Open - Artisan - Change several resource cap/gates back to Live, SOE, rates at the time of the NGE | Page 4 | Star Wars Galaxies Restoration

Open Artisan 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

Joined
May 28, 2021
Messages
130
Reaction score
64
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 11 Downvote
jt26077 said:
I'm not sure I see the point in this statement. Being dismissive doesn't make the facts less true.
Generally speaking, droids aren't more powerful than pets, but not everyone is a Master CH. Anyone can field a droid though.
Just about everything in the game can be capped with the right resources, even the shipwright schematics. That's not the point I'm making here. What I'm saying is that the proposed change would have wide-sweeping implications across the entire game, and the devs need to take all that into consideration before committing to a decision.
Click to expand...
Please show me a capped ship chassis that was made on resto. I was showing how even the stuff you listed really isn't an issue it's just people not wanting to change the status quo
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Raderen
jt26077 said:
This is false, I'm sorry to say, but that's a very narrow view of the thousands of schematics out there. I gave an example of the bioengineering consumbles, but the all the BE hardware is also subject to this.
A quick scan of a handful of schematics that are also affected are, but not limited to:
  • Battle armor segment (not advanced) - uses aluminum with a focus on SR. Phrik had the best SR at 900 until Perovskitic alum came along
  • Recon armor segment (not advanced) - uses copper with a focus on SR. Polysteel was best at 800, but CB copper came along
  • Micro sensor suite - uses steel with a focus on CD. Duralloy steel was best with 650, but now impossible to cap without JTL steel
  • Advanced micro sensor suite - same as above
  • Disruptor rifle (plus many other weaponsmith final combines) - uses copper with focus on SR
  • Droid armor module 3 - uses steel with focus on CD
  • Droid item storage 6 - same as above
This list goes on, but hopefully you get the point. It's not just shipwrights and a few 1-off schematics. The impact is far larger than you think
Click to expand...
Segment quality is perfectly fine without JTL resources in its current state, so luckily it's a nonissue for that arena. Cores only need to be 93% to have capped Kinetic/Energy/Element as the final appearance craft adds 250-300 to the resists. The cap issues we actually have are with named JTL resources, which is a completely separate issue now.

Zoso said:
it's been shown other than ship parts this would only affect PSGs and bio engineer consumables. well I think PSGs don't count because you don't have enough points to cap energy and recharge anyway
Click to expand...
For those commenting about PSGs without knowing anything: Recharge Rate is the entire selling point. Any experienced Armorsmith knows that the quality difference lies solely with Recharge Rate as Protection should always be capped first. The entire valuation of PSGs is the difference between 40k for 66.x (factory-made MK.IIIs) and 250-400k for 72.x (droidekas), that is a substantial difference per PSG. The proposed change would effectively wipe up to 90% current valuation for good PSGs (we're talking over 100million credits for a fulltime AS per year).

If we're going to make arguments about Armorsmith stuff, please keep the facts straight or I am just going to vote no based on lack of trust of understanding from the community.

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...
Thanks for the insight, as someone who doesn't touch BE it sheds light into the broader impact. I think when assessing it's important to answer the question: "Is this a schematic that gets used frequently where a competitive JTL resource would only spawn once every 3 years?" I can personally answer that with Gravitonic Fiberplast (corka) and Perovskitic Aluminum (hivotoumsis) for AS, but would be an interesting question to answer for BE, as well. If the system currently enables resource "droughts" where the reliance is on vets to be storing tens of millions of a resource in order to keep the market alive for 3-4 years then that definitely needs to be addressed, whether it be via this PV or another potential one addressing frequency of competitive JTL resources.
 
Just tossing this out there but in reality how much different are talking on some of this stuff. Item x is maxed at 100 but best most can do because of resource drops is 99. Does that 1 point make a difference other than in someones head? Of course it would be different for a ton of things but I was wondering just how much is really about wanting something "maxed" compared to 99% maxed.

I could see them putting what they did in place to create both rare and ultra rare "things" that would be crafted with the resources. The flip side is increasing the drops but when everything is rare/maxed nothing is really. Just babbling here ignore it.
 
