Architect Archive

Im all in favor of giving architectssomething to build foryou to use in PvP.. but of course I wantit to decay (or be destroyed)...

That is the only logical thing I have heard in days. I would pay well for something I could use in combat, and really wouldn't care if it was destroyed as it was used because I am getting some combat benefit out of it.

Actually, that gives me a great idea. All factional bases, turrets, etc. currently have to be bought for a TON of faction points (that are hell to grind). Why not change the faction system so that instead of buying actual factional buildings you buy ( for less faction points) limited use (10 or less)SCHEMATICS for the factional buildings that you have to take to an architect to build. Factional buildings can be destroyed, so this preserves a marketable product for archetects. It isn't a fix for the whole economy, but it does give architects an additional purpose...

Actually this idea make more and more sense the more I think about it.

The imperials shouldn't be able to go to a factional recruiter and BUY a death star....they should have to get the plans for the death star and build it (like they did in the movies).

You shouldn't be able to BUY a factional base or turrets, you should have to get plans from rebel/imperial command and hire people to make them for you.

Wow, I had given up on this thread...

I believe every architect would agree with that, they can even keep their faction system, you have to spend faction points to place them but you get them from us.

Ipromise you it would start competition and you could find some at agood price too.

Daker,

Ok.. finally we are finding some common ground.

I don't think ANY architect would argue against the PvP structures.

You also made another point which I think is very valid... you point out that ALL of the money in the economy comes through you (combat classes), and that you are the ultimate consumer of all goods. I agree ( omg ).

I am not sure how you are so short of cash... but Im prepared to take your word for it. However, I think you will agree that SOE have already stated that cash and resources are coming into the economy far faster than they intended.

Someone is making all the money... and SOE, in order to preserve their economy, have got to find a way to take it back out of the game... so that a sustainable balance is maintained.

They (SOE) have been addressing the cash income side by making it harder to earn money. Idon't know how well that is realy working, since every time they plug one whole another seems to appear.

To address the resource side they either need to reduce the supply, or find a way to consume the resources at a faster rate.

Itseems to me that one of the ways they can approch both issues is to make structures of all types decay (need replacement in some way). Thiswould potentialy also fix the long term viability of the architect class.

Im not saying that this would put more money into everyarchitects pocket... though clearly it would be a revenue stream for all remaining architects... but it would hopefully generate enough demand that the class could continue to build ALL of the schematics that exists, and find sales for them.

As Dayln pointed out, Architects prices have been falling since the launch of the game. A modest required replacement rate would be unlikely to change this, though of course the prices MUST stabalize at no lower than the cost to self harvest the used resources.

One other point to remember.... we (architects) would be guaranteed to be hit hard by this change also. Now we would have to replace all of our harvester fleet periodically... plus our buildings (at the least those of us who are also merchants). We are aware that it would be a shock.... but feel it is one that must be born by all if the economy is to survive.

Better to impliment some modest decay mechanism now than to wait till the market has already dried up and impliment something even worse in a big hurry.

I really like the idea of building factional bases equipment. I'll be honest when I first headed into Architect i wanted to make houses and harvesters I was also swayed under the illussion that we built turrets and stuff and that made up my mind.

The only issue i see is there is not enough functioning PvP at least on my server. And I think bases are still resetting with the servers. That will all be fixed in a matter of time though so it is really a moot point.

Just adding items could help us as a whole like the furniture line. But we still need a resolution for all exising items. Trough all the flames and trolling there have been a lot of really good ideas thrown aruond that get away from the poof decay system. Only problem is I feel like this thread is in the black hole of these boards where no one that can make a difference will see it.

Archangel, if you read any of this mind tossing in your thoughts? Possibly writing up a new decay proposal for submital to the devs?

The fact is no matter what happens not every single person is going to be happy. I can appreciate where non architects are coming from (I have strictly combat classes) and I can appreciate where architects stand (which I consider my primary toon) and I also know pretty well where they stand in the crafting ranks since i've dabbled or am activley pursuing master in several other ones. But a common ground needs to be reached. Factional equipment has been mentioned before mainly as an involvment tool in the GCW discussions and would help in getting us on the right track to becoming economicly stable. I would however still like to see some resolution on the existing items we currently have. Although faction equipment would probobly be welcome with open arms as well as city structures, I would would not like to see my current items get dropped by the wayside, a down effect of adding things.

You are right about one thing....

You dont have a compelling reason to use your house and furniture.

I think that is something that needs to be addressed at the same time that some form of decay is introduced.

I am sure you dont like having to make use of entertainers and doctors... but a game mechanic forces you to.

What do you suppose would happen if SOE introduced something called 'Home Sickness' that reduced you combat effectivness.. and could only be removed by viewing nice furniture in your own home? Im thinking you might suddenly be more interested in architect products. You might even replace them when they wore out

There are lots of possibilities here... but the one thing that is pretty certain is that decay (or at least the requirement for recurring sales) WILL be introduced somehow.

