Architect Archive

---

Scortch wrote:

I am totally ashamed of my fellow architects. This is disgusting to see them want structure decay because they are such greedy money grubbing

---

You should be disgusted with *yourself* for both imputing motivations to people you don't even know, and for suggesting that selling the product of one's labor is immoral. Desire to be self-sufficient financially is a virtue, attacking people for being successful is a character flaw.

It is interesting to note that of all the commandments in "The Ten Commandments", only one sin is covered twice. That being envy.....

Everyone in the game does things to make money, in order to support the necessary character costs that come with playing. Combatants largely do missions, Artisans largely sell product. This is obvious to anyone with a fully operational brain.

Weapons and armor both decay until they vanish. There is no reason that architecture and clothing should not behave in the same manner. Tailoring and Architecture have a very limited future if every product has an infinite lifespan.

A few more things I just thought of...

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.

Im a small time arcbhitect andi WANT it. Why? Master Architects can out produce and undercut me till the cows come home, at least if houses decay there will be a greater demand and people will be more likely to buy from those of us who cant afford to sell small houses for 3-4k....

houses are used mostly for storage, try moving a couple full houses and tell me you're still in favor of decay

*thinks the original poster would like every thing on a silver platter...*

Were not trying to bum every one else by making decay for the architects were trying to introduce a renewable enchomy man.

Wat

I moved my mouse at the wrong time sorry about the double posts. now tripple hehe

(I mean who would leave their structure intentionally unmaintained)

How about someone in the military who gets orders to Iraq for 6-15 month intervals?

And those usually come out with the you have 4 hours to pack notice.

Then again i have known a few people who have just completely blundered and forgot about it.

I just noticed yesterday my factory was 1k in the hole.

There are more reasons why they shouldnt completey disappear than there are reason why they should. I couldnt even begin to imagine the number of emergencies that crop up where someone might be incapacitated in real life or have to travel or visit family due ot emergencies.

To take away all the hard work by destroying their hard earned posessions (lets say they are an armorsmith with a large house and a full vendor of armor or other items)

I cant believe a correspondent would make such a comment. I thought you were here for us?

First off. This game is more like work than play durrrrrrr : P The devs are planning on nerfing harvesters making it to where you have to check the darn things on a daily basis, One of the more evident points of the developers lack of thinking, This nerf is for the hardcore playerwho has way too much time on there hands who most likely has no life whatsoever... LOL Whanker!!!!

Now for the decay, stupid idea. Once again they find a way to suck the life out of a somewhat sortofkindof interesting game, not enough to keep my interest im affraid.

First, i work for a living so i am not going to be able to check the harvesters on a daily basis like you want.

Second im not going to check the harvesters on a daily basisjust because you think i should, dumb stupid idiotic notion.

Third, decay duh, what fer, just because the architics arnt making mulah, tough, thats the way it goes. for this reason alone isnt enough to warrant decay. Decay should only happen when they dont pay maintinance.

Forth, If you are not making money cause you all made houses for everyone already, then maybe you should try another trade, I hear bounty hunters make decent cash.

It's all about the economy, hmmm. what economy. It's a game dumby, not a commerce...

I'd love to see Architectural 'decay' based off the number of redeeds rather than any time-based decay.

Houses and PA's would have a relativly low number of redeeds available to them, compared with Harvesters/Generators.

For example -

1. a super well built house would have up to 5 redees, while a crappy one would have 0.

2. A great harvester would have something like 50 redeeds (lasting the user roughly a year, if you redeed a harvester once a week), while a crappy one might have something like 10 (lasting you roughly 2 months)

This way, if someone REALLY wanted to they could leave their harvesters/homes in place and mine what shows up but if they wanted to continually move and redeed to keep up with shifting resources they would have to balance that off against the eventual need to purchase another harvester.

PLUS, it would even allow for 'structural repair' that is still balanced and will allow for an influx of new harvesters (assuming it works like weapon/armor repair). You can try to 'fix' the structure to allow for additional redeeds, but your results will vary with a chance of breaking the harvester. And no matter what the max redeeds go down so EVENTUALLY you will have to replace it.

Thoughts?

-Jubey, Core Tech Master Architect

Corbantis

I'm for all structures being attackable. It could be set up like pvp, where if you are an imp and you have a house a rebel can attack it and destroy it. I think this would be great. If your house was destroyed you would be sure to go and take out the guy who attacked it so he would lose his house too. Now if you had something you didn't want to lose you could always store it in a bank deposit box just like people do in the real world. Along with that I would vote that Player cities can be attacked as well. This would make players cities an important part of SWG. I mean most people would opt to move to a player city because of the militia being able to defend the house from attack. What do yall think?

I don't think you understand, Tiamua. So please listen, It is -not- about making money.

It is about the role of an architect being that of creating structures.

I did not become an architect to repair things or place furniture. I became an architect to create buildings that would be used by players.

Unless there is some form of building decay, we WILL eventually reach a point of building saturation in the player base where there will be no significant demand for buildings. Everyone will have all they need, and the demand created by new players/accidental destruction is NOT going be enough to sustain an entire profession.

Stop being so shortsighted. Unless you have an alternative suggestion for a means to create -longterm- demand for our products, some form of unavoidable decay is the way to go. I don't know about you, but I don't want to be sitting around in a few months without anyone needing any of my products at all.

-Jubey, Core Tech Master Architect
Corbantis

Short sightedness is exactly the problem we are what 6 months into the game and many architects are already seeing a waning market (mostly on older servers). MMORPGs have a history of being very long lived. Look at UO it's been around for what 8 years almost? Yes new skematics will be released and become available only to be added fairly quickly to the stack of non sellable goods that will keep piling up.

The time to fix things and make them work is now early in the game.

I don't believe that full decay on luxury items (houses, furnishings and clothing) is the solution but some form of decay and continuing market has to be made available for all crafting professions or they will be obsolete, it's only a matter of time.

I'm sorry, but I firmly believe in Decay, even more so for Tailors than Architects. Clothes don't cost anywhere near what armor does, and people seem to have no problems with haveing to replace that on a regular basis.

I am against Decay on homes, simply due to the hassles involved in moving and rearrainging everything in sight, same goes for furniture. I simply see no downsides to decay on installations though, while it shouldn't mean constant replacement, if a harvestor/factory only lived for say 3 months, the additional cost of running them would be insignificant, but still assure a market for them. Needless to say, the runtime left on a machine, would have to be indicated on the deed, it would even allow us to take "low runtime" equipment back in on trade.

For houses and furniture, I prefer the "new models" idea, with the older models being removed. People will change styles, if newer things are available, while this will help a lot on furnishings, it really is less feasible for homes. But if they added other items to the housing line that were either functional or asthetic, people would buy them (I'm thinking landscaping options here, Hedges, tree's, or even defensive abilities, things that would take up lots, but would add value to a home). The amount of things that could be added, are only limited by developer time, and imagination, so I truly believe this is a viable route, without haveing to have homes decay.

For those who think this is about 'greed' get a clue. Any architect can make far more money as a miner at the moment, than as a Arch, but we actually took this profession to be able to "make things for people", and we all prefer that our skills are needed, we just need to find solutions to insure this.

Vorgus on Bria