Ranger Archive

Good honest post. I agree the the ideas presented here.

Nice...

Good point RebelScout.

Another clarification. I use traps extensively and efficiently (the scout ones) while unbuffed. I do quite a bit of unbuffed hunting and i rip through traps fairly quickly. I always have a good crate or two of almost every type of trap in my house.

While buffed however, I rarely use traps. Just doesnt provide that much of an edge when you're buffed and armored to the teeth.

Ive said before, that Ranger provides some uniques abilities that support the combat ability, and when used well, Rangers can be very effective.

---

Calculus_Entropy wrote:

Sure...Agon drops Ranger and everyone is all hunkey-dorey. I suggest that I may drop it, and I get whupped on! Sheesh !

---

/tickle!

---

Phenix1050 wrote:

ahhhh.

you know what else I like? this shade of red. I might make all my posts in this color. it's a real attention grabber. See? Normally you wouldn't read a post by a Bothan, but now you can't look away. The red is drawing you in...drawing you in....drawing you in........

---

+dizzy+

/falls on Bothan


On another note: excellent post Draknev! I especially like the Creature Damage mitigation. In our profession we have been given several tools to help us avoid combat with dangerous animals - but who really wants to do that? We want to survive combat with them better. If we were given abilities that would help us resemble brawler type toughness solely against creatures it would give us quite a boost on hunting. Even a trap that would reliably ROOT high level creatures for a long enough time to control a mob and not be so slow that you are killed off before you can throw the second one would be a benefit But I won't join the FIX TRAPS corus in this post.

I also like the /rescue suggestion but I still don't think it would the danger of almost-immediate death. I would rather see it cause the animal to stop, and break aggro (get dstracted), then retarget myself, even if I did do damage to it.

I'd also like to split the argument somewhat:
What would make us better hunters: The ability to withstand damage from and cause damage to creatures.
What would make us better resource gatherers: Higher harvest bonus.

I think your suggestions will make the actual process of hunting more enjoyable. The ability to harvest more would make it more profitable. Without your suggestions the increased harvest won't mean much - unless you go for solely low-to-mid-level creatures. Without the increased harvest we will still feel like we have a pretty weak skill.

I'd be overjoyed if we were to get these suggestions in the combat balance.

---

Vorpaks wrote:

---

Calculus_Entropy wrote:

---

Rancorrider4 wrote:

This is great stuff. My only concern here is that there is quite a bit involved. Wouldn't the dev's see this as a "revamp"? My other concern is that it basically subscribes to the original "creature centric" view that we disagreed with when the Dev's presented their vision of us a while back.

I am among the few apparently, who feel that Ranger's could be a lot more than just a creatuer hunter. Why else would we be cert'ed for the Mandalorian Armor? Do we really need that to be able to go out and hunt? I think not. I would like these things listed, they are great ideas, but I also don't want to see us limited to just being hunter's. There have been threads upon threads of commentary about us being a somewhat "para-military" type of Ranger.

I am just playing Devil's Advocate here for a moment. Draknev is my business partner, fellow member of the LRC, and my best friend in the game. I only want to make the point that the creature centric vision was what caused us to all but revolt to begin with and create The Outdoorsman Proposal.

THanks for this thread Draknev. Very well done.

Respectfully,

---

Do you really want an answer to that? I think we all have our suspicions .

---

We do??? Tell tell!!! Pleeease? I'll be the first to admit I am not up on all my star wars literature - is there a precedent for this somewhere? I've been hypothesizing stuff having to do with Jedi since mando protects from Lightsabers... ok. Im not going to hijack. Can you start a new thread with an explanation? Or tell me if there are existing threads and I'll ferret... er... wookiee them out.

Message Edited by Vorpaks on 06-15-2004 03:56 PM

---

Well, that backfired...thanks Paks! I was implying that I think that is a 'throw us a bone' kind of addition. There is no precedent for ANYONE (except for the Fetts and a few others? Wasn't there some guy running around in Mando armor pretending to be Boba?) to have the armor.

My theory of the Mandalorian Cert goes as such:

One day, devs finally get the green light to include the Mandalorian Armor that the BH's have been crying about since day 1.

So they sit back and think... what professions should get the cert?

Dev 1: Bounty Hunters?
The Rest of the devs: ok, we got 1
Dev 2: Commandos, they are a pure combat class that kick arse.
The Rest of the devs: good point... they really embody a Mandalorian Warrior Image.
Lead Dev: We gotta think of 2 more classes to give the cert to.
Dev 3: Image Designers, cause they do stuff.
Lead Devs: Nah, they just got a revamp.
Dev 4: Junk Dealers?
Lead Dev: Great Idea.. oh wait, they arent a profession
Dev 5: Squad Leaders or Smugglers?
Lead Dev: Uh... yes on Squad Leaders, and if we include the cert on Smugglers it will delay their revamp another 3 months.
Dev 6: Sheesh, Calculus_Entropy and his band of rangers just asked for a small harvesting bonus again...
Lead Dev: Lets give them the cert... thatll shut em up for a while.


Ok... on to the real part.

Thanks for the support, and yes, I do see this as much more of a revamp of the ranger profession. However... if we all want to pick one idea that seems reasonable, we might be able to push it for a correspondent issue request.

I do well with the role as harvester... but Rangers are so much more than that.

Creature Damage Mitigation:
Ive done some thinking on that one, and here is an idea.

Assuming you already have some sort of damage mitigation from a combat profession, this would stack on top of that with being a Ranger... tied into the survival xp line.
Creature Damage Mitigation I: Reduces damage from animals by 10%
CDM II: 15%
CDM III (at master ranger): 20%

Stacked with a master combat profession, this would give us an 80% resists to creature attacks.

If there is a way to give a +to hit with animals, then there must be a programming structure that exists to separate animals vs. NPC's and PC's.

just my thoughts.

oh and calc...

Mitigation is not the same as resistance. It reduces their spread, but does not lower damage below that minimum. Toughness is more like resistance.

If a creature has a damage rating of 390-490, and you have +50 mitigation, that range is cut to 390-440. The problem comes from creatures that do say 490-510. That mitigates to 490-500 with that same +50 bonus...

Creature toughness would be a better request than mitigation, and is what I believe most people mean when they talk about mitigation. If it gets pushed, let's make sure we are pushing the proper concept.

---

Seiryuu wrote:
Mitigation is not the same as resistance. It reduces their spread, but does not lower damage below that minimum. Toughness is more like resistance.

If a creature has a damage rating of 390-490, and you have +50 mitigation, that range is cut to 390-440. The problem comes from creatures that do say 490-510. That mitigates to 490-500 with that same +50 bonus...

Creature toughness would be a better request than mitigation, and is what I believe most people mean when they talk about mitigation. If it gets pushed, let's make sure we are pushing the proper concept.

---

I seem to remember the knowledge base specifying Mitigation as reducing the range that the damage can do. Mitigation 1 was 20%, 2 was 40%, 3 was 60%. The minimum damage stays the same. The maximum damage = (max-min)*(1.0- 0.6)+ min (for mitigation 3). Creature Toughness would be a better skill mod although both are useful.

Edit: Messed up formula for max damage.

Message Edited by Nemo0 on 06-15-2004 10:37 PM