Architect Archive

---

Arturun wrote:

How about the ability to create a small house "core", similar to that of armor for armorsmiths, and as you get higher in Architect, add on other rooms to that and see a blueprint of the structure.

---

Arturun, have you seen my Modular Architecture: A Redesign Proposal thread?

--Flatfingers

Well, work has been extremely busy for the past three weeks and is expanding expotentially. Sufficed to say, I've had almost no time for SWG the past week and am now finally posting this on the issue of admin sharing.

First off, I want to make sure that we both know I'm specifically addressing the comment on the need to change the manner in which admin functions. There is no need to change this.

From my position, we're fundamentally talking about which playstyle is valid, here, not any question of fairness. Fairness got shot out the window when people were allowed to camp POIs for months to YEARS on end and reap hundreds of millions of credits worth of game loot because they purchased the right items from other users for real money. SOE knew this, tracked it, and refused to acknowledge publicly that there was ever any problem. Meanwhile, all but literally one small group, or in most cases, one player per server, disrupted the ability for everyone else to experience gameplay. In the case of crosslot harvestors, the only thing keeping people from playing is economic prudence, not span of control.

I bring up the AFK camping issue because the recent changes with the CURB have done nothing but make the people doing THAT become even more specialized. Essentially, they had to learn to write better macros and the behavior is still being rewarded.

Dvnce brings up the fact that his playstyle doesn't seem to be promulgating after the CURB and blames crosslot activites as a major detractor to that playstyle: defined as others going out, gathering resources and then selling to him at a discount over the normal 3 to 5 cpu I see ore and other grind materials sell for on at least 6 different servers. However, his first proposition to "deal" with the problem isn't anything to enhance his chosen playstyle, it'sonly harm others that band together in game to form communities. This mentality and the acceptance of it are what drive the developers of this game to whip out the nerfbat on a daily basis. No one at most of the correspondent level, nor the developers wants to accept that you can make the game better without detracting from others' play.This is notablyseen with the current AT-ST "fixes", nerfing the pet to level 65 means it no longer has any value whatsoever, and will never be used again.

Crosslot trading is, and will continue to be in that same vein unless you completely eliminate the ability for admin to be share, whatsoever. Limiting admin will have immediate consequences on all shared gameplay though for same server associations. The pros and cons are many and varied. One pro that comes to mind immediately is my current situation. I've worked very hard to get both old and new players into our guild, working together to achieve in-template status for all guild members, completion of padawan quests for all guild members, and to reestablish the commercial viability of the guild since there was such as large exodus after the CURB. Making my guild leaders micromanage every activity through a trade window will make shared lot resources useless, if not kill the guild communities completely. If it came to that I would become one of the wealthiest businessmen on my server as I would be able to control more lots that probably 90% of the population, and frankly would have no other choice but to do so since the value of my guild community of my game would be completely removed.

The way I see it...

Current system

Pros:

1. Allows a central group of individuals to manage acquisition of resources and take little time away from the playstyle of others in order to promote either a single for-profit entity or a guild organization that benefits all members to elevate their play to a more productive level of achievement. Benefits all members in the group on their current server.

2. Places responsibility on those that desire such to manage resources fairly in order to make the benefits inclusive to all participating members.

3. Lets people take a break for being locked into a template, whether combat, crafting or other support type. Activities with year-long goals can be achieved through working together to manage structures over a large group of participants. This is attributable to someone else being able to either pay maintenance, monitor collection (harvestors), or monitor use (factories and houses), or allocate storage (again factories or houses).

4. Utilizes lots of participants to store materials that must be collected over long periods (I have seen 16 months required to collect proper resource sets for schematics).

5. Allows security for the jedi community by having private structures they can access for safety that the guild collectively owns. For example, our guild cantina is private since SOE refuses to fix the entry list after TWENTY MONTHS of us asking and sending in tickets regularly to address the problem. If we couldn't put them on admin there would be no means around the bug that has been on player structure cantinas for their entire existence.

6. Allows forward staged meeting halls for guild hunts, activities and exploration.

7. Allows for communal factories that all can use and can be managed through a central coordinator.

8. Brings new players into the game and the economy of the game without getting screwed over by hawkers.

Cons:

1. Allows the cross-lot of fields of harvestors that run independent of any interactivity between players whatsoever and allows viable baronies of resources to be sold cheaply under one moniker at a potential for 70 extra lots per account.

