Ranger Archive
Thread: Combat Perk/Idea for Rangers
Scarin
Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:25 pm
#53
Rooks wrote:
WHERE in our class description does it say we are to be Guerilla warriors?
Obviously no where, I was offering a description of how I personally see, or want to see my Ranger. That's why I asked him how see's his Ranger. Is calvary a part of his vision, is it a part of the communities?
Rooks wrote:
Greenmarine even said Rangers have ZERO PVP potential in his eyes.
Thats a different discussion altogether. Greenmarine has been working on JTL for months, said he doesn't read the forums and hasn't even heard of the outdoorsman proposal. I don't think he is up to date with what Rangers or the other devs want, so its too early to assume the door is closed on Ranger PvP.
Rooks wrote:
Mounted Combat is for fighting Creatures, YES it may be used in PVP but as anyone who has had a speeder blown up on them knows a mount in PVP is crazy
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Mounted combat would effect PvP and PvE. That doesn't say anything about why it should be a Ranger skill or why we should adopt the idea.
Rooks wrote:
Many people want to define Ranger as what THEY think it is. Ranger has been re-defined with this game and is STILL being re-defined even today.
/Agree. Thats what we're trying to do here.
Rooks wrote:
Adding Mounted Combat will not HURT Ranger, it will ONLY help us.
/Disagree. I think it would certainly hurt if it means we have to give up some other skills, or loose focus from some of the other things we want improved like, conceal, better traps, better camps... etc.
Rooks
Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:36 pm
#54
Scarin wrote:
Rooks wrote:
WHERE in our class description does it say we are to be Guerilla warriors?
Obviously no where, I was offering a description of how I personally see, or want to see my Ranger. That's why I asked him how see's his Ranger. Is calvary a part of his vision, is it a part of the communities?
Rooks wrote:
Greenmarine even said Rangers have ZERO PVP potential in his eyes.
Thats a different discussion altogether. Greenmarine has been working on JTL for months, said he doesn't read the forums and hasn't even heard of the outdoorsman proposal. I don't think he is up to date with what Rangers or the other devs want, so its too early to assume the door is closed on Ranger PvP.
Rooks wrote:
Mounted Combat is for fighting Creatures, YES it may be used in PVP but as anyone who has had a speeder blown up on them knows a mount in PVP is crazy
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Mounted combat would effect PvP and PvE. That doesn't say anything about why it should be a Ranger skill or why we should adopt the idea.
Rooks wrote:
Many people want to define Ranger as what THEY think it is. Ranger has been re-defined with this game and is STILL being re-defined even today.
/Agree. Thats what we're trying to do here.
Rooks wrote:
Adding Mounted Combat will not HURT Ranger, it will ONLY help us.
/Disagree. I think it would certainly hurt if it means we have to give up some other skills, or loose focus from some of the other things we want improved like, conceal, better traps, better camps... etc.
As for losing certain skills to GET Mounted Combat or any other new skill. I can think of several I would willingly give up cause they are basically useless as of TODAY.
Conceal, Creature to Hit bonusand Rescue areworthless skills in my opinion andbroken. I would gladly give upthem for a Ranger specific weapon OR Mounted Combat abilities.
Conceal, which Devs have stated recently was NEVER meant to be used against NPCs. If not against NPCs, then what IS IT FOR? Rescue is useless as almost everyone knows a Ranger cannot Tank.
As for our Traps, we find out from the Melee Fan Fest Discussions Dizzy was never meant to work against Creatures, Yet Rangers have 2 out their Traps that have DIZZY EFFECTS? Our camps have been made useless except for individual purposes in most cases.
We have ZERO combat skills, except an unknown of creature to hit bonus that I believe is not even coded.
As for loosing focus on fixes, that is NOT our job. We point out the Bugs and the DEVS need to focus on them. The Ranger community has done AWESOME in presenting ideas for their class and have gotten ZERO in return from it as evidenced from GreenMarines statements at Fan Fest.
As of TODAY, we are looking at easily 6 months before ANYTHING Big and new is added to Ranger.
People keep saying their class is at the bottom of the Devs Priority totem poll. Problem is the people saying this are Rangers, Pistoleers, Creature Hunters, Smugglersand guess what? That bottom of the totem poll is pretty full right now, WHO is at the top after JTL and Jedi?
I want something to help those of us still as Rangers STAY as Rangers other than a broekn promise for 6 months down the line.
Message Edited by Rooks on 06-12-2004 08:38 PM
Scarin
Sat Jun 12, 2004 7:04 pm
#55
Rooks wrote:
As for losing certain skills to GET Mounted Combat or any other new skill. I can think of several I would willingly give up cause they are basically useless as of TODAY.
