Ranger Archive

"you mentioned this was an iffy subject with a number of rangers -- but it made the top 5 list?"

There is no way to ever get a complete consensus regarding any requests in a community with such a board demographic.

There are people opposed to:

• Planet Specific camoflauge resources (they want generic resource requirements)


• Experimentation on Traps (they want to see unexperimented traps have more charges by default)


• The Hunting Lodge idea (most agree in principle but not the implementation)


• Examine displaying Attributes of resources (I have compromised on this by simply asking for the Type name)

The Harvesting Trap is the not central concern regarding Issue #5. Rather the primary issue is Harvesting and differentiation from Scouts. The Trap idea happens to fit into this focus.

It is a judgement call on my part, I personally like the idea (being a casual player myself).

Whether the idea fits into the developers vision for Rangers is another question entirely.

I hate the harvestor idea, it will totally ruin the economy for hides/bone/meat. You know there will be guys that put out 8 of these things where the highest quality resources are and bring in 16-32k worth in a day. I dont know about the rest of you but to gather that much doing normal hunting would take me a few days if not a week. So soon you would see very high quality stuff selling for 1-2 credits per. That would force every ranger to doharvestors just to be able to afford buy guns, armor, or travel. If I wanted to mine materials I would become an artisian.

Sarrel,

As a miner i would like to try and push the lot thing in a differt direction. This thing eating half my alotment of utility lots past the 2 i allow for a house would be a killer. An alternate sugestion is more in a direction that one could only have 1-2 up at a time. Mabe it could be writen into the code that its just an "automatic" note'ing on how many you have up. I don't really see the need for the harvister, but i can say i would use it because it would be quite handy.

Anyways just my 2credits that the restriction should be in the code, not the lot size.

"As a miner i would like to try and push the lot thing in a differt direction. This thing eating half my alotment of utility lots past the 2 i allow for a house would be a killer." (sic)

Well using large lots would require some tough choices for those Rangers who can also make moneyvia other methods.

A player can harvest minerals and hunt in the "old fashioned" way to produce the necessary organics.

Or a player can use harvester traps to supplement their hunting habits.

Or a player can use harvester traps and a few mineral harvesters, and still hunt for the remaining resources.

----

Since the lot system is already in place and working, it should be simple to utilize that system.

I think I agree with Ndydar on this point. I would rather see a hard and fast limit on how many traps I can have deployed at a time than an unrealistic lot requirement. I would be happy with a two trap limit. That would prevent me from putting up traps for each type of creature resources.

Hell! I'd be happy with a one trap limit! Just something to free up some of my playing time! Don't Trap Masters deserve a littlehelp/ breakfrom the grind?

How many lots does a Small Tatooinian House take up? I'm sure that is a helluva lot bigger than a simple beartrap.

"I would rather see a hard and fast limit on how many traps I can have deployed at a time than an unrealistic lot requirement."

Those Rangers who would want to exceed that limit would then be out of luck

Using the lots leaves the result flexible.

If a Ranger really wanted three traps, then they could sacrifice all other harvesters to get that last trap (presuming the lot size was set to 4)

In essence the overall amount of any resource stays constant... In the example, the player's net mineral output would decrease drastically,and his organics would increase marginally.

If they were to keep the lots low, then a Ranger could simply set up his two allotted traps without a significant reduction in mineral output.

This returns to the idea of making some hard choices as to what you do with your lots...

Eithera playersupplement their income via Organic Traps or via Mineral production...

A playershouldn't really have the option to do both successfully.

well in your framing a player does have the ability to do both. I can drop down mineral harviesters, or i can hand sample. there is no restriction for doing either. I can understand the need to artificialy impose some sort of restriction, since with my harvies i can ground divot 450,000 units of a given mineral in a week, to influx that many harviested resources, i think we can all agree, is not with in the system. If given my choice i would want to avoid the "supersizing" of the lots. I can back down in my reasoning about a harvister taking 1 lot. Since it is bringing in resources i can see that need, but if your going to insist this route, tune down the efficency, and keep it at 1 lot. I can see your zest to try and show a "penalty" for something with this mechanical ability, but i still stand firm that the "supersizing" of the lots taken isnt the route.

on a side note: this is purely a harvister we are talking about, something that would have to be added to the archetect schematics and done through that route. I hope we can keep the lines defined and quite in view on this topic. I really dont want them to miss interpret that i need a lot open to throw a "lure trap" or something like that.

