Artisan Archive
Thread: Proposal: Admin/Access Rights Cap, Not a Harvester Certification
My Proposal:
1. Drop any notion of harvester certifications or a return to the miner profession. Sure, they have their merits - that's why the devs had the profession in beta - but for many reasons they just don't fit the game as we know it - which is why the devs dropped it before launch.
2. Every character will continue to have 10 lots to do with what they want.
3. Every character will be able to hold admin or hopper access on a limited amount of structures. I'm open to discussion of a specific number, but I am thinking no fewer then 12 or so, but probably closer to 15 to 20. These are individual structures, regardless of lot size of each one.
The goal of this plan is to help slow down the pace of server lot swapping, while not interfering with other working game mechanics and trying not to impose any undue hardships on "normal" players and to keep as much as the current flexibility in the game as possible. I also think it unwise to pull the reigns in too tight because anything done can in a single swipe of the credit card can be manuvered around and I prefer to play a game where
there is as little advantage gained as possible by throwing more cash at it.
What this direction allows that a harvester certification doesn't:
- It helps curtail other form of lot swapping like houses, factories and city residencies.
- It allows for some cross management of structures - which I do think is a worthwhile game mechanic. It will allow me to watch over my own lots as well as share a factory with a friend, watch over a guild hall or a shared store, make sure a friends houses are paid for while they are on vacation, or even run an extra rented factory or harvester or 2.
- It doesn't mis-judge or pre-judge resource needs of any given non-artisan profession by determining a set of qualifications like Novice Architects don't need the resources a heavy outputs while they're grinding only after, or that master medics should have more access to resources the combat medics in training, or that smugglers, if they're dealing in slicing and spices, don't want access to heavies so that they can effectively use all their lots by harvesting several types of materials at a time isntead of having to resort to only mining one resource at a time becuase of low outputs and never being able to get all the varied resources they need for spices.
- Lastly, it doesn't prevent a player that is currently a non-crafter from preparing to be a crafter by starting to harvest ahead of time. When I started my character on wanderhome the plan at the tiem was to be a BE/Ranger (still Ranger, less so BE). One of my first goals was to get the funds to start mining resources so that when I started I could progress effectively through novice med and BE, but more importantly so that I would have a head start gathering much needed good resources and wouldn't be stuck at master with no ability to make anything worth selling. I've also started doing this with my main char, who I plan to "retire" one day and become a weaponsmith. This type of flexibility that comes from the system now is a GOOD THING, and I don't see why an Armorsmith who wants to become a weaponsmith should have an easier time of gathering some good Axidite Iron or Green Diamond Gem or any of the other 40ish named resoures then I as a Teras Kasi does, just because he managed to get a harvester cert for heavy harvesters and I don't.
Overall, I'm happy with the system as it is now, I have a bigger issue with paid 2nd and 5th accounts then I do with same server or cross server lot trading, but I do also understand that one player with 100 or 200 harvesters can have an imbalancing effect on things. Admin limits would help curtail some of those cases, and wouldn't be as draconian a measure as harvester certs or hard caps on lots per account would.
Thoughts?
Interesting Idea...a fair cap, especially to crafters (got an architect on valcyn) would I say around 20-30 Harvestors.
Its true that people with at least than 50 harvestors at a given time imbalance...but I personally have atm around 27 harvestors up and running atm on 3 ppl + myself (2 guildie...who btw seem to be inactive...1 friend who has an unused char on valcyn that was used as the officiator to my wedding)...and Im barely just getting by on ore and other resources...
But 30 should be the very very max....and someone should sticky this idea..
Ragnaat wrote:
I've asked a few times what the exact problem that those who want harvester certifications are trying to solve is and I have yet to see an answer so I'm going to pull one of my earlier suggestions out from one of the other threads and offer it up for direct discussion.
My Proposal:
1. Drop any notion of harvester certifications or a return to the miner profession. Sure, they have their merits - that's why the devs had the profession in beta - but for many reasons they just don't fit the game as we know it - which is why the devs dropped it before launch.
2. Every character will continue to have 10 lots to do with what they want.
3. Every character will be able to hold admin or hopper access on a limited amount of structures. I'm open to discussion of a specific number, but I am thinking no fewer then 12 or so, but probably closer to 15 to 20. These are individual structures, regardless of lot size of each one.
