Architect Archive
Thread: Ten Questions *** Submitted 2.1.04 ***
Naufragus wrote:
i will take this a step further, maybe you can become this issues champion, WHEN WILL COLLISION BE TURNED BACK ON...i for one just dont like walking thru everything...be it in my house at the starport or in a cantina
Message Edited by FulminataXII on 03-25-2004 12:28 AM
Dvnce wrote:
My whole point is that .. (and this is true for even our top ten ?'s) even though we have not seen a direct written response from the devs on each and every issue many Have been addressed ( I realize on some of them I have to say take my word on this) and even a few of them have been changed and implemented already ..
Yes I am with you .. in some frustrations .. This communication and "player participation" project in game development planning is as new ( and has as many bugs) as the SWG game itself.. But I have faith in it still I see where they are hoping and trying to take it..
...
Weexpect direct written responses from the DEVs. If they don't plan directly answering our issues then they should make that clear.
Is there nothing they tell youthat you can share with us?
Maybe you could make their failure to answer our Top 5 issues and Top Ten questions one of our Top 5 issues...
FulminataXII wrote:
While storage per lot is increasingly becoming an issue for many players, the other part of the house issue is the relationship between small, medium, and large houses. Taking off the 250 cap wouldn't add that much to their database as players would consider trading in their three small houses for one large house (possibly even decreasing database size a little as there would be fewer houses placed overall). It also wouldn't hurt if they made mediums take up 3 or 4 lots, so there would be a reason to buy them over smalls.
As for the two lot structure factories, I believe that was one of several vain attempts to slow down architectgrowth back in beta (along with the ore distribution). It wasn't effective, and now only serves as an annoyance.
That is the argument that we have recently brought up about the storage limits.. people now are doing lot exchanges for storage structures.. more now instead of for harvesters.. so the data base issues are not being reduced by small storage limits per structure..
Pawlin wrote:
So..
We didn't get answers to the Ten questions cause TH was too busy.
We didn't get answers to the old set of Top 5 issues cause those were too old.
We didn't get answers to the latest set of Top 5 issues cause they are changing the process.
Right?
Hmm...
My whole point is that .. (and this is true for even our top ten ?'s) even though we have not seen a direct written response from the devs on each and every issue many Have been addressed ( I realize on some of them I have to say take my word on this) and even a few of them have been changed and implemented already ..
Yes I am with you .. in some frustrations .. This communication and "player participation" project in game development planning is as new ( and has as many bugs) as the SWG game itself.. But I have faith in it still I see where they are hoping and trying to take it..
As far as the lot discussion . I have seen a few posts.. I think one was in the PA forum about why the storage is so small for the lots.. Although After reading that again .. I have not seen any comment about why structure factory is 2 plots..
Message Edited by Cafa on 04-02-2004 09:31 AM
Dvnce wrote:
2. Architect products are significantly devalued, selling at 4-5cpu vs. the weaponsmith or amorsmiths overall higher cpu income. Renewable incoming for architects is non-existant(obviously devs might not be able to resolve income problems, as players set the price at which they want to buy, but there must be something that can be done to close the gap between the professions)
okthis issue will forever be one
(A lot of this is cut and paste from an earlier post)
I don’t think this is as big a problem as it appears. It all depends on how you calculate our profits. Rather than calculate the value added per unit, we should be calculating the value added per crafting session. This is because Architects use vast amounts of resources in their crafting, but still only need to do one or two crafting sessions to create their product. So our costs are closer to the costs of the actual resources than they arefor a weaponsmith or armorsmith.
The worst imbalance from this situation, IMHO, is that we have a higher demand on our lots to obtain all these resources. While giving us more lots is probably not doable, burdening us with the only 2 lot factory
For example:
Say the average cost for resources is 4 cpu. A weaponsmith crafts an item in 3 sessions and uses a total of 500 resources. His total costs were 2,000. He estimates his selling price as 10cpu, and charges 5,000. He calculated his value added as 6 cpu, but the total value added for his 3 crafting sessions was 3,000.
Now an architect crafts an item in 3 sessions and uses a total of 10,000 resources. His total costs were 40,000. If the architect used the same formula as the weaponsmith he would charge 100,000 and realize a profit of 60,000 for the same amount of work as the weaponsmith. Not only does that make no sense, but buildings would become way too expensive.
Instead, the architect charges 15,000. This is only a CPU increase of .5, but if we calculate this in terms of the actual number of crafting sessions used, his profit is 5,000 for three sessions. More than the weaponsmith. However this greater profit really just reflects the greater difficulty in obtaining the larger amount of resources needed.
CAN, and should, be fixed.Personally, I think that the increased resource gathering hassle more thancancels out any benefits we get from decreased crafting sessions, especially considering that the difference in crafting sessions is effectively eliminated when you factor in factory runs.
IntoTheGarbage wrote:
Dvnce wrote:
2. Architect products are significantly devalued, selling at 4-5cpu vs. the weaponsmith or amorsmiths overall higher cpu income. Renewable incoming for architects is non-existant(obviously devs might not be able to resolve income problems, as players set the price at which they want to buy, but there must be something that can be done to close the gap between the professions)
okthis issue will forever be one
(A lot of this is cut and paste from an earlier post)
I don’t think this is as big a problem as it appears. It all depends on how you calculate our profits. Rather than calculate the value added per unit, we should be calculating the value added per crafting session. This is because Architects use vast amounts of resources in their crafting, but still only need to do one or two crafting sessions to create their product. So our costs are closer to the costs of the actual resources than they arefor a weaponsmith or armorsmith.
The worst imbalance from this situation, IMHO, is that we have a higher demand on our lots to obtain all these resources. While giving us more lots is probably not doable, burdening us with the only 2 lot factory
For example:
Say the average cost for resources is 4 cpu. A weaponsmith crafts an item in 3 sessions and uses a total of 500 resources. His total costs were 2,000. He estimates his selling price as 10cpu, and charges 5,000. He calculated his value added as 6 cpu, but the total value added for his 3 crafting sessions was 3,000.
Now an architect crafts an item in 3 sessions and uses a total of 10,000 resources. His total costs were 40,000. If the architect used the same formula as the weaponsmith he would charge 100,000 and realize a profit of 60,000 for the same amount of work as the weaponsmith. Not only does that make no sense, but buildings would become way too expensive.
Instead, the architect charges 15,000. This is only a CPU increase of .5, but if we calculate this in terms of the actual number of crafting sessions used, his profit is 5,000 for three sessions. More than the weaponsmith. However this greater profit really just reflects the greater difficulty in obtaining the larger amount of resources needed.