Artisan Archive

G'day, mates!

Let me preface this by saying I am having a great time with the SWG journey, so this is in no way a rant. Just reopening some ideas, now that we're into our third month of Production.

1. Clothing Decay -- It's unclear to me, a non-Beta, why this was ever removed. Nearly anything made by a player needs to decay, with very few exceptions (perhaps decorative items should be exempted -- e.g. Nemoidian Birdcages). Clothing must decay when worn, and should be repairable in much the same way as a weapon. Clothing needs to decay at a rate that does not make it an irritation to the wearer to replace often, but forces the wearer to replace it eventually. More frequent repairs should extend the life of the garment.

2. Building decay -- this may be a little more difficult to implement, since this idea is not consistent with the weapon/armor model. Houses need to decay over time and the rate of maintenance needs to increase geometrically as they decay. A building at 1/2 "health" should cost 4x as much as a fully repaired building. It probably makes sense to lower the "new" maintenance costs significantly in this scenario.

Buildings need 2 kinds of repair kits. One is a maintenance kit that brings the building up to full health but reduces the cap. This should probably come out of the Artisan line and should be similar to the weapon repair tool. The other is an "remodel kit" that comes out of the same line (and box?) as the original structure. The remodel kit raises the cap to it's original level. The remodel kit should contain components and structure modules as well as raw materials.

Larger buildings should have larger caps and perhaps decay more slowly than smaller.

(There is an opportunity here to add resource stat factor effects to architecture, but that may not be worth the effort to implement.)

3. Harvester Decay -- very similar to building decay. The repair kit/tool may be exactly the same as for buildings, but instead of a remodel kit we get an overhaul kit. Again, this should come out of the same box as the original machine, but, unlike the building remodel kit, the overhaul kit can never raise the cap to its original level. Eventually harvesters wear out. Big machines need a much higher cap than the smaller.

(Again, the opportunity to introduce quality stats to architecture, though the ROI may be insufficient.)

4. Limit the Datapad. When a high level artisan gets to a certain number of schematics they are "full" and must remove old ones in order to add new ones (they should be able to choose which to lose). This was a fantastic concept and I am at a loss as to why it was removed.

(Actually, since I am an old systems development veteran, I am pretty sure why a lot of things were removed: could not get them to work in time. Been there...)

None of this is new, but I thought it was time to expose these ideas again. Thanks to Aogwyn Falcor of Coventry for clarifying some of these ideas for me.

G'day, mates!

Bog

1. Ok, I'm with you here, it seems kind of silly that clothes never decay. Granted, it gets old wearing the same clothes day in and day out, and even a utilitarian like myself changes outfits occasionally, but clothes should eventually decay.

2 + 3. I am opposed to the decay of structures in this fashion. For one, most structures are made to last long periods of time. They must be kept up, which is why there is a maintenance pool. If you want them to require repair kits, in the end all architects will be be producing these, once the housing market dries up. I do heartily agree that architects need some sort of innovation to keep them in business, but I don't think this is the answer.

4. I thought this was a cool idea too, I don't like the idea of uber-artisans being able to make everything at once. There are, however, people who just want to play a crafter. For instance, I know of several weaponsmith/architects. Perhaps your schematic storage could be increased when you gain levels in crafting professions, so if you were a weaponsmith/architect you would eventually start having to drop your lower artisan schematics to make room for houses and boomsticks.

"2 + 3. I am opposed to the decay of structures in this fashion. For one, most structures are made to last long periods of time. They must be kept up, which is why there is a maintenance pool. If you want them to require repair kits, in the end all architects will be be producing these, once the housing market dries up. I do heartily agree that architects need some sort of innovation to keep them in business, but I don't think this is the answer."

I contend that house maintenance fees are artificial and detrimental to the player economy, however they are necessary to the mechanics of the game. This proposal inserts a player factor into house maintenance. In fact, the whole objective is to give architects something to do "once the housing market dries up."

As far as the period of decay, I was thinking something in the range of a 2-3 month life expectancy for a small house before remodel is required and a 2 year life expectancy for a PA hall before remodel is required. Repairs are never required -- they only serve to reduce the cost of "maintenance." Houses would last indefinitely with remodel, and larger harvesters would last nearly indefinitely with overhaul.

Bog

1) I deffinately like your perspective on this one. However the problem is skill tapes. They will be considered the "uber" of items in this game. If you apply your skill tapes to a piece of clothing then it will decay. If clothes decay then I feel we should be able to repair them with very little risk of losing permanent condition.

2,3) isn't that what maintinance for? The sink for clothing/weapons is in their replacement... the sink in harvesters/homes are their re-deed cost and maint costs.

4) That kind-of bothers me, but I would like to be able to disable all the items that I don't regularly craft. I think the best thing is to add more craftable items to the game, and spread the resource demand more towards the ones not currently harvested as often.

