Architect Archive
Thread: Current Experimentation Post rant/rave here
Hmm why dont they use the established and working mechanism they use with weapons and armor?
Give harvesters and factories some points which are decaying while in use. Then there are harvester repair kits where you can restore those points while decreasing the max number.
With this harvesters will be decaying over time and have to replaced by a new one.... like weapons and armor. Very simple 
With houses it has to be something special since furniture and other stuff within the house is a major pain to place again when your house decayed.
This confirmation by Green marine brings up an interesting thought concerning decay rates and extraction rates. If by decay, the extractor would decrease in effectiveness (i.e. go from 10... to 9.... to 8.... etc) this would allow architects to make a replacement parts.
Just my 2 cents
Old heavies are now worthless.
Mediums extract at 7 for 1200 power and 1440 credits per day, why run an old heavy at 7 for 1800 power and 2160 credits per day?
Can't decrease the overall top end though, otherwise you get back intot the double maintenance issue. Armor/weapons have not maintenance cost, so their eventual decay is cool, but structures do, why pay money for something that just decays anyway. Devs I think find this unacceptable to, but everything, no matter how well maintained break occassionally, expecially old stuff. But a well maintanined and repaired structure can last for **edit** near forever. Hell a well built structure can last **edit** near forever. (Pyramids, roman aqueducts, ect). Maintenance is one thing that should stay, as it pulls cash out of the system, but we need another way to make the profession viable continually, and for that you need a continual demand for products that cannot be the structures themselves.
Nyra wrote:
Hmm why dont they use the established and working mechanism they use with weapons and armor?
Give harvesters and factories some points which are decaying while in use. Then there are harvester repair kits where you can restore those points while decreasing the max number.
With this harvesters will be decaying over time and have to replaced by a new one.... like weapons and armor. Very simple
With houses it has to be something special since furniture and other stuff within the house is a major pain to place again when your house decayed.
Xader_Vartec wrote:
PadreBook wrote:
The second problem is that you can't experiment on extraction rate on final assembly so the only important thing to experiment on is maybe 2-3 subcomponents. That's just silly.
Padre Book
Intrepid ArchitectI disagree with this statement Padre. In talking with my armor/weapon smith counterparts it is VERY common for the key experiment to be done on a subcomponent. In fact, figuring this out is what commonly seperates the good smiths (players) from the average ones. The good ones do a lot of playing around to find out what exactly you need to experiment on and what you don't. Not only that but they commonly hold that information as a "trade-secret" to enable them to make a product better than their competitors.
This is a good thing in that it makes player ability into consideration as opposed to just "grinding" your way up and being just as good as everyone else.
The flaw with that statement is that WS's still have experimentation on the relevant attributes on the final combine, but we can only experiment on hopper size on final combine--big whoop! Look, I am the crafting station guy on my server and the functionity is totally dependent on the subcomponents so I understand that, but if I couldn't experiment on the functionality on final combine they would only be 18's instead of 42's. Where without subs it goes from -6 to 15 (with the high conductivity material I use). So I get over three points extra at max experimentation (above the 24 point unexperimented difference) due to high quality subcomponents. I still need that experimentation at the final combine though same as Weaponsmith or an Armorsmith.
Padre Book
Intrepid Scientist
But maintainance wich is paid ist lost to the economic system. I totally agree with the double costs. But Armorsmiths and Weaponsmiths do have a share of the "maintain-costs" of weapons (this is by buying a new one)
So they could lower the maint costs and establish the decay system from weapons/armor or:
Simply give a fraction of the maint costs to the architect which build the harvester. That would be the simple solution. The more complex and better solution would be that you have to enter an architects name into the hopper as "maintainance worker" and this one would get the share. I mean atm you put money into the harvester and it "maintains" itself.
You can add more features to this system like that the dedicated architect has to visit the harvester from time to time to keep it running.
Swillholder wrote:
Once again, Tie extraction rates to the efficiency of the extraction rate... i dont seem to be generation much discussion about this, but this would make sense.... and it fits in the current model... if a heavy pulls 10 now, in a month it will pull 9. So the heavies that pull 7 arent so bad (becuase they still work) and this offers 2 avenues.... 1) architects replace the ore unit 2) heavies are never repaired to full efficiency, so eventually it becomes so innefficient to run the thing that its replaced.
This is still decay in a different package. The idea of paying maintenance is to prevent decay, it is a very hard model to do both and while it might make things more viable, you still get into a major argument with the whole **edit** player base as soon as you apply it to houses.
This thread has some good discussion going on, and for the most part, everyone is staying civil. I like this.
My opinions:
I like the idea of decay without destruction. Dont make something go poof. Lowering the effectiveness is decent. Better yet, make it stop completely. After a certain amount of time, which can be sped up be in game events or time the maint fund goes to zero, make the harv stop. But make it so it can be fixed. By the owner/admin. Using a part made by an arch. But each harv has its own type of repair kit, gained at the same level that the harv itself is gotten. I.e. A Heavy Chem Repair Kit is made by anyone with Installations 3, but a Heavy Mineral Kit takes Inst4. Or could just do Heavy Harv Repair Kit for all heavies, and grant the schem at Inst4. Medium Repair Kit at Inst2. No need to reapir personals, as they are disposable anyhow.
