Architect Archive
Thread: Consumable Buildings
- levels the playing field between old and new crafters
- gives architects a source of renewable sales
- puts yet another money sink into the game, but one that the crafters will *want* to use.
- gets rid of those blocks of materials
New Building Type: Smelter
Allows conversion of one material (of a given type) into another material (of the same type), at a significant conversion ratio, based on the difference between the stats. Has a limited amount of "catalyst" (experimentable during crafting) that is used up during the conversion process - once gone, the smelter cannot be used anymore. Each material type (Mineral, Chemical, Gas, Flora) would be represented by a different harvester, possible splitting Solar/Wind from Chemical, Hide/Meat/Bone/Shellfish from Flora to give more that four types.
The "Catalyst" is added after the building is placed, and sets the final product. Once the Catalyst is placed in the building, it cannot be changed, and it cannot be increased.
Craftable by: Architects (optional components from Droid Engineers)
Experimentation possible on:
- Conversion Ratio (worst ratio at 100:1, best ratio at 10:1) - using OQ, PE
- Catalyst Burn Rate (at worst 2:1, otherwise there is no point in doing this, at best 100:1) - using OQ, UT
- Maximum amount of Catalyst - using OQ
- Cost to run the Smelter (power and credits) - using SR, HR, OQ
The optional component from the Droid Engineer consists of a functioning droid to maintain the station. This droid can reduce the cost to operate the station, and enhances the Catalyst Burn Rate.
To make it work, the game would have to limit it by type, so if the "Catalyst" was Neutronium Steel, the materials beingconverted would also have to be Neutronium Steel. That detail, alone, will sell 30 of these units to every Weaponsmith in the game.
Taking it a further step, the difference between the source material and the catalyst would make the process take much longer (and maybe more material). Let's take as an example:
-
a resource of 1000 OQ ("Mythical") -
a resource of 1 OQ resource ("Typical") -
acrafter with nearly infinite cash and power, with1 unit of "Mythical" and 10,000,000 units of "Typical". -
aperfect smelter (10:1 conversion ratio, 100:1 catalyst burn rate).
The owner of the smelter places the smelter, and puts in the precious 1 unit of "Mythical", locking this system into that type of output material.
Because of the OQ difference, the "Typical" is converted at 1000:1 rate before taking the smelter's conversion rate into account, so the final conversion rate will end up 10,000:1. At best, at the end of the run, the ownerwould endup with only 1000 units of "Mythical" - except that this would use up 10 units of catalyst. The owner only had 1 unit for the catalyst, so he really ends with 9,000,000 units of "Typical", 100 units of "Mythical" and a dead Smelter. He buys *another* Smelter, and puts in 9 units of "Mythical" for conversion, and runs the rest of the "Typical".
Net: 10,000,000 units of "Typical" and 1 unit of "Mythical" turned into 991 units of "Mythical". One Architect who sold two Smelters, and is likely to get more business when the crafter decides to turn his stockpile of "Atrocious" into the much nicer "Dandy". The game's database went from 101 rows in a database (for the 100 stacks of "Typical" and the 1 stack of "Mythical") down to 1 row (of the 991 "Mythical"), not counting the sold and killed smelters.
There would be a huge spike in the sale of smelters, but they would continue over time as new resources shift in.
I'm debating about limiting the conversion of "Mythical" to "Typical", so that 1 unit of resource down not become 100 units, but even that does not seem so bad, since the "round trip" would still take 2 smelters and it would end up costing 100 units for every 1 unit.
Thoughts?
Interesting idea. Something bad though about being able to convert every possible resource into a whole new set of resources...like how each build has a different serial number, so we'd have a new resource name each time a smelter was used. Something seems database-ly bad about that.
I'm not sure this system would really cause old stores to disappear for architects, it would be better for classes like armorsmith and weaponsmith who need really small amounts of resources to make anything. This system would be bad for factories, especially since there isn't a need for super great resources on a lot of things.
