Ranger Archive
Thread: Ranger Skill Points: Post CU
BaneShee
Fri Apr 08, 2005 9:53 am
#79
Calculus_Entropy wrote:
BaneShee wrote:
Ok here's my take. I think we need to go for the SP reduction ASAP.
From the devs perspective, the CU is mostly about balancing the Elite Profs. and I can't see them changing that coursejust because Rangers currently have a bigger investment. If we hold firm to keeping the extra SP's in the hope that we will get additional(or possibly unbalancing in the devs opinion) features that justify our investment then we run the risk of being balanced with the other Elites but at a higher investment. Personally Icant see the devs letting us be unbalanced or over powered so I think we will lose the SP's sooner or later.
No, it's not. It is about balancing Combat. There is a big difference.
Agreed but since most Rangers see themselves as a combat class (myself included). Can we both agree that Ranger having more SP's than any other combat Elite wouldbe unbalancing for the game? Maybe its just me but I would need someserious benefits to justify the additional investment I have in MR. So how do we ask for additional benefits that wouldn't unbalance theprofessions but would justify the additional cost of MR.
CuchulainnDarklight
Fri Apr 08, 2005 10:19 am
#80
BaneShee wrote:
Calculus_Entropy wrote:
BaneShee wrote:
Ok here's my take. I think we need to go for the SP reduction ASAP.
From the devs perspective, the CU is mostly about balancing the Elite Profs. and I can't see them changing that coursejust because Rangers currently have a bigger investment. If we hold firm to keeping the extra SP's in the hope that we will get additional(or possibly unbalancing in the devs opinion) features that justify our investment then we run the risk of being balanced with the other Elites but at a higher investment. Personally Icant see the devs letting us be unbalanced or over powered so I think we will lose the SP's sooner or later.
No, it's not. It is about balancing Combat. There is a big difference.
Agreed but since most Rangers see themselves as a combat class (myself included). Can we both agree that Ranger having more SP's than any other combat Elite wouldbe unbalancing for the game? Maybe its just me but I would need someserious benefits to justify the additional investment I have in MR. So how do we ask for additional benefits that wouldn't unbalance theprofessions but would justify the additional cost of MR.
Well, would this be enough rewards,skills and certs for you?
Clicky
Message Edited by CuchulainnDarklight on 04-08-2005 10:21 AM
Message Edited by CuchulainnDarklight on 04-08-2005 10:22 AM
Message Edited by CuchulainnDarklight on 04-08-2005 10:24 AM
CuchulainnDarklight
Fri Apr 08, 2005 10:28 am
#81
Dont agree with that - after all even if you reduce ranger skill point cost a little - noone is going to "dabble" in it because, to dabble in ranger you still need the70-80 skill points invested in Master Scout and that gets most poeple all the harvesting , mask scent, camps, terrain negotiationand traps that they are ever likely to need.
Almagill wrote:
If we give up lines from our prerequisites we lose functions in Ranger. If we want to keep the same functionality of Scout but in fewer lines (as some have suggested) that means completely rewriting Scout, say WHAT?? If we reduce the SP investment in our part of the tree, so that each box is 'cheaper' we will see a lot more dabblers.
BaneShee
Fri Apr 08, 2005 10:50 am
#82
CuchulainnDarklight wrote:
Well, would this be enough rewards,skills and certs for you?
Clicky
Interesting ideas but I think you left outthe /CreateTrophy command. 
Seriously though, Its too early for us totry and balance ourselves against theother Elites. I think you've made a good start but my feeling is that your proposal would quickly make us FOTM.
CuchulainnDarklight
Fri Apr 08, 2005 10:57 am
#83
BaneShee wrote:
Interesting ideas but I think you left outthe /CreateTrophy command.
Seriously though, Its too early for us totry and balance ourselves against theother Elites. I think you've made a good start but my feeling is that your proposal would quickly make us FOTM.
Cant see how - the skill points are still to intensive to become flavour of the month amongst the combat stackers - the Master Scout prerequisite kind of blocks that.
