Architect Archive
Thread: Decay Poll
Hi 
Master Tailor here...with a budding architect alt...so I hope you don't mind me popping in here with my 2 credits.
Housing--we are talking eventual irreperable damage right? Like armor? Where the whole house would have to be replaced eventually? I have to say that would be terrible for the shopkeepers who have 5 vendors, 500 items, and dozens of displays on them. I don't know how many of you are merchants, but this would cause no limit of consternation if it was introduced.
Furniture--*shrug* I have to be biased here....clothing doesn't decay, even if it's being shot at or worn out by a dancer writhing around on the floor LOL....why would a chair wear out??
Harvesters--ABSOLUTELY!!! A drill bit would wear out quickly in real life. The fact you can buy a handful of heavys and use them over and over (often moving them twice a week with resource shifts) and never have to replace them makes no sense. I think damage should come from use, and even more from redeeding.
Crafting Stations--sure why not
That's all...take it to heart if you like, I'm just a newbie in this forum. But I can tell you as a seasoned merchant (who has redone her store twice for reasons too complicated to go into here), its not a pretty thing to have to rebuild a large store. In fact, most people wouldn't do it.
Thanks!
/disagree structures
/disagree furniture
Just add more stuff over time and we'll always have a market for items.
I agree that paying maintenance on structures is already dealing with the decay issue, and why would 25th century (or whatever) furniture decay? I'd think if they can build starships they can keep a couch for more than a few months.
/disagree
/disagree
This would ruin my crafting profession. I already cant afford to buy my materials. I have to mine most of them myself. With this, I would mine what I had RL time for, and have to byu the rest for even more insane prices.
/agree
Comment: Add structure decay but reduce maintenence costs.
/disagree
Comment: Furniture decay makes no sense and would increase CSR tickets on poofed furniture. We have enough of a wait time on them as it is.
/agree to both.
Comment: The only type of structure I think shouldn't decay are houses, because it would be a huge loss of items stored inside if it was destroyed before the player could move the items. That, and moving items between houses would be a huge pain!
/Disagree with both decays.
The pyramids were built thousands of years ago and they are still around.
We pay maintanence on our buildings, this is suppose to repair and keep them o.k. why add decay on top of that?
If you want to put in decay make the internal components decay. Just try to follow with me....
A mineral harvester has structural blocks, 1 ore mining unit and i storage container. What if you made harvesters a building that held components. you build a medium size harvester and it can hold a mining mechanism (basically the drill bit and such) Make this component replaceable and upgradable and also make it decay over time. Base it off of how much/many resources it has pulled etc. As an architect I think it takes too many resources to build a heavy mineral extractor to have it decay in a month or so. The failure rate on component building is at 30%, for every 10 wall units I make 3 of them critical failure...so I get 7 walls out of 10 attempts.
I prefer the internal components as a replacement or upgradeable piece. Kinda like a hot rod, you want it to go faster you put a bigger better motor in it....why can't harvesters be the same? This would give architects something to sell all the time and not require the mass resources to build a building the first time.
I have seen many people asking for harvesters from me all the time. I dont think it will ever get to the point of no more sales to other players. When space is added, there should be a whole lot more planets. More buildings will be wanted or needed.
Not everyone buys the big buildings, so selling the small extractors keep business in our pockets.
Furniture decay?? again mkae the sofa have components, that being seat cushions...those can have decay.
Say no to decay! I know that if this goes into affect, I will get rid of the profession....too much work for what I do now, don't need to do more work.
-Davst
/disagree
/disagree
I use to want to have decay more than anyone on here... well maybe not more but as much... but the more I think about it, the more glad I am its not in. It would be more of a hassle for us to hunt down good resources.... Thats the one strong point of Architect.
We have to have the most resources yeah... but we dont have to worry about quality...
If they do add it in... it should take months and months to do... and the only ones I feel that would get people to actually continue to buy our products would be harvesters/factories.... houses or furniture will just cause less people to want them since they server almost no purpose.
/DISAGREE BOTH
what will improve "sales" are customozation and new, disposable structures for military use such as camps and towers etc....and just new items all together. that and an influx of new players but there are too many galaxies so it would need to be alot of players
furniture isnt a big deal because with the item limints people cant have alot to begin with and still store important items...(i have 1 chair in my house)
if i can cutsomize products then i might sell some more items...but when every sofa looks just a like people are going to buy the one for 500 credits as opposed to the one for 1500 credits...
sorry to say it but players are the ones who have ruined the markets for our goods by selling dirt cheap and poisening the well....and if your pa has an architect there is no reason to buy anything anyway
it would also be really nice if they didnt create an elite elite profession and let MAs build the cities.