Architect Archive

Hmm sorry way to many spelling mistakes in above post. I will check it next time.

You have it backwards inflictor.

In the early days no one had a house or structure and the first architects could sell for as high as they wanted too and did, any fool could be a sucuessfull businessman architect in the early days. Now the sellers market has turned into a buyers market where the people selling for less are the ones doing the most busienss and customers shop around for the best price because there is more supply then demand.

It is themarket that sets the price.

The way to slow what is going on is decay as shoud have been implemented from the begining like other craftable items do ( or should have ). But the early weeks of SWG are gone for good, never again will there be a time when almost no one has a structure and everyone wants one.

The sellers market is gone for good, even if they dointroduce decay. It will change things for the better, but it wont turn it back inot a sellers market.

I understand you dont like it, yours is not the only opinion.

There can be no business in any profesion that does not have items either used up or decay in some fassion. We architects would like to retain an architiect business profesion.

Should I now say all I hear from you is Waaaaaaaaa!! Waaaaaaa!! I dont want decay?

Hmm. Me again, posting way to late... or early.

The one problem I have with the comparison between weaposmiths & architects is maintenance. I understand why we have it. It's necessary, or the economy becomes full of money, and money becomes virtually worthless. But while my gun or sword decays, I only have to pay the initial cost for it. It's not like the Final Fantasy type attacks where you can spend money on damage. (Wouldn't that be fun!)

What this means is that the architect is in an unenviable position. I consider the weaponsmiths to be the second most essential crafting class to the economy because most money comes through combat missions, and most combat depends on weapons. All other crafters except onemake 'luxury' goods. They are useful, they assist in making money or what have you, but they are not necessities.

I'm sure you realize that the only other neccessity class is the Architect. Without the Architect crafters are reduced to personal harvesters and hand sampling. That being the case, the devs were left with only 2 real choices for their money sink to go, and chose maintenance on harvesters over some sort of cost on weapons. So architects are a neccessity class, but not anongoing neccessity class.

If architects are two thrive, then it seems there are two main paths. First, as is being discussed, implement harvester decay. This turns the architects into a sustained neccessity class, just like weaponsmiths, but it does so by applying a tax to the rest of the populace by increasing the cost of resources, and thus the cost of all other crafted goods. Second, in addition to the startup neccessity of harvesters, give Architects some sort of sustainable 'luxury' goods. This will avoid the tax on other players, and keep the barrier to entry for new players from rising.

Obviously I favor the second Being a luxury goods class won't put you in the same category as weaponsmith, but you will have the advantage that starting crafters, or those who's harvesters were destroyed, or what have you need your goods. And when the harvesters aren't needed, you could still have a sustainable sideline selling some of the things I suggested earlier. And the starting crafters wouldn't be too burdened, and it wouldn't add another huge twist in an already screwed up economy.

As a side note, I don't think the devs intended for architects to be the sole throttle on resources, by not selling their equipment. The entire harvester maintenance was designed to suck money from the economy, and the more of it the better. Or at least that's how I took them reducing the payouts for missions. Hmm. I'm rambling again. Point I'm making is that I think selling heavy harvesters to anyone who'd buy was what the devs intended. They just didn't really think through what would happen when the market was saturated with them.

I can't think of a good closing statement, so it's just time to hit submit.

Good post Jianti, I waiting to see what happens with player Cities and how they are implemented and what rules they come under.

Once they come in we will see the true state of the architects future in the game. I was rteading somewhere that player cities must be at leat 3 - 5000k from current cities. That being the case I onl;y see room for 3 - 5 per planet ( that we are aloud to build on ).

Its possible that the devs may put all the decay into the banks, cantinas and shuttle ports while at the same time make those buildings into massive cash and resource sinks so that only very few PA's can afford them and even then it will eventually drain them dry if they dont expand and allow other smaller PA's in to help pay the bills.

Harvesters are still my main way of keeping us going long term. The less other classes can use them the longer we will be requierd to keep making them. Even a simple rule that only master Architects can use heavy harvesters and Novice Architects can use medum harvesters will reduce the resources available to the galaxy and increase the value of our items and resource selling potential.