The goal of this plan is to help slow down the pace of server lot swapping, while not interfering with other working game mechanics and trying not to impose any undue hardships on "normal" players and to keep as much as the current flexibility in the game as possible. I also think it unwise to pull the reigns in too tight because anything done can in a single swipe of the credit card can be manuvered around and I prefer to play a game where
there is as little advantage gained as possible by throwing more cash at it.
What this direction allows that a harvester certification doesn't:
- It helps curtail other form of lot swapping like houses, factories and city residencies.
- It allows for some cross management of structures - which I do think is a worthwhile game mechanic. It will allow me to watch over my own lots as well as share a factory with a friend, watch over a guild hall or a shared store, make sure a friends houses are paid for while they are on vacation, or even run an extra rented factory or harvester or 2.
- It doesn't mis-judge or pre-judge resource needs of any given non-artisan profession by determining a set of qualifications like Novice Architects don't need the resources a heavy outputs while they're grinding only after, or that master medics should have more access to resources the combat medics in training, or that smugglers, if they're dealing in slicing and spices, don't want access to heavies so that they can effectively use all their lots by harvesting several types of materials at a time isntead of having to resort to only mining one resource at a time becuase of low outputs and never being able to get all the varied resources they need for spices.
- Lastly, it doesn't prevent a player that is currently a non-crafter from preparing to be a crafter by starting to harvest ahead of time. When I started my character on wanderhome the plan at the tiem was to be a BE/Ranger (still Ranger, less so BE). One of my first goals was to get the funds to start mining resources so that when I started I could progress effectively through novice med and BE, but more importantly so that I would have a head start gathering much needed good resources and wouldn't be stuck at master with no ability to make anything worth selling. I've also started doing this with my main char, who I plan to "retire" one day and become a weaponsmith. This type of flexibility that comes from the system now is a GOOD THING, and I don't see why an Armorsmith who wants to become a weaponsmith should have an easier time of gathering some good Axidite Iron or Green Diamond Gem or any of the other 40ish named resoures then I as a Teras Kasi does, just because he managed to get a harvester cert for heavy harvesters and I don't.
Overall, I'm happy with the system as it is now, I have a bigger issue with paid 2nd and 5th accounts then I do with same server or cross server lot trading, but I do also understand that one player with 100 or 200 harvesters can have an imbalancing effect on things. Admin limits would help curtail some of those cases, and wouldn't be as draconian a measure as harvester certs or hard caps on lots per account would.
Thoughts?
Although I understand your desire to prevent single players or small groups from being major influences on the game economy there is very little you can do about this. Any person who has 2 accounts will have his or her 20 lots, and the 20 lots that they server trade for. There really isn't an effective way to curtail this. If they do it with limits on admins, then you will have friends doing it for ya. I for one don't run harvesters all that often. I have my medium house and a single equipment factory for slicing tools. I own 8 heavies, but they sit in my house until a friend (actually only one I do it for) finds a great resource that he is gonna need alot of, then I drop them for him. This would just become the norm instead of the exception. In your PA poll how many people have all their lots used. I am willing to bet that 80% don't. How many of you with open lots WOULDN'T drop a harvester that is supplied and paid for byyourlocal PA weaponsmithfor them if he or she asked you to? What are friends for eh? There are too many loop holes in the system, and it would prove to be another ineffective attempt at control.
Another thing that wouldn't work would be putting the cert for heavies at master artisian. This would create small resource cartels that could drive prices up even HIGHER then they are. Look at avian meat prices...80cpu for good stuff lately on Chilistra do you want mined resources to go that way? The only thing that has kept mined resource prices down is the HUGE number of people who run harvesters. If the number is cut dramatically then you will see the same situation where prices shoot through the roof (like with good meat and milk and eggs now.) This would drive costs up even more. Do you want to pay 50k for your next set of buffs, or how about 25,000 for that sparkling D18, you can't tell me you don't wana pay 10 million for your next set of 80% composite? Now you may think these are extreems, but look at meat and eggs and milk. Now any doctor who makes his or her own buff packs will pay 80-150 cpu for good avian/herb. That is why a set of buffs is costing 10-15k. Several months ago when these doctors were getting the same resources for 8cpu, or LESS the buffs were FREE, or for tips. I don't want to see theeconomy squeezed any more.A new player can barley start off now without the help of established ones what is going to happen to them if this goes through? A well made cdef costs about 2k in resources now, maybe more, do you want to see that number jump to 10k? Yes it might be nice for a short while when the resources are slowly draining from the economy, but it will hit a terminal point where armorsmiths close up shop, and weaponsmiths start only making stuff for guildmates. We are going to see the great depression in SWG if this happens, don't flush the economy, it is based on the flow of resources, don't stop that flow.
