Architect Archive
Thread: Week Four Pre-liminary
I think that adminstrators who are not owners need to be able to place items.
Currently my PA is in the process of building a new hall, but because the person who placed the hall decided to take an extended leave.
I believe this will increase the sale of large houses as people will use larger houses for multi person dwellings.
It will also increase the value of our houses.
Ransom D'Kaxi of Kauri
I'm a little befuddled on these issues too. How are these "top issues" being picked?
For example, who really wants to be able to deposit power into a "power input hopper"? Who cares? I think more of us would rather get a /depositpower command than this. In fact, I'd rather use the current system than this hopper style because it means not having to dig through packs to find the power, split it and deposit the power in the hopper. Not to mention that I do read these forums and just don't seewhere this reached any kind of noise level to be included in this list.
Ditto for the input hopper on crafting stations. I don't think we really care if they work or not until we know what they do. Unless these enable the crafting station to work as a mini-factory or work as storage that doesn't count against the house's item cap, what could they possibly do to help crafting in any way?
UXP for deeds and furniture is fine but it's not that broken. Sell some furniture, stop crafting and watch your xp. We are getting plenty of UXP in my opinion. Sure more would be fine but again I don't see howthis could qualify as a "top issue".
Sorry Z, I know you're trying and I do appreciate thatbut I'm not seeing the method behind your madness.
How about this for a top issue: giveplayers a means to administerharvester maintenance and powerremotely so "casual gamers" can actually participate in the harvester mini-game. Ideally, this should be through a control desk that we get to make that harvesters owners can buy, drop in their house and use to view status,turn the harvester on and off, change resourceanddesposit maintenance and power intoany harvesters owned by them (I'm sure the devs will still want us to have to go to the harvester to pickup the goods though). I know this and ideas similar to this have been discussed here... where is this on the top issues list?
That said, I kind of agree with the previous poster that said if they aren't accepting these reports then we should just keep reminding them of our real top issues (expand it to our top 10 or 15 if you want) and only changing the list as items get addressed. That way we can keep debating the list which should ensure that the list is fresh and truly is representative of our top concerns.
A PA is already like a city, even more its more organized now and it will be the perfect example of a city later on when the options are implemented.
Why be redundant and force a PA that wants their houses around teh PA to count as a city have to build more structures just to call it a city?
On my server we have our "city" already built.
It consist of our PA hall and 15 houses of members and growing. So technically i collect taxes and our fighters are like our militia.
A pa should be the same as a player city when that comes out because it already is just like one.
Only difference i can see is how people are allowed to put houses near one. It should be only members of the guild are allowed to build near it.
The lists are 5 issues, not necessarily the top 5 most important. The most important issues have already been sent out in previous reports.
The Devs have asked for only 5 issues submitteda week.
The Devs have asked that I continue to gather reports.
The Devs have asked that I hold the reports until they can address the issues in previous reports.
No other working Professions have gotten any updates or fixes for issues post-announcement of the"big patch". The "big patch" was under development before the instatement of Correspondents. The next "big patch" will address most of the issues that Correspondents have submitted.
The Devs have said they will post more information about specific fixes for our issues in the upcoming week. I have mentioned this in my past two posts.
The Correspondents MAY be replaced every month.
I would like to get as many issues submitted as I possibly can during my term as Correspondent. If I keep submitting the same 5 issues over and over again, and they fix it those 5 and then have nothing else to work on. While other Correspondents who submitted different issues every week get 10-15 of their issues fixed.
This is justa preliminary list. Yes I am having a difficult time with the reports now because we really aren't that broken. We maybe have 6-7 main issues (that I have already submitted in the first and second week reports), after that there isn't much else except for future developments.
When I say Hopper-style Power System, yes, I mean a separate window you can drag/drop power into to add and remove.
Dropping the Hopper Input for Stations and adding in "Success/Failure message for combines when grouped with other players".
Architects currently get UXP from Furniture only.
The one spot to sit on was not formally submitted in any reports. Howeverthe issue is being dropped in favor of "Automatic Module insertion upon schematic start up", this would eliminate 6-12 unneccessary double clicks.
Mitsudo
LeafyDoom wrote:I'm a little befuddled on these issues too. How are these "top issues" being picked?
For example, who really wants to be able to deposit power into a "power input hopper"? Who cares?
I think the desire for a power input hopper, if I understand it correctly (factory style input hopper) is that you can take the power back out again.
Presumably this would eliminate the problem where you put two types of power in an extractory and want to get it back. In this scenario the harvest would have to remember what power is which. This code may simply not exist. However input hopper code does. As does code to extract from a hopper various items.
I personally would be happy if power returned from a harvester was just some generic energy. As it stands power is power is power. However if this is not the approach that the devs want to take, ie making all the power from a harvester one type, then the input hopper seems the logical choice of how to implement the ability to get excess power back.
Betatoxin wrote:
I think the desire for a power input hopper, if I understand it correctly (factory style input hopper) is that you can take the power back out again.
