Ranger Archive
Thread: Bows and arrows and why SWG Rangers are not US Army Rangers!
Tarnak_Archvold wrote:
I guess this means that any constructive debate on this topic is at an end.
Thanks Tarnak its good to se you think i am WINing this argument. But i still cant understand why you think a pure combat profession should be able to out-hunt a Master hunter (Ranger). Perhaps you could explain this - in plain english?
Tarnak_Archvold wrote:
CuchulainnDarklight wrote:
Well said Phenix, I have to say that we HAVE to be able to fight creatures no matter what skills we have in addition to ranger. A ranger/entertainer should be able to outdamage everyone esle against creatures so we need a signature weapon, that is effective against creatures. I mean what is the point of ranger if im a better hunter with Scout and a combat stacked template. Absolutely none.
Now you are just wining. You are saying that someone spending 140 sp on a master ranger should be able to out damage someone spending 200 sp on a dual combat mastery and 1000 scout? A typical I was the abilities of [insert profession] but I do not wand to spend the SP on it. And I thought I had to go the BH boards to se that.
I guess this means that any constructive debate on this topic is at an end.
And knock off the flaming. I haven't reported anyone in a while and my 'Report Abuse to Moderator' finger is getting itchy
.Message Edited by Calculus_Entropy on 03-28-2005 04:24 PM
Phenix1050 wrote:Here is why stackers will alway be more deadly: the only thing (short of giving us a weapon, which you're opposed to) they could do is give us a creature combat multiplyer. Ranger does 1.5x damage or somthing like that. I've thought about this for a while, and there's no way they'll do that. Why? Not because of Rangers, but consider other powerful profession, like rifleman. It's not unheard of for a rifleman to do over 2000 damage in one hit. Multiply that by 1.5 and you've got a special that's WAY too powerful. Consider a Master LS/Ranger. the amount of damage a high generation LS could do with any bonus from Ranger is extreme.
thus, you can't give Ranger multipliers for damage. Adding more defenses could work, but unless you can out-damage the stacker, he's gonna kill faster than you. the point is, while it may help Rangers to have a multiplier, it would also hurt the game. We don't need more 1-shot kills in this game. You need to think of ways that people can (and will) abuse any bonus we give to Rangers.
Damage multiplier are not the only way to give rangers more damage dealing abilities... give us a very good "creature to hit" bonus that also work on your specials... now we have much better chance then the stacker of getting special to stick. Then add traps the lower or remove a creatures ability to resist damage... say a gooey substance that would be absorbed by the hide, and make a creatures otherwise rock hard skill soft as jelly or something like that. Now that 90% kinetic resist creature has say a 60% kinetic resist, witch means the ranger will be doing 4 times as much damage to it with out increasing the maximum damage the ranger does.
Alternatively give rangers a "ignore creature defence" skill that work for us, perhaps even all we are grouped with, we could call it knowing a creatures week points. It would work the same way.
Then give us some good defences against creatures, or traps that really demolish a creatures offences and rangers can easily become compactable or even out damage the stackers.
That all sounds very good - especially about the specials. Except for one thing, what about a ranger/entertainer, how do their dance specials "stick" to a creature. Or a ranger/artisan, can they craft better while being eaten by a rancor?
Tarnak_Archvold wrote:
Damage multiplier are not the only way to give rangers more damage dealing abilities... give us a very good "creature to hit" bonus that also work on your specials... now we have much better chance then the stacker of getting special to stick. Then add traps the lower or remove a creatures ability to resist damage... say a gooey substance that would be absorbed by the hide, and make a creatures otherwise rock hard skill soft as jelly or something like that. Now that 90% kinetic resist creature has say a 60% kinetic resist, witch means the ranger will be doing 4 times as much damage to it with out increasing the maximum damage the ranger does.
Alternatively give rangers a "ignore creature defence" skill that work for us, perhaps even all we are grouped with, we could call it knowing a creatures week points. It would work the same way.
Then give us some good defences against creatures, or traps that really demolish a creatures offences and rangers can easily become compactable or even out damage the stackers.
CuchulainnDarklight wrote:That all sounds very good - especially about the specials. Except for one thing, what about a ranger/entertainer, how do their dance specials "stick" to a creature. Or a ranger/artisan, can they craft better while being eaten by a rancor?
Tarnak_Archvold wrote:
Damage multiplier are not the only way to give rangers more damage dealing abilities... give us a very good "creature to hit" bonus that also work on your specials... now we have much better chance then the stacker of getting special to stick. Then add traps the lower or remove a creatures ability to resist damage... say a gooey substance that would be absorbed by the hide, and make a creatures otherwise rock hard skill soft as jelly or something like that. Now that 90% kinetic resist creature has say a 60% kinetic resist, witch means the ranger will be doing 4 times as much damage to it with out increasing the maximum damage the ranger does.
Alternatively give rangers a "ignore creature defence" skill that work for us, perhaps even all we are grouped with, we could call it knowing a creatures week points. It would work the same way.
Then give us some good defences against creatures, or traps that really demolish a creatures offences and rangers can easily become compactable or even out damage the stackers.
Why should Ranger be stand alone? We are not a combat profession, we weren't designed as a combat profession, and we will never be a combat profession...
...we area a combat SUPPORT profession. Therefore our skills do and should assist us, while our chosen combat skills do the majority of the work. Why should it be any other way?
Phenix1050 wrote:
Tarnak_Archvold wrote:
I guess this means that any constructive debate on this topic is at an end.well, you're guilty of some rather nasty flaming. i'd say that tends to end constructive converstations faster than anything.
"Flames" as you call it are the only real way to respond to such a outrageous demand. Just as harsh words and irony would be the only option is someone came in here as said we should abolish ranger and put give all our skill to scouts. Anyone who would se the se the point after it is pointed out would have seen it before posting it.
