Architect Archive
Thread: idea: give architects a percentage of the maintenenence
Perhaps the problem is that there are too many Architects. I know people do not want to hear that a profession is too crowded and you cannot make a living in it, but maybe it is time those that do not make money in the profession to drop the skill points and pick up a different one. That is the nice thing about SWG, you *can* change your profession at any time.
I know architects love to point out all the money to be made in weaponsmithing. Think about it, how many really successful weaponsmiths exist on your server? I would be there are less than 10 operations that really do a booming business, on my server I can think of 5 large scale weapon producers. The rest are scattered around with very few sales.
Simple experimentation would really help with architects, a way to differentiate your product from others. Then you would end up in the same boat as the above mentioned weaponsmiths... Only those that knock themselves out mining the right materials to produce high quality items will stay in business.
SWG is set up like the real world... You have to work hard to build a business up if you decide to be in business. You have to stock the products that bring in customers, you have to be conviently located, and you have to work the business. This is not a simple matter of saying ok I just mined 700k in resources I should be able to make a house and sell it for major $$.
Quite frankly I am not an architect, but I buy exclusively from one that is able to deliver. I send in an order via email, hear back promptly and they manage to produce. This is by far *NOT* the cheapest architect on the server. I buy from them because they can deliver. Two weeks ago I ordered 14 heavy harvestors. This would probably overwelm most architects on the server.... But, he was able to deliver. I even added a 15% tip on top of the quoted price for such good service.
If you want a profession that makes tons of $$ without much effort, become a fighter and go do missions. You will not have to worry about minerals, harvesting, looking for customers, etc... Instead you get to shop around for what you want when you want.
First off once again wanting a continuing market is not the same thing as wanting a free hand out. By suggesting that architects should recieve a percentage of maintence you are implying that architects should become the welfare class of SWG. Point architects have skills that we have worked to achieve and we would like to use them. I am sure that some architects would be perfectly happy to sit on their butts all day never building another thing and letting the game pay them out of pity however the majority of us would like to play the game using the skills we have.
As for making architects mobile repairmen/women once again no thanks architects build things that's what we do.
I'm sorry but I've heard both of these salvo suggestions so many times that they are getting on my nerves. We are not greedy folks wanting free hand outs, we are builders that would like to continue to have a market for the goods that we have worked very hard to be able to create.
EntropyNut wrote:
Better yet, why not have structures degrade slowly unless an architect repairs them? You would put the money into the maintenance fund of the structure, and an architect would only get that money if he/she went to the building and performed maintenance on it.
I don't like this idea at all. I can see more than half of the young architects on my server spamming others with, "Let me repair your house. Do you have a house that I can repair? I'll pay you 1,000 credits to repair your house."
We are architects not Repairmen. We design houses that are built. In actuality our kits are simply contractors that build the house for us based off our designs. I've never seen an architect being phoned about bringing men out to repair the house he built. This is a separate area all together.
- A weaponsmith is a smith (a.k.a - a repairman)
- An armorsmith is a smith (a.k.a. - a repairman)
The better idea is not to do it this way at all.
The maintenance pool should be affected by the materials you use so that if you build a better more efficient house, it costs less to maintain. This would reflect the price of the house you sell. If you can sell a large house that only requires 200 credits a day to maintain, take the savings and multiply it by 100 and that's the additional charge you can use. The charge would reflect the first 3 and a half months of saved maintenance. Of course, the customer makes out great but so does the architect.
I think houses should not be movable once placed and harvestors should decay.
Im not an architect but something needs to be done to help this class.
To move a house costs an extreme amount of cash in real life.It's only done very rarely.
New houses go up all the time because population increases,in this game the population is fairly static.
If you want to move you should have to buy a new house and destroy the old one.
Llahmo wrote:
I agree with this proposal and have suggested it as well whenever possible. And they should keep it as 1% or less of the maintenance costs of structures (a lot of structures adds up quick - there may even need to be a set time period/number of uses, because if it is forever, the the architect can make a certain amount and then "retire" from crafting, but still collect money, which is not really the idea....). The reason that it encourages good architects to make good structures and get them sold to people to use in the field. People who make lousy structures won't sell as many and not as many will get used. Therefore it is a large incentive to good architects to continue to craft and sell quality structures.
You do realize that architect experimentation does NOTHING ? Therefore there are no "good" and no "lousy" harvesters.
umm the only thing that can be experimented on for harvesters is capacity size. Due to what the size of a harvesters capacity is with no experimentation and the fact that our skill mods do not allow for enough experimentation to actually do anything, I'll restate experimentation does nothing ( or perhaps the correct wording is nothing significant enough to make it worth while).
Also if YOUread the threads you would know that the main part of those threads that made it so experimentation would do significant changes to harvesters will not go live. Look at the dev tracker read Q3PO's post read Archangels post read the post by Sneezy.
The current capacity will be used as the base. So you will need to empty a Heavy on a 100% spot approximately once every 6 days. Resources last approximately 6 days. Architect experimentation is useless.