Ranger Archive
Thread: Renaming the Ranger to...?
Sojourner
Sun Sep 18, 2005 4:36 pm
#27
This might be the tip of the iceberg, wait until the flood of FOTM addicts start tocome. They will come, even if the changes aren't enough to make them stay. Dev love draws them like corpse flys to carrion...
Skadoink wrote:
Ok, ok - now that's enough. It saddens me to see what was one of the more mature, reasonable and fun forums in this game descend into a slagging match. Please stop now.
I'm just warning you to be prepared, these forumswill probablygetvery different (althoughit will hopefully betemporary)after the revamp goes live. However, all you "Old School" Rangers are still welcome to take refuge in the Scout forum if the worst should happen!
Seiryuu
Sun Sep 18, 2005 8:40 pm
#28
I agree with the Master Moron. (What!? Phenix said we could call him that. 
)
Ranger is an appropriate name. Infilitrator, Spy and many of the other names suggested would make great titles for each branch though.
)Ranger is an appropriate name. Infilitrator, Spy and many of the other names suggested would make great titles for each branch though.
SeanBlader
Sun Sep 18, 2005 11:50 pm
#29
Phenix can speak for me.
Scout should stay as scout, and Ranger can be redefined in your head as something that isn't Park Ranger, or D&D Ranger. If you want to change something... change your perception of what "Ranger" means. The producers have take a bold step to define a Ranger as something new, daring, and adventurous, try it before you knock it.
It's ironic, because people back in October of '03 were dissapointed when they deveoped Camoflauge and Tracking for Rangers. They thought it should stay as Field Bioscience, and that Tracking had no part in the Rangers repertoire. In another 2 years people will wonder how we got by without our camoflauge and stealth skills.
Scout should stay as scout, and Ranger can be redefined in your head as something that isn't Park Ranger, or D&D Ranger. If you want to change something... change your perception of what "Ranger" means. The producers have take a bold step to define a Ranger as something new, daring, and adventurous, try it before you knock it.
It's ironic, because people back in October of '03 were dissapointed when they deveoped Camoflauge and Tracking for Rangers. They thought it should stay as Field Bioscience, and that Tracking had no part in the Rangers repertoire. In another 2 years people will wonder how we got by without our camoflauge and stealth skills.
bizondele
Sun Sep 18, 2005 11:55 pm
#30
Ranger should be renamed the l337 do not deserve the title Ranger. I would actually really like it if it was remnamed and the PVP yahoos do not get to pretend to be US army rangers.
raziviWH
Mon Sep 19, 2005 12:07 am
#31
Considering I never said names in my prior post and you took it upon yourself to THINK it is about you says alot, imo. But I won't go into that. I have marginal respet for you Phenix from some of your other posts though other posts done by you take wacks at that respect with a sledge hammer. But stop thinking every post is directed at you, alright? Chill the ego my friend.
Base raids is a part of GCW so don't toss that up there to try and fill 'content'. Current state of things is GCW is only pvp and farming npcs to drop new bases to pvp at and farm faction....big content there. If GCW was changed or revamped, my opinion will change of course. But I can only comment on how things are now, not how things may be if the devs have a idea for the GCW sometime in the next 2 years.
PvP was never content in any game, imo. Seeing who has better equipment and can hit the macros in the right order is not content, its a distraction and thats about it. Nothing is gained from PvP that does anything beyond showing who is better at using their macros and has a bigger equipment budget. The only thing content related that was PvP was the FRS and thats not in anymore and won't be for some time.
Ranger-based missions.... As you said, don't know. Hints and suggestions about POSSIBLE content ideas are one thing, useful working in-game content is another. Explorer mission and their terminals are in-game now and we all know how useful and effective they are.
Creatures and exploring, for most of the last few years, was the content for rangers. Finding that out of the way quest-giver npc. Seeing the sight few have seen. Fighting that critter that few can find, let alone fight. These new skills seem to only draw ranger into the grinding, jedi/bh, pvp and killing is only thing in the game style of thinking some people have. Thats what scares me. It seems those people are having their way. Skills and mods are more important than content and enjoyment. But again, opinions. Few care to read them, few still care to think about them.
As for insults... not an insult, its a fact of life in this game. Some are driven by exploring, some are driven by quests, some are driven by loot, some are driven by pvp, some are driven by money. Ok, granted the 'twit' ending was a bit insulting and if you fall into the 'uber/loot/'pvp' crowd, I'm sorry for calling you a twit. You're not a twit, just different. I'm just a little upset lately that the devs seem to think everyone is in your crowd and they are crafting professions to fit your crowd's ideals. The very fact that they are removing forage, hitting fishing by the act, even though leaving it in scout wouldn't hurt anything merely shows what they think is first important in what to do in SWG.
Formal appology I offer here. Insults do not belong on our once peaceful ranger forum. Just got a bit distracted by outside influences, in-game and out, that has upset me a bit.
Raz-
Phenix1050
Mon Sep 19, 2005 12:33 am
#32
raziviWH wrote:
Considering I never said names in my prior post and you took it upon yourself to THINK it is about you says alot, imo. But I won't go into that. I have marginal respet for you Phenix from some of your other posts though other posts done by you take wacks at that respect with a sledge hammer. But stop thinking every post is directed at you, alright? Chill the ego my friend.
