Architect Archive
Thread: Decay Poll
/disagree with structure decay
Structure decay is already in the game in my opinion... what else would structure maintainence be for if not to maintain a structure and prevent it from decaying?
/disagree with furnature decay
Only because I know someone will screw it up and I'll have to replace 200 pieces of furnature a week. Plus you won't know your stuff is going to poof til it's too late. Checking all 200 pieces of furnature in my PA hall is insane.
Architects I know are the wealthiest players on the server. I myself have no problem selling stuff. People constantly want to upgrade harvesters, houses, get more furnature.
Agree on both but only if the item IS NOT DESTROYED AUTOMATICALLY!!!
Give the player a chance to recover if for some unforseen event they couldnt be around to take care of business (anyone in the military knows what I am talking about, 4 to 15 month rotations are common place)
That way a fully decayed item might require an architect to redeed etc.
Well, I was just curious so I tallied up the votes so far. Here's the preliminary results
Structure decay: 36 for 67 against
Furniture decay:35 for 68 against
2 abstainers
As for counting, unless you specifically put /agree, /disagree, /yes boththatstood out as a clear definate answer, I didn't count it. I also didn't take the time to check names for multiple votes by the same user since my count isn't official. I did count reversals by subtracting the appropriate votes then adding the new ones.
even with the error, this will probably end up a 2v1 vote against both structure and furniture decay.
I don't know when the cutoff is either, so if you haven't voted yet, do so and make it clear so ArchAngel won't have to spend so much time counting 
Houses already have maintance cost. To put number of uses till a factory or harvester breaks just puts an undo burden on all other crafting professions. Crafting professoins already have enough problems searching for the proper items they need without having to replace their harvesters and factorys after every so many uses. We already pay a fee every time we move a harvester or factory. Why create more burdens on the professions which already have enough difficulty producing what the player population need ?
Im a doctor and make stims both for sale and use. For me to make one stim I need:
1. Wheat from lok
2. Berries from dantooine
3. Fiberplast from Tatooine
4. Herbavor meat
5. Water from talus
That is 4 planets I have travel to in hopes that I can find what is needed to create the stims that everyone wants. This list does not include the items that wound packs require to heal all of your wounds. Nor does it include what is needed for the buffs that all of you want.
Simply put if any of these changes take effect you will be sure to have one less person healing your wounds and making the stims which you use. Im sure I wont be the only one to realize its not worth the frustration.
**edit** wrote:
Simply put if any of these changes take effect you will be sure to have one less person healing your wounds and making the stims which you use.
Oh I'm sure there will be plenty of folks to fill in the grand-canyon-like void left behind by your departure.
/disagree on strucure decay (but they should be non-redeedable and we should get a cut of maintenance paid...see below)
/disagree on furniture decay (but we need color options and more schematics...see below)
If people don't like decay then the only other option IMO is to make strustures non-redeedable....except by architects. There has to be some advantage to being an architect so why not make it the ability to redeed structures. People could either pay us to re-deed their structures or simply destroy them and get a new one.
This would eliminate the problem of some guy who just bought a medium house selling his old small house for 3K.
When you think about it, the idea that any Joe can just pick up a house, harvester or factory and move it down the road is ridiculous. Making architects the only ones who can redeed, will allow for turnover in the housing and structure market and give us the ability to charge for our redeeding services. If people frak out to much then prehaps we can allow harvesters to still be redeeded by anyone but not houses, PA halls and factories.
I USED to be in favour of decay for houses and furniture but I think I've changed my mind, I like my above idea better. As for furniture people won't buy it if it decays so instead of allowing it to decay the Devs just need to throw us a few new designs and schematics once in a while along with the ability to color furniture. This will create more renewable income than decay ever would.
As for maintenance on houses and harvesters, people argue that this IS the decay...fine, I can accept that, then the architect who made the structure should get a cut of the maintenance. I mean if it's maintenance who is maintaining it?...the architect. The percentage could be as low as 10% and I would be happy.
Finally the biggest way IMHO to ensure repeat business and a viable market for architect products is experimentation. Fix experimentation so architects can build houses that take less maintenance, harvesters that extract more, factories that more faster, etc. This will ensure an endless supply of business as architects constantly produce better and better products.
Something has to be done, and if decay isn't it (which I no longer think it is) then some of the above need to be considered to ensure this profession doesn't die out.
/disagree on buildings
/disagree on furniture
Add new styles, new colors, new designs, remodel kits, customization kits craftable only by Archs, . Make houses fall down even after the high maintenance costs already being paid, then kiss you're housing market goodbye, and probably many players, as well. It won't a fun game anymore to have to uproot and move/replace your shop for crafters every month on top being strung along by SoE on waiting for profession fixes.
XcanuckX wrote:
There has to be some advantage to being an architect so why not make it the ability to redeed structures. People could either pay us to re-deed their structures or simply destroy them and get a new one
There is more to this issues than simply the infinite lifespan. And I don't think having Architects becoming deed-mules is the answer.
Currently, experimentation is an exercise in silliness for the vast majority of Architectural structures. So is the selection and use of materials, as any old material will work just as well as any other since final Experimental Values have zero influence on anything at all about the structure.
Experimentation needs to have as much relevance for the Architect as it does for the Weaponsmith and Armorsmith. There's no reason that a low-skill dabbler using gurreck-droppings should craft a home just as good as a Master Architect using the best available materials harvested the galaxy over.
The answer to these issues is to implement decay on architectural products. Have the decay rate, the total lifespan, and the maintenance costs be a factor of the Experimental Durability values of the structure. Allow efficiency of harvesters to vary as a result of the Experimental Efficiency of that structure when crafted.
There is more to this issues than simply the infinite lifespan. And I don't think having Architects becoming deed-mules is the answer.
Currently, experimentation is an exercise in silliness for the vast majority of Architectural structures. So is the selection and use of materials, as any old material will work just as well as any other since final Experimental Values have zero influence on anything at all about the structure.
Experimentation needs to have as much relevance for the Architect as it does for the Weaponsmith and Armorsmith. There's no reason that a low-skill dabbler using gurreck-droppings should craft a home just as good as a Master Architect using the best available materials harvested the galaxy over.
The answer to these issues is to implement decay on architectural products. Have the decay rate, the total lifespan, and the maintenance costs be a factor of the Experimental Durability values of the structure. Allow efficiency of harvesters to vary as a result of the Experimental Efficiency of that structure when crafted.
/disagreeWith introducing furniture decay
Rialia,
prices are already down to the lowest possible. Its already fact in many servers that no one is asking for any structures they already they already have all they want. This can only go worse till all servers are saturated. Yes decay might drop sales a bit in new servers where the market isnt saturated yet. However in servers where the markes is saturated it will up it. People who need structures like miners and vendors will buy them. I dont think 100k every 3-6 months is much for a crafteror even a fighter doing missions. How much do people pay for a good weapon and good armor and how many times they get a new one?