This system still favors the older crafters btw. Since they have more resources and more harvesters, they'll get more mythical resources and still push out the new crafters who won't be able to produce as much mythical resource and gain market share with finished mystical products.
I think the larger stack size would be better. You know like having 1 million in a stack instead of 100k.
The Idea of Smelters is a grand Idea, and would be a great way to have renewable resources for architects. However, the equation above has a fundamental flaw in it. With out the ability to take two or three resources, and increase one or two specific stats, the salty dogs still outdo the fresh meat.
This is one area where I will take a lesson out of life. Iron alone is a pretty soft, and very distructable metal. Besides pots, pans, and plating something for looks, it is not vary worth it. Now, add some manganese, and some carbon, bam, very strong steel, suddenly you can hold up a 100 story building with the stuff.
Titanium and carbon, light weight, tough metal, great for flying objects.
The fundamental aspect here is that, the artisian, if by a new profession, or by everyone, needs a way take two materials of DIFERRENT TYPES, and create a much stronger material of either a) the same type as one material. or b.) the different material of the same base Type.
For example.
-If I have Link-Steal Alluminum, and Silicate Ore.
-I choose to increase the OQ.
I should be able to make either a strong OQ alluminum by adding large amounts of alluminum and small amounts of silicates, or a strong OQ Silicate by adding small amounts of alluminum.
Example two.
-I have link-steel allum, and Titanium Allum
- I can create a stronger link-steel, a stronger titanium, or a 3rd type of alluminum all together.
end examples.
The big problem is the names of resources, which would probably have to be random. This creates a database overhead depending on how if the devs store a DB table of all possible resources. Most likely, the names are not stored "globaly" in the database, but rather on the object itself.
Technically all the DB has to know is that the object is a Resource container. Each resource container DB entry should have a fileld for "Base Type" (mineral,floral,chemical,hide,etc...) , "Type" (metal, non-metal,reactive,inhert,etc..), "Sub-Type" (Pholokite,Duralloy,Platinite,Leathery hide),"Name" (Omniwook,efobe,evom,evic,dideromonixide,etc..), and a field for each statistic (UT,OQ,CR,SR,HR) as well as a method to display the right container (radioactive, hide, metals, polymers, solid petro, florals, etc...), which is probably a referance to a client graphics resouce, and last but not least the quantity of the resource.
Now lets say we take two 100k stacks ofterrible resourcesand make phenominal resources out of them. If, done at a 1 to 1 ratio, (1 unit of 1 type and 1 unit of second type, makes 1 unit of the 3rd type 1:1:1) then you have eliminated 1 entry from that persons database footprint. (had 2 stacks of resources, now only has 1).
In conclusion, If all the above is correct, and as long as the ratio stays at X:Y:1 where x and y are greater than 0, the database profile should be reduced, unless 100% of the old material is not used (small statistic considering that the newer material should be better and more desirable). Great Idea, but it HAS to be implemented correctly.
If not slag metal, just plain slag that can be used in place of ore in Bricks... I'd prefer that to rubbing my 100k of colerverbie steel against a philosopher's stone.
.
Targetam wrote:
The main issue that I was trying to avoid was the creation of new resources. I am assuming that their database layout would look something like this:
tbl_resource_phylum (Gas, Mineral, Flora, Water)
..tbl_resource_class (Radioactive, Metal)
....tbl_resource_order (Ferrous, Non-Ferrous)
......tbl_resource_genus (Steel, Aluminum, Copper, Unknown, Iron)
........tbl_resource_species (Phrik, Duralumin, Link-Steel)
I put together a database of my resources and also used a similar layout.
Class, Order Family, Genus, Species.
Example:
Name Duritoiviep
Class: Inorganic
Order: Minerals
Family: Non-Ferrous Metal
Genus: Copper
Species: Polysteel
That way I can run queries for Polysteel, Copper, Non-Ferrous, Minerals, or Inorganic.
.
