Architect Archive
Thread: Latest Adds To TestCenter and Soon to Live.. Your FeedBack Is needed...
Wort_Cutter
Sat Jan 22, 2005 5:17 pm
#14
It's one thing to have very little repeat buisness because there are huge marketing giant arches that can offer -sales- every so often
but to lose almost ALL repeat buisness.
Bummer.
Blackferne
Sat Jan 22, 2005 8:41 pm
#15
I'm new to being an Architect starting about a month ago, and I have to say that I am absolutely appalled at ths idea. It is a horrible idea as it affects multiple professions. 1) Architects lose a chance at repeat business on not only structures, but furniture in destroyed structures. 2) Don't droid engineers have a droid that is supposed to pay maintenance on your structures? Isn't this a nerf to them? 3) Politicians are now gonna be helpless in designing their city.
On a bigger scheme of things I think how this would impact various types of cities and what I came up with was as follows:
- PvP fort cities (the ones with all naboo mediums or generic smalls tightly packed to simulate walls) would love this as it helps them direct traffic in a way that the devs themselves have indicated was not what was intended.
- Commerce cities (See Helios on Scylla) would hate it. Some cities take great pains to have street layouts and reward the bigger merchants/crafters with prime locations on "Main street". Now without this destruction of a house those shops can be left for months possibly years unattended and the city would never have any recourse.
- The scatter shot (the ones that have no urban plan at all and everything is just thrown around) could likely care less.
But as a new architect I have to say this is a bad bad idea.
yodachaos
Sat Jan 22, 2005 9:52 pm
#16
i agree with most of the above post. if this is implemented it will be a definate blow to our profession which does not need any other blows.
the economy is already saturated with harvsters accross all galaxys i would bet and if this was implemented then our profession would probably be almost dead.
the economy is already saturated with harvsters accross all galaxys i would bet and if this was implemented then our profession would probably be almost dead.
Tolk_Okeefe
Sun Jan 23, 2005 10:36 am
#17
Why, the name of the known galaxy, can't they get decay on harverstors?!? This will kill our profession, at least for many. That's how I see it. I mean, with the old system, at least we had customers who forgot/was unable to pay maintin in time who came back to buy more. Now....
And I hear complaints from non-archis that we shouldn't whine, because we make enough money as it is. Do we? I don't. With the prices on Chimaera, we struggle every day. And why should our products be any different than WS and AS products?
Now, I am frustrated. Perhaps that is why I will put more time in my WS career, than architect.... 
linusboarder
Sun Jan 23, 2005 11:14 am
#18
I don't understand who thought this would be a good idea, it's not it's terrible. I can understand that they want to keep people from losing uber-leet products especially because RL happens and sometimes people can't get back to the game sometimes, but they are really undercutting Arch a lot.
What they could (and should do) is when a building is condemmed, they will need 1 of 2 kits. a recovery kit (built by Arch's) that allows the person only to retrieve items in houses.
And a Building repair kit (also crafted, and usable only by Archs) This will allow Arches to repair people's houses and make it uncondemmed (is that even a word).
They have 30 days to do either of these, after that the building is destroyed.
We might still lose building sales, but at least we could charge for the retrieval/repair kits. This just goes back to what i tell people "I picked up Armorsmith to support my Architect habit"
What they could (and should do) is when a building is condemmed, they will need 1 of 2 kits. a recovery kit (built by Arch's) that allows the person only to retrieve items in houses.
And a Building repair kit (also crafted, and usable only by Archs) This will allow Arches to repair people's houses and make it uncondemmed (is that even a word).
They have 30 days to do either of these, after that the building is destroyed.
We might still lose building sales, but at least we could charge for the retrieval/repair kits. This just goes back to what i tell people "I picked up Armorsmith to support my Architect habit"
Circe' Pojia
Dvnce
Sun Jan 23, 2005 11:21 am
#19
Lets get More Input.. I would like an larger number of posts to bring in with me on monday... 
This is definatly one of those times that you guys who like to lurk and read only need to post too 
This is definatly one of those times that you guys who like to lurk and read only need to post too Message Edited by Dvnce on 01-23-2005 10:21 AM
CorinDWR
Sun Jan 23, 2005 11:38 am
#20
I agree with most of whats been said before here. This will cut back on business for sure.
And it will make alot of ghost towns as one cannot raise new structures if those belonging to players leaving wont be razed.
As an architect I wouldnt mind too much if they put decay on the mining unit in harvs, and let the owner replace them every so often, because then we would get repeat business from both those who forget harvs and such as well as those who dont. But if its gonna be like this, I expect a serious reduction in income.
Ussisri
Sun Jan 23, 2005 4:08 pm
#21
So basically there wont be any need to maintain structures anymore, why not just remove structure maintaince period?
Just one question, if you dont use the bank and just carry all your credits around on you, will the structure be destroyed, as you dont have anything in the bank?
Fidgiter
Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:10 pm
#22
- If a structure drops to 25% condition it becomes condemned
- A condemed structure has a sign that reads "<NAME>'s CONDEMNED"
- A codeemed structure can't be entered until the owner pays to 100% condition
- When the structure drops to 0% condition it vanishes
This would give a good second chance for the owner or administrator to realize they are in jeopardy. If they don't notice it someone else might and hopefully would let them know in some way.