Tyr said:
Just tossing this out there but in reality how much different are talking on some of this stuff. Item x is maxed at 100 but best most can do because of resource drops is 99. Does that 1 point make a difference other than in someones head? Of course it would be different for a ton of things but I was wondering just how much is really about wanting something "maxed" compared to 99% maxed.

I could see them putting what they did in place to create both rare and ultra rare "things" that would be crafted with the resources. The flip side is increasing the drops but when everything is rare/maxed nothing is really. Just babbling here ignore it.
Click to expand...
The Tie defender should be a clone of the Advance X. The adv X is a quest reward so it comes with 180k mass. The Tie defender has to be crafted and can't be capped. I can't fit my Adv X loadout into my Tie defender. That's like imp BHs having 4 less skill points than rebels. It's even worse for rebels though because the Twing an RGI clone is should be 80k mass so mass is even tighter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raderen
Zoso said:
Please show me a capped ship chassis that was made on resto. I was showing how even the stuff you listed really isn't an issue it's just people not wanting to change the status quo
Click to expand...
So let us see....change the resource system impacting multiple things or.....make a pv to change the requirements on the ship chasis......has nothing to do with status quo and everything to do with being cautious, doing research, being patient and trying to find the best result.
 
elchapodan said:
Segment quality is perfectly fine without JTL resources in its current state, so luckily it's a nonissue for that arena. Cores only need to be 93% to have capped Kinetic/Energy/Element as the final appearance craft adds 250-300 to the resists. The cap issues we actually have are with named JTL resources, which is a completely separate issue now.


For those commenting about PSGs without knowing anything: Recharge Rate is the entire selling point. Any experienced Armorsmith knows that the quality difference lies solely with Recharge Rate as Protection should always be capped first. The entire valuation of PSGs is the difference between 40k for 66.x (factory-made MK.IIIs) and 250-400k for 72.x (droidekas), that is a substantial difference per PSG. The proposed change would effectively wipe up to 90% current valuation for good PSGs (we're talking over 100million credits for a fulltime AS per year).

If we're going to make arguments about Armorsmith stuff, please keep the facts straight or I am just going to vote no based on lack of trust of understanding from the community.


Thanks for the insight, as someone who doesn't touch BE it sheds light into the broader impact. I think when assessing it's important to answer the question: "Is this a schematic that gets used frequently where a competitive JTL resource would only spawn once every 3 years?" I can personally answer that with Gravitonic Fiberplast (corka) and Perovskitic Aluminum (hivotoumsis) for AS, but would be an interesting question to answer for BE, as well. If the system currently enables resource "droughts" where the reliance is on vets to be storing tens of millions of a resource in order to keep the market alive for 3-4 years then that definitely needs to be addressed, whether it be via this PV or another potential one addressing frequency of competitive JTL resources.
Click to expand...

Thank you, @elchapodan, for your thoughtful write-up. I can't speak for all BEs, but I know it was particularly challenging getting a high-quality lab up and running. Capping out an Element Processor without Uvak (perovskitic alum) was basically impossible until Iafa spawned (another perv. alum). With that said, the hardware only makes up roughly 1/3 of the end result. The bulk of the bonuses come from the consumables (centrifuge separation tray, element processing canister, and enzyme re-processing capsule). Each of which has HQ components that are required for the final combine, many of which are subject to the JTL resource being discussed. I'll admit though, you don't need capped hardware and consumables to make a 20 pt hydro, but every little decimal point helps prevent waste when making that final hydro.

Enzyme extractors are in a slightly different grouping, IMO. It's a master artisan schematic, and if you play your cards right, you can get 25 exp points to cap both exp lines. There are 2 gating factors to capping out extractors, one of the subcomponents requires copper with a high SR/UT, and the final combine needs an alum with a high CD. Without JTL copper or alum, there's no way to max them out.

Having said all that, we're fortunate enough to have had some resources spawn that will allow crafters to cap out various aspects of the schematics mentioned, but they're pretty few and far between.

I'm sure Nexus would have good insight to add.
 
