Ranger Archive

---

WildBil2Me wrote:

All joking aside...

I think there are much better smarter ways to handle this without taking two professions with a great deal of potential and squeezing them into one box. If the future of SWG were limited to the next six months and there was no hope of seeing the great ideas produced by both the SLs and the Rangers put into motion you might convince me this was a decent plan... right now I think its not a good idea and reeks of a quick fix.

---

um, exactly how long do you think this game has left? over 12months?

Of course there are better ways to do this. But let's look at what is actually REALISTIC!

i think it could be done well enough. Of course i want Ranger to be this really awesome unique profession, but is it going to happen anytime soon???? NO!

I think this has merit, and needs to be discussed. as we are already doing. You people need to look at what you want to happen and then ask yourself, "Does this really have a chance in hell?"

wether you like it or not, this merger idea has a lot better chances then some of the things we'd like to see for Rangers.

---

Gray03 wrote:

"we will wind up with 1 profession that is even more borked then either of the two seperate professions is now." While I understand the sentiment, I cannot aggree. Right now, you have NOTHING. There is simply nothing in ranger that merits the skillpoint investment from a

Well, at least NOTHING can't be broken *yet again*. See previous statement on trackrecord. Something that is not working, cannot be made even worse. However, with SOE skills, I might to rethink that. I think they are capable of doing just that.

gameplay standpoint. (Roleplaying, sure - it kills me how useless ranger is) So, right now everyone who isn't basing the decision on roleplaying elements has abandoned ranger. Squad leader is a little better off, it has the base busting aspects, some decent stat mods and proff specific weapons - but it still it is still basically a dabblers spot, snag a line or two to boost some other double mastery template, aside from that not SL isn't a wise choice gameplay wise either..so you have nothing to lose.

Exactly, SL is currently better off. So do you think their community would really want this? I don't think so, and I would not expect anything else. They have their own style of roleplaying it, which is inherently different from Ranger as the professions are used in different contexts.

Given the choice of gambling on a merger sooner or seperate revamps later, I know which seems more likely.

Given the know history of SOE, neither.

---

---

BioEngine wrote:
I'm starting to think this is a bad idea as well. I think that Rangers should be able to compete in the Galactic Civil War as well. We need to be able to have some way to fight more than just creatures. Otherwise, I'm afraid that we will be quite pointless to the Devs for years to come.

---

---

Ackehece wrote:

put me down for completely totally categorically against... I have never ever desired ranger skills and yet I use SL skills everyday.

SL is a group leading hard charging cigar chomping battle sarg were as Rangers I have always found prefer to be off by themselves in the wild camping, hunting, being outdoors. Completely different viewpoints. Sure we share a little bit of scout but the same can be said of Rangers and BHs and Rangers and Ch who have an ever greater affinity to Ranger then SL ever will have.

Number three is pretty much the only real option. (two seperate revamps) both groups have good ideas that have been put forward before and if they even incorperate 1/3 of them the professions will be very cool and fun to play.

Otoh - I have always wondered how come rangers believe that they are Combatents in the GCW . Since launch Rangers have been focused on creatures and creature hunting and anyone who became a Ranger knew that.... so were did the npc/pc combat side come from?

WE CAN TRACK PLAYERS AND NPCS!!! HUH, THAT'S INTERESTING ISN'T IT......

As I said in another thread I think Rangers need skills Like Big Game Critical Strike - same as the BH attack but with a higher multiple vs creatures and things such as that.

---

just because you think rangers are only hunters doesn't me we are, or were intended to be. We got broken skills and other factors that meant that we are only useful in creature combat. that doesn't me we were intended to be creature only combatants.

since when does the Rifleman Corr know so much about Rangers?

---

BioEngine wrote:

Ok, we are not creature only. For one, our camo works against NPCs. For two, we can areatrack players. For three, we can areatrack npcs. For four, /rescue "did" work against NPCs attacking a target player.

lol, i KNOW that. I'm a ranger too. I but the fact is that we are only viable against creatures. some of you keep speaking in terms of what is/was "intended" or "should be" but i'm merely addressing reality.

