Architect Archive

Ashamed?

Ashamed that Architects want to have a meaning and purpose to experimentation?

Ashamed that Architects want to have a long term role in the Star Wars Economy?

You make a huge and insulting leap of logic that the only reason anyone would go along with such a thing is based on greed. It makes sense and would add the distinction of quality to the Architected products. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are wrong greedy evil doers and it sure as heck doesn't mean you are a great nice guy.

Save the opinions for the editorials.

Fidg'Ter

This is just disgusting. Most of you guys are looking at this only from your perspective. Let me give you mine:

I *finally* saved up enough credits to replace my small house with large one on naboo. I pay my maintenance fees to keep the house up-and-running. I've been collecting those unique, miscellaneous items from all over the game to display in my house (I've created a SWG museum of sorts). I've got close to 200 items in my house now.

Now I hear you want my house to decay and ultimately disintegrate? Are you GOD-DAMNED serious? Have you any idea what I paid for that house, what I pay for maintenance on that house, and what it'll take for me to purchase a new one, move all the items out (to someplace), try to plunk down a new house on the same location, and then move all those items back?

Are think you guys are smoking something for breakfast, man. There is WAY TOO MUCH tedium and boredom in the game coming from the Devs themselves without you (to those I'm talking to) money-grubbing (fill-in-the-blank) adding to it. It's bad enough that I have to pay bills and perform other "have-tos" in RL. I didn't sign up for this game to do the very same. I came here to relax and have fun.

Having the means to repair the decay like you do with weapons and armor is the way to go and I think how often is critical. If a well maintained house lasts 1 full year of real time I don't see this as an earth shattering matter. If you don't bother with getting it maintained that's your own fault. To compensate the maintenance costs should be reduced.

If a house decays to 0 it shouldn't vanish as this would clearly cause some major headaches for CSR and Players alike. At that point you shouldn't be able to drop anything new into it until you get it repaired.

Fidg'Ter

"Most of you guys are only look at this from your perspective"

Well, to start with this IS the Architects forum. I don't consider it ironic that Architects would talk about these issues from an Architect perspective on the Architect Forum. As Architects talking about Architect issues on the Architect forum we talk about stuff from our perspectives, that of Architects. Should we go talk about this on the Chefs forum instead? Would that make you happy?

Now I do see other perspectives on this. I have a well appointed house and a fleet of harvesters. In fact, the implimentation of this would have a negative impact on architects more than anyone else since we have the largest material requirements in the game thus have the strongest dependence on harvesters.

Some things from an Architect Perspective

Our business will run out and we will be unemployeed in the Long Run. If it is greedy to desire to have a business 6 months to a year from now, then I'm greedy. If you think you should make a purchase and never ever have to replace it again while I'm on a street corner with a rusty cup in my hand I would consider YOU to be the greedy one. Sorry, that's my perspective.

With experimentation lower skilled Architects will find themselves short on work. Having the ability to do maintenance work on structures would provide experience and business for them. It could also even make it desirable for a Master to employee thesearchitects to effect repairs.

Fidg'Ter

PS: I will respond negatively and with anger when a community is insulted on their own forums. If you don't like it go to the Chef forum and we'll talk about it there.

I am against decay (as I say this again!) for many reasons

1. houses are a luxury that people if they want can and will avoid buying

2. decay works best for big PA based Architects who can have 50 or so people go and get resources that a single architect could not. (see poll to see how many people do things by self!)

3. I can see making houses not redeedable (in fact am totally for it!)

4. Experimentation is a joke and should be removed - experimentation is a blockade to the profession that will be unsurmountable. As a beginner you would only be able to make a very bad product that no one will buy where as the masters will be the only ones able to sell because they have the most experimentation points... and further more only human and mon cal will be able to compete in this upper bracket (human because of the extra experimentation point and mon cal due to the +10 structure bonus. (ie: see the weaponsmiths!)

5. this game will no longer be a casual game - you will have to go hardcore to be able to get the best materials all the time and probably you would have to be a member of a largePA as well(more sothenthe other crafting professions who do this... your material requirements will be 100fold worse!)

6. the cost of materials you buy if you can't produce everything yourself will skyrocket because of the miner having to buy a new harvestorquite often+ with the experimentation his cost per harvestor will probably skyrocket due to a limited supply of the "super" harvestors

7. I can see adding a limited form of decay in the long run... something like a 5% increase in maintence a month to harvestors until it becomes more economic for them to blow em up and replace them. this would be a long term thing though more in line with how equipment dies...

8. furniture should have no decay but maybe schematics should die off... leaving furniture types that are old to not be reproducable (therefore even creating an antiquies market ^_-) and they should be replace with new styles and/or colours and patterns.

thank you all ^_^

Here is my thoughts,

If you are not making money then try another trade.

If your so worried about this so called economy and your survival in a game of all things then why bother with architic, there are plenty of career moves you could make...

When i became a architic i knew full well that i wouldnt get rich off of it. In fact i knew that there would be so manyarchitics that it wouldbe a miracle to sell even one house so i decided to go two paths instead of relying on one. You all need to take a break from your in game jobs, Go on vacation... YOU NEED A BREAK.

Instead of decay, make the houses rentles, with the option of costomizing the way the blue prints look, move a wall change the color give it windows you can actually see through.

the maintinance fee will remain but the money will go to the architect that made it and by making it so that an architect can costomize it, you shouldnt see too many archy's twiddling there thumbs.

