Ranger Archive
Thread: New Ranger Theory
Then are we inventing our own flavor of Ranger based on the fantasy version (DnD etc)? I have ask this question before so I will ask again here. What role do Rangers play in the actual Star Wars lore? Were they "uber" hunters or something else? I can't answer that question because I am not really familiar with the Star Wars Ranger outside of the game. I personally would be happy with any flavor of Ranger as long as the cost/benefit for becoming one works out.
BioEngine wrote:
I agree with Paks. We need to be the ultimate outdoorsmen.
A vast majority of every planet is uninhabited by buildings and structures. This should be our playground, where we call no one our betters. We should be able to make total use of the natural environments around us.
It seems that making suggestions and brainstorming does nothing, however, because things are only shaped by feedback. They are not assembled with the community's suggestions in mind at the start.
The only things I have read on Rangers in the Star War mythos is they were trouble shooters for the Jedi.
I have not seen anything on Sector Rangers or how they worked within the Imperil framework.
Some how in the Star Wars mythos I never envisioned someone having to go out and hunt hides and meat 24\7 to keep the Replubic operating.
I always hope there would be more to Rangers than just mobile harvestor status.
Serraphin wrote: Then are we inventing our own flavor of Ranger based on the fantasy version (DnD etc)? I have ask this question before so I will ask again here. What role do Rangers play in the actual Star Wars lore? Were they "uber" hunters or something else? I can't answer that question because I am not really familiar with the Star Wars Ranger outside of the game. I personally would be happy with any flavor of Ranger as long as the cost/benefit for becoming one works out.
Someone brought up a good point recently - what are Chef's based off of? What are Architects based off of? I assume they are based off of the fact that there are both food and structures in the Star Wars universe. Structures, in fact, play a vital role in the Star Wars movies. They set the scene, the tone, they create the place we are transported to in our imaginations. Mos Eisley city, the base on Hoth, the Death Star. Even more important than the structures are the planets themselves. When you think of any scene in the movies the planets those scenes take place on are strongly in our minds. Tatooine, Hoth, Dagobah.
Star Wars Galaxies has created immense and amazing worlds to pay homage to these vivid places and images. Worlds filled with so much detail that I still see new things in them every day I play. This was a massive investment of time and resources and I believe that the Scout and Ranger professions were created to take advantage of this aspect of the game. Why have creatures at all in the game? They rarely fought creaturs in the movies. We need creatures because, I think, that they are important to the world, and the world is important to create the illusion that we really are living within the Star Wars universe. And if you have gone through all that work to create a world and the creatures within it, why not create professions that take advantage of these aspects? Bio Engineer, Creature Handler, Ranger.
It is true I have never watched the movies and thought "Oh look, a Ranger!" But then again I have never watched the movies and thought "Oh look, a Rifleman!" I have seen people using rifles, which implies they have training (hopefully), but I have also seen people negotiationg terrain, using traps (okay, granted those were Ewoks
), and using camoflage.I don't want anything that will degrade the Star Wars feel of the game (anymore than it is) but I am not so worried about where we appear in the movies. Like you, I really just want the cost/benefit to be worth it.
Phenix1050 wrote:
groundcrew wrote:
Great post P
I like the idea of us being a Combat Enhancement, but the problem I see is this. Every other combat oriented profession can carry out what they do and stand alone accept Scouts / Rangers. With out an additional combat profession Rangers can't hunt. Our traps lay down great states but none of them are lethal. The best we can do as just a Master Ranger is support a group. BH can hunt jedi and NPC's withno additional profession.
In my opinion we should be atleast granted the ability to do our job.Near as i can tell that job is Critter hunting, however with Player and NPC tracking in our /areatrack ability and Cammo that hides us from NPC'sthat makes us a Survivalists, and a Guerilla warriors. ProfessionalPartisans if you will.
(no flame intended)
actually, that's exactly what makes this theory so applicable-- Enhancers themselves have no damage-dealing potential. They have states and offensive specials that augment and enhance their ability to do damage, but as far as I can tell, their abilities are purely augmentive.
By seperating combat from combat enhancement, we have the ability to give us a more definite role. Sure, rangers are good hunters, but knowing how to get next to a creature to kill it is half the battle. I can set up a hunting blind pretty well. I know how to hunt and get to my prey. But none of that is important if I can't shoot straight.
We could be guerilla warriors, but without a way to do damage, we'd be pretty ineffective. In the same way that a Master Enhancer, Master Healer, Defender 4040 isn't a good damage dealer, I'm not convinced Ranger should be a damage-dealing profession. Combat speed mods, and a haste special would go a long way to ensure that a Ranger/Rifleman is more effective than just a Rifleman, though, which is our goal.
The role of combat enhancer is also not creature-exclusive so this would be a good way of allowing us to get involved in the GCW and PvP, but not make us a cookiee-cutter profession.
