Ranger Archive
Thread: Bows and arrows and why SWG Rangers are not US Army Rangers!
Page 5 of 5
Almagill
Mon Mar 28, 2005 8:32 pm
#53
I'm completley lost... are we arguing for or against a weapon for rangers? If so, am pretty sure that's been hammered to death a hundred times before as 'ranger' in itself contains no specific combat requirement and so makes itself open to both ranged and melee, heavy weaps or bare hands, whatever the players own prefrence is.
Phenix seemed to be arguing for a weapon or combat skill that'd allow us to do a litle damage but not a lot, so we couldn't be stand alone and solo rancors, but could do some damage and then... run away??
Cuchulain had a good stab at advocating the introduction of a bow, but not a crossbow and certainly not a wookiee bowcaster because we're survivalists and can't get out hands on spare parts in the wilderness. Better not let my droid hear that or he'll be round the DE's shop panic buying batteries again.
Calc did his Good Cop impression and tried to get all the cats inthe bag to stop wrasslin' while poor Tarnak got smacked down for flaming, in what seemed to me to be not much more than a slight failure of his English spelling (that is so far from being a criticism, btw, as a) I'd not even try contributing to a discussion in a forum where the language isn't my mother tongue and b) I've seen way more horrendous spelling mistakes and grammatical errors from some of our 'regulars'
See, "The Thing That's Got Me Lost" is that, within the next couple of months, most of what we already know is going to go out of the window and we'll be busy relearning an entire new set of ground rules that relate to combat. No changes to the combat potential of ranger (in and of itself as a profession) will go ahead in the foreseeable future as those profs already identified as combat based will be getting a major overhaul.
Some debate as to 'what' ranger is is of course to be encouraged, but, with the CURB looming over us, detailed discussion of anything combat related is moot and, more importantly, getting our collective knickers in a twist is downright silly, eh?
/waves hand mysteriously
Look.. a shiny thing...
Phenix seemed to be arguing for a weapon or combat skill that'd allow us to do a litle damage but not a lot, so we couldn't be stand alone and solo rancors, but could do some damage and then... run away??
Cuchulain had a good stab at advocating the introduction of a bow, but not a crossbow and certainly not a wookiee bowcaster because we're survivalists and can't get out hands on spare parts in the wilderness. Better not let my droid hear that or he'll be round the DE's shop panic buying batteries again.
Calc did his Good Cop impression and tried to get all the cats inthe bag to stop wrasslin' while poor Tarnak got smacked down for flaming, in what seemed to me to be not much more than a slight failure of his English spelling (that is so far from being a criticism, btw, as a) I'd not even try contributing to a discussion in a forum where the language isn't my mother tongue and b) I've seen way more horrendous spelling mistakes and grammatical errors from some of our 'regulars'
See, "The Thing That's Got Me Lost" is that, within the next couple of months, most of what we already know is going to go out of the window and we'll be busy relearning an entire new set of ground rules that relate to combat. No changes to the combat potential of ranger (in and of itself as a profession) will go ahead in the foreseeable future as those profs already identified as combat based will be getting a major overhaul.
Some debate as to 'what' ranger is is of course to be encouraged, but, with the CURB looming over us, detailed discussion of anything combat related is moot and, more importantly, getting our collective knickers in a twist is downright silly, eh?
/waves hand mysteriously
Look.. a shiny thing...
Phenix1050
Mon Mar 28, 2005 8:43 pm
#54
Almagill wrote:
Phenix seemed to be arguing for a weapon or combat skill that'd allow us to do a litle damage but not a lot, so we couldn't be stand alone and solo rancors, but could do some damage and then... run away??
Guess that last post wasn't my last one....
what I am saying is this: ranger is basically a combat hybrid. We have elements of our profession that force us into combat, ones that function only after a kill, etc. WhatI want is to see a wider variety of Ranger lifestyles. A Ranger/Combat toon is a good hunter, but it shouldn't be the only template you see. A Ranger/Doctor should be a viable template, and should be able to hunt some midlevel content. When faced with a big beastie by themselves, they shouldn't be able to solo a rancor or anything like that without another combat profession.
Basically, my idea of the double crossbow is how I envision a Ranger weapon-- able to do damage, also able to shoot traps when neccesary to run away. Rangers shouldn't be equal to Riflemen in terms of power...but they also shouldn't be equal to a novice marksman. they need to be in-between. Like I said, I'm going to collect my thoughts and put together a fully formed idea of what a Ranger should be. This basic layout will probably become the next Outdoorsman document (of course, I'll take any constructive criticism on my vision, the Outdoorsman isn't just about what I personally want, but about the community as a whole).
