Change several resource cap/gates back to Live, SOE, rates at the time of the NGE

Change several resource cap/gates back to Live, SOE, rates at the time of the NGE
This idea/suggestion is Open. You can respond to ask questions or discuss the idea and either vote it up or down if you believe it should or should not be implemented, respectively. Popular suggestions and ideas will be considered by the development team to become reality in-game.
savacc

savacc

Proposal
A Gethub user changed several resource caps, in 2016, for SWG-Source that Resto is now using.
I propose Resto revert all those changes (commits) back to the Live, SOE, version. Specifically:
Steel
CR 1 - 1000, revert to 1 - 800
MA 1 - 1000, revert to 1 - 400
CD 1 - 1000, revert to 1 - 650
Aluminum
DR 1 - 1000, revert to 1 - 800
CR 1 - 1000, revert to 1 - 800
HR 1 - 1000, revert to 1 - 800
UT 1 - 1000, revert to 1 - 900
SR 1 - 1000, revert to 1 - 900
CD 1 - 1000, revert to 1 - 800
Copper
DR 1 - 1000, revert to 1 - 700
CR 1 - 1000, revert to 1 - 800
HR 1 - 1000, revert to 1 - 650
UT 1 - 1000, revert to 1 - 800
SR 1 - 1000, revert to 1 - 800
Siliclastic Ore
DR 1 - 1000, revert to 1 - 700
UT 1 - 1000, revert to 1 - 700
SR 1 - 1000, revert to 1 - 600
Ferrous Metal
CR 1 - 1000, revert to 1 - 800
MA 1 - 1000, revert to 1 - 600
CD 1 - 1000, revert to 1 - 650
Non Ferrous Metal
DR 1 - 1000, revert to 1 - 800
CR 1 - 1000, revert to 1 - 800
UT 1 - 1000, revert to 1 - 900
Justification
The Live game and every other current SWG server using SWG-Source code use the original resource caps. Resto is the only server using these changes (commits)
Near as I can tell, the Resto devs were unaware of this and went Live with it.
Undoing these changes (commits) would put Resto back to operating like players remember things being on Live and what they are used to on other current servers.
Motivation
Several schematics will improve, anything using steel and CD will be easier to cap.
Mass on crafted SW chassis will see a noticeable improvement. Currently we come nowhere near to capping mass. With these, we will be able to cap mass on chassis (with the right resources).
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Maxal, senag2 and Zoso
Upvote 12 Downvote
elchapodan said:
The argument you're referring to is fallacious, please read the post it was ineffectively referencing as well as my comment below.


This does not affect armor layers...


It affects armorsmiths pretty severely as common, factory-made PSGs will be of same caliber as Droideka PSGs which are currently intended to be rare drops and scarce. This commodity is moved more often than armor sets and made up a significant portion of my income as an Armorsmith last year.

There seems to be some confusion surrounding what this actually affects.

This does not affect armor in any way, shape, or form, as most armor schematics that manipulate resists and condition use named resources.

I highlighted the single scenario for Armorsmith impact in my post above and emphasized the severity.

I would ask knowledgeable crafters in the other specialties to take a look at popular items that move on the market and assess which areas are impacted in their own schematics and post it here so that the entire community has awareness of what they're voting on.

Regardless of current perception, this is not a small change and risk needs to be evaluated for each profession.
Click to expand...
A6YMs4A.png


I think you used the term rare too literally.

"Risks" = play any other server, it seems this is a change from live.

They are changing it to how it was originally intended.
 
I'm just going to go ahead and say this is a terrible idea all around. I get the driver behind it - but the damage it will do to existing professions and the current value of items/resources is not enough to justify what perceived benefits it will provide.

You're going to get into a situation where the current value of items/resources plummets and make it so JTL resources are capping a much higher number of schematics with ease, and it isn't worth it.

No offense - but I don't care about people complaining about 100 or 200 mass they're 'missing out on' (which in reality something 'could' spawn to accomplish that, even if it is less likely because of long JTL spawns).

We discussed this for a while yesterday in the Senate channels - and no one made a compelling enough argument for this to even be a consideration in my opinion. It's essentially a handful of people who want what they want regardless of the negatives it would have on an already established economy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tyr
PhilmorALF said:
I'm just going to go ahead and say this is a terrible idea all around. I get the driver behind it - but the damage it will do to existing professions and the current value of items/resources is not enough to justify what perceived benefits it will provide.

You're going to get into a situation where the current value of items/resources plummets and make it so JTL resources are capping a much higher number of schematics with ease, and it isn't worth it.