Presumably this would eliminate the problem where you put two types of power in an extractory and want to get it back. In this scenario the harvest would have to remember what power is which. This code may simply not exist. However input hopper code does. As does code to extract from a hopper various items.
I personally would be happy if power returned from a harvester was just some generic energy. As it stands power is power is power. However if this is not the approach that the devs want to take, ie making all the power from a harvester one type, then the input hopper seems the logical choice of how to implement the ability to get excess power back.
Ah ok, gotcha... thanks for clarifying that, I had forgotten it was suggestedas a workaround to the "how do we get power back out of the system if it's all different kinds of power" issue.
I also appreciate Zarcath's input into why he's doing it this way. However, I still kind of think it'd be more productive to keep a running list of our top 20 or hell top 50 issues and keep updating it based on our discussions here. I guess my suggestion is do the usual post for "5 issues" but then also do a summary post of all issues ranked in priority. That might eliminate some of the "controversy" associated with these lists and keep us focused on identifying and discussing less recognized issues.
The point of the correspondent is to pick the 5 issues that he feels need to be looked at based on his observations of the forums and talking to Architects. Zarcath is doing his job as he was told to do it. I have yet to see anything but criticism from a few people ( including no suggestions other than those aren't the top 5 issues).
All of the professions are broke in some way and apparently the Devs have decided not to respond or acknowledge them until after the 'Patch'. This is the way it was done in beta so I assume it is the same. I suggest we wait until after the patch to see what are still issues then jump down the Devs throats for not fixing them, not the Correspondent.
I would love to keep a master list of known issues with their status listed. But unfortunately I cannot edit my posts, so eventually when the thread got to 2-3 pages, people would just skip to the end and post what they think, without reading what's inbetween. Any revisions made to the list would be lost and eventually it would become disorganized. I would have to repost a new master list every two weeks or so, doing that we would lose any replies from the old thread or people would continue to discuss matters in those the old threads.
Sorry guys, it's just not really possible with the limited tools I have at my disposal.
ThorsAnvil wrote:
What i dont understand is why we are doing the 5 issues a week, when none of them are being addressed.
What I don't understand is why every week our top 5 includes *maybe* 1 architect specific problem and the rest are general issues that while need bringing up do not have direct bearing on our profession.
Mitsubishi seems to imply abovethat the way the game is supposed to work is that ifyou declare residency, your house no longer counts toward your 10 lot limit.
Is this true?!?
If so, let's get this tiny bug fixed!!!
Don't all of you run into players with tons of money who will not buy ahouse because doing so would mean giving up two, four or even six lots, each of which might have a Heavy Mineral Harvester on it? I ran into a Doctor today who was *selling* his large house because he couldn't stand it anymore. The six lots it took were costing him a fortune! I know Master Architects who live in Smalls because they can't afford the lots. Why in the world would the Devs want to make it more difficult to buy a larger house when there is no benefit other than prestige to buying a larger house? It's insane. We have enough trouble finding customers. Why should owning a nearly-useless luxury item cripple your economic production?
Get rid of the lot use by declaring residency! It will take the Dev's ten minutes to fix, and we'l sell tons more houses!
-- Kyer Amon, Lowca
I'd recommend we stick with the first top five issues (assuming those were priority), before listing any more.
I'd also suggest next to those issues, we list how long the issue has been open. So we can all see how responsive SWG is to fixing our top problems. Title it "Beta IV Bug Reports". Hehehe.
Korbyn Daxx
Master Architect that still can't craft any medium or bigger farms. My stash is running OUT !!!
My top issue currently would be the LGO problem. I will explain why.
1) This is LOW grade ORE we are talking about here it is way more prevelant in RL than anything else. It can be found almost anywhere and in better density than metals gems etc etc.
2) It is the MOST heavily used item for the creation of any single item in game. No other profession has such high resource costs.
3) The fact that architects already have the highest lot count for factories prevents additional harvestors.
To sum up we have higher resource needs and lower densities of what should be an abundant resource. Why is this??
sorry Zarcath, but i see no value in sending 5 token items just because we have too.
not blamming you or anything, thats what they asked for, but what it looks like to me, is some kind of way to cover there back sides.
I say we spend the next few weeks hammering out the 5 issues that everyeone things are most important. its not going to be easy because some people like to believe they speak for the group.
case in point, I could care less about a command to deposit power. to me thats a nice to have. I think a more reactive fix would be better as well. as in, with the POWER, instead of showing 0 on the right side of deposit power, put the current power thats in the unit. then i could SLIDE out or in the amounts i want.
seems simpler then adding new commands.
as for over payment of maintenance, the Vendor menu of remove maintenance or the same from guild hall seams like re-usable code. so why not that.
I am all for sending in the same 5 issues weekly till they all get fixed, then we can add in new items when they get fixed, unless something more pressing comes up.
frankly the fact that a couch only seats one person to me is a End user problem, not an architect one.