Scout Archive
Thread: Group Harvesting: Threat or Menace?
The problem with that is it will essentially cut our harvesting in half. As a Master Ranger, I harvest almost as much alone as the two of us harvest together. If she doesn't harvest, though, I'll still be harvesting at the group rate. The group rule doesn't check to see if there's only one Scout/Ranger in the group.
Right now, the best solution we've come up with is to not group. Make a private chat channel, watch health bars very carefully and hope she doesn't outdamage me. This is not a very good idea, obviously.
Grouping rules that encourage people not to group are fundamentally flawed. We need a better solution to group harvesting. At the very least we need to be able to turn it off when it's not needed.
DFH wrote:
Grouping rules that encourage people not to group are fundamentally flawed. We need a better solution to group harvesting. At the very least we need to be able to turn it off when it's not needed.
I could not possbily agree more with this sentiment.
As a CH, if I want to get full harvests, I must ungroup or my crimson razor cat "eats" a full half of the harvest.
DFH wrote:
Grouping rules that encourage people not to group are fundamentally flawed. We need a better solution to group harvesting. At the very least we need to be able to turn it off when it's not needed.
Awe yes, things that should have been thought of before release. And things that even when not have thought of before release, should have been fixed many many months ago. So it goes...
I will be devil's advocate. Although I agree with you, sorta.
When the initial problem was identified, people were at lower levels, meaning it took a bunch to drop a large creature. Then one person harvested? That was not "fair" nor was it even remotely correct. To stop that, we got the group rule. 60% is better than 0%.
However, now that there are a decent amount of players at higher levels, I think the rule needs to be re-thought.
I do agree with applying the group rate regardless of the other professions. A group is a group is a group - pets/droids or players, you ain't solo bubba, to get the benefits you suffer the consequences.
I also think that Master Scouts should be allowed to harvest signicantly more than non-masters. Rangers should be getting up to 50% more at Master. Possibly allow Masters to harvest more than one resource, even at a lower rate - as in harvest one resource at 100% of your normal harvest, or two at 80%. It's just programming.
I have done your work around also, the don't group deal. Sucks. Maybe finding a third member who can also harvest is a solution for the short term, til we get this sorted out.
good luck
JB
What are the benefits, exactly, for which we are suffering this consequence?
Is it that we get to help each other? No, we can do that without formal grouping, meaning we won't invoke the harvest penalty. I've heard there is some kind of experience bonus in groups but I've never noticed one in practice, and almost every type of experience my character uses has been capped since time T equals minus infinity anyway. Easier targetting? No, we can make hotkeys to /target each other by name. (I have "/target Janey;'/rescue" set to Ctrl-J...)
Is it really just and fair that we lose 40% of our resources for the privledge of seeing each other's health bars?
Guys,
The only time that you really see a harm from the grouping cuts is when you are in a group with a pet, because the pet can't harvest, or if you're in a small group with folks who can't harvest.But as long as at least two folks in your group can harvest, you're going to come out ahead.
Look at the math: 1 person = 100% (100 units) . 2 people= 60% each (60 units + 60 units), 120% total (120 units total). It only gets bigger from there.
So if you are going out there, you're going to get more if you're grouped.
There are a number of reasons why this was added to the game - do a search and find them. We had this debate out in September. It was huge.
Here's a short list of why it was implemented:
1.) Scouts had no incentive to group together (more than 1 scout in the group)
2.) Harvesting rights were very contentious and were keeping scouts from grouping, i.e. no scout would join a "pick up" hunting group, because they would have to "ninja harvest" to get any XP or harvestables. This kind of griefing made the game not fun for a lot of folks.
3.) It was requested repeatedly by the community.
For what it's worth, the grouped-with-pet harvesting loss issue is still on my bug list, and I hope that it gets attention soon.
Overall, the group harvesting changes have been a good thing for our community. So good, that this is the first post I've seen in 4 months complaining about it. 
B
Gwee,
Well, considering that this wasn't a feature in release, it's hardly something that should have been thought of before release.
Trust me- the Devs thought this out long and hard. I talked with GreenMarine a lot when this change was being implemented, and he told me that the Devs had huge email wars about implementing this change.
It wasn't done with no thought.
As for the pet thing, it's a bug, but there are lots of 'em, and the easiest way around it is to find a friend. That's an easy workaround for an annoyance. It's not game breaking. I'd rather have the development time spent elsewhere, where it's really needed.
