Ranger Archive
Thread: Bows and arrows and why SWG Rangers are not US Army Rangers!
Page 1 of 5
CuchulainnDarklight
Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:02 pm
#1
Having been a ranger since just after i started SWG (2 weeks after starting) I have been waiting and waiting and waiting for it to live up to its true potential (glad i didnt hold my breath), as the supreme creature hunter class it should be.
Now, everyone knows that ranger is an advanced form of scout, and with the skill points we have to sink into scout to START ranger we are in serious trouble when it comes to combat, this will no doubt get worse after the CU, as we are the only professions not having anything done about our prerequisites.
So many people post in the forums that we should not have our own unique signature combat style or weapons when a post comes up. Most notably, they say that bows and knifes are not Star Warsy enough. Excuse me, are pikes, swords, staffs, hammers, and martial arts Star Warsy then?
As an infantry army officer i can tell you that a bow is THE most deadly weapon you can utilise for a ONE shot SILENT kill. This is due to the kinetic force and sheer size of the arrow itself, and partly because the geneva comvention only allows the use of full metal jacket bullets by signatory members armed forces whereas, the arrow can be made more deadly by the design of the arrowhead itself.
If you want to make the bow more star warsy why not havea crossbow which uses an electromagnetic acceleration system to launch a self-stabilising arrow which after penetrating its target detonates a small charge of highly reactive Tibanna gas - boom. Is that high tech enough.
I will say it again and again - RANGER is a HUNTER. A MASTER RANGER is the ULTIMATE HUNTER. Able to solo high end creatures and not run in terror from a marauding dwarf nuna.
Plus if you can use a bow and knife against a creature, you should be able to use it against (non)human NPCs and players too. Its common sense. Someone who learns to shoot at a paper target can still shoot a real person you know. They just may not be as accurate or deadly when their target is fighting back.
Everything else put forward for a ranger revamp is great BUT we MUST have a weapon that enables us to HUNT - that is our role.
Now you will say "but there are Antarian Rangers in the exanded universe!" and indeed there are. (At this point i was going to argue that they are as rare as jedi but i think ill skip that). Unfortunately, we are NOT antarian rangers and never will be. We can form guilds and RP but that is not our primary role. Killing critters is!
Next you will say "The Army Rangers do this, we want to be like them!". SWG Rangers are not soldiers, and should never be considered soldiers (insurgency (terrorism) and counterinsurgency roles perhaps if we ever get proper camo and traps) but not infantry soldiers. Firstly, there are enough of them in SWG (commandos, snipers, gunfighters, martial arts experts etc.) and secondly, thats my real job dammit, I picked ranger as i thought it would be refreshingly different to what i spend the rest of my life doing (thats a real grind - a job). Plus, I read all about the Ranger being the best hunter, able to track down, kill and gut the most deadly creatures, sigh, was i disappointed.
And, without being in any way racist towards americans, if you want to pick an elite military unit that might equate to ranger - try not to roll out that stock "Rangers lead the way" stuff as the US Rangers arent considered an elite military unit (in first-world western terms anyway), think more along the lines of MACVSOG in the jungles against the Vietcong (thats counterinsurgency/insurgency roles) living of the land, hunting, and setting booby traps and having small limited engagements with the enemy.
Quite simply, you want to be a soldier try commando, its got all the big guns, flamethrowersand grenades you could want!
Now flame away (pardon the pun)!
Message Edited by CuchulainnDarklight on 03-27-2005 11:04 AM
Message Edited by CuchulainnDarklight on 03-28-2005 02:42 PM
Senast
Sun Mar 27, 2005 2:37 pm
#2
one small problem. you stated:
If you want to make the bow more star warsy why not havea crossbow which uses an electromagnetic acceleration system to launch a self-stabilising arrow which after penetrating its target detonates a small charge of highly reactive Tibanna gas - boom. Is that high tech enough.
now if we had that and used it what would be left afterward to harvest ? 
bdsjake
Sun Mar 27, 2005 2:53 pm
#4
why not just let rangers use the wookie crossbow, and beef its damage up, I lke the EM accerlation and explosion idea. Don't have to add a new weapon to the games that way. Rangers should be able to track, trap, kill and harvestthe big nasties.