  • Like
Reactions: elchapodan and Raderen
Tyr said:
So let us see....change the resource system impacting multiple things or.....make a pv to change the requirements on the ship chasis......has nothing to do with status quo and everything to do with being cautious, doing research, being patient and trying to find the best result.
Click to expand...
When I made a suggestion to change the schematics to make it easier to cap in the past the response I got from phil was to just wait for a spawn. Pretty sure he didn't grasp how impossible that is though
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raderen
Tyr said:
So let us see....change the resource system impacting multiple things or.....make a pv to change the requirements on the ship chasis......has nothing to do with status quo and everything to do with being cautious, doing research, being patient and trying to find the best result.
Click to expand...
Well, I think Zoso does have a bit of a point with regard to ship chassis. They require alot of high-quality resources with 4 to 5 different attributes being over 950-960 (depending on whether you have the resource bracelet or not). That's just hard. Peroid.
Copper and alum are the big standouts here. To cap out mass you need MA/OQ/SR/UT for both, and you're never going to do that without JTL resources in the game's current state. I think there's a bit of a double whammy here. You're combining alot of required attributes with the JTL resource problem.
Even with SB resources over the past 3 years of spawns, you're still going to fall short with multiple resources:
swgtracker.com

Schematics - TIE Defender Chassis Blueprints - SWGTracker

TIE Defender Chassis Blueprints - TIE Defender Chassis
swgtracker.com swgtracker.com
If you look at the same schematic on SWGAide (which uses the "old way" of resources), you still can't cap chassis mass:
swgaide.com

Schematic: TIE Defender Chassis Blueprints

TIE Defender Chassis
swgaide.com swgaide.com
So rolling the resource table back to 2015 would help, but not outright fix the problem Zoso, and other shipwrights, are facing. This doesn't seem like a new problem for ship chassis, pre or post 2015.
 
jt26077 said:
Well, I think Zoso does have a bit of a point with regard to ship chassis. They require alot of high-quality resources with 4 to 5 different attributes being over 950-960 (depending on whether you have the resource bracelet or not). That's just hard. Peroid.
Copper and alum are the big standouts here. To cap out mass you need MA/OQ/SR/UT for both, and you're never going to do that without JTL resources in the game's current state. I think there's a bit of a double whammy here. You're combining alot of required attributes with the JTL resource problem.
Even with SB resources over the past 3 years of spawns, you're still going to fall short with multiple resources:
swgtracker.com

Schematics - TIE Defender Chassis Blueprints - SWGTracker

TIE Defender Chassis Blueprints - TIE Defender Chassis
swgtracker.com swgtracker.com
If you look at the same schematic on SWGAide (which uses the "old way" of resources), you still can't cap chassis mass:
swgaide.com

Schematic: TIE Defender Chassis Blueprints

TIE Defender Chassis
swgaide.com swgaide.com
So rolling the resource table back to 2015 would help, but not outright fix the problem Zoso, and other shipwrights, are facing. This doesn't seem like a new problem for ship chassis, pre or post 2015.
Click to expand...
Right. The point is this one point is a ship chasis issue. Changing that has much less potential for negative impacts on all the other things already mentioned. Making small tweaks is much easier and much safer overall. Maybe that PV needs to be redone/reworded and submitted again with all the SW being told to come and help upvote it. Tweak the chasis to fit what is rather than rework and impact all these other things.
 
jt26077 said:
Well, I think Zoso does have a bit of a point with regard to ship chassis. They require alot of high-quality resources with 4 to 5 different attributes being over 950-960 (depending on whether you have the resource bracelet or not). That's just hard. Peroid.
Copper and alum are the big standouts here. To cap out mass you need MA/OQ/SR/UT for both, and you're never going to do that without JTL resources in the game's current state. I think there's a bit of a double whammy here. You're combining alot of required attributes with the JTL resource problem.
Even with SB resources over the past 3 years of spawns, you're still going to fall short with multiple resources:
swgtracker.com

Schematics - TIE Defender Chassis Blueprints - SWGTracker

TIE Defender Chassis Blueprints - TIE Defender Chassis
swgtracker.com swgtracker.com
If you look at the same schematic on SWGAide (which uses the "old way" of resources), you still can't cap chassis mass:
swgaide.com

