Development Cycle Archive
Thread: IC 1-11: Combat Roles; Ranger
I don't want to be argumentative, but the above drew my attention.
DFH wrote:
Hunters of creature resources will never achieve the kind of wealth their crafting clients possess, because economies simply don't work that way. A blue-collar occupation is not suitable for the skill points demanded by an elite profession
I think it is way off the mark. When players offer 50, 60 and 70cpu for current shift uber resources, you could easily pull down 500k a day. Profit. Rangers have the lowest overhead of any resource hunter, and given economies of scale, probably the most profit. And you forget just how many resources a Ranger can pull per harvest versus a Hunting IV Scout.
Someone with ten (or unlimited rental) BER13 heavies on a 90% spot has to pay maintenance. And they're not making 70cpu. Maybe they're making 10 at best, or 15 if someone's got wads of millions floating around, but that's unsustainable because it's likely the uberest of resources never again to appear upon the land. And besides, nothing's stopping a Ranger from picking up Surveying and doing this themselves.
Rangers should not be just a Ranger. They've got skill points available and should use them. This isn't a class-based game.
There are many many multi-millionaire Rangers. Some, like me, made the bulk of our money outside of the archetype. But others I know did so entirely on Organics sales. To Armorsmiths
What defines the role of a ranger in combat?
Stealth scouting, pet control, and pet elimination. More of all, and traps should work on pets. besides their scouting skills, rangers should be the quintessential vermin-eliminators, with the option to use said vermin more effectively than the Ch class alone.
What basic combat elements should they possess?
Surprise, stealth and information on any enemy at a glance. Bonuses/defenses against pets and use of traps against said non-humanoid pets.
What offensive abilities?
Stealth, Traps against animals, information about opponents (incl armor and weapon info). Bonuses against non-humanoid animals.
What defensive abilities?
Stealth, Camps adding def bonuses, basic defense, particularly against melee as they are dealing most of the time with hostile fauna on distant wild planets, not brigades of heavy st's.
What unique abilities?
Stealth, Harvesting, Traps, Camps, Movement over rough terrain with all vehicles and mounts.Concealment bonuses that complement rifleman's. Mounted bonuses and pet bonuses thatare complementary to CH. Better chance at finding loots/specials on bodies, separate loot roll for master ranger.
Should add what advantage or asset in group combat?
Information about the enemy, Pet killing.
How could/should they interact with other professions?
Complementary to riflemen/Ch's/medics (camps stack with droids, better forage and harvest). Simply an additional skillset to others who want to solo or roleplay the advanced element in a raid.
What interaction / dependencies should exist with other combatants?
Add-ons for camps from weaponsmiths, droids, artisan, armorsmiths and medics. More damaging traps added for use against enemy pets require other profession parts. Possibility of semi-permanant faction camps only avilable to Rangers and SL's. Cmap clothign alreday from tailors and BE's...some more of teh same>?
What should be their unique role in the Galactic Civil War?
Gather info, kill pets, get resources for faction crafters, be temp base camps for raids. Be better riflemen, Ch's, sl's and BE's/Docs.
I do agree with the Master Ranger not harvesting enough more than the Master Scout. 30% is nothing to sneeze at, but given the investment of points, it should be at least 200%. Since I agree that sparcity of organics is intended, balance could be achieved by reducing what Scouts can harvest, and their associative Camp and Trap schematic costs. I also agree that Camo Kits aren't all that impressive, camps somewhat useless and Traps simply aren't worth the investment (I use Glow Wire and Adhesive Mesh exclusively, solo and grouped). The entire Ranger profession has a very unfinished feel to it. Which makes sense. Many did at launch.
I actually had a really long post arguing specifics, but it's irrelevant because we disagree at an even more fundamental level:
This would only be true if there was a Miner profession. And if only Miners could run harvesters. Them not being here is entirely my point.
DFH wrote
The economic benefits of the Ranger profession must be evaluated solely on the basis of what that profession provide
People are free to choose single lines if they want. As a Ranger, Rifleman and CHer, I'm surprised you didn't mention hybriding. For example, someone with no interesting in Trapping and Camping, and doesn't see much benefit in Camo Kits could just take Tracking.
