Architect Archive
Thread: Bob the Builder and Why we need less ore.
Well the only real solution without hurting someone, and someone is going to get hurt with any resource reduction, is to convince the people selling for far to low a price that it hurts them and us. They could be making 2 to 3 times what they are now and selling them just as fast or they can make 1/3 to 1/2 the amount and not be able to fill orders.
The PA backed Architects I think will correct themselves in time, once they supply their PA there will be little point in being a Master Architect anymore and unless they want to spend their time as gimped players well they will need to release those skills bringing down the number of Architects in the process. The question is will this happen before the bottom of the housing market falls out.
Also you can bet there will be new items comming to craft, the things we can make now are just far to limited compared to whats in the game. I imagin alot of things we see in town are eventually going to be craftable for player cities along with more than 3 stupid and ugly plants.
I think you have it exactly opposite. If the objective is to close the gap between solo architects and PA guilds that mass produce and sell below cost (and I'm not saying this is necessarily an economically desireableobjective), the solution isn't to reduce the amount of available resources but to increase them dramatically.
If there are more resources and they are easier to get, then the price per resource drops, making solo crafters more competitive. A PA doesn't gain that much of an advantage if you increase the resources, they're already pretty much getting everything they need anyways. Solo crafters will be able to get more resources relative to the guilds.
Another advantage of cheaper resources is that you would be able to effectively purchase them on the market for say 1-2 cr/unit. This would allow you to focus on making buildings instead of running around surveying for resources and managing your harvestors. Instead of a bunch of harvestors and energy collectors, you could use your slots for factories and a nice house for a shop. This would allow you to become a more efficient architect (or whatever type of crafter).
I know what you're thinking, if resources are even cheaper then prices for buildings will drop even more, especially when compared to the prices of weapons and armor. Architects will make even less money relative to weaponsmiths and armorsmiths, and to this I say you are probably correct. However, this is the nature of the player-based economy we operate in. Combat is probably the central focus of this game (or almost any MMO, for that matter). Therefore, weapons and armor (and anything related to combat, such as medicine or pets) will always be in greater demand. The fact that houses don't degrade only exacerbates the problem.
The solution? How about housing that can be destroyed in faction fighting (you go overt, so does your house). Or maybe architects can sell combat related structures to players, like turrets (but not walls, the potential for abuse is too great), on the theory that combat-relatedbuildings will be in greater demand (especially if they can be blown up, too). A greater variety of structures would also help, encouraging players to upgrade their existing structures. The problem is, these solutions can only be implemented by the developers, and they probably have very different ideas about what direction the game will go in.
Well, this went on a bit longer than I planned. Just my 2-creds on the matter.
Slim Vargo, Corbantis, Mos Eisley
If you really want to help architects, increase resource production for architects while reducing resource production for everyone else. 
Somehow I think architects will do better that way.
I truly think someone here just wants to kill the architect class so there will be little or no competition, and in that way be able to charge any price he desires. That might work also, if not for the large PAs that can always do whatever they like. So truly the magus ideas are just a way to help PAs in my humble opinion.
Chocobacca.
Reducing resource availability is *not* an answer, because supply is not the fundamental problem with the current economy. The problem is with an eventually capped demand, no method for goods to require realistic replacement and/or repair, and no definite vision of new, upgraded, or at least variable versions of goods to spur market interest. None of these issues will be affected, least of all improved, by simply making it even more annoying and time consuming to dig materials out of the earth.
Lets say that 10 people are willing to buy a house at 100k. Lets say that your plan goes into effect and now houses cost 200k. Maybe ONE person would get 200k of value out of the house. Its not like people NEED to buy houses and they will pay whatever it costs. Houses are a luxury item. If player cities go into effect, and you need to buy a house in order to vote then the demand will go up and the prices will go up. In this game, there is a demand problem for houses, not a supply problem. Raising costs won't stop anyone from selling for cost if thats where they see the demand is. In order for prices on houses to go up, the devs need to give people more reasons to own a house. It really is that simple.
Killbuckner is right on a bunch of counts. One other issue that the original post had a flaw in is - in the scenario of 4 sellers and 4 houses waiting to be bought. The first 3 get bought at 60k, the low seller's price. The last gets bought at the last buyers maximum utility price. It will be dependent on that individual buyer's need for the house. There is no reason for the seller to meet the lower seller's price. This is just taking into account the one time matching of buyers and sellers, not the long run marginal cost and supply & demand curves.
