Ranger Archive

Thread: Ranger: The Cross-Purpose Class Theory (name edited)

Phenix1050
Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:03 am
#27

First of all...whoops Nemo...fixed it.




Blakkstar wrote:



This tells all. To me, creature knowledge means we understand the physiology of the creature therefore, it doesn't matter what weapon we use, we still know the creatures weaknesses. Why must a bow be used to hit a creature in his weakspot? How is that better than a T-21?


Damn I gotta go to class... LOL BE back later!






ahh...here's the conumdrum. Certain combat classes cannot do damage to certain creatures due to the restriction on damge type. However, as you say, we know the physiology...thus a Ranger would be able to hurt them because they know the soft spots, despite the resistances.....so we could ask that all creatures resitances be negated by being a Ranger...or we could ask for weapons of our own.


Personally, I think a unique weapon is A) cooler, since it identifies us. B) more likely to happen since removing the resists would be hard C) More effective, since you can combine the Ranger skills with another combat prof to become the best hunter. D) more Ranger-y, since it invovles getting back to nature in an era plauged by morons with their pollution-causing speeders and their decidedly enviromentally-UNfriendly blasters and droids (note: I am just kidding--you're not morons)





PHE'NIX ANTARUS
BOTHAN ELDER RANGER
BEST LOOKINGSPY EVER--FOUNDER OF SATGWNIWNU
BURNING H*TPANTS SINCE 2003


This is horrible! I return to find my new title on the forum is "Jedi". What's up with that? If they wanted to confer that I'm rare and learned, they'd make my title RANGER. and then make it camo colored.
Nemo0
Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:10 am
#28






Phenix1050 wrote:
First of all...whoops Nemo...fixed it.




Blakkstar wrote:



This tells all. To me, creature knowledge means we understand the physiology of the creature therefore, it doesn't matter what weapon we use, we still know the creatures weaknesses. Why must a bow be used to hit a creature in his weakspot? How is that better than a T-21?


Damn I gotta go to class... LOL BE back later!







ahh...here's the conumdrum. Certain combat classes cannot do damage to certain creatures due to the restriction on damge type. However, as you say, we know the physiology...thus a Ranger would be able to hurt them because they know the soft spots, despite the resistances.....so we could ask that all creatures resitances be negated by being a Ranger...or we could ask for weapons of our own.


Personally, I think a unique weapon is A) cooler, since it identifies us. B) more likely to happen since removing the resists would be hard C) More effective, since you can combine the Ranger skills with another combat prof to become the best hunter. D) more Ranger-y, since it invovles getting back to nature in an era plauged by morons with their pollution-causing speeders and their decidedly enviromentally-UNfriendly blasters and droids (note: I am just kidding--you're not morons)









A) Yes, a weapon would be cool. But it would also remove some of the uniqueness of each Ranger. If we all walked around carrying the same weapon, we would no longer have the diversity currently seen.


B) The stuff with 100% resists to any weapon is not meant to be soloed. Personally, I don't like the idea of 100% resists at all (I'd argue that the Devs should cap enemy defenses at a lower level, like 90-95%). But a method of lowering resists is something I've wanted for a while (like a trap to lower the Armor Rating).


C) Chances are, a Ranger weapon will be less powerful than an elite combat profession weapon. Unless it is only used for states, you will probably only use it if your normal weapon can't penetrate the resists.


D) You could try my method: Just wander around on foot and don't shoot stuff.




Lythender Nirou
Crazy Bothan


Phenix1050
Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:22 am
#29






Nemo0 wrote:


A) Yes, a weapon would be cool. But it would also remove some of the uniqueness of each Ranger. If we all walked around carrying the same weapon, we would no longer have the diversity currently seen. I disagree. of course lol. A Ranger COULD use the bow. Or the blade. Or, if they're an elite combat class, they could carry that. In addition, Rangers who currently have to carry low-level weapons (Ranger/Tailors) could have a new thing to carry. Just a thought. There is always choice and adding a new weapon (such as the Tenloss to rifleman) doesn't ensure that everyone in that class will always be carrying it.

B) The stuff with 100% resists to any weapon is not meant to be soloed. Personally, I don't like the idea of 100% resists at all (I'd argue that the Devs should cap enemy defenses at a lower level, like 90-95%). But a method of lowering resists is something I've wanted for a while (like a trap to lower the Armor Rating). I agree with you on both points. Creatures aren't meant to be solo'd the way they are now. BUT...that doesn't mean a Ranger should be useless even in a group. Even if they lower the resists, the point would be that a Ranger could help take down large creatures since their weapons would bypass the resists. That would greatly help a group. Some could apply a KD while a ranger plinked away.


C) Chances are, a Ranger weapon will be less powerful than an elite combat profession weapon. Unless it is only used for states, you will probably only use it if your normal weapon can't penetrate the resists. That's the trade-off. A weapon that does little damage but is good against all creatures...or a weapon that does a lot of damage, most of which would be deflected. It requires that a Ranger be strategic. Take a TKM/Ranger (my current template). I know that a bow would be a big help, especially for the revamp. Many creatures are resistant to kinetic damage. Thus, the ability to take a few strikes from afar that can't be resisted and the ability to add a bleed to a creature before it gets to me would make me a much better hunter. I view the bow as an addition, not a substitution.


