Architect Archive
Thread: Structure Secondary Decay
Page 1 of 2
Sahnd
Tue Sep 21, 2004 9:26 pm
#1
Caveat: I'm not an architect, nor do I frequent this forum. I was admittedly drawn to the forum today by Tigg's post that I saw in the Dev tracker. The number-one complaint I saw was no repeat business, no renewed structures, no decay. Having scrolled back through the forum and the stickies, I began to think, and came up with this idea:
Secondary Structure Decay. This should be a dynamic system that does not set a time limit on structures, but gives you benefits for using new structures.
The basic idea of decay is: as time passes, the structure needs to be repaired. I.e. the condition stat goes down. This does not happen with structures. There is a maintenance system that keeps structures from ever having to worry about condition dropping. This maintenance you deposit into the structure and it "pays for repairs".
Now, my idea of secondary decay would not effect condition, but rather maintenance, or maintenance rate. As time passes, the maintenance rate would rise. Older structures would be more expensive to upkeep than newer structures. It makes sense from a realistic point of view.
Say the secondary decay rate is 5% per week for personal structures, and 1 or 2% on City structures. Using numbers: let's say we have a structure with a maintenance rate of 60 credits per hour (about 10k per week). After a week has gone by, that structure will start to require 63 credits per hour. In another week, it would be 66. Another, 69. After a month, that structure would require 72 credits per hour. 5 Weeks: 76 credits. So on to 2 months old: 88 credits per hour. That's an overall increase of 47%. It would double the maintenance rate in a little less then 4 months.
At what point that becomes prohibitive to pay for is entirely up to the money management of the structure owner.
Granted, this rate isn't set in stone, but 5% is noticeable enough to be a positive change in return business for architects. This would have to be tweaked a little to compensate for the initial investment in a structure. Really, for the smart owner, it would be most effective to get a new structure when the amount they are paying in increased maintenance would cost more than a new structure.
A miner may want to replace his harvesters every month, or just stick with the ones he has down because he's making enough profit to pay for it, and the convenience of just changing resources rather than replacing is worth it. Another miner may be selling cheap resources and will figure out just when to replace because he wants to keep his operating costs low. The beauty of this system is that the point where you absolutely need a new structure is entirely up to the owner. Granted, some may not like that, because they aren't seeing any of the increased costs until replacement, but I like the organic nature of it.
I'm throwing this out for consideration in the supposition that is has not been brought up in quite the same way before. If it helps architects as a profession, great. If it only gets in your way, I apologize.
---Woohe/Ah'er/Stootee
Edit: spelling
Secondary Structure Decay. This should be a dynamic system that does not set a time limit on structures, but gives you benefits for using new structures.
The basic idea of decay is: as time passes, the structure needs to be repaired. I.e. the condition stat goes down. This does not happen with structures. There is a maintenance system that keeps structures from ever having to worry about condition dropping. This maintenance you deposit into the structure and it "pays for repairs".
Now, my idea of secondary decay would not effect condition, but rather maintenance, or maintenance rate. As time passes, the maintenance rate would rise. Older structures would be more expensive to upkeep than newer structures. It makes sense from a realistic point of view.
Say the secondary decay rate is 5% per week for personal structures, and 1 or 2% on City structures. Using numbers: let's say we have a structure with a maintenance rate of 60 credits per hour (about 10k per week). After a week has gone by, that structure will start to require 63 credits per hour. In another week, it would be 66. Another, 69. After a month, that structure would require 72 credits per hour. 5 Weeks: 76 credits. So on to 2 months old: 88 credits per hour. That's an overall increase of 47%. It would double the maintenance rate in a little less then 4 months.
At what point that becomes prohibitive to pay for is entirely up to the money management of the structure owner.
Granted, this rate isn't set in stone, but 5% is noticeable enough to be a positive change in return business for architects. This would have to be tweaked a little to compensate for the initial investment in a structure. Really, for the smart owner, it would be most effective to get a new structure when the amount they are paying in increased maintenance would cost more than a new structure.
A miner may want to replace his harvesters every month, or just stick with the ones he has down because he's making enough profit to pay for it, and the convenience of just changing resources rather than replacing is worth it. Another miner may be selling cheap resources and will figure out just when to replace because he wants to keep his operating costs low. The beauty of this system is that the point where you absolutely need a new structure is entirely up to the owner. Granted, some may not like that, because they aren't seeing any of the increased costs until replacement, but I like the organic nature of it.
I'm throwing this out for consideration in the supposition that is has not been brought up in quite the same way before. If it helps architects as a profession, great. If it only gets in your way, I apologize.
---Woohe/Ah'er/Stootee
Edit: spelling
Message Edited by Sahnd on 09-22-2004 12:27 AM
Carrissa
Tue Sep 21, 2004 9:43 pm
#2
This has been discussed before, while it sounds like a good idea it would completely kill your business. Furniture is nice and all but if it did decay most players wouldnt even bother with it. Who wants to worry about buying a couch if its just going to wear out somewhere down the line. Since the furniture has no practical use, there is no incentive to buy with those kinds of restrictions.
Bandola
Tue Sep 21, 2004 10:56 pm
#3
Carrissa, I am certain that the original poster is not talking about furniture here. The specific references are to structures that require maintenance payments to keep them from burning down. there is no mention of furniture at all, furniture does not require maintenance so the idea could not apply. I fail to see how you managed to make the connection between the idea behind thepost and furniture.