Almagill
Mon Mar 28, 2005 8:59 pm
#55
Fiddlesticks. Can't drive the computer at this time of night.
Okays, basically all I'm saying is that, until the CURB, any discussion of what we think combat skills or abilities within the ranger profession should allow us to do is, I'm sure this isn't a word, but its indiscussable.
Those who are in the CU teams have knowledges about some changes but they cannot communicate them here, those of us who don't have those knowledges cannot make any reasonable comment on any suggestions or proposals as we simply don't know enough.
having said that, I'd fight tooth and nail to prevent any changes to the profession that allowed other 'non-combat' professions to be able to go out and hunt with any degree of efficiency, let alone to the sort of 'middling' level that you seemed to be suggesting.
I am all for being exclusive and protectionist in this. If they can't bring the tools to the job, then they don't get to work. However, postCURB it might be that it is entirely viable that a non-combat prof can do damage, but as I said up there ^ I dunno for now.
Which sort of neatly brings me back tothe point that any discussion about this, for the time being, is necessarily going to end up being a circular argument and won't progress us at all, for now.
Right, 5am, I better get SOME sleep before it get s light
Okays, basically all I'm saying is that, until the CURB, any discussion of what we think combat skills or abilities within the ranger profession should allow us to do is, I'm sure this isn't a word, but its indiscussable.
Those who are in the CU teams have knowledges about some changes but they cannot communicate them here, those of us who don't have those knowledges cannot make any reasonable comment on any suggestions or proposals as we simply don't know enough.
having said that, I'd fight tooth and nail to prevent any changes to the profession that allowed other 'non-combat' professions to be able to go out and hunt with any degree of efficiency, let alone to the sort of 'middling' level that you seemed to be suggesting.
I am all for being exclusive and protectionist in this. If they can't bring the tools to the job, then they don't get to work. However, postCURB it might be that it is entirely viable that a non-combat prof can do damage, but as I said up there ^ I dunno for now.
Which sort of neatly brings me back tothe point that any discussion about this, for the time being, is necessarily going to end up being a circular argument and won't progress us at all, for now.
Right, 5am, I better get SOME sleep before it get s light
Message Edited by Almagill on 03-29-2005 04:08 AM
Phenix1050
Mon Mar 28, 2005 9:02 pm
#56
Almagill wrote:
a finely crafted and expertly worded post. Top notch, I say, top notch!
Creaturetaimer
Mon Mar 28, 2005 10:02 pm
#57
Almagill wrote:
Phenix1050 wrote:
Almagill wrote:
a finely crafted and expertly worded post. Top notch, I say, top notch!
oooh, you b***h, I'll scratch your eyes out!!
(man,these language filters are sensitive, eh?)
Try some of the more "watered down" words and you will get the same thing. ya know stuff that you hear a 3rd grader say on a semi-consistant basis.
Phenix1050
Mon Mar 28, 2005 10:31 pm
#58
If you're up for a post thats long enough to make your eyes bleed, I posted my feelings on what Ranger should be. Alma-- I get what you're saying about not wanting non-combat characters to be able to hunt...but by my defenition, if they're a Ranger, they ARE a combat profession. Having only one combat profession, they shouldn't be getting high-level content...but if a new toon can only do easy stuff, and a double combat template can do the hard stuff, a single combat player should be around the middle.
CuchulainnDarklight
Mon Mar 28, 2005 10:37 pm
#59
Phenix1050 wrote:
If you're up for a post thats long enough to make your eyes bleed, I posted my feelings on what Ranger should be. Alma-- I get what you're saying about not wanting non-combat characters to be able to hunt...but by my defenition, if they're a Ranger, they ARE a combat profession. Having only one combat profession, they shouldn't be getting high-level content...but if a new toon can only do easy stuff, and a double combat template can do the hard stuff, a single combat player should be around the middle.
Having waded through Phenix's Outdoorsman 2.1 pproposal before starting this I can say that his proposal is pretty much near perfect, but if i remember he did say ranger combat skills should be drasctically reduced against non-creatures -which i dont agree with, reduced yes but, drastically sounds a bit to, well, drastic.
I just think the addition of a new weapon and a few skills for it into Ranger could save it for the moment, while we wait for a revamp (whenever that may be). After all new weapons are being put into the game soon (and recently if you count the DE10), and that is surely easier to code in than a total revamp, failing that some ranger skills that work like camo and traps being fixed would be nice.
Oh and Phenix, you made me bleed from the ears and eyes whilst struggling through the bit on camps.
And now a new one to read - argh!
