Ranger Archive
Thread: The Resource Market Terminal
Washell
Tue May 18, 2004 11:12 am
#14
I want my edit button 
And no, I don't want cheese to go with that.
And no, I don't want cheese to go with that.Now that's out of the way, replies to Calculus and Nemo0 in chronological order:
Calculus : Supply closer to or even above the demand will lower cpu, thus more people being able to craft items which are supposed to be rare. A lower cpu however will make less people harvest, and so on until a new balance is achieved. Only implementation of this system will show if this new balance will disturb the rarity of certain items. It's just something I thought the devs might use as counterargument.
Cpu will be set by crafters, if this system gets used enough competition will drive the cpu up. On less populated servers the cpu may be driven up by the harvesters. Contracts below a certain cpu will just not offer enough incentive to be taken.
Under the list of contractee's feature I say : Upon acceptance the contract is removed from the terminal and placed in the datapad. Yes this allows for contract hogging. The bounties are a way of slowing that down. I wouldn't like to hold contracts with a bounty while hoping someone else will get enough so I can fullfill them. Allowing multiple people to take the same contract will either give the bounty problem you mentioned or you would get a mail while harvesting that your contract has been fullfilled and that your services are no longer neccesary. Both points weaken the trust in this system. The system depends on a large amount of people using it to keep the prices at desired level so I want it to be as reliable as it can be.
Nemo0: Bounties/Acceptance fees
You're absolutely right, as is the sytem allows this abuse of it. Your solution however takes away the possible reward money a scout/ranger can earn by taking this contract over one without bounty. A combination between our ideas may be the best way to do it. The crafter pays the cpu and reward money to escrow when placing the contract. The scout/ranger matches the reward money upon accepting the contract. If he fails to fullfil the contract the crafter gets his money, including the reward, back and the scout/rangers part goes to the BH mission terminal. If it would be -10% to buy the "Bounty Registration Cost" the system would only allow abuse to get easy Investigation XP. This can be fixed by having one RL week between failure and placement upon the terminals. This would allow the BH to do this scheme only 4 times a month with one other person. Due to do the delay of the week the BH also runs the risk one of his fellows wil have taken the mission and the mark before him.
I limited the stacksizes to 5k and 25k for the rest to give new and casualplayers a chance to get a regular income out of the resource market and to force the succesfull crafters to keep their personal suppliers and keeping their status real. (We wouldn't like to replaced by harvester traps, they wouldn't like the collecting of millions of resources a month being made so easy anyone can do it). I'd like to keep the reward bounty free to enter by the crafter as a way for them to provide us an incentive to pick their contracts over others and creating interesting marks (financially interesting) for BH's.
The same goes for the acceptance fee, a new player may have sampled or leveled up marksman and scout and have a nice stack of resources but not the money for the acceptance fee, neither does he have the contacts to sell it in another way or the knowledge who to approach. High profile players can protect themselves against grieving by placing rewards/bounties. The lower profile players can just place a contract without much fear of being griefed. Hmmm, as I type this I realise a contract will either need to have a time limit or upon acceptance no longer count towards the crafters max of 25.
Nemo0 again: /agree, even if our harvesting is doubled we still need to put in many hours for a good stacksize. A system like this might raise demand by encouraging more players to expand their business so it is and will be sorely needed. I don't think the problem is the amount of scouts and rangers at present in the game, it's the amount of time a player has to invest to get a stack of resources. It just start to looks to much like working instead of playing a game.
Resource shifting problem: Well, there's www.swgcraft.com, personal knowledge, RIN (at least on Eclipse). I'd like to have at least some risk factor in this, or the reward/bounty money will never be any more then reward money.
Calculus: Well, your first remark has been addressed.
The system can be expanded to vendors for custom orders from the various crafters (which will also give them a more secure way of delivering custom orders without resorting to personal trade). Give me some time to think about other ways. But I'd like to stay on topic in this thread.
Hope this hasn't all been to confusing without the oriinal posts copied in.
Washell Olivaw, Ranger/Rifleman, Eclipse
Nemo0
Tue May 18, 2004 1:35 pm
#15
GoldMemberBria wrote:
Ok, I've got all sides of this covered, as a ranger/bh with an alt toon who is a pure artisan.
First, of, I like the concept. From a crafter's perspective it is very difficult to get the creature resources you need without getting them yourself and it would be nice to have some tools to do this in a more formalized way.
