Architect Archive

I think there should be decay onHarvesters and Factories only. I explained my thoughts in this in the other thread by the outsider and to me it makes perfect sense.

I think there is other ways we can make houses and furniture effectively differentiated without making them decay and making them an irritant to other players. The long and short of it is that moving part machinery that is exposed to the elements will break, sometimes irepairably. Capital expenditure is probably one of the bigger drivers of the real world economy and should be for us as well.

I think the decay should occur if they don't maintain the harvester, so it'll lose effectiveness from the lack of maintenance and only half of that loss can be fixed. Then over the long term people who don't maintain carefully will have to replace their equipment.

You can replace the regular income from constant decay by simply giving the architect credits against the maintenance paid. Anywhere from 1-5 percent would be more than sufficient to guarantee long term income. This is not to say the customer would lose that much, but that instead of disappearing back into the Monopoly Bank some pocket change would go to the architect, with maybe a weekly email how much income you got. I realize this is radically different from the way other classes earn money, but

1. It reflects the cost of maintaining infrastructure (the people who build it are usually contracted to maintain it).

2. You already track item usage with UXP, so it's not like the functions aren't already written.

3. It sets a good model for vehicles when they are introduced to the game: a 'Mechanic' class could also rely on this method to gain income from personal vehicles.

Aye Gis, Lowca

/agree structures

/disagree to furniture

As it is, the houses and harvesters already decay. That is why people pay maintenance fees. I would like to see a very small percentage of what people pay in the maintenance fees go to the architect that created the structure. Currently we pay our maintenance fees to the equipment, and the money goes to some obscure unknown place that does not help anyone. This will not change the game play, and everyone would be happy.

Menosan (Architect)

/agree Structure Decay

/disagree Furniture Decay

/agree both

/comment IF this is done then there need to be a craftable "repair kit" and/ or have this decay fixable by a droid. (I'm sure the DE will like me saying that) I fell this will help with game balance and will add more of the SW feel tot he game. After all that is what droids were really used for, since the clone army was so much more efficent that the droid army.

/comment 2

Forgot to add b4 decay is added the expermintation will need accually work.
5 Blocks form master Arch!

Post this poll in the Discussions Forum. Hmmmm, geeeee, I wonder what result you’ll have buy just posting it in the Architect Forum? Not to hard to figure out.

/disagree With introducing structure decay.
/disagree With introducing furniture decay.

The only way I’d accept structure decay is if I didn’t have to pay maintenance and instead of having to buy a completely new structure I cold buy a refurbishing kit or remodeling kit that I’d just have to deposit in or use on the structure to renew it.

A short message to Architects who want decay:

Get real about structure and furniture decay. Sure it happens in RL but on a very slow time scale. Things like weapons, armor, and cloths wear out much faster than homes and furniture.

/agreeWith introducing structure decay
/agree With introducing furniture decay

Comments: It's just a fact of life. If you want nice things, you've gotta take care of them. Cheap furniture breaks; Maybe quality furniture can last longer (furniture should last a long time, IMHO. Quality stuff should be like 6mo.) Houses need maintenance or they fall apart, that's common sense. Would be nice if players got paid for it, instead of "the bank". Maybe just a kickback on the maintenance fees paid on harvesters we've built, or a kickback to the closest arch in game when it's paid. Furniture maintenance could be centralized on the house's managment panel if we don't want to take quality into consideration. ie, when maintenance on a house isn't paid, the furniture decays with it?

The point is, it's doable, and I think whatever way it's implemented it's good economically and for better game involvement.

/agree with structure decay
/disagree with furniture decay

I think that Sony should put our experimentation in, give Master Architects the last 5 experimentation points. Have structures decay based upon their sturdiness at creation. Also allow architects to make 'repair kits' that can be deposited onto structures to bring them up to date - think pet vitality in a way.

You people bitching about removing maint costs, etc...you do realize that a harvester more than pays for itself in a week or less, right?

But repair kits are the way to go to help keep structures up to date and not needing replacement until they have been repaired a certain number of times.

/agree With introducing structure decay
/disagree With introducing furniture decay

I became a master architect within 2 weeks of the game start. Now one would think being only 1 of 3 master architets on Gorath I would stay and reap the benefits and get what I could out of the system. I payed for 3 months... till Oct. 27th... And I have not played, somewhat from the refusal to play a beta and pay for it, however mainly due to the fact that there was no economy for the future of architects. So even though they are considering putting decay in I do not see it happening in the next few months, maybe after the expansion.

~Damean
~Master Architect of Gorath

I disagree with decay. Peeps pay a maintenance fee as it is. In the 'real world' if you maintain a structure (IE pay for mainteance work) that structure will remain for decades and in many cases hundreds of years. As for furniture... perhaps, and intruduce a furniture repair tool.

/disagree With introducing structure decay
/disagree With introducing furniture decay

/disagree

/disagree

I am not an architect but I am a customer. I mostly gather resources and hence use your products. If heavy harvestors decayed it would not be economicallywise to own them. The medium harvestors are able to provide reasonable resource gathering at 1/10 the price.It has taken me a long time to accumulate the heavy harvestors that I currently own. The only way decay would work is if it is very slow decay. The game in the end is about fun not realism but for thesake ofargument how fast do you think the average oil drill takes to decay when maintinance is properly paid..... If Architects are worried aboutloss of cash flowhave part of the maint money go to the maker of the item. That at least would make sense.