D) You could try my method: Just wander around on foot and don't shoot stuff. I do that. I don't ever shoot stuff. (TKM) hehe. and I love walking...except for super long distances where there's no transport (the outpost to village run on dath, for example)






Okay, so I have to ask...does ANYBODY actually like my ideas. I feel as if I'm just responding to people by myself here....



PHE'NIX ANTARUS
BOTHAN ELDER RANGER
BEST LOOKINGSPY EVER--FOUNDER OF SATGWNIWNU
BURNING H*TPANTS SINCE 2003


This is horrible! I return to find my new title on the forum is "Jedi". What's up with that? If they wanted to confer that I'm rare and learned, they'd make my title RANGER. and then make it camo colored.
Phenix1050
Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:27 am
#30






Calculus_Entropy wrote:




Give me an example of laughable prereqs please . Compared to what a Ranger has to go through? Any combat prof that only requires on line of a combat skill. We also require combat skills to be Rangers, unless you just harvest and that takes forever. We were designed to be self-sufficient as far as I can tell, and that means having combat skills. Thus, in addition to Mastering Scout, it really takes some combat profficiency to be Ranger anyway.


Are you going to get a Masters Degree Phen? If so, defending your thesis should be a piece of cake compared to convincing the Rangers of anything . True, true. The nice thing is that I'm as bull-headed as the rest of ya, so I'm not gonna stop til I do!!! And if the people think I didn't defend my thesis well enough...watch out. I'll spend a week straight expalining it to them until they either agree with me or they die of starvation and thirst...in which case I can simply forge the signatures and publically lament the senseless death of the faculty members.








PHE'NIX ANTARUS
BOTHAN ELDER RANGER
BEST LOOKINGSPY EVER--FOUNDER OF SATGWNIWNU
BURNING H*TPANTS SINCE 2003


This is horrible! I return to find my new title on the forum is "Jedi". What's up with that? If they wanted to confer that I'm rare and learned, they'd make my title RANGER. and then make it camo colored.
Calculus_Entropy
Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:27 am
#31

I actually think you are on the right track Phenix, but I am trying to get you to fill in the holes in you argument (Or show me that they aren't holes).



Calculus Entropy
Ranger Blue Glowie Emeritus
Garindan used /areatrack to find Han.
Ranger_Nizzle
Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:41 am
#32

I think we could be called unofficialya hybrid class. I am an advocate of a ranger weapon(s) and if the develoeprs want to change it so we need a combat prerequisite, that is fine by me. Then we could be a real hybrid class.



0000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000
Taeko Ta'rawi
Master Ranger
est. Aug '03


"Here lies the Ranger Profession
Born June 26th 2003
Passed into eternal life Sept. 16th, 2005
R.I.P."
Phenix1050
Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:45 am
#33

I am trying to fill in all the holes Calc. A lot of them aren't holes, but merely points not fully fleshed out.


I am willing to concede on the crafting issue, but only because that still leaves us as a hybrid proffession. I think with the ability to make modules that can be sold to lesser scouts and squad leaders (if the Modular Camping idea goes in, of course) the argument would still stand, but since it's not neccesary to my main argument, I'll let it go. We are not, as of now, a crafting proffession in the traditional sense.


However, the main point stands. We are a hybrid, but, unlike other hybrids, we are lacking a full palate of skills. Traps are a combat weapons. They apply state effects, damage creatures and are used ONLY during combat. Ranger are a combat class. Getting to Ranger requires hours of killing creatures. Thus the prerequisites is in the getting to Ranger. Perhaps a smart thing to do would be to remove XP from harvesting things you didn't kill. Even in groups, if you did no damage to the creature, you get none of the XP (much the same way that looting a corspe only gives money to group members who are in range/helped kill the creature.


This ensures that a Ranger has combat experience, since they don't get credit for things they didn't help kill.


Still, I think it's obvious that getting through scout almost guarentees killing, which involves combat, which is a reason for us getting weapons

I consider that hole plugged.



PHE'NIX ANTARUS
BOTHAN ELDER RANGER
BEST LOOKINGSPY EVER--FOUNDER OF SATGWNIWNU
BURNING H*TPANTS SINCE 2003


This is horrible! I return to find my new title on the forum is "Jedi". What's up with that? If they wanted to confer that I'm rare and learned, they'd make my title RANGER. and then make it camo colored.
Nemo0
Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:47 am
#34

I do like your ideas. It's just that there need to be multiple points of view to have a discussion. I'm not saying I don't like what you are saying. I'm just worried that a weapon is not the best solution to the problems you bring up. If the bow is as useful as we would want then we'll have to give something else up. And I'd rather have a unique skill than something very similar to a weapon profession's weapon.


