Ranger Archive
Thread: The trap crafting debate is resolved :).
Calculus_Entropy wrote:
I never said either side is right/wrong (and I agree with you, Phen, we have just as much a right as anyone to make our new traps, and the devs agree). I do think that calling a WS, who wants to craft explosives, greedy is wrong...it's kind of petty and calling someone greedy while trying to keep everything for yourself/profession is hypocritical.
Phenix1050 wrote:
Calculus_Entropy wrote:
I never said either side is right/wrong (and I agree with you, Phen, we have just as much a right as anyone to make our new traps, and the devs agree). I do think that calling a WS, who wants to craft explosives, greedy is wrong...it's kind of petty and calling someone greedy while trying to keep everything for yourself/profession is hypocritical.
Well then we're in complete agreement. The "greedy" commentary wasn't accurate or polite. They do already make all explosive items in the game it makes sense that they'd want the mines. But as we've said, we also have a logical reason to keep them. And in the end, I simply think our argument is stronger. That doesn't mean I resent the WS who wanted them. I understand his position and I don't think it's greedy. It's just looking out for his profession the way all of us do.
It pisses me off when we agree!!!
(I don't know..it just seemed like the right thing to say
)
DaveG wrote:
Personally, I wouln't complain if crafters could make some of the more technical things we can (weaponsmiths make mines, droid engineers making HEP's). Although I would complain if they could make them any better than we could. The weapon-type things we can craft are fairly standard things, as such I don't see much room for improvement in them.
Phenix1050 wrote:
Calculus_Entropy wrote:
I never said either side is right/wrong (and I agree with you, Phen, we have just as much a right as anyone to make our new traps, and the devs agree). I do think that calling a WS, who wants to craft explosives, greedy is wrong...it's kind of petty and calling someone greedy while trying to keep everything for yourself/profession is hypocritical.
Well then we're in complete agreement. The "greedy" commentary wasn't accurate or polite. They do already make all explosive items in the game it makes sense that they'd want the mines. But as we've said, we also have a logical reason to keep them. And in the end, I simply think our argument is stronger. That doesn't mean I resent the WS who wanted them. I understand his position and I don't think it's greedy. It's just looking out for his profession the way all of us do.
Well I stand by it. It is greed to take something away from us. Accurate I think so, polite? Polite isnt coming to another professions board complaining about a new update you are being given.
maigy wrote:
Someone mentioned an idea, which IMO was a very cool one... it was having weaponsmiths craft the sub-components and allowing the Ranger to assemble them into a working mine. I thought it was intriguing... this could easily be expanded upon adding much more diversity to the mines. Maybe different sub-components could do different things like cause stats or increase the AOE or increase the damage or add different elemental typse of damage.
Well, I guarantee that I'll be making them in the field.I make camo, camps, and traps in the field because Ihate not being able to pull stuff out of crates in combat. I also forget tograb crates.In the end, Ranger traps have been certed to Ranger to build. Considering the way the mines are being designed (a lot like the paint disperal kit that is essentially a container that you can put items into and only becomes useable when a certain number of items are in) I wouldn't mind an OPTIONAL weaponsmith part that added to my mine, but I hate the idea that I could be out in the wilderness unable to craft a mine at all because I left a crate of one of subcomponants in my house. It's not fun to Rangers.
That's what it boils down to me. Making Rangers reliant on sub-componants would hamper my gameplay, while not making Ranger sub-componants takes nothing away from Weaponsmiths. They can still do everything they do now. An optional componant (like a scope on ranged weapons) would be okay, and, in fact, welcome. But required sub-componants are a no-no in my mind. Now a "demolition pack" that could be put in the mine to increase AoE range, or a shrapnel pack that could increase kinetic damage, etc would be really cool. But I should always be able to make my tools on the go in the field without having to run to a house for a crate.
So if they changed their minds and decided to give our revamp to Smugglers...you wouldn't go there and object? He's trying to protect his profession from encroachment the same way that a lot of people here do. And in his mind, we're taking away something from THEM, so from his perspective he's just trying to get something back that was taken away. I'm not saying he's right, but you really have to work on your ability to empathize and understand where people are coming from.
Maxanto wrote:
Well I stand by it. It is greed to take something away from us. Accurate I think so, polite? Polite isnt coming to another professions board complaining about a new update you are being given.
