To all intents and purposes that's exactly what the Spanish did. Along with most of the other Continental powers.
Problems with permanent "System Architect" Status
- Thread starter BardBowman
- Start date
I think the issue is you are both using historical comparisons to try and say "This Is The Way," and you can both find examples because... history has run "colonisation" a hundred different ways. You can't therefore claim any of them as the "correct" mechanic. In fact the game Civilisation is about pitching these different ethos against each other!
I do not believe for a single second that real (or even fictional) history/examples should justify how a game works. The goal is to be fun, not stick to reality.
About the actual plot of the discussion, I generally agree with the OP, but also I'd feel bad for someone if they lost their status as system architect if due to real life reasons they couldn't complete some specific conditions to retain their status.
Here's a suggestion :
If a player isn't active for a specific amount of time, they start losing their system architect status on their least developed system(s). IMO if a system has a lot of stations/settlements, then I don't see a reason to do anything about it. If at any point they come back, and they manually ask for their status back (maybe require a minimum level of activity first or smth, idk), then they get it back. Also if someone knows they won't be able to play for a long period of time, give them the possibility to "give away" their systems manually ?
edit: "Losing" or "giving away" a system shouldn't be seen as a negative thing, the game is ongoing, so is its story, and I think it would fit the general idea of a dynamic universe. As long as the original architect has the possibility to get it status back, its good. You could have the "abandoned" system new architect be either : the fastest player just like yet-to-be-colonized systems, or the system architect of the closest colonized system, or a player predefined by the previous architect, or have a bidding system (great money sink btw), or the player with the most activity in that system, or the one with the highest reputation amongst the factions (or the faction with the biggest influence) in that system, etc.
About the actual plot of the discussion, I generally agree with the OP, but also I'd feel bad for someone if they lost their status as system architect if due to real life reasons they couldn't complete some specific conditions to retain their status.
Here's a suggestion :
If a player isn't active for a specific amount of time, they start losing their system architect status on their least developed system(s). IMO if a system has a lot of stations/settlements, then I don't see a reason to do anything about it. If at any point they come back, and they manually ask for their status back (maybe require a minimum level of activity first or smth, idk), then they get it back. Also if someone knows they won't be able to play for a long period of time, give them the possibility to "give away" their systems manually ?
edit: "Losing" or "giving away" a system shouldn't be seen as a negative thing, the game is ongoing, so is its story, and I think it would fit the general idea of a dynamic universe. As long as the original architect has the possibility to get it status back, its good. You could have the "abandoned" system new architect be either : the fastest player just like yet-to-be-colonized systems, or the system architect of the closest colonized system, or a player predefined by the previous architect, or have a bidding system (great money sink btw), or the player with the most activity in that system, or the one with the highest reputation amongst the factions (or the faction with the biggest influence) in that system, etc.
Last edited:
Why would that cause grief? Actual question, not trying to be argumentative. I'm not proposing that existing work be undone, or that successor Architects have the ability to demolish stuff that was already built. With that in mind, is there a reason that allowing a claim to expire would inhibit expansion?
One of the aims of system architecting (yeah I know that's not a word) is to create the system economy, depending on what is required for expansion the system architect could presumably create an economy that would sell the types of goods and materials that are needed for the next system in the line, once you get far enough away from the bubble that might be essential for continued expansion. If your system architect goes offline for some reason, maybe PC dies and they need to save up to get a new one, and the claim expires that system might then not be able to produce the necessary goods for expansion.
Actually the examples have no bearing which the OP demonstrated by making their initial case with how they thought it worked but then claimed that evidence showing the opposite was true also "supported their case".
As someone else mentioned the proposal is emotionally based.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
If a System Architect quite deliberately developed a system up to a point and then decided "that's perfect, my job here is done" then for any other player to make additions could be considered to be vandalism of the System Architect's vision.
Tbh, this would be the best compromise.
Your "evidence," especially the Falklands example, literally showed that if you abandon your stuff, someone else is going to take it. That is my entire point with the historical examples. There is nothing emotional about it. You're just wrong, full stop. But as other people have pointed out, historical examples aren't even that important, and frankly I now regret even including it at all in the post because it's led to this asinine discussion and distracted from all the other points. The only reason I have belabored the point is because you waltzed in here with an example that supported my proposal and claimed it somehow does not. Not going to engage in that discussion anymore because its a distraction.
Last edited:
I wholeheartedly agree that it would be better than the current system which leaves you with zero options if you're working on a system with someone and they have to bail on it.
The question to ask is: How big a deal is it for some colonised systems to halt progression vs. the dev cost of book-keeping and adding UI to allow some kind of succession system? And the verdict is almost certainly: It's not that big of a deal. A successor feature is kind of a dead end, doesn't add anything of value to the game outside of a relatvely tiny number of cases.
As so often, other considerations like "the game should be this way because.. IRL history!" or "the game should do what I want because.. coherence, depth, ludonarrative resonance, <insert game design aspirational value here>" are secondary and kind of irrelevant next to the practical question of developer bang for buck IMO.
It's a direct contradiction of the original statement. If the position was rational it would immediately blow it out of the water.
By claiming that mutually exclusive positions both support your position confirms it is irrational. Predictably you chose to double down.
Rational arguments will have no effect and I know where this path leads.
We don't have a current system, this is all speculation and everything could change before launch day!
The chief architect should have the final approval of what the co-architects do to change colony features. But if past 2-3 weeks the CA (chief architect) does not respond then it's by default approved.
No need to change/expire the CA status.
I think its obvious from the livestreams that they anticipate players cooperating to colonize systems.
That's not at all what I said, or at least not what I meant to convey. I didn't say squadrons should be able to forcibly commandeer an active commander's system just because they left, and if I somehow suggested that, I didn't intend to. I am purely talking about systems with architects who are completely absent and gone. Which would include squadron members who leave and proceed to abandon their system and/or the game as a whole.
Of course I'm ok with other people taking our PMF's systems if we go dormant. That's like, fundamental BGS gameplay lmao. Faction is Oblivion Fleet. Have at it, we could use some content. Just have the guts to fly in open and maybe we'll see you around.
Oh no, double-spaced sentences. The horror! Completely irrelevant to the discussion, and it's bizarre to me that you even brought it up. Although, I'll acknowledge that it is an outdated practice from the time of typewriters that for some reason an old boss of mine still followed, and I picked it up. Would probably be a good habit to unlearn.
I mean, Fdev have confirmed that the current plan is that nothing happens if a player abandons the system. So yeah, that is the current way. But yes, I agree that everything could change before launch or during beta. Which is why fdev has asked for feedback and why I made this post. And I'm glad it's attracted some discussion from all points of view, that's really what I wanted to accomplish. Quite a different experience than a companion post I made in the /r/elitedangerous subreddit, which was simply downvoted to hell and deleted by the mods with zero explanation given
And I'm glad it's attracted some discussion from all points of view, that's really what I wanted to accomplish. Quite a different experience than a companion post I made in the /r/elitedangerous subreddit, which was simply downvoted to hell and deleted by the mods with zero explanation given
Yup, it's a more civil system here. People are nicer too. And we have good mods
They have also stated multiple times that this is a work in progress and a lot may change before release.
Well, no, because the feature doesn't yet exist, it's still in development.
...Which is why I made this post in the first place