I do not agree with giving the architect that made a structure part of the maint fees. Once my house is paid for, I aint giving the builder any more money. I may end up calling the plumber that put in my pipes to come out and fix a busted one, but the contractor I will be done with.
For those that are arguing against decay, or the new improved extraction rates, I offer a few analogies:
You think Wyodak Coal still uses the same equipment they did in the 50's? This is a major producerof the United States' coal. Their web site shows some ink drawings done by a mine foreman in the early 1950's. The overburden (earth that sits on top of the coal) is being removed by a piece of equipment called a fresno...being pulled by horses. Now, the largest drag line in operation can move 160 cubic yards at a pop. The dump trucks alone can move 240 tons per load. Moral...stuff improves over time.
Another example. I drive a 1997 Grand Prix GTP. I used to drive a 1969 GTO Judge. The GTO is considered one of the finer muscle cars from that era. The GTP is just kinda there, except to most who own them. Allowing for inflation, the cars cost roughly the same from the factory. Both cars posted just under 15sec in 1/4 mile in magazine tests when new. Both top out at about 155 (have to get rid of the govenor in the GTP though). Both are near top of the line as far as options. Sound identical, except for styling right? Of course, the GTP gets double the gas mileage, corners so much better it aint funny, has I don't know how many airbags, anti-lock brakes, and so on. The GTP is a better road car, is alot safer, and is actually cheaper for me to upgrade to get it to run 13's in the 1/4mile. Newer is "better."
BTW, I would still tradethe GTPstraight up to get a GTO Judge back though If I could find a sucker to make the trade...**edit** thing is worth over 25k now....grr collectors.
As for decay. Regardless of the amount of maintenence, stuff still breaks. Even with the best PM. I used to fix aircraft in the USMC. Aircraft maintence is one of the most **edit** occupations out there. Everything has an instruction manual, and you have to be looking at it while doing a job. Every part has a PM/replacement schedule. Every job has somenone that is responsible if it is done wrong (other than the mech doing it). I am still responsble for jobs I stamped off on (you stamp the maint form for a job with a little ink stamp if you are an inspector/QA)....and I have been out for nearing 10 years. I can still go to jail if someone dies because of a poor job my crew did way back then. In short, aircraft are VERY well maintained. I worked on UH-1N's and AH-1W's, usually the motors. Wanna know how much of a typical Huey engine that was flying then (early 90's)was original from the 60's? Not a single part, except the serial number plate. Even that "wore out," as I once had to engrave a new one to replace one that could no longer be read well enough when the engine was installed in a bird (god-awful contortions you have to go through to read the left motor's inspection plate...ugh). These motors got the best imaginable preventative maintence. They still broke. They still had to be rebuilt. Heck, they got rebuilt after 1000 hours whether they needed or not. Oh, and it cost almost 5 times as much to build a motor with all new replacement parts (ie everything) as it would have to buy a new one outright. But you never replace everything, and most of the spendy parts are themselves "repairable." But not by us...have to send them to a higher level maintence facility. Stuff breaks down and/or wears out no matter how well you take care of it.
What I will grant the nay-sayers is this...the time line for decay needs to be long. With proper maintenence, a product should last a good long while. But, a good long while in game-time is up for debate....how long in RL does it take to become a doctor versus how long it takes in game. I am thinking Master Doctor, and pre-med already done for RL. I figure the lifetime of a mine between total failures would be 10 "years" and houses 100 "years", and PAs 500 "years"? Not sure how long it actually takes for either of those, but guessing close to 1 month novice to master doc in game, and 5 years RL. So a harvester lasts 2 months between repairs, a house nearing 2 years, and a PA effectively never.
Someone mentioned the pyramids and the Roman Aqueducts though. How many moving parts do those have? That kind of timeline for decay might work for a PA Hall, but nothing else is anywhere close to that scale. Houses should certainly last much longer than harvesters. Not much machinery involved in a house, and off-hand,I can't think of a way to makea house stop working other than not allow any items to be dropped in it until repaired. Can't lock the owner out, as they would need to get in to fix it at the terminal.
My time is up, thanks for yours.
I personally like this way they chose betetr than what was originally on TC.
Experimentation means something and you can now make new and improved harvesters which should give us a boost until they can figure out something that will help us in the long run. It gives them another 4 months or so.
It doesn't make the old stuff totally obsolete immediately. People can now swap out the old stuff for new stuff on a more comfortable and affordable time table.
I like it. To me, someone finally sat down and used their heads.
Maybe in the next 4 months, we and the Dev Team can come up with something better than decay to fulfill our needs without screwing over the players.
)The concern that remains with me is that mediums are so close to heavies with regards to extraction rates. Either heavy extraction rates need to go up, or mediums down. This is particularly true of medium mineral and solar gens since they only require 3 modules as opposed to 5-7 walls to make. Perhaps making them require 3 walls like other mediums would bring the price up and help with the price gap. Whatever the case, a decision needs to be made and stuck with because the change is what hurts when we are talking about structures that require so many resources and sell for so much.
And one last message for the arches out there. Please charge more for well experimented harvs, not less for poorly experimented harvs. We don't want them to end up like houses going for (2 x resource cost).
I'll ry it but if i hate it and urban planner skill tree sucks bi bi architect
Raged Mind