Ranger Archive
Thread: Question to Devs about Grouping & Harvesting
Page 1 of 4
mintas
Sat Nov 20, 2004 12:46 pm
#1
Hello all,
It is well know that the ranger community keeps the docs and chefs supplied with creature resources, for meds and food. I look forward to a good carn spawn on dath so I can dust off my vk's and make a ton of money. With the upcoming combat rebalance, it has been mentioned that we will not be able to solo what we did before ie. Rancors. With this inability to take what we did before, we will have to group up with other people and thus lowere our collection of meat. This will force us to charge more for our meat and lower the amount of meat collected on each server. And it will intern raise the prices on buffs and foods. I would like to propose that the group nerf on meat collection be removed, if we are forced to group to survive.
Thanks for listening,
Mintas Friesh
pkirk25
Sat Nov 20, 2004 2:04 pm
#2
Have you tried calculating the loss? Every way you divvy up the numbers, you are still way better off to group. On missions, the harvest rises 80% and on random spawns it is a 20% bonus for grouping.
I'm happy to share the math with you but you might find it interesting to do the numbers yourself.
I'm happy to share the math with you but you might find it interesting to do the numbers yourself.
mintas
Sat Nov 20, 2004 2:46 pm
#3
pkirk25 wrote:
Have you tried calculating the loss? Every way you divvy up the numbers, you are still way better off to group. On missions, the harvest rises 80% and on random spawns it is a 20% bonus for grouping.
I'm happy to share the math with you but you might find it interesting to do the numbers yourself.
I am not sure about missions most of my hunting is done on wild spawns and solo. A group of rangers would be a good idea for hunting I just have two problems; first is the afore mentioned harvesting, I do not see why a group of rangers cannot get the full amount of each harvest I would think we would compliment not hinder each others abilities ie a pair of docs grouped do not heal less effectively. The second is if as rangers we group together to hunt we probrably want to keep the meat we collect for sale. While as a group we collect more individually we collect less meaning less individual profits. While I love the ranger profession, I also use it as a source of income, as do many others I know. Most of them want to keep the meat they harvest for themselves instead of giving it away freely. Just my 2 creds.
Thanx
Mintas Friesh
Fodder650
Sat Nov 20, 2004 3:13 pm
#4
Grouped with no penalty equals more organics to market. CPU goes lower because all members of the group can get 100%. Doctors, BE's, Chefs, armorsmiths all have access to better organics in larger amounts meaning better equipment heads to market in a bigger amounts making creatures easier to kill because your buffed, fed, and armored better. The cycle of life continues
Im a hunter I prefer to go solo for my hunts. You adjust what your attacking instead of forcing the game to bring itself down to your level. Just because you cant solo Rancors and Krayts doesnt mean you should be able to solo Rancors and Krayts. Adapt to the game instead of forcing the game to adapt to the players.
Im a hunter I prefer to go solo for my hunts. You adjust what your attacking instead of forcing the game to bring itself down to your level. Just because you cant solo Rancors and Krayts doesnt mean you should be able to solo Rancors and Krayts. Adapt to the game instead of forcing the game to adapt to the players.
mintas
Sat Nov 20, 2004 3:42 pm
#5
Fodder650 wrote:
Grouped with no penalty equals more organics to market. CPU goes lower because all members of the group can get 100%. Doctors, BE's, Chefs, armorsmiths all have access to better organics in larger amounts meaning better equipment heads to market in a bigger amounts making creatures easier to kill because your buffed, fed, and armored better. The cycle of life continues
Im a hunter I prefer to go solo for my hunts. You adjust what your attacking instead of forcing the game to bring itself down to your level. Just because you cant solo Rancors and Krayts doesnt mean you should be able to solo Rancors and Krayts. Adapt to the game instead of forcing the game to adapt to the players.
