Ranger Archive
Thread: Ranger camp brainstorming
Ninhor wrote:
The main disagreement I see is about mission terms in camps. The whole economy argument is not valid if the terms are properly coded. Essentially, the mission term in a campsite is simply an uplink to the nearest network (be that a player city or NPC city). All missions listed on the campsite term are pulled from that same exact array of missions. This is not difficult to code, as is already being demonstrated by the revamped bazaar pulling from player vendors, and has zero effect on the economy. You are pulling from the same pool of missions, just from a different location. Problem solved.
actually, this sounds even worse than whatI was originally thinking. So let's say I take missions 1k and 2k away from the Dath OP,both of them are NE. So i do the missions, pop a camp and now I'm looking on the misisons terminals. If it's from that pool, I'm going to end up looking for ones to the NE about1-2k away. So when I accept those missions, they'll be that distance away from the OP, and they'll be right around me, which shortens the driving even further. I mean, in that system, if you're patient enough you could spawn a mission within 250m of you which would shorten the time between missions even more and would reduce the amount of travel time even further.
Look, lets' say you want to do 3 sets of missions: In the current system you have to go out, kill them, go back, take more missions, etc. There's also a few minutes getting between missions. Lets' round travel time to 1km= 2minutes.
So your first lair is 1km away, and your second one is usually about the same distance, so it'll only take 1minute between the two. Say an average of 4 minutes klling and a 3 minutes return trip. The total time would be:
2+4+1+4+3+2+4+1+4+3+2+4+1+4= 39 minutes
In the new system, where if you're good, the travel time should be at most 1 minute to a lair, and we assume you start in the same location (same initial travel time.
2+4+1+4+1+4+1+4=21 minutes
If you just do 3 sets of missions a day you've already cut your time needed to do so in half. In addition, you've stopped bike decay (due to travel or getting attacked) by at least half. This is even worse than just having mission terminals in the camps (and not uplinking to the main one). Consider how much the timer on food, drink and stuff goes down during times when you travel. That won't be as much of a factor. You'll use much less food and spice and stuff, meaning that again, you have less credits going out and more credits coming in. I fail to see how this is the solution.
It may be that i'm not "getting" something, but as I understand it, this would make my concerns even more valid.
Message Edited by Phenix1050 on 04-09-2005 12:26 PM
whoops, sorry about the miscalculations... /slap self. 2+4+1+4+1+4+1+4+1+4+1+4 does equal 31, you're right.
as for this:
Also, as far as mission locations go, I don't know if you've been extremely lucky or not but every time I get a mission the waypoint jumps north/south/east/west another 200-700 meters once I reach the original marker. I'd be willing to bet this has happened to others, especially since it has been this way since the game first rolled out.
the same would hold true of missions gotten from the terminal. so rather than 2 minutes driving, it'd be three.
I don't know about you, but a 16% increase to the amount of credits coming into the game along with decreased expenditures, seems like a lot. To think about it realistically, consider that in a 2 hour period a person can get at least 100k (not sure about the new system yet, we'll see). That'd be an extra 16k, which is a lot. 16k covers my expenses for a few weeks and I have several houses and a brandy addiction.
I just don't see this as an ability that would really make Ranger any better as a class. Would it be "easier"? yeah. but more fun? i don't think so. Popping a camp for 10 seconds to grab new misisons isn't what being a Ranger is about. It reminds me of the old days when people used to have to be in a camp to call pets/droids/speeders. I would make tons of camps and just pop them when we needed them, then just leave them out and run away to do other things. Camping wasn't fun or unique, it was simple a gameplay hurdle to be cleared. I fear that misison terminals would do the same thing. There's really no need to add an easier way to get credits into the game. Especially into a profession as self-sufficient as Ranger.
Would it hurt us? I hope not. It's possible, albeit unlikely that asking for, and getting this, would hurt our chances of getting other things. but i simply think it'll cause more problems than it'll solve.
