Architect Archive

The "Commoditization" of the Craft

com·mod·i·ty: An article of trade or commerce, especially an agricultural or mining product that can be processed and resold.

Architecture and buildings are not commodities. A commodity is something inert, a basic unit of which other things grow or are made. Commodities are the foundation, not the exponent. Why then is it being treated as such in this game?!?!

I have read numerous posts by Architects (ingame) who feelthey are at wits end, spending all their time running factories...and missions to pay for the factories...and regard the fruit of their labor as something that cannot be tweaked and improved upon the way a weaponsmith or armorsmith does their products. Why?

In RL, Architecture is emminently "customizable". Maybethis fluidityis whatlimits it's accurate portrayal in the game - too MANY things to include forces massexclusion. But in my experience, that's what craftersenjoy! Finding the right fit of materials and schematics...getting it "right" and having an awesome product that someone can use - this is what drives the crafter (plus the profit motive).

My point is this: as of the moment, Architecture and buildings are EXPENSIVE commodities that are basically lifeless. They lack a tie in to a market economy, because one house is basically the same thing as another.

I propose, as a result of experimenting on constituent parts, or even on the final building, that the costs of maintaining houses are reduced by experimentation. This is similar to the way things work in RL, as materials research, better planning and execution yield houses that are more energy efficient and better constructed - which cost LESS TO MAINTAIN. In other words:

experimentation => lower costs of ownership. This is a more accurate depction of our world, increases customization, ties the building into the market economy and gives everyone what they want - less expensive houses, maybe even houses that take up fewer lots by way of some Frank Lloyd Wright legerdemain.

/getoffsoapbox

-Kerel Spektik, Engineer, Tyrena

Maintenance is a prime money sink in the game. The mission payouts fluctuate based on the economic sinks in the game. The more sinks there are, the more money that needs to enter the system. Thats how the economy is working. Maintenance fees cover about30% of the money drained out of the Bria economy near the end of Beta. Training and Travel were right there with it. As the server matures, I'd bet we see a drop in the Training sinks. The Space Expansion may or may not change the travel sinks, depending on how maintenance on ships is handled.

By allowing players to alter one of the most stable sinks in the game, the economy would be much harder to maintain.

Marduke Akkad

Architect

South Beach, Talus

I suggested precisely what you just did on my thread.

http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=architect&message.id=2991

Fourty posts there as I write this, and nobody from developement is showing their face yet... *sigh*, one can hope.

You might be missing an important piece of the puzzle... experimentation does appear to reduce the cost of housing, but in a semi-hidden way.

Although we have yet to get hard evidence from the devs on this, it appears that having high-durability components reduces your failure rate on crafting the final products.

Using ore and metal with a high unit toughness improves experimental durability. This in turn appears to reduce failure rates on combined bits like walls and houses and factories.

If you can experiemtn up the durability of your basic blocks, and maybe even your walls, get some really good schematics, and then mass produce very high quality blocks and walls, you should fail less in your final production. This means you don't have to raise your prices to cover the cost of failing the first time you tried to build that factory.

The architect who continually uses shoddy materials and doesn't experiement will be driven out of business by high failure rates (one would hope).

Of course at this point it's still anecdotal evidence. We'll have to wait and see I guess if this plays out to true.

I am very happy to see someone examining the component structure in such a thorough way, but I would like to see game mechanics reflect the success rates, as well - in other words, mainteneance is handled entirely automatically by the game "engine". I would like to see costs of maintaining structures diminish with greater successes, not just the same flat rate for all structures . Guns and armor are all unique items - why aren't buildings?

Basically, I would like to see a day where people broswe the bazaar reviewing "costs of maintenenace" for each house - as that would provide an incentive for each architect to produce better work and would therefore tie building into the economy, just like in real life.

So, essentially, I am saying that yes...using better materials is fine - it costs less for the Architect in the long run (and also the consumer), but I would like to see the benefits of experimentation extend past the point of sale into the area of usage.