"Since it is bringing in resources i can see that need, but if your going to insist this route, tune down the efficency, and keep it at 1 lot."

Sure, I can go with that.

I will rewrite the proposal, so that:

• Uses 1 lot, like a personal harvester


• Has a smaller hopper size


• Add a note about harvesting rate being slower than normal

Now the question is... Do we need both a restriction on hopper size and harvesting rate?

"this is purely a harvister we are talking about, something that would have to be added to the archetect schematics and done through that route."

That has been suggested as well.

However since Rangers would be the only one's who could actually use the trap, it might not make sense to have anEngineer actually make it.

Why take a perfectly good trap schematic and give it to a different profession?

Here is what I envision the creature harvester traps to look like:

• Ranger made.




• Ideally Advanced Trapping IV with certification at the same level. Fishing traps possibly at Advanced Trapping II with certification at the same level.


• Ranger used.




• Possibly have the Migration Tracking "survey" ability rely on bonuses granted with the Trapping line. This will make it harder for dabblers to make traps and find density, just as Engineering and Surveying work.


• Small hopper size.




• 2000 units maximum.


• Low max spec rate.


• Large footprint.




• Size of a Mineral Mining Installation.


• Uses lots.




• Two maximum at a time.


• High density areas should be rare.




• Rarely over 60%


• Trap should be small and unimposing.




• Nothing as big as a personal harvester. More akin to minefeild flags so as to not litter the landscape with large placeables.

These are just my ideal designs for the traps. I think this is a nice balance between usefulness vs. limitation.

I was just thinking on this and though I don't like the idea of a harvest trap (what makes our resources unique), I can't help but think of the irony. After we campaign long and hard we get group harvest. This brings about a significant harvest reduction (opinions differ here on whether or not it was a nerf but I defy anyone to read "bug" in greenmarine's comments on the solo non-pet harvest reduction), apparently to balance out the economy. We campaign long and hard about that as well and get it reversed. Now we ask for a way of grinding out organic resources when we sleep ("selling 100k wooly hide on chilastra"). I will be shocked if we don't get an even bigger harvest nerf. Not only that, there will be so many resources in the game that prices will drop to nothing. And those who won't use these sorts of things out of conscious? They may as well find a new line of work, though they may wind up being the last few hunters in the game (Ever wonder why people with several large harvesters don't bother sampling for resources? They don't have to).

We have a good thing with the harvest, we got the reduction reversed,and I really see nothing to complain about. Asking for more is, in my opinion, getting greedy, and I'm afraid of the bad karma to the profession that will result.

Alrighty then...

The Harvester Trap is obviously way too controversial...

I will remove the item from the final report.

We can debate on it for the next report.

I've said it before, I'm dead set against creature harvestors.. It will flood the market to the point where you're killing the play style of those who hunt for their gameplay. You're cheapening our special ability that makes us different. I'm sorry to the casual player, but if you're the casual player you have to decide what you want to do with your play time. I only get a few hours a night too and hunting to harvest is how I usually choose to play. If I want to do something else, then oh well, no harvesting for that night.

I mean, if you're such a casual player, why do you even have clients to fill their orders?

But I think it's a moot point. If the devs implement this, I'll eat my hat and then probably drop Ranger. You have to remember that everyone who has Scout skill harvests, but not everyone mines so there's a reason why we don't have creature harvestors. There is already enough supply to meet demand, why do you want even more?

"I mean, if you're such a casual player, why do you even have clients to fill their orders?"

I presume this was not directed at me, because I don't have any clients.

But I am a casual player, and like to make a reasonable profit...

But unlike Miners who can set up harvesters and let them run over night, Hide / Bone / Meat requires an interactive process that is time consuming.

Several Rangers have stated that they don't want to spend their entire game time making money via active hunting, when they canmore easily make money in a non-rangerly way via mineral harvesters.