Phenix1050
Sun Mar 27, 2005 3:05 pm
#5
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on a few points:
Having been a ranger since just after i started SWG (2 weeks) I have been waiting and waiting and waiting for it to live up to its true potential (glad i didnt hold my breath), as the supreme creature hunter class it should be. See, this is the problem. No other profession is pigeon-holed into one type of combat. in my mind, restricting us to simply PvCreature was the worst design choice, especially if there are no other classes like this. Giving us weapons that only affect creatures removes us from more than half the game, including the GCW
If you want to make the bow more star warsy why not havea crossbow which uses an electromagnetic acceleration system to launch a self-stabilising arrow which after penetrating its target detonates a small charge of highly reactive Tibanna gas - boom. Is that high tech enough. they already have something like it-- it's called a Bowcaster...
I will say it again and again - RANGER is a HUNTER. A MASTER RANGER is the ULTIMATE HUNTER. Able to solo high end creatures and not run in terror from a marauding dwarf nuna.and I will say it again and again. I don't want to be part of a profession where we are removed from half the combat in the game. The Devs have stated that they want to have a role for every profession in the game in terms of te GCW. Unless they're going to start giving imperial uniforms to Krayts, we're not going to get much of a role in the GCW
I've been a scout since the begining and a Ranger since September 2003. I used to think a lot like you. The creature-only role seemed refreshing and exciting. i liked the idea of being a Ranger from the get-go. But as I've stayed in the game, i've quickly learned that killing creatures only, while fun, is really only using a small portion of the game. Being a Ranger was great, but I longed to participate in the GCW. I wanted to be a soldier for the rebellion, and as I thought about what a soldier truly is, I've come to see scout and Rangers as the other half of military-style training. That doesn't mean I think we should get a cannon and start blasting things. I'll do my best to explain.
Any military personel will tell you there is more to being a soldier that just shooting a gun. You have to be fit, you have to know how to survive in adverse conditions (setting up shelting and finding food) and you have to be able to avoid detection. So a rifleman shouldn't be considiered a sniper or a soldier. Because all they know how to do is shoot. Shooting is important for a soldier, but there are also a lot of other things they can do. And I know plenty of guys who are crack shots, but wouldn't last a second in the military because they're out of shape. Scout is the flip side of military training. The survival side of it, and the fitness side of it. Now a soldier can use those skills in combat, but so can any person when they're hunting animals. Like any other combat profession, Scout should be able to work on both sides of the battlefield.
Ranger is the elite training, the type give to special forces-style soldiers. Does that mean we are ONLY able to be soldiers? No, certainly not. A woodlands hunter who took part in the survival training of a military unit would be much better at hunting animals. But if they were at some point pushed into military service, they'd also be a more effective soldier. A Ranger can spend his days hunting, but when called into duty for or against the Empire, they should say, well i may not know how to use a flamethrower, but I can make those guys stand still long enough so that they won't be able to run from the guy who DOES have the flame thrower.
The Outdoorsman proposal (originally penned by N'Rass, and re-written by me) isn't about forcing a player to choose one side or the other. It's about saying Ranger isn't just for hunters. We have the ability to be a profession that enhances other combat professions. That enhancement will work when fighting in the GCW, or while hunting Krayts. Just like every combat profession works in both types of combat, our skills should be across-the-board usefull. Forcing one style of play on a profession is a bad thing, in my opinion.
By the way, I've always supported a bow-like weapon. I actually just had a new idea on the same basic lines as a bow-- but it was a double cross-bow able to launch two darts...or two traps, or a combination of the two. Check it out and tell me what you think, if you'd like.
CuchulainnDarklight
Sun Mar 27, 2005 3:20 pm
#6
Thanks for your reply Phenix but your missing my point here - Im saying that Rangers should have a weapon or have the Master Scout prerequisite removed. Otherwise every other profession can outdamage us against creatures- including an entertainor or artisan with combat skills ffs.
I didnt pigeon hole Ranger into just one type of combat - i was agreeing with your Outdoorsman 2.1 in that we should be able to outdamge other professions against creatures BUT unlike your proposal we should have the ability to use the sameweapons against players and NPCs. Therefore we can hold our own in PvP and PvE but we are masters of Player versus Creatures (aka the hunts) otherwise there is no point to Ranger at all.
This is the only way I can see that we, to use your words, arent part of a profession where we are removed from half the combat in the game. With our own decent weapons we can be a part of the GCW do PvE, quests, whatever and still have the ability to try out other professions like crafting or another specialised weapon class.
