Architect Archive

I was thinking, and while most of the ideas I hear are pretty good, most would probably require a lot of code changes to acomidate. Here's where I think a different idea might be easier both on us, and on the coders.

Change the integrity to a decay/redeed counter. Every time a harvester is redeeded, its maximum integrity is reduced. This also means that harvesters that have been redeeded a few times can decay quickly if not given maintenance. You could even add in an integrity experimentation line.

The integrity would be not unlike weapons or armor, except that they would only decay when maintenance was not in them. Higher max integrity means they would last longer without maintenance, but every time they are redeeded, its reduced by some number.

You could ladder the max Integrity by harvester class, Personals get one value, Mediums more, and Heavies an even larger value. Just as long as the max integrity is visible on the deed, there won't be the suspicion of people buying these as there is with Droid storage units, and several artisan items that do not display any sort of quality.

Aproximate redeeding limits could be somewhere around 20-35 for personals, 45-60 for mediums, and 80-120 for heavies. Determined by experimentation or only quality of materials (as much as we want fusions and solars to be experimental, I could conceed that).


There will be people who complain about their large harvester fleet decaying, but at those numbers, I think it would be more than reasonable. Its certianly better than them not being able to be redeeded at all, as most Architecture in RL is non-transplantable (or at least poses great problems when you try to). I might not think it too unreasonable to apply this to all architecture deeds (except those one use ones).

Arratarr
President and CEO of Wookiee Monster Enterprises
"W is for Wookiee, its good enough for me!"

I think it is a tough sell since, unlike weapons etc, we are asked to pay maintenance on the structures anyway. The assumption by the players would be that since they pay maintenance to keep the structure intact, it shouldn't decay very much over the next 50 years (to put it in terms of R/L). And the system works, too. if you don't pay your maintenance, then it is 'good bye! structure!'. I have personal proof that this indeed is working. LOL

So as a player, I would question why I have to pay thousands of maintenance if it is just gonna decay in a short period of time anyway. I feel if I pay my maintenance then the unit should last a lot longer than you are proposing and therefore see it as a penalty and not as an added game feature.

Well, since someone brought up RL, in RL your maintenance costs go up over time in order to keep an equipement in "pristine" condition. So, eventually it is more cost effective to buy the new piece of equipment than to keep the ohter one in "pristine" condition.

My proposal has always been a MX over time decay. Yes, you keep paying MX to keep it pristine, but eventually it should be more cost effective to buy a new one.