Ranger Archive
Thread: Why should rangers get a ranger-specific weapon(s)?
Landorien
Mon Sep 20, 2004 6:27 pm
#53
There already is a bleeding attack, and most combat professions has it, and hardly any of of the ranged weapons are bullets but instead bolts of concentrated light searing through the flesh with varying strength immensely faster than any manual bow could ever do, as even the hunterfolk of wookiee has optimized their "bow" to fit the reality they hunt in, and I haven't seen a bear yet, cept ewoks that is. 
Regardless, I haven't hunted bears using a full automatic rifle, but I actually do imagine if I emptied a magazine of AP ammoin its head or gut or wherever it would die far faster and thus moreeffective than waiting for the poor animal to bleed to death. A bow is slow and dependent on unarmored skin, which excludes just about all the worthwhile creatures to hunt.
Concerning the history of the bow, I think the genocide of native americans contradicts your theory onwhy bows stopped being used for warfare, because I can't remember observing general Custer in his full metalbattle plate in any of the pictures.
Guns are faster, guns have longer range, guns are more practical to carry along, guns have more ammo and guns are more accurate since not at the mercy of wind and such to the same degree as an arrow, even less so with laser rifles I reckon.
The only advantage bows would have over modern weapons is silence, but that silence would be quickly nullified by a screaming creature that is going to spend the next 30 minutes bleeding to death 
Also, if this weapon is indeed a weapon to slay the unarmored creatures, I foresee a trend of Jedi's getting their unarmored little heads a serious case of incurable fatal nosebleeds.
DaveG
Mon Sep 20, 2004 7:26 pm
#54
Landorien wrote:
...
Concerning the history of the bow, I think the genocide of native americans contradicts your theory onwhy bows stopped being used for warfare, because I can't remember observing general Custer in his full metalbattle plate in any of the pictures.
Guns are faster, guns have longer range, guns are more practical to carry along, guns have more ammo and guns are more accurate since not at the mercy of wind and such to the same degree as an arrow, even less so with laser rifles I reckon.
I don't believe he was refering to american indians, Landorien. It goes back to Medieaval times, back to around the time of the battle of Agencourt and the 100 year war, when us Brits was trying to seize large chunks of France.
Around the time of the start of the 100 year war, the Britains had the best mounted and unmounted archers in the known world, and they were used to great effect. Particularly in cutting down french armoured cavalry charges. The armour of the day was particularly vulnerable to arrow strikes at short range.
However, towards the end of the 100 year war, the art of crafting suits of armour had been takento a new level by Italian armoursmiths. They finally made arrow-proof armour, and when the French hired Itallian mercenaries to help fend off more British raids, the Britains were massacarred because our best battlefield asset had been completley nutered.
The French/Itallian cavalry charges could finally get to grips with British infantry/archers, and when they did, we didn't stand a chance.
Hopefully you can see the analogy to SWG combat.
Message Edited by DaveG on 09-21-2004 03:28 AM
hirosue
Mon Sep 20, 2004 7:30 pm
#55
I thought this thread was about giving rangers class specific weapons , but to me it seams to be turning into a whine about rangers getting bows and arrows lol .
I have 15 years longbow shooting experience , and quite frankly given the option of a bowand arrowsor gun to hunt any animal , i would choose a gun every time.And for really big really dangerous animals i want a really big gun .lets face it if we end up with some sort of future-tastic bow which derives its power from gadgets ( and not the archers muscle power ), shooting super advanced rocket assisted arrows , well you have simply got a funny shaped , over engineered gun !
The fact is that while it would be nice to get ranger specific weapons , just for fun . To give us ranger specific ,effective and usefull weapons i.e. good damage and speed output , could not be justified with respect to elite combat professions .
Message Edited by hirosue on 09-20-2004 07:49 PM
DaveG
Mon Sep 20, 2004 7:33 pm
#56
Exactly, which is why i said several pages earlier, the answer to the ranger-woes is to improve/fix our existing skills.
Phenix1050
Mon Sep 20, 2004 9:34 pm
#57
the truly amazing this Dave is....they aren't mutually exclusive. you can fix our current skills AND add new ones.
That's my ideal outcome. Bow or no bow, I want increased versatility. Modular camping and several ideas from other people give me that. I'm just ornery about the bow 'cause it would be so damn cool. And no, being TKM has nothing to do with it. I've wanted a bow since I was a rilfeman on TC. I wanted one when I was weilding an LLC on Eclpse. It's just a cool idea.
