Ranger Archive
Thread: Poll: For or against automated organics harvesting?
Piroa
Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:08 am
#14
My basic thought is: Why should we, as Rangers, be forced into combat to use our most lucrative skill? If we are not a combat profession, we shouldn't be forced to have a combat skill in order to make money.
Artisans don't have to kill anything to make a swoop. Doctors and Chefs can buy resources to make thier goods. Yet, all of them can turn around and sell what they make to anyone for a profit. Combat classes can take missions with cash payouts. The only thing we can do, without combat, is track for credits. Even Smugglers can make money without going into combat. Why do we have to directly kill to gather our resources?
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy hunting and I hated being a crafter. I love being a Ranger and this is something that could help us be the best harvesters in the game... instead of the combat profs with 0/0/4/0.
Fodder650
Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:11 am
#15
Actually in the case of that argument, which is valid, is the heart of another issue outside this thread. Which is "What should a ranger be". And to see where we want it to go read "Outdoorsman 2.1" under "Smart ideas" sticky.
Like I said your arguments valid for our current state. But with luck, chance, dev love, and a letter from Lucas saying "I loved that bothans outdoorsman proposal". Maybe we can change a little bit of who we are.
Like I said your arguments valid for our current state. But with luck, chance, dev love, and a letter from Lucas saying "I loved that bothans outdoorsman proposal". Maybe we can change a little bit of who we are.
Piroa
Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:16 am
#16
I love the Outdoorsman idea, I've read it. Until a big change comes, though, this could help even the playing field.
Remember, I don't want to have anything to do with drop-and-go harvesters. These things would HAVE to be tended to everyday, or they could disappear after 24 hours, whatever.
Owen-Lars
Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:19 am
#17
Bah 24hrs
How about 24 hours of playing then they disapear, remember some of us dont log on for a day or so. I dont mind getting less yeilds than someone who stays logged in all hours of everyday but i dont want to be penelised in regards to profession features simply because i have a casual gaming playstyle.
Over a 24hr play period we would still get the same results, however the difference would be that the person who plays alot will get that amount in a much quicker time (perhaps 1 or 2 days compared to my week or something).
Just dont penelise the casual gamer because he/she doesnt/cant log on everyday.
Piroa
Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:28 am
#18
I, too, am a casual player. I sometimes go a couple of days without playing. Some days I can only play for an hour, or so. I just don't think these things should be left around for long periods of time.
What about, 10 hours of playing time, or after three server resets, which ever comes first? Something like that?
Almagill
Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:30 am
#19
Calculus_Entropy wrote:
So, are you guys for or against automated organics harvesting (i.e. placeable, unattended organics harvesters)?
Taking the proposal exactly as it reads, I'd have to say No. Currently any man and his dog can drop ten harvies, toddle off to another server, create a toon, drop ten, do a 'you look after mine and I'll look after yours' deal with a local and, next thing you know, wall to wall harvies and people stood in C-Net screaming "2m units of Tatooine Avian 2cpu!!!"
If there were limitations on either the quantity harvested ( I don't think the one shot / full in an hour thing is something anyone is going to go for, even though I actually think thats how it SHOULD be.) or restrictions on the certification for dropping them.
Maybe >BER4 at Novice Ranger, or better, Trapping I, slight increase but uses more plots as you progress up to Trapping IV ?
Sure, we'd get dabblers, but we all have that, every profssion. We already have dabblers on the Tracking line and I've met a couple of riflemen who have kept our TN as it gives them a fighting chance against some beasties.
If it's restricted to our profession and enhances rather than takes away from the profession, I'd vote yes.
Tringard
Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:32 am
#20
im partially for it, wouldnt mind having fish/mollusk harvesters, but like others have said, The BER needs to be low and need to often check on the traps. As for creature traps, I like Phenix's idea of leaving the trap and coming back to find a creature caught in it.
These should definitely be a ranger only skill, I'd say based on the trapping line(seems to make sense 
). Perhaps trapping 2 would give the ability to place fish/mollusk/egg harvesters, trapping 3 would allow creature traps of non agro creatures CLXX (maybe 20-25), trapping 4 increase to higher CL and include agro, and master ranger for much higher (like rancors, etc).
). Perhaps trapping 2 would give the ability to place fish/mollusk/egg harvesters, trapping 3 would allow creature traps of non agro creatures CLXX (maybe 20-25), trapping 4 increase to higher CL and include agro, and master ranger for much higher (like rancors, etc).
