Ranger Archive

"you are forgoing the idea that /sneakattack can't be done once already in combat, and saying you have to attack in the first 30 seconds."

The timer can not be started once you are in combat, it must be initiated before combat starts.

You must perform an attack within the timer limit, or the command will be wasted.

• I am thinking as a further risk, that wasting the command will also remove concealment.

"as long as you attack in some way in those 30 seconds you get the damage bonus to the first hit?"

Yes, and in the process you loss your concealment.

"Does it still have to be used with /conceal on?"

Yes. The approach is exactly the same as /sneakattack, I just changed the name in response to someone else's post.

NRaas: Yes, and in the process you loss your concealment.

Umm doesn't this make it pointless to have the defence mod on /conceal we have been discussing? I'm fine with the idea of the /firstfire, 30 seconds to attack, but only if combat is not already started. Sounds great.

But why does conceal have to cancel? Will it only cancel if /firststrike is used, but not if we just get into combat? What is the logic behind /conceal canceling after using /firststrike? It seems it's pretty balanced already, since it's first use, timer, and need to be conealed, which means you need a camo kit for that planet, which is already a time and resource sink.

If I'm camoflauged and sneaking up on someone, and make a surprise attack, they will not imediatly know where I am. If I'm smart I will stay hidden, and make another hidden shot. I realize that if combat is already going I wont get a /firstfire, and that makes sense. The thing is going to be on the guard now. But I can still stay hidden and attack it. How about if once you use /firststrike the target gets another chance to break your /conceal as normal when you first snuck up on them? Basically they get another pass at trying to detect you.

I vote for the new system (IF and ONLY IF invisibility to NPC's is definitely getting taken out of the picture).

I like the idea of a powerful sneak attack.. I think it should be MASTER ONLY. I know this game allows you to dabble.. but the payoff for Mastering a profession should be POSITIVELY HUGE. There should never be a case where someone can say (about any profession) "Oh, I just did 4-0-0-0 because thats all that profession is worth."

I don't think /conceal should work in city boundaries at all.

I think Rangers should be able to both conceal and maskscent of others.

I think camo kits should have looser resource requirements. Any bone, meat, and hide from a planet should do for that planets kit.. but full experimentation on effectiveness related to resource properties should be in effect. Also, I think that now even though a 1-0-0-0 Ranger can't make a Dathomir Camo Kit, he might be able to use one somebody else makes. I don't know how I feel about that.. but it doesn't seem right.

I think that mask scent should get elevated up the Ranger Wayfaring tree as well, beyond what you get as scout.

If we are going for the new implementation of conceal (with the negative to-hit modifier, firstattack, etc), then I would really like for Rangers to be able to conceal themselves without a camo kit. Make camo kits a requirement to conceal others, but I shouldn't have to hunt for a long time to get resources needed just to hide myself. Not when a scout can hide (maskscent) without having to kill anything. It seems like an unnessesary time-sink to me to need camo kits to conceal yourself.

Also, I don't know if this has been suggested already, but I think that if the new system is adopted, then applying /conceal should not only apply the negative to-hit modifier, but should also automatically apply /maskscent on the target as well. This allows Rangers to conceal and maskscent others at the cost of a single camo kit, and would really make conceal feel like an enhanced and improved scout skill (essentially maskscentagainst creatures only + negative to-hit modifier for all types of enemies, creatures, npc's, and pc's).

---

AtomicElephant wrote:

I love the entusiasm, but I think we all need to look at the track record of the changes we've had for Rangers up to now. We have not been very successful in getting sweeping changes to the Ranger class. The ideas proposed in this thread, while good, are very complex and deviate substantially from what we've already got for class features. This would require a lot of design and coding time and I don't think we're going to get it no matter how cool our ideas are. We need to keep it simple if we want results.