That said, the system that is described here sucks from a crafter's point of view. Why? One very very basic fact: this is a game, mostly played by kids, and there is very little concept of responsibility, or following through on something that you agree to. We've all seen this. Maybe they don't follow through because they never intended to. Maybe they have to do some homework and decide not to play for a week, or maybe their job requires some overtime. Whatever the reason, I'd say that I'd give almost 0% probability of particular person actually following through on a specific amount of resource within a specific timeframe. So from a crafter's perspective, what would you do if you wanted say 25k of the current herb meat spawn on Tat? You'd probably put in about a dozen contracts for 10k of the resource, tie up tons and tons and tons of money (assuming you had it) and just hope and prey that a couple of them actually come through.
From the scouts side: this also sucks. You walk up to the terminal, see that there are two jobs for Tat herb meat, one for 25k of it at 10cpu, and another for 10k of it at 12cpu. Problem is, you know there's no way in hell you'll be able to fill either of those in their entirety, and the other problem is that of course right after you accept one there will inevitably be a new one paying more the next day.
So here's how I would suggest that it should work:
Artisans put in "bids". These are sort of standing offers with a certain amount of money in escrow. So for example someone puts in a "bid" for 10k of the current tat herbivore spawn for 10cpu, and he must put 100k in escrow. The any scout is free to fill any portion of that "bid" up to whatever is remaining on that 10k. This way the scout can find the best deal, and is not at any point "on the spot" to deliver anything, and at the same time the crafter doesn't have to hope and prey that some particular person comes through, as he is selling potentially to all scouts.
Now from the bounty hunter's perspective: BH's need things to do, and to be brought into the "main stream" of the game, so I think this was a very clever idea from that perspective. I think there certainly should be player bounties, but they shouldn't really need a reason, just money, lol. "That guy insulted me, here's 50k, go blast him". That otta be all it takes. So anyhow, I'd love to have bounties on other players, but I don't think that works well for this particular system that you describe here because although it would be fun for BH's, it burdens the scouts and artisans too much.
What about the following compromise:
The terminal's standard operation is as in this example
- Crafterposts an order for 100k of current Naboo Avian at 200cpu. They put 20 million credits in escrow. The deadline is 1 week from now.
- Hunterlooks at the terminal and decides to fill part of that order.
- Hunterkills plenty of "duckies" and manages to get 5k of the current Naboo Avian.
- Hunterreturns to the terminal and turns in the resources for 1 million credits.
- 1 week elapses and no other players fill the order.
- Crafter returns to the terminal to collect 19 million credits and 5k of the Naboo Avian.
At some level of Scout or Ranger, a player gains the option of "contracting". They are able to lock out a certain portion of an order for a small security deposit (maybe 1k at Hunting 2, 5k at Master Scout, 10k at Tracking 2, and 20k at Master Ranger with a 1 cpu deposit). This would ensure that the hunter would get some money for his harvests. The crafter is given the name of anyone that "contracts" the resources. Anyone on the crafter's ignore list is not allowed to take a "contract" although they can fill part of the order. If the hunter fails to fulfill the "contract", the crafter receives the security deposit and is given the option of placing a bounty on the hunter.
Giving BHs the ability to hunt anyone is not going to ever happen (consensual PvP only). So there will need to be some form of contract with an implicit PvP acceptance before a BH can go on the hunt. This would provide one part of such a system.
Lythender Nirou
Master Ranger/Master Squad Leader
Eclipse Server
GTOfire
Tue May 18, 2004 1:38 pm
#16
** edit **
my bad, I didn't read properly. I saw the 25K in the bone-hide-meat section as well. For such small stacks as 5K, it's an excellent system for the new players and casual people just trying to make a buck, while indeed the big-time hunters are unaffected because they still need to find a buyer for 100K of the stuff. I've kept my original post below, but it doesn't really apply anymore.
heh, a 200K bounty on a 5K contract though, that's pretty insane, considering that's 40cpu on the bounty alone 
** edit **
-----------
I like this concept a lot, there's just two flaws(ish) I can detect that might make it less then favourable.
