Ranger Archive
Thread: Modular Camp V4...
Also I think people should understand that the plan we propose will most likely not be what the devs give us, at least not as it is laid out. The devs will take our plan and pick and choose what they want. They will add and subtract ideas to fit more closely the ideas that they already have. We may get modular camps, but not the type of mods we have suggested. Who knows. But then again we may get it all due to how well NRaas has planned it out. One thing is for certain if you ask me, if we just ask for them to fix what is broke now, we won't see those fixes for months and we'll prolly be disappointed with whatever they do give us when they come around to flesh us out.
I'd rather propose this and be disappointed that parts of it weren't implimented, than not propose this and be disappointed that none of it was implemented.
"and is not marching around here hot headed a year from now because this wasn't implemented."
Aye... Everyone must remember we mayhave no hope ofthe idea ever seeing the light of day.
But, at least it shows the developers that the branch is so lacking, that such an ambitious proposal was the only way it would be fixed, to the communities satisfaction.
It's also a shout out to who ever is listening that we are still here... Waiting.
I like the module camp V4 it sounds great!
I undertsand that we may not get this but I think it is a worth a shot to ask for it.
It would definatly add some spice to the Ranger class.
NRaas, I can't get over how many of these ideas are just your ideas. Lots of these have been argued against by us players, and not supported by other players, yet you still include them in the newer "vision" posts as if you've got the final say.
I thought you were a correspondant, not a member of the dev team. If I'm wrong, then you are doing your job right.
"Lots of these have been argued against by us players, and not supported by other players"
After that, we did several roundswhereI attempted to accomodate the detractors of the system and get them on board.
Yes, I know there are numerous players who consider the plan too audacious. Yes, I know that I did not pick up everyone that wanted a complete segregated system for the SL and Ranger camps.
But I hope the system is sufficiently accomodating to those who do like the modular concept, and did want some distinction between the camp lines but still wanted some intermixing.
And yes, many ideas fell by the wayside, simply because they did not fit what 'I' felt would make the best system that the majoirty of players would back.
First of all, I like the idea of adding more functionality to Ranger-made products, because Ranger is a more elite profession and because the products could use improvement. However, I do not agree with this vision for camps in its entirety.
Camps are very simple products made to be used frequently, and in a number of locations, and are made by a profession that is not a "crafting" profession. Adding more steps to the camp creation process might allow us more flexibility and customization, but the flexibility and customization should be the goal. I get the strong impression that you (NRaas) are focusing much more on simply adding stuff for the sake of adding stuff rather than paying attention to how the final design will be used by the players.
1. Camps should also have the inherent quality of repelling nearby creatures. I have yet to see any solid arguments to say why this should be removed as a basic function of camps, and added as a module instead. The only reason I've seen so far is that this being a module adds to the number of possible modules.
2. This latest Camp vision lists far too many modules. Even the most complicated foods, which can be used by professions who can't make the foods themselves, aren't this complicated. Camps are used frequently, and usually by players who make the camps while they're in the field. Having to carry around crates of multiple modules is a hassle that is not balanced out by the functionality of the end result. This design, with so many types and levels of modules available, seems to encourage factory-produced camps. Rangers and Scouts are not crafting professions - making it so difficult to build good camps that most would be forced to use a factory is counter-productive, and in my opinion, against the theme of the Ranger.
The end result of having better camps could be easily achieved without having multiple levels and types of modules and separating out simple and similar module affects into separate modules. I fully support Phoenix1050's idea to just give them a large bank of slots for simplification. I don't know how many more times we need to say "simplify", but apparently we aren't done yet.
3. Why were all the Ranger camp kits moved up in skill level requirements, to have a new camp added to the Novice level? This doesn't make near as much sense to me as leaving the camps where they are and adding a new Master Ranger level camp. If you're going to add something, why add something mundane when it's more simple to add something elite and exciting? This is something I've seen no support for, and only disagreement. (did I just miss it?)
4. What's the purpose of dropping the auto-healing rate of the camps down to a flat 0.10? There are already more than enough module ideas available, we don't need to make camps less useful just so we can have more module options.
5. If the dev team decides that it's more beneficial to Rangers and Scouts to take away some basic functionalities from camps to require module use just to reclaim them, the cost of camps should decrease as well.
6. I think the idea of being able to evacuate via shuttles from a camp to a town is a good idea, but I don't think adding it as a module is a good idea. If instead, droid engineers or general artisans were given the schematic for a personal escape pod, they would have a much broader market for sales, it would distribute the cost of evacuating to the players using the feature rather than the Ranger making the camp, and it would, in my opinion, be more in-line with the theme of the professions. If these escape pods could only be launched from HW, FB, or HTFB Ranger camps, then the Ranger's camp would still be required for evacuation. But, the Ranger wouldn't be the one footing the bill, which is fairly important.
