Ranger Archive
Thread: Ranger Revamp: The Focus (Tier Names)
I disagree. Recon can fit under Survivalist, not really the other way around. The literal meaning of Recon is : a preliminary survey to gain information; especially : an exploratory military survey of enemy territory
Neither stealth nor tracking are required for Recon. Though of course they are helpful. Which is why I see it as part of Survivalist and not the other way around. Nor is all Recon done in the wilderness. There is air recon, satalite recon, etc. Survivalist is a sufficiently broad term but it also is used to specifically refer to a wilderness setting.
As for ambush. Yes you can use traps to lead off an ambush. But traps themselves are not the ambush. It's the following fire that is the ambush. You can set a trap and leave it (though not in SWG of course since they are thrown). If a unit is walking thru the woods and falls into that hole is that an ambush? I'd say no since there is no follow up.
I'm not sure on how you are wanting traps to work. Looking at some of the info it appears you may be asking for the drop variety.
And yes I agree with you that Sniping and Ambush are different.
As you said in the original post. The names themselves are very important.
Owen-Lars wrote:
What im saying though is that in order to perform those tasks and especialy the part about 'Exploratory' surveying you would need to know how to survive to do so. I wouldnt mind at all going the survival route, but it could be restrictive in certain areas afterall surviving is just er surviving. Hunting is not surviving in swg, its monkey gathering, its for run and loot (soon to be).
Not exactly. The exploratory part is part of the military part. Nor do you need to know how to survive to do so. Many recon missions take place in that they don't require extended stays in the in Wilderness where survival is required.
Those that do frequently have resupply where they don't have to worry about it. Those that are done long term without resupply are done by Commando units (real Commandos not the SWG version) that have been specifically trained for such.
Surviving isn't as restrictive as it appears. And it does include hunting. To survive in the wilderness you need to be able to eat and drink. That means knowing how to hunt and trap food. Along with foraging for native foods. It also includes the building of shelters (camps) and the identification and knowledge of the animals and which can be deadly (creature bonuses).
There are two forms of Rangers which I think you are confusing. There are the Wilderness Survival Ranger types. And there are the military Ranger types. They are not the same thing. The Wilderness Ranger is like the Grizzly Adams type. Frontiersman that lived and survived out in the wild during the old west period. That is the type of Ranger I see you as as it fits with your skills.
Military Rangers are now light infantry. However in the past they were Commandos. They are military units which would mean a combat pre-req. They didn't deal with hunting animals but in light infantry high risk target captures.
If you are trying to make them more military Ranger like, then you are trying to actually make them into Commandos (real ones, not SWG version which are just hvy weapon specialists). There is a major difference between the two. A military Ranger lacks many of the skills of the outdoors Ranger. They generally are not trained in traps or in tracking for example. They are trained in military tactics which don't include those.
Military traps are of the mine variety. They don't make the mine, they just place it and use it. The military doesn't really teach tracking either. Tracking skills are those of an outdoorsman.
Though outdoors training would be of limited use for a military Ranger unit. Military Ranger training would be of almost no use to the outdoors Ranger. Though they share the same name. They are completely different skill sets.
WildBil2Me wrote:
Waste,
I see no reason why the 4 tiers of Ranger can't build up to a Master Ranger that encompasses both of your definitions of Ranger. We're not asking for weapon certs or skills beyond trapping so the "combat base" your concerned about really isn't that important. Rangers still would need to grab a weapon set to be effective.
One is a combat and one isn't. Asking for a military build would require a miltary (combat) pre-req.
And you aren't asking for weapons certs,,,,, yet. But once you start down the military road that is the natural progression. If you have military skills logic dictates the need for military equipment. Which also leads to military (combat)skill requests. Trapping is a combat skill, however it isn't a military skill.
The names themselves are important. As it leads to expectations based on that title. Words mean things. People say Riflemen are 'Snipers' not because we have any real sniping skills, but because we have that title. Commandos were highly upset when their flamethrower branch was title Grenadier. There was a large debate about the term Combat Medic since they aren't medics as much as Bio-Weapon specialists. So I disagree, titles are very important.
Ace3227 wrote:I think ranger should focus on resource gathering since thats the only real way us rangers can make money. Just my 2 cents.
I didn't want you to think you were getting lost in the shuffle there.
I think that resource collecting has become our primary role over time because harvesting and tracking are our two really useful skills. The other skills, not being very useful, have kind of faded into the background. While resource gathering is a very valuable skill and what we have based most of our characters and thought-processes around, it is a rather limited focus for a three-master profession like Ranger. You can get the inorganic equivalent of this skill with a single line (surveying) of the artisan profession. I never want to see resource collecting go away (and being a PvE kind of person it will probably always be MY main focus), but I would like to see our skills broadened so that there are other things we do well besides harvesting.