Schematic: TIE Defender Chassis Blueprints

TIE Defender Chassis
swgaide.com swgaide.com
So rolling the resource table back to 2015 would help, but not outright fix the problem Zoso, and other shipwrights, are facing. This doesn't seem like a new problem for ship chassis, pre or post 2015.
Click to expand...
I know I paid like 10 mil for a capped mass Tie Advanced chassis on Starsider during live and you could cap the GCW ship chassis on live too. The GCW crafted ones had higher hitpoints rather than the capped chassis you could buy off the vendor so the very serious spacer went that route. Here though they nerfed the chassis you can buy off the GCW vendor by 5k
 
Tyr said:
Right. The point is this one point is a ship chasis issue. Changing that has much less potential for negative impacts on all the other things already mentioned. Making small tweaks is much easier and much safer overall. Maybe that PV needs to be redone/reworded and submitted again with all the SW being told to come and help upvote it. Tweak the chasis to fit what is rather than rework and impact all these other things.
Click to expand...
I would diffidently support that but would like to include changes for some other ship part sub components that can't be capped because of the swg-source changes like boosters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raderen
This conversation is only reinforcing my opinion of updating competitive spawn frequency. Even 1 spawn per resource per year would be sufficient to keep the market relatively stable, but the current rate of 1 every 3 years is not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raderen
Zoso said:
I would diffidently support that but would like to include changes for some other ship part sub components that can't be capped because of the swg-source changes like boost
Click to expand...
I would suggest the community attempt to agree on the best path forward

As the Dev said above...if I might maybe the SW's could get together and hash out what schems need changing for this cap issue and what in the schems exacty need changing. Make a list and have it ready and make a PV for it.
 
Zoso said:
I know I paid like 10 mil for a capped mass Tie Advanced chassis on Starsider during live and you could cap the GCW ship chassis on live too. The GCW crafted ones had higher hitpoints rather than the capped chassis you could buy off the vendor so the very serious spacer went that route. Here though they nerfed the chassis you can buy off the GCW vendor by 5k
Click to expand...
I hear you, but I'm not sure comparing what was possible on live to what's possible on Resto would be fruitful. It's not going to be apples to apples. With the live servers, you're working with 8+ years worth of spawns across many, many servers. Here, it's just Resto and 3 years worth of spawns. It's a numbers game of statistics and probability. If Resto is still alive and kicking 5 more years from now, I bet there will have been some spawns that would get people closer to capping those ship chassis
 
elchapodan said:
This conversation is only reinforcing my opinion of updating competitive spawn frequency. Even 1 spawn per resource per year would be sufficient to keep the market relatively stable, but the current rate of 1 every 3 years is not.
Click to expand...
I am one of those that like the rare and ultra rare spawns here because it makes them just that, which in turn fuels the whole ultra rare/rare items that are not just drops. But hey that is just me.
 
I really do think that a new PV for the ship chasis (SW) should be done.
 
There is not a chance I am revising this PV to only affect chassis. The issue is not about chassis, it's about overall crafting theory, how are we going to treat resources caps and adjust for them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: xTekx, Zoso and Raderen
IMHO, this is how the crafting mechanics worked back on live since JTL was introduced in 2004 and worked for ~8 years. Rolling back the 2015 change will mean that higher-end products will appear more frequently on the bazaar, but given the fact that most things can already be capped shouldn't ruin the economy. The thing I have to keep telling myself is that this is a game. Games are meant to be fun, and while there is a certain competitive component to the crafting in this game, I don't believe that reverting the caps back takes too much away from that. The decision seems to lie in how much enjoyment the crafters in the game will benefit from this change balanced with how that impacts the players that purchase their products.

The devs may not agree, but I vote yes.
 
Fuego said:
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 :)
Click to expand...
Adding new resources difficult?

Spit balling here, what if you added another new named resource of each with the same jtl caps. This wouldn't effect anything old and would be just be additional resources going forward added into the pool of rng ?
 
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