However, I'd like to address how I see this con affect you, Dvnce, since you're the only one that ever brings this particular point up, AFAIS.

I would project that the Galaxy Wide Vendor Search did more to hurt your playstyle that any potential crosslot activities. Players no longer have a need to negotiate, establish relationships in sales, or do anything much past searching the GWVS once a day to find the best deals.

Crosslots meant nothingto these changes. I know at least 24 players across 10 servers that have as many accounts as I do. I currently plan to keep 9 accounts for my family, and 6 of those accounts at opened padawans. I will have all of the other 3 opened within 2 months maximum for a total of 18 characters on the same server. In addition, my oldest son, who walked away from SWG when he went to college, is coming back. My experience in getting glowy, doing the FS quests and then completing the FS XP grinds will get his new toon opened quickly. It take a minimum of 4.5 months once you start. I predict one week to get glowy and level up to CL 80, 4 to 4.5 months to open the columns, and 1 day after it opens he will be a padawan. Counting off, that's currently 15 toons on one server, 3 more within 2 months maximum, and my oldest son playing again at college with one account that will be padawan in under 5 months. That will be 20 toons on the save server, or 200 lots.

Please realize, this is not unusual for people that play this game as their main hobby and are able to afford to play whatever they want. I know a family in Alaska with twice the number of accounts as mine possesses. There are a lot of us out there and nothing you change will remove the potential for those people to decide to corner resource collection if they wish. No matter what limitation you place, people like me, who are the norm for large-scale involved players, will benefit and "win" in the economy game no matter what changes SOE makes. What controls it is the pain factor of getting too big, and most I've seen usually drop the activity in 5 months or less. I emphasize this because these changes being advocated do nothing but hurt the player that only has a single account. That person is suddenly left out of an organized structure of business and unable to compete.

There are more empty fields of harvestors out there than anything else. All burning and condemned.

If the developers had simply fixed the maintenance clock issues and not completely skirted the problem, as usual, we wouldn't have fields of thousands of harvestors burning. On the 6 servers I regularly play on, the crosslot harvestors condemned far outnumber operating harvestors. The illusion that there is a lot of crosslot activity for harvestors going on, which you said directly affects your play, Dvnce, is nothing more than an illusion, in my opinion. The other, self-evident, factors that have contributed to your playstyle changing and crosslots are not the problem. As a matter of fact, during the height of crosslot trades you stated many times that your playstyle was going strong. These comments from you, Dvnce,didn't change until the GWVS followed by the mass exodus of customers resulting from the fiasco, otherwise known as the CURB.

To quote Warryyr on another forums, "Combat is just as unbalanced as ever, but with new unbalanced abilities. And the animations during fighting are pretty boring. Even Jedi don't have the cool animations they used to. Used to be that a Jedi duel looked like something straight outta Obi-Wan vs. Anakin in Episode III. Now they look like Obi-Wan vs. Darth Vader in Episode IV - two old men poking each other with ski poles."

The Architect crafting game is the same issue.

There's nothing new and exciting about being an Architect. There's high-end items and little else. There's no need for a housing past a few smalls and a crate of backpacks. Incentive to create/decorate is minimal to the game. No new models in over a year. The CU used as an excuse everytime we report a bug. These are where we have problems. Just because a few of your friends do not conduct business is not the fault of crosslot trading, especially when they did conduct business well at the height of crosslot sales in the game. The crosslotters did not drive away their customers, the CURB did, and anyone with an honest voice will admit that. I've sold my harvestors for 5.5 cpu minimum since Nov 2003. I've outlasted undercutters, hologrinders and the rest of that ilk due to my dedication to the concept of a community. The largest part of that community was forming a guild and then using each others' strngths to accomplish goals in game. My game is my community and everything SOE does to remove that is one step to the door for the rest of us that remain after the CURB. The multiple promises over the years have been hollow. All we ever get is the nerfbat, as a whole. Architects get even less.

Get another answer besides nerfing communal sharing through admin removal in any form. I don't see this as a critical or needs assessment change to either make your gameplay better, fair or fun. Any consequential change benefits that you would perceive could be attributed to too many ancillary factors.

Personally, I think harvestor decay should be turned back on immediately. We have fields where harvestors are condemned covering the hillside. I only pay on my one crosslotted set to not leave a smoking mass there. I'd love to have them destroyed. If nothing else, set aone month timer after something has been condemned. Please.

