Architect Archive

Houses and Furniture decay = bad idea (how would you like to have your house decay on you when you have over 100k units of resources in it? no this is a horrid idea, not just bad)

Harvesters and Factory decay = good idea (and quite logical)

Khel - Flurry

MBE/MCH

Just because the current model of house maintenance involves the house and the resources in it to disappear that doesnt mean that the proposed decay on houses sould work the same way.

In fact there have been several constructive suggestions of implementing decay without the need of your resources and items stored in your house to disappear. I think its the only option viable if decay wold be implemented without loss of items.

On the other hand...

Quote: "Houses and Furniture decay = bad idea (how would you like to have your house decay on you when you have over 100k units of resources in it? no this is a horrid idea, not just bad)"

Well, we dont like it, but that happens already if you dont pay maintainance fee and its buggy too since it happens sometimes even when you pay the fee.

So you bought your water harvesters this week... great... are you planning on buying more next week, or the week after? No.. of course not... so you are one more customer for those that has just been removed from the market.

Actually, you flaming dufas, I DO buy new water harvesters every week. It costs more to redeed them than I buy them for.

As for the rest of your asinine dribble, you have ignored one fact in every reply you have ever posted: The player base is constantly turning over. You WILL NEVER run out of customers. Hell actually, you will make money even if the player base does not turn over. Sooner or later, every player will max out their current characters and get bored. Many of them will start an alt. character on another server. Those players will buy houses, furniture, etc. too.

And no, if you would read what I have posted, you would see that I HAVE NOT said "no structure decay." (If you are having reading problems, I am willing to send you "post on tape" so you can confirm.) What I have said is (1) I don't like house decay, but agree that you should not be able to redeed houses; (2) furniture should never decay; and (3) harvesters probably should decay (although I think that simply preventing redeeding after 24 hours would also fix this problem...why should you simply be able to pick up and move a whole installation?)

I specifically used furniture as an example ONE OF MANY products that architects sell. Not as the only thing architects sell. You yourself said you are selling harvesters. Congratulations. You are making money. Shut up. I am sick of you taking one example I used to show that architects can still make money and taking it out of context. The other person said architects currently have no one to sell to, I said that is bull because I bought some stuff from an architect last night. You can read nothing more into this (assuming you are actually reading).

Technically, all the armorsmiths in the game could quit tomorrow. Do you see me whining for the devs to try to get armorsmiths not to quit? No, it is a hypothetical non-issue. The same goes for you. Until the customer base STOPS turning over and people STOP buying structures, this is a non-issue. You are speculating about something that may never happen.

IMHO, the problem is not market, it is that everyone and their brother has taken up architect. I do not know a SINGLE artisan (weaponsmith/armorsmith/etc.) who has not taken up architect. There are too many of you. That is why I started this thread in the first place. There NEEDS to be some sort of artificial (NPC) market for architect goods so that everyone who wants to be an architect can do so without instilling some sort of draconian "decay tax" on all other players. I'm not saying architect should have ONLY an NPC market, I am saying their market needs a boost.

Decay = Architect welfare. Too many architects? Nothing for architects to do (arguably...it will never happen)? I know...lets tax the hell out of all other players, ruining their gaming experience, because PosiTec "think[s] this game should be worthwhile for anyone else thatwants to play the class in thefuture." Good job!

Your cluelessness is almost unbelievable,

None of us care ifpersonal harvestors decay.. We are talking aobut heavy and Med harvestors, and if you dont redeed them and just replace them , Id like to be your supply.

It cost me 3k to move a heavy, chicken feed compared to the price to build them.

Decay doesnt have to mean "poof", decay can just mean higher pay mantenance until you decide to make it go poof yourself on your own schedule.

What's the difference, I still have to move everything in my house sooner or later (assuming you put decay on houses). This suggestion is a practical poof. "No it doesn't MAKE youbuy a new houseand move everything in your house, BUT if you don't do so, you will pay every single credit you have to keep from having to do so."

