Scout Archive
Thread: Discussion: Harvesting
Page 1 of 3
JBMat
Mon Feb 07, 2005 7:39 am
#1
This will kick off what I hope will be a discussion series I am starting: One per month
This month:
HARVESTING ISSUES:
1. Group harvesting: Currently we lose 40% of our harvest if grouped, even with non-harvesters. I would recommend that the harvesting cut be reduced to 20% at Master Scout, and 0% at Master Ranger.
Good:
Bad:
2. One resource per creature: another situation that begs the question - why? A Master Scout should have the ability to harvest 2 resources. But to throw a bone to the Devs - the first is at 100%, the second at 80%. Master Rangers get 3, at 100/80/60. Creatures with fewer than 3 resources follow the general guideline.
Good:
Bad:
3. No Bio-mod, CA/AA mods for harvesting: Can we get some?
Good:
Bad:
What I want:
No stars, no smiley faces...Intelligent, thought out arguments. Reasoning - why this is good, this is bad. Give me reasons. I hate statistics, so hold them to a minimum, but showing the increase in harvesting numerically would be fine.
I have my reasons why I think these ideas are good and bad, but I want yours. Yes, I include Rangers in this as they are a natural progression fromScout. This will help me in trying to get some stuff for us in the upcoming revamps.
Finally, yes two of the three revisions are weighted to Master Scouts. Dabblers get bennies from their many professions. I think that Masters should get more than they do now, in all professions. If you disagree, include this in your reasons.
What this will accomplish: Revamps are coming. Currently our wish list is dated, not that badly, but it's time for some new ideas.
Start thinking, start writing
JB
Owen-Lars
Mon Feb 07, 2005 8:38 am
#2
1. Group harvesting:
10-15% sounds good at master scout. Id just word it as group harvest reduction mitigation instead as this is how its been refered to when ive layed some proposals down in the corr forums. Same effect but ties in with the mitigation styles the devs seem to like.
Additional:
An extra 5% at tracking 1 or 2.
An extra 15% at master ranger (making 100% harvest rate in groups)
2. One resource per creature:
The most in demmand by far resources are hide and meat therefore having2 sources would be a super boost, having 3 would only be a little perk. Id rather see 2 at either level 3 (tracking 3) or 4 then all sources (taking into account the 100/80/60 reductions) coming at master ranger.
3. No Bio-mod, CA/AA mods for harvesting: Can we get some?
Id much rather have these than hash and droids. Damn i hate droids. Sounds good, no extra thoughts on that.
Fodder650
Mon Feb 07, 2005 8:53 am
#3
First JB congrads on your first sticky. How does it feel?
Ok on 1) I agree with Owen the mitigation word is the way to change there minds on it. The devs have said that they felt there was some kind of finite amount of organics on a creature and how could we justify pulling more. But using what Owen said put the argument in a completly different area.
Downside - Not really much that i can see. It would be a reason to get master scout and master ranger. Other then allowing harvests on places like dath to come away with larger amounts.
2) When you read our skill descriptions it sounded like Master Rangers always could get all three. But it turned out to mean foraging instead. The upside would be another bonus to harvesting the downside again is more materials on the market. But honestly thats not much of a downside. The real question is this. Is there a technical reason we couldnt get two? Maybe its an all or nothing thing? That we get one or maybe they could code it so we get all three. Not sure on the programming side what the issue here is.
3) There are already rescue tape/AA's out there so someone was thinking ranger/scout CA/AA's at some point. And its limited to the usual +25 like all tapes could it really be that harmful?
Ok on 1) I agree with Owen the mitigation word is the way to change there minds on it. The devs have said that they felt there was some kind of finite amount of organics on a creature and how could we justify pulling more. But using what Owen said put the argument in a completly different area.
Downside - Not really much that i can see. It would be a reason to get master scout and master ranger. Other then allowing harvests on places like dath to come away with larger amounts.
2) When you read our skill descriptions it sounded like Master Rangers always could get all three. But it turned out to mean foraging instead. The upside would be another bonus to harvesting the downside again is more materials on the market. But honestly thats not much of a downside. The real question is this. Is there a technical reason we couldnt get two? Maybe its an all or nothing thing? That we get one or maybe they could code it so we get all three. Not sure on the programming side what the issue here is.
3) There are already rescue tape/AA's out there so someone was thinking ranger/scout CA/AA's at some point. And its limited to the usual +25 like all tapes could it really be that harmful?
Owen-Lars
Mon Feb 07, 2005 8:59 am
#4
It CAN be done, i can assure you of that. Cant go into details obviously but it most definatly CAN be done. All resources COULD be harvested off a creature.