I think our best strategy will be to maintain that /conceal should work against NPCs. It's fair, it's balanced, and it's one of the few perks we enjoy as rangers. We're the only class that can hide from 'people' and we should fight hard to keep that. It's an important skill to Rangers. It's one of our profession-defining features and there is no reason I've seen why we shouldn't have it. Let the scouts keep /maskscent.

I want /conceal and I want it to stay the way it is right now.

---

I couldn't agree more.. I only vote for the negative-to-hit option because we have been told that /conceal is not going to work for invis on NPC's. I think that is stupid, but was led to believe that its not negotiable.


Your point is well taken... instead of wishing for some pie-in-the-sky skill that will more than likely not work right when its added.. just make whatever small changes need to be made so that /conceal works MORE like it does now.

I have said this time and time again.... we should have both long and short term goals. I know this stuff is incredibly hard to code in some cases and introducing new features should never take the place of making what we have NOW working the way it should.

You want to throw the Rangers a bone? Just fix what's broke, enhance the skills we have (harvest, creature to hit, /conceal, tracking, etc.) .. and fix them NOW. Let the new features come.. in time.. WHEN THEY WORK. I swear I just don't know if I could stand getting any more "great" skills that simply don't WORK the way they should.

Ok I do like NRaas' /firststrike idea. It's kind of like an ambush(maybe name it to /ambush?:smileytongue

This is what I gather from our ideas:

/firststrike:

• you must be concealed


• target must not be in combat when you activate timer(/firststrike)


• while timer is on, if you useanything other than auto-attack you forfeit /firststrike and /conceal


• the actual first strike is not a command itself, rather /firststrike activates timer and first autoattack towards target gets bonus


• you must strike the target before timer runs out, if it runs out you losethe /firststrike advantagethen one of two things must happen1. A check is made, if it is successful you keep the concealment(thereby retaining the defensemod) 2. If failed, you lose concealment(thereby losing the defense mod)


• /firststrike adds a damage percentage to autoattack(so it's not too powerful)for the first strike depending on x skill mod which we gain as we climb ranger


• You lose /conceal if you /firststrike, hit or miss


• once you start timer, it does not matter if they start attacking you, it works either way, the KEY is starting timer before they initiate


• /firststrike is a ranger ability only, debatable where it should go but i think there should be /firststrike1 somewhere and /firststrike2 in Master Ranger


• /conceal of course can be applied to others but they only get the negative to-hit mod

So basically you're left with three options when confronted withan enemy while /concealed. Do I?

1. Not start timer and retain my negative to-hit mod


2. start timer and try to /firststrike


3. start timer and then realize I can't make it in time or range and wait out the timer and hope that I'm successful at remaining concealed(remember the 'check' listed above)

Is this what you are proposing NRaas? or am I wrong somewhere? If so, I like it.

I haven't seen anything that's non-negotiable. For that matter, we got one burst communication from 'Development' -- whoever that may be -- that said that /conceal working against NPCs was a bug and that they were going to 'fix' it. We've presented a lot of evidence that /conceal working against NPCs is not a bug, but in fact, a feature of the ability.

We have heard only a single sentence from Thunderheart in response which was something to the tune of, "tell us what you want the ranger class to be." Thunderheart isn't even a developer! He's another player correspondent! Has anyone seen a post from GreenMarine that states definatively whether or not these changes will be implemented? Until we do, you should assume that NOTHING is decided.

Given all that, it sounds to me like everything is still very much negotiable. It sounds like no final decision has been made by anyone, and I think we are being distracted from an opportunity to keep /conceal the way we like it by trying to re-design the skill. I'm not saying we should start a full-on whining campaign, but we need to be more vocal about this specific issue or we are going to get burned.

Again, I don't want to belittle the creative efforts I've seen here. You guys are awesome, and these ideas for the Ranger are fan-freaking-tastic. However, we need to choose our battles, and I think that keeping /conceal as working against NPCs is definatelymore winnable than a re-design of our skill set.

