Ranger Archive
Thread: Harvest Bug with 60% cap
First off, I hunt hides for money. I don't need the experience and couldn't care less if pets took my scouting experience. So, if I go out grouped with my pets hunting hides, I am taking a double hit. I am getting less hides because of the patch (about 1/3 less hides off creatures I have been hunting for a while now), and I take another 40% cut if I group with my pets. Now this seems kind of silly or just like a punishment for having a pet because I can hunt with those pets ungrouped (and have been all evening) and get all the hides. So, basically, I am having my profits cut by 40% or having to go through the trouble of not grouping with my pets like some newbie creature handler. It just makes no sense that I can get the hides if I just go through the trouble of not having my pets grouped, but not if I group them with me.
Second, killing creatures isn't that much faster with pets, but the downtime is greatly increased. I have a friend who is a novice rifleman with about six boxes and he can kill stuff as fast or faster than I can with little downtime. I kill the stuff and then have to take the downtime (and cost) to heal pets. I love the extra safety they give, but they don't greatly increase killing speed and do greatly increase downtime. Unless, of course, you use pets that are so much more powerful than your target that you only get 1 xp per kill. But that is about as much fun as shooting gnorts (well, maybe not that fun).
Just one more thing, you said, "So it's not that we're saying "FU". We're simply saying that we understand why it happened, and that you'll be much happier altering your playstyle than complaining about the change. You're in a minority - most of us Scouts and Rangers are very pleased with the change."
How can you say thatwhen EVERY CH in the game is a scout. Every scout and ranger in the game can have pets and droids if they choose. I am willing to be there are a lot more people hunting with pets in their groups than hunting solo, and I am willing to bet most of those aren't happy with the change. When I am hunting with my pets, I am hunting just a solo as you are with your rifle. If I were able to take down an AT-ST with just my pets (lol), I can guarentee you would hear the cries of people saying a CH soloed an AT-ST and not hear anything about a small group taking out an AT-ST.
Delta,
Just a note: if you disband with your pet prior to engaging an enemy, you will get the full harvest. Even if your pet kills a creature outright (you had no part in taking it down), you have the ability to harvest/loot from those kills.
The key here is that you are ungrouped. There is a way around this "problem".
Personally, I wouldn't mind it if the developers changed it so that the amount you are able to reap from a creature is directly proportional to the amount of damage that you inflicted upon it (my old proposal) so that this work-around would no longer be a work-around.
Remember your earlier concern that if three pistoleers take down a creature and you as a rifleman took no part in the actual death of it but you inflicted 2/3 of the damage to it's mind pool? You'd be able to reap 2/3 of the creature's resources while each of the pistoleers would reap 1/3. Yeah, it isn't as great for beginning players that need the XP more than established players that can do more damage, but it would get around the work around.
I agree with the reduction in a group, but I was solo.
I do not mind the fact that it now takes longer to raise my skills, but they should fix the harvesting.
We are not talking about XP!!!! And you do Lose XP if you group withpets.
If I hunt Spiders West of Kor I get 650 pistol xp. If I am grouped I get 400xp. So as you can see I am losing XP which makes Sense.
We are talkign about the logic behind losing Harvest for grouping with Pets. And BTW stop thinking that everyone should be at Noob Level!
I spent HOURS/Days Mastering RAnger, I spent HOURS/DAYS mastering Pistoleer, I SPENT HOURS DAYS GETTING FACTION PETS. I should be able to reak benifits from that TIME SPENT that Others did not. So should I get some benefit from that? HELL YES! Why else would you even try to advance, complete missions if it doesn't actually get you anywhere????
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DeltaXi65 wrote:
Guys,
I don't understand. Please help me.
First - how has the 60% rule "decreased your fun"? Is it because it takes more time to get XP? Or more time to get hides? Why are you worried about how much time it takes anyway? The more time it takes, the longer you are playing. The longer you are playing, the more fun, right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have people that count on me for Harvest for thier products. And more time doing the same steps over and over kinda kills the fun of it. (I am maxed out in Ranger XP) I do not require XP.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second - The Devs have already frequently stated that a Master CH has the abilty to use a pet or combination of pets that are at least as powerful as a maxed out combat player. So the complaint here is that some CHs are getting penalized for using their pets as weapons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second - I am not a CH. I have a low lvl 15 Non-Ch pet that anyone can have. I also have 3 Factional Pets that I spent TIME getting. Their is little doubt in anyones mind that CH"s may be a little too powerful in general. This however, IS NOT THE ISSUE.
And on your last part, While the method used by most IMPS to get ATST may been via an exploit. I am a rebel and spent time Killing NPCs over and over to get my factional Pets
Ultimatly the problem is, the people that spend less time Powering up, or Farming NPC's, making Money, believe that it makes sense they should have equal oppertunity/skill as someone who spent 4 time as much time playing.
I'll never forget the tell I get from a master Marksman after I beat him in a PvP, telling me the fight wasn't fair cause of balancing issues. I was nearly a Master Pistoleer. Who should win that fight???
Degage wrote:
We are not talking about XP!!!! And you do Lose XP if you group withpets.