Those skills are useless because they're either broken or are too narrow in scope which is not our fault. Regardless they're still a part of what defines a Ranger, and giving them up completely would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. In my opinion, it would be better to think about how we could improve our current skills to make them more useful.
Rooks wrote:
Conceal, which Devs have stated recently was NEVER meant to be used against NPCs. If not against NPCs, then what IS IT FOR? Rescue is useless as almost everyone knows a Ranger cannot Tank.
I don't care what dev said what about conceal. They are a bunch of flakes sometimes and will say whatever they please to cover their mistakes. Does anyone remember way back when there was even a description of /conceal that said it would work on other players? Either way, many Rangers feel the only thing to make /conceal worth is if it did work on npc's again (and maybe even players).
Oh and I'm Master Swordsman too, I'm ranger who certainly can tank!
But you're right rescue is not very useful to most, but look at some of the great ideas people have come up with to make it better.
Rooks wrote:
I want something to help those of us still as Rangers STAY as Rangers other than a broekn promise for 6 months down the line.
I agree wholeheartedly. I want Ranger to be fun and useful, I don't want people to get frustrated and leave, and I'm tired of losing members of our community. We just disagree about how to do it. I'd rather focus on how to revamp our current skills and make them more useful, while you seem to think it would be better to add completely new things. Neither can say one is right or the other is wrong and I don't want to keep throwing punches back and forth. I will say its going to take a lot to convince at least this Ranger that its worth dropping our other skills and ideas though.
Squidwalker
Sat Jun 12, 2004 7:20 pm
#56
Guys, Calc, do what you want then. You are correct that this kind of turned into a argument, counter-argument thread. But in my eyes, calc turned it into that, by asking me, and those supporters, to defend and argue for this idea in ranger. So I did what he asked, or so I thought. I came up with several "arguments" and points of view to support it, but I didn't see anything from calc saying stateing he liked or didn't like them. Hmm maybe kind of how the devs are doing to us?
We are screwed folks. The devs aren't doing anything with ranger, we cant do anything with ranger cause we don't even have a slightest clue what the devs want for us. So basically between a rock and a hard place. I have been a scout since character creation, on the scout forums since week one. As soon as I made made ranger I was active on this forum, and keep in touch with scout. I have held master ranger since I got it months ago. I have seen players come and go, ideas come and go, coorespondants come and go, bugs come and go, fixes come and go. Even some new additions to the profession like /comceal and /areatrack.
After all that we still don't know what the devs want, so basically we are spinning our wheels here. As I stated in another post on ranger, the 19 Answers thing came at a bad time as far as players are concerned. Why? Everything for pretty much every profession waiting for a revamp, is waiting for the Combat Balance to see what direction the devs want for the profession.
I will keep my ideas to myself from now on until after the Combat Balance. It's obvious that "at least" until then, everything is a waiste of our time. We could come up with some fantasitc ideas that the community in general agrees on(/caugh Outdoorsman), and it could never happen if it ends up not going in the direction the devs want for us.
As for some of the recent comments about what I want my ranger to be? Frankly EVERYTHING in outdoorsman except the modular camps I fully support, love, and would like to ranger be. But I have not heard didly squat about it from the devs or through our coorespondants, and so that tells me, they don't like it or dont give a crap. So forgive me for coming up with other ideas since the ones I helped develope over 6 months ago have not gotten any responce. Isn't it normal then to start coming up with other ideas, in maybe different directions? Human nature, logical? Either way, I'm not going to waiste my time anymore until I start seeing actual feedback from the Devs, not just TH who is not a dev BTW, and they start pointing us in a direction to focus our creativity.
Gnight.
Kiryoku
Sun Jun 13, 2004 2:09 am
#57
this topic has gotten derailed pretty badly... i really like this idea, and since i haven't gotten any feedback i'll assume i did a poor job in making my points... here is my summation, may it please the rest of the devs...
in studying the professions of the game, i can only think of three that might deserve the ability to excel in mounted combat:
- pikesmen - the cavalier, knight, and cavalry - pikesmen use weapons such as a lance or spear, both weapons designed for fighting from mount or against mounted opponents
- creature handlers - the ranchers - creature handlers work with animals and have a deep understanding of their abilities, they train the mount
- rangers - the Rangers (to be explained soon) - rangers are explorers and hunters, living for long periods of time in unhospital areas, completely at home where most people could not survive
let the battle begin, who should have this ability?
