, you just plan how it looks.
As soon as folks realise it wont be 'their' system they will be better prepared for the meltdown.

O7

How many years have we been waiting for PMF associates to realise that?

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Frankly, I can see PP2 going the same way as PP1 once players have acquired the weapons they like the look of.

For any individual, possibly, in the same way that there's only so much time anyone is going to spend unlocking engineers. But the collective effect works rather differently - people still look for meta-alloys and complain about rares availability and ask for recommended sights to see on their 5000 LY Palin trip.

- a median player gains enough merits for 1 or 2 ranks a week, so they'll be playing for a year or two before they get their weapons; by that time even if they get to rank 100 someone new to the game will have replaced them
- a top 10% player gains about 10 ranks a week, so they'll still take a few months to get a complete weapon set. And, by definition, they're somewhat unusual.
- a top 1% player might gain 25-100 ranks a week, but a quick look at the top 10 in my power and the number of them with ranks well above 100 suggests that they weren't getting those merits primarily for the personal rewards anyway

There are lessons here for the long-term participation in colonisation, too.

 

[thistle]

Someone mentioned decay somewhere a few replies back, and now suddenly the discussion became about deleting other players' effort.

The thread and my comments have nothing to do with such thoughts of course.

The issue addressed here isn't about changing the work of the initial architect - it's about allowing other players to CONTINUE the work of the first architect. Any starport / settlement / installation placed by the first architect would stay in game indefinitely. No demolish mechanics.

Will the system architect be able to change the stations, settlements etc in their system? I assume so. So if subsequent players were able to assume the architect role, why would they not be able to also demolish, to use your word?

I think the architect status should be permanent. As i mentioned before, we wont be able to "CONTINUE the work of the first architect" in current bubble systems. Why newly occupied systems even if the architect has moved on?

Spoiler

PMFs

 

[Freyar]

It wont be yours, a pmf or other faction can come in and occupy it just like other systems, you just plan how it looks.
As soon as folks realise it wont be 'their' system they will be better prepared for the meltdown.

O7

You say this like I've cared about the BGS in any meaningful way for ten years.

I know BGS will be involved in states, etc. That's fine. But I'll develop the amenities the way I want.

 

[Weps]

Will the system architect be able to change the stations, settlements etc in their system? I assume so.

I don't know why you would assume that.

We know from the Piers stream that the effort to build a single installation (startport etc.) is non-trivial. In both cases there will be a large in-game object (either the colonisation ship or the construction site) taking custody of supplies. I am emphasising this because FDEV clearly made an effort to tie in colonies to the commodities required to build them.

So what would happen if a player could choose to divest / demolish an installation? Where would those resources go? We haven't been shown anything in terms of in-game assets that would cover such a scenario.
Would FDEV even implement a system, where an architect can just choose to delete weeks or months of work (maybe even by mistake)? What would that do to their support team?

We also know from the streams that the installations built by the architect impact that system's population, BGS (factions) and PP.
What would be the impact on PP and its activities, if installations suddenly pop out of existence?
What about BGS, can the architect just delete installations owned by a rival faction (pick up his toys and go)?
What would happen in a BGS war over a certain installation, if the installation ceases to exist right in the middle of the war?

etc. etc. etc.

So many questions here, I don't think it would be even feasible to implement something like this. This isn't AoE.

 

[Markov Chaney]

Why would a system that has successfully been colonised (and is now the SAME as any existing system in terms of status) need grinding to pay upkeep.

Makes no sense. The person or group who have colonised that system and then expand from it are surely not going to have grind to do the first system, then grind for the next system, but be expected to continue the grind for the first in the chain?

Makes no sense.

Agree - surely the idea is that once colonised, the system joins the BGS, also suggests that once it's joined the BGS, it's part of that economy. So the factions present are looking after than colony, just like any other, and when contingencies arise, missions pop up and the player base (not the architect!) can go and find fish and coffee. That does kind of make the original architect just a label no different to a First Discovered.

In my headcanon, that's why we'll never get a "settle 5,000ly away" option under this mechanic; Colonisation 1.0 needs the traditional BGS economy to support the new system. (They could add a whole new mechanic about supplying the wild frontier, in Colonisation 2.0, that worked differently, but that would require a BGS 2.0 and a proper reconciliation between BGS and PP 2.0, so you'd also need PP 2.1.)

