What tweaks would you like to see to the colonization system?

[spam]

FDev doesn't read these forums, but sometimes it's nice to just post our dreams and wishes.

I'll go first:

• Encourage players to spend time actually building out their 'good' systems a bit. Leave the minimal requirement of a starport to keep your system, but Increase the build requirements for qualifying to build another colony based upon the construction sites available. Maybe even add the requirement that a starport (coriolis is fine) would be required if the system has an ELW or terraformable water world.
  
  Example: I have a system with 23 ground sites and 40 orbital sites. Assume the rule is 10% or more of build sites must by filled. To be able to claim the next system build at least one outpost, 3 ground facilities, and a total of 4 orbital facilties (including my required Outpost). If my system has a terraformable water world or ELW, then one of those orbital facilities must be a Starport.
  
  Benefits: First, players and groups looking to build stepping stones to a particular system or region will be incentivized to put their stepping stone claims in systems that are not really suitable for colonization to begin with (e.g. systems with no landable planets). Any desirable colony planets can be claimed by players that actually want to develop them.
  
  Second, this reduces hoarding behavior of players who may be inclined to spend all their time claiming a desirable system, building the minimal outpost, claiming another system, and so on.
  
  
• Alter the nomenclature slightly so it is clear the system architect is not the 'owner' of the system. The initial 25 million fee we pay is a completion bond. Upon completion of the minimal build requirements (at least an outpost), the Architect is paid 50 million for their services which returns the bond amount and a small profit.
  
  
• It would be nice to see something to break up the monotony of cargo hauling. The addition of an optional mission or two that very slightly reduce hauling requirements (e.g. maybe by 1,000 tons) at fixed intervals (e.g. 25%, 50%, 75%) would be nice. No need to add a new type of mission, pirate hunting, on foot retrieval, CZ conflict between the construction faction and pirates or some other faction, etc. would be fine.
  
  
• Colonization range - Personally I think the current limit is about ideal, and going beyond 20 LY would be counterproductive. The reality is that the further we get from developed areas the more painful building out a new system becomes. If there isn't a limit, the boards will be littered (even more) with posts of people complaining about how awful it is to haul all these commodities.
  
  
• Commodity requirements - I think they are OK. IMO it should be perfectly awful to build T3 facilities solo. There needs to be group content, and at least this doesn't exclude single players who really really want that T3 structure.
  
  
• Build Points - Obviously there needs to be actual advanced notification of what happens to build points after completing your first two T2/T3 ports. But beyond that, the ramp up is too steep. I would like to see this cut back a bit, if not completely eliminated.
  
  
• Periodic dopamine rush - Give us a small nudge at 50% and 75% mark by showing us a partially built building. Doesn't have to be much, but it would make the grind go a little easier.

[Will]

I really like your idea of breaking up the monotony. A construction mission board rather than just a recipe like we have at the moment would be really cool. So you have the normal stuff like hauling missions but also you need to complete other missions like data delivery (Collecting schematics for your station), pirate hunting (if the system has low security for instance) , basically everything we have now could be worked into it and make it seem more like a little narrative rather than a slog. This would make it so much more interesting and alive....so it probably won't happen.

[Merkenjian]

I would like if the construction progress was tracked as a mission, similar to source and supply missions. I have a memory like a goldfish when it comes to these things and my desk is currently littered with notes of how much of each thing I need. I know I can check how much of each item I need through the galaxy map but I've usually forgotten either what I needed or how much by the time I've quit back out.

[Devilish Dave]

--------------------------------------
Copied from an earlier post I made.
--------------------------------------

So I've spent quite some time reading various posts on various platforms, while I wait for the entire feature to be turned back on and I have found some legit concerns, to which I thought I'd try to find some reasonable solutions.

The concerns I've found were:

• Abandoned Systems
  
• Inactive Architects
  
• Lack of Reach (15LY being too little)
  
• Selling System on 3rd Party Sites
  
• Teamwork
  
• "Snipers"
  
• Locking System Claims Behind Requirements

The way I would solve some of these issues would be the following:

• Make the first claim for a system be free (Requiring no tokens, only CR). Consecutive claims would require tokens.
  
• Every 15LY would cost a token.
  