As for adding to a group, should the Ranger really be the damage dealer? Shouldn't one of the damage focused characters (like the commando) focus on the damage? I think Rangers could focus on other parts of the combat. For instance, finding a creature, luringit out, and making it an easier target for the combat professions to hit. We might also be a combat profession but I don't feel that the Ranger skills should be used to make us better killers. Post combat revamp, we probably will be the best hunting profession in terms of what we can solo (phenacine darts go a long way to letting you kill a rancor). We won't necessarily do much damage but we should be able to avoid it a lot better than the other professions.



Lythender Nirou
Crazy Bothan


Nemo0
Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:52 am
#35






Phenix1050 wrote:

I am trying to fill in all the holes Calc. A lot of them aren't holes, but merely points not fully fleshed out.


I am willing to concede on the crafting issue, but only because that still leaves us as a hybrid proffession. I think with the ability to make modules that can be sold to lesser scouts and squad leaders (if the Modular Camping idea goes in, of course) the argument would still stand, but since it's not neccesary to my main argument, I'll let it go. We are not, as of now, a crafting proffession in the traditional sense.


However, the main point stands. We are a hybrid, but, unlike other hybrids, we are lacking a full palate of skills. Traps are a combat weapons. They apply state effects, damage creatures and are used ONLY during combat. Ranger are a combat class. Getting to Ranger requires hours of killing creatures. Thus the prerequisites is in the getting to Ranger. Perhaps a smart thing to do would be to remove XP from harvesting things you didn't kill. Even in groups, if you did no damage to the creature, you get none of the XP (much the same way that looting a corspe only gives money to group members who are in range/helped kill the creature.


This ensures that a Ranger has combat experience, since they don't get credit for things they didn't help kill.


Still, I think it's obvious that getting through scout almost guarentees killing, which involves combat, which is a reason for us getting weapons

I consider that hole plugged.






But that's why this is a skill based system: so you CAN get combat skills in addition to Ranger skills. A Master Smuggler is almost useless in combat. But, if they pick up Master Pistoleer as well, they can use their pistol specials extremely well. With only Pistols 4, Unarmed 4, and Master Smuggler, that Master Smuggler is almost useless in combat. They need extra combat skills to be useful as well. The same is true of Rangers and Ranger traps.



Lythender Nirou
Crazy Bothan


Phenix1050
Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:57 am
#36

Smugglers are getting a revamp, part of which is focuesed on making them more effective in combat. So they don't NEED pistoleer and TKM. This is part of my problem. They have crafting skills while needing only combat XP. Is there really a difference between that and Rangers getting combat skills that apply to creatures only while needing only scouting XP?


Another idea- make Master Ranger based on combat XP. Just like you need so much XP to get to BH, perhaps add a 40k Combat XP requirement to get Novice Ranger, instead of scouting XP. That way, you ensure that Rangers have done lots of combat. How does that strike ya?



PHE'NIX ANTARUS
BOTHAN ELDER RANGER
BEST LOOKINGSPY EVER--FOUNDER OF SATGWNIWNU
BURNING H*TPANTS SINCE 2003


This is horrible! I return to find my new title on the forum is "Jedi". What's up with that? If they wanted to confer that I'm rare and learned, they'd make my title RANGER. and then make it camo colored.
BlakkStar
Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:59 pm
#37

Personally I believe that any changes we want should be beaten like a dead horse. The point of the ranger weapon talk was to get to an adequate justification for it. Not only does profession solidarity play a part in justification for a new change but also a sound argument. I don't believe that the Outdoorsman Proposal in its original or revised form will ever be taken in its entirety. Thus I prefer our requests to as sound as they possibly can be.


When Nraas first made the proposal, I like many rangers, was not critical of his suggestions as I just wanted something new.I too wanted a bow to add to my arsenal but over time things have changed. I simply do not see a sound argument to the weapon.


Other than yourself, the other arguments are generally based on one reason "we spend 140 sp and don't have anything toshow for it." This isn't an adequate reason as that is the general reason all rangers want SOMETHING. I want something done to allow ranger to improve. The Outdoorsman Proposal in general is based on the fact that "we spend 140 sp and don't have anything to show for it."


THe other reason of "it would be cool," is extremely weak.


On a side note: General ideas concerning the purpose and implementation of traps have generally been improved versions of the trapping system. I think that your implementation in O.P. 2.1 was the first that I've seen to really conceive it being a significant damage dealer.


The modular camping idea is the next horse I want to beat to death. I like it but it needs to be fleshed out more.


So in short, any all ideas that we rangers make for the improvement for our profession need to be heavily scrutinized, because we can be sure that the devs will be quick to dismiss it if it isn't hermetically sound. They are dealing with 32+ professions and each of these professions has players that want changes. If we want to be heard, we need to be convincing.




Starsider: Blakk Star (Lost Child of the Ras'ka)- Master Ranger/TKM
Ahazi: Kojo Anonkye (Master of Ras'kan Martial Arts)- TKM/Stickfighter(Master Fencer)
Kettemoor: Underdog (Badass Bothan B-Boy)- Master Musician
Page 3 of 3