Targetam wrote:
The main issue that I was trying to avoid was the creation of new resources. I am assuming that their database layout would look something like this:
tbl_resource_phylum (Gas, Mineral, Flora, Water)
..tbl_resource_class (Radioactive, Metal)
....tbl_resource_order (Ferrous, Non-Ferrous)
......tbl_resource_genus (Steel, Aluminum, Copper, Unknown, Iron)
........tbl_resource_species (Phrik, Duralumin, Link-Steel)
Global storage of each resource is an insane task for a database that is being used for other types of storage. Much more efficient to store generic object types and let the server distinguish what is what. Storing the above table as fields in the "Resource" object is a much more suitable approach to an MMOG. The server can distinguish what steal is what. All the DB should have to do is store the quanity of the resource, and if truelly dynamic, the stats of the resource (although this can be pushed to the server as well through an excel sheet of all resource). Considering that a harvester problem made for lost materials around the first or second harvester patch, a global list of all materials that were in the game probably does not exist (they lost materials after one resource cycle). Therefore, stats are more than likely stored on the object, which is stored in a Player's inventory table. This allows for versatile resource creation controlled from outside the DB in the server relm like it is. I am also willing to bet that no dev would be able to give a list of all resources spawned since launch on all servers without going to a salty dog's website.
That being said, creating resources that don't stack is already a "problem". I have4 types of steal that will produce the same BER 13 harvesters. Most I have over 500k of. That is no different than the problem that would be created by this type of system. The only difference is that you can make a serve side tablethat has set names and stats for different materials at different stages (read that you can only enhance at like 15-20 point increments). Since this list would have a static size, you could also store it in the DB for fast quering (sp). This type of resource creation would lead to an even playing field for all new players, but HAS TO BE IMPLEMENTED RIGHT as I have said many times over.
MadACR wrote:
Targetam wrote:
The main issue that I was trying to avoid was the creation of new resources. I am assuming that their database layout would look something like this:
tbl_resource_phylum (Gas, Mineral, Flora, Water)
..tbl_resource_class (Radioactive, Metal)
....tbl_resource_order (Ferrous, Non-Ferrous)
......tbl_resource_genus (Steel, Aluminum, Copper, Unknown, Iron)
........tbl_resource_species (Phrik, Duralumin, Link-Steel)
Global storage of each resource is an insane task for a database that is being used for other types of storage. Much more efficient to store generic object types and let the server distinguish what is what. Storing the above table as fields in the "Resource" object is a much more suitable approach to an MMOG. The server can distinguish what steal is what. All the DB should have to do is store the quanity of the resource, and if truelly dynamic, the stats of the resource (although this can be pushed to the server as well through an excel sheet of all resource). Considering that a harvester problem made for lost materials around the first or second harvester patch, a global list of all materials that were in the game probably does not exist (they lost materials after one resource cycle). Therefore, stats are more than likely stored on the object, which is stored in a Player's inventory table. This allows for versatile resource creation controlled from outside the DB in the server relm like it is. I am also willing to bet that no dev would be able to give a list of all resources spawned since launch on all servers without going to a salty dog's website.
That being said, creating resources that don't stack is already a "problem". I have4 types of steal that will produce the same BER 13 harvesters. Most I have over 500k of. That is no different than the problem that would be created by this type of system. The only difference is that you can make a serve side tablethat has set names and stats for different materials at different stages (read that you can only enhance at like 15-20 point increments). Since this list would have a static size, you could also store it in the DB for fast quering (sp). This type of resource creation would lead to an even playing field for all new players, but HAS TO BE IMPLEMENTED RIGHT as I have said many times over.
Another spin on this idea....
Joe armorsmith needs 13k for crism ore. Having none he drops his smelter, and drops in an ore he has lying around in abundance. Tells the smelter that he wants some Crism ore on the double. The machine then tells him to input XXX amount of YYY reasourceto turn his chunk of ore into what he needs.
eh?