/agree
I like it.......I wouldnt mind Defense mods in the least. WhileI love being an expert hunter and tracker anything that would make us better at PvP and PvE(GCW) I'm all for.
new thread coming soon guys. This one was simply to discuss the theory (which I think we all did rather well), but I'm currently writing a thread to try and pin down how we could implement the "enhancer" theory without giving up our role as wilderness experts.
My main problem seems to be coming up with the proper language to describe what I want. I still want us to be a role-playing profession-- a profession with a story, like Squad Leader, Bounty Hunter, Smuggler, etc. We are the Masters of the Wilderness, that is our "role". But DURING combat, we need to have a role as well, and "master of the wilderness/outdoorsman" is too aspecific to really create anything around. Our "combat role" should be enhancement, but that doesn't mean losing our overall role of being Outdoorsmen and Outdoorswomen.
I think the creature harvesting tree should be moved out of Ranger.
It doesn't bring in the credits anymore, and I doubt that tree will be enhanced at all since the Devs feel that it is such a wonderful bonus to our profession that putting anything else in that tree will unbalance it / make it overpowered in comparison to the others.
We are and have always been geared towards wilderness. The dilema is, 'the wilderness' isn't very clear cut in terms of what we should be able fight against. Humanoid conflict occurs in the wilderness in every movie. That alone means we can't completely rule out combat with NPCs. However, if we stick with the classic view, as the devs appear to want to, we are intended to be better vs. critters than we are vs. humanoids.
It is apparent that anyone can argue for any number of idealogues for Ranger in SWG. The problem is, everyone is right, in what they think Ranger should be.
This is a great conversation, btw.
BioEngine wrote:I think the creature harvesting tree should be moved out of Ranger.
It doesn't bring in the credits anymore, and I doubt that tree will be enhanced at all since the Devs feel that it is such a wonderful bonus to our profession that putting anything else in that tree will unbalance it / make it overpowered in comparison to the others.
So, the skill should be moved becuase it is as good as it is going to be, and it can't make you money?!?!?! That's messed up.
Calculus_Entropy wrote:
We are and have always been geared towards wilderness. The dilema is, 'the wilderness' isn't very clear cut in terms of what we should be able fight against. Humanoid conflict occurs in the wilderness in every movie. That alone means we can't completely rule out combat with NPCs. However, if we stick with the classic view, as the devs appear to want to, we are intended to be better vs. critters than we are vs. humanoids.
This is a great conversation, btw.
I don't really have a problem with that. My problem is that just about every other combat prof is better vs both than we are.
al-djinn'i
Master Ranger
Calculus_Entropy wrote:
One thing I think is pretty obvious is that the devs did NOT implement Rangers in SWG as Antarian Rangers. I have often said that the only similarity is the word "Ranger" in the name. I think that if you look at our skillset, you can pretty obvioulsy see that we are based on the 'classic' view of Rangers.
We are and have always been geared towards wilderness. The dilema is, 'the wilderness' isn't very clear cut in terms of what we should be able fight against. Humanoid conflict occurs in the wilderness in every movie. That alone means we can't completely rule out combat with NPCs. However, if we stick with the classic view, as the devs appear to want to, we are intended to be better vs. critters than we are vs. humanoids.
It is apparent that anyone can argue for any number of idealogues for Ranger in SWG. The problem is, everyone is right, in what they think Ranger should be.
This is a great conversation, btw.
I hate the fact that we are creature centric. It's as if the Devs stole "Favored enemy" from the D and D handbook, which is absurd. We do not focus on fighting a particular type of enemy, but fighting in a particular type of environment. Instead of accuracy versus creature, it should be accuracy while prone or while motionless or while moving. Instead of Creature Knowledge, it should be universally applied to enemies. We should be able to see the armor resistances of enemy players, their accuracy and defense modifiers, and their min and max damage with the weapon they are holding.
Isn't it the single reason for us being creature-centric? This tree is specifically dedicated to serving a single purpose in the SWG economy, and is the single reason people have Ranger alts following them while out "hunting." The only justification people used for obtaining Ranger for the wrong reasons was that "Rangers make a ****load of credits." Is this really the reason that the Devs think we can wait for our revamp? Because we still have something to get by on? Creature Harvesting is the only reason we are creature centric. All of the other branches are almost solely focused on killing a creature in order for that single tree of Scout and Ranger to be used. Once the need to kill creatures is removed, the other branches can focus on non-PvCreature aspects of this game.
Calculus_Entropy wrote:
BioEngine wrote:
I think the creature harvesting tree should be moved out of Ranger.
It doesn't bring in the credits anymore, and I doubt that tree will be enhanced at all since the Devs feel that it is such a wonderful bonus to our profession that putting anything else in that tree will unbalance it / make it overpowered in comparison to the others.
So, the skill should be moved becuase it is as good as it is going to be, and it can't make you money?!?!?! That's messed up.
Edit: I should say I don't mind the creature to hit mods, resists vs. creatures etc., as long as they make these meaningful bonuses. Too often I am left scratcing my head and wondering - is this really doing anything?
Message Edited by Vorpaks on 09-07-2005 03:14 PM
Message Edited by Calculus_Entropy on 09-07-2005 02:06 PM