- you mentioned it yourself, RL issues can cause you to fail a contract's set time of ending. Simplebad luck or a lack of spawns can even make you fail when usually you'd have no problem with it. In a current contract, you could send the buyer a quick email to explain that your boss called you if you could fill in for a sick employee and you simply hadn't had the time, but would get on it asap. In the new and improved system, you could still do that, but the buyer would have to go through some trouble to remove the bounty before it was too late and might think you were just making up excuses to avoid getting hunted.
Yes, you could take a non-BH mission, so that sort of fixes the problem, but it's still somewhat annoying, especially since particularly big buyers (the ones you want) are probably happy to put down some extra cash for a bounty to ensure they get the goods in time.
- it'd make it pretty much purely buyer's market. Think of the chaos when crafters decide to not offer contracts higher then 10cpu and the Rangers won't accept less then 20. It'd make everyone hate the system and look for personal relations again. Not to mention that crafters tend to drive up prices and drive down their own purchases for optimum profits. Even someone who doesn't want pure profits raised their vendor prices by 150% simply because any lower and he couldn't keep up with the demand. People bought it so fast at his (pretty normal) prices, his vendor was constantly empty. With the economy as it is, putting the power of The CpU into one of the two groups is a dangerous move.
One way to solve that last bit would be a related but different system. Where a buyer can simply statea desire for 25K endor wooly of type ahoooreeejbleh-whatever, and offer 40 cpu, another might desire 10 at 50 and another might just be an architect who wants 5K at 10 cpu.
Anyone could simply drop resources into the terminal for instant selling to the highest current bidder of that resource. Any resource of that type dropped into that box would go to the highest bidding buyer until his offer is fulfilled, then the stuff goes to the second highest, etc. Or perhaps for every 10 units, 5 go to the 50 cpu guy, 4 to the 40cpu guy and 1 to the 10 cpu guy, to make sure everyone gets something.
I don't know much about economy, so that change prolly sucks, but it's a thought
---------------------------
Message Edited by GTOfire on 05-18-2004 10:41 PM
Washell
Tue May 18, 2004 4:26 pm
#17
Ok, here we go again
RancorPoker: You're not obliged to take a bountied contract or even use the system at all.
First: Yup, ain't it cool!
Second: I've already given various options to end a contract without getting on the terminals in case it shifts out. These can also be used if you're unable to harvest enough in the set timeperiod.
Third: 1st part see above. 2nd part. Yes there are bugs in this game. Yes, BH's have been hit by some real annoying bugs. Yes, there might be bugs with the implementation of this. You know what, lets fire all the devs, stop developing this game and just run the servers as long as there are people willing to pay. (maybe this seem harsh but that's how I read your statement)
Fourth: Has been addressed in my reply to Nemo0 and Calculus. Crafter gets all his money back, Player has paid his own bounty.
I haven't read the ideas about cpu decreasing, but from what you say about them the idea sounds silly.
The game in it's current system does not force PvP, you don't want to PvP, don't be a jedi and don't be overt. Same applies to this system, don't take contracts with bounties unless you're absolutely sure you can deliver (have the amount already in your inventory). It gives people who don't want to be jedi or don't have the time to grind it (or do the upcoming missions) the ability of getting the thrill of being hunted. It adds an extra element of excitement to the resource market besides the dollarsigns in our eyes when 3x 950+ avian shifts in. Big money can be made, little lost. While this system may make it looks like work to you it adds excitement to the hunt for me.
GoldMemberBria: Nice to get a crafters view on this this early. Wanted to have the rangers to have a poke at it first before posting to other forums.
I agree this is a game, but I wouldn't say it's played by kids (my point of view, I'm 26, maybe a kid in your eyes). Studies of mmorpg's have shown that the average player age is 25/26. Lets say 35% is younger than we have 65% 25 years old and up. (Source : www.google.comsearch: demographics mmorpg) Most persons of this age have usually or are just finishing school, starting their career, building a relationship. Pretty reliable things to me. I always keep in mind there are real humans behind the avatars and screennames here and treat them the way I'd like to be treated. This includes following up on a specific amount I've promised to get them. I'm a Ranger, the most solitary profession in the game, so I haven't had much bad experiences with people in SWG. This system can help you find those people who reliably deliver their goods. People who at this moment have no clue what to harvest and who to contact for example. And we all know only a small part of the server population actually visit the forums regurlarly. That's why I argue for an in-game system.
