Shipwright Archive

This shouldn't be a discussion about the Firespray. While that is the most expensive
craft out there, it only shows the greatest extreme of the problem.


I just spent 300K credits on an Ixiyen. I don't have another 300K credits laying around
to buy another one.
And... it is pretty much worthless. They're not taking a good ship and making it better.
They are taking a worthless ship and making it viable.
Take a walk through the Pilot forum, and see how many people are flying Ixiyens.
Almost none.


The Dev's are correcting a problem that never should have made it into release, and it is
their responsibility to compensate those that have been affected by it.


I would imagine a unanimous outcry about this from the Shipwright community. Any of the
affected chassis that you have stocked when it goes live are going to be worthless.
You could give them away with a component purchase if you wanted.


On top of that, you are going to have the possibility of a slowdown on sales of other
chassis. Since no one will want to get screwed the next time they want to adjust mass, you'll
have people waiting to buy for a month or two.

OMG people... these types of things happen in the real world all the time. It's called upgrading. That's what happens everytime Windows goes to release a new version (going from 2k to XP for example). Everything out there currently is still usable, but it's not as good as the new stuff. The econemy will not be "ruined." It's just gonna merely take a blow for a short period of time and then recover to as good if not better than before.

Just unstock all the ships that are getting this change for now and advise your customers (via placing a pack on your vendor and use the description of selling item to type out your message) not to buy any of those types of craft due to the upcoming changes.

Anytime someone buys something in the real world they understand the risk that next week there could be a better version released. Their stuff becomes second best, but it does not reduce it's current effectiveness. If someone that buys this stuff, or you who sells it, does not understand that the next day there could suddenly be a better version released, then you obviously haven't been around in this world for very long.

YES, it would be very nice, if not spectacular, if the devs were to make this change retroactive. HOWEVER, it will not be game breaking nor will it "ruin" the econemy if they don't.

Oh, and btw, I don't want any little **** out there telling me to screw off and that the reason why I have this outlook on it is cause I'm obviously rich. FYI, I've only got about $400k to my name right now. I could only dream of having $12 mil to spend on a firespray. The most money I've ever had is $1 mil and that's only cause I went a long time without buying anything.

---

FuryoftheStars wrote:
OMG people... these types of things happen in the real world all the time. It's called upgrading. That's what happens everytime Windows goes to release a new version (going from 2k to XP for example). Everything out there currently is still usable, but it's not as good as the new stuff.

---

No. Upgrading is the purchase of a new product that performs a specific duty better than another product.
Updating is correcting a problem with an existing product that makes it operate in a way that is not satisfactory. Updates are what you download from Microsoft for free.
They identify an issue.
Analyze the issue.
Create a fix for the issue.
Provide the fix to the issue to their customers for no cost.


They are updating the ships, not upgrading.


Also, I'm guaranteed by law the ability to return or exchange product that I am not happy with within a
specified amount of time. I have no guarantee here, so you can't compare the two, really.


Or, let's look at it this way.
You buy Windows XP2. It runs slower than Windows XP, so you go back to the store.
You say, "This XP2 runs like pooh, I want my money back."
They respond, "XP3 is out and it runs better. Buy that."


How would you feel?
Is your argument that you would just shrug and say, "oh well!" And then buy the new stuff?

---

Zocima wrote:

---

FuryoftheStars wrote:
OMG people... these types of things happen in the real world all the time. It's called upgrading. That's what happens everytime Windows goes to release a new version (going from 2k to XP for example). Everything out there currently is still usable, but it's not as good as the new stuff.

---

No. Upgrading is the purchase of a new product that performs a specific duty better than another product.
Updating is correcting a problem with an existing product that makes it operate in a way that is not satisfactory. Updates are what you download from Microsoft for free.
They identify an issue.
Analyze the issue.
Create a fix for the issue.
Provide the fix to the issue to their customers for no cost.


They are updating the ships, not upgrading.


Also, I'm guaranteed by law the ability to return or exchange product that I am not happy with within a
specified amount of time. I have no guarantee here, so you can't compare the two, really.


Or, let's look at it this way.
You buy Windows XP2. It runs slower than Windows XP, so you go back to the store.
You say, "This XP2 runs like pooh, I want my money back."
They respond, "XP3 is out and it runs better. Buy that."


How would you feel?
Is your argument that you would just shrug and say, "oh well!" And then buy the new stuff?

---

Actually, you are not entirely guarenteed by law. It is up to the individual retailer (shipwright) as to what kind of return policy they will employ. Some places have a 90-day return policy, some have 30, others only have 14 day. Then, there are some that say no returns period.

But, if we want to assume that indeed you are protected fully by law that you may make a return, lets take a look at your example. Microsoft creates XP2 (devs create ships) and sells it to the retail stores (shipwrights craft ships). The retail store then sells it to it's customer base. Microsoft comes out with XP3 (devs create better ships) and sells that to the retailers (shipwrights make the new ships). Customer returns to retailer (shipwright) dissatisfied with XP2. Retailer refunds customer or allows them to trade it in for the new product, plus difference of cost. Retailer either restocks or trashes the refunded XP2. Microsoft has no liability.