This is an artificialdistinction. "No that's not a carrot...it's a orange, pointed, round thing with green at the top."

None of us care ifpersonal harvestors decay.. We are talking aobut heavy and Med harvestors, and if you dont redeed them and just replace them , Id like to be your supply.

It cost me 3k to move a heavy, chicken feed compared to the price to build them.

Ok...do you see a problem here?*waiting.....waitng.....waiting....waiting* "Ahhhhhh....maybe the cost to redeed on heavy and medium harvesters is too low. Maybe we should petition to raise it."

Go team!

There is a HUGE diference.

If you increase pay mantenance ( slowly ) instead of making things go poof it changes everything. People can make their own decisions about when they replace, you never come on line and find everything has disappeared. The difference is enormous.

They should move the contol panel to the outside of a house, make it un-enterable ( by anyone ) if the pay mantenance is not paid up and just slowly increase it over time. Have it start out at half of what we pay right now and add 10% every 2 weeks.

Simple

The only time a house should go poof is if it has had no pay mantneance for 30 days.

Yes I see a problem, I think efficiency should decrease over time and pay maintenance should increase over time. I wouldn’t mess with re-deeding at all ( with an extractor ), that isn’t the issue. I would notallow anything that could slow the decay rate except maybe experimentation when it was created. But no pay maintenance would increase the speed of efficiency dropping and maintenance costs increasing.

So you just let you water harvesters burn.. excellent... I guess they are personals.. so no work there for the Architect (You do know they aren't an architect skill?).

You are advocating no decay. That means an eventual end to Architects selling ANYTHING.

House demand will die first... then harvester demand... and finally furniture demand.

Your coment about player turnover is laughable... what % of the population do you think we turn over each month? How many of those leaving pass on their house and harvesters to friends and guildmates... how many just sell their accounts?

You wouldn't care if all the armorsmiths left? hahahaha..... you would 3 months from now.... but of course you know darn well there is NO CHANCE of them leaving, because they have a little thing called DECAY.

About the only thing you said that makes any sense at all for the economy is stopping people move their house. Thats a good start, and one I agree with.

You can be as rude as you like but it wont change the fact that SOE will HAVE to impliment some form of decay on EVERYTHING in order to preserve the crafting classes they have spent so long to create.

I didnt flame you, I pointed out holes in your argument. Your insults are a sure sign i hit a nerve.

Have a nice day.

Reeka,

Although 99% of the stuff you have posted is great, you are little off on one point on this one.

You respond to several "I won't buy any more architecture" arguments by saying "you have already bought, you won't buy anything more." You are missing 2 key points:

(1) You are ignoring the key fact that the player base is constantly turning over. There ARE players who are coming into the game that would have bought a house, but will notdo so with decay changes because it is too much of a pain in the rear. Most combat classes will ditch their houses (and not buy upgrade houses or further furniture), and more importantly new combat classes won't buy in the first place.

The people who are saying "I will get rid of my house" are really saying "no one like me will buy a house either."

(2) Why hurt players who currently own houses, just to punish them because they have a house? These players are saying "these changes won't help you, because I won't buy another house."Architects are saying "fine, you don't deserve to have a house then, it should decay and you don't deserve tokeep yourhouse." This is a troll, piss-poor attitude. Why should you be able to hurt others players fun (taking their house away) so that you can make no further profit off of it?

This is the reason for this thread (despite the fact that many of you architects are unimaginitive trolls that refuse to step out of the box and accept any solution except decay). Any solution to the architect "problem" (in quotes because it is purely hypothetical) need to (1) actually fix the problem, and (2) not hurt other players to fix the problem.

House decay hurts players. Furniture decay hurts players. Harvester decay...artisans make money, they can afford it, go for it. HOWEVER, I think problems for all 3 of these classifications would be solved by either (1) taking away redeeding, or (2) increasing redeeding costs on houses and harvesters to the point where it is more cost-efficient to buy a new harvester.