Phenix1050 wrote:personally, I don't think we should be on par with a 96 sp combat profession. However we should have an inherent ability to do some damage so those that don't take another combat profession can at least survive in combat. Should they pwn? heck no. not even against creatures. you want to hunt big game, you take a big combat mastery. The weapon layout for ranger should be such that a person who is just a ranger can kill low-end creatures fairly easily, kill mid-range critters after a decent fight, and do some damage to big critters (but vey unlikely kill them).Ranger shouldn't be enough to take on a Rancor by yourself, but it should allow you to shoot and skeedadle.
A master ranger with a CL 10 pet, a CDEF rifle, and C12 grenades and pet stims can kill low-end creatures, can handle mid end creatures, and can do damage to high end creatures.
But how many SP worth would you say ranger should have combat powers for... 40? that would be 40 less points worth of the ranger abilities for the big game hunter that takes a combat mastery.
CuchulainnDarklight wrote:
Thanks Tarnak its good to se you think i am WINing this argument.
Put that down to my spell checker not being a mind reader, but if you think you could carry this debate out in Danish the feel free to pick on my spelling. It should of cause have said whining.
Message Edited by Tarnak_Archvold on 03-29-2005 01:03 AM
Calculus_Entropy wrote:
Why should Ranger be stand alone? We are not a combat profession, we weren't designed as a combat profession, and we will never be a combat profession...
...we area a combat SUPPORT profession. Therefore our skills do and should assist us, while our chosen combat skills do the majority of the work. Why should it be any other way?
I didnt say we should be stand alone combat professions, I am saying we should have the ability to hunt ourselves as a Ranger and not be FORCED into taking a combat profession. No other profession is forced into a pigeonhole this way. If we do not have the ability to hunt as a Ranger with no other Master Elite Combat profession then the Scout prerequisite should be removed. I do not say this as i want to be a crafter, but i am saying this as other people want to try other roles, not everyone wants to master an Elite combat prof. At the moment as a Master Ranger/Master Pistoleer ( I like a more fluid ranged combat style) I do not have the SPs left to get my 6 force sensiteve trees.
However you spin it Ranger is SUPPOSED to be the consumate HUNTER. We have to have stand alone combat skills! As it is, to be a master elite hybrid profession (the most SP intensive) you need, 1 tree from one beginner profession and one master of a beginner profession. To be an effective master ranger, I or any other combat profession requires, 1 tree of a begineer profession, 1 master of a begineer profession, 1 master of an elite profession (ranger), plus 1 additional master of an elite profession (preferred combat). Imagine the outcry if SOE said "From now on to be a TKM you must also be a master elite artisan profession, master doctor, or master elite entertainer profession to be able to beat people up effectively!". Yet as a master ranger I am told "To be an effective Hunter you must now master an elite combat profession!"
I can live without using my bow and hunters knife against NPCs and PCs, and having to take up a combat profession to fight there (barely) AS LONG AS I am not forced to take up a combat profession to do what my profession is supposed to enable me to do - HUNT! Ideally I would like to apply my creature learned unique combat skills in other areas - just as a pistoleer or rifleman etc , can go out killing critters for fun.
Ranger is not a combat support class - we have NOTHING that supports PvP combat, in NPC combat traps and camo dont work, and camps disband as soon as you join in, and in PvCritter we just have to sit back in our camp seat and watch as the other classes dont need any of our malfunctioning traps or camo!
Tarnak_Archvold wrote:
CuchulainnDarklight wrote:
Thanks Tarnak its good to se you think i am WINing this argument.
Put that down to my spell checker not being a mind reader, but if you think you could carry this debate out in Danish the feel free to pick on my spelling. It should of cause have said whining.
Message Edited by Tarnak_Archvold on 03-29-2005 01:03 AM
Tarnak_Archvold wrote:
"Flames" as you call it are the only real way to respond to such a outrageous demand. Just as harsh words and irony would be the only option is someone came in here as said we should abolish ranger and put give all our skill to scouts. Anyone who would se the se the point after it is pointed out would have seen it before posting it.
A master ranger with a CL 10 pet, a CDEF rifle, and C12 grenades and pet stims can kill low-end creatures, can handle mid end creatures, and can do damage to high end creatures.
But how many SP worth would you say ranger should have combat powers for... 40? that would be 40 less points worth of the ranger abilities for the big game hunter that takes a combat mastery.
Flames are never the best way to respond. they always will do more damage than good. A smart, poignant post showing why a claim isn't logical does much more. Mature people respond better to mature posts, and immature people respond better to immature posts. you will only reap what you sow.
Your arguments are based on the current system. Remember that everything you know about combat is changing and that same ranger with the CL10 pet, CDEF and grenades might not be able to do the same amount of damage that they can now. There is a phrase TH has been using-- "unlearn what you have learned".
And I think that's the last you'll hear from me on this particular post. There's a nice little middleground that I'm trying to carve out and I think it will take an entirely seperate thread to fully develop. Needless to say, I'm not in favor of an all-creature role, nor am I proposing us as a full combat profession. We are more of a hybrid. A correspondant from another forum put it best-- we are a "toolbox" profession-- one that has many tools that can be applied to any play style. We also must have an identity of our own. anyway, let's all stop getting upset. this issue isn't all that important in the grand scheme of things. there are so much more important things in life.
/hug the ladies
/hi 5 the dudes
/chug the beer
now i'm feeling good.
This wouldnt pigeon hole us into any type of combat. Infact, it still leaves the option of no combat at all. However, it coincides with our professions current/ideal attributes and abilities.
Maybe thats just me.