Ranger Archive
Thread: Modular Camp V4...
"It is already setup, a dead person isn't going to take it down."
The Tender is needed to keep the camp fresh and clean and provide maintenance, otherwise the camp quickly falls into disrepair and becomes useless.
- That would be logic behind why the camp vanishes if the tender leaves or is killed.
One of the big strategies regarding these fortifications would be the ability to kill the tender and eliminate the camps benefits for the opposing side. Of course the tender is not necessarily the SL or Ranger who set up the camp, by using/changeTender, it could be anyone.
Keep the tender healthy and active, and the camp will remain so as well. 
----
Personally, if the group doesn't have a Doctor that can Revive, I don't consider theforce to be much of a threat.
I saw a post about how squad leaders were pushing for a drop-zone type of thing that would allow people to shuttle into a place. Maybe since we're also asking for an evac shuttle thing, they'll consider adding random shuttle points in if it's not too hard.
You know, if all of this stuff goes in, I might drop my pistoleer skills and be a ranger/squad leader. I wouldn't be much in a fight, but I'd make a heck of a group leader.
The biggest reason why we won't get the evac shuttle, and why SL's won't get their drop ship request, is the economy. The devs will recognize that giving us a quick way to get back to town (or out to a mission area) is a way to make money faster (more missions per hour), and will veto it right there.
Although we'll all hate it, we may have to compromise & include a timer similar to the shuttle timer. Maybe have a 5 minute timer start counting down once the first person in the group initiates an evac request, and then when the 5 minute timer runs down, everybody in the camp has the option to board the shuttle. Another compromise would be to have the destination preset by the evac requestor, and everybody that boards gets shuttled to the same place.
Well in reguards to the "drop zone" proposal, we are having trouble. So any input is appreciated.
Someideas we have had to balance the costs and keep it from being exploited is make it Faction only (you have to be declared to get the ticket the "drop zone"), still have the 10 min shuttle wait, make it a higher cost than the regular tickets, make the whole "drop zone shuttle registration" cost a large amount of Faction points to the SL, only make it usable on the "buildable" planets, negates the 60 sec overt rule (you would load while still overt, for balance issues),etc.
The best way to make it effective is to make it uneconomical to be used in creature hunting. This is meant to get reinforcements or an advanced squad to a battle quicker, its an advantage that should come with a high price.
Please include any ideas or comments you have, in this thread as it is now a related topic.
(Thank you so much for this Nrass, you have no idea)
"The best way to make it effective is to make it uneconomical"
Aye, that is why I set the "cost" of the Evac Shuttle module at (24), making it a significant expense for a temporary encampment.
Well thats why we went with a drop zone idea instead of a pick up area (plus we saw a benefit to military tactics ^_^ ).
The players would still have to buy a ticket at the regular ticket terminal. And now that I think about it, the Squad Leader or whoever would set up the camp should go to the mod terminal and select the shuttle that the group would be comming from, so the group would have to buy tickets and get on the shuttle at that specific location.
I agree with Sirglenno.
Its clear that a lot of blood, sweat, and tears have been poured into this idea, and I salute those working on it. Camps are an essential feature of the ranger, and it would be nice to do something more with them.
However, camps, as they exist now,arenot technically broken. Why not focus on things that are obviously broken first? Did everyone just get tired of talking about traps so moved onto camps? Traps, except perhaps the phecnacine dart, are fairly useless, and that is a major skill line for rangers.
My comments on Version 3 remain for this new proposal as well. The presentation and the implementation is way to complicated. Consider how long the developers have already worked on the game, and we've only gotten rudimentary camps. Why do we think that camps will suddenly get more attention than that? If we must focus on camps, my recommendation is to try to provide an executive summary at the top of this request that summarizes in terms of "Must Haves" and "Would Be Nices" to focus the dev team.
shotoyan wrote:The biggest reason why we won't get the evac shuttle, and why SL's won't get their drop ship request, is the economy. The devs will recognize that giving us a quick way to get back to town (or out to a mission area) is a way to make money faster (more missions per hour), and will veto it right there.
Although we'll all hate it, we may have to compromise & include a timer similar to the shuttle timer. Maybe have a 5 minute timer start counting down once the first person in the group initiates an evac request, and then when the 5 minute timer runs down, everybody in the camp has the option to board the shuttle. Another compromise would be to have the destination preset by the evac requestor, and everybody that boards gets shuttled to the same place.
That's why I propose that the cost to using these shuttles be Factional. The person who set up the camp can use the factional terminal (maybe also a requirement to make cost higher, the evac shuttle won't work without a factional terminal) to spend x ammount of faction points to call a shuttle to evac only x number of party members to the nearest shuttle port. Those party members would also have to be the same faction.
OldOzymandius wrote:I agree with Sirglenno.
Its clear that a lot of blood, sweat, and tears have been poured into this idea, and I salute those working on it. Camps are an essential feature of the ranger, and it would be nice to do something more with them.
However, camps, as they exist now, are not technically broken. Why not focus on things that are obviously broken first? Did everyone just get tired of talking about traps so moved onto camps? Traps, except perhaps the phecnacine dart, are fairly useless, and that is a major skill line for rangers.
My comments on Version 3 remain for this new proposal as well. The presentation and the implementation is way to complicated. Consider how long the developers have already worked on the game, and we've only gotten rudimentary camps. Why do we think that camps will suddenly get more attention than that? If we must focus on camps, my recommendation is to try to provide an executive summary at the top of this request that summarizes in terms of "Must Haves" and "Would Be Nices" to focus the dev team.
Thunderhart has been posting on some very ambitious plans that the devs are working on currently. They are revamping the combat and ham system and after that they will "flesh out" the professions. I take this to mean that the devs have in mind these very types of big ideas, which is why NRaas is working so hard on these ideas so he can get our ideas in their heads now while they are prepping for what seems to be some very big changes.
Things that are broke are going to get fixed one way or another, and I don't realy think that proposing such a plan will put off any fixing of existing problems any more than if we just ask for the stuff that is broke to be fixed.
The devs have already responded to our top 5 bugs and fixing camps is already on that list. What we are asking is that people think about the future, like 2 or 3 months ahead. The devs will change and "flesh out" our profession no matter what. the question is, do we want them to just do it their way, or do we want to give them some ideas of what we want so they can do it our way?
Nothing wrong with giving good ideas. I just hope everyone remembers that what this thread is asking for sounds like an awful lot (compared to what we have) and is not marching around here hot headed a year from now because this wasn't implemented. If the devs do it, great! But the game has already been around for 6 months and we've seen little. I try to keep my expectations low and be surprised when something actually works right.
"That's why I propose that the cost to using these shuttles be Factional."
I'm hip to added that restriction. The only groups with the backing for a shuttle system would be the Factions, so it makes sense.