Architect Archive
Thread: Tailors get nerfed by no decay
Well, how can we sell lower? You'd need to ask some of the others around here that generally sell for 2cpu or so and tell us how they still make a ton of profit. You might get a better response from them.
As for factories and harvesters decaying, you are then lowering cost as people won't pay as much for something they only have for a short period of time that isn't "required" to play the game like a weapon or armor practically is. So, you say harvesters and factories are required by crafting classes... sure, thats a much smaller percentage of people that play these type of classes so your market is more limited.
If you make the miner pay for new harvesters every month (just a guesstimate on time frame) then his cost of business goes up and he would normally raise his prices to compensate thus raising the CPU cost of resources which raises costs on other items resulting in lower demand for ourproducts because more money is needed for the other items. This makes purchasing resources tougher for architects as well. You also will see fewer miners because a lot of people won't want the hassle of replacing harvesters all the time.
So, most architects mine their own resources you say. I agree. But now, once a month I also have to replace my harvesters. Resulting in less product available for me to sell and thus forcing me to have to try to raise prices to compensate.
So you now have a market that is less demanding and it costs me more to make products to sell... sure I get those few that want to keep mining back each month to buy more, but at the same time costs are skyrocketing and fewer people have a desire for the product. End result, either massive inflation, which won't happen as people will only pay so much for things, there is a point of no return, or even lower profit margins than many people complain about already.
Now, its a game, and economies do fluctuate, so this could be off a bit, but ultimately, decay raises costs to the architect without providing a higher rate of return. So, I may not have to necessarily lower my prices (although I think I would) but even if I don't, my costs have gone way up and I will make an even smaller profit margin.
Ropock stop and think for a minute.
Why would you think that everyone else would raise their prices but we wouldnt be able to.
If you are going to argue that everyone else will raise their prices then it seems to me that either our prices will remain the same or also be raised.
If you are spending more money surely you arent going to charge less money and if you do then you wont be able to do it for long.
In essence it will hurt at first but it will keep the profession a viable one past a few more months. Sooner than later everyone who wants something will have it and then there will be no need for the class. This goes for all classes that have items that dont decay. If they wanted a player economy then they should have made everything decay b/c that is the only way you can sustain the model.
I like the idea that houses wouldnt be able to be redeeded rather than have them go poof eventually. The same should be for furniture if you dont want decay. But anything that actually adds to the economy (ie harvesters and factories) need decay...otherwise there will be a point when even 1 or 2 architects per server will be too many.
Unless the devs want to give us the ability to make stuff that decays and thus allows us to stay around for a bit more there really is an end to the viability of this class in the future and it is closer than you may want to think or admit to yourself.
http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=Development&message.id=475888
My views on Usage Decay. I mention Furnature and Clothing so you may find it interesting.
Anneke Rose
decay wont reduce prices.... decay increases demand.
with a set number of suppliers ( sadly not the case )
More demand = higher prices, less demand = lower prices
Unles the decay is so severe that people get out of housing all together. Personally I am starting to like the idea of never being able to re-deed a house better.
Holy Ghosts of Palaptine, I agree with Dayln!
Decay done right can revitalize the architect profession. I'm not asking for a house to go down every week, that's just silly, and people that jump on that are even sillier. No one has ever advocated decay of that type.
The best plan I saw was one that called for experimentation to work on the fees associated with running the houses and structures. As the structures aged, we're talking months here, not weeks or days, as they aged, the maintenence slowly increased. There would be a cieling on how high it would go, also based on experimentation. You could buy a new house deed and feed it into the old house so you don't have to upset the furniture, and the decay would be reset based on the new deed and it's experimentation. So, at the worst possible scenario, you would buy a house once every two months. Based on how much combat characters can bring in, is that too much? Not at all.
In regards to harvesters, you could do the same thing with maint, but instead of having to buy a new deed, as with the large amounts of harvesters most of us have, a repair type of kit would be better for them, which architects or even Droid Engineers make. Hell, make a Repair Droid that you have to buy a certain type of drill apparatus for each repair it makes. Interdependence went alot by the wayside, but I still think it's a cornerstone in this game.