You notice anything? I do. The responsibility of handling the returns isn't falling onto Microsoft (the devs). It's falling onto the retailer (shipwrights). Microsoft doesn't have to buy back or refund the retailer for all the unsold XP2s. So no, the devs do not have to upgrade all of your ships for you.

Also, in order for a change to be considered as updating, the manufacturer of the product has to first admit that it was broken. I am unsure, though, if the devs have actually gone so far as to say that yet.

BUT, as far as ease of making this change retroactive is concerned. We know it's been done before with other things. The excuse this time as to why it isn't being done is because the data of the resources used wasn't saved. I have this to say: so long as the resource requirements used on these new ships remain the same, you don't need the old data. It's nothing more than a ratio from here. If the change being made is an addition of 11% onto the mass, then all you need to do is multiply the mass on the current ships by a factor of 1.11. If resource requirements remain the same. If they are changing, then no, a retroactive change CANNOT be done (fairly).

Message Edited by FuryoftheStars on 11-11-2004 08:02 PM

<< wiped thanks to the magical space-bar submit while typing issue >>

Message Edited by CaptainCloak on 11-11-2004 03:10 PM

---

Envoy3113 wrote:

Mikka I can usually aggre with your position, but I'm pissed at the impact this is going to make. From a small guild where a half dozen people broke their backs to build stock that's going to be useless.

I could care less about the frickin firespray, there are way...WAY more dunes, kimos, etc out there that are essentially being 'replaced' by new ships. Yes, 20K mass on top is a NEW ship. It's faulted implementation. Never have we seen it at this level. (although...CU inbound I guess everyone gets screwed...)

Basically I think we can all agree that a retro-active change would be better? Yes????

And, we can see how a non-retroactive change would be bad....Right?

So instead of going back and forth with each other, how about we all get together and push for what is good for everyone? Just an idea...

And can the onestars stop? esp on an issue as big as this.

---

A Firespray with 200k Mass, is better than a Firespray with 180k Mass. Period. For the Developers to wave the carrot in front of our faces and say "Hey come get it, its rare" gets all of the Shipwrights who have mastered both their profession, and the skills necessary to utilize their profession properly, the hunt for Firespray Parts became a "quest" within the profession. For those who completed it first, like myself, this is a slap in the face to ourselves, and our customers.

I was the third Shipwright to sell Firesprays on Starsider. I posted a SALE, rather than an auction, and only because people could pick their Firesprays up THAT DAY was my sale a success. The first and the second Firespray auctions both dropped down from 12 and 13 Million to 7 Million, leaving the winner with a Firespray, but with the knowledge that his was about to drop in quality considerably in a few days.

If this was a change that was causing great strife to the community, such as this crashing bug, and fixing it would damage something minor, but fix a huge problem. I could see making the quick, easy change, without doing it retroactively, but the fact is, we've only been at this JTL business for two weeks, and to swap something on us the MINUTE we complete it, is ridiculous.

It tells us that nothing we accomplish is ever truly an accomplishment, because the Devs can simply push a button at a whim and whipe it away. It's not fair, and needs to be addressed. Things loose rarity over time, but to change the quality of something after it only being in the game for a few days, what are the devs thinking?

Clearly, by the fact that they didn't fix this before having it go live, they aren't thinking.

Please SOE. Retroactive Mass Changes. Or you'll see that many more "Leaving the game" posts on the various server forums. Do the right thing BEFORE it becomes a problem, not after.

---

CaptainCloak wrote:

The reality is that there is no way they can go back and alter the existing ships. It makes total sense. Once an item is constructed, the components and ingredients that went into it are forgotten and the final item exists. We don't know the actual stats of the resources that built that ship so we couldn't calibrate it accurately anyways.

--Mikka

---

I think the point of this is that the Dev's have gone back and changed items that were stored in a datapad already. For instance, droids used to have 60% medium armor, however all existing droids and crafted droids were changed so they now have no armor and just the resists.

So I disagree that they can't go back and alter the existing ships. And I think at minimum they could simply increase the mass by the difference between minimum experimentation under old system and the minimum experimentation under the new system. Sure, it's not ideal, but at least we would get something.

---

FuryoftheStars wrote:

---

Zocima wrote:

---

FuryoftheStars wrote:
OMG people... these types of things happen in the real world all the time. It's called upgrading. That's what happens everytime Windows goes to release a new version (going from 2k to XP for example). Everything out there currently is still usable, but it's not as good as the new stuff.

---

No. Upgrading is the purchase of a new product that performs a specific duty better than another product.
Updating is correcting a problem with an existing product that makes it operate in a way that is not satisfactory. Updates are what you download from Microsoft for free.
They identify an issue.
Analyze the issue.
Create a fix for the issue.
Provide the fix to the issue to their customers for no cost.


They are updating the ships, not upgrading.


Also, I'm guaranteed by law the ability to return or exchange product that I am not happy with within a
specified amount of time. I have no guarantee here, so you can't compare the two, really.