(Also, I'm not sure if it's been covered, but this would just drop you off at the nearest shuttle station on the planet, right? Or would you get to choose? It being an "evacuation", choosing to go anywhere doesn't really make as much sense.)
7. If my suggestion about the evac shuttles is shot down and the developers want to see the evac shuttle as a module instead, I disagree with Eklectrick that it should have anything to do with factions. Keep in mind that there are a lot of people who couldn't give a womp rat's patoot about the GCW and would rather just play the game. All of the needs for using an evac shuttle are going to be present for non-factioned players as for factioned players, so limiting the use of this feature, if it's added, to players who care about the GCW just doesn't make sense. There are plenty of other ways that you can prevent something like this from being abused.
8. Gondo mentioned a good issue: my biggest fear are these things poping up all over the place in the heat of a battle. But adding a "time to deploy" option to camps is not a good answer. (Houses and extractors are built faster than camps? What?) But perhaps adding a deployment time to any combat-related modules would be a good idea, so that you can add a gun to your camp, but it takes a little while for it to deploy.
9. I like that some of these camps are available for Squad Leaders to build and not Rangers, but I strongly disagree with allowing them to share very much functionality. I disagree with SL camps being able to hold garages or hospital bays at all. SL camps need to have a specific focus and use that is separate from that of the Ranger camps so the two professions will compliment each other rather than overlap. I would much rather see defensive guns, faction terminals, and things of that nature limited to being available only with SL camps, and limit funtions that promote camp healing, pet support, NPC enemy repellants, and things of that nature to Ranger camps.
Here's the main distinction: Rangers have an entire skill line that requires them to get better at making and using camps, and that allows them to build better camps. Squad Leaders don't. Rangers focus on camps, Squad Leaders don't. I think it makes very little sense for the SL profession to have more than one or two other kinds of camps that are SL-specific. Otherwise we're just giving out unearned abilities, and detracting from a profession that actually works at it.
Ideas and agreements:
1. I love the idea of giving us the option to produce camps that don't all look the same (e.g. the color option in camp creation). It might also be interesting to allow the tents in camps to look different depending on the types of hides used, so you could see just by looking whether the scout/ranger used bristly, scaley, or leathery hides.
2. /changeTender is great!
After that, we did several roundswhereI attempted to accomodate the detractors of the system and get them on board.
On board your vision, not the vision that's best for the profession, and not the vision that we might all agree upon. We're all already "on board" the wagon heading for Improvement Town or we wouldn't be discussing this.
Yes, I know there are numerous players who consider the plan too audacious. Yes, I know that I did not pick up everyone that wanted a complete segregated system for the SL and Ranger camps.
Then the vision you present to the Ranger community, and especially to the development community should reflect this. Last time I checked you were a Correspondant, not the Ranger Idea Development Guy. So correspond how we feel on these issues, don't just ignore the ones that don't fit with your personal vision.
But I hope the system is sufficiently accomodating to those who do like the modular concept, and did want some distinction between the camp lines but still wanted some intermixing.
It's not sufficiently accommodating, it still needs work. Thankfully, you haven't just told us that the discussion is closed and expected us to be okay with your ideas.
And yes, many ideas fell by the wayside, simply because they did not fit what 'I' felt would make the best system that the majoirty of players would back.
You're not who gets to judge, that's the job of the developers.
See, what really bothers me is that, as Correspondant, your proposals are the ones that the developers are going to focus on, because they just don't have anything close to the time it would take to read through everyone's ideas. And yet, you aren't presenting the ideas that the community wants or agrees on, you're presenting the ideas that you personally like.
I admit that my personal vision of the Ranger changes, camp changes specifically, might be too simple, and the developers want to just really expand the Ranger profession into a crafting profession. But I want to know that they aren't being kept in the dark about my ideas too, just because you've got it in your head that it's up to you to determine what our ideas are going to be.
Remember, perception is reality. If the developers only perceive that the Ranger community wants some complex, jumbled-up, time consuming plan for camp creation, then they're going to think that we don't like simplicity, and that's patently false. Please don't just ignore us because we disagree with you.
I should add, NRaas, that I do really appreciate the work you're putting into all of this. It's obvious that you are devoting quite a bit of time to not only improving the Ranger profession, but also to keeping things organized for our sake and the sake of the developers.
I'm glad you're here.
2. This latest Camp vision lists far too many modules. Even the most complicated foods, which can be used by professions who can't make the foods themselves, aren't this complicated. Camps are used frequently, and usually by players who make the camps while they're in the field. Having to carry around crates of multiple modules is a hassle that is not balanced out by the functionality of the end result. This design, with so many types and levels of modules available, seems to encourage factory-produced camps. Rangers and Scouts are not crafting professions - making it so difficult to build good camps that most would be forced to use a factory is counter-productive, and in my opinion, against the theme of the Ranger.
