Architect Archive

Posi,

I think my list of changes does address your concerns....let me see if you agree:

(1) My equipment costs - Lots of players I know use repair kits with great success. Originally, this was not so, but some patch seems to havechanged that outcome lately, so that they work well.

Let's assume, arguendo, that you are right, and I can't use repair kits. Assume I have to buy 2 guns and 2 suits of armor a year. That doubles my equipment costs to 450k a year, and I can use that equipment to make several times that number of credits.

I still get nothing from my house, and I still have to pay 338k a year to have that house. Comparing the costs and benefits of these hypothetical numbers, don't you still think the costs of owning a house is excessive? Triple my equipment costs...675k a year. The cost of owning a house is still half of that, and it get nothing out of it.

My point is not that the current cost is necessarily unreasonable and unbearable, but thatthe current costis at the threshold of unreasonable and unbearable, and increasing it any more should not be an option.

(2) Ore needs to be harder to come by - I don't think anything (except harvester decay) needs to, or should,to be done to accomplish this. The cost of goods (weapons, armor, etc.) is already too high, and making harvesters decay is already going to make goods' prices go up because of the additional cost of harvesting resources (replacing harvesters).

If you make it harder to get resources, you are only further raising the price artisans will charge for those resources. You are also, arguably, increasing the prices of houses, because if the prices of resources on the market goes up, architects will want to charge more for the resources they use as well. Basically, you would be serving a double whammy on us. Two factors that substantially increase the prices of resources.

(3) Resource Sink - I think there are too many resources in the economy because lots of players buy a bunch of personal harvesters, place them outside their houses, and harvest whatever is at the highest concentration on any one day to sell.This practice is rampant on my server. These people harvest because it's easy and they never have to replace harvesters. I think decay will fix a little bit of this problem.

My other thought is this: There is only one kind of resources that matter...high quality resources. Most successful weaponsmiths, armorsmiths, doctors, etc.use the highest quality resources they can find. Those high quality resources are only rarely available because of resource shifts. Now, architects don't need high quality resources (which is good, because the alternative would substantially increase the prices of structures), but they also generate their own resources based on their needs.

So, if the resource market is saturated, it is saturated with amatuers who sell a bunch of crappy resources that are really only good for grinding. Although there MAY be a bunch of these resources out there, I think their limited usefulness means that most of them aren't really being sold and will eventually be destroyed by the players who have them. I could be wrong, but I think the market is saturated because no one wants to buy crappy resources.

(4) Money sink - I don't think my scheme changes anything. Players will spend less on maintenance, but will divert that saved moneyto architects. Architect arguably don't make any more money, because they are preserving the current demand for their products (selling one house per person per year), not generating increased demand.Even if architects DO make more money, that money is basically spent on the resources that they will need to replace all the heavy harvesters that decay and will have to be replaced. Architects extra money sink is inherent in the fact that architects will have to spend extra money to generate resources to constantly replace harvesters after decay is installed.

What do you think?

---

Quote:

Actually I think pay mantenance is HOW decay should work.

As a machine gets older, the pay mantenance increases until the user decides to replace it. That puts the decision point at the hands of the machine owner and not some atuomatic clock.

The only time a machine should go "poof" is if doesnt not have pay mantenance for some time.

---

Dayln,

I have always been REALLY adverse to this idea. Let me explain:

As I expressed above, the cost of owning structures is ALREADY too high. NOTHING to increase this cost is acceptable unless it directly benefits architects in some way. Increased maintenance is money that poofs into nothingness. So you are suggesting:

(1) That all players pay even more maintenance throughout the life of their structure until they replace their structure; AND

(2) Players pay more to architects to replace their structures.

This is EXACTLY the type of cost increase that is not acceptable.

Structuresdon't have to poof, they just need a useful life. At the end of a harvester's useful life, it stops working...it just sits there until you either (1) destroy it, or (2) leave it to rot (won't happen because players only get 10 lots). You can still pull resources out of it, you just cant redeed it or turn it on.

For houses, when the useful life expires make it so you can't redeedthe houseand either (1) you can't go inside the house until you repair it (put maintenance panel outside), or (2) you can't move furnitureor do anything in the house (like crafting stations stop working, can't call pets there, merchants are unresponsive, etc.) until you replace the house.

Actually, here is one thought I DO like...ifit is to hard to make it so you can't move furnitureor do anything in the house after the useful life, your decay idea could be used. Example:

All houses have a set amount of daily maintenance for a useful life of one year. At that end of one year, if you do not replace the house's deed, the maintenance cost doubles, and increases a little bit more each day until you plug in a new deed (at which time it reverts to that original number).