DFH wrote
As things stand, if the justification had to be made on a purely economic basis, one could not validly choose even 0-0-4-0 Ranger over 0-0-0-4 Artisan, never mind Master Ranger. The latter produces more income with less effort and less expenditure of skill points than the former
A Ranger is free to take up any skills and abilities they want. That's different from skill boxes. It takes no skill to run a harvester, factory or house. Heck, apparently you can place a vendor at Business III, unlearn Novice Artisan and the vendor will persist indefinitely (though I'd never chance that). You can do both the 250k per night in 50-70cpu resource sales (-/+ on server) and the 1mil per night in resource sales (though more than likely they place the harvesters and forget about them for a week, take some for stock and the rest into some unlimited contract). We all have 10 Lots. We're free to make them produce.
People can choose to be just a Ranger. There I definitely agree they'll never be as rich as an Armorsmith, but why limit yourself? Of course the crafter marks up. Crafters mark up their crafts based on buying the resources which were inflated because the resource provider purchased the power, which is inflated based on time and effort. But nobody's forcing them to exist solely within the 140 skill points SOE assigned as defining "Ranger". And again, that 140 only assumes someone loves all four lines equally.
I should also say that the Scout skills co-exist rather nicely with a resource business. Capped (125) Mask/Camo makes emptying and travelling much easier. Vehicles mitigate terrain negotiation for time. Having been there, I know the quickest way to get back money is to drop a few dozen fusions, bulk sell the resources for 10-20% below market value (which is generally a 400% markup on my server) and then shut down when it gets boring. All while being the Ranger I already was when I first started with 3 Windmills. That's not conceit. That's just playing the game.
Resource vendors are not the cause, since they're just moving money already in the system (as is everyone except the mission terminal camper). But they currently move the most of it, and without the restrictions holding back folks trying to operate within their class archetype. There's nothing wrong with thinking outside the box.
You want to be rich? Take advantage of the system that allows you to do so. I know you're 4-3-1-4 CH so you can train your own uber pets. But what's stopping you from dropping the ability to train commands, pick up at least Survey II and dropping 8-10 Harvesters (8 if you're a citizen of a city and not in the 1-lot Naboo Small)? So you pay someone 100k for some crazy monster. You can make that in a day while gallavanting throughout the wilderness farming organics.
I eventually see SOE introducing the Miner profession they canned back in early beta as being "unfun." People have amazing tolerances for unfun when there's beaucoup cash to be made.
DFH wrote:
Rangers are close combat fighters against creatures and thus meele suits better.
whaaaaaaat?
I use a T21, thanks.
Where did this come from?
If you want to go swing swords at giant lizards, the EQ servers are that way. Modern hunters do not hunt creatures the size of elephants with hand weapons.
I would suggest you open your eyes before you start talking.
I am ranger myself and I do well with my melee skills. And I don't hink "modern" hunters would hunt creatures the size of an elephant with a big black stick, but rather with cunning and knowledge of theirs enviromment...
i always felt rangers should have a hunting rifle or somehting made for them. currently my Hunt Master master ranger is only certified for using cdef weapons. some have suggested a hunting bow which would be nice cuz could allow for different damage types thru arrow heads varrying.
it doesnt have to be soemthing to over power em in pvp situations in which case but be able to help the resource gatherer and pve. and maybe have an increased creature to hit bonus and damage bonus when using the weapon to further enhance it not being overpwoering in the pvp situation however helpful in pve groups.
i like having my skills the way they are and dont see why i should need to have to skill up in a profession that isnt a preq to use one of my main and most valuable lines that identifies the class -Hunting-
Vakeso
Master Ranger
Darniaq wrote:I don't want to be argumentative, but the above drew my attention.
DFH wrote:
Hunters of creature resources will never achieve the kind of wealth their crafting clients possess, because economies simply don't work that way. A blue-collar occupation is not suitable for the skill points demanded by an elite profession
I think it is way off the mark. When players offer 50, 60 and 70cpu for current shift uber resources, you could easily pull down 500k a day. Profit. Rangers have the lowest overhead of any resource hunter, and given economies of scale, probably the most profit. And you forget just how many resources a Ranger can pull per harvest versus a Hunting IV Scout.