Nethertheless, this idea has been put up before, but it is one of the least 'championed', I have no idea why, because it makes sense. Having said that I do not see the devs making such a change, they have not seemed over concerned with our lack of sustainability, maybe something will come with JTL, but I am not going to hold my breath.
Atin_Lesci
Wed Sep 22, 2004 1:25 am
#4
Another idea with regards to decay is to reduce the BER of harvesters over time.
So a brand spanking new BER13 would stay that way for at least a month or so and then would decay to a BER12, and so on.
Structure decay, I like the idea of increased maintenance.
But it should only be structures and harvesters. I honestly can't see the point having decay on lights (candles) or furniture.
Atin
Master Artisan
Master Teras Kasi Artist
Master Architect
Bandola
Wed Sep 22, 2004 1:29 am
#5
I also like that idea, but sadly Iwould not trust the devs with decay on the BER, look what happens with candles, I can see that I would craft my nice new BER13s put them on my vendor and watch them decay to 12, 11, 10..... and as with candles the devs would do absolutely nothing.
I think I am just getting more and more cynical the longer I play this game, I wonder why 
Elyssa
Wed Sep 22, 2004 2:11 am
#6
Decay is fine as long as:
1) it can be repaired
2) it doesn't require a re-deed to repair.
3) it doesn't happen ungodly fast.
chhenni
Wed Sep 22, 2004 2:22 am
#7
Bandola wrote:I also like that idea, but sadly Iwould not trust the devs with decay on the BER, look what happens with candles, I can see that I would craft my nice new BER13s put them on my vendor and watch them decay to 12, 11, 10..... and as with candles the devs would do absolutely nothing.I think I am just getting more and more cynical the longer I play this game, I wonder why
What if ber only starts dropping after the harvester is placed.
For furniture decay wont work at all. And increased maintance pay for houses is also a quite bad idea, at least if it forces the house owner to delete it, and place a new one. This forces the house owner to move all the items in his house to a new house, wich is a timeconsuming work, and it also forces you to have lots of inventory space. Right now i live in a guildhall, when i swiched guild i had to redeed my the entire structure. Not only did i have to start over with decorating it, i also had to move all af my furniture to another house. I did not have lots enough to place that house so i was forced to give a house to one of my friends. All in all it was timeconsuming.
My idea is that you should be able to give the house you need to redeed a new deed for the same kind of house, then it is renewed and maintance is lov again. That should also give us more repeat customers. Furniture in the other hand should have no upkeep at all
Bandola
Wed Sep 22, 2004 2:47 am
#8
Yes, this kind of decay should of course only happen ater the structure is placed, BUT that is what should happen with candles as well, except it doesn't. The cynic in me says that the devs couldn't get it right with candles, and still haven't fixed it, so what makes you think they could do it any better with structures? Of course we can hope they learned from last time....
I also agree that housing type structures need to be treated differently, it would be far too much work to have to replace one of these after all the hard work getting it 'just right' and having to temporarily store all the contents somewhere (how many players who have full houses have any spare lots for this purpose anyway?). Far better if we follow Pawlin's idea and have a 'repair tool' or perhaps a new deed and 'insert it' into the control panel for the building (of the same type of course) which would then reset the starting maintenance level, that surely has to be the easiest to code, and would not require the owner to do anything at all with his building, everything, contents included would remain 'untouched'.
Message Edited by Bandola on 09-22-2004 02:49 AM
Iannyen
Wed Sep 22, 2004 5:03 am
#9
Elyssa wrote:
Decay is fine as long as:
1) it can be repaired
2) it doesn't require a re-deed to repair.
3) it doesn't happen ungodly fast.
I don't think it should be 100% repairable. It should work like a weapon or armor. It gets repaired to a significant percentage of its previous condition, but not all the way back, or can be critically failed and reduce the total max by 50%...
I can see uses for that in harvesters. I'd also like to see the factories have useful experimentation as far as hopper size, efficency, etc...
What about being able to experiment the maintenance rate?
Veers_Intrepid
Wed Sep 22, 2004 5:19 am
#10
in my opinion,
do NOT touch houses or furnitures!!! never ever
but do such for harvesters would be maybe not bad idea tho.
this devs are out of mind in some ways (best example the merchant destruction nerf aka full stocked vendors with maintain in it plus player with proper skill has now to worry a vendor could get deleted)
be careful what you cry for, the devs might implement then , when u not use a factory for 2 weeks or drop something in your house it goes poof. :/
ask a Dev 
Elyssa
Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:45 am
#11
Or EVERYTHING in your input hopper gets sucked into the machinery whether it's a component or not and the factory chews it up and spits out a useless pile of splinters and metal shavings.
I hate it when they tinker around with things that work.
Pawlin
Wed Sep 22, 2004 12:23 pm
#12
Well I think this is one of the best methods for implementing decay that I've seen proposed.
I'd much rather see the impact of the decay be just a higher maintenance bill than having peoples houses go *poof*. A gradually increasing maintenance bill would be much easier for house owners to handle.
For houses in particular I might want to see a repair kit made so that the home owner could apply the kit to repair their house rather than having to pack up all their furniture, redeed the old house and build a new one. I wouldn't want to have to rearrange my entire house just to get the decay fixed. And there are some people who have spent tons of hours doing elaborate decorations and it would be a shame to make them redo that just to save a few bucks. Course house owners wouldn't have to get a new housebut then they'd be stuck paying a larger and larger maintenance bill and I think it would be fair and easier all around to have a repair kit.
Nadiel26
Thu Sep 23, 2004 12:05 am
#13
just let us make turrets. people destroy them so fast we'll all be rich 
Page 1 of 2