pikesmen vs. ranger
mechanics:
pikesmen are an elite combat profession that must be comparable to other melee professions... rangers are an elite scouting profession who often find themselves a long way from civilization or even another person
mechanics:
pikesmen are an elite combat profession that must be comparable to other melee professions... rangers are an elite scouting profession who often find themselves a long way from civilization or even another person
balance issues:
pikesmen must be balanced with other melee professions, granting them mounted combat could be unbalancing unless certain other combat elements are removed from them - forcing all pikesmen into the mold of "cavalier"... non-CH mounts are relatively weak, in order to become useful almost all pikesmen would have to spend skillpoints in scout and creature handler - again forcing htem into a mold...
pikesmen must be balanced with other melee professions, granting them mounted combat could be unbalancing unless certain other combat elements are removed from them - forcing all pikesmen into the mold of "cavalier"... non-CH mounts are relatively weak, in order to become useful almost all pikesmen would have to spend skillpoints in scout and creature handler - again forcing htem into a mold...
rangers require many more skillpoints than pikesmen, but gain no real combative bonuses (at this time)... there is no other profession like ranger, so it only needs to be balanced at a benefit to skill-point cost ratio.. to make these abilities worthwhile, a ranger's remaining skillpoints would need to be spent in either a combat profession or in creature handling - no one is forced into a mold as each ranger can decide for themselves what is most important to them...
creature handler vs. ranger
mechanics:
creature handlers are unique in that they are the only profession that can tame and train mounts, and use high level creatures in battle... rangers have a close tie to creature handlers, having all of the prerequisites for the profession..
mechanics:
creature handlers are unique in that they are the only profession that can tame and train mounts, and use high level creatures in battle... rangers have a close tie to creature handlers, having all of the prerequisites for the profession..
balance issues:
creature handlers have the ability to use up to CL 70 creatures in battle, after the CB (presumeably) this will once again be a powerful skill... a creature handler spends less points to master than does ranger, leaving room for a complete combat profession and then some... the ability to use one of their fearsome creatures as a mount, and utilize their extraneous combat professions simultaneously - gaining all advantages of being mounted, is highly unbalancing...
creature handlers have the ability to use up to CL 70 creatures in battle, after the CB (presumeably) this will once again be a powerful skill... a creature handler spends less points to master than does ranger, leaving room for a complete combat profession and then some... the ability to use one of their fearsome creatures as a mount, and utilize their extraneous combat professions simultaneously - gaining all advantages of being mounted, is highly unbalancing...
rangers have enough skillpoints to master a combat profession and use up to a CL 19 creature in battle (by spending all remaining skill-points in creature handler)... if a ranger so chose, they could take more creature handler at a sacrifice of their own fighting ability... this trade-off is where the balance of power comes in - combat ability vs. mount strength, whereas the creature handler could have both and have remaining skillpoints...
ok, so why ranger at all?
in several threads, people have asked "what is your ideal ranger?"... we've had many, many different responses - some even in opposition of each other... the views that i want to touch on are the military ranger, and specifically the lone ranger...
a form the military ranger once took was that of the Texas Rangers (again, i don't mean Walker)... the very first rangers recruited were 10 "experienced frontiersman".. their duties ranged from hunting (both man and creature), escorting, scouting and recon, and upholding/enforcing "wilderness law"... they explored dangerous lands - both of wild creatures and enemies in times of war, using guile or force depending on the situation... they acted as the army's "eyes and ears," tracking enemy movement and often providing key information as to the enemy's capabilities... to them, their horses were part transportation, part weapon, and part savior - as many of the things they did would have been impossible without them.. a ranger was inseperable from his mount...
the lone ranger was based directly on the rangers of the "wild west"... only he was the epitomy of all that was good - not something we require in a ranger, just something that's nice to have... he too had all of their strong qualities, and even some of their abilities... he could live on the land, track, hunt, and once again was inseperable from his horse, silver... the boy scout's hero, the lone ranger is what a good ranger should be...
barring the balance issues, CHs work with creatures, why not them?
creature handlers are animal trainers and animal handlers... in real life, horse trainers are required to be patient and understanding with the horse... they are not required to have the fortitude to ride for days on end and survive alongside of the horse as one unit... there are some that may wish to do so, but odds are they didn't spend their extra skillpoints in some combat skill either - rather they chose to spend some in ranger... a ranger's mount is already trained, look at the former army's horses - incredibly intelligent and well trained, but that is the only reason the soldier could use them, he certainly didn't make them that way himself... comparing CHs to rangers is a lot like comparing horse whisperers to cowboys (in particular, the rangers of the west)
won't this hurt our chances of getting other abilities though?
