Architect Archive
Thread: New Poll Decay ARCHITECTS ONLY
I am a MA and actively play an MA and plan on keeping him sinceI have 2 accounts and have my fighter to turn to until they get their act together on the Dev team and quit smoking those seriously nasty drugs and I am totally, 100% against decay.
I think there are better ways to get renewable income than pissing everyone off and sc rewing them over like the dev team already does.
Probably not very many, I'd wager. I'm an Architect, I was created to be an Architect and I will always be an Architect, my pre-designed character is here:
http://swg.allakhazam.com/db/userinfo.html?char_id=13161
He's well on the way to becoming what I have in mind for him.
I am pro-decay on all player-made items in the game.
Every item should have a pre-determined maximum lifespan, a potential lifespan based on the particular item. Personal Harvesters should have a relatively short life-expectation, Guild Halls should have a most exceedingly long life-expectation, other things fall as appropriate in the middle.
Castles and Cathedrals last centuries, Fine clothing lasts generations, Fine furniture lasts several lifetimes. K-mart furniture and clothing lasts a year at best, trailer park homes last about ten years.
The degree to which a particular crafted item reaches its design maximum should be based entirely on the final Experimental Durability number. Therefore, actual lifespan will directly depend on the quality of the materials used to create the item, the skill of the Architect, and the quality of his tools.
The higher quality a thing is, the cheaper it should be to maintain, the slower it should decay, the longer it should last.
Repair tools should exist to help extend the life of things, however *nothing should last forever*.
Forever is not cool in a player-based economy.
I am a new architect and I think that decay is the worst idea for architects.
Why would anyone (in a game, not real life) buy a house, fill it full of furniture, then have to move all of that stuff to another house just because if decay? What about PA halls? Your PA Hall is close to final breakdown, so you have to get someone else to put up a new PA hall while you move stuff from your to thiers.
I can't see this causing anyone's enjoyment of the game to increase.
It may not deter people from buying houses, but it certainly would deter them from buying furniture.
Are there really that many problems selling Architect's products that you would have to resort to this?
Akkori wrote:
How many of those people posting on the Decay Poll are *current* AR, are actively *playing* and AR (instead of just going up 1 tree to make their own stuff) and plan to *stay* AR?
Sorry, I think you are a bit confused. It is irrelevant what profession you are or are not, decay affects everyone who ownsstructure or furniture, not just architects. As such, it is a questions that all have a right to respond to. For your information purposes I am an architect, and decay is silly.
Uzaneedit Izamakeit
Decay is real, the universe is entropy. However, just like in real life, we build things to last when they are expensive, and we don't when they are cheap. A decent shirt will wear out in a few years, tops. A house will last 100 years if taken care of. Therefore a house should simply continue to require maintenance and have no decay.
Anything you carry around with you should decay, but be repairable.
Anything with moving parts should decay, but that's also what maintenance is for.Why do I have to pay a fee every day if it's not keeping the machine running well? How long does an oil well last? A lot of them have been around awhile.
The problem is no one has much incentive to upgrade because things don't get better. In 6 months, how much ore will a personal harvester extract? I wager it'll be exactly the same as it is now. And it'll probably cost abot the same too.
In real life, technological advances improve things. My old stove (10 years old) still worked fine, although the oven was a bit touchy. I could have paid to have it tuned up or repaired. But instead I bought a new one with lots of new features that weren't available 10 years ago. Technological advancement promotes consumerism more than wear and tear does (at least in the US). But there's none of that in any MMO I've ever seen as soon as enough people reach master to make everything there is to make.
I'm against decay.
It's a copout for other issues. This quickfix will spell further doom for us.
I am against house decay, but i think they shoud remove the ability to re-deed.
However equipment like extractors should decay, just like heavy equipment does in the real world. I dont know aobut your car, but mine is decaying, I am going to have to replace it soon.
I am also against decay. Many good points have been made for decay, but since we cannot do anything to improve durability in our structures (unlike WS and AS, who can experiment on durability), this will not do much but force our prices lower than they already are. If I could offer harvesters and houses that decay slower than the standard fare, I imagine I could charge a bit more for them. This will not be the case, since our experimentation is ineffective.
It will also mean that a lot of people who are combat-oriented and mine things to make money on the side will stop mining. So we will have to mine more of our own stuff, and the market price for resources will go up as there are less to go around. And if we have to mine more of our own stuff, then WE, the architects, get stuck building our own replacements for decaying harvesters. Double whammie if I've ever seen one. If I have to replace my entire fleet of large harvesters and fusion gens all the time, that will leave me less time to fill the orders of others. Decay will really hurt.
And what about player cities? What will decay mean there? It already sounds like an expensive process. This will make it even more so. Is this just meant to be a big money sink? If so, it's right on.
-Renzer