Phenix1050 wrote:
I don't know about you, but a 16% increase to the amount of credits coming into the game along with decreased expenditures, seems like a lot. To think about it realistically, consider that in a 2 hour period a person can get at least 100k (not sure about the new system yet, we'll see). That'd be an extra 16k, which is a lot. 16k covers my expenses for a few weeks and I have several houses and a brandy addiction.
While in real life, a 16% increase in pay is substantial at higher salary levels, this does not hold true for SWG. This is no different than going to a player city that has the bonus (I cannot recall the name) that allows for higher payouts on mission terms.
Also, I'm not sure how you get by on 16k every few weeks...unless you do zero hunting, and only play once every few weeks. A Doctor buff costs on average 10-15k per whack (sure things will change once the CU goes through, but we won't know for sure exactly how things like that will pan out in the end).
So, basically that 16% would allow me to pay for my expenses for that particular buff session. Oh, and let's not forget the several thousand you spend per buff reparing your swoop/speeder.
I just don't see this as an ability that would really make Ranger any better as a class. Would it be "easier"? yeah. but more fun? i don't think so. Popping a camp for 10 seconds to grab new misisons isn't what being a Ranger is about. It reminds me of the old days when people used to have to be in a camp to call pets/droids/speeders. I would make tons of camps and just pop them when we needed them, then just leave them out and run away to do other things. Camping wasn't fun or unique, it was simple a gameplay hurdle to be cleared. I fear that misison terminals would do the same thing. There's really no need to add an easier way to get credits into the game. Especially into a profession as self-sufficient as Ranger.
I disagree. Having the potential to basically unlock the rest of a non-player-buildable planet is extremely useful. Remote areas of those planets are hardly explored because there is not much to gain from traveling 7-8k on a swoop to just look around for random spawns. However, being able to set up camp that far out with a group of people and specifically seek out particular mission types is wonderful.
Also, I've looked through some of the posts on modularized camping and I do agree that the concept is terrific. However, I have yet to see any posts that refer to the costs associated with this type of approach (If you can direct me to any I'd appreciate the opportunity to review them). Given your obvious concern about the economy, I feel this point is very appropriate.
It will cost these other master professions moeny to craft the particular mod associated with their class. In turn, they will sell these mods to Rangers at a cost (one that will generate them a profit). Over time, the costs will be driven down (not unlike Doctor buffs) but initially the costs will be high. So, in reality, it may end up costing a Ranger 5-10-20-30k (who really knows) to drop a specialized tent. The average Ranger player who does not have tens or hundreds of millions of credits stored up will be less likely to pitch a new tent every ten minutes to make the mission grind easier. They will find a decent spot, hunker down, and make the most of that tent.
With the modularized approach, everyone will do their part to generate a personal profit from each component used. That isevident from the current and past economical turmoil.
Thanks,
Ninhor wrote:
While in real life, a 16% increase in pay is substantial at higher salary levels, this does not hold true for SWG. This is no different than going to a player city that has the bonus (I cannot recall the name) that allows for higher payouts on mission terms.
So what if the closest mission terminal is in a player city? Would that be a 32% incease in payout over time?
Also, I'm not sure how you get by on 16k every few weeks...unless you do zero hunting, and only play once every few weeks. A Doctor buff costs on average 10-15k per whack (sure things will change once the CU goes through, but we won't know for sure exactly how things like that will pan out in the end).
So, basically that 16% would allow me to pay for my expenses for that particular buff session. Oh, and let's not forget the several thousand you spend per buff reparing your swoop/speeder.
I don't hunt buffed. I don't need to. I've solo'd a Juvie Krayt unbuffed/unarmored. A little smarts when hunting goes a long way. So 16k pays for my house fees and speeder repair. (I rarely use speeders though). I have enough left over after every week to buy some brandy for when things get dicey. I've lost one piece of armor in my entire history of playing SWG (since August 2003). I don't need much money.