Vaedross, see my comment in response to the prior message regarding structure maintenance fees. My contention is that maintenance fees are fundamental to the mechanics of the game (otherwise abandoned structures would litter the landscape), however they are detrimental to the player economy. Players, through their own effort, should be able to minimize all the money sinks in the game. (Not eliminate, but minimize, and only through an effort.)

Bog

Further to your comment, Vaedross, regarding SE tapes. We may agree to disagree here: I think that eventually you should lose your SE tapes -- they get used up with the clothing and you have to go find new ones. Again, based on my contention that a player based economy requires almost everything to wear out...

Bog

The original plan for the game was to have high level crafters no longer be able to make low level items. The idea was that they would have to buy components from lower level crafters for some of the things they make. The complaining over this concept was so loud that it was taken out.

As for decay of harvesters, I don't see much of a point. Most people I know don't redeed harvesters any way. The cost is higher than just buying a new one. So, those who make harvesters have a continuing demand, which is the whole idea of decay any way.

I do agree that clothes should wear out, like armor and weapons.

Still undecided on houses. My original character got as high as novice architect. Within minutes after I spent the general crafting exp on opening it up, I decided that I was too late to the market, and would never be able to compete. If there was a steady market for houses, because of wear, I guess that would actually help the ecconomy

I'm sorry, but it just doesn't sound like these work because if you were signed off for a 2 week vacation, you'd come back to no house, no clothes, and no harvesters, which isn't fair. Paying for houses and harvesters is enough, and there already is a plan for the clothing thing, so I have to disagree with this. The way time works in the game is not based on how long you are signed on, it is constant, so implementing it so it only worked while you were online isn'tgoing to happen(heard that from a dev). They could program it, but there really isn't a reason to.

I could maybe give you a slow decay on harvesters though, since they are actually moving functioning things.

The Datapad thing, I don't understand, there already is a limit, so...I don't know what you're talking about.

I agree that clothing should decay. I'm not sure how a (cotton, wool, whatever) shirt could last through one pistol fight, with blaster shot holes on it. I think it should decay faster than armor as well, depending on battle wear and tear.

I deleted all of the clothing repair tools on my vendor, as I thought clothing was decaying before. I have repaired some.

Graeme wrote:

"As for decay of harvesters, I don't see much of a point. Most people I know don't redeed harvesters any way. The cost is higher than just buying a new one. So, those who make harvesters have a continuing demand, which is the whole idea of decay any way."

No one I know destroys mediums and heavies. Personals can be made by Engineers and so do not apply to this discussion, though they should be subject to the same rules, if only for the sake of consistency.

The response about signing off for two weeks and coming back to no house, harvesters, etc indicates that the author did not comprehend the original discussion, since that is a totally false assumption.

Bog

Maintenance costs on harvesters/buildings may function just fine as a money sink but personally I feel the buildings do need to decay and eventually be replaced, for the sake of the architect profession. Every profession needs decay in order to create a repeating demand for it's items. I don't care if you feel it's 'unfair' that you'd have to occasionally buy new harvesters, new dusters, or new houses. You have no problem spending major money on armor and weapons, yet when anyone tries to suggest decay for anything else there's a major outcry. There needs to be a higher-level market for architects too.

I do concede that without permanent structure decay the only items lost are those that go to "attrition of stupidity or bankruptcy"... so yes without permanent decay that has to be maintained the individual economies will eventually crash


The other question is that should artisan produced items be able to fully restore any item to full status? I think that


Taking another look I think that building decay would work. I also think it could work like armor/weapon repair tools. The artisan house repair tool could repair it with some permanent condition loss like now, but it should not decay into infinity or destruction.

Say a small house was 200 credits a day to maintain... then in 2 weeks it decays to 400 credits a day, after another 2 weeks it hits 600 credits a day (nearly double today's rate). But at that point it is at zero condition, so the cost increase stops... so you can either suffer with an expensive house or re-deed every month or two. Larger buildings like PA halls would have higher condition.

Either the remodel kits woulud requite artisan components or the players should be forced to re-deed. The problem with re-deeding is the inventory management, but if you could do a "house upgrade" and have the items automatically be moved into the new structure that would be more attractive. It would also add a new feature to let us upgrade to a larger structure when we can afford one and there is buildable land within the normal build range.


For clothing what do you think of the deathblow insurance model the devs posted about? It basically works this way: when you die and you're uninsured you don't drop your items in a corpse, but instead all of them take condition damage.

I'm sorry, but it just doesn't sound like these work because if you were signed off for a 2 week vacation, you'd come back to no house, no clothes, and no harvesters, which isn't fair. Paying for houses and harvesters is enough, and there already is a plan for the clothing thing, so I have to disagree with this. The way time works in the game is not based on how long you are signed on, it is constant, so implementing it so it only worked while you were online isn'tgoing to happen(heard that from a dev). They could program it, but there really isn't a reason to.

I could maybe give you a slow decay on harvesters though, since they are actually moving functioning things.

The Datapad thing, I don't understand, there already is a limit, so...I don't know what you're talking about.