• When using up 2 or more Tokens, the extra Tokens would add 50% more to the range. (1 Token = 15LY, 2 Tokens = 37.5LY, 3 Tokens = 60LY) This would be to balance the time it takes to make a new settlement, as opposed to just claiming a new system each time you get a Token. If you have 5 Tokens and use them at once, you could jump 105LY, whereas if you keep chaining with 1 Token, but 5 times you'd only make 75LY jumps in total. (Obviously values can change, but it would help populate systems with more than just a station. A cap could also be placed if need be, to prevent people from hoarding tokens and then one day make a 5KLY jump.)
  
• Tokens are obtained by successfully constructing settlements and building stations. (This would give incentive to develop more than just a single station in a system, especially when the option for settlements exist)
  
• When the System Architect finishes their first construct, they get a token. Every claimable system within the affordable distance for this architect is reserved for them for 1 hour. (A visible counter would also be applied for everyone)
  
  • This DOES NOT exclude other architects who are ALSO WITHIN reach of those systems. (This simply just stops snipers who are trying to derail a chain or "steal" a system somebody has been working towards reaching).
    
  • Other claimable systems that are not within reachable distance are free for all.
    
  • Higher number of tokens work the same in other systems even if the architect decides not to chain. So if they find a system 500LY from their original system due to it being NPC controlled or opened up through the construction of other players, they can stack their tokens to jump x LY from that location as well, so long as it's not currently locked.
• People working in a squadron all have access to chained planets regardless who in the squadron owns the claim, this way teams can work together on chains.
  
  • An alternative would be allowing the Architect to add a name to their claimed system, and by doing so it would allow that player to claim any of the reachable systems despite them being restricted to the architect. (This would be done so that one mustn't be a part of a squadron, but team work can still take place.)
    
    • Perhaps a function allowing players to register themselves to the system can help the Architect manage who he wants to give permission to. After all this only lasts for an hour, but if the team is much larger than a squadron, this can open up options in cases where several people band together and set goals such as chaining to Colonia.
• There should be no requirements to claiming a system, for those who don't understand the game, will probably fail at finishing, allowing someone else to claim it instead.
  
  • In addition, if such beginners are helped, what does it matter if they now have a system? They would have to work on it to get more tokens and what better way than to improve the system you already own? Eventually they'll get around to working on their original system, to save up tokens so they can build new systems.
• Transferring claimed systems to others, should not be allowed, unless someone can think of a clever way to prevent people from selling systems for real world currency on 3rd party sites.
  
• Architects who are inactive for a year, shouldn't lose access to their system, but it should allow others to expand on it. For example if a system is claimed, and there are planets that can have settlements on them. If an architect is gone (or dead or found a new game, etc..) another player should be able to populate that system and make something out of it. Once a player starts this process, other players cannot start building new things, until a year has passed and that player becomes inactive too. This would prevent nice systems from being "incomplete" due to player inactivity. If the original Architect returns, the 2nd player is allowed to finish the new settlement and also profits from it, but can no longer build new settlements, unless agreed upon by the original Architect.

Now obviously there might be flaws in this idea as I have no thoroughly tested it myself with different scenarios.

Values written here can be changed, I just tried to stick with those we already have, after all this is just an idea. So don't get hung up on the 15LY and the little math with using more than 1 Token when chaining.

I too am not entirely pleased with the 15LY restriction, but I do understand it being this way probably for the sake of the beta or to somewhat preserve regions of the galaxy for new content. I am not a fan of restricting players from accessing features which don't necessarily harm anyone else if they partake in it. I find it fair if people working towards a system, have an advantage to make a new claim over slackers. I also am not a fan of the idea that there might be several systems with a sole station and nothing else, especially when it is a system with various landable planets.


Anyways, do with this info what you will. These are ideas, so you're welcome to hate me for it too, although I won't really make sense of that.

[AndyH]

As system architect, the ability to cancel a newly placed project (no mats added) due to error. Especially as we figure things out.

[Planewalker]

Originally posted by spam:

• It would be nice to see something to break up the monotony of cargo hauling. The addition of an optional mission or two that very slightly reduce hauling requirements (e.g. maybe by 1,000 tons) at fixed intervals (e.g. 25%, 50%, 75%) would be nice.

