Scout Archive
Thread: The harvesting reduction
You're doin a great job Delta. Don't let a few people who haven't been here to see how you DO communicate both ways tick you off. It's a frustrating change, yes - but don't let them push you into doin something we'd all regret.
We're moving forward... not as quick as we would like but at least we're making steps to getting this resolved. Personally I would have thought the devs would have fixed the numbers right away. I don't know how they can not see the reduction and how it now stands at around 50% cut to solo players and worse for groups. So while we are advancing, I'd like to see it move quicker.. like now! 
While advancing to Hunt Master I tracked a few creatures to see just how much more you get as a Hunt Master. This is the numbers I presented yesterday in the Ranger forum. All creatures were fat and healthy
A wort as a scout 7 skins, Bio 1 - 8, Bio 2 -8, Bio 3 - 9, Bio 4 - 11. Last night 7
A krettle as a scout 4 skins, Bio 1 - 5, Bio 2 - 5, Bio 3 - 6, Bio 4 - 10. Last night 4
A rill as a scout 8 skins, Bio 1 - 9, Bio 2 - 10, Bio 3 - 11, Bio 4 - 12. Last night 8.
So I'm basically back to the numbers I had when I was a Master Scout. Like I said before, even a 5% reduction would be puttng the cart before the horse. They should have implemented and monitor, adjust all schematics if needed, or scale back in small percentages.
response to delta:
"it is going to take a while for people to adjust their playig styles..."
One of the most important things we have in hunting is our traps. I am now at a deficit in hides/bones per animal. It costs me more per bantha to kill one than I can harvest from it. To change this play style is to change my class. Trapping is what makes us effective in combat. It is what makes us useful in a group. If I wanted to change to playng like a pistoleer, I would become a pistoleer.
BAD NERF BAD
agreed. Why did they implement this without even monitoring to see if it was going to be needed. They jumped the gun.. and I am not referring to the bugged part. I am talking about nerfing the soloing harvests period. Not about how poorly it was executed.
/waves hand
this not the nerf you are looking for
Sigh.
I find it hard to believe a software company would release a patch as large as this, and then send developers on vacation. You never send developers on vacation after a large patch. It's a poor practice. You send developers on vacation before the patch, or a couple of weeks after the patch, but not immediately afterward. You need your staff present to deal with issues such as this.
I also find it hard to believe this problem couldn't have been avoided through better design. It worries me to see Raph make a comment such as "The reduction happens when you are grouped, and there's no check to see who you're grouped with." A check such as this should have crossed the developer's minds at some point prior to implementation. "Who cana Scout group with? A pet? A droid? Another Scout? A player who isn't a Scout, and therefore doesn't have the ability to harvest?" In the case where another Scout isn't present, the single Scout should be able to harvest the full amount without the 40% reduction in resources.
I also don't like the idea that solo Scouts should harvest less to compensate for an increase of resources flowing into the game. That there are more resources flowing into the game does not mean they're all going to go to the same Tailor, or Armorsmith, or Chef, etc. I supply hide to a single Tailor, and avian meat to a single Doctor, and now my task is going to take even longer, compliments of this nerf. Delta would tell me to group. Yeah, and that would work just fine if my friends were Scouts, or on world, or logged in when I'm logged in, or even interested in spending the two hours doing nothing but hunting for hide. "So find other people to hunt with," would be the response.
By telling me I need to group, you're reducing my profits by spreading out the amount of hide among a number of players, rather than just me as the solo hunter. If the customer has placed an order for 6,000 hides, and I'm told I need to group to receive a larger, overallharvest, then I'm not collecting and selling 6,000 hides, instead I'm collecting and selling 2,000 hides, as is each of my two friends, cutting my profit by 2/3 or forcing me to increase my prices to compensate for the difference. And if I do that, I'm going to lose my customers.
I do not like this change.
Caliph,
You're welcome for the response.
I know it's going to be tough to reserve opinions, because we're stuck with it for now - at least until it gets fixed.
The 60% rule is a good idea in theory. It helps Scouts group, and doesn't flood the market with bone and hide. I'll agree that the testing and implementation haven't been great. And the ability to take down larger creatures that we can't solo makes up for the decrease in totals. This will become even more apparant when the Devs finishing balancing (or nerfing, if you will) the combat classes so that no one can solo a red creature, even with pets, which has been an officially stated Dev position for a long time now.