P__Day wrote:
/agree put a cap on the amount of admind you can have much better sollution.
How does that affect the people who are part of a guild, where I (for example) would be admined on my house, my factory, and 28 of my friends harvesters.
Aladine wrote:
P__Day wrote:
/agree put a cap on the amount of admind you can have much better sollution.
How does that affect the people who are part of a guild, where I (for example) would be admined on my house, my factory, and 28 of my friends harvesters.
Well, that's specifically why I mentioned in my proposal that I didn't want to argue what that cap would be. I just don't know what "normal" is, an I would want it high enough that "normal" wouldn't ever notice it was there.
What do I consider fitting inside of "normal". Its pretty broad really and I do very much consider people in PAs/Guild Leaders, City Mayors, and other people in similar situations normal. One of the reasons I want it to be a structure and not a lot limit is because it has nothing to do with lot sizes - so that a PA leader could run the pa hall and still have many slots open for adminning on communal structures - be it factory or harvesters or merchant tents or storage housing. As I said, I think the premise of lot sharing and multiple admins on a structure works and I don't want to break that. [EDIT FOR CLARITY: In a guild situation, if you really have one person managing harvesters for 28 accounts, then you'd probably have to spread the work out a bit and instead of one manager have a couple]
It all gets back to what the problem we want to solve is, and how much of a problem it really is. i've seen a real mish mosh of ideas here, from wanting to slow down a flood of resources on the market to wanting to stop cross server trading of lots to wanting to take back some territory that people think is theirs.
Personally, I don't see the need to change things too drastically. The only one of those problems that I think needs some attention are the lot swapping mechainics - because I think that there is just too much of a gap between the player that plays one account and 10 lots and the player that also does a pile of lot swapping and has access to 15 factories, 20 houses for storage, 4 shops & 75 harvesters.
And to the earlier poster, yes, I realize that any in game restrictions impose can be circumvented by adding extra accounts. A good solution would be one that doesn't make people feel like they're are being forced into doing that in order to play the game they want to. Its another reason I didn't want to remove the admin system alltogether or impose some other strict measures like offering 10 lots per account accross all servers. To harsh a restriction and people will begin to feel a obligated to get a second account.
To use a similar example from a slightly different context - I think the current storage capacities of buildings are too strict and would love to see them doubled. I don't however think raising them to 750items/lot or other unlimited storage is a good idea because much of the goods that drive the economy are there simply on the market because people don't have the room to store thigns they wont use but want to keep because they are nifty.
Message Edited by Ragnaat on 05-19-2004 06:08 PM
Ragnaat wrote:
Aladine wrote:
P__Day wrote:
/agree put a cap on the amount of admind you can have much better sollution.
How does that affect the people who are part of a guild, where I (for example) would be admined on my house, my factory, and 28 of my friends harvesters.
To clarify I meant 28 harvesters belonging to my friends, not 28 friends worth of harvesters, sorry for being confusing. But that is because I am not in charge of a fleet of harvesters. Tell me that individuals in some of the major power or resource "companies" in SWG don't have admin access to 100 harvesters? There are power companies on Chilistra that are pumping about5 MILLION units of power into the economy every DAY. They aren't selling it at 5,6,7, or 10 credits per unit, because the market won't hold that, but they are making a BIG profit by selling it at 1.5 credits per unit, or even 1.2 credits per unit if you buy 100k or more. If enough resources were moved onto the marked where resources sold for 2 credits per unit in comparison to the 6-25 cpu that they are selling for now, then the price of ALL GOODS would drop alot (or at least those who are made with mined resources.) Next time you want to buy that set of 69% base unsliced composite with stun layresset it won't cost you 100k, as there will be smiths who will crank them out of a factory, becaue they can get awesome qualityresources cheaply, it will cost you 30k, or 40k. This is how the real value of a credit rises.
