Ranger Archive
Thread: Modular Camp V4...
ah, alright, then there is no flaw 
I also almost completely agree with the rest of your post. Rangers should be the ones to go to for a hunt.
One slight point: rangers should be almost equal but not quite when you want to go into the wild to attack people, rather then SLs being far better in the aspects we're talking about here. Why? Because the Wild is the domain of Rangers whatever you're hunting. And because Squad Leader has so many other advantages already. The profession centres entirely around advantages, so their camps shouldn't be a lot better then ours as well.
Phenix, I've posted sentiments that are much the same as you have. While I feel strongly about this, I've come to the following conclusions.
- NRaas has significantly readjusted the types of modules that can be shared among SL's and Rangers. I'd still like to see a complete separation, but I'm willing to go along with the idea as it stands.
- 'cause there seems to be more folks who like the idea
- 'cause there may be some merit to the idea of cross-decking the professions as proposed
- The ideas for the functionality are what's most important than the actual mechanism with which they are proposing to implement them with. Give me the ability to create those types of camps, and we'll get the logistics of "how" nailed down later. I'd rather do thatthan wait another 3-6 months waiting for those types of details to get nailed down.
- I think the dev's will probably feel the same way about the cross over modules. So there's a better than average chance that they'll make the limitations we are seeking. We've made our opinion known, and NRaas clearly understands them. Continuation of this part of the discussion will likely lead to no resolution in the near future. I think time is important, so we might loose more than we gain if we continue to try and resolve this issue.
- Assuming that this ever makes it to test, I would expect to hear much more discussion about some of these issues. Right now, the number of people commenting is pretty small. Once the general player base gets exposed to this idea, we'll hear plenty of discussion, I'm sure.
So, let's live with the warts for now so that NRaas can get the proposal in front of the dev team ASAP. Nothing stopping us from continuing to fine tune while the devs figure out if ANY of this is worth going forward. After all, they may decide that it would be better to add this functionality to existing camp models rather than re-inventing the entire system. Like I said, its the functionality that's most important at this stage.
Machs N'ihx - Master Ranger, Kettemoor
PithrenDarkstar wrote:The one qualm I have there, NRaas, is that it forces the outdoorsman back to town to get those modules. A master of the wild should be able to go on long trips without needing to plan every single camp ahead of time.
NRaas wrote:A Ranger who knows his stuff when it comes to preparing for a trip would be in far higher demand than a less skilled player who fails to bring the correct camp modules, or forgets his tranquilizers at home.
The other thing to consider, is if you are in a group, there will most likely be people in that group who can craft/give you the modules you may want/need. The stage module is useless without an entertainer anyway and it is the entertainer who makes it, so you could do without carrying it around because the entertainer in your group will either have it already, or will be able to whip a few up for you in the field. You can make a crate of camps that will be useful to you while soloing, and carry around a few mocules that may be useful if it turns out you need them, but carrying ALL of them is actually kinda silly. And your last statement is correct, in this plan we don't need to plan every camp ahead of time, you could build generic camps that are useful in every situation, just like we have now, but the option is there too to build camps that are even more useful with a bit of planning.
Phenix1050 wrote:I hate to beat a dead horse (someone please tell me if I'm becoming too repetitive/annoying) but I still think that camps should only be able used either to heal or against creatures, and forts should only be used to buff or against humans. Now, a few, level 1 modules could REPLICATE some of the effects, but would be generic so scouts could use and they could cross over between SL's and Rangers.
I don't know how everyone feels about this (i haven't gotten any stars, how ever shall I know how valuable my ideas are???--or is the no-star even worse than the one-star lol). I also stil think that slots should be open (i.e. not split into classes). I think Rocket Launches should be level 4 humanoid. If a SL so desired to have 3 rocket launchers (assuming 12 slots) so be it! An intelligent party would simply go around such a camp. Why attack a camp with that much automated defences unless you have the manpower to do it??