Maxanto wrote:
Phenix1050 wrote:
Calculus_Entropy wrote:
I never said either side is right/wrong (and I agree with you, Phen, we have just as much a right as anyone to make our new traps, and the devs agree). I do think that calling a WS, who wants to craft explosives, greedy is wrong...it's kind of petty and calling someone greedy while trying to keep everything for yourself/profession is hypocritical.
Well then we're in complete agreement. The "greedy" commentary wasn't accurate or polite. They do already make all explosive items in the game it makes sense that they'd want the mines. But as we've said, we also have a logical reason to keep them. And in the end, I simply think our argument is stronger. That doesn't mean I resent the WS who wanted them. I understand his position and I don't think it's greedy. It's just looking out for his profession the way all of us do.
Well I stand by it. It is greed to take something away from us. Accurate I think so, polite? Polite isnt coming to another professions board complaining about a new update you are being given.
Wow I never realized Rangers were so elitist.... Sorry for coming here guys and daring to expresss concerns about your revamp... I did manage to play a Ranger/BH/Pistoleer for about 18 months if that matters... I really loved the tracking aspect of ranger... I gave up that character concept when the CU hit.... I didnt much care for the changes to ranger or BH.
And yes I do realize that anything I say here will, mostlikely have 0 impact the ranger revamp. Overall the ranger revamp looks like it will do a lot of good fro rangers... even if I think it was done completly wrong... I was really hoping they would make rangers the undisputed masters of the PvE realm.
Later all... for now I am done with this thread... and I will go back to occasionally lurking on this forum, but staying to my own kind as you would like.
Calculus_Entropy wrote:
From Helios, on the Corr forum:
"Currently, all Ranger schematics are granted within the Ranger tree and for the most part only require simple resources using only OQ for all attributes. This was done so that the Ranger could be self sufficient and easily create the equipment that they will need to replenish constantly since everything is consumeable. It wasn't meant to be a full-fledged crafting profession, but because our Rangers are supposed to be more or less self-sufficient covert operation units they should also have the ability to manufacture their own equipment in the field."
Message Edited by Calculus_Entropy on 09-27-200510:30 AM
I'd actually like to hear more about what you think of the possibility of adding WS componants that would be optional-- not required sub-componants, but rather optional things like scopes and stocks. What would make it even cooler is if we could throw in organic stuff like Acklay venom so you could choose between organic or inorganic componants.
maigy wrote:
Wow I never realized Rangers were so elitist.... Sorry for coming here guys and daring to expresss concerns about your revamp... I did manage to play a Ranger/BH/Pistoleer for about 18 months if that matters... I really loved the tracking aspect of ranger... I gave up that character concept when the CU hit.... I didnt much care for the changes to ranger or BH.
Don't judge us all by the actions of one. A lot of people here disagree with you, but respect your perspective and your right to express yourself. I understand where you're coming from, I just think that your idea relies on a bit of spotty logic. If it was an electrical damage trap, I don't think we'd be having this conversation, in which case you simply disagree with this implementation, not the concept, which in my mind makes your position more shaky.
And yes I do realize that anything I say here will, mostlikely have 0 impact the ranger revamp. Overall the ranger revamp looks like it will do a lot of good fro rangers... even if I think it was done completly wrong... I was really hoping they would make rangers the undisputed masters of the PvE realm.
Unfrotunately, that idea can't happen. There is absolutly no way to balance that kind of PvE power in a game where levels are everything. If you restrict Ranger to 1/3rd of the game, then to be balanced which would mean we'd have to be 3 times as powerful in that realm.
Later all... for now I am done with this thread... and I will go back to occasionally lurking on this forum, but staying to my own kind as you would like.
Phenix1050 wrote:
So if they changed their minds and decided to give our revamp to Smugglers...you wouldn't go there and object? He's trying to protect his profession from encroachment the same way that a lot of people here do. And in his mind, we're taking away something from THEM, so from his perspective he's just trying to get something back that was taken away. I'm not saying he's right, but you really have to work on your ability to empathize and understand where people are coming from.
Maxanto wrote:
Well I stand by it. It is greed to take something away from us. Accurate I think so, polite? Polite isnt coming to another professions board complaining about a new update you are being given.
