Architect Archive
Thread: Architect Renewable Income
Page 1 of 2
bluejanus
Sat Apr 09, 2005 9:56 pm
#1
Pawlin and I were bouncing ideas back and forth about if after the CU/EP3/ROTW, if the rumor about crafting professions being looked at would happen. I was saying that I think that harvesters should have a limited life span (like a candle) before they stop working. I think repair kits and mechanical problems over time requiring an architect to repair is just way too much work. I think after say 3 months, or 6 months or even a year that the deedshould stop working.
Pawlin suggested maybe that instead of a real lifespan for the deed, that deeds would expire based on the total number of resources harvested. For instance, a heavy harvesters could only harvest 1 million units inits lifetime and a medium harvester could only harvest 500k units.
I think that with a such change, it should be retroactive across all harvester deeds. (Pawlin didn't think that would fly too well with the the game community). This could be a way for the devs to get rid of all those old deeds with the 14-30 BERs.
Either forms of these ideas would definitely allow us somerenewable income. This idea would probably make lot trades somewhat less attractive since more work would be involved.
oracomm2
Sat Apr 09, 2005 10:58 pm
#2
what aboutever 500 hours of use the harv maxium BER decreases by 1.( or some other resonable # of hours)
the user will eventually have to decide when they would need to by a new one based on the effiecenty they want to get.
Stownhart
Sun Apr 10, 2005 4:07 am
#3
Maybe another idea to concider. Either after a number of units collected or by time, instead have the hopper size diminish. This would have the same effect of causing the player using the deed to desire new ones. But at the same time be fair to those deed holders in that they would not be forced out of business if they were in a slump and couldn't afford new deeds at the time. Eventually though when they have the funding, and tire of needing to make hourly harvester runs, will buy new ones. However, I also think along with this that as the hopper size goes down to a certain point (say 10% of original size) it should be destroyed. This would save allot of worthless deeds being sold on the bazaar.
Stownhart
Sun Apr 10, 2005 4:26 am
#4
Just thought back and wanted to add one other thing. If any deteriation where implemented, I think that the fall off should only take place while the harvester is up. When it is in deed form, it shouldn't deteriate. But then another idea to incorporate this thought would be to have the harvester lose 1 BER point each time it is redeeded.
Message Edited by Stownhart on 04-10-2005 04:36 AM
Fobok
Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:08 am
#5
Stownhart wrote:Just thought back and wanted to add one other thing. If any deteriation where implemented, I think that the fall off should only take place while the harvester is up. When it is in deed form, it shouldn't deteriate. But then another idea to incorporate this thought would be to have the harvester lose 1 BER point each time it is redeeded.Message Edited by Stownhart on 04-10-2005 04:36 AM
As an architect, this would be very nice steady source of income. As a crafter in other professions, though, this is very bad. I often need to move my harvesters every 3 or 4 days, and there's no way as a DE/Artisan I make enough money to buy new harvesters every week or two.
l33thaxx0rnam3
Sun Apr 10, 2005 5:59 am
#6
As much as I would like to see it, and as good as it would be for us, and new crafters buying "less than new" deeds, decaying harvesters like that will never happen.
There would be far too much outcry from the other professions, and SOE won't even let houses decay properly any more.
Had it been implemented from the start, we'd be golden.
As it is, while I support the idea fully, I fearwe might have better results directing our energies elsewhere.
voortex
Sun Apr 10, 2005 6:55 am
#7
Another idea about harvesters decaying . . .
Think about real life for a moment. What is required as a building or a manufacturing facility ages . . .more maintenance!
Maybe as the harvester ages over X period of time, the maintenance rate would gradually increase. This would leave the owner with the decision of whether to buy a more "efficient" model or stick with the old one. A steady maintenance rate like the current system is pretty unusual in rl. I realize this is a game, but it's necessary to make rl comparisons.
Just a thought.
Zalabar
Jutewr
Sun Apr 10, 2005 9:17 am
#8
Maybe an even better idea would be to allow Architects to repair damaged harvestors. Then people wouldn't lose them.
Bandola
Sun Apr 10, 2005 11:39 pm
#9
It is so good to see the same ideas being touted today as were around 18 months or so ago. I wonder if the devs will listen this time ?
Alukolli
Mon Apr 11, 2005 4:11 am
#10
i am an master architect and also an resource gatherer. and i dont like your ideas on the ber rate getting dmg after some time, or when its redeeded.
that would just kill my resource gathering and lot of other also. cpu prices would rise. but that would also keep an architect alive
Cafa
Mon Apr 11, 2005 10:29 am
#11
If, and a big IF, harvestors changed -- I would vote for the hours option over the amounts harvested. Also, you are severly limiting the resources with timers that low. If a 500K limit was installed for medium minerals, a 55% spot would burn out the harvestor in 3.7 days. If a million units was the limit for heavies, a 50% ore spot would burn out the heavy mineral harvestors in 6.4 days.
While this would decidedly return Architect to the most lucrative profession, I doubt the other crafters would be cheering to much to replace their fleets every week.
I would much rather have a means for Architects to REPAIR disabled harvestors.
Fivo Asia
Message Edited by Cafa on 04-11-2005 10:30 AM
Crimsonsplat
Mon Apr 11, 2005 11:13 am
#12
You know, the one good thing about decay (no matter what form it takes) is thatit would make lot trades a royal PITA from both sides.A hgher annoyance factor for lot traders being a way for SOE to addressthe issue (read: discourage the practice)without forbidding it.
"Let's see, its April, so I've gotta contact folks on Bria, Kettemore, Radiant, Sunrunner, and Starsider to get them to replace their harvesters.. and I need to log alts on to three servers myself...."
As for a "net decrease in minerals" due to a BER subtraction, the obvious method to fix that is fix the BER experimentation so we can go over 13. Tweaking the overall supply would be difficult, but over the lifespan of the harvester, the net resources mined could be kept around the same level by establishing a higher starting point.
Ifthe maintenance method is selected, the solution must be retroactive to all existing harvesters. Otherwiseeveryone will just keep their existing harvesters and new players will be at a disadvantage.
Pawlin
Mon Apr 11, 2005 11:41 am
#13
Cafa wrote:
... Also, you are severly limiting the resources with timers that low. If a 500K limit was installed for medium minerals, a 55% spot would burn out the harvestor in 3.7 days. If a million units was the limit for heavies, a 50% ore spot would burn out the heavy mineral harvestors in 6.4 days.
...
A BER10 on a 55% spot will pull up 7920 / day. So if the limit is 500k it would take 63 days to burn out.
A heavy BER13 on a 50% ore spot would last 106 days.
I just pulled 500k and 1M out of thin air though. Those numbers could be whatever SOE wants to set them for.
I think if a harvester lasts a few months of solid operation that would be reasonable. Or if someone is a casual player and only plants their harvester once in a while it could last them much longer.
Page 1 of 2