What I am talking about the GCW for is this: We need basic speed, defense, and accuracy modifiers. We need to be able to make factional connections with groups such as the Ewoks, Dantarians, Wookies, Jawas, Sand People, and other planet-specific wilderness-inhabiting "factions" in a way that we can acquire their assitance in battles against your opposite faction. I would think that this could take the form of the Smuggler's ability to converse with both factions, while belonging to one. We could do quests to secure their help, in the form of a squadron of the group's warriors to be stored as a control device in your datapad. You would only be able to call them within the same week that the tasks were completed.

um THAT WOULD TOTALLY ROCK!!!! Owen you need to jump all over this!

Just a rough idea, though. May not be the way to go. However, Antarian Rangers did participate in the GCW.

---

Again, this is about what is realistic..and if we maintain the jealous guarding of our profession 'uniquness', we will keep things just like they are now..screwed

ANY change, no matter what happens has the potentional for bugs..but a SL/Ranger merger has the least potential for Profession breaking bugs

For me it is as simple as this...we *unite* our professions and our player base and increase our odds of success or we both fail seprately as viable professions, and continue out slow death waiting for 'revamps' that will never come.

United we stand, divided we fall..simple as that. I for one dont want to continue the death watchon our 2 professions. I am willing to put aside all the esoteric arguments to get a single functional profession.

Ya know, nothing is w/o risk, nothing..yea it is in the realm of possibillity that we could have a single, unite borked porfession, but all things considered that has the least chance of happening, and Ill bet on the odds that a merge would succeed, and would be even a stunning success.

Issues we have to work out:

SP Usage, enhancement of current ranger abilities, placement of abilities in the skill tree as the biggest

Now on the SP Usage, one possibiity would be to relax the SP req for Novice'Pathfinder' by removing the requirement of the Trapping and Harvesting lines, thus making its SP cost similar to what SL is now. That way if someone wanted the added crreature abilities, they would be an obtion, rather than a requirement. That would allow current creature orientated 'Pathfinders' to boost their Trapping/Harvesting ability if they so choosem and would not force the current SL orientate folks tobuy skills they dont care about.

Basically make Scout 4004 the req for Novice 'Pathfinder'. Master Scout would be gravy for the Master Pathfinder who wants to hunt creatures.It would give the Current Master Rangers all their current skills and mod, and would not force SLs to buy skills they wont use.

In a nutshell

SL & Ranger skill trees become one (locations of skills in the tree TBD)

Master Scout and scout profession have little change (save to harvesting and trapping to fix bugs)

Scout 4004 becomes prereq for Novice Pathfinder (or whatever) - I think the Exploration line is relevant to both Rangers & SL, at least as much as the current Marksman reqs are to SL)

more to come..still need to work out how and where to map the current SL and Ranger skills iin a unified skill tree

This model would create 2 type of Pathfinders (sic)...1 type would be a morePvE/NPC/PvP combat orientated player (with extra SP to spend on other professions). The 2nd type would fill out theEntire Scout tree and would focus on the PVE/creature aspects of the profession and have the added skills mods and traps to perform in that role.

Someone over on the BH board remarked that Rangers are very angry right now, and easily set off. I think you may have really stepped in it, Mr./Ms.Rifleman Corr, and I wish you hadn't. Not that this thread had a lot of potential for constructive discussion at this point (seeing as how it was based solely on unofficial talk at fanfest anyway), but... I imagine the downward spiral will quicken now.

---

SickSix wrote:

---

Ackehece wrote:

put me down for completely totally categorically against... I have never ever desired ranger skills and yet I use SL skills everyday.

SL is a group leading hard charging cigar chomping battle sarg were as Rangers I have always found prefer to be off by themselves in the wild camping, hunting, being outdoors. Completely different viewpoints. Sure we share a little bit of scout but the same can be said of Rangers and BHs and Rangers and Ch who have an ever greater affinity to Ranger then SL ever will have.