no... what hurts our chances of getting other abilities are the differing opinions of what a ranger is - not only ours, but among the developers... we have many proposals on the table and we know most of them won't fly, especially since the developers may not agree with the "view" that spawned those proposals... for example - if the devs feel we should be creature-centric in our hunting, they will not institute traps vs. players... also, some of our proposals will be turned down regardless of the source of their creation - due to programming constraints and balance issues... this proposal hurts us in no way because we still have the ability to "toss about" ideas on what we want - we're going to get something new, even the developers know how under-developed this profession is... also, this proposal is more of a luxury than a hard-core bonus to our combative abilities, it alone won't support 140 skill points - much more would remain to be done with ranger even if this were implemented
ok, so how could it be implemented fairly, in such a way that it doesn't impede on our other proposals?
i'm glad you asked that... the best way would be to line up elements of it throughout the entire ranger onion (i used a dev word - onion)...
- Wayfaring - bonuses to mount combat speed and/or mount terrain negotiation
- Frontiering - bonuses to mount and mounted defenses - melee, ranged defenses, as well as defenses vs. posture-change and knock-down (specials that would dismount the player)
- Field Bioscience - bonuses to attack from mount - have penalties to mounted attacks that get reduced to very little at master ranger
- Trapping - ability to use specials from mount - either grant specials or disperse the ability to use specials from mount so that there is an increasing benefit for gaining levels
and lastly, don't grant the ranger creature handling bonuses... this takes away from the creature handling profession and also from the balancing that comes from a ranger getting these abilities... a ranger has the pre-reqs for CH, he should have to spend the skill points to be adept at handling/training animals other than his mount...
EDIT: I completely forgot....
so what does this do for rangers?
this gives us as edge in exploring/hunting -we would have the ability to fight without sacrificing too much mobility... moreover we would have a more developed role in the GCW, just as the rangers were for the military -as better scouts, and depending on the circumstances, combatants (the build of the ranger matters, as a weak mount can be shot out from under you but a weak combat profession prevents you from doing damage)
Message Edited by Kiryoku on 06-13-2004 02:38 AM
Nemo0
Sun Jun 13, 2004 3:08 am
#58
Nice job summing everything up. I personally would prefer to see the mobility given to us on foot (mainly because I like running and don't like the idea of a concealed mounted Ranger, especially after invisibility) but, assuming they won't give us that, I would be willing to support this (or have both). The argument would need to be made to the other forums and I'm guessing the response would not be very favorable. But I'd rather be the ghost than the knight.
Klif_Hangar
Sun Jun 13, 2004 8:04 am
#59
Excellent summary of arguments supporting this idea Kiryoku. I also really like this idea, and your post summed up why I do pretty well.
Rooks
Sun Jun 13, 2004 9:48 am
#60
Fantastic job Kiryoku summing it up.
One last part, IF we get mounted ability, I want a cowboy hat
Seriously tho, keep up the great ideas people, obviously the Devs WANT ideas, we just have to justify a reason for them to listen to them.
Kiryoku
Sun Jun 13, 2004 11:33 am
#61
Nemo0 wrote:
Nice job summing everything up. I personally would prefer to see the mobility given to us on foot (mainly because I like running and don't like the idea of a concealed mounted Ranger, especially after invisibility) but, assuming they won't give us that, I would be willing to support this (or have both). The argument would need to be made to the other forums and I'm guessing the response would not be very favorable. But I'd rather be the ghost than the knight.
i agree... and i thinka lot of other folks agree that rangers should have faster foot movement... the trouble is, the only source i can think of for this notion are the tolkenesque rangers (my personal favorite rangers, btw)... namely, aragorn earning the nickname "wingfoot" for travelling on foot through rohan in a matter of days... but because of kiting issues being a balancing issue and because mounts already exist as high-speed transportation (if rangers gained this ability, they would have even less use for mounts), i see this as a viable alternative to increasing ranger foot-speed... theyare pretty much functionally the same for the ranger... also, as you mentioned, both are possible implementations - the tolkienesque rangers also acted similarly to the Texas Rangers in reference to their mounts...
as i said before, this ability alone isn't enough to satisfy any one "view" of rangering... i think this in conjunction with stealth would make a ranger incredibly versatile... stealth and mounted combat aren't abilities that can be used in conjunction with one another - they do in fact serve different purposes and negate the others' existance... stealth should not be a mounted ability, if anything it should be /prone only... also, this gives rangers area to specialize in one skill, giving rangers variability - not every ranger would be from the same mold (they could be a ghost and a mounted soldier, just neither at the same time)...
