Ranger Archive
Thread: Foraged Items
Calculus_Entropy wrote:
I maintain that this is impossible, hence my stance. Just sayin'.
Almagill wrote:
If they increased the effects of the foods to the point where they were useful, but not so useful as to be a threat to the chef foods, that'd be a start.
Appreciate your position, but I can't see why it's 'impossible'.
5 or 6 items in a foraged loot table, increase the effects/duration. Fixed.
I'm sure I'm missing something though?
As for making them non-tradeable, I'd have no prob with that if they upped the stats significantly and added a timer to /forage to make onion-pharming deeply unattractive. That way you could keep a stock of, say, half a dozen items, for personal use, then replenish as you used them but you could not go stocking up till your invents full and selling them on, undercutting the chefs, etc.
Almagill wrote:
Calculus_Entropy wrote:
I maintain that this is impossible, hence my stance. Just sayin'.
Almagill wrote:
If they increased the effects of the foods to the point where they were useful, but not so useful as to be a threat to the chef foods, that'd be a start.
Appreciate your position, but I can't see why it's 'impossible'.
5 or 6 items in a foraged loot table, increase the effects/duration. Fixed.
I'm sure I'm missing something though?
As for making them non-tradeable, I'd have no prob with that if they upped the stats significantly and added a timer to /forage to make onion-pharming deeply unattractive. That way you could keep a stock of, say, half a dozen items, for personal use, then replenish as you used them but you could not go stocking up till your invents full and selling them on, undercutting the chefs, etc.
Well, by impossible, I mean that, to make foraged foods desirable, you need to make them as good as Chef food (or else, why bother?). Xell has just started a thread that suggested the foraged food buffs be more Rangery (trapping, tracking, harvesting improvements, than combaty (regen buffs, stat buffs, etc.).
Overall, my biggest beef is that, foraged food that is not as good as Chef food is not desirable, and people will just go buy the Chef food. If you have food that is as good as Chef food, you are infringing upon their profession. I can't see how a middle ground is feasible.
Bekan wrote:
More programming, but... make some of the forage edible and other not. The ones that aren't edible, stick into a table for a non-essential additive to chef food. For instance, in the Light Bowcaster schem, there are 5 (?) required components and one non-essential. The not-required item is a Weapon Scope. So, make a (for instance) cake schem where there are required items to make it, and maybe one non-essential topping, say strawberries. The strawberries give it something, color, longer duration, whatever, and the only place you can get strawberries, is foraging. Keep foraging to us (vice giving it away). This way, we forage, and can make a small sum selling to chefs. We're not competing with them. They don't NEED us. But a cake with straawberries on top might be 'just the thing'.
At first glance, not a bad idea, however, I think what would happen is that if Chefs were able to make better products with our foraged goods... you know that we'd start getting a TON of /tells each day getting contracts for 1000 ko-do fruits or whatever, and who in their right mind would want to fill THAT order? Besides... the foods would then be available to every other player in the game... another one of our skills that goes to the masses. 
However, how about a slightly different take on it... what if we were able to use a Chef food (finished product) and add another ingredient (i.e. foraged food) to it to reduce the filling, increase duration, modify stats by 10%, etc.? There would be NO downside for Chefs - it might even increase the desire to get their foods, and it would give us something to do in our camps with the food crafting station - (or, preferrably, as I mentioned in my post above, use a campfire skillet!) Think of any rangery type you want (Rambo, Seals, Steve Irwin, whoever)... they usually have their rations, but also live off the land... mixing in or sprinklin on things they find out in the bush to "enhance" their dinner. Think of it as a food-powerup... the coding shouldn't be all that difficult then.
/agree
This is the 2nd most borked skill that rangers have. After the CU, it's 300% worse than before the CU. The DEVS clearly put no, and I mean NO, thought into this.As you reach master ranger, you getZERO realimprovement to foraging skill. You still get the same 5 or 6 useless foods. You don't have the chance for foraging multiple items at one time (as was previously advertised).
THE most borked skill. Camping. Does nothing. Ok, almost nothing. They mysteriously "go away" when we go into combat. They don't keep any animals or NPCs out. A Wound Healing ability of 2 wounds per minute is ridiculous.
I hope the DEVS put a little thought into Ranger-dom for this next publish. My fear is that they simply nerfed the P-Dart, tried but failed to fix the trapping XP issue, and didn't do anything to fix Adhesive Mesh or /RESCUE.
As you can see, my hopes are quite low that the DEVs are going to help us out in the next publish.
And I have no confidence they actually read this forum to see what needs to be done.
/halo
Calculus_Entropy wrote:
*ponders re-starting his 'remove foraging from the game' campaign*
/halo
/equip Trandoshan Hunting Lance
Just try it...
=======================Be-gone!
*shimmys back to work on his next forage revamp post*
Calculus_Entropy wrote:
Almagill wrote:
Calculus_Entropy wrote:
I maintain that this is impossible, hence my stance. Just sayin'.
Almagill wrote:
If they increased the effects of the foods to the point where they were useful, but not so useful as to be a threat to the chef foods, that'd be a start.
Appreciate your position, but I can't see why it's 'impossible'.
5 or 6 items in a foraged loot table, increase the effects/duration. Fixed.
I'm sure I'm missing something though?
As for making them non-tradeable, I'd have no prob with that if they upped the stats significantly and added a timer to /forage to make onion-pharming deeply unattractive. That way you could keep a stock of, say, half a dozen items, for personal use, then replenish as you used them but you could not go stocking up till your invents full and selling them on, undercutting the chefs, etc.
Well, by impossible, I mean that, to make foraged foods desirable, you need to make them as good as Chef food (or else, why bother?). Xell has just started a thread that suggested the foraged food buffs be more Rangery (trapping, tracking, harvesting improvements, than combaty (regen buffs, stat buffs, etc.).
Overall, my biggest beef is that, foraged food that is not as good as Chef food is not desirable, and people will just go buy the Chef food. If you have food that is as good as Chef food, you are infringing upon their profession. I can't see how a middle ground is feasible.
aaaah, I see.
Okay, I'll agree you can't make them as desirable as chef foods, for the obvious reason that that'd hit chefs in the crock pots.
But then again, 'desirable is as desirable does' or something like that. Chef foods are for the masses, these could be 'elite' snacks... The food of gods, or at least a bunch of weird hippy treehuggin' stew makin' onion munchers.
Like the ideas in -Xell's thread, more rangery flavour to the buffage, and I'll carry the argument over there later, but just going back to the 'if its not as good as chef, folk'll just buy chef food'. Conversely, if you're in the middle of Lok, ran out of blob candy or are, as some of us sometimes are, too broke to buy a crate of guff off a chef, it's a fall back. And it's a fall back that only 'we' have.
So am still more in the 'make it work, not go away' camp than the 'this is broke, chuck it out' camp.
and am ruddy hungry now.... gimme a boiled onion sandwich 8)
I'm hoping dev's fix something we already have like/forage. A suppliment to a chef making food is a good thing. Similar toktrayt tissue making a gun better, 1 per crate though.You won't get a request for 1000, but you might get a request for 10 or 20.
As opposed to introducing something NEW......say a "lure" trap..that is full of holes and bugs for the next 2 years. I like to rmember who I am dealing with here or trying to deal with. These developers are apparently not the most talentedor have one arm tied by management who won't let them hire more programmers. So I like to keep my requests "real" or "attainable "for them.
Message Edited by Goldear on 07-19-2005 09:04 AM