CUEmu - Thread Posts

DesertFarmer

Wed Mar 24, 2004 4:39 pm

I have not seen this before, but was thinking about harvestor decay a bit.. There is already a durability experimentation that means absolutely nothing and Architects would like a renewable source of income. How about making the BER rate of the harvestor decay with use and tie this to the durability experimentation? It would take a bit of research to determine how fast this decay should be, and how much the experimentation would affect this rate, but it would definitely provide a more stable income for the Architect and it would improve the variety of experimentation as well.

Flame Shields up!

jol69

Wed Mar 24, 2004 10:35 pm

#2

The player population will raise up flaming screams the likes of which this forum has never heard if the Devs implement Harvestor Decay, other than that which already occurs due to disrepair. I have to say that I think Harvestor Decay is a bad idea. Once the Space Expansion comes out, you will see the market for harvestors jump up since presumably Spaceships will require enormous amounts of resources.

~ Eseex Aptopack: Master Image Designer, Aspiring Carbineer~

Bandola

Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:24 am

#3

Daisame wrote:

I am totally agains't any decay for structures. You pay a maintenace. That covers your decay. The problem is that architects don't see these funds. I think that this maintenance system needs to be tweaked somehow where the archtects see all or a portion of those funds.

Maybe instead of paying a flat fee, you buy a maintenance contract from an architect. This contract (could be an item) would then be deposited into your item(s) to keep it maintained until it expires.

Since I HATE having to individually maintain my structures with power and money, I would rather have a maintenance contract that works through my datapad and is outomatically debited agains the contract's balance.

Then if we ever get power droids that can actually power stuff. We could have droids that actually work for us and take care of powering our structures and emptying hoppers too.

Ahh... what a wonderful galaxy it would be. =)

Well, dare I suggest that if Architects were to receive a proportion of the maintenance payments on harvesters we would see massive price cutting, indeed some canny longsighted individuals would probably PAY people to take their harvesters since the more of YOURharvesters you have out and working the more credits you are going to get by just sitting on your butt and doing nothing. I have literally thousands of harvesters on BRIA, I don't know how many of them are still working, but how will a n00b architect be able to compete with me ? I will just give 1000 away a week and watch the money roll in.

__________________________________________________________
Bandola Da'Gear
-RETIRED-
((The Blue Ghost))

jol69

Thu Mar 25, 2004 6:00 am

#4

Way to follow that one out to its logical conclusion Bandola. Too few people on these boards only think of things in the way they want them to work and not the way they will work. I'd include the Devs in that lot.

~ Eseex Aptopack: Master Image Designer, Aspiring Carbineer~

DesertFarmer

Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:33 am

#5

Maybe the maintenance on the harvestor would need to be reduced if this happens, but I think we need to let the community scream about this one. In general Crafted items in this game need to wear out. This is a solution for harvestors that make them a renewable source of income for the Architects. It doesn't have the effect of getting money for nothing that the maintenance return would.

You couldn't remove the maintenance fee completely since this would create problems with too many items being leftover in the world. Maybe "maintanence fee" needs to be changed to "Land rental" then nobody gets the idea that it is to keep their equipment in working order. Of course you would have to have property forclosures then instead of the equipment just burning up, but that seems like a small price to pay for making an item renewable.

I don't understand why everyone is so against this? Sure it hurts Architects because they need a lot of resources to make the items, but that is just part of the class. Improvement sometimes comes with sacrifice why be so unwilling to sacrifice? Granted the amount of effort to maintain harvestors today is a pain, but would this really make it that much worse?

Daisame

Thu Mar 25, 2004 1:07 pm

#6

I am totally agains't any decay for structures. You pay a maintenace. That covers your decay. The problem is that architects don't see these funds. I think that this maintenance system needs to be tweaked somehow where the archtects see all or a portion of those funds.

Maybe instead of paying a flat fee, you buy a maintenance contract from an architect. This contract (could be an item) would then be deposited into your item(s) to keep it maintained until it expires.

Since I HATE having to individually maintain my structures with power and money, I would rather have a maintenance contract that works through my datapad and is outomatically debited agains the contract's balance.

Then if we ever get power droids that can actually power stuff. We could have droids that actually work for us and take care of powering our structures and emptying hoppers too.

Ahh... what a wonderful galaxy it would be. =)

Maako,Master Bounty Hunter/Rifleman Intrepid
Luke: "Is the dark side more powerful?"
Yoda: "No, It is quicker, easier, more seductive."

(gnn[[[[[[[[[[~~]nnn~~WX9ggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg)

jol69

Fri Mar 26, 2004 9:27 am

#7

Maybe the maintenance on the harvestor would need to be reduced if this happens, but I think we need to let the community scream about this one.

If you instituted Decay on Harvestors, the debate would break down as follows: Some Architects vs. Everybody Else especially the other crafters. Want to guess who wins that shouting match?

Maybe "maintanence fee" needs to be changed to "Land rental" then nobody gets the idea that it is to keep their equipment in working order.

Everyone has already gotten the idea that the maintenance "is to keep their equipment in working order." It is simply way too late in the game to make this sort of change. Players understand harvestors as durable, repairable machines that work forever as long as you put money and power in. They view them as one-time capital investments. If this changes, architects will become the most hated class in the game, especially if we are viewed as responsible for Harvestor Decay. Harvestor Decay would cause way more problems than it would solve.

~ Eseex Aptopack: Master Image Designer, Aspiring Carbineer~

Jcb33

Wed Apr 07, 2004 3:59 am

#8

Maybe "maintanence fee" needs to be changed to "Land rental" then nobody gets the idea that it is to keep their equipment in working order.

Well then surly if we are paying to use our lots then we would be able to rent from 1 to 1 Million lots........ after all im not paying to use 10 lots that are already mine so in theory we would be able to have an infenat amout ............. or no one will place ne thing heh

Architect Archive

Thread: Harvester Decay?