TheUrbanPrimate
Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:34 am
#21
Okay, first off... I was a harvester of inorganics when the game went live. I made quite a bit of monkey doing it too. But I eventually got overrun by guilds and cross-server lot traders. I couldn't produce the bulk orders that they could. The guild groups frustrated me, but I relaized that (in most cases) they were sharing those profits so they weren't actually making that much more monkey than me. The cross-server lot traders (and those who 'rented' the lots of combat oriented players on the same server)however were outproducing me at every turn.
My point? While unattended harvesting could be a good thing, we need to be absolutely sure that the proposal for it is as fortified against abuse as possible. These need to be items that only a ranger can craft, only a ranger can place, and only a ranger can harvest from. The higher level the ranger, the better the turnout. Folks will be less likely to create a cross-server Master Ranger just to share traps, and other characters on the same server won't be able to rent out lots to rangers unless they are rangers themselves.
As for the harvesters. There are tons of directions you could go with these. I've heard the Ranger traps aren't great (haven't leveled up that line yet). So you could replace those thrown traps with these placeable ones. Interesting ideas would include fishing nets, shellfish cages, hunting traps (able to be set for a variety of resources), and possibly even some sort of milking machine (lures in herbivores and milks them).
All in all... I'm for it, so long as there are precautions taken to keep it from turning out like the rest of the resource market. It could replace the Ranger traps that are already in a sorry state, give usan edge in harvesting over our Scout cousins (and give them more incentive to actually consider Ranger as a career choice), and generally make the game a little more interesting for us. I could definately see my character going out to check his traps before (or while) doing a little sport hunting.
JBMat
Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:42 am
#22
Nope, bad idea.
If I wanted to be an artisan I would be one. If I wanted to be a farmer I would go get poop on my boots.
Fishnets. maybe. Fishtraps, maybe. A one time use trap for large game, maybe.
Organic harvestors, that's what I am.
Bad idea.
JB
Almagill
Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:45 am
#23
Going back to the worries about dabblers and sploiters, what if the schematic to make came in one line but cert to use was in another? So, Trapping lets you use it, either of the two scout XP lines lets you make it.
That leaves Tracking too, so, if somebody really wanted to 'dabble' in both tracking and harvesting they'd be as well becoming a ranger
If the machine then had to be checked on periodically, that'd make it less attractive to the cross server businessmen. Though balancing that against more casual players paying patterns could be a problem.
That leaves Tracking too, so, if somebody really wanted to 'dabble' in both tracking and harvesting they'd be as well becoming a ranger
If the machine then had to be checked on periodically, that'd make it less attractive to the cross server businessmen. Though balancing that against more casual players paying patterns could be a problem.
ZeroK0ol
Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:51 am
#24
Owen-Lars wrote:
Bah 24hrs
How about 24 hours of playing then they disapear, remember some of us dont log on for a day or so. I dont mind getting less yeilds than someone who stays logged in all hours of everyday but i dont want to be penelised in regards to profession features simply because i have a casual gaming playstyle.
Over a 24hr play period we would still get the same results, however the difference would be that the person who plays alot will get that amount in a much quicker time (perhaps 1 or 2 days compared to my week or something).
Just dont penelise the casual gamer because he/she doesnt/cant log on everyday.
The only way that would work is if the trap only functioned while you were online, which means it DOESNT harvest when you are not. also. if you, as a ranger cant make ur way back to ur trap in ur allotted time frame.... well, just like in real life, ur meat is gonna be rotten anyways
aeuralis
Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:17 am
#25
At first glance i am against it. I worry that oversupply will driveprice for organics though the floor and remove the only consistant method of making money for rangers.
But if the "harvestors" were made sufficentlly hard to get (ie you must be master ranger) or limited in what they could harvest(fish, eggs,milk).
I am VERY against any one being able drop these harvestors, IF anyone could drop them ,rangers willcease to be needed for anything except tracking.
Basiclly i am against making Master ranger any more useless then it already is. IF they do this it should make Master ranger more valueable.
Message Edited by aeuralis on 10-18-2004 11:18 AM
Calculus_Entropy
Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:56 am
#26
BTW, this thread is not meant to imply that harvesters are coming (if they were, it would be too late to ask whether you want them or not). I know how the older community feels about them, but I wanted to see what the younger community thinks (older and younger are relative terms, of course).