That health and skill sink will put people off who arent WANTING to be rangers (even if they fix the health). Plus, whats wrong with people dabbling in Ranger, if we have the skills to keep them it can only make ranger stronger, FOTM people will eventually bugger off anyway, plus, post-CU itll look like taking ages to level up in profs so quickly switching your template isnt as feasible anymore!
Rasst
Fri Apr 08, 2005 2:52 pm
#84
Lets separate "combat" and "animal killing".
When I talk about Ranger combat I mean ONLY creature killing. And I need combat profession only for that. I see that after CU i will be unable to have my current template with TKM and FS Master Reflexes. This is unacceptable.
As I understand Rangerprofession it cant be more than combat support. Butit also can't be less than one Elite Combat (any, if we talk about freedom).I wonder if Master Armorsmiths asking about more combat for their life. Rangers are the same, but they need to fight instead of crafting. This profession is unique and need special approcach. It cant be considered pure combat or pure noncombatlike all other.
Almagill
Fri Apr 08, 2005 3:19 pm
#85
CuchulainnDarklight wrote:Dont agree with that - after all even if you reduce ranger skill point cost a little - noone is going to "dabble" in it because, to dabble in ranger you still need the70-80 skill points invested in Master Scout and that gets most poeple all the harvesting , mask scent, camps, terrain negotiation and traps that they are ever likely to need.Almagill wrote:
If we give up lines from our prerequisites we lose functions in Ranger. If we want to keep the same functionality of Scout but in fewer lines (as some have suggested) that means completely rewriting Scout, say WHAT?? If we reduce the SP investment in our part of the tree, so that each box is 'cheaper' we will see a lot more dabblers.
Yup, they'd still be tying up the Scout SP but the thing about dabblers is they are picking and chosing from profs. A combat elite, scout, then the bits from Ranger they like, say tracking, and fill the rest out with part of another combat prof.
btw, am not saying that dabblers are a good or a bad thing. One thing I have liked about SWG is the ability to mix and match to get a blend that the player likes. Sure, in the past this could be used to get a defence or offence boost, but that was the players choice and fair does.
There also seems to be, in all discussions about professions (and this goes waaay back, well before CU) that 'everyone' in the profession is, will be or must be a Master. I stuck around in the lower reaches of rifleman for long enough as it gave me enough oomph to do a bit of faction farming, and in the lower reaches of Ranger as it gave me cammo and tracking.
So, yes, I think we may see more dabbling if Ranger skills are reduced in cost, from those plyers that haven't yet Mastered their elite prof and are looking for a little extra 'edge' in creature centric work.
CuchulainnDarklight
Fri Apr 08, 2005 3:27 pm
#86
I see nothing wrong with dabbling - for months i ran around with a bit of pistol and a bit of rifle (conceal shot conceal shot, oops hes spotted me , pistol whip, burst run). In fact it looks like the CU is designed to encourage dabbling! However in a perfect world noone would dabble in ranger they would try it for some skills - like it, then master it.
Almagill wrote:
So, yes, I think we may see more dabbling if Ranger skills are reduced in cost, from those plyers that haven't yet Mastered their elite prof and are looking for a little extra 'edge' in creature centric work.
Kalaf
Tue Apr 12, 2005 3:49 am
#87
Sorry if these ideas are buried somewhere else in the Forums.. I have been away fro a week on Vacation.
Ok We all seem to agree we need something done to make Rangers needed as a part of teh game right?(or am I?)
Here is my suggestion for when/if we ever see a Ranger/Scout revamp(because you really can't do one without the other if they are going to make them linked the way they are now)
1) Instead of all of a skills pluses being in a single tree spread them around. Make it so that dabblers get VERY LITTLE. Or spread them out into every box in the trees for the same reason. ie... Instead of a +20 to something in a single Teir 1 box. Make it +5 for that skill in each of the 4 Teir 1 boxes.
2) Give us some real defenses vs State attacks. KD,Dizzy,Stun,Blind... If we have to hunt criters that inflict these we should have a way to counter them.
