Architect Archive

I was rethinking my 'replacement parts' idea a bit. Originally, I suggested a set of new components butthese sub-components are already in place .... ie. ore mining unit, fluidic drilling pump, harvester mechanism.

In interests to cut new coding and get this to us faster, please consider this.

If you look at harvesters... they generally have5 subcomponents (counting the final assembly).

• power unit:generator turbine


• structure: wall module, structure module


• final assembly


• storage: storage module


• collection device: ore mining unit, harvester mech, fluidic drilling pump

Coincidently, there are 5 basic variables that could be affected by subcomponents

• power consumption rate


• maintenance rate


• overall condition (starting condition)


• storage volume


• collection rate

Proposal: Make existing subcomponentsaffect performance and condition.

Allow these sub-components to be experimented on and have their effectiveness/durability affect the related variable.

• power unit (gen turbine): power consumption rate


• structure (walls): maintenance rate


• final assembly: overall/starting condition


• storage (storage modules) : storage volume


• collection device (ore mining unit): collection rate

I think this really just follows the initial intent of the structure sub-components.

If possible, have these sub-components decay and be replacable. The new part will change the machines overall performance.

This works for all but the final assembly which isn't really a subcomponent, but that's ok because we don't want to be able to raise/renew the overall condition of the structure. We want that to decay.

Overall condition (as determined by the experimented durability in the final assembly) sets the starting condition. This condition ticks down slowly. This decay cannot be replaced.

Perhaps starting condition would be 500 + 10 per % of experimented durability. 500-1500 (averaging 1000 if we get more experiment points).

Perhaps decay to the overall condition ticks down at a rate of .5 points per hour (168 hours per week). If a harvester starts at 1000... after a week it would be 750 or so.

Redeed kicker to overall condition: Each redeed removes 50 points from the overall condition.

I think think this would cause most harvesters to last 4-12 weeks of operational time (at about 1 redeed/week).

If the replacable part thing is too hard to code... at least we would have experimentation working and overall structure decay in place.

I focused on harvesters because I think they represent 90% of all structures out there.

For houses, just ignore the storage and collection rate variable.

• Houses canbe redeeded at same -50 condition fee, but should last much longerlike a .2 pt/hour decay rate.


• PA halls cannot be redeeded (so have to buy a new one to move), but have a 0 decay rate as long as maintenance is paid. If maintenance if unpaid, structure decays until destruction.


• Furniture:treat asitems (which they are) with similar decay to clothes etc.. (whatever that turns out to be)

Replacement Parts: (I still see this as the desired long-range solution, the above proposal would lay framework for the replaceable part idea and also get us something sooner.)

If code and developer time allow, have the structure sub-components decay and bereplacable. Perhaps advanced versions of these pieces further in the tree. Maybe an add-on/powerup component slotthat can boost certain variables. (I see coding problems with this, redeeding and the deed itselfhave to deal with whichsubparts it has in it, which is more data... and we know how much the devs love ideas with more data requirements)

Anyway, this is my reworked idea (with pieces stolen from the rest of ya).

Keh' Icoh