Chained and tiered missions is a good idea in and of itself.
E.G. First mission pays #, next #+% etc maybe up to 3-500% payout.
-the mission amount (cargo/targets), could follow a lower scalar.

[spam]

Originally posted by AndyH:

As system architect, the ability to cancel a newly placed project (no mats added) due to error. Especially as we figure things out.

Or or just forfeit the materials supplied so far as long as facility is not yet completed.

[BaneBlackGuard]

i feel like i'm not getting enough feedback from the game on what is actually changing in the system because of the stuff i've had built. it gives you indicators BEFORE building something what it's supposed to change about the system, but i'm not seeing anything reporting on what the cumulative changes ARE, or what those changes actually mean.

[Alchemy Of Seoul]

Originally posted by Devilish Dave:

• "Snipers"
  .

What do you mean by snipers? Those taking a system in an local area of another players claim or do you mean something else?

[Devilish Dave]

Originally posted by Alchemy Of Seoul:

Originally posted by Devilish Dave:

• "Snipers"
  .

What do you mean by snipers? Those taking a system in an local area of another players claim or do you mean something else?

I mean when multiple people have an interest in a system that is out of range, but instead of putting in the effort to get closer to said system, they just spectate someone else's efforts for days, or even weeks, and without contributing anything, just take the system the moment it becomes available.

And the before anyone makes such a scenario become trivial, I'll just say it first, that if everybody would be spectating in this case, nobody would be getting to that system.

Therefore, somebody when decides to put in the time and effort to get to it, that person (or those people) should have the upper-hand over good-for-nothing observers. Which is also why I made it clear that anyone who also builds a station in reach of that system, has "an hour early access" as any other architect who contributed.

This one hour should be more than enough for architects chaining their way to a system, to get what they deserve and if multiple architects are chaining, then it is a race, but it's more fair than letting "snipers" get away with "stealing" something they didn't put any effort towards.

[Alchemy Of Seoul]

Originally posted by Devilish Dave:

Originally posted by Alchemy Of Seoul:

What do you mean by snipers? Those taking a system in an local area of another players claim or do you mean something else?

I mean when multiple people have an interest in a system that is out of range, but instead of putting in the effort to get closer to said system, they just spectate someone else's efforts for days, or even weeks, and without contributing anything, just take the system the moment it becomes available.

And the before anyone makes such a scenario become trivial, I'll just say it first, that if everybody would be spectating in this case, nobody would be getting to that system.

Therefore, somebody when decides to put in the time and effort to get to it, that person (or those people) should have the upper-hand over good-for-nothing observers. Which is also why I made it clear that anyone who also builds a station in reach of that system, has "an hour early access" as any other architect who contributed.

Technically, I might be guilty of that. But I did not spectate for more than any length of time as you put forward. I used Inara to find player systems that had a colonization contacts out further into the black. went to their contact and started hunting for a suitable system nearby. However, I am not daisy chaining systems either. The closer you get the bubble the less real estate there is. Intend on fully developing the 3 systems I have control of. Not really sure how the devs could solve this issue.

Edit: Thinking about it. the first system i had was inside the bubble... by the time I got done building my Apollo, everything was gone around it. That forced me to start looking further into the black. I don't know if there is a solution they can put in for this and keep a 15 ly limit in place.

[Devilish Dave]

Originally posted by Alchemy Of Seoul:

Originally posted by Devilish Dave:

I mean when multiple people have an interest in a system that is out of range, but instead of putting in the effort to get closer to said system, they just spectate someone else's efforts for days, or even weeks, and without contributing anything, just take the system the moment it becomes available.

And the before anyone makes such a scenario become trivial, I'll just say it first, that if everybody would be spectating in this case, nobody would be getting to that system.

Therefore, somebody when decides to put in the time and effort to get to it, that person (or those people) should have the upper-hand over good-for-nothing observers. Which is also why I made it clear that anyone who also builds a station in reach of that system, has "an hour early access" as any other architect who contributed.

Technically, I might be guilty of that. But I did not spectate for more than any length of time as you put forward. I used Inara to find player systems that had a colonization contacts out further into the black. went to their contact and started hunting for a suitable system nearby. However, I am not daisy chaining systems either. The closer you get the bubble the less real estate there is. Intend on fully developing the 3 systems I have control of. Not really sure how the devs could solve this issue.