I disagree. Having the potential to basically unlock the rest of a non-player-buildable planet is extremely useful. Remote areas of those planets are hardly explored because there is not much to gain from traveling 7-8k on a swoop to just look around for random spawns. However, being able to set up camp that far out with a group of people and specifically seek out particular mission types is wonderful.
But under your system, you link to a mission terminal in the closest town. Those missions will only be 1-2k away from a city. So yeah, you can go 7k out...but guess what? You'll have to drive right back within 2km of a city anyway, so there's no real benefit.
Also, I've looked through some of the posts on modularized camping and I do agree that the concept is terrific. However, I have yet to see any posts that refer to the costs associated with this type of approach (If you can direct me to any I'd appreciate the opportunity to review them). Given your obvious concern about the economy, I feel this point is very appropriate.
It will cost these other master professions moeny to craft the particular mod associated with their class. In turn, they will sell these mods to Rangers at a cost (one that will generate them a profit). Over time, the costs will be driven down (not unlike Doctor buffs) but initially the costs will be high. So, in reality, it may end up costing a Ranger 5-10-20-30k (who really knows) to drop a specialized tent. The average Ranger player who does not have tens or hundreds of millions of credits stored up will be less likely to pitch a new tent every ten minutes to make the mission grind easier. They will find a decent spot, hunker down, and make the most of that tent.
With the modularized approach, everyone will do their part to generate a personal profit from each component used. That isevident from the current and past economical turmoil.
Well, in my mind, the modules would be low resource cost and wouldn't use named resources, so your assumption of 5k is WAY off. Think of how much a stim-a costs now. Now lower that cost, since they'll be easier to make. These aren't meant to be revenue generators, but more along the lines of something that requires interdependance and will be usefull in a group. Let's say a group goes out hunting and they need some BF healing. A musician has tagged along and gets to work building a small stage. the ranger integrates that stage into the design of their camp and sets it up. It isn't supposed to be a money maker but a grouping tool to give a group a reason to include entertaining and crafting professions on a hunt. Give everyone a place on the battlefield and the game will be more fun.
So what if the closest mission terminal is in a player city? Would that be a 32% incease in payout over time?
No, and neither would the campsite mission terminals. I'm not trying to be insulting here but your math skills have much room for improvement. You don't add the 16+% together for each hour played and call that a pay increase.
If that were the case, someone paid bi-weekly who just got a 3% raise would end up with a 78% raise by the end of the year. As nice as that would be, it is simply incorrect. Whether you play two hours or twenty hours straight, you'll still only be 16% ahead of the old system in the end.
I don't hunt buffed. I don't need to. I've solo'd a Juvie Krayt unbuffed/unarmored. A little smarts when hunting goes a long way. So 16k pays for my house fees and speeder repair. (I rarely use speeders though). I have enough left over after every week to buy some brandy for when things get dicey. I've lost one piece of armor in my entire history of playing SWG (since August 2003). I don't need much money.
Obviously, you are a Master Rifleman (or close to it). There is no other class that could take on such a high-level beast solo, unbuffed; and the only way that would be accomplished is through the use of /takecover, /sneak, /surpriseshot, and /concealshot.
This hunting method does not have to do with "smarts" so much as a benefit of your chosen profession.
Even so, your personal case in no way explains away the costs I mentioned for the average player.
Also, I'm beginning to wonder if half of what you are personally claiming is true, or just some means to try and win this argument. In the past threads, you have been strongheaded about swoop repairs and needing to go to cities to get these done. Now, you just claimed that you rarely use speeders. I'm finding your arguments unsound when you only come back with an "Well, I don't need to do that" answer.
But under your system, you link to a mission terminal in the closest town. Those missions will only be 1-2k away from a city. So yeah, you can go 7k out...but guess what? You'll have to drive right back within 2km of a city anyway, so there's no real benefit.
Have you ever seen a mission term in a city that pointed you to a mission on the other side of the planet map? No. That's because the terms only show missions within a specific radius of themselves. The same would be the case for campsite terminals.
