Problems with permanent "System Architect" Status

Jmanis

Jmanis
Weps said:
I beg to differ. If the bubble is the pool, then the number of chairs in the immediate vicinity is much smaller.
Click to expand...
Before I talk to that, I want to ask specifically about your wording, as maybe I've missed something as it's wording I've heard a few times so far.

Are things initially restricted strictly to the bubble? That is, no extending out from the other existing colonies that are well outside the bubble already e.g colonia, the various outposts about the place, pleiades, california nebula etc?

Either way, that's still a lot of systems initially
Weps said:
Actually I do like this idea better. Now I'm struggling to think why FDEV wouldn't have just considered this option from the start. Non-rethorical question: which problems would appear, when two or more players are using the architect interface at the same time... ?
Click to expand...
My gut tells me it's no restriction on players and the interface, and more that a given system probably only allows one development "project" at a time. Like, you could have
Weps said:
If the only consideration is giving a single player their personal system sandbox - so that they can go nuts architecting - then maybe the two options could be combined: lock the system with a single architect for a fixed / variable amount of time, then open it up for everyone. Kinda like a patent application.
Click to expand...
I disagree with that more than any other idea so far. Either an enduring system architect matters, in which case it's too important to have locked up in a cabal of players, or it doesn't matter, in which case a system being left to an absent architect is quite fine.

"Time gates" are never a solution to anything imo, except in competitions, which the BGS is not.
 

Weps

Weps
Jmanis said:
Are things initially restricted strictly to the bubble?
Click to expand...
Neither confirmed nor denied - that's the latest info I can remember. I think both Piers and Zac have mentioned "the bubble" several times in their explanations, but they were careful not to mention any other colonies / starting points.

Jmanis said:
Either an enduring system architect matters, in which case it's too important to have locked up in a cabal of players, or it doesn't matter, in which case a system being left to an absent architect is quite fine.
Click to expand...
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.

However, opening the system up months, years after it has been established, wouldn't be such a tragedy anymore.


Here's another idea: just a menu option somewhere for the architect to voluntarily resign his position. It would cover a lot less cases than the expiration approach, but could still be of help to squadrons when the architect knows they can't keep the commitment due to RL.

DaveB said:
Ultimately, being "ssytem architect" is no more significant than "First Discovered By..." so why not let it persist?
Click to expand...
It is more significant because it locks the system for any further colonisation / installation construction.
 

pmejna

P
BardBowman said:
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.
Click to expand...
Completely disagree - last thing I want is to leave the game for a year or two (like many of us DID after Oddysey launch) to suddenly realise that all my systems GONE. The last thing I want from the game is to be forced to check-in or grind. Most of the players who start doing colonization will want to be involved. If someone leaves the game for some time because FDEV again give up adding critical content - shouldn't be punished just because there are players who can invest thousands of hours of gameplay every year. Most players who arent the colonist type wont even engage in this content. Heck! How would you handle the situation when I colonize 12 low value systems with just initial star port and beacon, while setting up 30-40 settlements in the system I wanted colonize from the start. What If I want to return to the previous ones in the future?
The more logical would be: "abandon" option. Imagine if we won't get anything significant - which to me is atmospheric planets (can be barren but for god sake let's get some basic weather and could system). Imagine that they again start putting the effort to keep us engaged. And see your previous systems full with the types of planet NOW available to land, and put settlements. But - you been kicked out :D What about players who colonize some systems which on paper won't be that great to even develop fully - but they will be a prospect for further expansion of landables?
 
Last edited:

aRJay

aRJay
Jmanis said:
Before I talk to that, I want to ask specifically about your wording, as maybe I've missed something as it's wording I've heard a few times so far.

Are things initially restricted strictly to the bubble? That is, no extending out from the other existing colonies that are well outside the bubble already e.g colonia, the various outposts about the place, pleiades, california nebula etc?
Click to expand...
As I understood what FDev have said in the two streams it will initially be only the Bubble, now what exactly is the border of the Bubble is unclear to me but I doubt if even the Pleiades is close enough to scrape in.
 

Florenus

Florenus
I don't like the idea of "system architect" title expiring. I don't want to worry about it.
I don't think it would be a big problem though. Not every system needs to be "maxed out".

But Fdev could add ability to pass the title over to someone else (or even sell maybe).
 

Jinx Chrome

Jinx Chrome
Doctor Dread said:
This has strong Machu Picchu, Petra vibe.

Actually would be fine if some visible form of dilapidation creeps in after a while.
Click to expand...
A lifecycle for player colonised system should be a core feature, extend it even to the FDev placed systems. The basic questions for anybody who creates something (and in this specific case I mean ED's game designers) is: 'how will I maintain it?' and 'how will i sundown it?' Those phases should be included into the game mechanics from the very start and could be transferred to the players:
Visible states (e.g. building/station architecture, missions) of a colony, like 'early settlement', 'expanding', 'flourishing', to 'abandoned' / 'decaying' would give the entire colonised space more vibrance and dynamic and become interesting for players who do not necessarily want to engage in BGS / colonisation activities. When the status of the colony is 'decayed', the system could be opened to recolonisation by another player.
In the end, using that concept, the system architect's name could stay imprinted on the colony until it is recolonised. That would leave the task to nurture the colony to the architect and their team. When somebody can't play for a longer timeframe, the group can still maintain the colony's status.
 