Fodder650
Mon Feb 07, 2005 9:01 am
#5
I guess if you pulled the resources off and made them part of the loot inventory it would be easier to do. But then your playing with the new group loot issues to stop resource stealing.
Hakai
Mon Feb 07, 2005 10:13 am
#6
1.) i like this idea. We already don't have very much incentive to do more than a few trees as it is.
Good: allows us to harvest more, and waste less
Bad:i'm thinking...... Lots of flaming?
2.) having an option to harvest this way would be excellent.
Good: allows usto not wasteresources that would otherwise just sit there, and we get more resources to place on the market.
Bad: not seeing anything with this either, other than resource flooding. but there is already a shortage to begin with.
3.)I'm all for the bio mods.
Good: BE's get some more business from us other than just for TN, and Camo/MaskScent
Bad: can't see anything wrong with this one either. Someone might argue that they'll be able to get enough of a bonus to harvest as much as a master ranger (yeah like that'll happen), but if the skills in 1 and 2 are added, we get some way to make it so that master at scout or ranger is still better than just + statbonuses.
Don't see why either one of these would be harmful to be implemented. The most problems i forsee are people whining how to grind survival to get master.......
Calculus_Entropy
Mon Feb 07, 2005 11:13 am
#7
The major downfall for all or these issues is that we (harvesters) may be intentionally limited in our collection rates to prevent to many products from entering the market. I think the Devs' stance on whether or not they feel the need to limit theproducts through animal harvests will determine which, if any, of our requests get answered (that was profund, I basically said if the devs want us to have an increase, they will let us
JBMat wrote:
This will kick off what I hope will be a discussion series I am starting: One per month
This month:
HARVESTING ISSUES:
1. Group harvesting: Currently we lose 40% of our harvest if grouped, even with non-harvesters. I would recommend that the harvesting cut be reduced to 20% at Master Scout, and 0% at Master Ranger.
Good: The obvious: more resources on the market.
Bad: Potential for too many resources and therefore products(is there such a thing?) entering the market. It is my opinion, that our resource harvestsare kept low for a reason; to keep some items from being too common (unfortunately, the items we provide resources for are the most disposable..buffs and meds, and armor to some extent).
How would the non-master Scouts and Rangers be affected? Would the highest level harvester determine the harvesting rules for the group or just themselves? In other words, would a Master Ranger in the group cause ALL harvesters to have a 0% reduction, or would only the Master Ranger(s) get the 0% reduction?
2. One resource per creature: another situation that begs the question - why? A Master Scout should have the ability to harvest 2 resources. But to throw a bone to the Devs - the first is at 100%, the second at 80%. Master Rangers get 3, at 100/80/60. Creatures with fewer than 3 resources follow the general guideline.
Good: This would bring some much needed resources to thelower profileprofessions (mainly tailors, Archs and BEs).
Bad: None that i can think of, really.
I say, we don't offer to have a lower % on secondary and tertiary resources. it is most likely easier to code without the reduction. If the devs come back with "that's unbalanced" then we should offer to take a reduction on the secondary and tertiary harvests.
3. No Bio-mod, CA/AA mods for harvesting: Can we get some?
Good: Bigger stack sizes = more monkey for everyone.
Bad: My biggest concern with a harvesting CA was that someone could achieve a +100 without Ranger, BUT I just remembered that SEAs cap at +25, so this isn't an issue. I suppose I can not see a terrible downside (unless it is true that we are limited for a reason).
).
RogueLDR1
Mon Feb 07, 2005 11:15 am
#8
1:
Good: Givesgreater incentive to Master Scout (for those who don't wish to be rangers). Right now Scout is more of a dabbler profession for the exploration (for terrain negotiation) and/or hunting lines (for resource gathering). I know of very few Master Scouts that don't have at least some Ranger (after the BH change), so this added incentive is a good thing only if it is put in the Master box.
Bad: One could argue Master scouts harvest more anyway, and this would introduce even more of a given resource into the game. However, given the amount of time it takes to get large amounts of desirable creature resources (as opposed to other resources that can be auto-harvested whn you are offline), is this really a bad thing?
2:
Good: Again, greater incentive to Master the scout profession (assuming this is a Master box ability). More resources can be collected, and makes a hunter with "multiple" contracts more viable.
Bad: Again, it is increasing the amount of reources being introduced into the economy. But is this really a bad thing (see my Bad answer under number 1). Additionally, it is a player-driven economy, so this will ultimately cause animal-derived resources to be priced more in-line with other resources, resulting in deflation, which given today's high prices for everything is not necessarily a bad thing.
