Ranger Archive
Thread: Rangers and more missions
RoarkeDeArtane wrote:
the time it takes to travel back to the mission terminals in a no issue any more due to swoop bikes. It takes me longer to regenerate from fighting than it does to travel back to the terminals. I don't know about the mission terminals in the camps. If you where able to do that I would definatly have no need to go back to any city other than to fly to another planet.
The additional mission would seem to be the easier thing to do, all you have to do is incrase the max value
If master ranger then max mission value = 4 (or however they coded)
Ah, but the bikes have a cost involved. You have to pay to repair your bike (unless you use the healing exploit). That is meant to offset the time saved. The Devs actually made it so you could only have 1 bike at first for this reason (they wanted to make sure it didn't effect the economy too much as one bike will eventually blow up from running missions). They later increased it because they also want players to have fun and it didn't cause too much trouble. And it's not the normal players, it's the buffed/armored players who will tear through a lair in 10 seconds and immediately be ready for the next one. Yes, we can ask for it. I'm almost positive they won't give us extra missions.
As for not returning to the city, that would be the whole point of having a terminal in the camp. So you can take a group out and show them the planet instead of sitting within 1k of the city. And the benefit of not needing to return to the city is offset by the cost of the camp. Currently, it disbands when you go too far away so you will need a new camp every 2 missions. If the camps no longer autodisband then the delay of returning back to camp will be similar to that of returning to a city (as there are cities where you can get 300-500m missions). Such an idea the Devs might approve. And adding a terminal to a camp shouldn't be too much harder than putting them in the player cities (which you can already do). It might even be worth considering needing to have a terminal created by an architect (at not too high a cost--they are going to be disposable) like is listed in the Modular Camp proposal.
Lythender Nirou
Master Ranger/Master Rifleman
Eclipse Server
RoarkeDeArtane wrote:
I couldn't disagree more...if you made it so that you had terminals in the camp then everyone can hunt that avian meat, wooly hide or whatever...that is the whole point. This should be something that benefits rangers. Having a terminal in the camps would really mess up the economy because as soon as people are finished with their missions they can get a ranger to make camp and the whole group gets missions not just the 2 missions that you are saying. This way the amont of missions that is increase out in the field is only dictated by the number of rangers you have. Hence the people that just have scout to harvest would not be able to swing the economy all out of whack.
The cost of making a mission terminal and making the camps would be reduced to a small amount if everyone tiped a little to the ranger.
First off, benefitting Rangers is not the only concern in any proposal. Any proposal that is based around that will almost certainly be thrown out by the Devs. This is a multiplayer game. We have to worry about how any proposal will affect other players as much as we worry about how it will affect Rangers.
Adding more missions doesn't really add much to the Ranger profession. As you have already said, travel time is almost irrelevant if you only care about running lots of missions. If that is really the case then why do you care about taking more missions anyway? As for other players, they will whine and moan if we get this change about it not being fair. I agree with them. I might be alone on that point but a straight increase to the number of missions you can take does not increase the amount of time you are out in the field. It only increases the amount of time you spend away from the mission terminal. I regularly hunt for days without seeing a city (or another person for that matter). Missions are something I run only on arrival on a new planet (I grab 2 in the same direction out of town to pay for my travel costs). Having 4 just means I double the amount of money I make every time I travel and that is something the Devs are trying to avoid.
The point of having the terminal in a camp is not about hunting resources. It's easy enough to do that out of a player city or anywhere else you can find a mission terminal. /track is what we need to hunt those down (along with a bonus to harvesting). And remember that only a Ranger would be able to toss down a Ranger camp anyway. So the Ranger would be making the choice to help the other players get the missions nearby. The problem I see is that taking missions currently forces you to stay near a town. And, because of that, so many players never see even 10% of this game. I don't care about getting more money (I don't even sell my resources). I have walked over more of the terrain in this game than most people have speedered past (in terms of new stuff, I can't really keep up with the speed of a speeder). And so much of it really makes me wish that other people could see it. But almost no one bothers to make a trip into the wilderness for regular sightseeing. This sort of change would let me show people some of the galaxy without them complaining that they can't get any money because they are not running missions or that there are not enough wild spawns and they need missions to get xp.