Scouts point of view: I've delivered 20k of naboo avian for 50cpu, while it was going for 250cpu. It hurts, but I got my beloved Stinky (Cu Pa) because I've followed up on the contract. It happens now, it will happen in the new system. Heck, it even happens when you buy the computer to play the game with. Only way to prevent this is to make a deal with the crafter he will match up to the highest recorded price. If you find one who'll make that deal with you, butter him up real good and never let him go again 
The bid systemyou're proposing is a decent alternative, but it doesn't offer an improvement to scout/rangers which was the orginal idea I expanded on. However, if this is shot down by a large playerbase or by the devs themself I wouldn't mind investing my time in it. At the moment however, positive reactions still dominate this thread.
Bounty Hunters indeed need more prey to hunt. You're proposal however is forced PvP for everyone. Would you really liked to be hunted everytime youlog inbecause you said something to the wrong rich guy? Players need a way to consent to a bounty. This system offers the player more profit at the risk of a bounty, free choice.
Calculus: +2900/4 hour buffs? I don't know, as a tanking ranger I wear everything out so fast I don't bother to buy good stuff. Switched to Rifleman now so it might get better. Going at it without doc buffs will finally force me to use some tactics
Nemo0: Good development of the bid system but what is the incentive to contract if the only reward is a possible bounty?
GTOfire: I'm gonna reply anyway, typed this much allready 
40 cpu on bounty alone, ssstt don't talk to loud, BH support is easier to get when they think they'll get 1.6million bounties
RL issues can also cause your house to decay, to have your harvesters idle on a spot for a while, to miss a hunt with some good loot. The making up of excuses is a good one though. Thinking of the banktip scam people will very easily sink that low. This is where the small stack sizes help a lot. There will be some innocent people ground in the wheel of the system by taking a contract of a resource that just shifted out, RL issues preventing timely completion. But besides the crafter consenting the contract as fullfilled I did name 3 or 4 other ways someone could still get the amount needed.
If no crafter places higher then 10cpu, and none of the scouts/rangers accept these, there will always be 1 or 2 that need the resources and up their price. Rangerdon't spend much money (my personal experience), they have other ways of generating needed income (missions, hiring themself out as trackers), they can afford to wait, crafters can't.
A variation of the bid system but even better, no player input neccesary it goes automatically to the highest bidder, or the communist approach, it gets divided "evenly".
Overall Overview:
The system I'm proposing gives a lot of player input and choices on both sides. I like to add some excitement and stockmarket like feelings to the simple trading of resources. Do I take (buy) these contracts (stocks) today or do I wait till tomorrow when demand has gone up while I suspect supply is lagging behind so the cpu might be higher. Do I take the contract with that nice reward/bounty or do I collect the resources first and hope it hasn't been taken bysomeone with more guts/confidence/possession of the needed resourceswhen I get back.
If we take the resourcemarket as it is now:
Resources spread out over vendors and smallstacks on the bazaar. Bigger contracts outside the game on the trade forum. Scouts/Rangers not knowing what is needed at the moment and whoneeds it. Crafters needing smaller amounts and getting it themself while they would be happy to pay someone to get it for them. Only the bigger players can due to their size get what they need. New and casual players are pretty much left out of the loop. Some Rangers have built upa group of people that buy from them but this takes investment in time to maintain. People shift professions soa Ranger will need to find new upcoming crafters to replace his old buyers.
Solution 1: Leave the 6k instant sales but remove the 6k limit on auctions on the bazaar (start price will stay at 6k). Leaves vendors useful and makes the bazaar the centralized salepoint for resources. Improvement on crafters side but not on harvesters side.
Solution 2: An open contract system. Player places a contract for x amount of resource for y cpu. Everyone can fill the contracts. Buyers can compete on cpu, Fast creature harvesters (powerplayers) can get the best cpu prices. New and casual players will now know what to harvest and who to sell to but will most of the times not be selling for the best price.
Solution 3: A closed contract system with small stacksizes. Powerplayersmight find it easier to keep a personal relationship. New and casual players can get good contractsby keeping an eye on the terminals. Even chances for both. Possible profits can be increased by taking more risky contracts by crafters in a hurry. Demand is as in solution 2 known again.
Solution 4: A closed contract system with large stacksizes. Benefits the powerplayers mostly, in my view the worst of all scenarios. Then I rather keep the current way.
