Architect Archive

I'd say fix it.

There should be some advantage to being a master other than being able to build PA halls. It only makes sense that a Master can make a better factory or harvester than a novice. There will always be a market for lower end goods as long as those making the "better" structures would charge more (and I would hope they would).

I say fix it

As it stands now quite a few other artisian professionals will skill up the installations tree to make their own harvesters, this cuts out a large area of our market. These artisians will also make installations for their PA's their friends and the general public, if experimentation had meaning they would need to be at least 0/4/4/0 architects to continue to compete against full time masters for the same market.

With no value to experimentation the main competativeness in the architectual profession is pricing. If you are willing to cut your own throat to make a sale you can do so, with experimentation valued there is another scale of competitiion added which is needed. There's always someone willing to undersell ya but that same person may not be as willing to undersell if they have gone to the effort to make high quality merchandise. There will still be room for discount architects they just will no longer have the edge. I pride myself on providing high quality products but at the moment there's no reason to do so other than my own self worth and my strong belief that my use of better materials lowers my critical fail rate (see next statement).

Right now exploiters can bypass the critical fail process if they so choose, but by doing so they also bypass the experimentation phase. By adding value to experimentation exploiters no longer can produce the same quality of goods for the trade off of lesser fails and saves. By exploiting the critical fail stage those crafters can guarantee resource availabilty and not need to factor in critical fails in their pricing enabling them to sell lower than crafters that don't exploit the system. By removing the benefit of exploiting experimentation would remove a large number of exploiters.

Fix it.

At this point, the biggest problem faced by master architects is boredom. After you've built your 30th heavy mineral harvester, which is exactly like your first, building stuff gets dull. The long-term and short-term economics are of concern but, frankly, its the boredom that's close to chasing me out of the profession.

I think that experimentation will decrease the boredom factor by giving us a fresh challenge and exposing us to some of the more interesting and innovative aspects of the crafting game.

In terms of how it affects people seeking to join the profession: First, it is too easy to make master architect, precisely because a harvester or factory built by a novice is every bit as good as a house built by a master. This has resulted in an oversupply of master architects. Introducing quality will somewhat handicap novices, but not as badly as novice weaponsmiths. Basically, you can't give away a second-rate weapon because a second-rate weapon can (and will) get you killed.

A second-rate harvester is another matter; its just a matter of economics. For example, a 10% difference in maintenance cost is worth about 1000 credits per week, making a higher-maintenance harvester only somewhat less valuable. Havesting rate is the area where the devs need to be very careful. With a resource price of 3 credits per resource and a 70% concentration, a 10% increase in yield for a medium harvester is worth 8500 credits per week. This is large enough to result in a HUGE price differential between novice- and master- quality harvesters.

fix it

make such things such as improved effectiveness, lower maintnance, and my favorite lower lot size on items

make it based on the actualy resources stat not a particular type

like dont make an add on that needs thalliam copper and lokian hides make it higher UT or whatever the unit calls, and make it strait experimentation like weaponsmiths etc

also if you do this add info on the deed itself saying

pa hall

1400 maintnace, uses 6lots, no power requirement

.

this will help people not getting scammed by someone saying sure this large house is only 1 lot, and costs 30-credits per day to run, on a crappy product

-biana

wanderhome

I vote for fixing it.

What you say about starting out is true... it'll be difficult until you're able to experiment a little better. But to a certain extent, that's the way it should be. People *should* prefer Master Architect-built products, and they should have to pay more for them. But to keep it reasonable, I'd make the difference between low-end and high-end be relatively small, say 10-15% improvement maximum. Enough to make it worthwhile for those who are seeking the best peformance and are willing to pay for it, but not enough to push Novices out of the market completely.

As for needing to find high-quality resources and causing the prices of high-quality resources up, that's the way it is for everyone else, so why not us?

And as for adding experimental failures to the list of hazards for Architects, I don't see a problem there either. Experimentation is inherently risky, and if you can't afford to end up with a low-end product once in a while, then you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. In the long run, once you have some Construction skill under your belt, you should end up with more successes than failures, which puts you ahead of the game.

Now, as I wrote that I thought of another potential impact: this may change how us small-timers who work on a build-to-order basis do business. Someone placing an order may require a certain minimum quality... what do you do if the experimentation doesn't go well enough? Again, I don't see that as a game problem, we'll just have to adapt. (Perhaps make sure there are always extra parts available so we can try again, and just sell the failed attempt off later?)

Anyway, I'd much prefer that our experimentation system actually meant something. Though, as I said, it shouldn't mean *everything*.

Fix it,

Come on folks it has no issues to fix it, if you want to sell your plan jane harvsters for 3cpu do it, but if I want to experiement and get 10k/h from a heavy then I should. Maybe you get lucky and hit a 70% carbonate ore spot with 893 toughness like I did last week. I want to take advantage of that.

Why be a master architec at that point, just take installations 4 and make heavies all day long.

Heh... as an afterthought, this might help the Architect pricing structure a bit. Those running around demanding structures for less than 3 credits per resource can get the experimental failures, and those willing to pay a more resonable price can get the good stuff.

There is a chance that no lowend ones would exist.

How about if the effciency is raised the maintenance cost also increases(more of a % than the effciency). Or make the storage smaller so you have to travel out to them more. There are things that can be used to balance out the bonuses. They don't all just need to be good bonuses like more dmg on a weapon. I can't think of a negative for that.

withdraw my earlier vote, I am totally on the fence here.

There are some really good points in this thread.

/disagree

There are better ways of dealing with the money-making aspects of Architect. Increasing their initial costs in will make harvesters more expensive to make, driving up Novice and independent prices while enabling established organizations to raise their prices to make more money and continue selling harvesters under their owncosts and flood the market with harvester prices no independent can even hope to get down to.

Besides, that's what maintenance is all about. If you don't pay up your harvesters maintenance, it falls apart and you have to buy a new one. That, and maintenance theoretically keeps your harvester working at an optimum level that prevents any noticeable level of decay from creeping in. If your car gets premium car care every day, it takes years before you need to replace anything in it, and that just means you spend more money on keeping it in optimum shape...like Maintenance. Why make harvetsers fall apart in TWO different ways instead of just the highly effective one that's already in place?

Fix it.

Make sure the experimental bonuses are small but noticeable. Something in the range of 20% or less on maintenance fee efficiency, harvester capacity, harvesting rate, etc. This way there is a reason for the master architect to exist and sell better products than the newbies who are selling their wares for anything they can get.

If the bonuses are small, then even if we get a horrible result the end product is still worth something, just not top dollar.

For the long term health of the profession we should fix it. Durability, efficiency and storage of structures is one of the strongest ways the dedicated architect (Master or otherwise) will be able to differentiate themselves. Price point, free delivery and quick turn around as differentiators are what we currently have. Surely we can do better!

Theodis Darkstar

Master Architect, NHoC

Kaadara Naboo 5260 6060

Corbantis

Lose it.

Because of the amounts of resources we need, I dont think that fixing it is a viable solution.