colonisation why?

[Padds]

from what i can understand we dont have any actual control or ownership of the systems we build. there is no like customisation personal star base type of thing, the point of it is just to promote your power and to do it?

[Antaiir]

Other than "just for the fun of it"? To take part in the public beta test of course. You should read the patch notes, all your answers are there already...

[Rragar]

You have full control over what to build and where to build it in that system. You also remain the system architect forever.

As for ownership? Not officially, but since you can pretty much build what you like where you like and you have to fund the whole construction, I feel like the owner anyway.

Since this is keyed to the background simulation, then there's also the implication that you can put together system clusters for specific gameplay purposes. Most notably trading loops, though there's also the opportunity for other activities.

I snatched a system where I can build a ton of ground structures so I expect that one's going to get real good for ground combat zones.

[Sighman]

If you have to ask why, the feature probably isn't for you.

Judging by the player count recently, most people aren't going 'why?' they're going 'one ... more ... cargo ... load'

[TechCluster1980]

Originally posted by Sighman:

If you have to ask why, the feature probably isn't for you.

Judging by the player count recently, most people aren't going 'why?' they're going 'one ... more ... cargo ... load'

True

[Revelation_jeff]

Originally posted by Padds:

from what i can understand we dont have any actual control or ownership of the systems we build. there is no like customisation personal star base type of thing, the point of it is just to promote your power and to do it?

People do it because its new and it's something to do. It's basically busy work to keep people from complaining about nothing new to do lol. It's basically a re-wrapped dev tool made into a UI game loop with a bit of added functionality.

It's nothing more than a mirage to give people the illusion of making elite their own but in reality they're just using dev population tools and putting a label on it. I was not overly impressed with it. it's not terrible but not very interesting nor rewarding.

If it leads to claiming systems as vanguards and player factions with actual player owned bases then it will become cool at that point if it grants actual meaningful rewards like item storage, surface mining, commodity manufacturing and player economy missions & trade etc.

[Buggy Boy]

One thing that I find annoying is that, to the best of my knowledge, we don't get to name the star system. Instead it's stuck with it's original name, most of which really don't roll off the tongue and can be difficult to remember when it reads like some overly complicated library catalogue reference number. How hard would it be for them to add in the ability to rename the star system? Surely it's just a small piece of text attached to a record in their database, change that text and it's done, doesn't affect anything except the visual representation (assuming their star database has a sensible design structure).

Do system architects also have any ability to alter their system's allegiance when it comes to Powers? Say I wanted to create a Federation outpost, would I be able to influence that in any way during construction, or would it just be down to existing Powerplay rules and expansion etc?

[Padds]

Originally posted by TechCluster1980:

Originally posted by Sighman:

If you have to ask why, the feature probably isn't for you.

Judging by the player count recently, most people aren't going 'why?' they're going 'one ... more ... cargo ... load'

True:cozybethesda:

bit overly defensive there guys , were allowed to enjoy different things ya know, i spent 4 hours core mining yesterday pretty much just because i like the sound of it coming apart , wasnt throwing shade on those enjoying expanding the bubble i just wondered why they were doing it. to me it just looks like your making a bit more of what we already have a lot of and theres no real distinction between dev kit built and played deployed systems.

[Wee Skint Gamer]

Why? The grind, we love the grind🤣

[Buggy Boy]

Originally posted by Padds:

to me it just looks like your making a bit more of what we already have a lot of and theres no real distinction between dev kit built and played deployed systems.

I'm sure the novelty will wear off for most people who rushed to do it (I suspect driven by interest from YouTubers etc, who will usually move on to something else soon enough in order to keep their viewing numbers up). I'd prefer to have much more finer control over things than there apparently is, right down to the colour of the station interiors (I don't know if this is possible) and the decals / iconography on display (probably limited to existing / sanctioned stuff).

I am expecting plenty of failed colonisations to get released back to the pool eventually, having so many apparently abandoned at 0% or 1% construction just left in that state indefinitely seems stupid.

[Sighman]

Originally posted by Padds:

Originally posted by TechCluster1980:

True:cozybethesda:

bit overly defensive there guys , were allowed to enjoy different things ya know, i spent 4 hours core mining yesterday pretty much just because i like the sound of it coming apart , wasnt throwing shade on those enjoying expanding the bubble i just wondered why they were doing it. to me it just looks like your making a bit more of what we already have a lot of and theres no real distinction between dev kit built and played deployed systems.

Not that defensive. I love AX combat, but for two years I had to put up with daily 'o no, more thargoid crap, when are they going to add something I want' posts.

I can just see colonisation updates heading the same way, generating complaints just like the thargoid war did.

Not suggesting that was the tone of your post, which was a genuine 'why' enquiry, but there's already been loads of noise from people who don't like cargo hauling and want the feature turned into something else.

Originally posted by Buggy Boy:

One thing that I find annoying is that, to the best of my knowledge, we don't get to name the star system.

That's because mickey mouse nonsense names for starports and carriers are just about okay, but seeing systems called 'booger mcboogerface' as people scroll around the galaxy map would truly be a garbage experience.

Not only that, every system's name is either a genuine one from the official star catalogue, or it relates to the system's position in the 3d galaxy map AND contains the mass code of that system.

And finally, people are very unoriginal. You'd have a thousand Dantooines, Raxxlas and 'your mum's butt' in week one.

[Buggy Boy]

Originally posted by Sighman:

Originally posted by Buggy Boy:

One thing that I find annoying is that, to the best of my knowledge, we don't get to name the star system.

Not only that, every system's name is either a genuine one from the official star catalogue, or it relates to the system's position in the 3d galaxy map AND contains the mass code of that system.