Decay doesn't have to be the game destroyer so many people make it out to be. Incorporate it into the game smoothly, and not asa harsh, punishing system, and it won't be.
well, back to the decay thing again... ok... you say decay increases demand.... hmmm...
well, maybe, maybe not.... a lot of people aren't going to buy it if they know it will go away regardless of the fact that they pay maint fees or if they have to pay additional fees on top of the original fees.
so, by that reckoning, you have lowered demand. sure, some people will buy regardless, and they will have to purchase new ones, but does this necessarily outweigh the number of people that will simply not purchase to begin with? i'm not so sure it does and this is where i see the difference in peoples opinions.
its my belief that you lower the demand enough by adding additional fees and costs to the point that there enough less buyers of first time products that it doesn't counter the people that repeat buy each time. and you also again run into the fact that your personal costs go up.
ok, i know there isn't a concensus on pricing, but lets go to that heavy harvester again... how much more than 150k do you really think someone is going to spend? there is a ceiling that you hit at some point where you block people from purchases, so its not like i can just say, well, my costs are higher so you need to pay more, because as we've all seen in game, that doesn't necessarily equate to customer purchases.
Now combined with a reason why more people would need the items, or a reason why they might want to make their purchase from me, ok, then maybe i can take the price higher, but we're not talking about takin a 3k item and making it 4k, we're using a lot higher numbers than that.
as i said, essentially, it comes down to the point of, would there be ENOUGH repeat business to make it worthwhile and can we charge enough to account for increased costs to stay in business or are we essentially lowering the quantity of people who will buy the first time at all. therein lies the heart of the matter.
So who else thinks this makes tailors like us now? In the patch notes it saysthere was on overwhelming need on the forums for decay to be removed from clothing....there are huge amounts of tailors screaming about it. I tend to doubt that tailors asked for this. I think combat characters got sick of actually having to contribute to the economy.
I think all of us architects that believe some sort of decay is needed for buildings OTHER than the maintenece need to head over to the tailor forum and give them some support. We know firsthand what no decay does to our business: it stifles it over the long term. So raise your voice in support of our fellow crafters.
I haven't talked about decay in quite a while, so I'll throw this perspective out.
The idea of clothing decay was removed due to the overwhelming outcry of people opposed to it.
so, the average tailor item costs less then 3k to make, often less than 1k.
If you implement decay on an item like a large house that right now we get, lets just use a general number, 150k for, how fast do you think people would start screaming about that? Do you think you could still get 150k for an item thats going to disappear? or cost even more to maintain than it already does?
I don't see this as helping the architects economy, I see it lowering prices even further than they already are making it even less viable for an independent architect to survive.
I know a lot of people disagree on this to one side or the other, just my thoughts on the matter.
Ropock wrote:
I haven't talked about decay in quite a while, so I'll throw this perspective out.
The idea of clothing decay was removed due to the overwhelming outcry of people opposed to it.
so, the average tailor item costs less then 3k to make, often less than 1k.
If you implement decay on an item like a large house that right now we get, lets just use a general number, 150k for, how fast do you think people would start screaming about that? Do you think you could still get 150k for an item thats going to disappear? or cost even more to maintain than it already does?
I don't see this as helping the architects economy, I see it lowering prices even further than they already are making it even less viable for an independent architect to survive.
I know a lot of people disagree on this to one side or the other, just my thoughts on the matter.
Decay on houses is a bad idea.. Just like its a bad idea that you can uproot your house and move it anytime you want. I say you have 6 hours after placing a house to pick it back up or its perma built. only thing you can do is destroy it. Its not going to disapear on you (unless you dont pay maint)
Harvs and factories on the other hand need decay.
Thats not fair you say?They will pay 50k every 2 weeks for a weapon that decays. eh?
Im talking about them lasting months not weeks. (depends on usage and size)
They are not going to stop buying because they NEED Factories and Harvs just like guns.
We wont be able to sell them for as much you say? How can you sell lower than what they are going for now and not go below cost? Weapons still go for 30-60 credits per unit
I'm torn on the subject of decay...I think it would be more of a game money-sink than a boon to architects. People would actually pay maintenance on there houses..
And on the other hand..when i have 200 cr left in my maintenance pool, I get pretty pissed that my house already has damage..So they need to fix certain things before they contemplate structure decay.