Reeka, because you are remaining reasonable, I will pose one other question to you:

Is decay for harvesters the answer?

I think decay on houses and furniture is a non-issue. The increased expense and pureannoyance (having todestroy and replace you house; having to move or rebuy and place all of your furniture)of decay on these items would be enough to cause all players simply not to buy to avoid the expense and annoyance. As I discuss below, I already spend too much time grinding credits, and grinding any more to afford a house and furniture is not an option.

That leaves us, as you and I agree, with harvester decay. Now, lets look at harvester decay. All the thingsplayers use resources to make are already too expensive. As an example, I have a decent set of composite armor. It cost me over 150k. I could have gotten a better set, but it took me almost a month of spending 90% of my playtimegrinding missions to earn that 150k, and I was tired of it. Of course, Ihad to have it sliced to wear it (composite has HUGE ham costs), so it will never repair well and when it is gone it is gone. After another month of play, my armor is damaged about 1/3 of the way. That means that one month from now it will be damages 2/3 the way, and I will have to spend another full month grinding credits to afford a new set of armor beforemy current setwears out (arguably...I may just not buy another). That is a LOT of time grinding.

What does this have to do with harvester decay? Well, who will pay for that harvester decay? The ultimate consumer of the goods. Currently, artisans charge an arm and a leg for things they make to cover the costs it takes run harvesters: maintenance and power. Maintenance is currently pretty reasonable to run harvesters. So what will decay do?

(1) If you require current maintenance AND have harvesters decay you are exponentially increasing the cost of all goods (which is based on cost of resources). In order for the income stream from harvester sales to be meaningful to architects this means relatively fast decay. Fast decay = have to buy harvesters often = unaffordable goods = no market because no one can afford your products.

(2) If you get rid of maintenance but have harvesters decay, you have the same problem to a lesser degree. The costs for buyingharvesters that decayHAS to be comparable to what maintenance for running the harvester would cost, or the prices of goods go up. HOWEVER, the cost of power and maintenance are relatively cheap right now, and architects would need MUCH more than this amount to survive. You would probably have to double or triple maintenance costs (expressed as the cost of buying a new harvester after the old one decays)to give architects a decent income stream. Doubling or tripling resource costs is not an option....goods will be too expensive to afford. Even this lesser degree is not acceptable.

So, I again ask the question...is putting decay on harvesters enough? Does it really fix the problem? This is the reason I suggested architect missions and other such things. There HAS to be some sort of artificial market for architect goods tosupplement the player market.

I cannot afford to buy goods just by killing mobs. I have to grind missions to survive. Why should every other class get the luxury of opting out of the mission grind by forcing me to grind more missions. Especially when the ONLY reason I am grinding more missions is to pay more for goods so the other classesdon't have to grind missions. Do you see the dilemma?

Posi..

I hate that idea.... ( see I don’t always agree with you )

But only because it takes away from an existing class, entertainers and such. Nut I do agree that furniture that has an actual use would be good.
Not everything has too, a chair to sit on is fine, it would be nice if more than one person could sit on a couch.
I would like to see the data terminal be functional, perhaps a place to store waypoints.

Although I seem to be totally unreasonable ( because I disagree, and it is just not ok to disagree with some people, they think they are too important ) I do want to mention again, that no economy can exist long term without a recurring need for the item crafted, I am for decay of all craftable items to one degree or another.

Some should be very slow, but without decay the game stagnates and the economy dies.

You dont have a compelling reason to use your house and furniture.

I think that is something that needs to be addressed at the same time that some form of decay is introduced.

I am sure you dont like having to make use of entertainers and doctors... but a game mechanic forces you to.

What do you suppose would happen if SOE introduced something called 'Home Sickness' that reduced you combat effectivness.. and could only be removed by viewing nice furniture in your own home? Im thinking you might suddenly be more interested in architect products. You might even replace them when they wore out.

*blink* *blink*

I really hope,for your sake,you are kidding. No I don't mind using entertainers and doctors, they heal the wounds I pick up in combat. I fight and earn credits, they get a few of those credits for helping me recover from those fights. What does my house help me do in that rotation? Nothing.

Do you mind using doctors and entertainers? What? You don't have to use doctors and entertainers because you are an architect and never incur combat wounds? How is that fair? According you your logic, every class in the game should need architects and houses to survive, why don't you need every other class in the game?

Better yet...what do you need me, and other combat classes, for? If we have to need you to survive, what do you need us for? Oh yeah, we are the mindless gluttons-for-punishment that spend hours upon hours grinding repetitve and boringmissions so that we can afford the things you are selling and, currently, selfishly trying to punch down our throats with a sledge hammer.

If you want to identify your "need" its merchants. Merchants need you to provide them with harvesters and houses to use as shops. Not overy class SHOULD need you, but merchants do. Are you asking for some way to simply tax merchants? Nope. You want EVERYONE to pay.