The Devs want reasoned arguments for changes now. Getting extra missions to carry around and claiming it keeps you out in the wilderness is not true. It keeps you within 2k of the nearest town. Getting a mission terminal in a high level camp is a bit different. The number of missions run by your group stays the same. But you can end up 10k in a random direction from the nearest town. I support the idea of something that will let us lead people into the wilderness without "wasting their time". I don't support a straight increase to the number of missions.
But remember that this is a forum. Arguing different points is a good way to work on an idea.
Lythender Nirou
Master Ranger/Master Rifleman
Eclipse Server
Nemo0 wrote:
First off, benefitting Rangers is not the only concern in any proposal. Any proposal that is based around that will almost certainly be thrown out by the Devs. This is a multiplayer game. We have to worry about how any proposal will affect other players as much as we worry about how it will affect Rangers.
--------
Well we know how the missions will affect us. We will have static spawns where we know where the creatures are. Having 2 or more Rangers in your group will definatly help out other players because that would be at least 4 more missions they can get for the group. It will also help crafters because the more hides or whaterever we can get, the cheaper the price will be.
-------
Adding more missions doesn't really add much to the Ranger profession. As you have already said, travel time is almost irrelevant if you only care about running lots of missions. If that is really the case then why do you care about taking more missions anyway? As for other players, they will whine and moan if we get this change about it not being fair. I agree with them. I might be alone on that point but a straight increase to the number of missions you can take does not increase the amount of time you are out in the field. It only increases the amount of time you spend away from the mission terminal. I regularly hunt for days without seeing a city (or another person for that matter). Missions are something I run only on arrival on a new planet (I grab 2 in the same direction out of town to pay for my travel costs). Having 4 just means I double the amount of money I make every time I travel and that is something the Devs are trying to avoid.
-----
We might have to agree to disagree...if it takes me 20 minutes to finish 2 missions it should take me 40 or so minutes to finish 4 missions. That would increase my time out on the field and yes away from the mission terminals. I also hunt between missions, as I am going to my next mission if i find a spawn i usually stop there. If you want people to explore more just make the missions farther away from the original terminals.
You not seeing a terminal is just your style of play (which is cool I do that also).
------
The point of having the terminal in a camp is not about hunting resources. It's easy enough to do that out of a player city or anywhere else you can find a mission terminal.
Here is where i think your argument for the terminals at camps starts falling. If its not about the money and not about the resources then why have the terminals for people to re-load on their missions. They give you money.
/track is what we need to hunt those down (along with a bonus to harvesting). And remember that only a Ranger would be able to toss down a Ranger camp anyway. So the Ranger would be making the choice to help the other players get the missions nearby. The problem I see is that taking missions currently forces you to stay near a town. And, because of that, so many players never see even 10% of this game. I don't care about getting more money (I don't even sell my resources).
Again thats cool that you don't care about money or selling your resources...if the only gripe is that they need to explore, then they need to make the mission farther and farther away...which people will only use their swoops and pass up all the neat stuff anyways. As a Ranger i like to do contract work, and allowing me to have more missions will allow me to fill my orders more quickly and thus reduce my CPU price.
I have walked over more of the terrain in this game than most people have speedered past (in terms of new stuff, I can't really keep up with the speed of a speeder). And so much of it really makes me wish that other people could see it. But almost no one bothers to make a trip into the wilderness for regular sightseeing. This sort of change would let me show people some of the galaxy without them complaining that they can't get any money because they are not running missions or that there are not enough wild spawns and they need missions to get xp.
That is their style of play and if they choose not to go sightseeing well thats their loss. Missions are there to make money, plain and simple. That is why they pay you. If you just want to explore then there is no need for the mission terminals at camp.
The Devs want reasoned arguments for changes now. Getting extra missions to carry around and claiming it keeps you out in the wilderness is not true. It keeps you within 2k of the nearest town. Getting a mission terminal in a high level camp is a bit different. The number of missions run by your group stays the same. But you can end up 10k in a random direction from the nearest town. I support the idea of something that will let us lead people into the wilderness without "wasting their time". I don't support a straight increase to the number of missions.
Again it keeps me out in the wild longer, 2k away from Correlia is just 200m away from the next town. The increase in mission will make the ranger a more sought after person because crafters will know that we can harvest more because we have access to more missions. About wasting their time, if they don't see how cool stuff is, then you are wasting your time trying to convice them otherwise.
But remember that this is a forum. Arguing different points is a good way to work on an idea.
True that I have nothing but love for you
Lythender Nirou
Master Ranger/Master Rifleman
Eclipse Server