Architect Archive

I seriously think that non-artisand medic people shouldn'T be able to put harvesters on their lots. Most of the figther class don't really care about having a house or not. If they can put 10 HEavy harvesters on their lots that will earn them 50k ressources a day for 200kl money, they will do so. I mean why would they have a house that will cost something when they can put harvesters that will bring cash in their pocket without any big works ?

I really think that only specific class should be able to put harvesters on their lots. I'm 100% sure that with that ressource would sell higher and people would actually, maybe, try to get a house on their free lots because now Even a master Pistoler can build PA it'S ridiculous. They buy all the schematics + 1 factory and 8 heavy harvester and that's it !!! THAT'S IT ! Man it's ridiculous that a master pistoler have access to big thing like that so easily.

How would LESS resource solve anything?

If people finds it hard to cough up 60K for a medium house, 45K for a factory, 15K for a small house, what would you think they want to pay 120K for a medium house, 90K for a factory, 30K for a small house?

Magus, your logic is very strange. The problem right now is -NOT- that there is too many resources or that there is not enough credits around. Both are plentiful. The problem is that our products are not desired by the majority of the population - the combat class.

I don't really see how limiting resources will make our profession "better". You limit the amount of resources harvested, you drive the price up, the general public still will chose to buy a 70K suit of armor rather than a 90K medium home.

Resource is not a problem, so stop trying to hijack the thread and turn it into your own preaching arena.

I for one will agree that we need MORE lots. Not 10 extra, but a number like 5 more lots than general public. Or at least allow the sales of lots between players.

Any chance of getting the thread back on topic? It's just devolved into a discussion of lots, which obviously there isn't complete agreement on (personally I'm opposed). The thread started as a message to the advocate to bring up important issues. I think we know now that a lot of architects want more lots, so maybe we can drop that from this thread?

The points raised so far:

More content is needed, for all crafting classes. Furniture needs to be colorable, just like clothing is. There may however be a limitation in the engine that prevents this, since furniture might be a different type of object than clothing (I don't know).

Crates in factories should work, is this a bug, or did the devs intend for me to have to manually pull out 70 structure blocks, one at a time, and drage them over to my wall factory, one at a time?

Being able to pull power out of a harvester before redeeding it is a good idea, but I'm pretty sure it will never happen. Why? Because there are different kinds of power. But once you put them in the harvester, they are all mixed into one number. If I have 5000 wind and 1000 radioactive in my inventory, the power interface just says I have 6000 power. If I cram 3k into a machine, it probably doesn't keep track of how much of which kind I had, because that would require the harvester to have an inventory as opposed to just storing a number. It isn't going to be able to give you back the same resources you put in.

As far as getting money back, that would be cool, but would obviously eliminate the point of having to have 2 days maintenance paid up. It would basically make it free to move a harvester, which I don't think is a good idea. It would be nice if it only cost half as much though (50 x maintenance rate).

The idea of not allowing non crafters to place harvesters is an interesting one. But I think it would only work if you in turn gave all crafters more lots. And then what's the point, except to restrict the opportunity of non-crafters.

Making stuff useful (like houses) is paramount to having a healthy, lasting economy.

Allowing other people access to your harvesrters is important. I hear of these uberPAs that use a bunch of lots and have one admin running 70 harvesters. I actually don't mind this. If some player wants to spend 3 hours a day doing nothing but managing harvesters, that's up to them. It can't be very fun. But I have an arrangement with a DE friend and we share a few harvesters, splitting the cost and output for things we both only use a little of (like copper). Not being able to access each others systems doesn't make any sense, especially if you are going to at the same time cry about not being able to share access of houses and factories.

Well my point was this one :

Most of the people flooding the market with such big thing as houses have a PA to back them with harvesters. If you limit the access to the harvesters a lot of people will be discouraged to rent their lots cause they will have to run everyday to get the ressource for the architects. Doing that you will limit the power grinder to a few more lots, not 70.

Plus, if you only allow crafter profession to have harvesters, you up theirs lots by maybe 5 or 10 you give combat classes maybe 7 to compensate ? Do you really need 3 larges houses when an architect can'T afford one for himself ? Doing so, an architect will be able to have 1 factory, 1 large house and a couple harvesters. A lot of non-crafter are buying med harvester and put them on their lots to have "more cash" by selling their ressources. My point is this one, If I were a Figther only I will surely buy for 100k harvesters NO HOUSES at hall and sell my ressources for 3c a pop and make an additionnal 150k credits per day! I mean houses are useless, if you can have 10 med harvesters for cheap why not ? I'd rather have 10 harversters getting me 150k per day then a useless house.

There is so nothing special in house.

---

Kamika wrote:

Do you really need 3 larges houses ...

---

This is the exact type of thinking that leads to nerfs and stupid limits that get imposed because someone in charge decided "You don't really need<whatever> so I'm going to make sure you can't get it." Sorry to pick on this one specific post, but you see the concept all over these threads, so this is just a convenient example.

I know, you're not calling for a nerf specifically, but this is the attitude that drives me nuts in games. SWG has so much going for it because it allows people to play the way they want to play. How do youknow whether I need 3 large houses? Maybe I'm a fighter by day and I run some furniture showrooms at night for all my architect friends. There are so many possible ways to play this game and that's a good thing.

Any time you find yourself saying "well I can't think of a reason anyone would want to do this, so lets go ahead and get rid of it" then stop yourself and remember that at one time,a lot of programmers said "we can get by with storing the date in a two digit space because no one would want to keep using this program for 20 years". And then we ended up with the Y2K problem. Bill Gates once famouslysaid "640K [RAM] ought to be enough for anybody."

You give people a system to work within and they will find all sorts of crazy, creative, and cool things to do. And every time you limit what they can do, you reduce the coolness of it.