Message Edited by CuchulainnDarklight on 03-28-2005 09:46 PM
Rancorrider4
Tue Mar 29, 2005 1:35 am
#60
Phenix1050 wrote:
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on a few points:
Having been a ranger since just after i started SWG (2 weeks) I have been waiting and waiting and waiting for it to live up to its true potential (glad i didnt hold my breath), as the supreme creature hunter class it should be. See, this is the problem. No other profession is pigeon-holed into one type of combat. in my mind, restricting us to simply PvCreature was the worst design choice, especially if there are no other classes like this. Giving us weapons that only affect creatures removes us from more than half the game, including the GCW
If you want to make the bow more star warsy why not havea crossbow which uses an electromagnetic acceleration system to launch a self-stabilising arrow which after penetrating its target detonates a small charge of highly reactive Tibanna gas - boom. Is that high tech enough. they already have something like it-- it's called a Bowcaster...
I will say it again and again - RANGER is a HUNTER. A MASTER RANGER is the ULTIMATE HUNTER. Able to solo high end creatures and not run in terror from a marauding dwarf nuna.and I will say it again and again. I don't want to be part of a profession where we are removed from half the combat in the game. The Devs have stated that they want to have a role for every profession in the game in terms of te GCW. Unless they're going to start giving imperial uniforms to Krayts, we're not going to get much of a role in the GCW
I've been a scout since the begining and a Ranger since September 2003. I used to think a lot like you. The creature-only role seemed refreshing and exciting. i liked the idea of being a Ranger from the get-go. But as I've stayed in the game, i've quickly learned that killing creatures only, while fun, is really only using a small portion of the game. Being a Ranger was great, but I longed to participate in the GCW. I wanted to be a soldier for the rebellion, and as I thought about what a soldier truly is, I've come to see scout and Rangers as the other half of military-style training. That doesn't mean I think we should get a cannon and start blasting things. I'll do my best to explain.
Any military personel will tell you there is more to being a soldier that just shooting a gun. You have to be fit, you have to know how to survive in adverse conditions (setting up shelting and finding food) and you have to be able to avoid detection. So a rifleman shouldn't be considiered a sniper or a soldier. Because all they know how to do is shoot. Shooting is important for a soldier, but there are also a lot of other things they can do. And I know plenty of guys who are crack shots, but wouldn't last a second in the military because they're out of shape. Scout is the flip side of military training. The survival side of it, and the fitness side of it. Now a soldier can use those skills in combat, but so can any person when they're hunting animals. Like any other combat profession, Scout should be able to work on both sides of the battlefield.
Ranger is the elite training, the type give to special forces-style soldiers. Does that mean we are ONLY able to be soldiers? No, certainly not. A woodlands hunter who took part in the survival training of a military unit would be much better at hunting animals. But if they were at some point pushed into military service, they'd also be a more effective soldier. A Ranger can spend his days hunting, but when called into duty for or against the Empire, they should say, well i may not know how to use a flamethrower, but I can make those guys stand still long enough so that they won't be able to run from the guy who DOES have the flame thrower.
The Outdoorsman proposal (originally penned by N'Rass, and re-written by me) isn't about forcing a player to choose one side or the other. It's about saying Ranger isn't just for hunters. We have the ability to be a profession that enhances other combat professions. That enhancement will work when fighting in the GCW, or while hunting Krayts. Just like every combat profession works in both types of combat, our skills should be across-the-board usefull. Forcing one style of play on a profession is a bad thing, in my opinion.
By the way, I've always supported a bow-like weapon. I actually just had a new idea on the same basic lines as a bow-- but it was a double cross-bow able to launch two darts...or two traps, or a combination of the two. Check it out and tell me what you think, if you'd like.
THIS is exactly why I love Phenix. I have read no further than this post and don't apologize for it. Owen, Agon, Calc and others know that this exactly what I believe as well. We should not, under any circumstances, be removed from such a large and important part of the game. Fredskinner's stealth proposal along with several other more combat oriented version of Ranger proposals are outstanding and lead to a more open game for the Ranger.
Most of the old guard in this forum know how much I advocated the Outdoorsman Proposal. It's much more inclusive and entertaining, than the creaturecentric version of us the devs said we were. I recommend you new Rangers (two weeks) go check that thread out.
Good hunting.
Calculus_Entropy
Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:32 am
#61
Almagill wrote:
Phenix1050 wrote:
Almagill wrote:a finely crafted and expertly worded post. Top notch, I say, top notch!
oooh, you b***h, I'll scratch your eyes out!!
(man,these language filters are sensitive, eh?)
Hmmm.....to report, to not report...that is the question
. If this disappears, you'll know why 
.
Page 5 of 5