Just remember...when you jack up the prices of goods, by taxing houses, AND furniture,AND harvesters with decay and forcing merchants to charge me more, you will be forcing me to (1) grind even more missions, or (2) quit. Hmmmm....spend mindless hours grinding missions justto keep up with the price of my equipment...or quit. Hope you enjoy your non-existant market.

Dayln,

hehe.. Home sickness was just a silly example of what you could do... but i wasn't suggesting it would replace entertainers... It could be in addition to them.... <waits for certain person to scream that its a waste of his time>....

Yeah.. those are some good ideas for functional furniture. Heck.. anything that you could store more cra*... oops... loot... in would be good. Without a house you couldnt have the furniture, and without the furniture you couldnt have more storage.

We both know there are lots of ways to approach this.... and the only way that won't work is to act likedecay shouldn't happen at all.

"You dont have a compelling reason to use your house and furniture." [as a combatant]

Space, the final frontier.

Maybe you have space in your packs for all your sets of armor, all your weapons, the many stacks of different types of hides and meat, resources,stimsand miscellaneous nic-naks picked up in your travels but I sure as heck don't.

You don't NEED furniture, granted. But ultimately you do need a house and if you store any single thing that is not cosmetic, you are using the house. As you pointed out you don't mind when a weapon or armor degrades because you use it. I think you use your house but don't appreciate the usage.

I think the key questions about degradation of a house structure is how much, how fast, and whether it can be reversed or not. Another question is the consequences of your letting it degrade to 0. My simple take on it is that once it goes to 0 you can't drop anything new into the house until it is repaired.

Since you don't use the house that shouldn't cause you any grief at all, right?

Fidg'Ter

Maybe you have space in your packs for all your sets of armor, all your weapons, the many stacks of different types of hides and meat, resources,stimsand miscellaneous nic-naks picked up in your travels but I sure as heck don't.

Actually, none of this is true. I keep everything I own either (1) in a well organized system of backpacks in the bank, or (2) on me. Why? I can access the bank from any planet. Best case scenerio, if I putanything in my house, I have to run 20 minutes there and back (assuming I am in the town near my house, on that planet). Really I can't believe you would try to argue that I should keep my armor and weapons in my house...what good are those if you don't wear/use them? Also what do I need "many stacks" of meat, hides, and resources for? I fight and sell them. The longest they are ever in my backpack is a night.

As far as crafting, I make Stims periodically. I use my droid as a crafting station, and I have 3 stacks of resources (flowers for organic, fuel for inorganic and chemical, and water).

As I said. My house is for show, and simply to have one.

Quote:

You don't NEED furniture, granted. But ultimately you do need a house and if you store any single thing that is not cosmetic, you are using the house. As you pointed out you don't mind when a weapon or armor degrades because you use it. I think you use your house but don't appreciate the usage.

Heh, I certainly hope you are kidding. Look at the latest poll on the main page (what people use their houses for). You will note that the vast majority of players are like myself...they use their houses as a residence (in other words as an pretty thing to look at) and NOT as a shop to sell things from.

So what exactly are you saying, that I shouldn't buy furniture because that makes me use my house? Ha ha ha!!! Fine, you get your wish, I won't buy furniture. Boy, you really helped architects there.

This is reality: Most players buy houses as a decoration. In order to make the house a decoration, they add furniture. No I don't NEED furniture, really no one does. But if you think having furniture obligates me to having to put up with house decay, I remind you that I ALSO don't need a house. The only reason a majority of players buy furniture is because they have a house. Take that away, and you won't sell houses or furniture. Good solution!

Daker,

The problem here is that your whole argument rests on the assertion that no-one will buy houses if they decay.

Presuming that SOE would make the replacement of a "Rotting" house relatively painless (No moving furniture etc... see my posts on other threads), I don't see that the "No one buys them" argument holds water.

Everyone already pays a maintenance fee for their house. What if the maintenance fee was removed.. and instead the house SLOWLY lost condition, until it had to be replaced. If the replacement cost was aprox equal to the amount of maintenance that would have been paid in the same period of time, then the ONLY real change is that Architects now have a market for houses. (Very minor inconvenience of having to find an Architect to buy from also).

The introduction of decay does notHAVE to increase overall costs (though I admit SOE would probably use it to do just that).

With no increase in cost, and no disruption from having to move furniture around, I imagine 99% of players would cease to have any serious issue with this. I own several structure (Business and pleasure) and I know I wouldn't mind decay if those conditions were met.

I am curious how your bank is working.... certainly you are not supposed to be able to access your safe deposit from any planet other than the one you open it on, yet you are claiming you can de exactly that. Your credit balance of course can be accessed anywhere in the galaxy. I am guessing this was mearly a miss-statement, and you meant to say anywhere on your bank planet?