Number three is pretty much the only real option. (two seperate revamps) both groups have good ideas that have been put forward before and if they even incorperate 1/3 of them the professions will be very cool and fun to play.

Otoh - I have always wondered how come rangers believe that they are Combatents in the GCW . Since launch Rangers have been focused on creatures and creature hunting and anyone who became a Ranger knew that.... so were did the npc/pc combat side come from?

WE CAN TRACK PLAYERS AND NPCS!!! HUH, THAT'S INTERESTING ISN'T IT......

As I said in another thread I think Rangers need skills Like Big Game Critical Strike - same as the BH attack but with a higher multiple vs creatures and things such as that.

---

just because you think rangers are only hunters doesn't me we are, or were intended to be. We got broken skills and other factors that meant that we are only useful in creature combat. that doesn't me we were intended to be creature only combatants.

since when does the Rifleman Corr know so much about Rangers?

---

Quite honestly I don't know as much about rangers as most full time rangers... (though I do play a ranger on wanderhome) But I do play SL and have played SL for a long long long long long time (about the same length of Time I have been a Riflebeing... since launch) and I do know SL so I am kinda finding it funny that you all think you know what SLs are the same way you find me about Rangers.

after reading the new manual entry on Rangers though I withdraw my pc combat complaint (though I think rangers with Creature only mods could still participate in the GCW)

*new def'n in the manual*

Ranger: Adventurer well-suited to travel, tracking, and defending others in combat.
Requirement: Master Scout (Scout)

---

Ackehece wrote:

Quite honestly I don't know as much about rangers as most full time rangers... (though I do play a ranger on wanderhome) But I do play SL and have played SL for a long long long long long time (about the same length of Time I have been a Riflebeing... since launch) and I do know SL so I am kinda finding it funny that you all think you know what SLs are the same way you find me about Rangers.

after reading the new manual entry on Rangers though I withdraw my pc combat complaint (though I think rangers with Creature only mods could still participate in the GCW)

*new def'n in the manual*

Ranger: Adventurer well-suited to travel, tracking, and defending others in combat.
Requirement: Master Scout (Scout)

---

now that i have vanquished you, let's talk about what is needed to get SL's interested in Ranger.

would HTFBs that offered even more healing enhancements, and even possible defense bonuses not be something a Combat leader would want?

Does a leader not conduct recon to see what is ahead of his/her troops? AreaTrack would fit nicely there.

Also, may I add that i think i heard SL recently got told that their mods will no longer apply in PvP. Kinda restricting you guys more to PvE. And half of PvE is Creature combat. Would it not be cool for a SL to be able to apply states to creatures to make it easier for his/her troops to kill? Traps would do that.

I think, once some of your skills are fixed and made the way they should be, we would have something to Offer to those skeptical SL's out there.

j/k on the vanquished thing...... well, half joking

Message Edited by SickSix on 06-07-2005 10:28 PM

This doesnt need to devolve people..if it does, we might as well give up now and forget about anything changing.

Go back to page 1 and re-read my RL examples of the R/L examples of how Rangers and SLs are the same thing.

Some of ya have a vison of rangers as being Aragorn or Robinhood, or mountainmen and stuff like that..some ou are like that fine and I what I poropse lets them keep that, but a huge portion of us look at ourselves as paramilitary, special forces with superb outdoor survival skills, not just a bunch of meat wholesalers.

Some of ya have a John Wayne view of SL..a real 'True Grit', 'Guns of Navaorne' thing going on and cant see how a bunch of wilderness guys fit in that.

All you have to do is look at say NAvy Seals or Army Rangers or Marine Recon..and you see ALL of Ranger and Squad Leader embodied in those r/l professions.

Fact is both sides of this equation have something to offer the other..new ways of looking at the world, new ways of thinking and doing things and better yet, we dont have to totally upend all we have now to get this done.

Please open your minds to the possibilities..I think this can be worked out into something SLs and Rangers can agree on..wont be easy..but its doable and id rather go thru an effort that at least has a chance of being accepted by the devs than holding out for a 'pie in the sky' revamp.