Will this work, most likely not. It's an idea and im done with the debate...

I'd prefer new GWC structures over decay in the current structures. Architects are the only ones that benefit from structure decay. It could potentially cause real heartache for some players when their house deteriorates into flames and they loose all their stuff. Its already pretty tragic if someone is unable or forgets to pay their maintenance.

GWC items would have built in renewable income. And I think everyone in the game would like to have the opportunity to buy and use them. SO everyone is happy.

The original poster is way off base trying to attribute greed to the motivation for wanting decay.

For the most part I think people who are wanting decay are looking for a way to make the architect profession viable long term. That is understandable and I completely agree in principal.

However I continue to believe that decay is a terrible way to approach the problem. All other problems with it aside there is a near certainty that it will never reach wide enough acceptance with the general player base to be implemented. Decay has been pitched and shot down now several times. The tune is old, time to start a new song up.

For the sake of architecture profession I say decay is an idea that needs to replaced with ones that are not only acceptable to the player base at large but ideas that they will champion for us.

- GCW structures. They do not need decay, they get blown up. Also experimentation matters.
- Additional harvesters, possible some that are consumable (and inexpensive to make relative to other architect structures) like a fish trap.
- Color customizations to furniture and houses or perhaps kits to color houses so they can be changed in place. Consumable of course, and have complex subcomponents so they are a crafting challenge with special organics for colors to get architects off of ore all the time.
- More schematics
- Building re-deed tools. This one is borderline so there should be some advantage to using these, like reducing re-deed cost. However that may not fly with the devs.
- enter more non-decay ideas here...

I am all for making architecture work long term but you have to find a solution that is going to work for your customers not against them. Stop trying to punish people for having buildings. You have to give people a reason to want to come to you, not because they need to come to you.

I think if we give the whole decay thing a rest we might actually make some progress, but until we do we are gonna just keep spinning our wheels arguing about this.

Well, the original poster's point was..

SOME architects are wanting decay to satisfy their renewable income problems. The problem with this is, they are wanting something that will NEGATIVELY effect the players in order to keep their pockets filled. Relying on something negative for the playerbase to make something positive for you is total and utter greed.

Architects that want decay so they can have a renewable income are the same type of people that go sell generators with a 1000% markup to hurricane vicitms or charge them $2000 just to move that tree that fell over and other price gouging techniques. The same type of people rely on negative things in RL to make a profit. Same thing here. You are relying on a negative thing to the players to make a profit.

My point is, instead of relying on something negative to make a profit, why not have something that is POSITIVE to the players and that will provide a renewable income. Have soemthing that will HELP the players, not HURT them.

If you can't understand that, then I put you in the same position as people that prey on victims of hurricanes and other negative impacts on their lives to make a little money for yourself.

Two words:

Architect missions!

Give them something to do when business is slow. They make money and non-architects do not get nerfed.

Fengo

Working on architect myself and the thought of a possible filling up market did cross my mind. But I am not going to ditch the profession yet =) Being a home owner myself I don't like the idea of home decay. I've spent enough time getting everything the way I like it. If I had to do that every three months I wouldn't bother with a house, or furniture. I would probably also ditch my harvesters for money making and just do faction missions. Look at how many of your products I would be buying then.

Of the ideas mentioned in the post so farI like the idea of the redeeding sort of decay and the GCW items the best. Basically the idea that your deed only has so many placements works for me. My house isn't likely to move all that much so I don't have to worry about losing my things. But if the redeeds were still high enough to make harvesters profitable then it would be fine.

Here are a couple of my ideas that expand on the ones already mentioned.

House modules: Every house can have a certain number of modules in them. Small 1, medium 2, large 3. They could all have different special abilities for your home. For example maybe there could be a chemical extractor module that samples a small amount of all the chemicals available around the house. Maybe 1kg/h (or whatever harvesters go by). But of all the different chemicals. It would make the maint. cost of a house not all that bad. Here are some other module ideas. Spot lights! Cool spot lights (architects customize different colours) that shoot out the roof of the building into the sky. Maybe put an optionin the client to shut those off so people who don't want to see them don't have to . Medical modules for auto wound healing, pet cages, gardens,etc. Camp like modules that repel aggressive creatures. I'm sure you can come up with lots of other ideas. But basically it would make houses more interesting and maybe everybody would want to own at least one if they could get a module that could assist them.

Now here is the catch. The house modules would have a time limit. Makes it feel a bit like armorsmith shield gens. I think (but not literally). So you buy a module and you know it is going to last a week. But their perks outweight the cost and you keep coming back for them every once in awhile.

I also think architects should be able to capitalize on the new player cities. How about GCWish perks for the city militia? What about fortified buildings/positions were only militia members can enter and they can shoot at people who aren't suppose to be in town but the badies have to destroy the structure before they can hit the milita members. Experimentation would make tougher structures, maybe more positions for more militia members in one structure. Small cities would want whatever they could get maybe while the larger ones would want really thick master architect ones. Nice big watch towers basically =)

Just a couple thoughts. I just hope whatever they add is fun. I don't think house decay is a fun feature at all.

1. houses are a luxury that people if they want can and will avoid buying

WHAT?????

Everyone I know wanteda house the first week rofl.

Maybe you didnt but everyone I know wanted to know when they were getting theirs made, price was no problem.