I always imagined that I would have a set of pre-built camps that are geared to the type of camps that I would use. I would build them in town before I went out. I would imagine that if I were to be a part of a group, I would take some preperation and make note that there are no entertainers, so anentertainer stage would be unneccisary, but we have two doctors, so I'll be sure to make my camps for this trip with medical bays. I don't imagine that I would need to carry arround all of the avialable modules just to feel complete, nor do I think I would need a factory to build 100 identical camps. I might fill a satchel with a few of the modules just incase I have a camp pre-built that doesn't include that module. I just don't see how you can argue that now you have to carry entire crates of modules in order to fit in to this new plan.
in addition, I don't know if this is in the proposal, but to accomodate those who feel like this means they have make more room we should have a backpack that has a greater capacity. a ranger-only backpack that carries 10 more items. now you have slots for 10 crates of modules or whatever else you may think you'll need.
The end result of having better camps could be easily achieved without having multiple levels and types of modules and separating out simple and similar module affects into separate modules. I fully support Phoenix1050's idea to just give them a large bank of slots for simplification. I don't know how many more times we need to say "simplify", but apparently we aren't done yet.
I think you are ignoring the number of people signing on to this whole proposal. several people have issues, but a lot of people have no complaints. you can cry "simplify" all you want, but then a number of people already in agreement with this plan (myself included) will disagree and scream "it's too simple". so in order to fully accomidate one group NRaas has to alienate another. it is his proposal and he's trying to accomidate all he can, but he'll never accomidate all.
3. Why were all the Ranger camp kits moved up in skill level requirements, to have a new camp added to the Novice level? This doesn't make near as much sense to me as leaving the camps where they are and adding a new Master Ranger level camp. If you're going to add something, why add something mundane when it's more simple to add something elite and exciting? This is something I've seen no support for, and only disagreement. (did I just miss it?)
because the HTFB is more worthy of a master ranger, and with all camps having the same basic abilities, all that's realy changing is the name of the camps up the ladder. He could just add a camp at ranger, but what would he call it? Reeely high tech field base?
5. If the dev team decides that it's more beneficial to Rangers and Scouts to take away some basic functionalities from camps to require module use just to reclaim them, the cost of camps should decrease as well.
agreed
(Also, I'm not sure if it's been covered, but this would just drop you off at the nearest shuttle station on the planet, right? Or would you get to choose? It being an "evacuation", choosing to go anywhere doesn't really make as much sense.)
I have proposed this along with several other ways to keep abuse down.
7. If my suggestion about the evac shuttles is shot down and the developers want to see the evac shuttle as a module instead, I disagree with Eklectrick that it should have anything to do with factions. Keep in mind that there are a lot of people who couldn't give a womp rat's patoot about the GCW and would rather just play the game. All of the needs for using an evac shuttle are going to be present for non-factioned players as for factioned players, so limiting the use of this feature, if it's added, to players who care about the GCW just doesn't make sense. There are plenty of other ways that you can prevent something like this from being abused.
Think of it this way, you are calling on your commanding officer to evacuate your soldiers. you can't call the city to have a bus stop by your house to pick you up, what makes you think that the galactic travel commision is gonna make a trip out to the middle of nowhere to pick up a bunch of civilians who are too lazy to drive their speeders back to town. So what other system in place now in the game do you think would support this kind of ability?
9. I like that some of these camps are available for Squad Leaders to build and not Rangers, but I strongly disagree with allowing them to share very much functionality. I disagree with SL camps being able to hold garages or hospital bays at all. SL camps need to have a specific focus and use that is separate from that of the Ranger camps so the two professions will compliment each other rather than overlap. I would much rather see defensive guns, faction terminals, and things of that nature limited to being available only with SL camps, and limit funtions that promote camp healing, pet support, NPC enemy repellants, and things of that nature to Ranger camps.
I agree here. SL forts should be combat geared only, while Ranger camps should be seprate from combat entirely. NRaas has made an attempt at separating the two so that they are best used in each of those ways, but I think more can be done to separate and distinguish the two types of camps.
Here's the main distinction: Rangers have an entire skill line that requires them to get better at making and using camps, and that allows them to build better camps. Squad Leaders don't. Rangers focus on camps, Squad Leaders don't. I think it makes very little sense for the SL profession to have more than one or two other kinds of camps that are SL-specific. Otherwise we're just giving out unearned abilities, and detracting from a profession that actually works at it.
NRaas shot down my idea to make these camps buildable by rangers but useable by SL by means of certs. Maybe we can try and bring this to the table again. SL may not like it as much as getting their own camps, but this is our proposal afterall not theirs. We do need them on board, but we need rangers on board too.
