Architect Archive
Thread: Experimentation Fix it or lose it? A poll
Alright people, you are giving me good feedback on the decay issue, so thank you very much.I will recompile the suggestions and try and get a vote from the community (you). The next issue I would like to address while I'mworkin on decayis the Architect Experimentation. The question is do we keep it or lose it?
Pros:
We get a semi-renewable income because people will be constantly looking for better harvesters
There is a possibility of getting more income because we can sell excellent harvesters at a high price
Improve the long term duration of structures and their cost.
Cons:
We need to go hunting for high end ressources now to make "sellable" harvesters
Critical fails AND critical experimentation fails can cause an economy issue with Architects.
High end ressource costs will increase
Low end "crappy" harvesters will be purchased less, driving novice architects out of business.
As it stands now... All architect products are more or less easy to sell (though some harder than others now that the market is filling up), and I think this is one of the great aspects of our class, because I was going weaponsmith and couldnt sell a thing, yet at novice architect, I was able to sell tons... It's very rewarding. Adding experimentation will probably change that. Just like weaponsmiths, architects who can't experiment at the start will not be able to sell their stuff. This is something to consider.
Anyways, vote with an /agree /disagree and give a few lines why.
Please ignore the ideas brought up in the decay thread and assume that the current structure system remains the way it is forever. Vote as if you could have structure experimentation immediately.
Loose it.
We have enough trouble keeping enough resources as it is, much less keeping enough quality resources.
There are other things we can provide the players with that will give us renewable income if the Dev team would implement them.
Fix it, diversity is great! Want a cheap harvester, then get one, want a top-of-the-line one? Possible aswell (for a price) The rest of the community wants it aswell. It's NOT only a conern of Architects.I as Customer wantthe best possible equipment, for the same reason as a Pistoleer wants the best possible gun around.
If they'd remove experimentation IMO they also should remove experimentation on guns, armor and everything else, afterall... what's a mere upgrade from 10-150 to 12-165?
Kind regards,
Goff McMerrii
Miner
Lose it! Just like weapons, everyone will want the best only.We will be stuck with crappy structues which is more resource loss.... let alone crit fails and the new100 limit on schematics.
Keep it.
PROS:
- It would be balancing. It's not fair that other crafting professions are required to hunt down high-quality resources for their products.
- It would distinguish us from the grinders just pumping out houses and harvesters for 1 credit per unit.
- Resource costs would increase. This isn't neccessarily a bad thing, I like selling resources.
- Expermientation would allow us to increase our production rate, possibly maintenence/power consumption.
- It would be a boost to our economy. When I discovered the "functionality rating" on Crafting Stations, I gathered up some 995 conductivity copper and started cranking them out. They sold IMMEDIATELY and still do as soon as they go up. The ones with experimented optional components are even better.
DISPUTING CONS:
- Low end "crappy" harvesters will be purchased less, driving novice architects out of business." -- This is only fair. No other profession has an easy time of selling their crappy stuff in the beginning. Weaponsmiths can't sell CDEF weapons (although 39,487 people try), Armorsmiths can't sell Bone Armor, Medics unexperimented Stim's don't do that well either. Don't even get me started on Bio-Engineers...people just don't buy their stuff period, hehe.
- "As it stands now... All architect products are more or less easy to sell" -- Er, no offense but I can't sell crap anymore. It's alot easier to sell resources. If I do sell something, I'm practically forced to lower my price.
- "High end ressource costs will increase" -- I consider this a pro. I sell resources often, sometimes exclusively, sometimes just left-overs. If you take the time to find the good stuff you should get the extra money. This can only benefit us. We're practically forced to be self-sufficient now with our high build costs. I couldn't stay in business if I have to buy resources at all, except power which is usually 1 per unit.
Fix it. I think it would be fun to build a bad a$$ harvester 
Kabukkyn
Master Artisan / Master Architect
NTAC Guild
Tatooine - Gorath
/agree
I think you should have highlighted this "Anyways, vote with an /agree /disagree and give a few lines why." 
Lose it.
I just dont think it will help us to have it in there. And to those who say it is too easy to sell stuff...um small houses dont sell well enough to be considered a good sell. I think I sold a total of about 10 houses before I finally gave up and just made wall units for future useage.
Besides, Im sure some of those bone armor suits and cdef weapons sell...not a lot I am sure...but some must. I know Ive sold novice tailor items pretty regularly when I was working on tailoring.
On one hand it would be nice to create a harvester that uses less maintenance or power but I dont think that would be something we would be given anyhow. More likely than not experimentation would effect storage (who cares if you have more than 50k storage?) and/or maximum rate which in reality would most often not play a part since there are never any 100% concentration veins...at least none that I or any other miner friend I have on Flurry has seen.
/shrug
Loose it and add items that we currently cant make ( but can see in town ) on that tree.
( I go back and forth on this issue, but on the whole at the ammounts of resources we need I would hate to go looking for the good stuff )
This is a really tough one.
I am going to have to vote for loosing it. My reason being is that unless you are are a PA architect you alerady have a hard enough time gathering the required resources let alone worry about experimentation crits on top of that. You will also gate all non master much like weaponsmiths.
Now I do agree with the benifits of experimentation. I don't like that a Novice can produce the same quality of items that I as a master can make from just being a 0-0-4-1 architect.
My suggestion would be to turn the experimentation line into a advanced structure line. This line would offer up items like high efficiency harvesters, factories etc. The catch is require that these schematics use sub components from other lines.
A quick example Adv. Installations I you could make high efficiency factories. You would need a Adv. Manufacturing Mechinism that was earned in Buildings I, an Advanced Generator Turbine that was earned in Insatllations I, and 8 solid wall modules that was earned from Furniture I, only them could you complete the schematic.
This would gate the "i'm in it to make a quick buck and ruin the economy" Architect, while still being able to offer higher quality goods.
Now I know this still will not differentiate one Master from another, but I don't feel this is the root of our problem. I feel that all the "part-time / PA" architects are at the root of our current economic situation, imho.
If we so move towards keeping experimentation I would like to suggest that it be strcitly dependant on the quality of resources alone. I can deal with hunting for the best materials I can use, but to crit on an experiment and have the resources rendered usless because I will be creating a product I will not b able to sell just does not seem fair. I would also like to the the adv. installations regardless though