Ranger Archive
Thread: Poll: For or against automated organics harvesting?
Owen-Lars
Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:52 am
#53
Sounds good.
How about the bait being foraged items? Or even go as far as to add fish/meat to that in order to attract different types of crtitter?
As for role of the ranger, i want ranger to be pure pathfinder/hunting guide/survivalist but i think this would definatly play to the survivalist/hunting guide side.
OOM
Tue Oct 19, 2004 5:05 am
#54
I like this bait idea. Different bait "forumla" for different creatures is a cool concept and it would give some use to foraged items.
I do agree with previous posters that the quantity of resource per "harvester" (which I read as trap) should be low.
Here's another idea:
How about if you return to your trap withinaday or two you get meat, hide or bone. If you wait for a couple days the meat spoils and you can only get hide or bone. And if you wait for too long all that is left is bone.
Cheers,
Aitwexoeth
Cambylobacter
Tue Oct 19, 2004 5:47 am
#55
Against. Don't dumb us down, don't make our jobs easier, don't drag Rangers into what is simply harvester factories with a fancy name. Same thing dressed up differently. We hunt. We explore. We survey? We double click on a deed and pop it down? No. We don't.
Piroa
Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:08 am
#56
DaveG wrote:
Or have it collect corpses instead of resource, so we can choose what we want to harvest when we go to collect.
That's what I was getting at in my first post, "Fish nets that catch a number of fish per hour, not just bring in meat, would be good." Especially with the fish because, sometimes you catch empty fish, which sucks, but it's random. You wouldn't just be pulling in chunks of meat, you would have to fillet them. That means you would have to have room in your inventory, as well (fish containers, meat and bait can all take up a lot of room).
It looks like mostof usare OK with a fishing net-type of idea. Here's what I would like:
- Ranger crafted, Ranger placed and Ranger usable ONLY. Not Master Ranger, all Rangers.
- Amount and type of resource harvested determined by skill level (Not Wayfaring or Tracking).
- I would love to see this in the Frontiering branch, fishing already is, but trapping is trapping. A restructure would be great, with a new combat branch, but that's another issue altogether.
- Fishing nets and land traps are temporary. After a number of hours, or resets, they are gone (whether you have emptied them or not).
- Traps can also catch hawtpant wearers! Harvest at your own risk.
- I like the idea of returning to corpses, rather than resources.
- An /areatrack at the time of trap deployment would give an idea of the types of corpses you will pull. No surveying equipment needed.
- There is a chance of not catching anything.
- Traps should be experimental and take an amount of resources similar to the tents.
- Traps should take time to deploy, think of digging a tiger pit.
- Traps should have a catch limit.
- Receive XP for the trap, not the harvest.
- Less resources available per harvest, like the group restriction.
There's more, probably, but it took me a while to remember half of these.
Rangers should have some innate combat skills, but we don't. This shouldn't be a way to replace combat, only to make it easier for those who don't want to fight. Trappers of old weren't necessarily hunters. They set up traps and checked them regularly, they carried guns to finish off their prey, if still alive, and to protect themselves. They didn't normally go looking for big game, that's someone else. Of course, I think we should be both of them.
FultonMeigs
Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:46 am
#57
My vote would be no.
If such items were made available to non-Rangers, simple extensions of cross-server "soft" exploits (as discussed earlier in this thread) would render the Ranger harvesting ability nearly meaningless.
Philosophically, I'm against the idea even for Rangers in that I would hate to have any element added to game play that moves us away from the "Outdoorsman" and "Tactical Combat Support" role and more into a "farmer" role. While somedays it would be nice to wander over to my ARCV ( "Automated Ranger Critter Vacuum (tm) ) and drag 50k credits worth of avian meat into my inventory, I don't believe doing so would be muchin the spirit of the profession.
From a practical perspective I'm also against it for two reasons. First, if the point is to increase harvest then numerous suggestions to increase Ranger harvest rates and allow for multiple harvest targets on a single creature seem much more inline with the idea of Rangers being masters of the wild. My second practical objection is one of simple dilution. This item isclearly not one of our top five development requests and the more we can do as a community to actively help the Dev's focus on a single, focus, well specified list of items the greater our chances of getting them.