3:
Good: Scouts don't have any real useful CA's or Bio clothes now (except for mask scent). Most professions have CA's that make their Primary one or two abilities better. For a scout that is harvesting - so they should be included.
Bad: I can see nothing bad coming of this.
4: NEW PROPOSAL: Allow master scouts to give a bonus to taming creatures if they also have Creature Handler. It is logical - shouldn't a Master Scout, who supposedly know creature and the environment better than just someone with the Exploration and Hunting branches, have a bonus? It doesn't impact Scouts so much as it does CH's, but it again makes mastering scout more worthwhile. This is just a suggestion, and I'm not sure many would like this, but it does give added value to an undervalued profession.
5: NEW PROPOSAL: I'm sure this has already been mentioned, but allow camps to slowly heal Battle Fatigue as well (as it does wounds currently). The better the camp, the faster the heal rate. This isn't to take away from dancers/musicians, but rather to allow people on long hunts who may need to rebuff do so in the wilderness while lowering the BF (to get better buffs).
6: NEW PROPOSAL: The higher the level camp, a bonus is given to doctor/medic healing abilities. This would apply to ranger camps as well. Each camp gives a bonus (above droid bonuses). A base camp has no bonus, a multi-person gives maybe a +5 bonus, etc. on up. Again, makes camps more desirable and useful to a party.
Again, I am sure many of these ideas have already been proposed - although a long time scout (it was my first mastered profession when I started playing), I have not spent much time in the Scout forums until recently. This is a fantastic profession, that needs just a little more in it to encourage people to think seriously about mastering it rather than just dabbling in it.
Message Edited by RogueLDR1 on 02-07-2005 10:17 AM
FourthNail
Mon Feb 07, 2005 12:57 pm
#9
We hunted as a guild last night and I made sure I had enough veghash and my harvest droid before we went. That takes care of some of the issues but my biggest peeve is not being able to harvest more than one resource.
That would help very much in the harvesting of resources for camo kits. But that, may be a reason why it's limited to begin with. The camo kit is set up so that you have to hunt at least two different animals to begin with most of them take three. A lot of corners could be cut in that area if we were allowed to harvest each resource from one creature.
Just my .02
Plunk
That would help very much in the harvesting of resources for camo kits. But that, may be a reason why it's limited to begin with. The camo kit is set up so that you have to hunt at least two different animals to begin with most of them take three. A lot of corners could be cut in that area if we were allowed to harvest each resource from one creature.
Just my .02
Plunk
Temujin23
Mon Feb 07, 2005 2:24 pm
#10
Calculus_Entropy wrote:
The major downfall for all or these issues is that we (harvesters) may be intentionally limited in our collection rates to prevent to many products from entering the market. I think the Devs' stance on whether or not they feel the need to limit theproducts through animal harvests will determine which, if any, of our requests get answered (that was profund, I basically said if the devs want us to have an increase, they will let us
I remember reading some time ago a thread stating that crafters were never intended to have the ability to make huge production runs from a single schematic. This ability was supposedly a glitch, but when it was fixed (or when a discussion was begun to have it fixed), there was such a massive outcry from the crafting community that the devs caved.
Am I remembering this correctly? And did whoever posted that information have his or her facts right? If so, then either A) the devs lack credibility when they say they want to limit production, or B) our low harvests are in place specifically to make up for the coddling that the carfting communtiy and their assembly lines received, and we probably won't see an increase anytime soon.
Or, maybe I just imagined that post and everything I've just said is completely irrelevant.
al-djinn'i
Master Ranger/Master Rifleman
Calculus_Entropy
Mon Feb 07, 2005 2:34 pm
#11
Remember, I said "I think" meaning that they may or may not think what I said I thought they think. Wow, that was special!
Temujin23 wrote:
Am I remembering this correctly? And did whoever posted that information have his or her facts right? If so, then either A) the devs lack credibility when they say they want to limit production, or B) our low harvests are in place specifically to make up for the coddling that the carfting communtiy and their assembly lines received, and we probably won't see an increase anytime soon.
Or, maybe I just imagined that post and everything I've just said is completely irrelevant.
al-djinn'i
Master Ranger/Master Rifleman
Sinkuu
Mon Feb 07, 2005 4:44 pm
#13
In response to Owen's post about hating droids...
while I can understand how a droid can take away from the "natural" feel of skinning a beast, right now, the advantage that the droid can process a creature while I'm blowing the rest of the herd away is a HUGE advantage for me, and also assuring that I won't have to worry about the corpse disappearing before I can get to it. I've had that happen on occasion.
Page 1 of 3