This will make Ranger a viable profession, that actually is what its meant to be.
Tarnak_Archvold
Sun Mar 27, 2005 3:21 pm
#7
CuchulainnDarklight wrote:
As an infantry army officer i can tell you that a bow is THE most deadly weapon you can utilise for a ONE shot SILENT kill. This is due to the kinetic force and sheer size of the arrow itself, and partly because the geneva comvention only allows the use of full metal jacket bullets by signatory members armed forces whereas, the arrow can be made more deadly by the design of the arrowhead itself.
I will just pick that part apart... on 2 different points actuarially.
a bow is THE most deadly weapon you can utilise for a ONE shot SILENT kill
But combat in SWG is not one-shot kills type combat. And if Rangers was allowed to one shot kill creatures, the whining here boards would make a most powerful hurricane in recorded history look like a summer breeze.
Once you have hit your target with the first arrow, you loose the advantage of the bow. Because of the lower firing time, and the limited amount of arrows you can carry.
and partly because the geneva comvention only allows the use of full metal jacket bullets
But this is starwars... there is no Geneva Convention to limit what the armed forces can use... the death star would definitely be against the Geneva Convention.
And we have energy weapons, we are not limited to simple projectile weapons.
Phenix1050
Sun Mar 27, 2005 3:28 pm
#8
CuchulainnDarklight wrote:
Thanks for your reply Phenix but your missing my point here - Im saying that Rangers should have a weapon or have the Master Scout prerequisite removed. Otherwise every other profession can outdamage us against creatures- including an entertainor or artisan with combat skills ffs. And I agreed with you on having a weapon. I don't agree with losing Master Scout and I don't agree that creatures should be our only target.
I didnt pigeon hole Ranger into just one type of combat - i was agreeing with your Outdoorsman 2.1 in that we should be able to outdamge other professions against creatures BUT unlike your proposal we should have the ability to use the sameweapons against players and NPCs. Therefore we can hold our own in PvP and PvE but we are masters of Player versus Creatures (aka the hunts) otherwise there is no point to Ranger at all. The Outdoorsman 2.1 advocates traps being used in PvP as well. I've long thought we should have some PvNPC skills and PvP skills. As I've grown with the game, I've realised that if we are going to reach our potential, the fact is we have to equal. focusing on creature-based combat has a lot to do with why we are gimped in the first place. i've given a lot of thought to this and our skills need to be EQUAL in power. Ranger can't be "PvCreature with a few PvP skills thrown in". Our skills need to be such that they are equally viable in both arenas. A Ranger/Rifleman should be just as powerful in PvP as they are in PvCreature.
This is the only way I can see that we, to use your words, arent part of a profession where we are removed from half the combat in the game. With our own decent weapons we can be a part of the GCW do PvE, quests, whatever and still have the ability to try out other professions like crafting or another specialised weapon class. I agree with your general idea, which is that we need some PvP/GCW skills. what I don't agree with is the fact that you say we are Hunters only. The fact is that a Rangershould be able to be botha Hunter and an Army Ranger. We aren't one or the other, but BOTH. Rangers are a combat class, and just like any combat class can do EQUAL damage against creatures and the same relative damage in PvP, Ranger skills should be equal across the board. We ARE a combat class, and as such, need to be treated like one.
This will make Ranger a viable profession, that actually is what its meant to be.
CuchulainnDarklight
Sun Mar 27, 2005 3:42 pm
#9
Phenix dont take this the wrong way but i am agreeing with you - I think your proposal is excellent , except for that little point where you said our Ranger Weapon would be next to useless in non-creature engagements. What I am saying is why not have it work where we get a certain damage lvl which makes makes us viable in any combat engagement, but, allows us to excel in creature combat, which is meant to be our forte. That way when we fight in the GCW or PvE or whatever that isnt creatures, we are applying our combat skills, in another arena, with less effect admittedly , but we can still fight, and lob traps and use camo and other skills we learnt whilst tracking rancors across dathomir etc.
This is akin to a soldier who is naturally a crack shot getting sniper training (becoming a Master Rifleman) in addition to their other skills
This way if you take a combat skill in addition to Ranger, its like coming out of the wild and being trained by the military in a particular combat area but you still have your poriginal skills, or you could use your ranger skills to fight and maybe take healer and become a battlefield medic, or crafting and become a battlefield engineer rather than someone who has to run away from every fight unless they take combat skills in addition to ranger.