a few things you reminded me of:
- tracking abilities should work from mount - this not a vehicle, i can think of no reason why it shouldn't work this way now
- concealing abilities should work as they do - once concealed you may mount, but the act of concealing is not something that can be done from mount
- possibly allow creature handlers or rangers (haven't decided who should have this yet) to toggle mount attacking - give them the ability to have their mount attack while they are riding it, this would work like the old test-center mounts in that they would autofollow whatever the target is, only this time they would attack too
oh, and nemo0... with this, you wouldn't be the knight... you would be the captain, a mounted officer... your squad leader bonuses would apply to your mounted troops... granting people TN bonuses both to them and their mounts you could cross ground even quicker...
Message Edited by Kiryoku on 06-13-2004 03:56 PM
KaiRaene
Mon Jun 14, 2004 7:52 am
#62
I didnt read thru the whole thread so forgive me if I miss something
A while back I proposed an idea to Creature Handlers for battle trained mounts. A mount that could steady up/kneel to allowanyone tofire specials from a mount. These mounts could be used to attack while your attacking but less damage since they are carrying a load.Say a specific mount could be taught to not spook when a mounted player uses certain specials.
A Rifleman would perhaps use concealshot from a mounted position. Accuracy and damage would change somewhat depending upon if the mount was moving or in a steadied/kneeling position. These mounts would have to be especially trained by CH's. Also, I thought about armor and steel shod hooves and the like for mounts to make them better in battle.
Guys in the CH forums never responded. It just faded away. Seemed like a decent proposal but they just want P0kem@n Wars.. lol. Oh well.
Rooks
Mon Jun 14, 2004 8:28 am
#63
That is some great ideas KaiRaene.
I really like the posture changes for the mount for specific specials.
Also the idea of armor, saddles and metal shoes for the mounts would be an armorsmith/tailor items that could be added to those professions.
Squidwalker
Mon Jun 14, 2004 8:54 am
#64
Nice work Kiryoku, very well said and laid out to spread the skills. I also don't want ranger to have any CH skills at all.
As Nemo said though, I personally, would rather be the "outdoors ghost" then the cavalry. Maybe while mounted can't be using /conceal at all. Only maskscent. But who knows who knows what the devs want/like.
Kiryoku
Mon Jun 14, 2004 11:47 am
#65
KaiRaene wrote:
A while back I proposed an idea to Creature Handlers for battle trained mounts. A mount that could steady up/kneel to allowanyone tofire specials from a mount. These mounts could be used to attack while your attacking but less damage since they are carrying a load.Say a specific mount could be taught to not spook when a mounted player uses certain specials.
you know, i remember reading that... a very cool idea...
as for the armor and things, way back when mounts werebeing developedi remember them releasing "concept art" with armor for mounts... it was something they said they were going to implement, but it seems they forgot to... heh, not an uncommon thing for them to do...
also, it wouldn't surprise me if this concept for rangers "fades away" too... it doesn't seem too popular a proposal, despite the fact that it is not a defining characteristic... i guess the devs have trained us well not to ask formuch - now we're walking on our tiptoes afraid we're going to sway them with our many ideas for ranger abilities, when they wouldn't look even if they could hear us...
Squidwalker:
As Nemo said though, I personally, would rather be the "outdoors ghost" then the cavalry. Maybe while mounted can't be using /conceal at all. Only maskscent. But who knows who knows what the devs want/like.
i didn't mean you should be able to "hide" from players or NPCs while on a mount... i was just thinking in terms of maskscent, and conceal being our version of it... you got it right, you should not be able to actually sneak around visibly on your horse...
also, i don't see how this interferes with the "ghost" idea... i too really like that, i want fred's stealth proposal... the thing is, i'm starting to see that we will never have a combat form of it, and i think this is something we can have in conjunction with it... even if they are two distinct and completely seperate skills, i think they both belong in rangering... i like to imagine being the scout for an army, riding way out in front or tracking the enemy, then when i get close i dismount and sneak in closer than i could with my horse - i observe what i can, learn what i can, head back to my mount and ride back to report... maybe on the way back i get waylaid and have to fight, but i never cease in my efforts to return with the information - i'm mounted for speed, but my abilities to fight aren't hindered by it... why can't rangers have both?
Rooks:
One last part, IF we get mounted ability, I want a cowboy hat
silly wookiee... don't you know that tailors can make hats that accomodate for lekku, horns, giant ears, frills, mohawks, scaley head-bumps, and the huge bulbous cranium of a mon calamari, but hats just can't be made in XXL...