B
That is not correct. It is correct if and only if both harvesters have the same skill level. Again: I am a Master Ranger. My partner has Hunting IV. Her share of the harvest barely exceeds my 40% penalty. If she even goes down to Hunting III, our group harvest will not match my solo harvest. In short, this rule is functional for large parties in which every single member can harvest, or small parties consisting entirely of very high skilled harvesters (IE, Rangers) and detrimental in just about every other possible state of affairs.
Grouping rules that encourage people not to group are fundamentally flawed.
There are a number of reasons why this was added to the game - do a search and find them. We had this debate out in September. It was huge.
Read it at the time, was there, thanks.
Here's a short list of why it was implemented:
No, a change was requested. This particular change was not. Some people pointed out the inadequacy of this rule, and were summarily ignored.
Overall, the group harvesting changes have been a good thing for our community. So good, that this is the first post I've seen in 4 months complaining about it.
Then you're not looking very hard, because I know it's been mentioned more than a few times over in the Ranger forum.
Well, considering that this wasn't a feature in release, it's hardly something that should have been thought of before release.
Of course it should have been thought of before release. Basic division of loot (and resources are loot) is not a fundamental game system? The quoted statement is false in any case. It was thought of before release -- multiple harvesters were supposed to be able to each harvest a different resource. That, like the rest of the grouping system, did not work.
It wasn't done with no thought.
No, it was done with bad thought. This is a naive, off-the-cuff, "throw 'em a bone" solution that breaks in a lot of real, every day cases. A truly thoughtful solution would cover all cases. Of course, it was probably the best they could do, given that the entire grouping system has been bugged to heck since Day One. Do any of the options in the manual actually work, other than /makeleader? They've barely gotten credits to autosplit.
As for the pet thing, it's a bug, but there are lots of 'em, and the easiest way around it is to find a friend. That's an easy workaround for an annoyance.
It would be a truly horrible workaround if it were the only one available. It would mean that Creature Handlers could not hunt for resources solo. Of course, the superior workaround is to not group with your pet, which is only a convenience in the first place.
DFH,
The math IS correct, DFH. However, you are right - in your situation, with two characters of such highly disperate skillsets, you are going to have this problem. But like I said - it's primarily a problem with folks grouped with pets, or groups with few Scouts. However, that is not the majority of hunting groups. You have a unique situation, and unfortunately it is one that may result in your getting less per harvest if you're grouped. But there are a myriad of ways around this problem, including the simplest solution - getting another Scout to tag along.
The potential is there for you to get significantly larger amounts of materials in a group. This did not exist before. The incentive for Scouts to group is now there, whereas before it was not. This is a benefit to Scouts, not a detriment. You need to look beyond your situation to the community as a whole.
"Read it at the time, was there, thanks."
First, I don't undetstand the attitude. Second, how was I supposed to know that? You've never made a single post on the Scout boards before, so I have no idea if you've been reading all this time, or if you haven't ever been on the boards before. I apologize that I haven't been reading the Ranger forums as closely as I used to, but like I said, there hasn't been a single post on the Scout forum decrying this change since we fixed the group harvesting bug right after it was implemented.
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few - most Scouts wanted this change, so I pushed hard for it, and we got it implemented.
This game is incredibly complex, and there are bugs everywhere. That's to be expected. But this is not a game breaking bug. There ARE workarounds. But there are dozens of other bugs that exist and professions that need significant attention that make this issue not as important. I am still pushing to have the non-Scout grouping and Pet grouping bugs looked at. That's the best I can say right now.
I'm sorry that there isn't a better solution to your immediate problem available right now. But nixing a feature that we fought long and hard for and that benefits the vast majority of Scouts is not an option.
B
Message Edited by DeltaXi65 on 01-19-2004 04:11 AM
The benefits of a group are:
Two people shooting instead of just one. Someone to heal you. Someone to laff at your bad puns, or your faux pas. You do get more XP grouped, not much but a percentage higher (I have tested this, even with just pets). More missions before returning to town. Somebody else for the mob to aggro on - ok, that's not a benefit, we all know mobs eat Rangers/Scouts first. Higher mission levels, unless you are playing with a player doing a new profession.
As to Brisc's convoluted math - he is right in a way, but assumes y'all harvest at the same levels. I agree, a Master Ranger and a Master Scout about break even, and anything less than that, you start losing harvest in a two person group.But with three people you gain, even if the third is just anovice, so it evensout. It tends to encourage larger groups.
If I need a lot of resource fast, I solo where I know I can get what I need quickly. If I want to get a variety a little slower, I group and we do more missions, but ultimately get more stuff.
I really think we need the multi-harvest option, or some form of it, at the Master levels for both Scout and Ranger. As they keep nerfing and giving our skills away, we should get something in return.
JB
btw, it's kill all rasps day, do your part