No offense - but I don't care about people complaining about 100 or 200 mass they're 'missing out on' (which in reality something 'could' spawn to accomplish that, even if it is less likely because of long JTL spawns).

We discussed this for a while yesterday in the Senate channels - and no one made a compelling enough argument for this to even be a consideration in my opinion. It's essentially a handful of people who want what they want regardless of the negatives it would have on an already established economy.
Click to expand...
Just to add - if we can come up with a solid solution to solve the mass issue that doesn't involve changing caps for everything in game - I'm all ears. I don't want to discount the concern, but I don't want a decision that is going to affect everyone unfairly.
 
Derpyh said:
A6YMs4A.png


I think you used the term rare too literally.

"Risks" = play any other server, it seems this is a change from live.

They are changing it to how it was originally intended.
Click to expand...
Showing a screenshot of some poorly-crafted droidekas (sub 66 recharge in comparison to quality 72.x recharge) does not do your point justice one bit.

There are 2 sources of Droideka PSG schematics:
- Rare loot drop from certain mobs in DWB
- A new player acquiring a 1 time reward from a specific legacy quest toward the end

The schematic itself is a 25 use schematic that cannot be made into a manufacturing schematic. For a capped AS, you *may* on average get 1-4 70.x recharge PSGs and *maybe* 1-2 72.x recharge PSGs per schematic.

The data completely supports it as a "rare" item. Please educate yourself about the game before commenting on yet another topic you know absolutely nothing about.
 
I'm not necessarily the "driver behind this". I figured out how Resto was doing things differently years ago now and went with it. Once i know the rules, I'm content to work within them.
There was a call for a PV, and I figured I'm one of only about three people who know the issue well enough to write this up.

As to how to fix mass on chassis in another way. This is really the way. Unless you change chassis to require Duralloy Steel instead of just steel, and change the generic allum, copper, and Siliclastic ore to named resources too.
 
savacc said:
I'm not necessarily the "driver behind this". I figured out how Resto was doing things differently years ago now and went with it. Once i know the rules, I'm content to work within them.
There was a call for a PV, and I figured I'm one of only about three people who know the issue well enough to write this up.

As to how to fix mass on chassis in another way. This is really the way. Unless you change chassis to require Duralloy Steel instead of just steel, and change the generic allum, copper, and Siliclastic ore to named resources too.
Click to expand...
Funny you say this - I was literally just having this conversation, haha. I think calling for 'steel' is what is biting us here. If we find an appropriate named resource to accomplish what we want, that may be the best path forward. I know you were just making a PV on behalf of the conversation, and I appreciate you listing everything out. If we do this right - I think it will provide the desired outcome still.
 
  • Like
Reactions: elvismonkey, Chewiejdh and Tyr
I just want to throw out a comment regarding this being a problem for PSGs. While the numbers -dan- put out there are true and demonstrate how the caps impact the end result (good explanation, -dan-), I don't think PSGs themselves should be considered as a driving force behind this change. Why? For most people making PSGs, you max out the protection (to 2500) and then use the rest of the experimentation points on recharge (where the cap issue shows up). Because it's not the main line for experimenting, the cap is not really coming into play as you don't have enough points. So technically it could be an issue, but practically it's not. My 2 cents.
 
this is literally what i posted , identify the recipes that cause issues and fix those instead of messing with the whole resource spawning system
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tyr
PhilmorALF said:
I'm just going to go ahead and say this is a terrible idea all around. I get the driver behind it - but the damage it will do to existing professions and the current value of items/resources is not enough to justify what perceived benefits it will provide.

You're going to get into a situation where the current value of items/resources plummets and make it so JTL resources are capping a much higher number of schematics with ease, and it isn't worth it.

No offense - but I don't care about people complaining about 100 or 200 mass they're 'missing out on' (which in reality something 'could' spawn to accomplish that, even if it is less likely because of long JTL spawns).

We discussed this for a while yesterday in the Senate channels - and no one made a compelling enough argument for this to even be a consideration in my opinion. It's essentially a handful of people who want what they want regardless of the negatives it would have on an already established economy.
Click to expand...
I believe you are being disingenuous and a bad actor when you say it will have a negative effect on the server. You are looking to protect your interest and stifle competition. You don't even know how much this change will affect crafts but you're saying it will be bad for the economy. Dan has show it will do very little if anything to change armorsmith. I'm pretty sure weaponsmith will not be affected much at all either because most crafts call for specific named resources. Also when you say that something could spawn do you even know the chances of a spawn with more than 1 960+ stat?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Raderen
I don't think Phil makes or sells anything that will be affected by this. I have the biggest dog in this fight. SW is what will be most affected by this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raderen
Zoso said:
I believe you are being disingenuous and a bad actor when you say it will have a negative effect on the server. You are looking to protect your interest and stifle competition.
Click to expand...
I believe you are being ignorant of the impacts of your suggestion for the sake of what is best for you. I crafted stuff this past week for the first time in like 9 months. I don't really care, haha. There will be a lot more people that *will* care though - and someone has to be an advocate for them since a lot of people probably aren't as invested in the happenings in Discord or PlayerVoice.