If you give the developers a list, they will pick the simplest thing to do and then walk away. Pick good things to forward that do add to the community. Allow this to be forwarded and it is all they will do for Architects for the next year. You know it, and I know it. We're too damn old for 'I'm sorry" anymore.

Fivo Asia

---

Arturun wrote:

How about the ability to create a small house "core", similar to that of armor for armorsmiths, and as you get higher in Architect, add on other rooms to that and see a blueprint of the structure.

Let's say, for example, you are a masterarchitect and you start with a Tatooine house core. In place of the deed picture on the resources screen, it shows a 2D, top-down roofless picture of the house. Along with your normal components, there are spaces for additional rooms/outdoor additions (awning, porch, etc.). You add these to your schematic, and it updates the picture.

And for those of you who aren't good at forming pictures from words, I'm gonna try to do some ASCII to explain.

Your basic core:

_____

| |

| |

¯¯¯¯¯

Adda side room (left):

_______

| | |

¯¯¯| |

¯¯¯¯¯

Add a room on top:

______

__|_____|

| | |

¯¯¯| |

¯¯¯¯¯

Hopefully that will help illustrate my idea. No, it's not perfect, but I'm sure it could be adapted to work. Perhaps add it as part of experimentation instead.

---

TY, we've been asking for this since Sept 2003. Keep asking, maybe some devs will get it.

Fivo Asia

---

Dvnce wrote:

This is a post that I just did on the Correspondant Forum to the Devs.. ...

---

Cafa, interesting read. Thanks for taking the time.

Some thoughts:

1. This isn't so much an Architect issue as a Core Systems issue --it affects all the crafting professions, the player economy, Player Associations, and community/social play generally. I understand you're discussing it here because it's something Dvnce is considering listing as an Architect issue; I'm just suggesting that it might be worthwhile to mention it over on Core Systems as well.

2. I dislike cross-server lot trading, and I loathe the concept of being able to admin harvesters to other players.All this does is allowa fewhighly socialpeople to be able todominate a server's economy so completely as to make SWG's economic game not worth playing for other paying customers. Even RL capitalist economies aren't skewed this badly (a fact noted by Raph in one of his Astromech Stats essays).

3. However, having said this,part of me agrees with you thatthe admin functionserves a useful purpose in SWG.This is a "massively multiplayer" game, and one of the things that ought to be encouraged in such games is cooperative behavior. Well, isn't that exactlywhat getting a big PA togetherto benefit from the division of labor accomplishes? When players can share admin rights, those who like combat can focus on that, and those who like mining can focus on that, and the whole group wins from maximizing its shared resources.

4.But this still hosesthe independent operator, who can't possibly compete with just ten lots. Since there are many more solo miners thansuper-PA miners, we're talking about a game featurethat allows a very small percentage of players to make SWG less fun for a much larger percentage of players. That justcan't be anything buta bad idea ifSOE'sgoal is to make money by creating a game that's as much fun as possible for as many people as possible.

5. On balance, I'm inclined to think that nerfing admin rights would make SWG slightly better: the number of people whose gameplay would be improved islarger than the number whose gameplay would be harmed.If, as you say, the dedicated players will always be able to find a way to dominate, then that takes away one of thearguments against this change. We'd just find a new equilibrium point, but presumably it would beone where the gap between the big player and the average player isn't so extreme as to make the resource trading game not worth playing for the average player.

6. And yet...eliminating admin rightsreally would undercut the ability of PAs to cooperate to succeed by maximizing their resources. That's an important and valuable feature of social gameplay, which makes it somethingworth preserving.

7. Are there alternatives to nerfing harvester admin rights? Is there any change conceivable that would be acceptable to people onboth sides of this question? Specifically, is there any way to limit the scope of dedicatedresource collectors that would enable independent resource traders to compete, but that would still allow the high-end tradersto be highly successful,to be of value to their PA, and tohave fun doing it?

8.As an initial suggestion, how about limiting the number of lots to which any individual can be admin'd? Would 50 be too much, or too little? What if the maximum was limited to strictly harvesters (so that homes andPA halls wouldn't count against the cap)? Would a cap be acceptable then? Or is any cap unacceptable? If so, why, and what would be an acceptable alternative solutionfor improving the ability of independent resource collectors to participate usefully in the resource trading game?