You insulted anybody with a certain viewpoint. I have that viewpoint. Therefore your insults are about me and people like me. I cannot speak for other people, but you did insult me indirectly, so I said, you can call ME a FOTM person if you want, but it's not true. I cannot speak for anybody else. Would you prefer if I spoke for every other person who had the same viewpoint? To me, that seems more egotistical. And your respect for me is due entirely to your percetpsions, I just post as who I am. Your respect has no bearing on who I am or how I post.
Base raids is a part of GCW so don't toss that up there to try and fill 'content'. Current state of things is GCW is only pvp and farming npcs to drop new bases to pvp at and farm faction....big content there.
PvP was never content in any game, imo.
Creatures and exploring, for most of the last few years, was the content for rangers.
I find this very funny, to be honest. So killing creatures is content, but killing players and NPCs isn't content in the game? I'm afraid that you're defining content in a very narrow way that suits only your viewpoint. I mean...what's different about running across a Krayt and killing it and running across a darktrooper and killing it? On a systamatic level, I'd have to say very little. Killing is killing.
Creatures can be killed by any combat template. Every combat profession helps against creatures. But Ranger skills don't help against NPCs or PCs. So the content you state, in terms of creature isn't Ranger-specific.
Finding that out of the way quest-giver npc. Seeing the sight few have seen. Fighting that critter that few can find, let alone fight.
Again...what prevents any other person from doing these things? I've had more success finding stuff without Ranger skills, to be honest. Every thing that you list as ranger content is nothing more than the Ranger lifestyle, which can be lived with any template you desire.
Formal appology I offer here. Insults do not belong on our once peaceful ranger forum. Just got a bit distracted by outside influences, in-game and out, that has upset me a bit.
No biggie. Remember, these are the Ranger forums. The people you see here on a daily basis are Rangers too. We have to be a community. We're strong together, so let's not fight each other. You and I disagree on this, but that shouldn't change how we act towards each other.
Neekocha
Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:07 am
#33
Hmmmmmm... Leave the Rodians out of this, will you?
Dyrwen wrote:
Keep Ranger. Let people adjust to the fact that we're not old hermits that live in the woods throwing pdarts at our prey and running away like rodians until we harvest and loot what we find. Or that we're not a novelty that drops into town for what we need, and if we pvp, die instantly.
Let the name adjust so that we're seen as Rangers. The ultimate hunter of animals in the wild and stealth/guerilla tactics in the world. Make the name respectable by leaving it the same, not pitied, as the respect it usually gets is coupled with these days.
YT-2000
Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:30 am
#34
Neekocha wrote:
Hmmmmmm... Leave the Rodians out of this, will you?
Dyrwen wrote:
Keep Ranger. Let people adjust to the fact that we're not old hermits that live in the woods throwing pdarts at our prey and running away like rodians until we harvest and loot what we find. Or that we're not a novelty that drops into town for what we need, and if we pvp, die instantly.
Let the name adjust so that we're seen as Rangers. The ultimate hunter of animals in the wild and stealth/guerilla tactics in the world. Make the name respectable by leaving it the same, not pitied, as the respect it usually gets is coupled with these days.
Don't worry. I'm sure Oreet will be here soon to make some anti-Bothan comments
MTaffin
Mon Sep 19, 2005 5:39 am
#35
Ranger. It's a good name, a Honourable name. That implies to me at least strength, courage andleadership. I think it's more fitting with the up coming changes than it is even now. When I think of a Ranger I think of men and women who use stealth, camouflage and discreet means to achieve their objectives. Even steeling can be honourable under the right circumstances if it's for the greater good. The long time Rangers have played these characters with a certain uniqueness that should carry over well to this new profession but the name should stay the same. It is what it is.
Message Edited by MTaffin on 09-19-2005 05:41 AM
BadMisterFrosty
Mon Sep 19, 2005 6:52 am
#36
Never mind
Seems to work perfectly for you,perhaps because you are american and over there, Rangers are known as something military. I had strong associations of well.. park watchers or other creature and wood-centric images in mind — just me though.
Sojourner
Mon Sep 19, 2005 7:00 am
#37
BadMisterFrosty wrote:
Never mind
Seems to work perfectly for you,perhaps because you are american and over there, Rangers are known as something military. I had strong associations of well.. park watchers or other creature and wood-centric images in mind — just me though.
I thought suchpark watchingpeople were called gamewardens in British type areas?
Skadoink
Mon Sep 19, 2005 7:22 am
#39
Game wardens could be considered a Ranger, yes, but a particularly focused one.
Thing is here that people are not separating the specific from the generic, and using rl or fictional examples to show their point of view. Problem is that for each specific instance, a counter can be provided.
Ranger was a generic title given to wilderness experts who ranged far from home. Some elite combat units, the US Army Ranger, for example, just happened to be given that name, as that was the kind of skillset they requred.
As an aside, it's interesting to note that the classic representation of ranger in fiction, Lord of the Rings, was written in the late 1930's (ie, before the US Army Ranger) and the Star Wars (as is a lot of modernSci-Fi/Fantasy)is highly derivative of Lord of the Rings. I believe that Ranger in these contexts, refers less to the skill of the person involved, and more to the honour of the people chosen. These are supposed to be not only elite troops, butpossesed of the finest moral standards.
So anyway - for me, Ranger should refer to a wilderness-centric skillset, which can support the playstyle of both creature-centric (hunter) and npc/player-centric (paramilitary) factions. Or both.
Personally I feel that the Special Forces type ranger mooted belongs more to Commando, even if some of the skillset would be very suitable for a generic Ranger capable of both hunter and paramilitary roles. (but then, maybe the Devs have a particular Heavy Weapons specialist type role in mind for future revamps for commando...)
I win! 