Architect Archive
Thread: You want decay, here is your decay.
Change the resource cost of heavy harvesters down by 10. What once used 25000 resources, now only uses 2500.
Catch is, they are only good for 3 redeeds
You don't make the 75,000-100,000 (anything more for a heavy is a ripoff) in one shot, instead, you make it in the sale of 10 heavies but, you will have a continous flow of harvesters that are easy to make and cheap to buy.
Instead of dumping 75000+ into 1 harv that last a long time, you dump 7500 into a harv 10 times. Same difference really, it just provides architects with a stead stream of work and income.
Yea, I know, some architects here will want 75,000 on a regular basis and you all already know what I think aboutthese low life type people.
BTW, the numbers don't HAVE to be what I posted for those that think when people post an idea and numbers that it is written in stone or something.
House decay sucks.
Decay sucks. People already pay for anti-decay on structures.
Sure, you have decay on weapons and armor but, you don't pay maint. fees on those either do you?
Sounds pretty reasonable to me.. I also agree about the house decay being insane.. Furniture as well doesnt make alot of sense... I still have no problems selling furniture people are always buying it.. Perhaps its the cost that makes it more appealing? I believe that some destroy furntiure and buy new stuff.. perhaps just for a change of style.. perhaps just to change the appearance of their homes 
Make any deeds have a maximum "redeed" cap of 3 or 5 ..that will keep a turn over and like stated here.. make them use LESS resources.. our use of gross amounts of resources needs to be brought in align and the redeed cap would make that more appealing..
Just my 2c worth 
I'm not an architect, but I understand and sympathize with the lack of decay in the architectural goods market. I think Scortch's idea of harvester type buildings poofing after 3 redeeds is good.
However, I think a form of "decay" on houses and other buildings that players can occupy is needed. Please read whatI have to say before you start flaming me about "decay" on houses. I'm a customer of architectural goods, and I'd hope you will listen to your customer. 
Housing decay needs to not change the environment foryour customers (I'm speaking from that perspective here). For housing decay to be acceptable to your customers, it needs to have these requirements:
- As long as I keep my house in good condition, my house will never poof or require me to get a new house. I've spent a good amount of time arranging items in my house. I will not use or buy a house if I have to buy a new house, move all my items to the new house, and rearrangemy itemsevery few months. This would be like being evicted every few months in real life. Big pain in the ass.
- Upkeep of the decay should cost me approximately what it does today.
My solution? Make houses take units of construction materials instead of credits as maintenance, similar to how harvesters take energy. These construction materialswould be crafted by architects and sold to home owners. So, instead of dumping 30k credits into my maintenance terminal, I would go find my local architect vendor and buy 30k worth of building materials and put those into the house to pay maintenance.
The end result is that it costs me theabout the same as it does now and maintenance works approximately the same as it does today, but architects get a cut of the maintenance by providing me with the goods to keep my house in good shape. Ihighly doubt most players would have a problem with this as it does not change the cost of owning a home and it would provide the architects with a form of "decay" through the sale of consumable goods.
What do you architects think? Good? Bad? Hellish nightmares of crafting nothing but silly building construction materials? I'm just a customer trying to help...
- Aj
I've got two areas where I keep harvesters that use others people's lots - been using them for about 6 weeks now and never re-deeded (can't, of course)... Sure, sometimes I have to go with a resource that I already have enough of, but over time, it works out (also have switched some of them to 35% resources - which hurts but not as much as not getting anything). Currently, one of them is getting 90% of a great resource so it does work out over time...
So, while in initial concept this might seem like a good idea, what you are going to do is cause areas where harvesters just sit, and never relocate because the people have already re-deeded twice and don't want to lose them.
WIll these harvesters mine less? Or do you suggest that we use 7.5k materials to make something that mines DOUBLE that in one day?
and exactly where do you get off saying that 75k-100k is a ripoff for these machines?
On an 80% spot of anything a heavy at extract 10 will dig up 11.5k resources a day. So you are saying that something that EASILY makes someone 23k a day (assuming they are digging up crap resources and sell dirt cheap at 2cr/unit) that never decays ..... 75-100k and you are ripping yourself off if you sell that low!
so in 3-4 days they have easily made 75k that they paid for the machine. 2 days if its a good resource they are mining..
ARe you on bria? if so ill buy some heavies from you at 75k each.. thats less than 3cr/unit...
Scortch wrote:
You don't make the 75,000-100,000 (anything more for a heavy is a ripoff)
What? Anything less that 200k is ripping off the Architect!
Harvesters are MONEY MAKING MACHINES and heavies are a pain to make.
This is exactly why I dropped Master Architect...