I think with these new focuses Owen and the others are trying to open up some other avenues for Rangers to use their skills (the dusty ones that have been sitting on the shelf for so long) and possibly some new ways to make monkey. One of the main thrusts here (I think) is to open up some of the content like PvP and the GCW that Ranger skills so far do not have a clearly defined application for (though I've seen some creative uses of man tracking).
Waste93 wrote:
WildBil2Me wrote:
Waste,
I see no reason why the 4 tiers of Ranger can't build up to a Master Ranger that encompasses both of your definitions of Ranger. We're not asking for weapon certs or skills beyond trapping so the "combat base" your concerned about really isn't that important. Rangers still would need to grab a weapon set to be effective.
One is a combat and one isn't. Asking for a military build would require a miltary (combat) pre-req.
And you aren't asking for weapons certs,,,,, yet. But once you start down the military road that is the natural progression. If you have military skills logic dictates the need for military equipment. Which also leads to military (combat)skill requests. Trapping is a combat skill, however it isn't a military skill.
The names themselves are important. As it leads to expectations based on that title. Words mean things. People say Riflemen are 'Snipers' not because we have any real sniping skills, but because we have that title. Commandos were highly upset when their flamethrower branch was title Grenadier. There was a large debate about the term Combat Medic since they aren't medics as much as Bio-Weapon specialists. So I disagree, titles are very important.
I'm lost as to your motivation here Waste. Is it your feeling that the Ranger profession should have no skills that aid in PvP?
Your feeling that Recon and Ambush Specialist are out of context seems to rely on thisidea you have that Ranger is a non-military profession. More specifically you seem sure that Ranger should not have any "military" skills. Does that mean you feel we should only have skills that aid in fighting Creatures?
I've said from the begining of this exchange that I feel that Ranger should most definitely have some of what you describe as "military" skills. I'm just not sure why you think we shouldn't. Maybe an explanation of why you think these are out of place can make me better understand where your thoughts arecoming from.
WildBil2Me wrote:
Your feeling that Recon and Ambush Specialist are out of context seems to rely on thisidea you have that Ranger is a non-military profession. More specifically you seem sure that Ranger should not have any "military" skills. Does that mean you feel we should only have skills that aid in fighting Creatures?
Their main focus is creature fighting. That doesn't mean that they don't also have some skills for PvP. TN is a no brainer and I agree that traps should work on NPCs and PCs. But those aren't military skills. Those are outdoors skills. As are all the rest of their skills.
Building camps from native sources isn't generally taught in the military. It's a survival skill. Tracking isn't taught in the military, it's an outdoors/survival skill. I could go through each skill and point out the same thing. They are outdoors skills. Not military ones. Most soldiers aren't taught camoflauge skills. They are issued camo clothing and may be taught to use some face paint. But the use of native materials to make a camo suit (ghillie suit?) is a specialized trait that is taught to a few select. But that specialized training started with the game wardens (Rangers).
That doesn't mean that they don't have some crossover ability of course. Knowing how to track animals also makes it possible to track people. Learning to hide your movements and scent from animals helps in doing so from people also. Knowing how to set a trap for animals can also work on people.
I've said from the begining of this exchange that I feel that Ranger should most definitely have some of what you describe as "military" skills. I'm just not sure why you think we shouldn't. Maybe an explanation of why you think these are out of place can make me better understand where your thoughts arecoming from.
Because Ranger in this context isn't the military version. Its the outdoorsman version. The military context you are looking at are actually Commandos. The military skills you are talking about aren't Ranger skills, they are Commando skills.
As they are Commando skills (military) and the fact that the pre-reqs for Ranger do not include ANY military (combat) pre-reqs. Then they appear to be obviously out of place.
I know you won't agree with this. But Ranger isn't a combat profession. It may be a combat augmentation profession, but it isn't a direct combat profession. You can level Ranger without being involved in combat at all. Can you not?
Well not completely. Trap XP is combat XP. So that is the one exception. But you can level Scout and Wilderness XP without any combat at all.
Ok, in short see Owen's above post to sum up all my arguments! 
When I hear Ambush Specialist I think of someone or a group hiding in the bush waiting to attack someone else.
I think thats kind of what we are going for isn't it? The whole camo effect?
The Wilderness Ranger is like the Grizzly Adams type. Frontiersman that lived and survived out in the wild during the old west period. That is the type of Ranger I see you as as it fits with your skills.
And I think this is what about 50% of the Rangers see themselves as - but what is the use for this kind of Ranger in the game? RP is nice and all, but useful skills are better in my opinion. I am not an RP'er though myself. Also, what about the rest of the Rangers? There is a very large contigent of Rangers who do see themselves as military Rangers and Owen needs to represent those people as well. And you have to always remember this game is based on star wars. It is not LOTR or the Old West or Yellowstone or any of that. There is a Galactic Civil War going on and people are going to use the skills they have (camo and survival) to best serve their cause and their war (stealth, recon, etc.)
