Architect Archive
Thread: Decay Poll
Gah, down to nerfing ourselves now are we?
Correct me if Im wrong, but I THOUGH maintiance WAS the FEE for RUNNING STRUCTURES.
Putting DECAY on STRUCTURES AFTER paying maintiance.
DEVs need to fix experimentation for Stuctures, so that they can store more items or cost less per game hour. How about a experimented Heavy Harvester that harvested materials 25% faster?
Get a clue people.
This poste gets my vote for dumbest of all.
Haven't read all the pages of the thread, so if this repeates a previous idea, I apologize. I was talking about this to another architect on my server, as we were bouncing ideas off one another about what might be the best route to go to get "repeat" business as Armor and Weaponsmiths do.
What if rather than just decaying over time, Harvesters decay when you move them? No one is FORCED to move a harvester when a resource shifts. You CAN just harvest whatever is under the spot you dropped it on at whatever percentage. But if you want to constantly move your harvester to the "best of the best" every time resources shift, its going to cause a slight bit of decay. I was thinking around 20 to 30 times moving a harvester. If you think about it from a "stepped back" perspective, this means that you would have to replace harvesters once every 15 weeks or so to keep them at "top" condition. Decay could be in the form of reduced capacity and/or reduced harvesting rate. But each time you "redeed" a harvester, you loose about 3% of the "effectiveness" in some way or another.
This allows the crafter to plan ahead easily for when they are giong to need new harvesters. It also makes you really think about is 80% on the vein you used to be on for that fiberplast "good enough" or do you move to the 95% source a bit away, sort of thing.
Honestly, I don't see how this HURTS crafters or resource sellers, really. But it definately helps architects.
/Agree with Furniture Decay
/Agree withStructure Decay
Comment : Rate of decay should relate to amount of resource used(around 500/week). I don't want house/harvesters that took 25k resource decaying same time as chair that took 500. I definately think resource requirement for most house/harvesters/PA hall/etc should decrease. Nothing should require more than 5k.
/disagree
If I pay 500k for a dang PA Hall it best not decay on me. I don't care how much you architects complain....getting paid 500k+ per PA hall you make then you want it to decay!!!!!!! HELL NO! You people are just to greedy. People will continue to buy your stuff no matter what. Everyone is always looking for a new harvester or power generator. I know plenty of people looking for furniture on a daily basis as well as houses.
Stop being so greedy. This is totally dumb in my opinion.
If furniture decayed I would have none in my house. I spend enough on 2 house, factory and harvester as it is, furniture is for fun, but it if it cost me more just to keep it Id be having a garage sale today.
Harvesters, again disagree. This game doesnt need another bloody money sink. The devs need a better way to help you all out, but making everything wither away isnt the solution.
Would I pay maintenance on furniture? Nope, would I pay for an expansion to my house or some type of player made structure that acts as defenses....yep!
Why not do something novel, and create Structure repair kits, and Furniture repair kits?
We already have Armor/weapon/droid repair kits.
Architects could make enhanced versions of the kits that work on large structures, while Artisans could make kits that work on small harvesters and furniture.
TheArtisan-created kits might have a chance of destroyingwhat they were applied to.
The Architect kits might have a chance of damaging, but not destroying large structures.
Architects hired to actually come out to the degraded structures and uselarge structure repair kits on them would have a 100% chance of success to repair the structures.
Cheopis, Master CM, Working on Master Doc, Kettemoore
There is already Decay on Structures that is why we have to pay a maintenance fee, don't pay the fee and our structures start to decay and will eventually fall apart. If you want that fee to go into big pool and get divided up between you depending on what skill level you are, or even get sent to you directly if you are the builder of the structure deed then thats great.
BUT:
You cannot have it both ways, You cannot have it the way it is now AND have structure decay on top of that to!
Don't raise the fee's and do one of the above and it will be fine with me!
My take: it would be too complicated for SOE or the DEVs to change any time soon and would put too much strain on an already over workedbadly designed Database!
Don't worry though, the Harvester nerf is coming soon, those of you who used crap resources to make crap Medium and Large Harvesters won't have to worry about it because people won't go to you any more anyway's (if they are smart and remembered who they bought what from?) but those of you who do take pride will have a booming business at least for a while for those of use who can afford it and who do sell resources for a living or at least part of their living in the game.
I for one will be looking for about 5 medium mineral harvesters, 2 heavy mineral, 1 heavy flora, 2 medium chemical, depending on how the harvesters I own end up when the nerf goes in.
Mrbledsoe Saidso
i'm definately against decay. i may only have half my architect tree left. but htink about it. decay on furniture? no way. i'll just use my house for storage and screw furniture. decay on house? that sucks. it forces us to buy new houses. not necesarliy bad, but what happens if i forget to look at my decay and decay rate? i go away for 3-4 days and then come back to find out not only did i lose my house i lost everyhting in it. houses right now are pretty predictable. i pay maintance and it tells me how long i can go without logging on and worrying about it and you can pay well in advance. decay on the other hand would have to be exremly slow. and if anything it would kill the economy. could you imagine the resources needed to continually resuplly the servers with new houses and buildings all the time?
and what about player cities? wow... my city has enough people to get a starport now!!! hooray!!!! lets save our resources guys and get one!! oh Q#$TQ#T someone didn't log in and lost heir house to decay!!! now that we are ll saved up for the starport, we can't have one 
see the kinds of issues that would arise from this? i know, beingan architect sucks(mainly why i'm leaving the profession) but decay isn't the answer. i mean, on other stuff that has decay i don't even look at it. i wore armor for 2-3 weeks before i realised that, hey, it isn't doing anything because its dead from decay.
fuirniture, like i said, people won't want to continually replace it and hence, will just stop using it.
really theres nothing that can be done. thats just the way it is with player economies when there are limited amount of options. its the same for all the classes. only difference is people respec. so while i didnt need that gun before, i need it now because i'm respecing. but i've had my house for a while, and i don't need a new one.
the best thing i think for short term is no reclaimin of deeds on houses. harvesters is a must for reclaiming otherwise architects would kill themselves trying to get the resources to build anything.n of coarse, this just might mean less people will move, but it may help a little.
Decay is retarded for furniture.
For harvesters, it's not my call.
I already have a hard enough time getting all the way back to my house so I can pay maintenance. One day when I build up enough money, I'd like to have a nicely furnished dwelling. I can't imagine going through it all to try to figure out what I need to buy again and etc etc.. Dumb idea.
There is no decay in UO, and there is always a need for new furniture anyway, people are remodelling, things like that.
/disagree
i wanna play a game not work my ass off to pay my digital rent