Architect Archive

I had several old heavies down on naboo today that had an extraction rate of 10. According to the formula posted there maint rate should have been 114 cr/hr, which is was. As soon as I moved them and palced them again the rate went up to 138 cr/hr . So I redeeded one again and still stayed at 138 cr/hralong with costing me 6900 just to redeed it thinking that may fix it.

Hmm... it was just pointed out to me that something strange happened when I posted, but I've said more than enough for now, so rather than try to fix it, I'll close my mouth.

Thanks everyone for your input.

GreenMarine, can you give us some insight as to what things will be fixed and when the hotfix will be applied?

I dont want to waste my time and resources cranking out heavy's with a rate 13, and the insane 186 maintenance cost, if things are going to change again.

Cagliostro, Master Architect

I've been seeing some odd maintanance phenomenom since the patch, too. Didn't document it, though.

Greenmarine wrote:

"I apologize for the problems. We didn't test harvesters enough on TC."

Its ok, we're used to it by now.

- Pahbi

GreenMarine,

I can confirm it's still a problem as of 12:30pm 11/15. I just dropped down a Deep Crust Mining installation with an extraction rate of 10 at the maintenance is 138cr. Ouch!

Thanks for your close attention to this matter. We appreciate it...

Maya

I just dropped a 13 rate mineral on corbantis and i have a base of 138 plus modifier of 48 to give me a grand total of 184 per hour.

OUCH

Greenmarine, i am sure you hotfixed something thatwasntreallywrong. The tissue is another one.

What some people interpreted as adding additional maintenance every redeed was something else. I will try to explain it here. Since patch the maintenance for harvesters is:

(maintenance rates are in credits per hour. see the link in my previous post for all the data)

cur_maintenance_rate =base_maintenance_rate + (cur_extraction_rate - 7) * 16

For example a new placed rate 10 medium harvester should have a maintenance rate of 108 cr/h after placing it. You also changed the maintenance rate of harevsters that were allready placed befor the patch. For those harvesers you applied another forular:

cur_maintenance_rate =base_maintenance_rate + (cur_extraction_rate - 7) * 8

So What people with allready placed harvesers were observing with an rate 11 heavy mineral intalation is for example: Before patch maintenance was 90 cr/h, after patch the still placed harvester has a maintenance of 122 cr/h. 32 more than before. Then they redeed the thing and now it has a maintenance rate of 154 cr/h.64 more than prepatch (2*32), 32 more than before. So they think the additional mainenance of 32 cr will be added every redeed. But when you redeed the harvester again (what i did) the maintenance is still at 154 cr/h.

I am not sure what maintenance rate was intended. But i am sure there was never an additional increase of maintenance per redeed. There uses two different formulars for maintenance rate. One for still placed harvesters and one for new placed harvesters. The time when those harvesters were build does not matter.

The maintenance forular should be thought over anyway. I posted a link to a table of six different formulars above with all resulting maintenance rates and harvester efficientcies. If the current formular is really the one that was intended than heavy harvesters are extremly expensive (price and maintenance) and experimented personal harvesters are uber (e.g. rate 4 mineral at 30 r/h or rate 9 wind generator).

Another very confusing thing is the display of maintenance rate on the deed itself. It is allway half of the base maintenance rate. It should be the current maintenance rate.

I did some exessive testing the last two days. I sent serveral 100k cr (including building worthless harvesters) and i hope i was woth it. I will be woth it when we get this fixed.

Between me and my partners in our PA mining firm, we have well over 50 harvesters out and running at any one time. We have dozens of clients on the Kauri server who have current contracts for both existing and future resources.

Unless I continue to browse these boards this morning and see that a definite, CONFIRMED fix to these issues has been pushed to the Live servers, I'm going to stop placing harvesters, and will email all of our people to do the same. Harvesters that are currently running, I'll tell them to leave in place.

However, if we can't confirm independently this morning that the horrible increase in power consumption is just a refresh/display bug, I would imagine we'll be ripping them all up until this gets fixed.

And that damned DOUBLED redeed cost has to GO, Brandon!!

You guys posting these last few comments need to go back and read the rest of the thread. The higher maintenance costs for rates over 7 are intended and not going away. GreenMarine is only trying to fix the redeed problem which is causing the extra cost to be added on each time you redeed.

In fact, if you do the calcualtions, the higher maintenance cost is not a disaster. Essentially we have been getting a big rate boost without any additional cost. Now it costs more, but not as much as the orginal maintenance. The original 7 points of rate comes at almost 13 credits per rate point per hour. Anything over 7 you get at 8 credits per rate point per hour. Although it's not free anymore, at least it costs less.

How are Experimented Fusions being affected by the increase in maintainence over BER? IE are the maintainence costs for a BER 16 the same as a BER 13 or have they been ammended as well?

Thanks Dragan for all that info, hopefully it'll help GreenMarine pin down the problem. I just created two harvesters last night (well more, but I only placed the ones I made for me ) one was a rate 12 and one was a rate 13. The rate 12 had a maintenance rate of something like 162 (130) and the 13 was 170 (138). That's a huge cost right there....very brutal. The number in parenthesis seems to be the one that should be applied, but instead I'm getting charged the first number and I don't know why. Also, when I was experimenting the 12, it *was* at rate 13 when I started experimenting on capacity, but a critical failure in capacity experimentation knockedthe ratedown to 12. I wasn't aware that a critical failure in experimentation in an unrelated area of experimentation affected the entire harvester. Also, it may be wise in the future on TC to do what you did with mounts and pass out resources so people can create miners and test them. TC is there to be used and abused, if you can't then it's of no use to you guys. I also wish you publicized this whole maintenance issue more so that there could be more feedback from the players. This kinda felt like a stealth nerf unless you were lucky enough to read a few choice posts. Thanks for the hard work!

Would it be possible to temprarily wave harvester redeeding costs for a few days or so until everything is sorted out on this? 1) Having to redeedharvesters to fix them is exceptionally expensive to players and 2)It would be a nice way of saying "We're sorry" for a change that was completely undocumented in the patch notes that was also bugged on top of being undocumented. Then once the /bug and ticket system is fixed as well, you should have a lot less open tickets to go through where CSR's need to refund credits to players who have been taking the patch notes for their word that redeeding their harvesters would fix the problems.