We are talkign about the logic behind losing Harvest for grouping with Pets. And BTW stop thinking that everyone should be at Noob Level!
Yes. I understand what you are talking about. Harvesting while in <b>any</b> group. Think of it this way: there seems to be four different types of "grouping states" people can be at.
Group State 1: Solo. As in no pets (faction or otherwise). In this state, people can invite you into their groups.
Group State 2: Pet-owner. This can be either a creature-pet or a faction-pet. In this state, people cannot invite you into their groups. You are not grouped with any players.
Group State 3: Player grouped, only scout/ranger. This is where a person is grouped and they are the only scout or ranger in the group. A number of people have commented that in this state, you should be able to reap the benefits for harvesting in the same way that Group State 1 can on the basis that the 60% rule kicks in when there is one or more scout in the group.
Group State 4: Player grouped, more than one scout/ranger per group. The 60% rule provides a lot of benefit in this state. If there are four scouts in a single group, they can harvest 240% of the creature's resources, compared to the 100% of going solo.
Some people, Degage included, consider Group State 2 "solo", but programmatically you are not. People cannot invite you into their groups. The invite ability is a yes or no flag. Can this person be invited, yes or no? In Group State 2, the answer is no. In Group State 1, the answer is yes and is the only state where yes is the answer.
There <b>is</b> a work-around. It's more of a hassle and is inconvenient, but it works. Pets have owners. If you are the owner of a pet, you are able to reap the benefits of whatever that pet kills, in full. If my pet, ungrouped with me, gets mobbed and manages to kill all of them, I can walk over and harvest/loot the corpses. My take is 100%, just like it would be since I am in Group State 1.
Degage wrote:
I spent HOURS/Days Mastering RAnger, I spent HOURS/DAYS mastering Pistoleer, I SPENT HOURS DAYS GETTING FACTION PETS. I should be able to reak benifits from that TIME SPENT that Others did not. So should I get some benefit from that? HELL YES! Why else would you even try to advance, complete missions if it doesn't actually get you anywhere???
Hmm. Well, this is hyperbole. You <b>can</b> reap rewards when grouped. You just reap less of them. The idea that you don't get anywhere is an exaggeration (and is one that personally annoys me. Please, we can get our arguments across in a reasonable manner without having to resort to such figures of speech).
I worked pretty hard and long to get to the point where my travelling companion isa grand wrix. I reap huge benefits with her around, even though I end up with not as much experience and resources. Shall I name a few?
1) She allows me to attack creatures that I would never attacked before. Red cons are now yellow or white with her grouped.
2) She is a 6000+ HAM shield against me and most major opponents. She keeps them 20m away as I bleed and body-shoot them up.
3) She is the best distracter this twi'lek can ask for. I send her into groups of creatures that mob and she attracts them as I merrily throw traps at them and shoot them up from 20-30m away.
4) With the extra hand, I can clean up a lair much faster than just myself.
5) She has an intimidate special attack that helps me a great deal.
6) Even at a full run, she's faster than me, so she can get to my target quicker, thus helping with #2 and #3.
7) She's a great tool for roleplaying, meeting new people ("Wow! Is that a grand wrix? Wow! Can I pet it?"), and is a general chickguy magnet.
To get all of that, I'm willing to have her eat up resources for me. More than willing.I'm getting a lot in exchange.
I think everyone is kind of missing the point. I read the update. Did all of you? It was stated that the 60% was for multiple harvesters. Not multiple people in the party. I am not saying that I agree or disagree, but the fact of the matter is you should not take a hit if no one else in your group can harvest. PERIOD. That is in direct relation to what the devs posted. PERIOD.
There are good arguements for and against. I liked the one about the damage that would be done with an ATST myself. The devs will have to rewordwhat they have done (which will sound like a cop out)or they have to change it some how.
Personally, I don't think I should take a hit on harvesting if I have another harvester in the party unless they actually harvest. But that is another topic all together.
So can everyone stop bitching about this and direct constructive advice towards the devs.
Thats how I started this post, then I got all this flaming Burger King on me for complaning about what I think is a bug.
Raffel wrote:
I think everyone is kind of missing the point. I read the update. Did all of you? It was stated that the 60% was for multiple harvesters. Not multiple people in the party. I am not saying that I agree or disagree, but the fact of the matter is you should not take a hit if no one else in your group can harvest. PERIOD. That is in direct relation to what the devs posted. PERIOD.
There are good arguements for and against. I liked the one about the damage that would be done with an ATST myself. The devs will have to rewordwhat they have done (which will sound like a cop out)or they have to change it some how.
Personally, I don't think I should take a hit on harvesting if I have another harvester in the party unless they actually harvest. But that is another topic all together.
So can everyone stop bitching about this and direct constructive advice towards the devs.
Raffel wrote:
I think everyone is kind of missing the point. I read the update. Did all of you? It was stated that the 60% was for multiple harvesters. Not multiple people in the party. I am not saying that I agree or disagree, but the fact of the matter is you should not take a hit if no one else in your group can harvest. PERIOD. That is in direct relation to what the devs posted. PERIOD.