While I agree with you, on the fact that we should not be able to solo many things in game. The combat rebalance will have a positive impact on the game by providing us with content and group interaction. The combat rebalance has the potental to vastly hinder our income potential. I.E. not everyone in your group will be collecting resources for sale, but will be using the group to advance in thier combat profession, or help out a friend. While I agree we need more interaction we should not be penalized by grouping. Basically lets face it we provide a service that is a necessity to this game to continue, that is if you want buffs, or food. I just dont think we should take it where the sun doesnt shine on our ability to harvest resources because we are forced to group to kill the creatures that provide our income.
Thanks
Mintas Friesh
JBMat
Sat Nov 20, 2004 5:27 pm
#6
Ok, you lose 40% grouped, and will probably have to be grouped to be able to hunt Rancors after the CU. You don't have to charge more, fact is, why should you charge more? Still the same meat, same stats. The fact you can't uber harvest is not the doc's fault. Anyone who knows me knows I really don't like docs and the prices they charge for buffs, so my taking this stand will surprize some. You are merely basing your prices on harvest per hour, which is not the way to do it. The stats are the only thing that matter. Your profit per hour goes down because finally the game is catching up and making the playing field more level. Sorry that your buffed armored self sling 10meter waa ping who flung poo moves won't exist much anymore - awfully long arms there. But such is life.
I don't sell much carni. Like none. I sell a lot of herbie, all grades. I go to Endor for quantity, and yes, I bet I will still be soloing Endor after the CU. Me, my pistol, my droid and traps do quite well on the evil mcnasties that dwell there. Even should it take a few rounds more, fine. No buffs, no armor. My profit margin may actually increase, as I will probably be in more demand.
Learn tactics, or learn a real hunting skill.
JB
Landorien
Sat Nov 20, 2004 8:00 pm
#7
The fact is rangers, and thus scouts, as the only profession in SWG are penalized at one of its main sellingpoints when in a group, which is simply not fair.
How would fighters feel if they only inflicted 50% damage grouped?
Grouped docs healed half as fast?
Guilded, and thus financially backed, crafters had their experimentation points halved?
There is no real good reason for whyit should be this way, solo, nonsolo.. all irrelevant.
Resources are always in high demand, suggesting that the market needs aren't met as it is.
So why this penalty?
Why in a MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER online roleplaying game would a gamemachination penalize one profession in a group, and none other?
DaveG
Sat Nov 20, 2004 10:59 pm
#8
I'm finding myself agreeing with points from both sides of the argument. I wanted to show some arithmetic to show how the penalty actually doesn't make sense. However, I realised that there are a couple of factors that I do not know how are calculated.
Personal harvesting skills. Harvesting skill goes from 0 to 100. So does is the harvesting skill actually an expression of the percentage of resource you'll gather from the corpse? (non-grouped). If so, then master ranger using droid and/or veghash to harvest more doesn't make sense, because you'd then be getting more than 100% of the available resource.
Then, droid bonus and veghash bonus. Does anyone know if (singularly and accumulatively) they are additive or multiplicative?
If the harvesting skill is just a percentage, then the numbers I wanted to show you would have gone like this:
Player A has harvesting skill of +100, Player B has harvesting skill +50. Both players are grouped and kill a creature that gives X amount of resource, and the total amount harvested by both of them is Y. This therefore gives,
Y = 0.6 * X * (1.00 + 0.50) = 0.9 * X
Therefore by being in a group as described here, 10% of the available resource has been wasted by harvesting in a group.
Malice2kuk
Sun Nov 21, 2004 1:00 am
#9
groups of rangers? or hunt smaller game if you want to do it solo 
Almagill
Sun Nov 21, 2004 1:21 am
#10
Malice2kuk wrote:groups of rangers? or hunt smaller game if you want to do it solo
There is a significant reduction in the amount of resources you can harvest when grouped.
If a rangers role is to been seen as a hunt leader, guide, whatever, this reduction makes no sense and in fact penalises us in one area of our profession of we choose to practise another part of it. It is an ongoing issue which needs addressing. Whether it will be dealt with at the CR stage or in some future ranger revamp is anyones guess.