Or, let's look at it this way.
You buy Windows XP2. It runs slower than Windows XP, so you go back to the store.
You say, "This XP2 runs like pooh, I want my money back."
They respond, "XP3 is out and it runs better. Buy that."


How would you feel?
Is your argument that you would just shrug and say, "oh well!" And then buy the new stuff?

---

Actually, you are not entirely guarenteed by law. It is up to the individual retailer (shipwright) as to what kind of return policy they will employ. Some places have a 90-day return policy, some have 30, others only have 14 day. Then, there are some that say no returns period.

But, if we want to assume that indeed you are protected fully by law that you may make a return, lets take a look at your example. Microsoft creates XP2 (devs create ships) and sells it to the retail stores (shipwrights craft ships). The retail store then sells it to it's customer base. Microsoft comes out with XP3 (devs create better ships) and sells that to the retailers (shipwrights make the new ships). Customer returns to retailer (shipwright) dissatisfied with XP2. Retailer refunds customer or allows them to trade it in for the new product, plus difference of cost. Retailer either restocks or trashes the refunded XP2. Microsoft has no liability.

You notice anything? I do. The responsibility of handling the returns isn't falling onto Microsoft (the devs). It's falling onto the retailer (shipwrights). Microsoft doesn't have to buy back or refund the retailer for all the unsold XP2s. So no, the devs do not have to upgrade all of your ships for you.

Also, in order for a change to be considered as updating, the manufacturer of the product has to first admit that it was broken. I am unsure, though, if the devs have actually gone so far as to say that yet.

BUT, as far as ease of making this change retroactive is concerned. We know it's been done before with other things. The excuse this time as to why it isn't being done is because the data of the resources used wasn't saved. I have this to say: so long as the resource requirements used on these new ships remain the same, you don't need the old data. It's nothing more than a ratio from here. If the change being made is an addition of 11% onto the mass, then all you need to do is multiply the mass on the current ships by a factor of 1.11. If resource requirements remain the same. If they are changing, then no, a retroactive change CANNOT be done (fairly).

Message Edited by FuryoftheStars on 11-11-2004 08:02 PM

---

You bring up good points, I for one as a retailer will nopt be excepting any returns. As a shipwright I had no idea the changes were coming until recently. So if you bought a ship, well too bad. I might offer to buy it back at a reduced rate but I'll also have to look at the price on the current stock that has not sold. Too bad there is not some way for the people who are concerned about the firespray that the devs or csrs could have a trade in day. Everybody with a pre-patch Firespray come meet and exchange it.

Think about it this way...

You checked out the market for a new car for a few months. One hit the market and you made sure you were one of the first to get one. You paid the premium and got your car and you were happy.

Two months later.. they have another model out even better than the model you had purchased and now you want that one after using the original model for a while.

Is that dealer going to take your car in for exactly what you paid now that a newer and better model is available? They have to consider what the resale value of a now used product will be.. for example:

1) Has your KSE Firespray been blown up and now have fewer maximum HPs than it originally had?
2) Will there be a market still for the smaller-mass version of the Firespray?

I'm fairly certain that people will still be very happy with a 180k mass Firespray as opposed to a 200k mass Firespray - the added mass is nice, but not overly necessary. The ship itself still remains uncommon and retains value for that reason alone.

That being said.. we now will have for a little while two "models" of the other ships - one with Lower Mass and one with higher. For the higher end chassis, this might make the chassis more affordable to people (say selling them for 3cpu instead of 5cpu) and then in time they can upgrade to the 5cpu version. None of this really turns out to be a total loss - it's just a wrench in the works to deal with.

--Mikka

---

CaptainCloak wrote:

Think about it this way...

You checked out the market for a new car for a few months. One hit the market and you made sure you were one of the first to get one. You paid the premium and got your car and you were happy.

Two months later.. they have another model out even better than the model you had purchased and now you want that one after using the original model for a while.

Is that dealer going to take your car in for exactly what you paid now that a newer and better model is available? They have to consider what the resale value of a now used product will be.. for example:

1) Has your KSE Firespray been blown up and now have fewer maximum HPs than it originally had?
2) Will there be a market still for the smaller-mass version of the Firespray?

I'm fairly certain that people will still be very happy with a 180k mass Firespray as opposed to a 200k mass Firespray - the added mass is nice, but not overly necessary. The ship itself still remains uncommon and retains value for that reason alone.

That being said.. we now will have for a little while two "models" of the other ships - one with Lower Mass and one with higher. For the higher end chassis, this might make the chassis more affordable to people (say selling them for 3cpu instead of 5cpu) and then in time they can upgrade to the 5cpu version. None of this really turns out to be a total loss - it's just a wrench in the works to deal with.

--Mikka

---

Normally I would agree with you, but this is more than likely a one time change. Auto makers are constantly making new / better cars, the Devs are not. With cars you expect a better one to come along, so should I hold out for a multi-passenger Firespray, or aYT-1300 that is a rebel craft? It is not my intention to flame, I only wanted to point out that many things inreal life are constantly improved as time passes but that is not normally the case in the game.Either way, things are the way they are and people will just have to deal with it.