So, to try and stay a little on topic, let's think of ways to improve the architect class without trying to limit others. We don't need to nerf anyone else to make our proffesion better.

If you REALLY needed to have a house you wouldn't mind paying 10c per ressource like you pay your **edit**ing gun. Get along. We can barely have 3c per ressource involved in a house and you will pay 10k a weapon of barelly 100 minerals so DO YOU really need a house? If you really need one and that every one need one I will start selling them for lets say 300k ? The same rate for a weapon is it fair ? There is no benefits to buy a freaking house why would you want to have 3 ? Just to flash a little more ? thx

Some thoughts...

- Architects should get more lots based on their level of Construction skill.

- To balance that, IMHO harvesters should not be share-able. It is unbalancing, and allows one person to get their buddies to allow them a disproportionate number of harvesters, which in turn ends up letting that person drive prices down to the point that nobody can compete without doing likewise.

- SOMEthing has to be done about resource sales. It's ridiculous that you're better off selling resources directly rather than trying to sell an item (ie House) made with the same number of resources.

- Architects should treat anyone who bottoms our market like dirt. If you're selling small house deeds for 8000 or (!) 3000, you're hurting other players who are actually making an effort to mine their own resources and build their own products without cheating, duping or exploiting. Whenpeople do this kind of thing they're BEGGING for our profession to get nerfed (look at surveying now), and the rest of us don't wanttheir exploits to cause life to be harder for our profession.

- The documentation needs to be clear on cost of maintenance, number of items allowed in a house, administration rules, and the cost needed to re-deed a house.

- We are beginning to see a glut of houses all over the countryside. This is BAD NEWS for us architects. As in other MMORPGs which allowed housing this will eventually lead to some huge and nasty nerfs. We can try to head this off by once again agreeing as a group not to bottom out house costs... a player shouldn't be able to buy a large house before they even master a skill tree. (Here's an idea... how about make various houses own-able only after you reach a certain amount of XP?)

- The Bazzar needs to have the price-cap of 3000 removed so we can sell housing and furniture on it without artifically reducing our prices just to get things sold. And Provisions to sell existing houses will once again help reduce housing glut and eventual nerfing of our profession.

- Critical failures needs to be thought out. A beginning architect who is only able to assemble enough resources to build a house a day is penalized far more harshly for a crit fail than the uber player who is unbalancing the game and can shrug off 3-4 crit failures in a row.

NERFS FOR ARCHITECTS ARE COMING! I hate to say it. I worked hard to get architect. But the situation is ripe for our profession to get nerfed... many architects are rolling out FAR more product than even a master should be able to, houses are appearing over the land at far too fast a rate, prices are dropping to the point where a house can be bought by even a pretty lowly newbie, and even to the point where people are starting to GIVE them away, or sell the raw resources for far more profit. THIS MEANS NERFING!

What we need to do is start to propose solutions that are tolerable to us (like a XP requirement to own various house types) or else we are likely to find the development implementing a solution we really dont like (increased criticals, huge increases in resource requirements ormaintenance, drastic reduction in housing slots allowedetc)

Sounds like you're getting upset, so I hope we can head that off; I didn't intend that. You are correct that if I really *need* a house, I'd be willing to pay for it. But like you said, most people find houses useless. But that doesn't mean they will always be so. Once they fix a few bugs like tha admin access, houses will be much more useful to regular players.

Regardless, my point still holds. Just because you can't think of a reason a marksman might want 3 houses doesn't mean you should take those houses away from them. If that guy has 3 large houses and fills them up with neomiodean bird cages, how does that affect your gaming experience? It doesn't hurt you, and maybe he likes it, so why should you have the right to decide he can't do that?

Let's try to stick with ways of improving our lot without making it tougher on others. If you want to complain about what fighters get, go to the Marksman forums and tell them they need to have their lots nerfed. Make your case to them, because it doesn't have anything to do with us.

I agree with the decay requirement, because obviously stuff lasting forever means very little to sell after a few more months of this. But how should it work? Should harvesters decay even if you keep them maintained? Same with houses and factories? Or maybe just furniture?

What about my showroom furniture. If it's just sitting there, should it decay as fast as a couch in a busy PA hall where people are always sitting on it?

If houses are going to decay, I think it should be fairly slow. I don't think even the richest of us want to buy a new large house every month. Maybe the idea of not being able to move houses has some merit. You could destroy them, but if you want to move to a new location, you need to find someone to buy your old house. Then we can have the "Realtor" profession

Yes please put Max's points on your list Zarcath.

In particular the admin issue with sharing houses and the harvester mechanism bug.

Here's a few more that are lower priority but would be good to have investigated:

1) Could you ask why the heavy mineral mining installation requiresidentical wall units whenallof the other "heavies" only requiresimilar wall units (even large houses and PA halls allow similar). I'm hoping the heavy mineral blueprint is just "off" and it's not the other way around especially since factories are now only giving 10% xp and these are the casual Architects bread and butter forxp (fortunately I made Master before the nerf yay!)

2) Considering they plan to revamp the Armosmiths to have a full 100 points for assembly and experimentation, is it "as intended" that Architects only get 55 assembly and experimentation points at Master (unless your a MonCal of course)? Tied to this isanother question: Every other Novice level advanced class gets a bump to assembly and experimentation as soon as they promote as well as the additional skill bumpsfrom their technique lines, why don't Architects get any assembly and experimenation skill mods at the Novice level? Since assembly skill affect failures and failures are crippling for us in particular, this seems like a big oversight.

3) Fusion generators need radioactives. Radioactives disappear from the resource table whereas there's always one source of wind and solar available. As intended?

4) Light sources on our lamps! I'm sure tailors in particular but everyone in general would like a non-torch alternative to lighting up their houses and shops.

Thanks