As there are changes to the loot tables going through at the moment then it'd possibly be an opportune time for our correspondent to 'remind' the dev's of this issue.
frightwig
Sun Nov 21, 2004 1:28 am
#11
Almagill wrote:
If a rangers role is to been seen as a hunt leader, guide, whatever, this reduction makes no sense and in fact penalises us in one area of our profession of we choose to practise another part of it. It is an ongoing issue which needs addressing. Whether it will be dealt with at the CR stage or in some future ranger revamp is anyones guess.
As there are changes to the loot tables going through at the moment then it'd possibly be an opportune time for our correspondent to 'remind' the dev's of this issue.
Exactly.. I see it as being similar to a squad leader and their role in combat. They boost combat abilities in groups. Why shouldn't rangers boost the harvesting levels, or at least have it equaled to the level of master ranger?
pkirk25
Sun Nov 21, 2004 4:50 am
#12
Simple maths of group harvesting:
Premise 1: the group is only 2 people and only doing missions.
Instead of getting 2 missions in same direction you get 4. So overall kills is doubled. However you pay a 40% penalty for being in a group. So if the ungrouped harvest is 100, the group harvest is (100 x 2 x 6)/10 = 120.
So on the smallest group running missions, you are at least 20% better off.
Premise 2: the group is only 2 people and only harvesting random spawns
Now the spawn system is popping out bantha or whatever at twice the rate as when one person is present. And you are killing them in half the time.
On these numbers, the minimum bonus for grouping is again got by (100 x 2 x 6)/10 giving 20% better off.
More experienced people will point out that this figure is far too low becasue you are killing a lot more than twice as fast if you are working as a team. But at a minimum, the smallest most incompotent group gives a 20% bonus on missions.
Premise 1: the group is only 2 people and only doing missions.
Instead of getting 2 missions in same direction you get 4. So overall kills is doubled. However you pay a 40% penalty for being in a group. So if the ungrouped harvest is 100, the group harvest is (100 x 2 x 6)/10 = 120.
So on the smallest group running missions, you are at least 20% better off.
Premise 2: the group is only 2 people and only harvesting random spawns
Now the spawn system is popping out bantha or whatever at twice the rate as when one person is present. And you are killing them in half the time.
On these numbers, the minimum bonus for grouping is again got by (100 x 2 x 6)/10 giving 20% better off.
More experienced people will point out that this figure is far too low becasue you are killing a lot more than twice as fast if you are working as a team. But at a minimum, the smallest most incompotent group gives a 20% bonus on missions.
Zapper_Weisman
Sun Nov 21, 2004 6:14 am
#13
pkirk25 wrote:
Simple maths of group harvesting:
Premise 1: the group is only 2 people and only doing missions.
Instead of getting 2 missions in same direction you get 4. So overall kills is doubled. However you pay a 40% penalty for being in a group. So if the ungrouped harvest is 100, the group harvest is (100 x 2 x 6)/10 = 120.
So on the smallest group running missions, you are at least 20% better off.
Premise 2: the group is only 2 people and only harvesting random spawns
Now the spawn system is popping out bantha or whatever at twice the rate as when one person is present. And you are killing them in half the time.
On these numbers, the minimum bonus for grouping is again got by (100 x 2 x 6)/10 giving 20% better off.
More experienced people will point out that this figure is far too low becasue you are killing a lot more than twice as fast if you are working as a team. But at a minimum, the smallest most incompotent group gives a 20% bonus on missions.
Maybe this is cause I just woke up... But, where did the 6 come from?
No matter how you hack the math, we still are going to get penalized 40% from groups. Thats not bad now, since we can move quickly and solo things, but once we cant solo things, that 40% is a huge hinderance. Yes, theres currentlya 20% bonus if you hunt with someone else and take twice the missions in the same amount of time, but with the CU you're going to NEED another person (if not more) to do what someone can solo now, so this bonus will become irrelevant.
Of course, we have no idea if they'll change grouping in the CU for other classes. But, I doubt they are going to make any sort of damage reduction for combat classes in groups (and if they do, this will only add to the problem for a ranger/combat class template). Its pretty safe to say we're the only ones that will have this problem.
Message Edited by Zapper_Weisman on 11-21-2004 05:14 AM
Page 1 of 4