I agree fully. SL camps should = combat, ranger camps = health/rest
NRaas has some idea of the plan being more appealing if there is some cross value between the two, but I disagree and have disagreed. this doesn't mean I hate his plan, just that part. I would go so far as to make being in a SL camp the same as being in combat even if no one is attacking. they are fortifications which means that your senses are on alert and you are ready for battle. Ranger camps are rest areas meant to prepare and regroup after and before combat. So in my vision, SL camps should NEVER be able to heal BF, and ranger camsp should never give offensive bonuses or contain defensive weapons.
"I am saying is that for every idea that NRass likes, there are a bunch he doesn't."
Aye. That is the truth with everything, otherwise the choice would be simple.
There are members pushing for a paramilitary Ranger and there are those pushing for a woodsman Ranger.
There are members pushing for a modular system that restricts creature and humanoid parts completely, and those pushing for a system that allows mingling.
There are members pushing forinvisibility in PvP, like DAOC, and those pushing for"to-hit" in PvP like Anarchy Online.
Someof the choices are mutually exclusive, and some can be compromised to suit both sides.
Those of you who may remember that I did not initially start the Camp threads with the modular system in mind (you can follow the links back to the original version).
And the modular system itself has grown far bigger, and far more restrictive than I had initially envisioned.
The SL portion is in the proposal because many of the modules described do not fit into the wilderness-centric system being descibed in the proposal, and therefore the other side needed to be added to fulfill that duty.
Everything is about consistency inthe propsal. A consistency with the wilderness-centric approach.
These threads are designed with a singular purpose:
- To describe a vision of Ranger that is wilderness-centric, such that is fits with the developers initial concept of Ranger as a creature-centric profession, and allows for greater flexibility than pure creature combat.
"is if you are in a group, there will most likely be people in that group who can craft/give you the modules you may want/need. "
Genius. That is an excellent counter-point.
It works pretty well with Fred_Skinner's idea of the drop-in module idea,the pieces simply need to be traded to the Ranger before deployment.
And it still leaves the ability to factory off the most effective camp setups and sell them.
I don't know about anyone else, but I feel ready to move forward. I think like many others, I have been hung up on the minute details that I have "failed to see the forest for the trees". The modular system as it is proposed is simply a suggestion, and I think like many others, I forgot that even our best suggestions will be edited by the development and software teams to match their own ideas. I forgot that whatever we do, the fact is that we have to face our futures together, if we are to succeed in getting anything we want.
Let us agree that moving forward does not require that every single Ranger agree with every minute detail (or even every basic idea). The point is that NOW is the time to stand together and say that while every idea of NRass may not be the same as our own, he is privy to more opinions and suggestions than anyone else here, so he is in the best position to make decisions on what ideas are worthwhile and what are not. So most ideas that NRass is pushing are from the community. As such, let us stand behind those members of the community and the one person who has pushed us along more than anyone else: NRass.
I say let us put forth the proposal as soon as possible. Modular camping may never satisfy all the people who support the idea, just as the title "Ranger" forms many images in many people's heads, but it's time that the devs saw what we have known for months: Rangers have more practical suggestions than empty pleas and the most amazing correspondant available.
It is time to move beyond tiny details and step behind NRass and let him lead us.
/bowdeep to NRass for his work, and his amazing proposal
/bowdeep to all the other posters who make this board a better place
And on Phenix1050's note, I thank you all for participating in this proposal.
Hopefully, whatever paththe developers do decide to follow will be beneficial to us all.
With the SL drop zone idea, it can work really good with rangers. Say a ranger puts up a camp, registers on the planetary map, and then the SL has to buy a ticket or something for his squad to get a drop on that camp. That way you have to plan beforehand and cannot do it on a whim. Also, it would be nice to have evac also but I agree it must not be economical. Maybe a few thousand credits, and then depending on the size of the group or at least the number of people using the evac. Great stuff.
Love this idea. Glad you are working with SL on this as I think it is the way it should be. Also gives rangers more humanoid uses instead of just being good with creatures. ok bye!
