Architect Archive
Thread: Decay Poll
/agree furniture and harvesters
/disagree housing (simply because of logistical reasons. I've moved my residence a couple of times - from small house to large and it's no picnic).
/agree clothing... most definately clothing should decay.
/disagree
/disagree
Just add different floorplans, housing capabilities (cantina anyone) to spice up the market and make people want to upgrade.
How about moderately expensive powerups for harvestors instead? architect created and refined.
Permaloss of structures and funiture would just add another timesink to everyones game, to provide a quick-fix to a special interest group.
Ckratide
Vaedross wrote:
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.
Vaedross I've suggested the same thing over and over and over and it get's zero support from architects. I even had one private message me to tell me that it was no solution. Blue in the face.
Anyway, I five starred ya, I like the idea.
Andal wrote:
Maintenance costs, rate of decay, and maximum design longevity should be directly derived from the quality of the materials used to construct the item, and the skill of the Artisan as reflected in the final Experimental Values of the item.
Where I said above "maximum design longevity", I meant to say "actual design longevity". Wanted to clarify here.
My idea is that each item has a pre-determined maximum longevity. The quality of the materials used, and the skill of the Artisan, would determine how close to that maximum any given item becomes.
The higher the quality, the slower the rate of decay, the longer it lasts, and the cheaper it is to maintain.
Repair tools could extend its life, perhaps beyond the pre-determined maximum, but not make it last indefinitely. Forever just isn't cool in a player-based economy.
/disagree
/disagree
I do this because I think there are other valid options out there. For example, I believe that having random events happen to buildings and harvesters would be nice. Currently nothing happens to harvesters and buildings if maintenance is kept up on them but if you don't pay maintenance, they DECAY. Decay is already implemented into the game, just in a different way. Many people have brought up the fact that weapons decay. That is true but ONLY if they are fired. If you buy a weapon and don't fire it for a year, it is still in the same condition as it was when you purchased it.
I suggest this: Random events should occur to everyone's structures and either damage or destroy the structure based on certain factors. (i.e. An aggressive animal that spawns next to your personal harvester has a likelyhood of attacking and damaging it believing it is a hostile being. Hey it happens in real life, I've had a moose attack my car in New Hampshire.) Fires, earthquakes, etc. can be applied to a structure and depending on it's structure size, durability or another statistic of the structure can either take a certain amount of damage or be destroyed. (Can you see a ticked off Rancor breaking off the top of a personal harvester to beat someone over the head with it???)
A player can then be notified by email that something has happenned to one of your structures and what it was that damaged it.
I really believe that adding in these suggestions vice that of additional structure decay will not only help out the architect profession but add flavor to the game.
/yes ..... as long as the decay doesn't mean destroyed for houses or PA halls. This would cause way to many problems.. i.e. loosing everything in you house. They would need to make it where you could buy new house and have a storage module that automatcally move your old stuff to the new house, otherwise chaos with lost things.
/disagree
/disagree
First I pay for the structures, then the furniture.
Then I pay Maintainence on the structures
and now I would have to pay for reapairs and/or replacement on my buildings on top of maintainence?
No thankyou
My pa hall has a Maint of 50, and was a royal pain in the butt to all the resources/money invloved in getting it made and there is no way I want it decaying on top of expensive maint rates. Not to mention all the items it is decorated with, all the time one of my pa members spent making it look nice etc..
A change like this would push myself and im sure many others over the edge to cancel their accounts. Storage is already limited enough as it is.
Throw in decay and CSR have yet another 'its your fault not ours' excuse to throw at use when our house vanishes and we lose everything inside.
Had some friends who had over 9k in maint in their houses and they just poofed, so adding in another variable just throws fuel on the fire.
I like the phasing in certain furniture lines idea. So their are new furniture items monthly for people to get and it allows for the older items to be 'anqtiques'.
Sotonin wrote:
Stupid idea. very stupid.
A change like this would push myself and im sure many others over the edge to cancel their accounts.
The fact that you threaten to quit only suggests you dislike the idea. You have yet to objectively describe how that idea is stupid, regardless of whether you personally like it or not.
Using extortion to get one's way is pretty hollow. This should be decided on merit, and analyzed objectively and unemotionally as possible.
It would be very refreshing if those who lack any objective reason for commenting, but have only emotional or subjectibe responses, would merely put /agree or /disagree.