Architect Archive

Post your opinions about why we need a renewable revenue, or why we don't. If the decay route is taken, post what would be acceptable to you.

The following options are the only ones really open to us -

Largest Chance- Decay is added, Maint stays

Some Chance- No decay, drag-and-drop items purchased from Architects needed

Least Chance - They revolve and introduce newhousing schematics frequently so players buy the "new thing"

Also keep in mind that we will always have to pay a maint fee for harvesters and buildings, as it is the main source of credits exported out of the game.

I just had a brainwave about this one.

I've been advocating a system whereby someone has to feed an appropriate-type deed to the structure periodically to keep it from decaying. A less extreme version of this might be that, when a person feeds the structure such a deed, it pays maintenance equal to, say, twice some fair estimated cost for that item. So, for instance, right now a small house might go for around 10k. When a small house deed is fed to the house, it should add a 20k maintenance payment to it. Put a limit on the number of times that this can be done per some time period. (For instance, set it so that only one deed can be fed in per month or per week or whatever seems appropriate). That means it will make good financial sense for someone to buy deeds from architects periodically to supplement their maintenance payments (because the cost to them to buy the deed will be smaller than the cost to pay that amount of maintenance directly), but they won't have to do this (and won't be able to keep their structures maintained only by doing this, so that a credit sink still exists).

Since this would be stickier to arrange with furniture (imagine trying to insert a couch or couch bits into every couch you own...), a traditional decay/maintenance route might be better for that (in other words, one-shot furniture repair tools).

As an Architect even, I really don't think decay should be placed on houses. Players are already paying Maint. fees to cover this. Same with harvesters.

I'm really not sure what should be added at the moment though. Maybe they could add something that a Novice Architect (at least) only can make with structure repair tool. Something like repair blocks or something that has to be paid like power for harvesters is now.

You create these blocks (should not be complicated or use a ton of resources) and should be able to be made in quantity. You sell them and the player adds them to the house just like you add power to a harvester.

We need something that the players themselves can add as they need instead of trying to find an architectto do repair. I can see houses poofing now because the person can't find an architect to repair his house.

Quite frankly, I wouldn't want to be bothered that much anyway. I would rather be able to make something I can sell and players can use when they need.

Repair blocks -20 ore,20 metal results in XXX amount of blocks and stackable, needs structure tool and Novice Architect minimum. This would also be a source of structure experience for young architects. Maybe 20 per.

Now, houses would take maybe 20 per day?

Also, they could reduce the maint. fee if they added these repair blocks.

Maybe not use Ore cause ore is already hard enough to get any large amounts of because of the poor concentrations and having to travel all over the place to get something decent.

The only problem I have with repair-type items is that we'll end up literally never producing anything else.

The interface for re-deding structures is too easy. Make it more confusing so every once and a while players accidently delete their houses and harvestors

But seriously...lets think about how this works in real life. Houses generally last for decades if not centuries, return buisness for architects because someone's house fell apart never happens (because if their house did fall apart they sure as heck wouldn't be returning). And furniture is in fact more valuable the older it gets (antiques). So it seems that as long as these things are maintained (and players are paying maintainence) everything should be fine and dandy.

Of course this hasn't solved anything for us because we still need some sort of reoccuring buisness. I like the idea of feeding the structures with something as more efficient maintanence as mentioned in a post above. Maybe you wouldn't have to feed it whole new deeds, but if you replaced a few structure modules or the power core every once and a while, it would benice to see your maintence pool increase or possibly the rate decrease (like replacing you roof now means you will have to spend less on water damage later). This would certainly promote buisness if the benefits were cheaper than just paying credits,but would also not constitute a huge change in the dynamics of structures.

Could we ask those opposed to decay to please explain what they suggest be done when everyone has all the structures they need and will buy no more. They seem to be adamant in their beliefs yet i dont think ive seen one propose an alternate solution to this problem.

Also, I think that harvesters should be handled differently - base that decay on the number of times they're moved. (Which number should be increasible via experimentation.)

