Ranger Archive

---

Calculus_Entropy wrote:

I like the idea of adding the contradiction that is /conceal. Also, if we ask questions like I highlighted, we will get a cookiee cutter answer. I think it is pretty certain that the devs think of us as creature only, so I might suggest something along the lines of 'Why do we have skills intended to affect humamoids (PC and NPC) when the devs see us as a creature only profession?

---

---

Calculus_Entropy wrote:

Do we want to go with this?

---

For brevity, sure. There can be more questions later... after we capture and kidnap GM and hold him for ransom

Message Edited by Squidwalker on 06-14-2004 04:17 PM

Message Edited by GoldMemberBria on 06-14-2004 04:46 PM

1. I'll vote for Nemo's question but i would rather have the following:

2. Could the developer who will be in charge with Ranger please sit down with Calculus Entropy and have a discussion about the state of our profession?

Understanding of course that anything that is discussed is subject to change. I wrote a couple things I would like to know in Rancorrider's thread. Basically I would like Calc to have a discussion with our developer similar to the ones we have. Ideas. Excitement. Vision. Even if the visions don't come true, the fact that the developer will be having them and will be as excited about our potential as we are would comfort me greatly. I want him/her to be looking forward to working on our revamp as much as we are looking forward to receiving it.

I trust Calc to put aside for a little while all the frustration and anger we have been experiencing lately and have a really good, fun, chat. After you soften him up you can mention our traps. I don't think the developers themselves have the power to push anything out before our revamp (manager decide that most likely). But I think having the developer excited and working hard for us when our time comes will have value beyond measure.

---

GoldMemberBria wrote:

Here's what I don't understand about this thread, and those posting in it. There seems to be this big uproar about rangers not wanting to be labelled as creature hunters and you guys say that the outdoorsman proposal is counter to that notion, well, in re-reading it again, it certainly is not. It's 90% about creature hunting and making ourselves better at that. Aside from some proposals about /conceal working against people and NPC's, and a few add ons to the tents, I see the outdoorsman proposal as basically being a bunch of improvements to hunting.

So you guys that are bitching about this, what's the deal? what exactly is your complaint? And more to the point, what exactly are you trying to learn from this "question" other than just using it as an opportunity to vent? Seems to me this is nothing more than a rant, and is guaranteed to get this reply: "we realize ranger needs work, it'll get work, be patient". Not that I don't sympathize with what you're saying, you know I'm more synical then any of you here,

http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=ranger&message.id=41029

and that's why I'm no longer a master ranger, cause I actually want to be useful in-game, but this line of questioning just seems pointless and actually counter-productive to our plight.

Incidentally, I agree with the person who posted in the thread last week. Time to scrap the outdoorsman proposal and re-write it. It's an old document that was written before many changes to the game and is now obsolete. It was written before buffs and the food revamp, before the droid revamp, and before the melee craze, uber composite, the holo-grind, and it even predates vehicles I believe. The upcoming combat re-vamp will just make it all the more obsolete. Time to re-evaluate what exactly our vision is. I think that would be time much better spent rather than worrying about beating the devs over the head with this old document. As another person pointed out last week, it's fortunate that Green Marine isn't familiar with The Outdoorsman, because now that gives us more opportunity to re-write it.

Message Edited by GoldMemberBria on 06-14-2004 04:46 PM

---

A little backstory on this. We pushed the idea of Ranger in PvP a little too hard and we were told point blank "No. Master Ranger is the ultimate creature profession." Gulp. Okay. So we crafted the Outdoorsman around that and tried to put a little more value for PvP into it. Trying to show them that we could still match their vision of Ranger (as limited as they gave us) while still being useful to fighting in PvP and against NPCs in the GCW. Direct assault didn't work. The Outdoorsman was a lure trap. Look how cool these ideas are! Ignore the fact that they will work on other things than creatures! Be seduced by the coolness of Ranger potential!

If you thik it is time to direct assault again then fine. But I'd hate to see our next feedback be a mere reiteration of our last feedback.

Message Edited by Vorpaks on 06-15-2004 08:29 AM

---

Calculus_Entropy wrote:

Last week in the Brawlerquestion about dizzy you (TH)statedthat it is not intended to work on creatures. This seems extremely odd given that two traps (the Lecepanine Dart [obtained at Novice Scout] and the Sonic Pulse Trap [the highest lvlRanger trap]) cause Dizzy. Considering Rangers are given only 2 traps that effectively eliminates the usefulness of half the ranger trapping tree. While the Ranger community realizes that a revamp will not happen for several months we would like smaller issues such as this to be resolved prior to a revamp. Is this a resonable request? What, if any, plans are there to correct this discrepancy?

