Ranger Archive
Thread: Transforming Scouting Skills into Hunting Skills.
Page 3 of 3
Vorpaks
Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:44 pm
#27
<---- is a hopeless moron
/BLUSH
/BLUSH
Calculus_Entropy wrote:
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.
Kiryoku
Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:59 pm
#28
not to cloud the mitigation issue even more... buuut, one potential mitigation idea taken from the combat balance thread:
how about a different kind of mitigation... creature mitigation could reduce the minimum damage by some percentage... for an example, we'll say 10% for each level... and give master ranger mitigation 3...
a master swordsman has melee mitigation 3, which reduces the maximum damage by 60% of the range...
a master ranger has creature mitigation 3, which reduces the minimum damage by 30%..
a master ranger/master swordsman has both...
a bull rancor hits the novice artisan for 455 - 620 damage (swgcreatures.com)...
the bull rancor hits the master swordsman for 455 - 521 damage
the bull rancor hits the master ranger for 318 - 620 damage
the bull rancor hits the master of both for 318 - 439 damage
with this method we don't have to worry about mitigations stacking, the ranger is obviously helped out by his mitigation, and the swordsman/ranger is definitely improved upon... in fact, by decreasing the min value, you've increased the range and made the swordsman's mitigation even more valuable...
a master swordsman has melee mitigation 3, which reduces the maximum damage by 60% of the range...
a master ranger has creature mitigation 3, which reduces the minimum damage by 30%..
a master ranger/master swordsman has both...
a bull rancor hits the novice artisan for 455 - 620 damage (swgcreatures.com)...
the bull rancor hits the master swordsman for 455 - 521 damage
the bull rancor hits the master ranger for 318 - 620 damage
the bull rancor hits the master of both for 318 - 439 damage
with this method we don't have to worry about mitigations stacking, the ranger is obviously helped out by his mitigation, and the swordsman/ranger is definitely improved upon... in fact, by decreasing the min value, you've increased the range and made the swordsman's mitigation even more valuable...
yet another take... to make 3 different ideas on how creature mitigation could work... oi... toughness would probably more effective than anything else, but it might be more difficult to code (at least i thought that before i saw "jedi toughness")...
Nemo0
Tue Jun 15, 2004 3:06 pm
#29
There are also things like unarmed toughness, 1 handed toughness, etc.
Kiryoku
Tue Jun 15, 2004 3:41 pm
#30
yeh, but jedi toughness applies to all situations... the others require you to have a specific weapon equipped, thus i thought (incorrectly) there was some issue with the coding that required weapone-type information... eh, doesn't really matter, as long as they can differentiate between creature damage and non-creature damage, either of these would be relatively easy to implement... and toughness would be much more handy as it is just a raw damage reduction...
Calculus_Entropy
Tue Jun 15, 2004 3:45 pm
#31
I included both Toughness and Mitigation in the CB thread for Corrs. I think both of them together would be ideal (think TKA, they get both).
Calculus_Entropy
Tue Jun 15, 2004 3:49 pm
#32
Vorpaks wrote:
<---- is a hopeless moron
/BLUSH
Calculus_Entropy wrote:
Well, that backfired...thanks Paks!
Perhaps I could have been more diplomatic in my response. Also, I never should have assumed that all Rangers thought MandoArmor was a 'bone.' I will have to /blush too
.
Vorpaks
Tue Jun 15, 2004 4:10 pm
#33
Hehe. Never appologise to a wookiee. Our heads are big enough as it is. 
I remember when my brother was a tiny little furball I made a sarcastic comment about "ya and pigs can fly." He looked at me with wide-eyed wonder and said "Pigs can FLY??" Um. Uh oh. So of course I said "No honey, only Santa's reindeer can fly without wings." Phew. Never use sarcasm on a four-year-old when INNOCENCE is on the line!
I've read so many great ideas this week. Is Draknev's proposal something that can be broken up into small pieces (one aspect at a time) and be slipped in pre-revamp? I don't really understand the "corrospondent issues" too well, or what they can accomplish. Is this an example of something that can be done through that process? I am assuming for a second that the CB isn't coming.
I know we won't be able to slip little things in that will affect the combat balance, but I am still curious about the corrospondent issues.
I remember when my brother was a tiny little furball I made a sarcastic comment about "ya and pigs can fly." He looked at me with wide-eyed wonder and said "Pigs can FLY??" Um. Uh oh. So of course I said "No honey, only Santa's reindeer can fly without wings." Phew. Never use sarcasm on a four-year-old when INNOCENCE is on the line!
I've read so many great ideas this week. Is Draknev's proposal something that can be broken up into small pieces (one aspect at a time) and be slipped in pre-revamp? I don't really understand the "corrospondent issues" too well, or what they can accomplish. Is this an example of something that can be done through that process? I am assuming for a second that the CB isn't coming.
I know we won't be able to slip little things in that will affect the combat balance, but I am still curious about the corrospondent issues.
Calculus_Entropy
Wed Jun 16, 2004 12:36 am
#34
Do you really want an answer to that? I think we all have our suspicions
Rancorrider4 wrote:
This is great stuff. Myonlyconcern 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,
.
Vorpaks
Wed Jun 16, 2004 12:54 am
#35
Calculus_Entropy wrote:Do you really want an answer to that? I think we all have our suspicions
Rancorrider4 wrote:This is great stuff. Myonlyconcern 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,
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
MonsofoLexius
Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:00 am
#36
I think Draknev got it right. That is a good as any starting point IMHO.
PS, Calc what are the odds of a Rangers acually geting a set? They might as well of given the cert to ID.
Calculus_Entropy wrote:
Perhaps I could have been more diplomatic in my response. Also, I never should have assumed that all Rangers thought MandoArmor was a 'bone.' I will have to /blush too
Calculus_Entropy
Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:06 am
#37
It depends...you can't get it by yourself, and it wasn't inteded to be. The whole Mando thing is a way to get people to work together IMO. People HAVE to work together to get it, you can't wander out by yourself (unles youare a stacker) to get the BH you need and you need 3 crafting professions and a large group of combatants to get to the crafting rooms. I am very happy with the rarity of Mando armor and i am glad that I get the ability to wear it after i work my butt off to get it
MonsofoLexius wrote:
I think Draknev got it right. That is a good as any starting point IMHO.
PS, Calc what are the odds of a Rangers acually geting a set? They might as well of given the cert to ID.
Calculus_Entropy wrote:
Perhaps I could have been more diplomatic in my response. Also, I never should have assumed that all Rangers thought MandoArmor was a 'bone.' I will have to /blush too
.
AlexKC
Fri Jun 18, 2004 5:57 am
#38
AgonThalia wrote:
Creature Toughness definately sounds like a much more "ranger-like" attribute.
I would be willing to fight for that.
I second that. I'm new to ranger and already have many ideas for it. This was one of them.
Page 3 of 3