Ranger Archive
Thread: Outdoorsman proposal or not?
A - I don't agree with everything in the Outdoorsman proposal, but I do like allot of it. It has had wide spread community support and I believe that changing the message just gives a mixed response. There have been allot of useful suggestions and view points put forward by community members, a significant number of which have been remarkably balance in their views (check out some other prof forums for comparisions). A good deal of the Outdoorsman proposal will be knocked back by the Devs. What I believe we need to develop the profession into a useful skill set, as opposed to the fun concept we enjoy the idea of playing, is the Devs response on how they may be prepared to take us forward.
What we need first is that actual response! Even going back to not long after the game was launched the Devs stated that we would get:
1. Camps that repelled creatures
2. Hides on camps that would increase the spawn rate
3. Lure traps
4. Static traps to KD humanoid opponents
5. Tracking that would actually locate (implied spawn if I understood this correctly) the creature type you were hunting for
Even together these may not make for a very strong profession, but they sure would give Rangers a distinctive role. Whilst the current combat changes are undoubtably more important for the game as a whole, surely we deserve an actual response as to when changes will be examined and the sorts of ideas that can take our profession (and hence enjoyment of the game) forward. The Outdoorsman proposal expands and elaborates on these ideas, creating a wide base for the Devs to consider (and please eventually respond too!!). IMHO we should rally strongly around a single group of ideas; once/ if they start getting considered there will be plenty of opportunity to propose alternatives.
On a personal plea, anyone who is offered the new correspondents post, please make it a condition of acceptance that the Devs enter into dialogue to consider our proposals. This is not an attempt to dictate anything, but merely exercising the opportunity to elicit a reponse; e.g. this is a good idea we will consider how it may be developed, no for game balance reasons, no for programming difficulties etc. Only then after months and months and months.... of waiting can we enter into any realistic debate as to take our beloved profession forward.
lol.. after that lengthy post my answer was A.
Our next correspondent should check with TH and see if the Outdoorsman proposal is being looked at, if so then I vote A to avoid a possible delay, otherwise B.
(I know, it wasn't one choice but you can't get everything) 
Borderline A and B. I would be ecstatic if it were implemented whole cloth, but I have my own personal beefs with it as well.
I'm thinking I'm gonna go with A though. Why? Because we can't keep changing it. We need to unite behind something solid. If it doesn't match all of our dreams, we're just going to have to live with it. Everyone's got their nitpicks or their suggestions, but the chances of us finding a consensus on exactly what we want changed are very small.
Consider the following scenarios:
1.I want changes to subject A, really badly. You want changes to subject B. I think Subject B is perfect, you think subject A is perfect.. However, we both agree that there are things we'd like to change.
2. You and I both really dislike subject C. I think subject C should be changed to be more creature-centric. You think subject C should be changed to be more PvP-centric. We disagree on how subject C should be changed, but we both agree that it should be changed.
3. You think subject D is too strong. I think subject D isn't strong enough. We disagree on which way the power level should go, but we agree that the current power level is wrong.
Now, take those situations and multiply them by.. How many people do we have in this community?
It's possible I could be wrong. It might be that the community as a whole can agree on certain changes.. But I highly doubt it. The Outdoorsman proposal is far from perfect.. But it's pretty damned good, or else most of us wouldn't want to keep it with some changes.
I say A.
However, remember that this proposal is written considering that the devs want us to be the 'Ultimate Creature Hunter'. They are very adamant in that view. N'Raas didn't necessarily agree, but was told this is how it is going to be. To get away from that, we have a very long, hard, up-hill battle against their vision.
Considering those contraints, that is the document that was delivered to the developers. We aren't going to get even half of it given to us as is, so how can we suggest fixing it when we do not even know what parts of it will be used?
You know me...
All the fancy bells and whistles and shinanigans are not going to, in the end, justify 140sp. They won't mean a hill of beans in combat.
Stealth will.
DAoC has it, NWN has it, Starcraft has it, even Mechwarrior has it. It can be done right. It just takes the will to do it right.
Thinking about it: A+stealth=B? ... or maybe this is C, your pick. I like the outdoorsman, don't get me wrong. But I think of it as a "paying the dues" to get to Stealth at Master.
Message Edited by Fred_Skinner on 03-18-2004 03:29 PM
A
Not sure if anyone remembers but the majority of us were on board with this after having N'Raas do this "tweaking" originally. I'd like to know what has changed to even warrant the idea of scrappinglet alone,changing this proposal.
Fred_Skinner wrote:
Calculus_Entropy wrote:
Hey Fred. Would you mind putting together a thread pitching your stealth idea? I have seen bits and pieces of it being thrown around, but I wouldn't mind seeing a concise post on it. You da man.
Message Edited by Calculus_Entropy on 03-18-2004 02:34 PM
It's in notepad, trying to get it done by tomorrow. I had several implimentation ideas gleaned from the games I've played that worked well. I have to go through all the ways I thought of other then Stealth and had to ultamatly shoot them down and why, they are legion.
We can also used the top 5 focus items to revamp the outdoorsman proposal.