Architect Archive

All I can say is I saw a lot of people post on that thread that never posted on this board before. I am not for general decay, but the profession is dead if there isn't some turnover. It isn't a question of if we want it or not. We need it period. I keep hearing how the economy is a joke and everyone has millions of dollars, but when it comes time to buy something other than a gun, people freak out and pretend they have no money. The hypocrisy of so many people is rather sad.

agree.

Decay is interesting idea. For harvs and the like, and no redeeding for houses is also good idea.

I've been master Arch since week3 and if it continues like this there will be millions of harvs on the landscape. We are gonna have a building problem once europe joins and if they arnt separated form North America can u imagine how many buildings there will be if there isnt some decay? As it stands now on Bria u can buy small houses for 2k, mediums for 30k, larges for 60k. And harvestor prices i've seen are 500 personal, 6k mediums and 60k larges. Yes these are the lowest i've seen but I have seen others in a similar range. At that price mining is one of the most over-exploited professions. On any vein and on any % u can make the money back from a heavy harve in less than 2 weeks. Even like 25% low grade metal. So we are gonna get a bit messed up if there is no decay at all. But i do feel it should stay with harvestors.

McB

Master Arch

Bria

Actually you spend that money on a gun. The economy on starside is really inflated. It isn't unheard of for someone to spend 900k on a single gun. Weaponsmiths pull in over 1 mil per day, the good ones can top 10 mil on weekends. I was trying to buy this stupid bug off this guy, he wanted 2 mil for it and already got offers in that range, but he wanted more. Chances are he got his money.

Starsider was the power gamer server from the start, so we may be a month ahead of the curve. Money isn't taken out of this game nearly as fast as it comes in. Maybe your guild isn't successful money wise but maybe else where.There are people with very sizable bank accounts, and it isn't just a few people. As time goes on, the number of millionairs only increases until everyone will be rolling in it. And once you get all that money, you have nothing to spend it on, cept that FWG5 dragon tissue gun or some extinct pet.

I'm against decay, but all for experimentation!

I play an MA and an non MA and I hope this "unofficial poll" isn't used to discount customer input which would be folly to the whole profession.

Im for decay on buildings but not for furniture

I stated this before in another thread, but I think we should wait on deciding on decay. I know people want to rush in and get as many things "fixed" at one time, but our number one priority (As decided in another poll posted by ArchAngel) is experimentation.

I think it would be wise to wait and see how experimentation is changed before we jump the gun on decay. I personally agree decay should be in there, but not an extravagant rate that a lot of people are seeming to picture. No one ever said things would decay in two weeks or a month. No one said things would decay in a year either. We're at the point where we're trying to decide if some form of decay is needed, not what kind or how fast

I'm with skalded 100%

we can't just take an architects opinion on this.... its a player based game and all players opinions should be considered.

I'm not restating my opinions one more time....

I'm with skalded 100%

we can't just take an architects opinion on this.... its a player based game and all players opinions should be considered.

I'm not restating my opinions one more time....

The other 70% of the market doesnt have a structure today because it percieves little or no value in it.

If that doesnt change (making houses actualy beneficial?) then it wont matter if you add more downsides to owning one. They dont now... they wont after.

Now, if they were to add more benefits, then yes the market for sales of structures would grow.. and maybe it wont grow so much if there is decay. No way to tell the impact as we dont have any proposed "Up-Side" right now.

The demand for harvesters is (as I said elsewhere) somewhat in-elastic. There is such a huge "Up-side' to owning one, that I dont think any decay (or similar) proposal will damp demandsignificantly.

so, you're assuming only 30% of the people own a home.... and that those 30% require a home. I'm not sure if those numbers are accurate but we can go with them.

Now, harvester demand as a whole is not inelastic as miners have options on what type, or whether to do it or not. Sure, to maximize quantities they need heavies, but they can still make money off personals. As their will now be no reduction in hopper size you don't lose those people from that, but at the same time you WILL lose some people who's harvesters die but don't want to mess with it anymore. Tell me you want to charge me 150k for a heavy that will go away, I may or may not pay it, but I'm much more likely to go looking for a better price... and odds are, I'll find it because there's always someone out there that needs to make a sale.

Ropock,

I used the 30% as a rough calculation from SOEs numbers. I think they had aprox 90,000houses, and about 3 times that number of other structures. Considering the number of people with multiple harvesters (and houses!) I think 30% isnttoofar off for purposes of this discussion.

I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand the concept of Elastic Vs In-elastic demand.

It isn't an on-off switch, but a sliding scale, from most in-elastic (demand for oxygen in the air?) through to most elastic (Luxury items? Though there we get into something called "Conspicuous Consumption )

Having a choice of different "Types" of harvester doens't change the fact that you are buying a "Harvester", which can only be built by an "Archtect", The only choices are Do or Do Not harvest, and Small vs Large.

If the return-on-investment of a large harvester was 2-3 years (like most real world capital assets) then perhaps people wouldn't find purchaing harvesters so compelling. But heavies which already make money within the fist 5 days wont become much less attractive if you change it to 10 days. Besides the fact that alot of people HAVE to harvest if they want to craft at all, bacause they want materials that are hard to buy on the open market.

If there we no Lot limitations I suppose you MIGHT see people switch to smaller harvesters in order to buy from a market with more price competition (novice arch's). But becuase you only have only 10 lotsyou will ALWAYS be able to harvest 4 times as much using large harvesters, and that brings in a lot of cash.

The issue with price elasticity is.... if the price goes up 10% does the total revenue in the market go up or down, and by how much. If the product has Elastic demand then the total revenue will fall. Each unit makes more money, but it is more than offset by the reduction in sales. With an in-elastic demand a 10% rise in price leads to a less than offsetting fall in demand, and the revenue rises.

The elasticity determins the slope of the demand andsupply curves. The point of their intersection determins price and vice versa.

"Tell me you want to charge me 150K for a heavy"...... Ill go one better ... "Pay 300K for a fully experimented heavy"

Tell me you wont buy it if it pulls in 6 times as much as a small and pays for itself in a week.

Yes, you might go look for a better price... but why are other architects going to seriously lower their price? Their costs have probably gone up so there has to be a good reason, and short term i dont see one. in the futurewe will return to the competition we have now.

I know I would be running a full fleet of them asap. Harvesters are what transfer the cash from missions into my pocket faster than any other mechanism in the game. I happen to craft as an architect to increase that flow... but the bulk of the money absolutely comes from the mining.

The way I see it is this.

A professions board is a place where members of that profession can discuss the issues associated. Few understand these issues as well as those who deal with them on a day-to-day basis. While it is important to consider the bigger picture that is ultimately not our place. It is the Developers job to consider the Big Picture.

A respectful request was made by a collegue to find out what Architects thought on the subject. There have been many posts open to everyone and a single request for a focus group, namely those of the profession for whom this board exists. I see nothing wrong with this and it doesn't exclude anyone from posting anywhere else.

It is unfortunate that this request was ignored and I don't think those who chose to disregard it are worthy of being defended.

Fidg'Ter