Architect Archive

It's the showdown you've all been waiting for folks! Do you or do you not want structure decay of one form or another. Types of decay are NOT the issue, as we will probably have no control of which decay we will get.

Question: Do we introduce structural and furnitre decay

Cons:
- Renewable income for architects
- Market will not saturate ensuring continued use for the current volume of Architects

Pros:
- Increased downtime on harvesters
- Potential increase in costs for ressources
- Increased inconvenience of operating harvesters or structures
- Inconvenience of having to replace/repair furniture
- Possible decrease in value of structures and furnitureoverall
- Loss of complex displays made with multiple furniture pieces

Note: This is to determine wether you agree or disagree with the concept that a harvester stops functioning or is destroyed after X amounts of time (or X amount of redeeds), and requires replacement or a replacement part.

With furniture, we assume it is destroyed after X amount of time (we're talking months)

Please vote or reply in the following manner (save me some time counting the votes and makes it easier to read comments):

/agree (or disagree) With introducing structure decay
/agree (disagree) With introducing furniture decay
(DO BOTH PLEASE)

Comments: I don't think furniture decay because it's annoying to replace it. I like furniture decay because I can make more money from furniture. See how I stayed neutral?

The polls are open

/agree for both.

Everything should decay.

Bianca Minola

yes /agree With introducing structure decay of some kind

yes/no... agg! With introducing furniture decay... yes. (treated the same as clothing/items whatever that turns out to be).

It's kind of unfair to ask us if we want decay and at the same time tell us we can't choose what kind of decay we want.

/agree for any and all types of decay

Agree with structure decay.

Disagree with furniture decay.

/disagree both

Decay will mark the end of our profession.

Players expect decay to resolve the ecconomic problems of architects promptly. They aren't thinking of structures decaying in Dec'04.... they are thinking a much shorter time frame.

/agree for both kinds of decay.

-Jubey, Core Tech Architect

Corbantis

Decay will definitely not end our profession...

At least in regards to harvesters and factories, as they're necessary

/agree - structure decay, I'd prefer a structure repair tool or something of that nature cause making harvester calls sounds like a good way to get my artisan only character dead fast.

/disagree on furniture decay - people are pulling off some really cool ideas based on the idea that they'll virtually be permanent. If there were a way to implement a repair function into the structure management terminal, which would apply to the items in the house, ya sure no problem. I've been the guy making a fake wall in the basement of a tat medium, sat there for 2 hours to hide those ghastly pipes. Would really hate that being a usual occurance...actually wouldn't hate it, just wouldn't do it

/disagree

/disagree

Also, I would like to add, I strongly disagree to the idea of decay in the most vehement manner possible. Especially for harvestors and houses. I think the idea of decay for the rest of that stuff it stupid as well, especially the furniture one (I mean, come on, my mother has had the same couch in her living room for 15 years, it hasn't "decayed") Everyone who is agreeing isa fool,willing tosacrifice the imagination and creativity displayed bythe people who create furniture displays andinnovative housing decorations and even all good will from other players in order to make a few extra FAKE creds. Do you seriously believe that people will purchase heavy harvestors if they decay? Why pay 120,000 credits for anything, when you could purchase a medium for 14K and have it last just as long. Sure it only takes up half the resources, but you'll have to buy a new one after X resource shifts anyway, so why invest in something that costs 10 times more but only produces results that are less than twice as good?

No Decay.

-I AM WARGHUL

/disagree (Both)

Structures: There needs to be a different solution than decay on structures. I could possibly agree on personal harvesters wearing out and maybe factories, but larger structures are supposed to be built to last. Everyone was recently screaming about allowing harvesters to keep their left over maint and power when we redeed them. Forcing harvesters to decay will re-createthe outcry for that alone, not to mention forcing people to replace them. I still think the best route is for making Enhancers for structures. Perhaps add new harvesters that are more effecient mining up certain resources instead? It's a tough problem to solve. Decay is not the answer.

Furniture: The only reasonable solution is to allow us to make more types. Cycle the schematics on a bi-weekly or monthly basis or something, as a number of people suggested. No one wants to be forced to redecorate their house after a month or two. The only turn over we can expect is for players to want to redecorate on their own.

Bubo Ubotin, Lowca
Master Weaponsmith
Part time Architect

Sorry to high jack I /disagree both how ever I think that a small percentage of maintenence for every structure created should be paid to the architect that created it.

/agree to both... Except maybe houses... We've moved our HQ twice so far, and man... That was annoying to get everything moved out of the old and into the new!
Or maybe on houses just have the decay up the maintenance rate, that way we can decide if we're ok with the higher rate, or if it's time to make a new one.