CuchulainnDarklight
Sun Mar 27, 2005 3:46 pm
#10
Um Tarnak, I never said anything about one shot kills in the game - that was a real world example, and that goes for the bit about the arrows too.
I was trying to explain how a bow is an effective silent weapon, the weapon of a consummate hunter, blasters are noisy, inefficient weapons. We need an ancient weapon, from a more civilised age.
And, i can put 10 arrows within 50 cms of each other at 60 m in 1 min easy in RW and I only learnt how to do it at school as a laugh years ago and I m not Grizzly Adams either, with a modern high-tech composite bow.
Phenix1050
Sun Mar 27, 2005 3:57 pm
#11
CuchulainnDarklight wrote:
Phenix dont take this the wrong way but i am agreeing with you - I think your proposal is excellent , except for that little point where you said our Ranger Weapon would be next to useless in non-creature engagements. Yeah, lol. See, that was the "old" Phenix. As you might be able to tell, my perspective has changed on that quite a bit, actually. What I am saying is why not have it work where we get a certain damage lvl which makes makes us viable in any combat engagement, but, allows us to excel in creature combat, which is meant to be our forte. and I'm saying we shouldn't have a a specific forte. That being "viable" isn't enough. We need equal in all aspects. That way when we fight in the GCW or PvE or whatever that isnt creatures, we are applying our combat skills, in another arena, with less effect admittedly , but we can still fight, and lob traps and use camo and other skills we learnt whilst tracking rancors across dathomir etc. and I'm saying why should we be less effective. In reality,a trap which could hold a rancor in place for 20 seconds could hold a human in place for an hour. of course, that's not realistic, so making it equal is the best solution.
This is akin to a soldier who is naturally a crack shot getting sniper training (becoming a Master Rifleman) in addition to their other skills. Master Riflemen aren't snipers. At least not in the military sense. No single combat profession is a soldier by themselves. A Master Rifleman is just that a person who has mastered using rifles. A sniper must know the art of concealment (a Ranger skill, in my opinion). like I said, I know people who could easily match or beat most infantry in a shooting competition. That doesn't mean they're snipers.
This way if you take a combat skill in addition to Ranger, its like coming out of the wild and being trained by the military in a particular combat area but you still have your poriginal skills, or you could use your ranger skills to fight and maybe take healer and become a battlefield medic, or crafting and become a battlefield engineer rather than someone who has to run away from every fight unless they take combat skills in addition to ranger.
I agree here. Ranger shouldn't be a stand-alone combat class. Our proficiency shouldn't be damage dealing. But by avoiding combat(stealth), keeping opponants away (traps) and being able to do some damage (ranger weapon) we should be able to SURVIVE. By itself, a Ranger/Rifleman should lose to the FoTM template. Our skils are (and should be) group oriented.
CuchulainnDarklight
Sun Mar 27, 2005 4:09 pm
#12
Phenix what I mean by being viable in non-creature engagements means we can fight in them but fighting creatures is where we excel (say a x2 modifier) while we do normal damage in other engagements. Just as a Rifleman ismore effectiveat long range and a TKM ismore effectivefor close up personal "arguments" our Ranger Combat skills (bow for sneaky hard hitting attacks and knife for the nasty close in stuff) will be effective IN CONJUNCTION with our "wilderness survival" skills like camo and traps that work on NPCs and PCs to give us a unique combat style more suited to our actual profession. Plus if you like rifleman or whatever so much you can still keep it and play it - its not like you will lose anything.
Personally, I use Master Pistoleer as it is more fun than Rifleman and i like running up and down hills chucking traps every which way. Im the Steve Irwin of the Ranger profession lol. But goddamn id like to be a ranger and be able to actually HUNT without having to take a rifle and snipe, cause it doesnt suit my play-style, and im sure im not the only one that doesnt want to be a rifle / ranger and have no other choice.
But with my own ranger combat skills i could branch out into other roles and try them out, which would be fun.
Message Edited by CuchulainnDarklight on 03-27-2005 03:14 PM
JBMat
Sun Mar 27, 2005 4:35 pm
#13
Why we are not US army Rangers -
I refuse to wear a high and tight haircut. I never had one in 20 yrs of active duty, to include 12 in the 82d Airborne, I am not starting now.
I will say Hooah tho.
Oh, and no helmet head for me.
JB
Page 1 of 5