I don't like the idea of autosplit, because 1.) I don't want to get 1 hide or half a hide if we're killing small critters; 2.) Groupleaders rarely use any of the group commands anyway; 3.) It's an even bigger reduction than the 60% rule. I think if this were to implemented, it would cause even more complaining than the current change.
I don't like the idea of just having a group spam, because it doesn't address the issue of ninja harvesting, which is a secondary goal of the 60% rule. Saying that player <X> took the harvest isn't going to stop player <x> from taking the harvest again. Kicking him from the group will, but there's always another group. Why let someone cause problems when its easy to make it impossible for them to do so?
It would be great if we could all be mature and not do things like this, but unfortunately when you've got a game that has a mix of players from ages 8 to 60, you're going to get people of varying levels of maturity - both in groups and leading them. If the Devs can implement a change that not only fixes a long standing complaint, but also provides a means of dealing with a method of griefing, then we get two for the price of one.
And for the record - I would rather spend all day getting yelled at by you guys than having to call a Governor and tell him we won't support him. He was nice about it, but that was probably the toughest phone call I've ever made.
B
Maugh,
"I also don't like the idea that solo Scouts should harvest less to compensate for an increase of resources flowing into the game. That there are more resources flowing into the game does not mean they're all going to go to the same Tailor, or Armorsmith, or Chef, etc. I supply hide to a single Tailor, and avian meat to a single Doctor, and now my task is going to take even longer, compliments of this nerf. Delta would tell me to group. Yeah, and that would work just fine if my friends were Scouts, or on world, or logged in when I'm logged in, or even interested in spending the two hours doing nothing but hunting for hide. "So find other people to hunt with," would be the response."
Actually, Maugh, that's not exactly what I'd say.
What I'd really say is, until this is fixed, find a group of scouts to hunt with.
And if you read what I wrote to the Scout dev, what I proposed was to increase the crafting costs across the board - if there are more resources in game, don't lower the total we harvest, jack up the costs for us, and all of the artisans who use our resources. That way we make more money. 
B
What woudl be wrong with an autosplit of the harvest? They don't increase any other loot, why should they increase harvests? And isn't the real problem more about the experience than the harvest anyway? How about something more like this.
The harvest will be split among the scouts in the group (rounding up). The group leader should have an option to turn it off, or each scout should be able to opt out of the split. The experience given will be 60% of what would have been recieved solo regardless of the size of the harvest split. If there is only one harvesting scout in the group, they would recieve 100% of the experience (optional here).Each scout could choose which resource to harvest, but the numbers would remain the same. Total harvests would be returned to their previous levels.
This would allow each harvesting scout in a group to get at least as much harvest as they would have before in a proper rotation. It would allow multiple scouts in a group to get more experience than they would have before and the single scout would recieve the same experince as before. There could be some slight round ups in the harvest, but even with a group of 20 scouts, you should never exceed 200% of a single harvest. Solo scouts would be unaffected, and the market would remain stable.
UttiniDaKilrJawa wrote:
This needs to be changed along with the group experience bonus. You get group experience bonus if you are with a pet. This does give CHs an upper hand in PvM.
(Also, im getting full experience as opposed to the faction im supposed to be getting)
Considering that you can get the same bonus without being a CH, I don't see your point in this matter.
A non-CH can have a difficulty 14 or lower non-aggro pet. Have them hang out in the "background" while you do your thing, and you still get your group experience bonus. Probots will work for this as well, as well as any ol' droid out there, and you don't need to be a CH for this either.
Including the pet in combat isn't a requirement for group experience. They just need to be in the group. It doesn't matter if they are just hanging out in the rear of the area, or in combat. You get the bonus all the same.
Been doing this since the game went live. *shrugs*
The 60% rule just seems to exploitable and the end result will either be a flooding of the market or an overall reduction of harvests which hits soloers and groupers alike. If you are hunting Krayts and one is supposed to drop 5 tissues, they don't give everyone in the group 3 tissues. If they did, people would be hunting them in groups of 20 so they could get 60 tissues instead of just 5. The same thing will happen to hides. The system needs to cap the total number of hides you can get off one creature somewhere far less than 1200%. But as long as every single scout in a group can harvest 60%, I would have to say the across the board cut in harvesting is necessary.
sue I hope you are right, but that doesnt seem to be holding true. the reduction seems to mean that everybody who now groups just keeps what they harvest and still has less than they did when they soloed and harvested, so there is none to put on the market.