Well, they could offer a limited choice of auto-generated or suggested names based on the criteria you just listed, surely that would be better than it being like 20+ other systems that until recently were just devoid of anything man-made.

Also, I'd really want to have some say in the naming of my stations too, even if it's just a choice of a long list of sanctioned names supplied by FDev, it could be according to some formula such as <name> <relevant noun>, so a planetary base could be Anderson Landing, or a station in orbit could be Wrelton Dock.

[Sighman]

Originally posted by Buggy Boy:

Originally posted by Sighman:

Not only that, every system's name is either a genuine one from the official star catalogue, or it relates to the system's position in the 3d galaxy map AND contains the mass code of that system.

Well, they could offer a choice of names based on the criteria you just listed, surely that would be better than it being like 20+ other systems that until recently were just devoid of anything man-made.

Which criteria? The long names are the location of the system in the particular cube of the galaxy it resides in, and the code which indicates the system's total mass when compared to all the other systems in that cube.

If you edited the name so the mass code was another letter (d instead of a) that would still be a long name, but now it's scientifically inaccurate. If you edited the sector name (e.g. Synuefe) and changed it to 'Col 70 Sector' whatever, that's also completely inaccurate because the system isn't in that sector at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkv70CNzOYc

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/mass-codes-and-star-types.548233/

If you allow players to mess with this stuff, it will not only reduce the information in the system name, it will also break any previous references to the now renamed system.

[Buggy Boy]

Originally posted by Sighman:

Originally posted by Buggy Boy:

Well, they could offer a choice of names based on the criteria you just listed, surely that would be better than it being like 20+ other systems that until recently were just devoid of anything man-made.

Which criteria? The long names are the location of the system in the particular cube of the galaxy it resides in, and the code which indicates the system's total mass when compared to all the other systems in that cube.

If you edited the name so the mass code was another letter (d instead of a) that would still be a long name, but now it's scientifically inaccurate. If you edited the sector name (e.g. Synuefe) and changed it to 'Col 70 Sector' whatever, that's also completely inaccurate because the system isn't in that sector at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkv70CNzOYc

Plenty of systems I see in the galaxy map have interesting and 'human' readable names, with no numbers or references to their sector. Then you also have things like Wolf 359, where did that name come from? Can we create a naming system along those lines or something similar? Why does it have to be so rigid? There are plenty of alternative possibilities, such as basing names on ephemerals (e.g. Hercules 48, because the system lies in Hercules when viewed from Earth). Let's have a bit of imagination here!

What about Colonia. Are you telling me that all of those system names are from a real and existing catalogue, and contain the system's sector name and mass etc? No, FDev just made them up, so if they can do that, why can't we have a similar naming system? Also, who gives a stuff about references to a particular system (you have to be talking about external tools such as Inara, nothing in the game; that's kind of like saying a country going through revolution or whatever shouldn't change it's name because of all the publishers who make political maps), they are irrelevant and will just need to update themselves.

[UnderNewManagement]

Originally posted by Buggy Boy:

Originally posted by Sighman:

Which criteria? The long names are the location of the system in the particular cube of the galaxy it resides in, and the code which indicates the system's total mass when compared to all the other systems in that cube.

If you edited the name so the mass code was another letter (d instead of a) that would still be a long name, but now it's scientifically inaccurate. If you edited the sector name (e.g. Synuefe) and changed it to 'Col 70 Sector' whatever, that's also completely inaccurate because the system isn't in that sector at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkv70CNzOYc

Plenty of systems I see in the galaxy map have interesting and 'human' readable names, with no numbers or references to their sector. Then you also have things like Wolf 359, where did that name come from? Can we create a naming system along those lines or something similar? Why does it have to be so rigid? There are plenty of alternative possibilities, such as basing names on ephemerals (e.g. Hercules 48, because the system lies in Hercules when viewed from Earth). Let's have a bit of imagination here!

they would then have to update player made bookmarks of any system that is renamed. its prolly enough you can name the installations you build and even insert your own player faction into your system.

[Sighman]

Originally posted by Buggy Boy:

Originally posted by Sighman:

Which criteria? The long names are the location of the system in the particular cube of the galaxy it resides in, and the code which indicates the system's total mass when compared to all the other systems in that cube.

If you edited the name so the mass code was another letter (d instead of a) that would still be a long name, but now it's scientifically inaccurate. If you edited the sector name (e.g. Synuefe) and changed it to 'Col 70 Sector' whatever, that's also completely inaccurate because the system isn't in that sector at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkv70CNzOYc

Plenty of systems I see in the galaxy map have interesting and 'human' readable names, with no numbers or references to their sector. Then you also have things like Wolf 359, where did that name come from? Can we create a naming system along those lines or something similar? Why does it have to be so rigid? There are plenty of alternative possibilities, such as basing names on ephemerals (e.g. Hercules 48, because the system lies in Hercules when viewed from Earth). Let's have a bit of imagination here!

I understand where you're coming from but all of those are in official star catalogues. (I'm an amateur astronomer, perhaps why this stuff actually means something to me, as opposed to space stations and fleet carriers.)

Many stars have a greek letter and the name of the constellation, e.g. Mu Cancri. You can't just add 'Theta Cancri' to some random other system because it sounds cool.

All the HIP, HR, Lalande, etc stars are from official catalogues.

You can look them all up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_359

So you can't just make Wolf 6969 or Wolf 8008S either, because then looking it up in the official star catalogue will yield... nothing

And yes, I'm fully aware that FDev added some named systems. For example Lave, Leesti, Tionisla, Zaonce and the like are all from the 1984 game.