Constant increasing maintenance = bad. Increasing maintenance after the useful life of a house expires is the players own fault and is acceptable. I think this is a good mix of our ideas.

What do you think?

You know, if we come up with a set of ideas that the 3-4 of us (from the extreme different sides of the issue) can agree on, we really should write it up and pose it to Archangel and the main page for all architects to comment on. I have had several exchanges with Archangel on issues (he is a really great rep. for you guys by the way) and he is really interested ingood ideas. I think what we have been migrating to is a really good compromise.

I disagree, I think that the current cost of structures is quite low.

A heavyextractor can pay for itself at the current pay mantenance in an outrageously short time.

A PA hall only requres 2400 cr a day, that is chicken feed for a PA of more than 3 members. Good grief, there are simple cake walk missions that pay more than that.

However I do not like decay just making thigns go "poof", I want to make sure the decision is in the player hands.

Personally i would start all structures at half the current pay mantenance and then raise it by say 10% every week, It would take a PA hall 2 months to get to the current pay mantenance, and after 4 to 6 months it might be a good idea to replace it.

Heck I might agree to raising it only 5% a week, but that little bit of decay would prime the economy pump. Even when such a structure might be worth keeping a year before replacment.

I dont think that is outrageous at all.

Dayln,

I'm not talking about player associations. I am talking about individual players, like myself, who have to pay 3500 a week in maintenance for a house that does nothing for them. Additionally, if you take into account that fact that money paid to architects goes on top of that, those players also pay 3000 a week to architects (75000 price of housedivided over180 days--6months), that means every individual player like myself currentlypays 7500 a week in housing maintenance.

For me 7500 is 3 missions, and about a hour of time (at a minimum, and assuming no furniture decay). One hour of time to upkeep a house that does nothing for me is already unreasonable, considering that number is 10% of my playtime. That number should not be increased.

Now, as far as starting maintenance out at a lower level and increasing it:

(1) The net-some-game is that maintenance will be equally or more expensive than it currently is over a6 month period(unless you replace your house every 2 months, which is even more expensive than the maintenance). So basically, you are STILL requiring players to pay more maintenance AND more money to architects. That is unacceptable.

My idea is to pay a little less to maintenance, and make players rebuy structures. This doesn't cost the player much more, but it preserves the housing market. It is a compromise.

(2) Why do players need that added complication? How much do I need to drop in my house/harvester to keep it running for 3 days? Lets see, the maintenance level changes every day, so I am going to have to constantly calculate how much to drop in. That just doesn't make sense to me.

I think you incentive idea is GREAT...after a certain time of a certain amount of maintance. The game does not need to be any more annoyingly complicated.

By the way Dayln...if you look at the housing poll, a MAJORITY of all players are individual combat players like myself who own their own house as a residence, and only a SMALL number of players say they use a PA hall.

Additionally, of the players I know most of them have a house AND support a PA hall. If you are going to say PA hall maintenance is chicken feed, you need to take into account that a lot of players pay for both houses AND PA halls. Also, I noticed you didn't take the amount that PA halls cost into account when saying PA halls currently cost chicken feed. How much do you charge for PA halls? Don't you think that amount of money is also important in determining how muchPA halls cost players?

Actually, lets try this. Maybe this will get my point across. I have spent 3500 a week on maintenance for my house since I bought it. That's about 2 missions, or at least 30 minutes of time. If houses decay every 6 months, I will also have to pay 3000 week in replacement costs for a total of 6500 (oops...did I say 7500 above...yikes, my math was off). 6500 is 3 to 4 missions, or roughly a hour of time (because I take 2 missions in the same direction at a time, a majority of the mission is running and there is not much of a time difference between 3 and 4 missions).

So if decay is implemented withoutlowering maintenance, I will spend roughly 1 hour a week upkeeping my house.

Here is the kicker:

I spend, at the most,15 minutes a week inmy house (usually just paying maintenance).

Icurrently spend 30 minutes upkeeping my house for less than 15 minutes of enjoyment and actual use, and would spend an hour if decay were implemented.

A majority of players are combat players just like me. For us, the point of having a house is having a house.

Do you see my point about excessive cost?

All right ladies and gents...I gotta go catch a plane. I will be in NY for the next couple of days (working ) so I may or may not be able to reply. Gives me something to look forward to when I get back I guess.