Ropock wrote:
well, back to the decay thing again... ok... you say decay increases demand.... hmmm...
well, maybe, maybe not.... a lot of people aren't going to buy it if they know it will go away regardless of the fact that they pay maint fees or if they have to pay additional fees on top of the original fees.
so, by that reckoning, you have lowered demand. sure, some people will buy regardless, and they will have to purchase new ones, but does this necessarily outweigh the number of people that will simply not purchase to begin with? i'm not so sure it does and this is where i see the difference in peoples opinions.
its my belief that you lower the demand enough by adding additional fees and costs to the point that there enough less buyers of first time products that it doesn't counter the people that repeat buy each time. and you also again run into the fact that your personal costs go up.
ok, i know there isn't a concensus on pricing, but lets go to that heavy harvester again... how much more than 150k do you really think someone is going to spend? there is a ceiling that you hit at some point where you block people from purchases, so its not like i can just say, well, my costs are higher so you need to pay more, because as we've all seen in game, that doesn't necessarily equate to customer purchases.
Now combined with a reason why more people would need the items, or a reason why they might want to make their purchase from me, ok, then maybe i can take the price higher, but we're not talking about takin a 3k item and making it 4k, we're using a lot higher numbers than that.
as i said, essentially, it comes down to the point of, would there be ENOUGH repeat business to make it worthwhile and can we charge enough to account for increased costs to stay in business or are we essentially lowering the quantity of people who will buy the first time at all. therein lies the heart of the matter.
You are asuming people are not going to want to make money. Harvs make people TONS of cash. Right now we dont make squat. 130k you say?? I just bought 2 from a street vendor for 75k.I have not sold a heavy harv in 2 weeks and I was one of the first masters on my server. All my clients have everything they need. Yes I made some decent money but now im bleeding slowly.
People dont stop buying cars because they will eventually have to replace it. I proposed if the harv runs 24x7
Smalls last 1 month (1000/1000)
Mediums Last 2 months (2000/2000)
Large Lasts 4 months (4000/4000)
Holocron came online yesterday and said the patch notes were unfortunately worded (what a surprise, huh? 
)
To sum up his reply:
1) Clothing decay has never been 'in the game' since release, and all they did was remove an attribute of clothing that was unused.
2) Pretty much everyone feels that clothing (and other things) needs decay, but not a straightforward time-based decay -- this simple time-based decay is the thing that there was 'overwhelming' negative response to.
3) They'd like to put in decay for 'non-used' items, but would also like to think of a way to apply it across the board with one scheme for all items that aren't 'used' (e.g. clothes, furniture, houses, etc).
"Why would you think that everyone else would raise their prices but we wouldnt be able to."
I'll tell you why you wouldnt be able to raise your prices... no one would buy your clothing. If things started to decay today, do you think anyone in their right mind would start to buy a house knowing that it is going to decay even after paying the upkeep on it?
I have a guild hall for a house, i have to pay 50 in upkeep. Im getting hosed hard enough without having to worry about replacing it one day just so an architect can get more of my money for a product that just isnt going to exist very long. I love my guild hall, i love the furniture inside it, but i will not go through the trouble of setting the whole thing up again. Placing furniture and getting it just right is such a pain in my opinion.
Decay will ruin architects, it will ruin tailors. I dont need a Guild Hall, furniture or clothing. Im a Ranger/TKA with some surveying skills, ill do fine on my own if need be.
The thing is, tailors and architects have made a sizable amount of money selling their goods because they were made to last. Are you all going to start selling 20 credit muscle shirts and 100 credit couches to me now that i might have to buy one every month? If decay hits, i wont spend over 200 creds on an article of clothing ever again. I wont spend over 1000 creds on any give piece of furniture.
Know what architects need? You need more things to build. Id like a water fountain for my guild hall, id pay quite a bit for that. Id like different chairs... id like a normal looking Ranger type beret to wear on my frilled lizard head. I would pay good creds to have these things. Architects need new content that would give people like me reason to keep buying from them.
Decay on houses... jeez, what good is the upkeep i pay if the stupid thing is just going to decay on me?
new content is the way, say no to decay!