Ranger Archive
Thread: Ranger Revamp: The Focus (Tier Names)
Vorpaks wrote:
I have no problem with not calling our main focus Recon (just please not "survivalist" even the word makes me bitter). But I do have a problem with the idea that Ranger skills can not be used in a military type application or used to enhance a combat profession.
I think you misunderstand me. I'm going to stop using Ranger for a minute as it has two applications. Outdoors skills can be used in military type applications to a limited extend. And they should enhance combat professions.
However military skills are of little to no use in the hunter/outdoorsman text. You don't use small unit tactics to hunt deer. Nor would you call in artillery in general. Though I could see an arguement there when hunting a Krayt or Gorax. 
If you have problem with 'survivalist' that's fair enough. But Recon is a military term. It indicates a military nature as the PRIMARY role. Which isn't the case. Having a branch titled this isn't to much of an issue. Though Camoflauge or Stealth might be a bit better.
Owen-Lars wrote:
I think the argument here has shifted more along the lines of defining military. In my eyes, this is the GCW its a damn war, you fight with the skills you have learnt. As a doc i can heal in combat, therefore i am a combat class, therefore ifi participate for a side in theGCW i am a military unit. Now think to the future, i can sneak around and ambush, therefore i am a combat class, therefore if i participate for a side in the gcw i am i military unit.
Being in the military does not make one a combat class. In the present military (RL) two thirds of the forces are support. Thats logistics, medics, cooks, etc. They participate in the war but their MOS is not a combat MOS. Being in the military does not make one a combat class.
Military meansSoldiers,Armies or War. By soldiers you can include militia, mercinaries, militants. They are all and of the same thing.
If i were a Ranger and fightig for the rebel force i would be a military unit, i would be fighting for anarmy, a side in the war a cause. If i were a ranger fightig for myself then i would be fighting for a cause, therefore i am a soldier and a military unit.
Yes. But you are making the incorrect assumption that your Ranger identity is dependent on being in said military. A Ranger is a hunter. There are hunters in the military. However that is seperate from their military identity.
In a game focused around war ANYTHING and ANYONE can be classedas a military unit so could we please stop using it as an excuse to not have recon as a role?
The GCW is just a small part. Both in game and in the movies, those involved in the GCW was a very small percentage of the overall population.
Recon role can be justified from scout skills, being military in nature has nothing to do with it. Advancing upon skills we alreadyhave anddeveloping a new area of scouting not only seems justified but also what you would expect with developing the skills we gained at scout.
But you aren't advancing on skills you already have. Stealth isn't a Recon skill. If anything Tracking would be. Recon is about gathering information on the target. Tracking does that. It provides numbers, distance, and direction.
Message Edited by Fred_Skinner on 12-23-2004 02:56 PM
That is just one of our many possible applications. It has become our main focus by default over time because tracking/harvesting is our one really useful skill. Now that our revamp is approaching we have a chance to open it up and encompass other aspects of the game. Woot! Finally!
Owen-Lars wrote:
First Rifleman aren't really Snipers. Which also means they aren't Counter-Snipers. They are Gunners.
Rifle skills are extensions of the base skills because they based on the early Rifle using abilities. They are expansions on that premise of Rifle skills. Rifles have no skills that aren't Rifle based.
Ranger skills by the same need to be extensions of those base skills. They can be large extensions. But you should be able to trace their roots back to the base skills.
No Rangers should be creature only. But their PvP abilities should be able to trace their roots back to the base skills. You can trace a PvP trap back to the fact they have trap skills from Scout (and Ranger). You are extending the application of those traps. But they are based on that earlier base.
Camo is an extension of their Stealth abilities as shown by MaskScent.
The Recon you are talking about is a military application that can't really trace back to a base skill as an extension. The closest would be Tracking. Which does provide Recon in that it gives you intel. It provides numbers, direction, and distance.
But you are saying Recon is ability Stealth. It isn't. It's about Tracking. And that already provides the Recon.
1. We aren't unique.
"Rangers have very little that differentiates them from scouts. Once Master Scout is reached, Ranger is essentially more of the exact same thing."
In my mind this issue is of critical importance and largely trumps the rest of the Correspondent list. The other 4 issues are mainly issues with inhereted scout ability bugs.
The focus of this post will be on how we are making Ranger different from scout. Ideologically, the ranger is still a "super scout." The key is implementing new and unique ways to go about that kind of gameplay.
Each skill tree is being adjusted to be more interesting and unique.
So we have a very strong argument for branching out from the basic Scout skills.
As for why Recon seems like an acceptable route to go, there are many arguments.
Semantically, it is easy to argue for a Recon extension to Scout. I'm assuming everyone here is talking about recon as the shortened form of reconnaissance. Reconnaissance is the act of reconnoitring, usually with military undertones. Reconnoitring is just exploring to gain information. Synonyms include such words as scouting... The military undertones are to be expected in a game where there is a large war going on that is meant to become the high level endgame. The name is Star Wars.