3) Some Health stat realism.... How are we supposed to hunt the deadliest creatures in the galaxy(SOEs idea for us) if we are weaker then a guy that hunts Smugglers for a living?
KundoJet
Tue Apr 12, 2005 8:32 am
#88
I agree you can't seperate Ranger and Scout when talking about revamp. It is unreasonable at present for Master Ranger to cost more than an elite combat master, since the ranger mastery on its on does not let you engage in the elements of the game (hunting, travel in dangerous places)needed to generate experience. A combat profession is required. The solution is not to reduce the SP cost of Ranger skills, for the points Owen has raised. The solution should be to focus the change on Scout...
If Ranger is wilderness-focused abilities, then turn Scout more into Reconnaisance, with some wilderness flavour. Start by moving Exploration skills and mods into the Wilderness Survival tree. Terrain negotiation andmask scent are survival skills, after all. Move trapping into the hunting tree - trapping is just another means of hunting, and anyone who learns to hunt would learn the basics of trapping too. These two trees (Hunting, Wilderness Survival) become the prereqs for Ranger - same SP cost as other Elites, but no loss of skills.
Then you have two trees to fill with skills for Scout - these should be Reconaissance skills that would support a combat prof, and would be more relevent to hunting humanoids. The trees would include skills/mods like surprise, terrain mods (improved los, a bonus to hit or damage when holding the high ground, etc.), group accuracy (the title "Forward Observer" springs to mind), and that sort of thing. The recce (in the US, "recon") tree would be the prereq for Squad Leader, instead of Wilderness Survival, giving scouts more (and more useful) abiltiies in two distinct areas - wilderness and creature skills, and group combat skills.
Then, shifting to Ranger, I would add some general combat mods to the Ranger prof, simply because it's ludicrous to suggest it is not a combat profession when so much of it involves dealing damage to opponents.
I think this would work for Rangers, keeping their skill level but freeing up the necessary SPs to improve their combat effectiveness to a reasonable level (not exceeding or even equalling an elite combat profession, but being able to hold their own well enough). This would also make Scouts more valuable, and more distinctive, because you'd have some scouts who were more on the Grizzly Adams/junior Ranger types, and some who were on the SL track (imagine pathfinders who give group terrain navigation that only works if the other players have the scout on /follow). In fact, if you designed it right, the SL prereqs could both come from Scout, since as it stands SL is cheap for ranged professions, and expensive for melee professions.
Just blue-skying the mechanics, but the more I think about this the more I convince myself it's a workable and useful change that improves Scout, Ranger and SL without being unbalancing.
PhatCohiba
Tue Apr 12, 2005 1:55 pm
#89
The more I read this. Or as I read this thread again and again... One thought keeps coming to mind.
The Ranger Prof needs weapons... AKA needs to be a Combat Prof.
As BH has weapons + other skills, Ranger should be better. Has more skill pt requirements.
Needs Hunting Rifles for harvesting, Maybe like the cover line of rifle. With Mean bonuses for harvesting hard to kill creatures.
Needs traps that hit like Master Combat Medic Posions. Hey, they have fewer skill pt requirements.
If your only skills were Master Scout / Master Ranger. that should be enough. You should be one bad-arse Mountain Man. People should with one combat prof should be terrified of having to pvp a ranger out in the mountains.
Man... we are so far away from this. We are the garbage collecting - slaughter house flunky.
Ellisia
Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:30 pm
#90
Its going to ruin my template totally.
Master Ranger
Master Rifleman
CH 0,3,0,0
That way I can have my 19th level pet for protection. I know I could use a droid, but Gurrcats just look better
Master Ranger
Master Rifleman
CH 0,3,0,0
That way I can have my 19th level pet for protection. I know I could use a droid, but Gurrcats just look better
Rooks
Tue Apr 12, 2005 11:03 pm
#91
Ellisia wrote:
Its going to ruin my template totally.
Master Ranger
Master Rifleman
CH 0,3,0,0
That way I can have my 19th level pet for protection. I know I could use a droid, but Gurrcats just look better
Plus a Cl 19 Wasteland Cu Pa is an awesome Mount