I would prefer to buy my hides etc than worry about harvesting every kind out there to make traps, camo kits etc.
The problem is that this fix was geared around exps for people and exps end up not mattering for everybody in the game at some point or another. Resources will always matter though. this is not an exp based game and people need to quit whining about geting exps. I truly hope they conpletely revert ths change. there is absolutely no long term need for everybody in a group to harvest. It was just caving in to loud whiners who could not see the forest for the trees. Hell most of those whiners are now at master and dont need the exps they whined about anyways.
avezes wrote:
sue I hope you are right, but that doesnt seem to be holding true. the reduction seems to mean that everybody who now groups just keeps what they harvest and still has less than they did when they soloed and harvested, so there is none to put on the market.
I would prefer to buy my hides etc than worry about harvesting every kind out there to make traps, camo kits etc.
The problem is that this fix was geared around exps for people and exps end up not mattering for everybody in the game at some point or another. Resources will always matter though. this is not an exp based game and people need to quit whining about geting exps. I truly hope they conpletely revert ths change. there is absolutely no long term need for everybody in a group to harvest. It was just caving in to loud whiners who could not see the forest for the trees. Hell most of those whiners are now at master and dont need the exps they whined about anyways.
First, I don't think the whole grouping thing has caught on yet, but when it does, expect even more people to pick up novice scout, and expect people to actually make large harvesting parties to go slaughter mobs at a high rate of speed and rake in the resources.
Second, I do believe an across the board cut will be needed if the group harvesting is left as is (from the old levels), but it may not need to be as severe as it was. Either way, the solo scout is going to lose out and some people will exploit the system.
As for the experience, there will always be new people coming into the game or switching skills, so a way for the grouping scout to get experience other than being fast on the click is needed. But it shouldn't allow so many resources to be stripped off one creature. If scouts who aren't harvesting are too lazy to opt out, kick them out of the group. If the group leader won't take control of the situation, get a new group leader. If a system is set up where no more than 200% could be harvested off one creature, everyone will make out. You will get more resources in a group than you would havebefore (unless you were the ninja looter), you will get more experience than before (unless you were the ninja looter), and solo scouts won't have their harvests cut.
Sue,
Instead of decreasing supply, why don't we simply advocate that the Devs increase demand?
Increasing the amount of hide/bone/meat needed by ALL crafting professions would eliminate this problem much easier than fiddling with the levels we can harvest.
This change has the least amount of consequences for the overall economy. Right now, we're faced with a crafting Great Depression, if this issue isn't resolved quickly.
There will quickly be a run on hides and bone. There are already issues with this on some servers. When this happens, all of the crafters will buy as much hide/bone/meat as they can in order to weather the crisis. All of us, even if grouped, won't be able to meet the increased demand immediately, which will cause a drastic increase in the value (and thus cost) of all of the harvestable materials in the game. This will get passed along to the crafter - I've already gotten offers of 20 credits for 600+ OQ wooley hide. This was only selling for 7 credits two weeks ago. The only problem here is that I can't fulfill the orders.Nowl, the increased costs to the crafter will then be passed along to the consumer - whoever is buying the crafted goods. As the amount of money in the game isn't increasing as much as it was before the Jax/Natch/Nym repairs, you'll have fewer and fewer people able to pay market costs for the armor, clothing, etc. that they want. Crafters will be forced to reduce the prices in order for their material to sell, which will cut deeply into their profit. Those that can't stay in business will quit. Those who aren't making as much profit will get disillussioned and quit. The end result is the near collapse of the professions dependent on our hunting.
Now, if the overall costs for the crafted items are increased, yet the amount of harvested material stays constant, or actually increases, you will see the costs of hide/bone/meat go down, but the cost of the crafted materials will also go down. Thus, you'll have more craftable items up for sale at lower prices. This creates greater demand for the goods, because they're readily accessible at good prices. Increased demand on the part of consumers, results in increased demand for harvestable materials, which negates the cost decrease that we experienced because of the decrease in price attributed to the increase in hide on the market.
When you couple that with the Devs idea of making clothing decay, you will have multiple additional sinks for the new hide/meat/bone on the market. As it stands right now, there is no way for them to implement decay, in my opinion, because the market couldn't handle the increased demand.
So in a macroeconomical sense, the 60% rule is a good one, whereas, the current system oreven the old system with an autosplit is less so.
I hope ya'll followed this.
B