--Flatfingers

---

Flatfingers wrote:

Cafa, interesting read. Thanks for taking the time.

Some thoughts:

1. This isn't so much an Architect issue as a Core Systems issue --it affects all the crafting professions, the player economy, Player Associations, and community/social play generally. I understand you're discussing it here because it's something Dvnce is considering listing as an Architect issue; I'm just suggesting that it might be worthwhile to mention it over on Core Systems as well.

2. I dislike cross-server lot trading, and I loathe the concept of being able to admin harvesters to other players.All this does is allowa fewhighly socialpeople to be able todominate a server's economy so completely as to make SWG's economic game not worth playing for other paying customers. Even RL capitalist economies aren't skewed this badly (a fact noted by Raph in one of his Astromech Stats essays).

3. However, having said this,part of me agrees with you thatthe admin functionserves a useful purpose in SWG.This is a "massively multiplayer" game, and one of the things that ought to be encouraged in such games is cooperative behavior. Well, isn't that exactlywhat getting a big PA togetherto benefit from the division of labor accomplishes? When players can share admin rights, those who like combat can focus on that, and those who like mining can focus on that, and the whole group wins from maximizing its shared resources.

4.But this still hosesthe independent operator, who can't possibly compete with just ten lots. Since there are many more solo miners thansuper-PA miners, we're talking about a game featurethat allows a very small percentage of players to make SWG less fun for a much larger percentage of players. That justcan't be anything buta bad idea ifSOE'sgoal is to make money by creating a game that's as much fun as possible for as many people as possible.

5. On balance, I'm inclined to think that nerfing admin rights would make SWG slightly better: the number of people whose gameplay would be improved islarger than the number whose gameplay would be harmed.If, as you say, the dedicated players will always be able to find a way to dominate, then that takes away one of thearguments against this change. We'd just find a new equilibrium point, but presumably it would beone where the gap between the big player and the average player isn't so extreme as to make the resource trading game not worth playing for the average player.

6. And yet...eliminating admin rightsreally would undercut the ability of PAs to cooperate to succeed by maximizing their resources. That's an important and valuable feature of social gameplay, which makes it somethingworth preserving.

7. Are there alternatives to nerfing harvester admin rights? Is there any change conceivable that would be acceptable to people onboth sides of this question? Specifically, is there any way to limit the scope of dedicatedresource collectors that would enable independent resource traders to compete, but that would still allow the high-end tradersto be highly successful,to be of value to their PA, and tohave fun doing it?

8.As an initial suggestion, how about limiting the number of lots to which any individual can be admin'd? Would 50 be too much, or too little? What if the maximum was limited to strictly harvesters (so that homes andPA halls wouldn't count against the cap)? Would a cap be acceptable then? Or is any cap unacceptable? If so, why, and what would be an acceptable alternative solutionfor improving the ability of independent resource collectors to participate usefully in the resource trading game?

--Flatfingers

---

---

Cafa wrote:

Fivo Asia

---

---

Dvnce wrote:

---

Cafa wrote:

Fivo Asia

---

Cafa You miss Alot in your assesment of Lot trades.. Number one reason given to us as a reason why we cant ( and other crafts ) have what were are asking for in ways of Inventroy Managment ( Increased Crate Sizes and resources Stacks ) and other management controls .. The changes to factories that many crafts wish to have in speed and effiecency.. basically every issue that is based in effiecency and and time management..... is We produce to much as it is already... that there are WAY TO Many resources being sucked into the game.... a problem that started when Cross server trades caught on as a way of business. I have said Mass Production is out of hand and this hinders us getting the things we want....

the reason I keep this lot swap issue highlighted is because it prevents us from getting many more benificial changes....

Admin rights was suppose to be a means for Active participation.. How is Drop and Go active participation?

Would you not give up Cross Server trades If it meant we could get everything else we have been asking for? SOE does not like X server trades.. So I want to be active in determining how they will be dealt with so that it does no hinder live players working together to much.... So that is what the discusion should be about.

---

D,

Do you honestly believe that limitations in admin will change any of this for the people that are serious about this activity? It won't. SOE is even encouraging it with turning the media into RL dollars now. Admittedly on Everquest, but is SWG too far away?

