Architect Archive
Thread: Decay Poll
/agree - With introducing structure decay - BUT NOT ON HARVESTERS (its allready a major pain in the a$$ trying to keep them running, and with the constant and inconsistant changing or resources we would be building new ones all the time!)
/agree- With introducing furniture decay
/agree with structure decay for harvesters factories, and crafting stationsONLY not for houses since you could potentially loose all items stored withing for the current system. I feel that will be nothing more than frustrating and / or a huge blow to any player.
/disagree on furniture decay. Possibly on certain on items that makes sense, torches could burn out, couches / chairs can become worn. How does my bookshelf decay? I've never seen one fall apart from taking books on and off of one. Since this is probobly an all or nothing scenario i vote for nothing.
Dosadi wrote:
/agree
I strongly agree with both furniture and structure decay.
P.S. I seriously doubt that people will not buy houses if they have decay. They always need storage. They want a pimping pad. They will come back to us time and time again at the same price we offer because we set the price.
I may not be an architect but I buy stuff all the time. You're fooling yourself in the extreme if you think the rest of us players want to spend our game time repairing 50 pieces of furniture every day only to have them eventually disappear anyway, forcing to perform the excessively tedious task of placing all that furniture again, only to THEN have the stucture decay anway and have to start all over AGAIN.
You put decay on furniture, the only people with furniture will be wild eyed architects trying to convince the rest of the player base that buying an item over and over and over that does NOTHING other than sit there and moving it around for hours over and over and over is somehow a good thing.
Never has there been an idea on these forums that would so completely and thouroughly achieve the exact OPPOSITE effect than what it's proponents hope for. Add decay to furniture, you will have NO furniture market whatsoever and that's afact. Your attitude is frankly disturbing. You're more than wiling to screw over the entire rest of the player base in order to get a little money. You OUGHT to be suggesting some way to make architects products more useful. Housing is just a glorified backpack for half the players who own them. You OUGHT to be making suggestions about repeat business ideas that are actually worth something instead of the tedious and forced method of decay. No one wants tedium added to essentially purposeless items, especially ones that require hours to put back into place.
You better think twice before you get what you asked for and end up selling nothing at all. THEN where's your return income?
/agree on furniture decay
/agree on structure decay
Comments;
Include houses in this, but allow AR to make "kits" to maintain the structure
Sorry to throw things off, but I'm going to have to change my answer. Previously I agreed with structure decay and disagreed with furniture decay. I'll keep my vote in opposition to furniture decay, but as some are pointing out, the structure issue isn't so black-and-white. I'm going to have to change my vote on that and disagree with structure decay, although I think that a proper scheme could be implemented.
Summary: Disagree with both.
/disagree on buildings: un less you lower the cost of up keep otherwise the expence becomes too great. Maybe I'd agree if theIf there was a repair tool that would be created for the Artisen or Architect.
/agree with the furnerture, but again need a tool to fix them... some people pay a lot for these items and might quit buying them if they know they'll just disappere in a mounth or two
and on those tools should make it so you need some of the resources used to make the Item/structure to repair it as opposed to number of uses... this would add to the market for resources
ASPA
Comments: I do not want to have to replace my PA Hall and have to reform my guild with a new name, which is one thing that would happen! Not one PA Hall owner would want that, or anyone else that is forced into having new names. Also most players I know don't like it when their house or items disappear same with decay on houses and furniture. What we need is more furniture and building choices, color customization alone would set us up for many months. As for making money I have a never ending stream of harvestor & factory customers already, will that slow to a trickle maybe, but causing large numbers of people to quit because they can't leave their stuff safely on one server to play for a couple months on another because of fear of decay or just plain 'what the heck happened to my house all that work gone forget this I'm going to EQ2.'
Padre Book
Intrepid Scientist & Master Architect
I just want to see houses and furniture perhaps requiring repairs - that someone from the artisan/architech profession can do. I dont want to have to keep replacing my darn house. That is not realistic where things needing repair is. People don't buy a new house every week or month and if they do...they is something strange and scary about that. Buildings and furniture that require repair will encourage repeat business where as if the other is implemented and I have to replace the darn things all the time I am going homeless. Its a head ache I don't need.
Mahala - SS
Pistoleer
Err. forgot to add - Clothing on the other hand IS something people tend to replace often. That should be implemented. Something not right about wearing the same thing for months on end.
Mahala
/disagree
Forcing players to move is counter productive. Offering them a way to repair their houses (a novice arch or master artisan craftable tool) is better.
I agree with house detereoration, but I disagree with that leading to a house's destruction. House deterioration should increase its maintinance rate. We could lower the base maint rate, allow experimentation to affect maint rate, and have a maximum maint cap for the experimented quality of each house.
So a very low quality house would have a very high maint cap and start with a fairly high rate, but a very good quality house would have a low initial maint and a reasonable maint cap.
If you want some form of renewable source of income. You should make developers phase out certain items of furniture, or houses. Then phase out the old ones for awhile. this will force people that want to keep up with style to buy a new house or furniture and those people that want to keep their items now have antiques
I wouldn't whine and start grinding structural modules for city halls, decorative fountains, and player med centers & cantinas!
/disagree
/diagree
I know this may sound like a great way of ensuring steady income for the Architects, but I think it will have a negative effect. People will forgo the larger structures for small disposable shacks, if they buy one at all.Furniture is for visual effect only. They will become even more of a luxury item than they are now. The thought of having to buy a new PA hall every few months will not be appetizing either.