My 2 centicredits worth,
Fulton Meigs
Novice Ranger
Antarian Ranger Council, Kauri
Phenix1050
Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:50 am
#58
Any automated systems dumbs us down because it makes you able to do your job easier with less effort and less cost. A rifleman/ranger cannot hunt big game without a lot of pricey purchases. Armor, weapons, buffs (if you use them) and cloning and insurance are all quite expensive. Why should someone who takes NO risk, spend little or NO money, and doesn't even have to be there, why should they get to harvest.
Here's my thing. I would love it as an additional way to hunt. What I don't want it to become is a way for people who don't want to have to take risks to get the chance to harvest. I'm sorry, but if you spend 140 skillpoints to camo yourself, and you don't have combat skills, you CAN'T hunt in the current system. And I think that's good. If you don't have any combat skills, you need other people to kill stuff for you. A Dancer/Musician can't fight either. You choose your template and you have to accept the good and the bad in that.
Basically, I don't just want to harvest corpses either. Fish, yes, because that's basically the way it is, you catch them, they die out of water. Simple. But traps are different. Bears don't always die from bear traps. They are certainly easier to kill, but sometime you still have to do the job yourself.And if you can't kill a bear with a trap, I can't imagine a trap that would kill a Rancor. The thing is HUGE. It's just not gonna bleed to death if you trap it's little pinky toe.
The more ideas I hear about this, the LESS I want it to happen. It would change the face of Ranger too much.
The only idea I can support was the one I proposed. The creature is "trapped". Meaning that the trap holds him. You then go up to the trap and "release" the creature. It will pop with reduced HAM (based on the skill of the trap) and you then have to finish the job. This ensure that non-hunters can't drop and go. I'm sorry, but if you have no combat skills, how would you kill a bear in the trap? Laugh him to death? Not a chance. If you want to trap a Rancor, be prepared to deal with him because no tiny trap is gonna kill him.
DaveG
Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:40 am
#59
I'm probably alone on what I'm about to say. I'd personally be against the fishing net idea purely because I have never found any value in fishing, and I have never found being a fisherman particularly ranger-ish, at least not in the ranger I am.
Calculus_Entropy
Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:52 am
#60
DaveG wrote:I'm probably alone on what I'm about to say. I'd personally be against the fishing net idea purely because I have never found any value in fishing, and I have never found being a fisherman particularly ranger-ish, at least not in the ranger I am.
But Chefs and Bes DO see tha value in fishing
. They would love to have access to more meat, so why not allow Ranger to provide it?
DaveG
Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:56 am
#61
True, like I said it's a personal opinoin. I don't like fishing, I've never been asked for fish, I've never heard anyone (in game) complain about a shortage.
If the rest of you want to go fish, be my guest. I just won't be joining in, and thus a fishing net wouldn't be a useful addition for me-myself-and-I.
Message Edited by DaveG on 10-19-2004 03:57 PM
Calculus_Entropy
Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:01 am
#62
Just saying that if fish were more plentiful, there WOULD be a value to fishing, for some folks. I am also not a fisherman.
Almagill
Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:13 am
#64
Zapper_Weisman wrote:Why not just making placing and/or crafting it a Master Ranger thing?
Almagill wrote:
Going back to the worries about dabblers and sploiters, what if the schematic to make came in one line but cert to use was in another?
Largely because the dev's seem to have an aversion to granting any useful skills at master level. Trickling it in through a career ladder 'hooks' people into the profession, whereas a huge leap up to Master to get access to a tool makes them go "naaah" and wander off to do something else.
DaveG
Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:16 am
#65
Almagill wrote:
Largely because the dev's seem to have an aversion to granting any useful skills at master level. Trickling it in through a career ladder 'hooks' people into the profession, whereas a huge leap up to Master to get access to a tool makes them go "naaah" and wander off to do something else.
Well, it's not a tool, but the jump from 4444 rifleman to master rifleman is huge, and people tend to go for master or not at all because of that.
Message Edited by DaveG on 10-19-2004 04:16 PM