People are offering alternatives (including me) to solve the issue that you're having, yet you want to brand me as a bad actor. Doesn't bother me. If I think an idea is stupid - I'm going to say it - and I'm going to say why. It isn't the first thing I've pushed back on and it won't be the last. Bad actor Phil will look out for the people regardless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tyr
jcan0918 said:
this is literally what i posted , identify the recipes that cause issues and fix those instead of messing with the whole resource spawning system
Click to expand...
This PV does not change the spawning system, though there is a counter proposal that would.
This PV is about how resource caps, or gates, are figured, or accounted for, in crafting.
Resto already made sweeping changes, maybe not intentionally, to Live and other SWG-Source servers. This PV is to undo those changes to Resto and return to how it was on Live.

I had always assumed it was a Resto dev who did this and they were invested in making the change. When I found out it wasn't anyone connected to Resto, I figured a PV was in order.
 
Last edited:
PhilmorALF said:
I believe you are being ignorant of the impacts of your suggestion for the sake of what is best for you. I crafted stuff this past week for the first time in like 9 months. I don't really care, haha. There will be a lot more people that *will* care though - and someone has to be an advocate for them since a lot of people probably aren't as invested in the happenings in Discord or PlayerVoice.

People are offering alternatives (including me) to solve the issue that you're having, yet you want to brand me as a bad actor. Doesn't bother me. If I think an idea is stupid - I'm going to say it - and I'm going to say why. It isn't the first thing I've pushed back on and it won't be the last. Bad actor Phil will look out for the people regardless.
Click to expand...
you don't even know what other crafting professions this will affect yet are already saying it's bad
 
Sorry I have to go with Phil on this one. Alternate solutions sound much better so far and have less chance of unintended consequences messing it up for others.
 
How difficult is it to change the 'offending' resource names to being a named one? That seems like it would work across the board.

Does that need to be a PV?
 
Zoso said:
I believe you are being disingenuous and a bad actor when you say it will have a negative effect on the server. You are looking to protect your interest and stifle competition. You don't even know how much this change will affect crafts but you're saying it will be bad for the economy. Dan has show it will do very little if anything to change armorsmith. I'm pretty sure weaponsmith will not be affected much at all either because most crafts call for specific named resources. Also when you say that something could spawn do you even know the chances of a spawn with more than 1 960+ stat?
Click to expand...
There are more crafting classes than armorsmith and weaponsmith impacted by the current state of the JTL resources. Almost the entire line of hardware and consumables for bioengineers/pet crafting is impacted by this. From enzyme extractors, centrifuges, incubator units, processors, and re-processors. That doesn't include the 9+ components and final crafts for the consumables that do into making a 20 pt hydro. I would have to take a more comprehensive dive into the schematics to see how many are impacted by the current JTL resource caps, but I believe it's far more than people realize.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tyr
changing resources in specific schematics is not difficult with a list. changing caps is not difficult. spawn durations i would need to look into more.

not looking to change anything immediately. in order to implement a change, I would suggest the community attempt to agree on the best path forward understanding ultimately nobody will be happy :)
 
jt26077 said:
There are more crafting classes than armorsmith and weaponsmith impacted by the current state of the JTL resources. Almost the entire line of hardware and consumables for bioengineers/pet crafting is impacted by this. From enzyme extractors, centrifuges, incubator units, processors, and re-processors. That doesn't include the 9+ components and final crafts for the consumables that do into making a 20 pt hydro. I would have to take a more comprehensive dive into the schematics to see how many are impacted by the current JTL resource caps, but I believe it's far more than people realize.
Click to expand...
so you're against this change because it will make some resource intensive consumables easier to craft?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raderen
You must log in or register to reply here.
SWG Restoration is a fan-made, non-profit, community-driven, project.
Not affiliated with nor endorsed by Daybreak Games, Lucasfilm Entertainment, Electronic Arts or The Walt Disney Company.
Star Wars ™ & © Lucasfilm Ltd. No marks or intellectual property are owned by or licensed to SWG Restoration.
Top Bottom