All terminals planet-wide are connected to the same pool of missions. They just filter out the non-local missions from their queue before displaying the search results. In the case of campsite mission terms, the filter would only show missions within a certain radius of the campsite.
Well, in my mind, the modules would be low resource cost and wouldn't use named resources, so your assumption of 5k is WAY off. Think of how much a stim-a costs now. Now lower that cost, since they'll be easier to make. These aren't meant to be revenue generators, but more along the lines of something that requires interdependance and will be usefull in a group. Let's say a group goes out hunting and they need some BF healing. A musician has tagged along and gets to work building a small stage. the ranger integrates that stage into the design of their camp and sets it up. It isn't supposed to be a money maker but a grouping tool to give a group a reason to include entertaining and crafting professions on a hunt. Give everyone a place on the battlefield and the game will be more fun.
In your mind? In MY mind, I would be earning five times what I currently am when I go back to work tomorrow. Unfortunately, the world of SWG (and the real world for that matter) does not work that way. You are looking for a Eutopian society in the middle of a capitalistic one. It simply does not exist.
Your argumentative skills are very weak. You are now trying to compare the resources needed for crafting a Stim A to those needed to build a freaking stage, and trying to say that the stage would cost less??? Do you even really play this game? Unless the stage is simply a napkin that the entertainer unfolds and stands on, I suggest you go back to the drawing board.
I'm sure Doctor buffs weren't supposed to be money makers either, yet somehow Doctors now represent some of the wealthiest players in the game.
Again, I welcome any constructive feedback.
Thanks,
You seem to be getting quite hostile, and I suggest you take a breather. Insulting me won't make your arguments any more lucid or make anyone else agree with you. It's clear that you want you really want mission terminals, and that's fine. I can respect your opinion enough not to feel the need to insult your argumentative skills simply because I disagree with you. At the end of the day, you gotta realize we're talking about a game. It's not worth one Ranger insulting another one.
Ninhor wrote:
So what if the closest mission terminal is in a player city? Would that be a 32% incease in payout over time?
No, and neither would the campsite mission terminals. I'm not trying to be insulting here but your math skills have much room for improvement. You don't add the 16+% together for each hour played and call that a pay increase.
If that were the case, someone paid bi-weekly who just got a 3% raise would end up with a 78% raise by the end of the year. As nice as that would be, it is simply incorrect. Whether you play two hours or twenty hours straight, you'll still only be 16% ahead of the old system in the end.
Okay,you or your friendstated that the mission terminal in a camp would act as an uplink to the closest mission terminal. If the closest mission terminal is in a city with the mission payout bonus, and you're doing 16% more missions per hour, then you're getting the city bonus 16% more frequently, yes? And they city bonus payout is more than if you were doing normal mission, correct? So you'd be doing missions that pay 16% more and doing them 16% more frequently. Wouldn't thatmean that the two ARE additive in some way. It may not be 16% + 16%, but if someone is staying by a player city camping, the payout yield over time would be significantly higher than that of a regular player doing regular missions. I'm not a math kinda guy, but the fact is that it's not a 16% increase on a 16% increase. It's a 16% increase done at 116% speed. What it would be like comparing it to is someone who got a 10% raise and also worked 10% more hours each day.
Obviously, you are a Master Rifleman (or close to it). There is no other class that could take on such a high-level beast solo, unbuffed; and the only way that would be accomplished is through the use of /takecover, /sneak, /surpriseshot, and /concealshot.
This hunting method does not have to do with "smarts" so much as a benefit of your chosen profession.
Even so, your personal case in no way explains away the costs I mentioned for the average player.
Also, I'm beginning to wonder if half of what you are personally claiming is true, or just some means to try and win this argument. In the past threads, you have been strongheaded about swoop repairs and needing to go to cities to get these done. Now, you just claimed that you rarely use speeders. I'm finding your arguments unsound when you only come back with an "Well, I don't need to do that" answer.