I'd prefer solution 1 and 3together since they're not mutually exclusive, buy cheap on the bazaar, deliver to the terminals, you could make money by smart trading (or lose it and end up with a million on your head to boot). This also gives a bonus if they ever change their mind about the miner/rancher profession. The ability like rangers to take up 8 contracts at once, but then for the other inorganic/organic harvestables.
Washell Olivaw, Ranger/Rifleman, Eclipse.
Squidwalker
Tue May 18, 2004 5:00 pm
#18
Hmm I like the idea as a whole. Have to think about it some, and it might need some tweeking as you have it written. But nice idea. Could be just enought income, especially adding the mission payout for resource types, to keep us harvesters in the loop.
Nemo0
Tue May 18, 2004 5:00 pm
#19
That was a long post, Washell
. As for why someone would want to take a contract, it would be to guarantee that they have something they can sell when they get back. I can give a few situations where this might be useful:
. As for why someone would want to take a contract, it would be to guarantee that they have something they can sell when they get back. I can give a few situations where this might be useful:- You see some insane person offering twice the true value of a resource. You want to make sure you get a cut of this.
- You are hunting a relatively non-specific resource (general avian) and want to make sure that a better shift doesn't come in causing the general price to drop (as the crafter should be allowed to cancel any part of the order that is not fulfilled or contracted).
- You want the crafter to know who you are (remember the idea suggested that only people contracting would be identified to the crafter)
They might not be the best reasons but they are reasons why it might work. The main problem is that the original system (according to GoldMemberBria) would not be very nice for crafters and the non-contracting system isn't quite as nice for us. Combining the two seems like a good compromise although it devalues the contracting system a bit.
Lythender Nirou
Master Ranger/Master Squad Leader
Eclipse Server
Washell
Tue May 18, 2004 5:41 pm
#20
/Agree, they are reasons that might make it work and it does bring a bit of the proposed system into the bid system.
I have countered some of GoldmemberBria's arguments but we need the input of a larger group of crafters to judge his/her and mine arguments on their values. GoldmemberBria's experiences may deviate from other crafters experiences and SWG may deviate from other mmorpg's in demographics.
Well to bring this post to a bit longer length, but going slightly off topic: I've been meaning to ask you this in-game but keep forgetting it, are you Jules Nemo or Disney's Nemo? Just curious
Washell Olivaw, Ranger/Rifleman, Eclipse
RancorPoker
Wed May 19, 2004 12:13 am
#21
Ummm, a bounty over a meat/hide contract? You've got to be kidding me.
Firstsituation: my rifle will likely have a better chance of killinghis mind than the BH's scatter will unto mine.
Second situation:I manage to acquire the set amount of meat/hide after the contract expires.Either the BH dies or I die. I still have the stack of hide/meat. This crafter would enter my /ignore list and I'd easily sell the meat to another buyer (and no bounties). Either way, the crafter is out of luck (and potentially the BH).
Second situation:I manage to acquire the set amount of meat/hide after the contract expires.Either the BH dies or I die. I still have the stack of hide/meat. This crafter would enter my /ignore list and I'd easily sell the meat to another buyer (and no bounties). Either way, the crafter is out of luck (and potentially the BH).
Third situation: The resources shift, the hunter fails to gather the needed resource, the contract remains active, and the hunter dies at the hands of a grouped gteffing BH. Knowing how bugged jedi missions are, I'm sure this idea would add a whole list of bugs to fix.
Forth situation: The hunter fails to meet the required stack amount. A bounty is placed on his head, a BH accepts the bounty. The hunter gets killed by the BH. The artisan suffers thecost of the bounty (it would have to be sizable for a BH to gain interest), loses out on the meat/hide/bone, and loses out on potential for further contracts with said hunter (who are rare enough to begin with).
I read ideas that CPU should decrease if the hunter brings less or even more than the set contract amount. What's up with that? What if, like above, the resource shifts in the middle of the contract? Penalize the hunter? On the other hand, aren't most crafters happy to get more units of hide/meat than agreed upon?
I'm sorry, but your ideas are a bit too extreme for me. This is supposed to be a game for FUN, not a game for WORK. If you want the 'thrill' of being stalked by a BH, open your jedi slot. If I want to be stalked and hunted, I'll go overt. That's where PvP belongs.
Now, put in player contracts for meat/hide/bone. Instead of imposing a time limit, impose a CPU decrease after a particular date.