Someone with ten (or unlimited rental) BER13 heavies on a 90% spot has to pay maintenance. And they're not making 70cpu. Maybe they're making 10 at best, or 15 if someone's got wads of millions floating around, but that's unsustainable because it's likely the uberest of resources never again to appear upon the land. And besides, nothing's stopping a Ranger from picking up Surveying and doing this themselves.
Rangers should not be just a Ranger. They've got skill points available and should use them. This isn't a class-based game.
There are many many multi-millionaire Rangers. Some, like me, made the bulk of our money outside of the archetype. But others I know did so entirely on Organics sales. To Armorsmiths
Sorry, but we do not harvest that much more than a Scout with Hunting IV. My partner is such, and her harvest is about 2/3rds of mine. Considering the skill point differential, that's not much to talk about.
How much you are being paid per unit of resource is immaterial to the question. That cost in resources will be passed along to the crafter's customers as part of the price of his goods. Thus I repeat the point in question: resource providers will never be as rich as the manufacturers they provide to, because economies simply don't work that way. If the crafter isn't adding value to the resources -- if he can't make a profit on his work -- he'll quit.
Rangers do not have lower overhead than harvester managers. In order for me to get that 500K/day, at 70 CPU (currently, nothing on Corbantis commands that kind of payment, modulus an offer of 100 CPU for one type of meat that was made in a fit of pique), I have to harvest about 7K of the creature resource. Doing that in any kind of reasonable time is going to require travel to an advanced world, and the travel fees for such do not compare favorably to the maintainence fees for a good size harvester (2160/day, plus power -- which you harvest yourself). I also have to pay for routine wear on my equipment, insurance fees (I don't die often but I assure you harvester managers die a lot less often), and consumables (in my case, Willpower food and pet stims). There are also consumables that I make myself (camps, traps, camo) which do not directly cost credits, but require taking time out of hunting for profit. Yes, the harvester manager can (and will) run more than one harvester, but each harvester is generating profit, and I can't run more than one Ranger to keep up. (One member of my clique is currently managing 70 harvesters.)
No, a harvester manager won't get 70 CPU for his resources. But he doesn't have to. A BER 13 harvester on a 95% spot pulls about 18K units per day. That means he only has to get about 27 CPU to get 500K per day...off that one harvester. But it's not going to be just one harvester, is it now? The harvester manager can produce a volume of resources no Ranger can even think of touching, even in less than ideal circumstances. If you're pulling in twenty times what a Ranger can, you only have to get 1/20th the price to get the same money. Harvester managers can do that, and they won't put as much effort into it as the Ranger, either.
Mind you, again, all of this comparison between Rangers and harvester managers is only arguing over who is best at being at the bottom of the economic food chain.
Whether or not a Ranger can also manage harvesters is immaterial. The economic benefits of the Ranger profession must be evaluated solely on the basis of what that profession provides. As things stand, if the justification had to be made on a purely economic basis, one could not validly choose even 0-0-4-0 Ranger over 0-0-0-4 Artisan, never mind Master Ranger. The latter produces more income with less effort and less expenditure of skill points than the former. Keep in mind too that a) the Ranger will have had to master Scout, and he will need some kind of weapons skills in order to hunt (elite weapons if he wants to hunt on advanced worlds), further increasing his skill point cost, and b) the Artisan's economic benefit is gained directly from his initial skill point expenditure, and he is positioned to take a crafting profession as well, thus elevating himself another rung up the economic food chain. I would argue that, again in economic terms only, the value of the Artisan path is so much greater than the value of the Ranger path that having chosen to take the former, the latter would offer so little added value as to not be worth taking in addition.
Simply put: economically, Rangers are a total loss. This is why the entire idea of Rangers as "ultimate creature hunters" has got to go. Such a profession has nothing to contribute to this game save its economic value, and the devs could not possibly make an "ultimate creature hunter" profession that could even come close to competing economically with harvesters. They would not even want to, because the current crafting system is predicated upon creature resources being scarcer than harvested resources. Even if they did, Rangers would still be at the bottom of the heap because that is the way economies work: resource gatherers are worth less, economically, than people who craft those resources into goods.