Bah! I'm done talking about it. We're months off from getting looked at, getting worked up over something none of us has control over is pointless. Same reaon it was pointless to discuss the combat revamp with you dave. it just isn't worth it 'cause there's nothing we can do and it just seems pointless to try and come up with more reasons to try and fill in the blank spaces. It just isn't worth the effort.
I don't see the harm of including it as an idea. But I'd like to see Ranger work as a whole, and no Ranger-weapon can replace a good, fully fleshed-out set of skills. So, in the end, I'll keep it in my outdoorsman proposal, since I think it's good, but I'm not gonna push it as the end-all be-all of Rangerdom. I still think it's cool and I wish I could show the nay-sayers why it's really not that out of whack with what a Ranger is or our skills as is. But people who don't want to be convinced rarely can be. In the end, it's all moot anyway. We're simply going to see if the devs like the idea. If they do, great, if not, okay.
Nemo0
Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:01 am
#58
I like the way you put it, Paks.
But, to continue the discussion:
Phenix1050 wrote:
Okay, I have another reason why Ranger should get a weapon. They just should. They're Rangers...okay, hear me out.
It's the same logic that allows smugglers to make spice now that they no longer have to have any crafting. The same logic behind Squad Leaders having a very little combat experience and a little camping experience to make them leaders. (Thanks to Owen for giving me the logic for this argument)
Simply put there are often big jumps from the prerequisites to the elite box. The smuggler is the best example. A karate-chopping, pistol-shooting guy isn't gonna be able to make drugs. But those abilities make him able to be SAFE when learning how to do those things. The explanation for smugglers being able to craft things without the prerequisites is basically "they are able to because that's what they do. They're smugglers, they make spice & they slice things." What that means is that training in that novice box changes them. They learn new abilities at novice that have NOTHING to do with the experience they used to get to that point.
Why then, shouldn't Rangers be able to offer the same explanation? They are Rangers....they hunt stuff. The explanation comes from the fact that by dedicating themselves to living outdoors, they must first be instructed in forms of combat that allow them to better survive against creatures. There you go. That's why. Rangers should get weapons because they are Rangers.
oh, and yes, Rangers are a combat class. Traps do damage, which is only done through combat. and only COMBAT classes can apply state effects. Thus while we are reduced to creature combat...we are still combatants.
This explanation can be summed up as "because we want it". That is a perfectly valid reason but it leads to some problems. If we get the weapon, it will almost certainly mean we lose something else (even if that something else is something that has yet to be implemented). The Devs can only give us so many skills for our skill points. I would much rather have a unique skill (i.e. one that can't be replicated by picking up another profession) than a weapon that I could surpass by spending some skill points (it's very unlikely they'll give us a weapon rivalling a master combat profession's weapon if they leave us with any other skills). I am not trying to say that a Ranger weapon is not a valid and useful addition to the profession. I am trying to say that it is not a unique addition and that its usefulness is tempered by our other skills. We can't have everything and it is unlikely that a Ranger weapon would help those who most want it.
Phenix1050
Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:11 am
#59
Well, I somewhat disagree, since the Ranger weapon would often be best used in addition to another combat skills. Say you're TKM. You come across a pack of animals that are 100% resist to kinetic. What's a TKM/Ranger to do? oh wait....I'll take out my bow! There..it adds.
Also, consider that many times, Ranger choose not to compliment Ranger with a combat skill. They are BE/Rangers or Squadleader/Rangers and many other combinations. Just because they choose a different path doesn't mean that they shouldn't be good hunters. A ranger is a ranger, and though perhaps GETTING to Ranger should require a combat skill (i.e. to kill all the critters), once you get to Ranger, you should be the best hunter. But if you drop marksman, don't you still know how to kill a creature? Aren't you still the best hunter?
However, I agree. The Ranger weapon is a good idea, amoung many good ideas. If it comes down to ranger weapon or modular camping, I may be pressed to forgo the weapon. However, I think that there is enough counter-balances in the Outdoorsman 2.1 that ensure that Ranger isn't too powerful. I concede that it's a lot to ask for and things may need to be sacrificed...but I'd have to be told "if you want this, you'll lose X" to really be able to consider how far I want to push this. In the end, it's worth pushing for now in my opinion. It should be a request amoung many others and we would need to be told what we can expect before I considered which skills would be more important.
Nemo0
Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:18 am
#60
Phenix1050 wrote:
Well, I somewhat disagree, since the Ranger weapon would often be best used in addition to another combat skills. Say you're TKM. You come across a pack of animals that are 100% resist to kinetic. What's a TKM/Ranger to do? oh wait....I'll take out my bow! There..it adds.