Well, that's specifically why I mentioned in my proposal that I didn't want to argue what that cap would be. I just don't know what "normal" is, an I would want it high enough that "normal" wouldn't ever notice it was there.
What do I consider fitting inside of "normal". Its pretty broad really and I do very much consider people in PAs/Guild Leaders, City Mayors, and other people in similar situations normal. One of the reasons I want it to be a structure and not a lot limit is because it has nothing to do with lot sizes - so that a PA leader could run the pa hall and still have many slots open for adminning on communal structures - be it factory or harvesters or merchant tents or storage housing. As I said, I think the premise of lot sharing and multiple admins on a structure works and I don't want to break that. [EDIT FOR CLARITY: In a guild situation, if you really have one person managing harvesters for 28 accounts, then you'd probably have to spread the work out a bit and instead of one manager have a couple]
It all gets back to what the problem we want to solve is, and how much of a problem it really is. i've seen a real mish mosh of ideas here, from wanting to slow down a flood of resources on the market to wanting to stop cross server trading of lots to wanting to take back some territory that people think is theirs.
The best thing about the free market is that it is self regulating, when too many people get into the market, then the prices will fall, and many who got in to "get rich quick" will leave and find another way to do so. I was one of the first major power producers on Chilistra back last August, and I made a KILLING at first, but after a few months competition becameso stiff it just wasn't profitable enough for me to contine selling power. That was 8 less Fusion reactors pumping power into the market. There is no reason to want to slow the flow of resources other then an attempt to price gouge, and everyone who lives in the US can see what price gouging does. How much did YOU pay for gas this week? It cost me 2.26 a gallon on the East Coast, and I've heard its almost twice that in California. The reason we are having these problems is OPEC, an organization that wants to slow down a flood of resources (oil) on the market. The same problem would present itself in the SWG economy if there was a significant cap on the ammount of resources pumped into the market. Do you want to pay 10 million credits for your next suit of 80% composite? How about 150k for your next unsliced scout blaster, and we can't forget that 50k for the next set of buffs you pick up? The only thing that slowing the influx of resources into the SWG economy will do is to push inflation up even higher then it is, and the ecomomy will collapse if it is pushed too far, shops will close because sales will drop, and then the backbone of theeconomy, the combatants who run missions to "create" thecredits that flow through the economywill be unable to perform at the levels they were performing at before, thus decreasing the number of credits they have to spend at the crafters shops, and thisvisciouscycle will continue.
Personally, I don't see the need to change things too drastically. The only one of those problems that I think needs some attention are the lot swapping mechainics - because I think that there is just too much of a gap between the player that plays one account and 10 lots and the player that also does a pile of lot swapping and has access to 15 factories, 20 houses for storage, 4 shops & 75 harvesters.
Ok but why does this 22 year old college student who lot swaps to keep competitive with the 40 year old who has 6 accounts in order to attain the same level of control? Why should we push the division of those who are poor and rich in real life into our Star Wars reality? I admit, I can't afford to keep 10 accounts running at once, my wife would have my head, why do people like me need to be pushed out of the star wars economy by those who can afford the 10 accounts (or those who are not married so their wives won't flip.)
And to the earlier poster, yes, I realize that any in game restrictions impose can be circumvented by adding extra accounts. A good solution would be one that doesn't make people feel like they're are being forced into doing that in order to play the game they want to. Its another reason I didn't want to remove the admin system alltogether or impose some other strict measures like offering 10 lots per account accross all servers. To harsh a restriction and people will begin to feel a obligated to get a second account.
I applaud you here, I understand that you realize that forcing players into getting a second account would put those who cannot afford to do so at a serious loss, without any way to compete. /salute
To use a similar example from a slightly different context - I think the current storage capacities of buildings are too strict and would love to see them doubled. I don't however think raising them to 750items/lot or other unlimited storage is a good idea because much of the goods that drive the economy are there simply on the market because people don't have the room to store thigns they wont use but want to keep because they are nifty.
Message Edited by Ragnaat on 05-19-2004 06:08 PM