I'll just add this... you will never get anything that involves removing maintenance fees, in part or in whole. the whole purpose of them is to remove credits from the game. So, unless the devs determine there are not enough credits in the game (which is highly unlikely as they are doing all they can right now to limit influx of credits) they will never remove any type of sinks already built in. In fact, if anything, you would see these go up, not down.

If you're going to propose something that stops credits from leaving the game, you need to also propose a way for those same credits which would have gone to maintenance fees to find a way out of the game.

I don't have an answer for a renewable revenue source and I'm still open to ideas, but I think this one is dead before it ever gets started.

Zar this is an excerpt from a very long complete redesign of the architect profession that I have been posting about.

VII. Decay/Fees

A. Residential Structures do not decay. Ever. (This is how it currently is.) Maintenance fee changed to Property Tax. (Could also add system to where location determined the amount of tax the owner(s) must pay.) Redeed cost as normal.(maybe balanced a bit better for the various sizes.)

B. Commercial Structures do not decay for a set period of time. This time as well as thier decay rate when they do start to decay can be altered through experimentation. Maintenance costs begin rising until the owner must replace the decaying structures. (This system would halt the functionality of acommercial structure until the owner bought and fed a new deed of the same lot size into the old structure. The structure decay wait times/rates would be reset to those of the new deed.) (Essentially this will allow a person to replace a building without having to move everything out and destroying the old structure. The old interior would simply overwrite the one on the new deed.) Redeed cost becomes Rebuild cost.

C. Industrial Structures Decay from the start but the rate can be affected by several by several factors. Experimentation, Maintenance Technicians(New profession) or Maintenance Droids. Functionality decays as time wears on until the owner has no choice but to replace the structure. Decay is also reduced to 1/10th normal when the structure is off however if the structure is unattended for a set period of time it will vanish. There is no redeed cost however redeeding reduces functionality by 5% each time.

D. Military structures do not decay nor do they cost maintenance. They can however be damaged by opposing factions requiring repair to become functional again. Repaired items are gradually reduced in efficiency each time they are repaired. there is a redeed cost associated with these items.

E.Graphics for exteriors change to match the decay of the structure.

the complete post can be found here and I do update it once a week as new groovy ideas are introduced and old ones become unnecessary IMO.

http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=architect&message.id=12814

---

Ropock wrote:

I'll just add this... you will never get anything that involves removing maintenance fees, in part or in whole. the whole purpose of them is to remove credits from the game.

---

This is a good point. So, how about this:

1. Double the existing maintenance fees.
2. If you want, you can buy another deed of the same kind as the house or factory and insert it via your terminal. This will cause the maintenance fee to be reduced to the old rate.
3. The powerup deed will eventually decay and vanish, like weapon powerups do. (In, say, a month.) Another one can be bought and inserted to reset the maintenance fee to the lower rate.

That way, at worst credits are flowing out at the present rate, and at best they're flowing out at an increased rate.

(The reason that I favor using an entire deed instead of components is the same reason I don't like repair items - we'll be making nothing but components all day. If it's whole deeds, we can make exactly the same items that we make right now, except they will have more uses. It has a minimal impact on our crafting strategy.)

In fact, you could use "structure powerups" to have other effects as well - making a factory work more quickly, for instance. So people might end up buying three deeds for one physical structure, which would be slightly illogical but definitely nice for architects.

Hell, what about the ability to drop a factory deed into a house terminal to let the house temporarily manufacture items like a factory? The downside, of course, is that you can't put the maintenance deed in and therefore you have to pay the higher maintenance fee. (Plus, it shouldn't work as well as a real factory.) This would also help with the "architects need more lots" problem.

(Obviously, the numbers involved in these calculations would have to be adjusted to make them viable. For instance, a small house deed would probably have to halve maintenance costs (if they were doubled) for three months to make it worthwile to buy one.)

I am totally opposed to decay of structures.

There will always be a market for our goods. Haven't any of you ever heard of churn? It's a fact with MMO's that people leave the game and new ones enter it all the time. Decay would only be necessary in a stagnant game, and SWG is far from being stagnant (despite the ranters on the dev board).