GoldMemberBria
Wed May 19, 2004 12:57 am
#22
Ok, I've got all sides of this covered, as a ranger/bh with an alt toon who is a pure artisan.
First, of, I like the concept. From a crafter's perspective it is very difficult to get the creature resources you need without getting them yourself and it would be nice to have some tools to do this in a more formalized way.
That said, the system that is described here sucks from a crafter's point of view. Why? One very very basic fact: this is a game, mostly played by kids, and there is very little concept of responsibility, or following through on something that you agree to. We've all seen this. Maybe they don't follow through because they never intended to. Maybe they have to do some homework and decide not to play for a week, or maybe their job requires some overtime. Whatever the reason, I'd say that I'd give almost 0% probability of particular person actually following through on a specific amount of resource within a specific timeframe. So from a crafter's perspective, what would you do if you wanted say 25k of the current herb meat spawn on Tat? You'd probably put in about a dozen contracts for 10k of the resource, tie up tons and tons and tons of money (assuming you had it) and just hope and prey that a couple of them actually come through.
From the scouts side: this also sucks. You walk up to the terminal, see that there are two jobs for Tat herb meat, one for 25k of it at 10cpu, and another for 10k of it at 12cpu. Problem is, you know there's no way in hell you'll be able to fill either of those in their entirety, and the other problem is that of course right after you accept one there will inevitably be a new one paying more the next day.
So here's how I would suggest that it should work:
Artisans put in "bids". These are sort of standing offers with a certain amount of money in escrow. So for example someone puts in a "bid" for 10k of the current tat herbivore spawn for 10cpu, and he must put 100k in escrow. The any scout is free to fill any portion of that "bid" up to whatever is remaining on that 10k. This way the scout can find the best deal, and is not at any point "on the spot" to deliver anything, and at the same time the crafter doesn't have to hope and prey that some particular person comes through, as he is selling potentially to all scouts.
Now from the bounty hunter's perspective: BH's need things to do, and to be brought into the "main stream" of the game, so I think this was a very clever idea from that perspective. I think there certainly should be player bounties, but they shouldn't really need a reason, just money, lol. "That guy insulted me, here's 50k, go blast him". That otta be all it takes. So anyhow, I'd love to have bounties on other players, but I don't think that works well for this particular system that you describe here because although it would be fun for BH's, it burdens the scouts and artisans too much.
Nemo0
Wed May 19, 2004 4:15 am
#23
Washell wrote:
/Agree, they are reasons that might make it work and it does bring a bit of the proposed system into the bid system.
I have countered some of GoldmemberBria's arguments but we need the input of a larger group of crafters to judge his/her and mine arguments on their values. GoldmemberBria's experiences may deviate from other crafters experiences and SWG may deviate from other mmorpg's in demographics.
Well to bring this post to a bit longer length, but going slightly off topic: I've been meaning to ask you this in-game but keep forgetting it, are you Jules Nemo or Disney's Nemo? Just curious
Washell Olivaw, Ranger/Rifleman, Eclipse
Neither. If you want to keep guessing I can keep it secret a bit longer. Although it might be fun to see if anyone can guess. It's not named after anyone else, though. Although the way the name was picked is probably similar.
Lythender Nirou
Master Ranger/Master Squad Leader
Eclipse Server
Aenedor
Wed May 19, 2004 4:39 am
#24
Great ideas, Washall.
It is just because such a system does not exist currently that I only take contracts from other guild members (and even here there is flexibility and understanding)and anyone else I would deal with on a first refusal basis, that is, I will not commit to getting a certain amount by a certain time, I will however commit to giving them first refusal on all that I harvest of that resource until they indicate that they are no longer interested.
Calculus_Entropy
Wed May 19, 2004 7:26 am
#25
I may be spoiled, but I already have ready access to +2400/3.5 hour buffs (I have never even heard of a 4 hour buff) so I wouldn't count them as rare....
Washell wrote:
*snip*
Calculus: +2900/4 hour buffs? I don't know, as a tanking ranger I wear everything out so fast I don't bother to buy good stuff. Switched to Rifleman now so it might get better. Going at it without doc buffs will finally force me to use some tactics
*snip*
. I do have access to the best (crafting) Master Doc on WH, so....
LeeBot_9
Wed May 26, 2004 6:12 pm
#26
Although I'd prefer to hunt down Jedi or Smugglers, hunting Rangers could be fun .
.