In the real world, you have many examples of reconnaissance units being based off of "hunters". Before the world's militaries started training their own reconnaissance units (such as the Army Rangers), they would normally hire local hunters (such as French Fur Traders or Native Americans) who knew the terrain and knew how to get in and out of enemy territory without getting killed. While they could defend themselves if necessary, they were not there to fight. The same is true of most military scouts through the ages. Most of them will also have a limited amount of training in other fields (maybe a demolitions expert or a sniper) but you won't have one uber "commando" like you see in movies. The recon units work in teams because they don't have enough "skill points" to learn everything they would need to be useful and stealthy. You don't send in a strike team of Army Rangers or Navy Seals expecting them to fight with a big army. They are meant to go in and complete their objectives without getting caught in a large firefight. Often those objectives include reconnaissance. Sending them against a big army will get them killed. They are not like SWG commandos that just have a lot of firepower.
Going to Star Wars lore, I direct you to Fred_Skinner's post in this thread. Most of the Rangers listed there have heavy military training.
Recon should be just as much a part of Ranger as buffing and rezing is a part of Doctor. You don't need to use the skills but you will want them in every PvP battle you can have them for.
Nemo0 wrote:
In the real world, you have many examples of reconnaissance units being based off of "hunters". Before the world's militaries started training their own reconnaissance units (such as the Army Rangers), they would normally hire local hunters (such as French Fur Traders or Native Americans) who knew the terrain and knew how to get in and out of enemy territory without getting killed. While they could defend themselves if necessary, they were not there to fight. The same is true of most military scouts through the ages. Most of them will also have a limited amount of training in other fields (maybe a demolitions expert or a sniper) but you won't have one uber "commando" like you see in movies. The recon units work in teams because they don't have enough "skill points" to learn everything they would need to be useful and stealthy. You don't send in a strike team of Army Rangers or Navy Seals expecting them to fight with a big army. They are meant to go in and complete their objectives without getting caught in a large firefight. Often those objectives include reconnaissance. Sending them against a big army will get them killed. They are not like SWG commandos that just have a lot of firepower.
Going to Star Wars lore, I direct you to Fred_Skinner's post in this thread. Most of the Rangers listed there have heavy military training.
Recon should be just as much a part of Ranger as buffing and rezing is a part of Doctor. You don't need to use the skills but you will want them in every PvP battle you can have them for.
Nemo,
You are almost proving my point for me. The Recon you are talking about were Hunters that used their skills for the military. Their main skills were outdoors skills that had a military application. That is what I'm saying. Their main focus wasn't Recon, it was Wilderness Survival. Those skills could be used in specific applications to assist the military. But they are Outdoors skills.
And though you are correct about not sending SeALs vs a large army. You aren't in regards to Rangers. They are light infantry for the most part now. Even in WWII they were used as special infantry. They were part of the Normandy invasion and scaled the cliffs to take out artillery positions. Now adays they are trained to take high value targets such as airfields. They operate in large units for the most part. And no they are not like SWG Commandos. But SWG Commandos are not like RL Commandos either.
Ranger has two meanings. The military and the outdoors. The way Rangers in SWG are setup, they are the outdoors type. That doesn't mean however there skills won't have a military application. As you yourself gave examples. And that is what I'm arguing. Like your examples they are outdoorsman whose skills can be use for military applications. However their primary role isn't military. It's outdoors (wilderness survival).
When you look at Fred's post. Notice that the examples are of the military/para-military variety. Not the outdoors type. And some used the Ranger title because they liked it. I don't think even you would say the Pirates that use the name Rangers fit either definition of Ranger. Unless you consider Pirate para-military. Which could be the case depending on their level of organization and training.
Message Edited by Waste93 on 12-26-2004 07:24 AM
Waste93 wrote:
I said 'Survivalist' is the primary role. And all those you mentioned are integral parts of that. To survive in the wilderness you need to know how to hunt (which includes trapping), exploration, camping, stealth, etc.
Recon doesn't require those attributes. It's one aspect of 'Survivalist' but not the other way around.
Waste93 wrote:
Because Ranger in this context isn't the military version. Its the outdoorsman version. The military context you are looking at are actually Commandos. The military skills you are talking about aren't Ranger skills, they are Commando skills.
Having been in the military and gone through Ranger training, I kinda take exception to that comment. They mostcertainly can be defined as skills available to a Ranger.
As they are Commando skills (military) and the fact that the pre-reqs for Ranger do not include ANY military (combat) pre-reqs. Then they appear to be obviously out of place.
I know you won't agree with this. But Ranger isn't a combat profession. It may be a combat augmentation profession, but it isn't a direct combat profession. You can level Ranger without being involved in combat at all. Can you not?
Perhaps if we were to start looking at things from a perspective contrary to what we know and also look at things outside the box, then we may open our minds up to the idea that these are Rangers from a different UNIVERSE. The definition of what a Ranger is in the Star Wars Universe is now ours to define. Why limit ourselves to what we know as the Rangers here in the Real World? Allow for some new ideas to creep into your heads and create a NEW vision for what a Ranger can be. The possibilities are only held in check by the conceived notions of what we believe a Ranger HAS to be.
Well not completely. Trap XP is combat XP. So that is the one exception. But you can level Scout and Wilderness XP without any combat at all.