You know what assumptions do, right?
TKM/Ranger. Used lots of intimidate (drops creatures damage). dragged the krayt through other creature lairs when I need help. P-Darts and A-Mesh keep it away from you, spam wire mesh traps when you get a free moment to drop the creatures' melee resistance. Brandy and spice when needed. don't use a weapon or many high-damage specials, as they also eat your own HAM. So please don't tell me what I "must" be. Because there are people here who taught me how to do that sort of thing. JBMat has been soloing Rancors unbuffed, unarmored for years. Have you seen the "How to fight unbuffed" thread? Lot of people take on high-level content unbuffed. I learned from the best.
As for the swoop issue...I don't use a swoop much. Mostly getting to/from the village (although I did ride my Bantha the other day...that was....interesting). But that doesn't mean I can't have an opinion on the issue, does it? Let me ask you something. I've never playeda commando. But if there was a proposition on the table for them to be able to kill anyone and anything in one hit, you'd better believe I'd express my opinion against it. There is no logical connection between having an opinion on something and having done it repeatedly. I've never commited murder, but I still think it's wrong. Do you think you have to be a murderer to have an opinion on that issue?
Have you ever seen a mission term in a city that pointed you to a mission on the other side of the planet map? No. That's because the terms only show missions within a specific radius of themselves. The same would be the case for campsite terminals.
All terminals planet-wide are connected to the same pool of missions. They just filter out the non-local missions from their queue before displaying the search results. In the case of campsite mission terms, the filter would only show missions within a certain radius of the campsite.
But the lastidea that was put forth was that it wouldn't be a real mission terminal, but an uplink, and draw from the pool of the closest mission terminal. Meaning you wouldn't get missions across the map, just like you said and thefilter wouldn't be from your location, but from the misison terminal.I mean...howshould I explain the idea that you two put forth back to you?
In your mind? In MY mind, I would be earning five times what I currently am when I go back to work tomorrow. Unfortunately, the world of SWG (and the real world for that matter) does not work that way. You are looking for a Eutopian society in the middle of a capitalistic one. It simply does not exist.
Your argumentative skills are very weak. You are now trying to compare the resources needed for crafting a Stim A to those needed to build a freaking stage, and trying to say that the stage would cost less??? Do you even really play this game? Unless the stage is simply a napkin that the entertainer unfolds and stands on, I suggest you go back to the drawing board.
Ummm...it's kinda my proposal. I can write the suggested module cost any way I choose. if it cost 1 unit of mineral and 1 unit of organic for everay module, do you really think they could charge 5k? I'm not looking for "a Eutopian society". But if you go out witha group, everyone is expected to pitch in. If you go with a TKM and they don't attack the target, then they serve no purpose and get kicked. Similarly, if you went out with an entertainer and they didn't want to heal BF by crafting a stage, they serve no purpose. And yes, I am comparing stim A's to stages because in the way that I envision it, their resource costs wouldbe similar. the price for items isusually based on the units of resources used and their difficulty in obtaining. Modules would be easy to obtain and low resource cost. So explain where the price tag comes in?
CuchulainnDarklight wrote:
You want to get REALLY angry Phenix? He posted a message in the revamp proposal thread saying we should be rangers that look after creatures and the environment!
This whole world just gets crazier and crazier!
Hmm, Im getting worried now, your verbosity and loquaciousness when you post are approaching mine. This is my kingdom I tells ya. Im the one who speaks in like a cleverey way you know! Oh no, skills degrading, words becoming umm, umm, eh, well, crapper!
Phenix1050 wrote:
Oh, I'm not mad. I just don't think it's a good idea, that's all. I'm just expressing my views. I read the revamp proposal section. I can't say it made me angry or anything. I didn't agree with all the suggestions, but it doesn't make me mad. Heck, him questioning my argumentative skills (which is actually funny since being argumentative has nothing to do with being good at arguing) didn't even make me mad. I think he has a lot more emotionally invested into this than I do. I just don't like it since I don't think it's a good idea.