Remember, once the devs get their hands on this proposal, they will chop it to pieces as well and use what they like, throw away what they don't. no one is proposing that this is how it will be implemented, we are just trying to get the devs to see how most of us would like it to be.
I just don't see how you can argue that now you have to carry entire crates of modules in order to fit in to this new plan.
Yeah, I could have gone into more detail on that! So I will.
Well, I said crates because if I'm going to buy modules from another player, I'm darn sure going to buy crates of them. If I'd said "a bunch of modules" someone would have pointed out that I could just get crates instead of filling up my inventory on modules. The key word in "Having to carry around crates of multiple modules is a hassle" is multiple.
Instead of making camps while in town, I'm pretty sure I'd just factory-produce a few crates of 25 camps each, all of the same type. And that wouldn't be that big a deal. But having camps only use a couple of modules means that I'm going to run into situations where I'd be required to make a camp while in the field (because I can't make catch-all camps under the presented system). This means I have to have a module (or since they take up the same space, a crate of modules) for each module type. With me. When I'm hunting.
I don't know about you, but my inventory space is already very precious. I've got a crate of basic camps, HQ camps, wire mesh traps, Lecepanine traps, stink bombs, adhesive mesh traps for handling adds, food, spices,all my armor, stims, metal, polymer, tools, and generally about 4+ types of bones, hide, and meat, each. I'm just too **edit** sick of dealing with all of this crap that I have to carry, just to be prepared for a battle, to want to mess with too much else. If camps weren't something that you do need to make whilein the field, hunting, I wouldn't think the number of possible modules was even worth mentioning. But because camps aren't the same as weapons, or droids, or buildings, or powerups, or food, or armor, or almost anything else that can be made in the game, I think that simplicity should be the primary goal.
I love the idea of modules, I really do. But I see very little reason for there to be so darn many different modules for something that does, even on occasion, need to be made while on a hunting trip.
we should have a...ranger-only backpack that carries 10 more items
I think that this is probably why droids can hold items in storage for you, but I'm not sure (I don't know everything about droids or anything). It's a great idea, but there are other professions that end up with gobs of inventory room taken up too. I know a crafter who just doesn't wear armor because it's another thing to carry, and he can't afford it. I mean, the guy has to carry like 8 tools, surveying devices of every type, at least 20 kinds of resources, etc. Man.
I think you are ignoring the number of people signing on to this whole proposal.
Well, not totally. But the people who have no more to say than, "You're brilliant NRaas! I love it!" don't count as much. If they cared they'd be critical, at least to some degree, even if it's just enough to point out other possibilities and reasons why they agree.
And I think that most people would be happier playing the game if they had less to worry about rather than more. Again, I'm all for moduled camps. But I think that there are lots of reasons why we shouldn't use every single idea that we can come up with, no matter how great it is.
you can cry "simplify" all you want, but then a number of people already in agreement with this plan (myself included) will disagree and scream "it's too simple".
I fully welcome you giving me a reason to make it this complex.
This whole simplicity thing reminds me a lot of when the dev boards first opened up and people were talking about how many weeks or days it would take for a building to finish its construction, or how the hours-long wait would be handled when you took the shuttle from one planet to another.
because the HTFB is more worthy of a master ranger, and with all camps having the same basic abilities, all that's realy changing is the name of the camps up the ladder. He could just add a camp at ranger, but what would he call it? Reeely high tech field base?
What you mean is, "What would WE call it?" NRaas is just a correspondant, remember? We (NRaas, you, me, all of us)can come up with something better than "Realy high tech". Shoot, I've read a few already. A base that stores in your datapad and acts like an immobile vehicle? Might be worth a shot.
But thanks for the answer, that's why I asked. I don't think that the HTFB is all that much more worthy, but I think that's just a matter of flavor, so whatever.
Think of it this way, you are calling on your commanding officer to evacuate your soldiers. you can't call the city to have a bus stop by your house to pick you up, what makes you think that the galactic travel commision is gonna make a trip out to the middle of nowhere to pick up a bunch of civilians who are too lazy to drive their speeders back to town.
Because you paid em. Hey, if you'd said that using faction points could make it cheaper in credits to produce for factioned people, I woulda said, "yay" to that, because, just based on your illustration, it makes total sense. I still think it shouldn't be a module though.
So what other system in place now in the game do you think would support this kind of ability?
I'll have to go into more detail about the droid engineer/artisan-produced escape pods idea later I guess. (basically, they make you something to carry around, it costs a lot, like 2K, and you can only use it from a Ranger camp)
Ranger camps should be seprate from combat entirely.
Well, as long as there's a (single) module that lets you keep your camp from disbanding while in combat. I think that's important, even if it's very limited.