It's pretty humorous to hear the whinage from people that didn't take Econ 101. For anyone that survived the dot com bust, this situation is completely expected. Growth has a value beyond the net profit as long as there is room to continue to grow. But the bust is inevitable. My advice is to have other characters on other servers working on marksman skills. Diversify, or get really frustrated when your server is down or no one will buy your grand creations.
I became an architect to make buildings and I think that Architects are going to play an inportant part of the space expansion.
I like running harvesters so I have made most of my cash from selling resources. When someone asks me for a price quote on a building I tell them up front buildings go for 5c per resource and then give them the price. If they say no or I am overpriced then they can go somewhere else. I have no problem with that. I make the occasional sale of a Harvester or House and yes sometimes I rundelivery missions when I need extra cash.
I never intended to make a job of this game.
Your mileage may vary.
Ed! (beautifully thought out post)
“If the objective is to close the gap between solo architects”
no, that isn’t my intent, why would it be? My intent is to keep the architect profession around for longer than the first 2 months of the game; and in the same breath make it so that solo architects CAN make money. A reduction in resources will allow more money to be made from the same amount of work.
But: your ideas of increasing the demand by increasing what architects can do is a fine idea as well.
Jaz:
“Magus, you can simply destroy 90% of the ore you harvest, use less harvesters, or give the rest of us that 90%.”
No, but if a group of 50 or so architects on radiant want to get together and dump 90% of there resources on the market for 20creds a unit, then I’m with them.
You are very selfish in wanting to produce so much right now, with no regard to the people who will play 3 months from now. If you want the game to work, architect has to be hard to get into, hard to advance in, and it needs to be hard to make houses.
“supply is not the fundamental problem with the current economy…”
ok then what is?
“The problem is with an eventually capped demand”
Don’t you know that changing supply will make the demand last longer? *supply factors in*
“no method for goods to require realistic replacement and/or repair”
yes they do, furniture destroys itself, it’s a non-durable good. While on the other hand houses ARE durable goods, because you pay for them constantly. We are selling a durable good, so the only solution to this problem is to make it no longer durable… OR: reduce supply! *supply factors in*
“no definite vision of new, upgraded, or at least variable versions of goods to spur market interest”
I agree with making houses more interesting, but there isn’t a lack of interest in houses because of it. And I’ll be playing Tetris/Sims to put together a house 2 weeks after I’m an ewok in an x wing.
killbuckner (don't be a jerk dude)
“What you are trying to do is increase our costs but that means that the demand will go way down”
you would be correct, IF we had competition. We do not, this is changing the over all market. People want houses at 600k for the same reason they want it at 60k, it’s not like they are going to buy a house before there armor and gun, we are selling a durable good that is a luxury item, People with luxury money will have it, people with out won’t.
Yes making it a non-luxury item will help, but it won’t help in the least with the physical limit of people that can purchase houses.
Relative demand will increase greatly if we reduce supply.
“I make the occasional sale of a Harvester or House and yes sometimes I run delivery missions when I need extra cash”
This is sad, not going out and adventuring should make us all a lot more money than shooting things, otherwise we might as well just do delivery runs all day, it’s about as exciting as checking harvesters/checking factories.
One more time: less supply will lead to MORE relative demand and keep arch a working profession for longer!
Relative demand will increase greatly if we reduce supply.
“I make the occasional sale of a Harvester or House and yes sometimes I run delivery missions when I need extra cash”
This is sad, not going out and adventuring should make us all a lot more money than shooting things, otherwise we might as well just do delivery runs all day, it’s about as exciting as checking harvesters/checking factories.
One more time: less supply will lead to MORE relative demand and keep arch a working profession for longer!
You are trying to artificially control a market and it will not work. I am not sure why you think my gameplay style is sad. I certainly enjoy it. Maintaining harvesters is fun for me. Running delivery mission is not all that exciting and for that matter neither is a destroy mission but I like doing it. I am a little weird but that just me. Just like I liked mining and blacksmithing in UO. I believe that as the game expands so will the things that Architects can do will expand. Why is it you want to make this a job?
I am not sure why you think my game play style is sad.
It’s sad that you are killing off part of the limited number of buyers and not making as much money as you should.
I’m sure glad you are having fun! It’s just sad you aren’t getting paid what you should 
And it IS a job for which to make money, and I do enjoy doing it. But I want to make sure that 3months form now it can still be enjoyable.