Define active participation? If they are in my guild they are active players as far as I'm concerned. Please give me reason why they would not be considered active players? They donate their lots and see a relative benefit from it almost DAILY. As for MY crosslots, I've stated i only have the 40 mineral harvestors left, many times. I put money in them to keep them from becoming smoldering eye sores. I've literally BEGGED for harvestor decay to be turned back on so I can get rid of them. But centering this issue on my crosslots detracts from everything I've asserted, none of which you've responded to in the above paragraph. Active participation can be defined a lot of ways, please be very direct as to what qualifies someone to be that "active participant". Does my friend's game need to be removed in order for the devs to have some sense of fairness?

The perspective of yourhighlighted sentence tells me that either you wantsome change to admin, or will not be an advocate against changing, whether because the devs are telling you something you're not telling us, covertly or overtly.

Albiet, they did need to destroy many players' painfully created museums and other artifacts within the game to present the CURB. The one where they destroyed the wookie museum entries showed continuing lack of clarity, obvious to no one giving a damn about the communities they say that they want to promote.

As you've so diligently done in the past, put me to the test. I guarantee you I can outpace anyone on Tempest without a single crosslot. The immediatereason I can is that I have so many accounts, but we both know it can be done without even that. The devs cannot prevent this without destroying any ability to trade in the game. If they do that the economy is gone. If they limit admin they hurt the same supposed age group they asserted in their many recent comments through their marketing personnel that they are trying to achieve. You cannot be a casual crafter in this game. The limitations are too large. It requires dedication on a level that appeals to achievers.

Even removing factories didn't prevent the flood from serious crafters when shipwright hit. I saw and participated in grinding sessions that produced 40,000 items for sale, BY HAND.

AFAIC, something simple like a max of 2 admins on harvestors would take care of the supposed problem. There is still no evidence that there is a problem past perception. They certainly have no problem with one or two people controlling the majority of POI loot for over two years. But this issue, with no empirical evidence, they need nerfage to save the day again. I resent being told that achievement is wrong.

Would I give upcrosslots in order to get "everything else"? You are not asking me to give up crosslots, you are asking me to give up a coordinated guild (factories and house structures) where the parts of the body function smoothly now after I spent thousands of dollars to oil the wheel. If it meant that I would lose my community, AGAIN, I'd easily answer, "no".

Fivo Asia

• this would remove the ability for the drop n go exploiters to manage vast patches of every planet


• also would stop ghost cities cropping up across all servers


• would have no need to adjust admin rights


• would not affect those players that actively work together in resource gathering ventures or shared manufacturing bases or storage facilities

and maybe just maybe the empire will pull its finger out and "BOMB STRIKE" all these condemned buildings & structures aswell freeing up all that wasted space

lot swapping is a cancer on the game it has infected all crafting professions and is preventing newcraftersfrom growing and flourishing

Message Edited by faarsider on 06-02-2005 08:21 AM

---

faarsider wrote:

I think limiting the number of lots available to any one account is the best and most simple way to stop cross-server trading and bring balance back to ALL crafting professions

so my example would be 10 lots for each account so you choose what you place and where you place it so 3 on chimaera 2 on chilastra 5 on bria your lots used up or just use your 10 on the server you actively need n use them on(the exception being when a 2nd char is unlocked this would give the ability to have 20 lots total shared across 2 characters) I know this will not remove lot swapping completly but with only 10 lots to use people will be less inclined to give away their lots on other servers

• this would remove the ability for the drop n go exploiters to manage vast patches of every planet


• also would stop ghost cities cropping up across all servers


• would have no need to adjust admin rights


• would not affect those players that actively work together in resource gathering ventures or shared manufacturing bases or storage facilities

and maybe just maybe the empire will pull its finger out and "BOMB STRIKE" all these condemned buildings & structures aswell freeing up all that wasted space

lot swapping is a cancer on the game it has infected all crafting professions and is preventing newcraftersfrom growing and flourishing

Message Edited by faarsider on 06-02-200508:21 AM

---

This is what I discussed above in a relative comparison. For me, this would work. I'd never be able to play on another server but Tempest, though. Effectively tying anyone that is a crafter to one server.

Does anyone here play on more than one server, often? I homestead on Tempest, but goto Ahazi, Bria, Corbantis and Valcyn to try different things and take breaks from tell hell.

If you do play on multiple servers how would this effect you game play to have virtually no lots on a server?

Fivo Asia