 

[Markov Chaney]

All of this also completely deviates from any system of colonization we've seen in human history.

I wrote a much longer reply but it boiled down to this: You've picked on European colonisation from 15th-17th Century which emerged from a very specific set of naval and fiscal circumstances. That's 200 years out of at least 40,000 so it's not really sensible to compare Phillip II of Spain with any of the Powers, especially given that gold / mercantilism and religion were both major factors. Even whilst your example was happening, China was doing just fine with dynasties, a completely different way of doing things.

The Holy Roman Empire for instance worked a completely different way and only fell apart because the Carolingians started murdering each other, nothing to do with the actual empire or colonies.

And your example of the gold rush is a bit bizarre, given that eminent domain and manifest destiny absolutely ARE examples of how you plant a flag and screw everyone else.

In short, history just does not support your line of argument, unless you pick the 1% of history that does!

 

[Freyar]

Remember, systems like Colonization are likely influenced by The Club.

 

[thistle]

I don't know why you would assume that.

Zac said it in the live stream. "Maybe I want to come back, edit, add more..."

 

[Coolgroove]

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.

For the organized play - yes, currently Colonisation system has nothing to alleviate these problems. But your solution sets wishes of a group higher than that of an individual player. That's not a good PoV for that system, as it is individual who can pay extra money in Colonisation monetization, on top of that - FDev can't just abandon solo/individual players who might take a break from the game - it's just a wrong thing to do.

With what concepts there are already in the game, there could be a less destructive solution:

- System management. Ability to add other players as Architects to the system. (up to 3 or 5). Similar to how squadrons have members with various roles, BUT only 2 roles - original colonisator/architect of the system, and up to 4 co-Architects who can do everything that the main Architect does, but can't add/remove other Architects.

This wouldn't require much extra development for the whole system, as it would use the same UI and mechanics.

• Extra UI/code to invite/view/remove co-Architects would be needed.
• Mechanic that block Architect UI in that system if another Architect is using it (to prevent overlap, bugs and unintended use) - "Please wait for CMDR XXX to finish before you can proceed".
• Separate system of name placement for stations/settlements (planets/bodies?) that depends on which Architect started the project of building it.

In this case:

• Organized groups can add more that one Architect to the system. 5 of most active squadron members should be more than enough.
• Name of system Architect and original Colonisator stays the same always. It is really important both for many players and for how "Place your name in the Galaxy" works in overall Elite design. But other Architects can have their names on individual project in the system that they start.
• No way to loose a system even if Player takes a very long break.
• Ability to continue system development even if main Architect is not there, by those who are trusted to do so.

If an architect chooses to abandon a system there should be an option "abandon". This would be irreversible. Afterward a new player / group could claim and develop the system.

I don't think "Abandon" by itself would do much, as it would require a specific action performed by the player - doesn't solve the problem of player suddenly quitting.

From a development PoV it should not be much harder than switching one player ID for the other to reclaim the system, and could be a good option for players who gave it a try, didn't liked it and moved on - to free it up for someone who might want it. But I seriously doubt that this option be used often, probably never.

As a part of system of co-Architects it could be very useful, as when Squadrons get falling outs - it could be used to make another co-Architect into a main Architect and leave (in a civilized manner for those who are capable of that). Name of original Architect will still be the same and won't change, but everything else becomes in control of the new main system Architect.

With all that above:

• Problem of Players suddenly quitting could be solved preemptively. As well as various falling outs. If anyone thinks that is not enough - they need to remember that one's trust choices is not a game's problem.
• What anybody can do with the Colonisied system is based on original Architect actions, and not on FOMO expiration timer.
• Not the hardest thing to implement as it would not change much, and it would not require extra timers/triggers/conditions to track players and make changes.
• Names and what was put there with monetization are never lost.

 

[Weps]

Zac said it in the live stream. "Maybe I want to come back, edit, add more..."

The way he says “edit… aughea… add more” almost sounds as if he’s quickly correcting himself. I still don’t think there will be any demolishing.

But I see where you’re coming from. We’ll find out soon in the Beta I suppose.