---

I edited Calcs quote of Nem0's question. I focused in on 1 problem. I'm hoping if we give a very focused, blunt (but not rude) question we'll have a better chance of getting a good answer and just maybe see some results in the near future.... instead of 8 months down the road.

---

GoldMemberBria wrote:

Here's what I don't understand about this thread, and those posting in it. There seems to be this big uproar about rangers not wanting to be labelled as creature hunters and you guys say that the outdoorsman proposal is counter to that notion, well, in re-reading it again, it certainly is not. It's 90% about creature hunting and making ourselves better at that. Aside from some proposals about /conceal working against people and NPC's, and a few add ons to the tents, I see the outdoorsman proposal as basically being a bunch of improvements to hunting.

So you guys that are bitching about this, what's the deal? what exactly is your complaint? And more to the point, what exactly are you trying to learn from this "question" other than just using it as an opportunity to vent? Seems to me this is nothing more than a rant, and is guaranteed to get this reply: "we realize ranger needs work, it'll get work, be patient". Not that I don't sympathize with what you're saying, you know I'm more synical then any of you here,

http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=ranger&message.id=41029

and that's why I'm no longer a master ranger, cause I actually want to be useful in-game, but this line of questioning just seems pointless and actually counter-productive to our plight.

Incidentally, I agree with the person who posted in the thread last week. Time to scrap the outdoorsman proposal and re-write it. It's an old document that was written before many changes to the game and is now obsolete. It was written before buffs and the food revamp, before the droid revamp, and before the melee craze, uber composite, the holo-grind, and it even predates vehicles I believe. The upcoming combat re-vamp will just make it all the more obsolete. Time to re-evaluate what exactly our vision is. I think that would be time much better spent rather than worrying about beating the devs over the head with this old document. As another person pointed out last week, it's fortunate that Green Marine isn't familiar with The Outdoorsman, because now that gives us more opportunity to re-write it.

Message Edited by GoldMemberBria on 06-14-2004 04:46 PM

---

What question would like to ask then?

---

GoldMemberBria wrote:

Here's what I don't understand about this thread, and those posting in it. There seems to be this big uproar about rangers not wanting to be labelled as creature hunters and you guys say that the outdoorsman proposal is counter to that notion, well, in re-reading it again, it certainly is not. It's 90% about creature hunting and making ourselves better at that. Aside from some proposals about /conceal working against people and NPC's, and a few add ons to the tents, I see the outdoorsman proposal as basically being a bunch of improvements to hunting.

So you guys that are bitching about this, what's the deal? what exactly is your complaint? And more to the point, what exactly are you trying to learn from this "question" other than just using it as an opportunity to vent? Seems to me this is nothing more than a rant, and is guaranteed to get this reply: "we realize ranger needs work, it'll get work, be patient". Not that I don't sympathize with what you're saying, you know I'm more synical then any of you here,

http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=ranger&message.id=41029

and that's why I'm no longer a master ranger, cause I actually want to be useful in-game, but this line of questioning just seems pointless and actually counter-productive to our plight.

Incidentally, I agree with the person who posted in the thread last week. Time to scrap the outdoorsman proposal and re-write it. It's an old document that was written before many changes to the game and is now obsolete. It was written before buffs and the food revamp, before the droid revamp, and before the melee craze, uber composite, the holo-grind, and it even predates vehicles I believe. The upcoming combat re-vamp will just make it all the more obsolete. Time to re-evaluate what exactly our vision is. I think that would be time much better spent rather than worrying about beating the devs over the head with this old document. As another person pointed out last week, it's fortunate that Green Marine isn't familiar with The Outdoorsman, because now that gives us more opportunity to re-write it.

Message Edited by GoldMemberBria on 06-14-2004 04:46 PM

---

As someone said, we pushed for usefullness in true combat, PvP and GCW. We asked for traps against NPC and and players. Then they gave us /conceal that states ingame /conceal hides you from NPC. And it did too. But then after some time /conceal started bugging out on us against NPC. When we asked about it and asked for a fix, they came back with "it was not intended to work against NPC. That it did was a bug in itself. We want ranger to be the master of the outdoors, and the hunting of animals master"

So we accepted that, after much griping, and came up with the Outdoorsman. I think maybe you are reading our posts from the wrong perspective. We are not compaigning, anymore, about being creature centric. We are complaining about the fact, they have not responded to outdoorsman, and we still have not gotten a clear direction from the devs, of how they want ranger to be. Now there are things like one scout and one ranger trap that give dizzy, but we now know dizzy doesn't work on creatures. We are just asking for a clear anwer of what the devs will "let us do with ranger". Then we can start asking for things that go in that direction, and not waiste our time on ideas going in the wrong direction.