Ranger Archive
Thread: Wise words...
To be honest Im suprised you didnt reply with your canned "What would you to like to see Ranger become". Normally Im a very quiet, very happy fanboy. But that reply just gets me all worked up. All the information has been there for 18 months from all our various correspondents and contributors.
Lets add that SOE took away our advanced cover proposal, someone must have read Fred Skinners Stealth proposal, and fed it to the Rifleman instead of us. First telling us it was impossible and then strangley the new cover looks exactly as he proposed A YEAR AGO!
Really TH stop patronizing us. I have my two accounts still. I want a reason to play. I have my station players on my main account and keep playing EQ2 and even Planetside because I cant find a good reason to come back into here. Plus we, the alpha testers, fed you enough info in the CURB Alpha as well that was ignored.
But the curse of the devtracker states that this thread will get flooded because TH posted in it with stuff that has nothing to do with this thread.
Calculus_Entropy wrote:
Can anyone show me where a dev has said that we (Rangers) would get anything from the CU?
No need to be quite so literal, it is humour you know?
edit - actually i think that answer was said three times in the curb. Phenix was working hard to get banned but was pretty much ignored
Message Edited by Fodder650 on 06-02-2005 07:13 PM
CuchulainnDarklight wrote:
Calculus_Entropy wrote:
Can anyone show me where a dev has said that we (Rangers) would get anything from the CU?
No need to be quite so literal, it is humour you know?I use it to deflect the feelings I have over the way rangers, the ranger profession and the SWG community as a whole is treated by SOE.I find it a much better alternative to filling a big bucket with sand and slowly inserting my head into said sand whilst repeating over and over ad infinitum "The devs will help us it isnt as bad as it seems, the devs will help us it isnt as bad as it seems ............!"
Sorry, you aren't the first person to use this arguement (I wasn't calling you out, just pointing out that that arguement is invalid). I was still in the know at the time, and I never heard a Dev tell us we would get anything. As Fodder said, we were always told we would get nothing.
Calculus_Entropy wrote:
Sorry, you aren't the first person to use this arguement (I wasn't calling you out, just pointing out that that arguement is invalid). I was still in the know at the time, and I never heard a Dev tell us we would get anything. As Fodder said, we were always told we would get nothing.
Actually that isnt strictly true as Rangers as a whole were not told they would not get anything from the CU right from the start but I understand what you mean!
However, one slight mistake in an arguement does not make the whole argument invalid!
It is quite clear that SOE have absolutely NO intention of fixing ranger at the moment and this is borne out with them retreating back to the communication they used at the games LAUNCH when asking for ideas from rangers when they promised to fix it THEN. If they hadnt stolen some of the best ideas of this forum, said they did it themselves, and gave those skills to other professions, then they wouldnt have to ask for ideas as they could use the ones we have already come up with. Such as Rifleman stealth!
Cananyone point to any communication from the Devs that they havent said before which states that ranger will be addressed?
Look, this isnt very hard to fix. Get just plain obnoxious about it.
1. Put a bright red paragraph at the very top of the EULA we "accept" every time we play the game. The paragraph reads:
I understand and accept that every single post made by any and alldevelopers (aka "red names")on the official Galaxies forums at "forums.station.sony.com" is the personal opinion of that Developer, and has no bearing on the official policies and plans for SOE in regards to this game. No posts should be viewed as a "promise" by a Developer to do or not do anything. Any schedules can change so the feature being discussedmay possiblyNOT happen when we say it will. Implementation of any new features, quests, items, rewards, enhancement, balances, items, or any sort of adjustments to gameplay will never be promised to happen when is posted. We may discard features, or announce unplanned features at any time. The only excption to ll this is if a Developer puts the follwoing at the top of the post: "This is an official SOE announcement". If that happens, it is a sign from SOE that we will be standing behind that one specific post.
Developers will have conversations on the forums, and talk about new or old ideas, speculate how things may or not work, suggest modifications to players idea's, and guess at when or if something is going to happen. Nothing the Devs say is guarantee'd to happen, unless it has the above statement about it being an "official SOE announcement"!
2. Send an in-game email to every single character with the about paragraphs.
3. Send a regular email to every active forum account with the above parargraphs.
4. Require every single Dev to have a link in their sig linking to this in the EULA posted on the SOE web site.
Problem solved. If they did that, then there should be no issue permanently banning anyone who tries to say that a dev promised them anything.
The plain and simple fact is that we have TWO SOE employee's whos JOB it is to communicate with us, and there is very little happening. As the above poster said, its better to have you dealing with the jerks who cant read while you put some effort into TALKING with us than it is for you to LURK for fear of upsetting some moron who cant read.
Owen-Lars wrote:
Ive been saying that for a long time and i think how people name posts and how they adress issues have changed considerably recently.
There was a reason why so many posts were getting deleted and this was because although some were not inviting flames in body of the thread, the title itself set the completely wrong tone.
Calculus_Entropy wrote:
Can anyone show me where a dev has said that we (Rangers) would get anything from the CU?
Calculus_Entropy wrote:
Can anyone show me where a dev has said that we (Rangers) would get anything from the CU?
Calc, (PS: I may be wrong about TH stating that we would be addressed in the Combat Balance it looks like it was Holocron back then)
Perhaps you can find the original link this cited:
http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=ranger&message.id=47623#M47623
Its at the very top of discussion:
Ranger In August of 2003, Holocron posted in the Ranger forum regarding the lack of uniqness to the Ranger profession. The post stated 'The focus of this post will be on how we are making Ranger different from scout. Ideologically, the ranger is still a "super scout."' This post then went on to list many ways to improve the Ranger profession. Since then we have had only two things implemented (/areatrack and /camo) from that list, and both of those were unintentionally nerfed. /areatrack is nullified by player cities, spawn rates and vehicles; /camo was broken in a patch so that it doesn't work on most NPCs and in general is worse (costs resources and breaks far too easily) than /maskscent, a Scout skill.
What are the plans, if any, to differentiate the Ranger profession from the Scout profession and will this happen in the form of a Revamp or can it be done via minipublishes/hotfixes?
There are many excellent points and the Ranger community has done an great job bringing many great ideas to the development team and the dev team has also been kicking around some ideas also. The plan is to improve their combat usefulness in the CB and address other items on the schedule under the “Correspondent Issues” umbrella. I know the answer will probably be seen as a little vague, but the truth is that we are focused on all of the item’s in JustG’s letter and that’s a huge development effort. We are focused on the things that have the biggest impact on all the players. On the brighter side, we do have a window of opportunity coming up for player correspondent issues and we will take a serious look at what can be done at that time.
Message Edited by Serraphin on 06-02-2005 04:41 PM
Message Edited by Serraphin on 06-02-2005 04:51 PM
Auraboron wrote:
It doesn't explain why he deleted the one titled FEEDBACK: An Elite Tier of PvP, after he made me aware the first one was not proper. *shrug*
Again though, he leaves off the question mark that was there.
The title was FEEDBACK: Remove Jedi from the GCW?
I was asking a question, and offering a solution to the many players on the GCW forum who regularly ask for Jedi to be removed, and to whom I always replied, "Removing Jedi from the GCW is NOT AN OPTION."
12 pages of constructive threads before the flames began.
How many threads get 12 pages of constructive posts?
*shrug*
*walks away*