ShinjoKazuki
Sun Jan 23, 2005 7:26 pm
#23
I think the point of the patch would be because of everything of value inside a house, the people who have valuables inside their house usually pay alot of money in the house because of it
Beladan
Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:48 pm
#24
Dvnce,
I would be fascinated to learn what information, if any, you have obtained in the correspondant forums with regard to this change. I cannot believe that the same team that tells us they frequently sit in 3 hour meetings discussing changes and whatnot as they chart out the game simply think that making buildings and structures of all kinds 'indestructable' is good for the game in isolation. Color me paranoid, but I have to believe something more is going on here. Do they, for instance, foresee a new role for us in the galactic civil war that will allow us to play a comprehensive and compelling role in SWG - at the same time providing an alternate revenue stream for us?
Let's face it, architect has never evolved in the way it was supposed to. From the loss of our elite elite urban planner profession, to the magic lamps fiasco, the complete lack of decay on structures for any reason other than blatent stupidity, we have only ever existed to provide supersized backpacks. Is this part of a strategic change in the developers vision for architect in the game?
Because I cannot believe what I think the implications of this change will be. As someone waiting for a city slot to open on Naboo with my guild, we have been monitoring several cities sliding closer and closer to ruin as houses decay from inactive players. Now I have to accept that even this will cease and we will never ever be able to place a city - because even condemned buildings will count towards a city rank? Now you want me to accept that the cheaters - yes cheaters - who have 50 and 60 harvesters from lot swaps can carpet harvest entire swathes of the planet - and even if these guys get bored and move on to WoW or whatever the latest flash in the pan game is, these huge harvester farms will continue to just sit there, occupying space on the server. Am I to understand that I may see the day where, conceivably, if not practically, an entire area around Theed or Coronet or Mos Eisley is completely inaccesable to active players because houses, factories and harvesters from players who have left the game but not met the magical purge date, are sitting there 'condemned'?
Is anyone home at SOE? Is anyone at the helm here? I'm not looking to harrass you, Dvnce, as I have been here silent for a long long time and watched the job you and Pawlin, etc have done representing us - but I cannot fathom how anyone, player or (especially) developer can think this is a good idea.
What are the metrics? Is SOE's CSR's so overwhelmed with calls from stricken players that they feel the best way forward is to effectively gut a profession and cause a myriad of flowdown negative fallout? As mentioned here, Politicians, crafters, harvesters, merchants, droid engineers all have to deal with the consequences of this decision - and to date - I haven't seen one positive post on this from anyone - other than a generic "Well, it might be nice if you're stupid enough to forget your house payment."
Games have consequences. Whilst I totally understand the need to ease new players into the game and make it easier for them to get up and running, this type of protecting the stupid from themselves is unwarrented. Using this sort of protectionist, non consequential logic, can we expect to see players automatically rezzed and healed if they are foolish enough to attack a creature that cons red to them and get killed? Can we expect to see decay removed from armor and clothing if a player needs to reclone because they obviously didn't understand the need for caution around dangerous creatures? Hell, we already give every player a vehicle now effectively emasculating vehicle sales at the low end, we give them ships doing the same thing to shipwrights - are we going to give players as they join a new house in their inventory?
I've read, just as you all have, comments from the team members about improving the game especially for non combat type players. It has been specifically stated that this year was going to see a strong focus on exactly that once the combat upgrades had taken place. I can only imagine that some sort of fundamental change in mindset for the entire game is in store. Again, I am paranoid perhaps - but as an exclusive non combat player since day one, I can only see that changes have occurred that have shrunk the vision once espoused for noncoms, whist focusing continually on those who like to kill things. Again, I understand market dynamics and that players who like to kill things will always be more profitable than those who like to build things. I understand that they can up the loot and up the loot and up the loot until crafters are needed no more - whilst the converse in not true - fewer things to kill and more things to make will never bring more players - but a large part of the reason I am here and not playing WoW or EQII (which I own and have tried) is Raph's singular and unique understanding of crafting in games, economics in games and what makes games fun. Perhaps he has a headache or is on the loo a lot or something but it seems like a coup has occured internally and much of what Raph brought to the design of the game and what attracted me to the game has gone.
Yes, I know - it's a big rant based on whether or not houses rot or get maintenance from the bank - but it's another mile of road paved to the passing of the crafting classes. It's another exhibit in the defense's claim that the fundamental tenor of the game is being re-imagined and re-engineered. I'm against the change in the most strenuous terms imaginable. I'm against it for the in game outcomes I can see occuring and I am against it because I believe it is part of a larger design change - a design change we as players are not currently privy to and without which, we don't stand in any position to comment intellegently on the changes - and given this truth, I must oppose the change until I can see where exactly it is we are heading to together.
Respectfully
David Wallace/ Beladan
Message Edited by Beladan on 01-23-2005 09:50 PM
linusboarder
Sun Jan 23, 2005 10:09 pm
#25
Dvnce wrote:Lets get More Input.. I would like an larger number of posts to bring in with me on monday...Message Edited by Dvnce on 01-23-2005 10:21 AM
Tell them that you would get more input from archs if they didn't make Arch such an undesireable profession, therefore limiting the number of archs.
-it requires the most resources, but they sell for the least amount of creds
-Our sole job in the game is to provide buildings to other players, and they are making it harder with this downgrade
Seriah-EH
Sun Jan 23, 2005 10:15 pm
#26
this is potentially pretty bad....the only repeat customers i HAVE is the ones that let their stuff blow up....