From what I read, system that were "sniped" were system which had something unique in them. Interesting set of planets, a unique star, etc..

One guy was actually chaining to reach a system that had a proper name as opposed to Col-241-Z42-AA or something. He finished 4 systems, only to miss out on the planet he's been working to get to.

This doesn't sit well with me. And maybe the person who took it, didn't "steal" it, just picked it randomly, but I'm sure you can understand how the guy working towards it felt.

[Alchemy Of Seoul]

Originally posted by Devilish Dave:

From what I read, system that were "sniped" were system which had something unique in them. Interesting set of planets, a unique star, etc..

One guy was actually chaining to reach a system that had a proper name as opposed to Col-241-Z42-AA or something. He finished 4 systems, only to miss out on the planet he's been working to get to.

This doesn't sit well with me. And maybe the person who took it, didn't "steal" it, just picked it randomly, but I'm sure you can understand how the guy working towards it felt.

Yeah, that is malicious. I added an edit to my post above. I don't know what the solution would be for this.

[Devilish Dave]

Originally posted by Alchemy Of Seoul:

Originally posted by Devilish Dave:

I mean when multiple people have an interest in a system that is out of range, but instead of putting in the effort to get closer to said system, they just spectate someone else's efforts for days, or even weeks, and without contributing anything, just take the system the moment it becomes available.

And the before anyone makes such a scenario become trivial, I'll just say it first, that if everybody would be spectating in this case, nobody would be getting to that system.

Therefore, somebody when decides to put in the time and effort to get to it, that person (or those people) should have the upper-hand over good-for-nothing observers. Which is also why I made it clear that anyone who also builds a station in reach of that system, has "an hour early access" as any other architect who contributed.

Technically, I might be guilty of that. But I did not spectate for more than any length of time as you put forward. I used Inara to find player systems that had a colonization contacts out further into the black. went to their contact and started hunting for a suitable system nearby. However, I am not daisy chaining systems either. The closer you get the bubble the less real estate there is. Intend on fully developing the 3 systems I have control of. Not really sure how the devs could solve this issue.

Edit: Thinking about it. the first system i had was inside the bubble... by the time I got done building my Apollo, everything was gone around it. That forced me to start looking further into the black. I don't know if there is a solution they can put in for this and keep a 15 ly limit in place.

Who knows, but then again, the real point of this whole thing was to expand the bubble, not really to colonize within it. So eventually all that will be possible is enlarging the bubble and that is when it will get interesting.

Also, I do believe that the 15LY is for the sake of the beta. Once all of this works flawlessly, they'll probably double it. I don't think they will make it too much though, as the developers don't want human activity all over the galaxy, so it will be controlled, leaving nearby system open for developers to add things to them, which they wouldn't add to player owned systems.

[Alchemy Of Seoul]

Originally posted by Devilish Dave:

Also, I do believe that the 15LY is for the sake of the beta. Once all of this works flawlessly, they'll probably double it. I don't think they will make it too much though, as the developers don't want human activity all over the galaxy, so it will be controlled, leaving nearby system open for developers to add things to them, which they wouldn't add to player owned systems.

Maybe make it to where each system has to have at least 3 ports before moving on? People are making the smallest station in a few hours with one carrier then moving to the next system. I can guarantee you there are going to be zombie systems all over the place with one port. I don't think the devs intended for that to happen. Even if they double the ly, I can still see "malicious" intent. Hmm.

[Devilish Dave]

Originally posted by Alchemy Of Seoul:

Originally posted by Devilish Dave:

Also, I do believe that the 15LY is for the sake of the beta. Once all of this works flawlessly, they'll probably double it. I don't think they will make it too much though, as the developers don't want human activity all over the galaxy, so it will be controlled, leaving nearby system open for developers to add things to them, which they wouldn't add to player owned systems.

Maybe make it to where each system has to have at least 3 ports before moving on? People are making the smallest station in a few hours with one carrier then moving to the next system. I can guarantee you there are going to be zombie systems all over the place with one port. I don't think the devs intended for that to happen. Even if they double the ly, I can still see "malicious" intent. Hmm.

There is only so much that can be done and this applies to everything where we try to safeguard morals.

At the end of the day, the majority of us don't care about other people and there's no fixing this, I guess that's just what humans are like nowadays.