Nope I don't, never have and never would. Check through my history and see for yourself. I do know where he is coming from and I completely object to it. It has no right being here and I am 100% in disagreement with it. I find it extremly rude and very selfish!
maigy wrote:
Well if they are for example making the equvient to a pipe bomb... why wouldn't a weaponsmith be able to make something like a claymore.In general claymore>pipe bomb
Well ask the devs for a claymore schematic then if you want. (BTW, if claymore greater than pipe bomb, then claymore not equal to pipe bomb).
maigy wrote:
The argument about these being representative of scarpping together some kind of kitchen sink bomb just doesn't hold water... since they will be able to make schemetics of these and be able to mass produce 1000 of the exact same mine.
I see your point, however, scrapping stuff together in the field is exactly what we're going to be doing. As for then using a factory making them not making sense, well perhaps, but we can do the same with organic traps now. At which point, if we want to apply a 100% explanation to everything that happens in the game, then we must assume factories are quite tollerant of non-uniform components and resources (in a roleplay/imaginary sense).
I must admit though, I am having a hard time understanding your aggressive begruding towards a profession that is long overdue some attention, especially when that attention will make absolutely no difference to your profession.
Phenix1050 wrote:
I'd actually like to hear more about what you think of the possibility of adding WS componants that would be optional-- not required sub-componants, but rather optional things like scopes and stocks. What would make it even cooler is if we could throw in organic stuff like Acklay venom so you could choose between organic or inorganic componants.
ok I know I was going to post anymore in this thread, but since you asked, and I hadnt removed this from my subscriptions yet... I will give you a few of the thoughts that I had.
at x level in ranger perhaps novice or tier 1 you would get the ability to make the base mine... no subcomponents... just plan I am in the field I need a mine type of deal.
as you progress through the tiers you would be able to add additional sub-components to the mine... this might cap at 3 subs at master ranger
the loot such as kilcknick gland and acklay venom is already used for crafting the sub-components in grenades, so I would assume it would be easy to port over to the sub-components for mines... so these enhancer could be used in the subs.
Possible Ideas for the subs that could go into the final assemble would be
Stun - adds stun + small damage
dizzy- adds dizzy+ small damage
fragmentation- adds increased AOE + moderate damage
Concussive- adds KD+ small damage
element- adds corresponding elemental damage
High explosive- adds Heavy damage
So for example at master ranger you could make a mine that can have upto 3 of these modules... so you could have a single mine that causes stun + dizzy+KD but the damage wouldnt be as great. And of course there sint a 100% chance of causing this stats... just the standard chance.
This is all of the top of my head, I ahve never really thought about anything like this before... It just seemed cool.
Message Edited by maigy on 09-28-2005 01:18 PM
maigy wrote:
Maxanto wrote:
Phenix1050 wrote:
Calculus_Entropy wrote:
I never said either side is right/wrong (and I agree with you, Phen, we have just as much a right as anyone to make our new traps, and the devs agree). I do think that calling a WS, who wants to craft explosives, greedy is wrong...it's kind of petty and calling someone greedy while trying to keep everything for yourself/profession is hypocritical.
Well then we're in complete agreement. The "greedy" commentary wasn't accurate or polite. They do already make all explosive items in the game it makes sense that they'd want the mines. But as we've said, we also have a logical reason to keep them. And in the end, I simply think our argument is stronger. That doesn't mean I resent the WS who wanted them. I understand his position and I don't think it's greedy. It's just looking out for his profession the way all of us do.
Well I stand by it. It is greed to take something away from us. Accurate I think so, polite? Polite isnt coming to another professions board complaining about a new update you are being given.
Wow I never realized Rangers were so elitist.... Sorry for coming here guys and daring to expresss concerns about your revamp... I did manage to play a Ranger/BH/Pistoleer for about 18 months if that matters... I really loved the tracking aspect of ranger... I gave up that character concept when the CU hit.... I didnt much care for the changes to ranger or BH.
And yes I do realize that anything I say here will, mostlikely have 0 impact the ranger revamp. Overall the ranger revamp looks like it will do a lot of good fro rangers... even if I think it was done completly wrong... I was really hoping they would make rangers the undisputed masters of the PvE realm.
Later all... for now I am done with this thread... and I will go back to occasionally lurking on this forum, but staying to my own kind as you would like.
Don't take my opinions to be "rangers" Obviously all the others in my community don't feel like I do and to go off on the community all because you and I don't agree is just ignorant and one sided. Rangers are a great community, everyone here is open minded and willing to accept others ideas... but with me when other professions come here, yea you are not the first to try to ruin our update, I get pissed off. The others take it much better than I. However your reply here shows your true colors, thanks for that at least.