If I run missions from a town, I get the mission, travel the 1k or so, and kill the lair. I travel 1k back.
If I run missions from a camp, I get the mission, travel the 1k or so, and kill the lair. I drop a new camp, and get a new mission.
Essentially, all I've done is shortened the 'return' leg. At MOST, this would represent about a third of the total mission time, and in my experience it's a bit less than that. Let's say it's one minute out, two minutes for the bounce and to kill the lair, and one minute back. We go from a mission in 4 minutes to a mission in 3 minutes. (Note: I suspect it's more like 1 minute out, 5 minutes to find and kill the lair, and 1 minute back, but we'll use the extreme for an example.)
For that minute reduction, you have the following benefits:
One minute less actual time spent not earning a profit.
One minute less wear and tear on bikes/gear.
For that minute reduction you have the following drawbacks:
You must craft a campsite of the appropriate type.
You must deploy that campsite in an appropriate place.
Let's say that you're always in a good camping zone, so it's not a timesink. You still have material loss on creation of the campsite. You have a timesink in the collection of the materials. You have a timesink in the actual creation of the site, both in schematic selection then in the hardcoded crafting time.
In a party (for maximum effect), you would need to expertly coordinate and synchronize everyone to get missions fast, kill fast, and return on time. Some of that equation is inherently random, so you could either sit the MRanger in camp (at which point all 'benefit' is lost, because the return leg is reintroduced), or you can try to have everyone arrive in the right spot at the right time - which I guarantee isn't going to happen every run. If you had an outstanding party, sat the master ranger, and got a 25% reduction in overall mission times, you would break even at 5 members.
And as for vehicle wear... c'mon. If it wears at 3k/day now, and only 1.5k/day after implementation, this still represents 1.5k... about one quarter of the first mission you run, if it's a crappy payout. Food and other consumables are probably comparative or greater.
This is not earthshattering improvement. This is not economy-crushing income. We're talking about a relatively novel situation; a Master Ranger, which is rare, with a superbly coordinated group, which is rare, working at breakneck speeds, which is rare, and doing so for an extended length of time without interruption, also a rarity.
Our other situation is that the MR drops his own camp, and runs his own missions, and says to hell with the rest of the community. At which point he gets about a 25% pay increase, solo. He won't be able to take very menacing monsters, he won't have the combat output that a triple master (or the future equivalent) will, and his monetary gain will be multiplied only by 1. And before anyone steps in to tell me that Rangers can solo great kills, let's face it: Rangers might be good at killing monsters. A triple-master is great at it. My Jedi is profoundly good at it. I can make Dathomir look like a WMD test city. Giving Ranger a 25% boost is probably not going to do anything other than bring him/her up to speed with their contemporaries. I do not see this as economy-crushing either.
Regardless, even IF some aspect of the terminal-spawning camp were out of whack, it shouldn't be difficult to regulate. You could cap payouts on terminals, you could spawn only a given type of missions. You could require a proximity or distance from towns, you could put a timer on them. You could mandate a group, or a sized group. You could limit the number of times the MR could drop the camp, or limit the overall number of camps in play. There are a host of ways to reduce the effectiveness it indeed it caused inflation.
After the math is considered, the concept, as I originally intended, becomes a matter of an outdoorsman-type character having the capacity to earn his money without having to return to town to do so.
As with any concept, it can pretty much be arbitrarily dismissed by the reader, or arbitrarily supported by the reader, and no amount of logic or argument is going to change that. I would ask that we keep things civil, we keep an open mind, and we present our opinions as clearly and objectively as possible. If it gets any more rancorous, I know personally I'll just cut the thread loose, leave you folks to your own devices, and consider the whole concept a lost cause. I have no desire to generate bad feelings or lengthy arguments when I started out with the motive of sharing what I thought were good ideas.