Personally, I don't think I should take a hit on harvesting if I have another harvester in the party unless they actually harvest. But that is another topic all together.
So can everyone stop bitching about this and direct constructive advice towards the devs.
Oh yes, I read the update.
"Each scout in a group with loot permissions for a corpse may harvest from the corpse. Harvested group kills yield 60% their normal resources and xp, but may be harvested by each scout in the group."
The phrase here that is important is "group kill". Was a creature killed by a group or not? If the creature in question was killed by a group (of ANY composition), then it is, technically a "group kill". Harvests of creatures that have been designated "group kill" is at 60%. That is my interpretation of the above update.
I stand corrected. I read it from a different angle. It does in fact say "group kill".
Ikochan, first thanks very much for not flaming me. To continue...
I do consider Group 2 solo as in I don't have to chat with other people. And when I'm out hunting in the virtual woods, I like to be alone. A reflection of my RL manor. A group consisting of multiple PC's is tactically speaking FAR greater then 1 guy with factional pets.
So this is what I'm saying.The Followingmakes a group consisting of PC's (Player Characters) far greater then 1 player using 3 factional pets.
1. PC's don't suffer Prema Death
2. PC's are smarter about how they fight (ie, they use Traps, run away at the right times, HEAL eachother)
3. PC groups can now Harvest a lot more then 1 guy with factional pets.
So, understanding the logic of that, lets consider the arguement that if you use pets you should suffer a Harvest lost cause Pets make it easier.
Group 1: 4 PC's. 240% Harvest on all Animals. PC's as shown above have a clear advantage over Factional Pets.
Group 2: Me and my 3 Factional Pets. 60% Harvest Total. And if one of my Factional Pets dies, he doesn't get the luxary of cloning.
Under the above logic it's clear that the only thing this 60% rule does it make it easier for people whoalready had it easier to harvest more, that and force people to group or suffer. This flies in the face of all you people saying that I (with my factional pets) should suffer a hit for using them, yet it makes sense that a Group of 4 PC's should get 240% of a harvest? Cause it's easier for them? How does that make sense?
Degage wrote:Ikochan, first thanks very much for not flaming me.
Goodness, what good would it be to flame you? It doesn't lead to constructive discussion and they aren't worth reading unless they are highly witty.
I do consider Group 2 solo as in I don't have to chat with other people. And when I'm out hunting in the virtual woods, I like to be alone. A reflection of my RL manor. A group consisting of multiple PC's is tactically speaking FAR greater then 1 guy with factional pets.
I agree with your point that, in general, multiple PCs are tactically greatert than one guy with factional pets. I have seen several examples of this not being the case, but you are correct. Also for disclosure, my playing style is group type 2 95% of the time so I can see playing from your point of view (atleast, I think I can).
3. PC groups can now Harvest a lot more then 1 guy with factional pets.
I think this is only true in the gross sense. Yes, PC groups can harvest a greater total of resources from a single kill than a single PC with factional pets. However, the resources per individual is the same. If you have three scouts/rangers in a group they should get the same amount as each one would individually in group 2 play, and I would assume that a majority of scout/ranger players want the resouces as a bonus income/resouce source. I know there are exceptions (I spy all those hands raised with the "can I give up my share? I just want the xp"), but situations like those can be remedied: just harvest and give the resources to the scouts/rangers in the group that want them. It's a win-win situation.
Under the above logic it's clear that the only thing this 60% rule does it make it easier for people whoalready had it easier to harvest more, that and force people to group or suffer. This flies in the face of all you people saying that I (with my factional pets) should suffer a hit for using them, yet it makes sense that a Group of 4 PC's should get 240% of a harvest? Cause it's easier for them? How does that make sense?
The huge problem I have with your logic is something that I address above. Yes, from the gross standpoint, there are more resouces, but not more from the individual scout/ranger standpoint.
Like I said, I am 95% a solo player (when I am not solo, it is because I am helping out a PA member or a newbie (since I am a newbie helper) or /rescuing someone from a nasty group of aggros). The added hassle of grouping with other PCs, in general, provides the ability to attack larger and more difficult creatures than I would by simply grouping with my pet. Bigger creatures means larger individual yields, so I would agree with you that there are advantages of PC groupings over pet groupings. However, there are two different comparisons that should be identified.
Comparison 1: group 1 (genuine solo) vs. group 2 (pet-grouped 'solo')
Comparison 2: group 2 (pet-grouped 'solo') vs. group 4 (PC-groups)
The argument that Delta (and I) make for comparison 1 is that group 1 should harvest more resources than group 2 because group 2 is 'helped' resource killing. In regards to comparison 2, the yield per player is the same, the only advantage that group 4 has is possibly the ability to engage far more deadlier creatures than group 2 (and thus get larger resource drops), but if group 2 and group 4 types attack the same creatures, the yield per player is the same. I think this is consistent. Simple, but consistent.
I've been arguing for a resource drop based on damage incurred to the creature (which, I think, is used when experience is calculated), but that's a more complex formula and Delta has made reasonable arguments against my system (although I still disagree with him.. heh).