We are being asked to spend too many skill points for the privledge of saying "would you like fries with that?"
As a matter of fact, they use both.
On a modern-day bear hunt, how many people do you bring to tank the bear? I sure hope the answer is "zero".
It was asserted that Rangers are close-combat fighters. I am merely pointing out that this is false. Not only is there nothing inherently "close-combat" about the current Ranger profession, but the only combat bonus we get does not apply to melee attacks. For myself, and I am sure for the majority of Rangers, the prey optimally never comes within melee range. Ideally, my prey never realises I even exist, having died before it could figure out what's hurting it.
Economic discussion has been redirected to the "Why I Am Not An Outdoosman" thread in the Ranger forum.
While I am not thrilled with the 'Big Game Hunter' concept for Rangers (I tend to lean more towards a Roger's Rangers idea), I would find the huntsman/outdoorsman concept more palatable if we had some Combat Specials that only applied to PvE, and which dramaitically outperformed the specials that other, more combat-oriented classes have when used in PvE.
So perhaps a tree to replace the trapping tree that grants larger hit and damage chance mods versus critters, with a new special at each level. The first special would be an attack that causes thecritter target to freeze in place forthree or four shots. The second would be a combination Health bleed and KD. The third would be a combination Action bleed and dizzy. The fourh would be a Mind bleed and Stun. Again, these would only work on creatures - not PCs or intelligent NPCs.
Alyc Voleslayer of Kauri
Ranger, Carbineer, BH, Medic (in that order of importance to me), short on skill slots...
What defines theRanger role in combat?
Current: Nothing - traps that don't work, camps that tie us down and disband in combat. Terrain and crawl speeds that are worthless since vehicles.
Proposed: Kill animals faster, Camps that repel.
What basic combat elements should they possess?
Current: Whatever weapon skills we have outside of Ranger
Proposed: Traps and stealth
What offensive abilities?
Current: NONE
Proposed: Kill animals faster, Camps that repel, and they abillty to see concealed players
What defensive abilities?
Current: NONE - Camps are suppose to repel MOBS. However, these don't work. Conceal is worthless, and with proposed changes to NOT work against NPC and players, even more so.
Proposed: Conceal against players and NPC
What unique abilities?
Current: Harvesting - No advantage to MASTER scout (1 or 2 unit diff - makes no diff)
Proposed: Things which won't be implememted, conceal against NPCs and players
Should add what advantage or asset in group combat?
Current: Nothing (60% reduction in harvest no matter what)
Proposed: Increase the harvest for Ranger lead squads.
How could/should they interact with other professions?
Current: WE sell them stuff
Proposed: WE sell them stuff.
What interaction / dependencies should exist with other combatants?
Current: NONE - throwing SCOUT level traps (which work at same level as scout)
Proposed: Better traps, AOE traps that work
What should be their unique role in the Galactic Civil War?
Current: NONE - no skills to work against creatures, players, and NPS
Proposed: We are animal killers, what skills could we posiblly have against players ands NPCs? Camo?
RESULT: Since, the major thrust of of questions is to beef up the GCW (aka: NPC and player interaction) we have no skills nor will we acquire skills to this end because of greifing.
Purposal: Removal of RANGER profession. Put beter traps at SCOUT level. Make SQUAD LEADER based off of Master Scout. Move tracking to Bounty Hunter. Give camps and rescue feature to Squad Leader. Increase harvesting levels when grouped with Squad Leader. Rename MASTERSCOUT to RANGER.
In addition, removal of Ranger profession will open room for Droid Handler Prof.
Sorry, but I still have not seen any other proposal that REALLY defines a RANGER as other that a glorified scout. Without the abillity to use the enviroment to our advantage(invisible to the naked eye) or to see the HIDDEN enemy, we are useless. Running and Crawling around in the wilderness has been made obsolete.
Without a usefull, MAJOR revamp (talk to GREEN MARINE for good ideas) the profession is weak and useless.