One is a combat and one isn't. Asking for a military build would require a miltary (combat) pre-req.
Well first - why? And second most Rangers do have a combat profession. The roles and skills of Ranger are meant to enhance this profession. In the ambush example you listed above this seems to work perfectly. THe Ranger skills allow for the concealment, the combat skills allow for the beat-down afterwards.
Military Ranger training would be of almost no use to the outdoors Ranger. Though they share the same name. They are completely different skill sets.
I disagree - I think a lot of military skills would help a wilderness survivalist and I KNOW a lot of military personnel are trained in wilderness survival.Ala Greg Brown even.
And you aren't asking for weapons certs,,,,, yet. But once you start down the military road that is the natural progression. If you have military skills logic dictates the need for military equipment. Which also leads to military (combat) skill requests. Trapping is a combat skill, however it isn't a military skill.
Would there be a problem with asking for weapon certs? Is remaining a triple master profession necessary? And why are weapon certs automatically "military" skills? I use my weapon skills for hunting mainly. And I use my weapon skills to kill storm troopers. The weapon itself is not one or the other - its how you use it. And that is an RP choice, not something that should be decided by what profession you take.
If you are trying to make them more military Ranger like, then you are trying to actually make them into Commandos (real ones, not SWG version which are just hvy weapon specialists). There is a major difference between the two. A military Ranger lacks many of the skills of the outdoors Ranger. They generally are not trained in traps or in tracking for example. They are trained in military tactics which don't include those.
You are right, I persoanlly don't think of our in-game Commandos as being very stealth (grin) especially not with those huge explosions, damn lag pistols. But I don't quite see your point. The type of fighter this document seems to lay out is someone who IS well trained in survival and uses that training to enhance his/her combat profession. If we are trying to make Rangers into RL commandos, and commandos dont have survival skills... then I really don't think we are trying to turn Rangers into RL commandos. We defintely want to keep our survival and stealth skills.
Their main focus is creature fighting. That doesn't mean that they don't also have some skills for PvP. TN is a no brainer and I agree that traps should work on NPCs and PCs. But those aren't military skills. Those are outdoors skills. As are all the rest of their skills.
Is crawling speed really useful in PvP? If traps worked on NPC and PCs they would be military skills - using a weapon against a person is no longer hunting, it is war. Yes, right now our skills are all outdoors skills, but we expect that to change so that we are more useful and versatile as a profession, and not gated from a huge amount of game content.
Most soldiers aren't taught camoflauge skills.
Our kind is. That is why we are not suggesting putting survival skills into the combat professions like commando or rifleman or pikeman. Normal soldiers would not have this training. However a soldier agumented by survival skills (ie: Ranger) would be able to use those skills to fight tactically in situations where it would be useful.
Learning to hide your movements and scent from animals helps in doing so from people also. Knowing how to set a trap for animals can also work on people.
That is what we are hoping for. To be able to be stealthy against PCs and NPCs the same way we are stealthy against animals would open up huge opporunities for the professiona dn also fulfill the vision of Ranger that many palyers have. Being able to use traps against PCs would be excellent, provided of course that traps are revamped to bring their damage dealing and effects in-line with what you can get in a specials line of a combat profession.
Because Ranger in this context isn't the military version. Its the outdoorsman version.
Actually Ranger does not have a defined vision - that is what we are creating here.
You can level Ranger without being involved in combat at all. Can you not? Well not completely. Trap XP is combat XP. So that is the one exception. But you can level Scout and Wilderness XP without any combat at all.
What would be the point of doing this? Our main skill right now is organic resource collecting - are you saying we should follow around combat professions and harvest what they kill? This sounds extremely unnattractive and unfun. No, to PLAY Ranger you really do need a combat profession. Saying otherwise is semantics... lol - plus the same sort of argument can be used for a lot of things. You can technically level up rifleman only using a CDEF rifle right? So why do you even need all those other certs? /shudder Having leveled rifleman three times I can tell you what kind of reply I would have for that. 1. I would be 50 before I mastered. 2. How effective woud I be with only a CDEF??
You guys type too fast. Sorry if any of this is out of order. I am confused on one point - how did "military" and Commandos come into the argument? I thought we were talking about stealth recon here? I have to reiterate Commandos=not stealthy at ALL. Rangers=stealthy (or so our camo suggests ) No one is claiming that Rangers should run around with flamethrowers and pwn all. They are just saying that there should be applications for our skills that allow us to contribute usefull to areas like PvP and the GCW. Things that would make us useful and wanted in a group.
Phew, I know I missed a ton. Oh yes... if we are rethinking the main focus title then I would say not "survivalist" please. It has too many negative connotations (there is no need for wilderness survival and probably never will be). Plus it is a passive word. We want an active word that will get people excited. Recon is an active word, so I'd rather stick with that one if a better one does not emerge.
Message Edited by Vorpaks on 12-23-2004 01:36 PM
yours will make more sense.