Also, consider that many times, Ranger choose not to compliment Ranger with a combat skill. They are BE/Rangers or Squadleader/Rangers and many other combinations. Just because they choose a different path doesn't mean that they shouldn't be good hunters. A ranger is a ranger, and though perhaps GETTING to Ranger should require a combat skill (i.e. to kill all the critters), once you get to Ranger, you should be the best hunter. But if you drop marksman, don't you still know how to kill a creature? Aren't you still the best hunter?
However, I agree. The Ranger weapon is a good idea, amoung many good ideas. If it comes down to ranger weapon or modular camping, I may be pressed to forgo the weapon. However, I think that there is enough counter-balances in the Outdoorsman 2.1 that ensure that Ranger isn't too powerful. I concede that it's a lot to ask for and things may need to be sacrificed...but I'd have to be told "if you want this, you'll lose X" to really be able to consider how far I want to push this. In the end, it's worth pushing for now in my opinion. It should be a request amoung many others and we would need to be told what we can expect before I considered which skills would be more important.
You shouldn't be soloing creatures with 100% defenses in anything. They are meant to be high level content that requires a group. Coming to a Combat Revamp near you.
And, as Paks put it very nicely above, hunting is not the only skill we have. I personally don't hunt very much any more. I consider myself more of an explorer than a hunter. When I do go hunting, it's usually for big game and with a group, so that weapon is likely to be mostly useless. I don't care about being a hunter. I just like knowing about the creatures around. And Ranger does that very nicely (ooh, look, that creature has Plague Strike, I better stay far away).
And I agree with the last part of your post. I would not mind having a Ranger weapon at all. In fact, I'd quite enjoy it (probably more than the Rangers who currently have a combat profession). But it is one of the lowest items on my personal list of changes I would like to see for Ranger.
Nemo0
Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:25 am
#61
Oh, just a small comment:
Master Ranger/Master Squad Leader/Marksman Pistols 3/Marksman Ranged Support 4 is enough for me to take down rancors unarmored and unbuffed (and no chef food). It takes close to forever but I can do it (although I need low lag for it to work). And, in reality, I could throw out the Master Squad Leader and still do fine (I use warning shot and suppression fire to give me extra time to get my traps to stick). With only Master Ranger and a CDEF, I probably could manage (although it would be a lot easier if those traps had a higher success rate, could be thrown from 64m, and didn't freeze me in place). It's slow but we do already have the skills to be good hunters. The problem is that most combat professions make our skills pointless if you care about speed.
Calculus_Entropy
Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:25 am
#62
"Just because" or "becuase I want it" is NEVER a good reason to request something. I want a Ferrari, but do I NEED one? Nope, and therefore, I can't justify getting one.
Nemo0
Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:33 am
#63
Calculus_Entropy wrote:
"Just because" or "becuase I want it" is NEVER a good reason to request something. I want a Ferrari, but do I NEED one? Nope, and therefore, I can't justify getting one.
Ah, but if your friend had money to burn and offered to give it to you, would you turn it down?
And, if they offered you the money to do whatever you wanted with instead, what would you choose?
Phenix1050
Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:35 am
#64
Calculus_Entropy wrote:
"Just because" or "becuase I want it" is NEVER a good reason to request something. I want a Ferrari, but do I NEED one? Nope, and therefore, I can't justify getting one.
But if someone on your block got one just because he asked, wouldn't you try to ask for one too?
The point wasn't "just because we want one", I was just trying to be a little funny. The point was that I think it's justifiable becauase it's something that would improve our role as the hunters. Thus, what I was saying is that fulfilling our role is enough of a reason to get it without a combat prerequisite. Much like the Smuggler model, some skills are just defined in what we are. Smuggelers wouldn't be smugglers without spice and slicing. So, since it fits their role in the game, we can allow for some bending of rules. I am reasoning that Ranger is in the same situation. It isn't "just because we want it", but rather because it would define us in the game, much like the slicing ability and the ability to make spice don't have justification beyond the fact that they define smuggler.
Calculus_Entropy
Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:41 am
#65
Nemo0 wrote:
Calculus_Entropy wrote:
"Just because" or "becuase I want it" is NEVER a good reason to request something. I want a Ferrari, but do I NEED one? Nope, and therefore, I can't justify getting one.
Ah, but if your friend had money to burn and offered to give it to you, would you turn it down?
And, if they offered you the money to do whatever you wanted with instead, what would you choose?
No one is offering to give us a weapon...we are asking for it and need to convice the devs WHY they should take the time to work on it for us. Go ask your mom for the money to buy well, anything, and I guarantee that "Becuase I want it" won't fly.