Architect Archive

/agree

fix it

if i have to make 10 attempts for a high quality heavy harvester or more, what am i going to ask the customers ? 1 million each ? dunno how many people would be willing to spend that ..

Considering the amount of resources needed for our things, i am not really sure it would be a good idea to add it - unless you make the quality/experiment related to just a kind of components .. like, metal efficency extraction controlled just by the ore mining unit; the better that part is, themore the harvester would dig it up. This could be a way to have it work, without compromising the pricings too much ..

Think at all the items that need 25k + resources to make and shiver !

This way would also allow lower level architects to go on providing higher levels with walls, if the quality for such components wouldn't influence the final results.

I think the biggest concern about experimenting architect items is that a crit fail on an experiment would totally ruin the product. I see this as a valid concern.

Perhaps instead of experimenting on the final combine,experimentation could apply to sub-components.

Maintenance could be determined by the quality of the walls. Make a nice experimented wall and then simply run that through your factory.

Efficiency on harvesters could be determined by the ore mining unit, manuafacturing mechanism, etc.

I think that experimenting on the final combine should effect the lot usage. This seems like the only thing that would actually be worth risking the product over.

What do you think?

Xevo - Master Architect

Fix it.

I think it will do more good than harm. It gives some justification to any pricing ranges that are out there, and may renew some of our markets.

To those who are worried that they will now need to find 'good' resources and that will make things a little harder... boo-freaking-who Have some pride! I'm not in this profession to grind out what ever I can make as quick as possible. I want to make quality products for my customers.

Just my opinion

I believe if they are to fix it , they should fix it right. The decay issue should not have to become an issue in itself. Using a fer simple equations in the mathematics for decay , the developers should be able to come up with a working decay plan.

/agree I would like to see decay implemented

And it would be nice if we could use special ore extractors that can pull up alot of ore , so that we can keep up with demand.

33333333333333333333333333333333
33333333333333333333333333333333
33333333333333333333333333333333
33333333333333333333333333333333
33333333333333333333333333333333
33333333333333333333333333333333
33333333333333333333333333333333
33333333333333333333333333333333
33333333333333333333333333333333
33333333333333333333333333333333
33333333333333333333333333333333
33333333
							

---

vonbloodworth wrote:

it was only an example ,but ou are wrong the effencity rating of the station does directly affect the product....good or bad

---

Proof?

Fix it.

BUT only for components not the final combine.

As soon as I became a Novice Architect I started looking for the best materials eventhough it means nothing, at the moment.

The Devs will be loathe to lessen the money/power sinks of harvestors, but think about this "give and take" - experimentation will risk resources but a better harvestor will produce more rerources.

Fix it - but for subcomponents only, not the final structures.

As for the newer architects having a hard time, I don't mean to sound heartless but wouldn't that be a good thing? There are way, way too many architects!

I hate the idea of having to be particular about my resources when it's already a giant pain in the butt to find a decent ore spot now - but it would be nice to diversify the market.