Also, consider the sheer volume of design and theme ideas that we have on this board already. The work that NRaas has put into filtering and organizing those ideas is amazing, and the resulting design change summaries are just terrific. Personally, I would never go to that effort on something unless, A) I loved it, or B) I was getting paid. Bravo to our volunteer correspondent, NRass, the best correspondent in the game! But honestly, doesn't it seem like an odd coincidence that we're being asked to re-invent the Ranger profession every time we get passed over at patch time? I feel like we're chasing a red herring.

I don't want a new stealth skill. I want /conceal to work the way it works right now, which is against creatures and against NPCs. I don't think this is too much to ask, and I think it fits perfectly with any 'theme' that we or the devs could come up with for the Ranger.

Ok so from I just posted. I wanted to suggest we change the name from /firststrike to /ambush. Here's why: First off when you push that timer button it's like saying, "Hey xxxxx, I'm about to ambush this stormtrooper!" Then the ranger runs out about to attack as quickly as they can to keep the surprise attack a surprise. It doesn't matter that the victim now sees the ranger, it's the surprise element of it. Think about ambushes in the movies. Some people are walking along and out of nowhere camoed men jump out and attack. The people look up and are surprised, they saw them this instant but because of the major surprise they are now at a fatal disadvantage to the surprise attackers. So with this logic I'll put a small example sentence with the 3 options available: Do I?

1. Not start timer and retain my negative to-hit mod: rangerA says, "Hey rangerb, look there's a unit of stormtroopers, should we ambush them?" rangerb says, "Nah, we better stay hidden, they look too powerful for us."

2. Start timer and try to auto-attack(and get bonus): rangerA says, "Hey rangerb, there's a lone stormtrooper walking up, should we ambush him?" rangerb says, "Of course, he's just by himself, we better do it quickly tho or he will contact stormtroooper HQ." rangera and rangerb shout, "YAAAA!!!!! WE'RE GONNA KILL YOU BEFORE YOU GONNA CALL ANYONE!!!we hope anyway."

3. Start timer and realize you don't have time or aren't within range: "Hey rangerb, there's a lone stormtrooper walking up, should we ambush him?" rangerb says, "Of course, he's alone, we better do it quickly tho or he will contact stormtrooper HQ." rangera and rangerb run towards lone stormtrooper and then all of a sudden see a AT-ST walk up quickly behind the stormtrooper. rangera says, "Oh crap, that AT-ST came up so fast before we could, OH, CRAP THEY SAW US, RUN YOUR ARSE OFF, RANGERB!!!" OR rangera says, "Oh crap, that AT-ST came up so fast before we could, Hmm, let's stay still for a second, maybe they didn't see us."

Anyway, sorry for the dramatics. Anyway maybe this helps to show why /firststrike should be named /ambush. It makes more sense to me that way, given the fact that that's how NRaas envisioned the ability, if he did. What do you think?

I think TerasBaham has summed it up very nicely. At first I was against this skill, but now I love it. but I propose keeping it /firststrike since when I think of "ambush" I don't think of that as something you do to a creature. Keep in mind that while we want this to apply to NPC's and Players, we need to keep our ideas more creature centric so the devs don't poo poo it on the basis that it doesn't fit into their vision.

"Will it only cancel if /firststrike is used"

It would only cancel if /firststrike is used. If you do not use the command, you will retain the concealment bonus throughout combat.

"but I shouldn't have to hunt for a long time to get resources needed just to hide myself."

Hmmm... I'll have to think about that one.

"but should also automatically apply /maskscent on the target as well."

That is in the proposal.

"Is this what you are proposing NRaas?"

Yours has a couple items I hadn't thought of, I'll add them in. But you have the gist.

"Thunderheart isn't even a developer! He's another player correspondent!"

He is far more than a Correspondent. He attends meetings with the producers and designers for which no player is privy. He knows far more about what is going on in the background then any of us.