Two related changes were made earlier today and a few minutes ago:

As a result of the earlier change fleet that I had "colo-saved" indefinitely suddenly appeared in High Orbit from all three of my race accounts.
For two accounts I had 10 of 10 Planets occupied and so colonising fleets were ejected due to "sufficient level of Colonization technology" (I presume) although there was no fleet change or time expiry.
For my third account I had Planets 8 of 9 so I don't believe the fleets should have been ejected at all.
With the subsequent change, presumably implemented hurriedly due to unforseen consequences, I don't believe any of my fleets should have been ejected.

Clearly the changes were poorly designed (and/or tested) and they were not communicated in advance of implementation so players had time to prepare.
Sadly, I am not at all surprised by this because this is the usual manner in which change is implemented by the "professional developers".

Please PM me for full details of accounts affected and fleet losses for recompense.

It was pointed out to me that I should have raised this as a Bug, so I did: https://xcraft.net/forum/topic_53611

I got a response quite quickly with the rider "Could be worse"...and it was immediately closed...this was the reply I wanted to make:


This doesn't address two points:

1) The original change was made without prior notification (and in fact notification was at LEAST 6 hours 42 minutes after the change was made as that was the first attack on my fleets) even though it would be obvious that it would have an immediate effect on many many players. The change was in fact "silent" as there were not even any game notifications that fleet had been ejected from colonisation. If I had been online at the time the first I would have known was incoming attacks, and as it happens I wasn't so all I saw was reports when I came online. This is both poor change control from developers and appalling customer service.

2) My Toss had a free colonisation slot (8 of 9 used) so the fleets shouldn't have been ejected anyway under either the original change or the subsequent correction

And "could be worse" sums up many things...including the professional standards of the developers...but sadly I've ceased to be surprised how many times that boundary is pushed