Cosmo

Cosmo
pmejna said:
Completely disagree - last thing I want is to leave the game for a year or two (like many of us DID after Oddysey launch) to suddenly realise that all my systems GONE. The last thing I want from the game is to be forced to check-in or grind. Most of the players who start doing colonization will want to be involved. If someone leaves the game for some time because FDEV again give up adding critical content - shouldn't be punished just because there are players who can invest thousands of hours of gameplay every year. Most players who arent the colonist type wont even engage in this content. Heck! How would you handle the situation when I colonize 12 low value systems with just initial star port and beacon, while setting up 30-40 settlements in the system I wanted colonize from the start. What If I want to return to the previous ones in the future?
Click to expand...

Right, the devs said the architect cannot be removed from a star system.

pmejna said:
The more logical would be: "abandon" option.
Click to expand...

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.

Jinx Chrome said:
'abandoned' / 'decaying' would give the entire colonised space more vibrance and dynamic and become interesting for players who do not necessarily want to engage in BGS / colonisation activities. When the status of the colony is 'decayed', the system could be opened to recolonisation by another player.
Click to expand...

It is inevitable that players become inactive for whatever reason. So a "decaying" phase would be bad cause hundreds or thousands of colonies would decay in the end. It's better to leave the colony in the same development phase when the architect left it. A voluntary abandon option would be fair because then the architect chooses to pass it on.
 
Last edited:

Doctor Dread

Doctor Dread
Imagine human settlements, huge ones from Odyssey, slowly turning into Ancient-ruins- type or Guardian-structures-type if neglected - of course, from our original architecture.
With a name of the "System Architect" Ruins, as POI.

It would be nice to visit them.

Of course, they all can have Dav's Hope type thingy or two. There's a world of possibilities to make them interesting.
 
Last edited:

Darrack

Darrack
Doctor Dread said:
Imagine human settlements, huge ones from Odyssey, slowly turning into Ancient ruins / Guardian structures if neglected - of course, from our original architecture.
With a name of the "System Architect" Ruins, as POI.

It would be nice to visit them.

Of course, they all can have Dav's Hope type thingy or two. There's a world of possibilities to make them interesting.
Click to expand...
"That's entropy!" - sorry shameless monkey cage plug

O7
 

Jinx Chrome

Jinx Chrome
Cosmo said:
Right, the devs said the architect cannot be removed from a star system.



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.



It is inevitable that players become inactive for whatever reason. So a "decaying" phase would be bad cause hundreds or thousands of colonies would decay in the end. It's better to leave the colony in the same development phase when the architect left it. A voluntary abandon option would be fair because then the architect chooses to pass it on.
Click to expand...
Abandon is a good concept but I believe that the pride of an architect (and I don't exclude myself here) is always so high that you don't voluntarily erase 'your mark on the galaxy'. Naming a colony is something cool without doubt.

Why would decaying colonies be bad? 'Hundreds or thousands' of zombie colonies without proper facilities, missions, trade opportunities or anything but littering the orbits and planet surfaces are less appealing for me. It would be worse than the carriers, they have at least the lifecycle mechanics of upkeep costs.
Above, I described that decaying colonies could be recolonised. And if no one takes them (we also include BGS driven reclamation) they will wither and fall to ruins. Would be great for players who scavenge or hunt scavengers. New game play loops could be created.
 

Cosmo

Cosmo
Jinx Chrome said:
Abandon is a good concept but I believe that the pride of an architect (and I don't exclude myself here) is always so high that you don't voluntarily erase 'your mark on the galaxy'. Naming a colony is something cool without doubt.
Click to expand...

It shouldn't erase everything they did, their names would remain in the system description.

Jinx Chrome said:
Why would decaying colonies be bad? 'Hundreds or thousands' of zombie colonies without proper facilities, missions, trade opportunities or anything but littering the orbits and planet surfaces are less appealing for me. It would be worse than the carriers, they have at least the lifecycle mechanics of upkeep costs. Above, I described that decaying colonies could be recolonised. And if no one takes them (we also include BGS driven reclamation) they will wither and fall to ruins. Would be great for players who scavenge or hunt scavengers. New game play loops could be created.
Click to expand...

The grind to build up a colony will be severe. Most players eventually take long breaks or quit after a while. If a colony's survivability depends on an active architect who keeps grinding to pay the upkeep that's tiresome. Imagine having built 10 colonies and taking a 2 year break. When you return you'll find your colonies in ruins, because you didn't do the monthly / annual upkeep. That's what would happen to most colonies. Only the hardcore architects (+ groups, squadrons) would keep on grinding for years to keep their colonies alive. So there's no upkeep, decay and the architect cannot be removed.

If an architect chooses to abandon a colony then other players could takeover. Both parties would be satisfied. Perhaps if an architect abandons it then some limited decay could occur, but it shouldn't become ruins. Salvaging is a niche career. There are too few salvagers to repair 100s of colonies.
 
Last edited:

thistle

T
Cosmo said:
It shouldn't erase everything they did, their names would remain in the system description.



The grind to build up a colony will be severe. Most players eventually take long breaks or quit after a while. If a colony's survivability depends on an active architect who keeps grinding to pay the upkeep that's tiresome. Imagine having built 10 colonies and taking a 2 year break. When you return you'll find your colonies in ruins, because you didn't do the monthly / annual upkeep. That's what would happen to most colonies. Only the hardcore architects (+ groups, squadrons) would keep on grinding for years to keep their colonies alive. So there's no upkeep, decay and the architect cannot be removed.

If an architect chooses to abandon a colony then other players could takeover. Both parties would be satisfied. Perhaps if an architect abandons it then some limited decay could occur, but it shouldn't become ruins. Salvaging is a niche career. There are too few salvagers to repair 100s of colonies.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom