Ranger Archive
Thread: Why is harvest ammount determined by Creature Level???? a possible solution within
Page 1 of 1
Ranger_Rick
Sun Aug 15, 2004 2:21 pm
#1
It makes perfect sense to me that Creature Level should determine the ammount of xp you get when harvesting. I just want to know why harvest ammounts are based on CL too, and not size. It seems odd to me (as I sit here on tatooine killing bantha's and rontos because no one else will provide the resoruces for the poor docs at reasonable prices) that I can kill a whole herd of Banthas, the herds that have 5-7 Bulls and a couple Matriarchs, and yet can harvest the same ammount on3 or 4Huurtons and Quenkeners, and easily yield moreon Dantooine with2 or 3pikets, rougly the same size.
When I charge for resources I give a fair estimate of the organics value which is always cheaper then market pricing, sometimes by 10 or more CPU, and have lots of happy customers. Doctors, Chefs, and Smiths are always asking my to provide more and more, and I'm happy to, but when I turn them down it's like I shattered their world. I'm not looking to get rich, and rangering is what I do, but as I sit here on Tatooine effeciently exterminating the bantha population I realized that if the ammount harvested was based more like the inoragnics harvest by machines prices would fall drastically.
I can pop a $500,000 harvester next to a $100,000 harvester on a crummy location and yield some extra resources, but if I plop them down on a high yield spot my investment is easily returned 10 fold. Gas/metals/ore/wind, all these resoruces are random per planet, and not based on planet difficulty. One week Tatooine might be a great location of some metal, next week Lok might be the place to be. Now if harvesting inorganics is based on ability (the harvestor, or player in the case of sampling) and location, why isn't this true with organics from animals? I view this as a perfect opportunity to fundamentaly change the spawning system, which they said they were looking at, and give a huge indirect fix to Ranger's.
Imagine if you will, that a new spawn system existed. One where certain areas were more 'fertile' for herbivores, which also drew in carnivores who like to eat the leave eaters. All that would have to be done is adjust the tables for spawns to instead of creating natural spawns in highly populated areas, to these more 'fertile' areas. Then, scouts and rangers could trudge around these areas once they find them, mask scent and cammo since there are more meanies around, and actually hunt large herds of critters. Critters spawned in these areas will yield extra meat/bone/hide based on a percentage, and based on harvesting skill as usual. Thus, a Master Ranger could harvest large quantities of meat on Tatooine just as easily as on Dantooine. It makes it better for Ranger's, better for the economy (organic pricing will fall, crafters will drop prices to compete, players will begin to need less mook/janta missions and give the poor dummies a break).
I haven't fleshed it out, it's all just babbles in my mind...but what do you all think? Sorry if it's posted allready.
Washell
Sun Aug 15, 2004 7:01 pm
#2
Ranger_Rick wrote:
It makes perfect sense to me that Creature Level should determine the ammount of xp you get when harvesting. I just want to know why harvest ammounts are based on CL too, and not size. It seems odd to me (as I sit here on tatooine killing bantha's and rontos because no one else will provide the resoruces for the poor docs at reasonable prices) that I can kill a whole herd of Banthas, the herds that have 5-7 Bulls and a couple Matriarchs, and yet can harvest the same ammount on3 or 4Huurtons and Quenkeners, and easily yield moreon Dantooine with2 or 3pikets, rougly the same size.
While it does makes sense that ahuge CL10 creature should have more hide then a tiny CL30 creature the harvest is a "reward" for invested effort/skillpoints. You don't expect to get a +20 weapon exp. tape of a L10 npc. Don't feel sorry for the docs, the 8-15k a buffset more then covers their expenses on meat.
When I charge for resources I give a fair estimate of the organics value which is always cheaper then market pricing, sometimes by 10 or more CPU, and have lots of happy customers. Doctors, Chefs, and Smiths are always asking my to provide more and more, and I'm happy to, but when I turn them down it's like I shattered their world. I'm not looking to get rich, and rangering is what I do, but as I sit here on Tatooine effeciently exterminating the bantha population I realized that if the ammount harvested was based more like the inoragnics harvest by machines prices would fall drastically.
I can pop a $500,000 harvester next to a $100,000 harvester on a crummy location and yield some extra resources, but if I plop them down on a high yield spot my investment is easily returned 10 fold. Gas/metals/ore/wind, all these resoruces are random per planet, and not based on planet difficulty. One week Tatooine might be a great location of some metal, next week Lok might be the place to be. Now if harvesting inorganics is based on ability (the harvestor, or player in the case of sampling) and location, why isn't this true with organics from animals? I view this as a perfect opportunity to fundamentaly change the spawning system, which they said they were looking at, and give a huge indirect fix to Ranger's.
Ranger is your 500k harvester,master scout is your 100k harvester. Creature resources already work according to the %-basedprinciple. There's just no survey tool to make it visible. Take one north and one south mission for the same creature. You'll see you'll harvest different amounts. The only difference with the other resources is that CL is a factor too. On Enraged Bull Rancors the place you drop them can make up to 200 units difference.
Imagine if you will, that a new spawn system existed. One where certain areas were more 'fertile' for herbivores, which also drew in carnivores who like to eat the leave eaters. All that would have to be done is adjust the tables for spawns to instead of creating natural spawns in highly populated areas, to these more 'fertile' areas. Then, scouts and rangers could trudge around these areas once they find them, mask scent and cammo since there are more meanies around, and actually hunt large herds of critters. Critters spawned in these areas will yield extra meat/bone/hide based on a percentage, and based on harvesting skill as usual. Thus, a Master Ranger could harvest large quantities of meat on Tatooine just as easily as on Dantooine. It makes it better for Ranger's, better for the economy (organic pricing will fall, crafters will drop prices to compete, players will begin to need less mook/janta missions and give the poor dummies a break).
Taking the CL out of the equation is not the way to go. To prevent massive flooding of the market the devs would probably need to scale the 100% spots down to aCL30 creature and it takes away the fun of bringing down the big boys for large harvests. And the tables for spawn are not set for highly populated areas. The spawns are activated around players in a give and take 500m radius. Drive to the middle of nowhere with a couple of friends, then drive around in a 1x1km square for 15mins (use waypoints for corners) and it will be just as populated as the area around the cities.
I haven't fleshed it out, it's all just babbles in my mind...but what do you all think? Sorry if it's posted allready.
The combat revamp will end soloing and special spamming. 20 people now going at it solo, getting hit by 20 creatures, using powerups and specials, using food buffs, etc vs one group of 20 people taking on one creature dividing damage amongst the tanks not needing food buffs for special spamming or defenses, etc.
After CR demand for armor/weapons/food buffs and all other combat related items is going way down. Cash flowing into the economy (no more 20k+ solo missions on dantooine) is going down. Prices will drop since crafters won't have to raise their prices to a level their vendor won't be emptied in 24hrs. Crafters wont need bigstacks of resources anymore so cpu will drop to. If scout/rangers get a harvesting modifier so we can still harvest at the same units/hr as we do now the market will be more then adequately supplied and we'll still make enough money to keep our spaceships in condition.
Personally I don't understand all these posts for "fixing" the economy. It was programmed to be controlled by supply and demand and that's what's happening. Buffs are paid back by doing one or two missions. Oneto threesets of armor are repaid by doing missions for the duration of a buff. A starting doc can't buy his own HQ resources but he can buy buffpacks made by another doc who doesn't want to sit at a starport anymore. Sure not everyone can buy krayt pearls, AV-21's, extremely good armor, etc but this was never meant to bea communist economy.
DaveG
Sun Aug 15, 2004 8:41 pm
#3
From what you've said there Warshell (and it sounds perfectly reasonable), I'm actually thinking I don't want things changed (and I never thought I'd hear myself say that!).
Page 1 of 1