Ranger Archive
Thread: Talk of merging Ranger & SL
Darth_Sushi wrote:
It's not like I have some kind of monopoly on speaking for all Squad Leaders, either.
SmedleyLlama wrote:
Fair enough. It was when you began speaking for all SLs that I got confused.
Ackehece wrote:
Came over as an SL not as a Rifleman ^_- and no need for a SL correspondent... the current one is just fine ^_^
Carry on.
Board Walk! I must have Board Walk!
PHEAR THE LUXURY TAX!!!!!!!!
To the folks holding out for revamp...
The odds of Israelis and Palestinians making lasting peace are greater than Ranger or SL seeing the revamps they desire. I still think its wishful thinking, and we do our professionsby disservice for holding out for for what is not even a statement. SOE has given us NOTHING to warrant holding out. NOTHING. Not a promise, not a timeline, not a statement..NADA. Im not going to bet my profession on nothing.
Again, our respective numbers are NOT great enough for SOE to warrant serious development effort on either one of our professions..for them is a business decison. We just arent a big enough demographic by ourselves to get the attention. Frankly..SOE could delete all the SL's and Rangers..and you know what..hardly anyone would notice. Thats not the position we should leave ourselves in.
SOE is a business, never, ever forget that. When they make descisons, its based on how it makes business better for them, they consider things like Return on Investment, time to developp, cost to develop,together with how it advances the franchise,those kinds of business decsions.
The core of this idea is to give something desirable to both professions, without messing up their current gameplay, and providing SOE with a low-cost, low-dev timesolution that they can implement in a reasonable amount of time, and give them reasons as to why it makes sense. To present it to them in the language SOE understands..business.
The unified profession would verly likely receive more in the way of big fixes and tweaks because it would be 1 profession rather than 2
somewhere back in the thread someone borught up that I simply wanted all of Ranger & SL w/o the SP cost..well its a fair enough accusation but I think its sorat short sighted to be thinking that way. as someone who would rather be a MAster Ranger, and has been. I would happily tie up my SPs in all of Scout and Ranger because thats what I like (and I have had way more SPs tied up in that profession than any other profession has tied up in theirs.)
A SL under this idea wouldnt have to spend any more SP's than they already do, and if a 'Pathfinder' wants to have the full gamut of thr current Ranger/SL skills they will have to spend the same # of SP that a Master Ranger does today. If they want to bypass the trapping and harvesting, and focus on more combat orinatted things, they can do that and spend theior SP somewhere else.
No I dont want a profession for free, but after playing SL and Ranger, its plain for me to see the synergy the 2 profs have, and the more I think of it, the justifications for having 2 separate, low-popularity professions that fit together so well is a waste.
Cryos_Merovingian wrote:
I think many of us would agree with Owen's #3 - make 2 individually sustainable profs. Somehow this discussion seemed to have turned from a "What if" discussion to a "Rangers want it now let's make it work"... or at least it is being perceived as that. Many of the ideas to push this idea forwards *I think* are meant in the context of "IF this is going to happen, here's how it COULD work".
Pathfinding (Stealth, Intel Gathering, TN, GTN, Tracking)
Now, as for a Ranger "revamp", I LOVE Owen's thoughts:
Leadership (Tactics, Leadership, Group Buffs)
Fortifications (Combat Camps, Extraction)
Survival (Ground/Thrown Traps, Harvesting)
I'd be very happy with this. The problem is that this brings us VERY close to the nature of the SL profession, begging the question "why not merge the two?".
Now, at a very base level, I'd be happy with the following:
- Modular camps
- Improved trapping
- Offence and defence Mods
- Specials (a few creature specific ones)
- Improve tracking (all the improvements that have been mentioned)
These are a few things they could do within the confines of our current paradigm that would really make me happy. The modular camping would take some serious work and I don't doubt would be difficult, but I really see it as being necessary to maintain utility for this ability.
I would MUCH rather see 2 profs that are independently functional and desirable. But, I do not think the discussions of how a merger could be made possible are worthless - many interesting ideas here.
Yes,,this thread is meant as a If it happens, heres how it could work, type thing
Though I will admit I do like the idea better than anything else. ;-)
Then I saw it hit 5 pages and I was like ??? im only on page three but reading time has run short.In my opinion it is a bad idea. I can see how it would be good for Rangers - I initially picked up Ranger because I thought it would be a "support" class and therefore useful to supporting a group. The knowledge, the field bases, the rescue ability (or what I assumed it would be) all made me feel like the leader of the group. Getting sqad leader abilities would fit right in with my "vision" of what a Ranger is.
However, I really don't see the benefit for Sqad Leaders. If I was a Squad leader I think I would be looking in a completely different direction for my revamp vision. Like Ackehace's vision of a hard-bitten combat vet. If I was waiting for a revamp of squad leaders I would be looking for more combat-oriented abilities and group communication/control abilities. NOT at the Ranger skills of trapping, aggro avoidance, or even intel gathering. If you are a commander you leave that to your scouts. They bring you the info, you direct the troops.
I wouldn't mind a closer relationship with squad leaders. Rangers naturally become leaders of their group because of their skills and abilities. The ability to move faster/easier, to avoid attack and to gather long-range info through areatrack gives me the automatic role of telling my group where to go and what to fight. Even what weapons to use if they ever bring resists back. I wouldnt mind a way to "report" this info back to the squad leader. Thus handing the info and control back to her. (though wasting group space on both a SL and Ranger is unlikely - thats my bitterness talking.)
The difference that I see, from the Ranger perspective, is that my skills are all for me. They enable ME to do certain things, and my group benefits from the info and direction I give them if they choose to use it. Squad Leader skills are all for the group. They control the group rather than enabling it.
For example, I can tell my group "bunch of Nightsisters to the north" and depending on what we want to do we will go around or attack. Squad leader says /volleyfire @ Nightsister and no one gets the choice. They have to do it because its orders, and you follow orders!
Also, like Nemo said, a Squad leader would want to be THERE with her troops, directing their fire, making instant decisions about what bonuses they need and when. And a Ranger's skills are more suited for long-range. I am not usually with my group - I am in front of, behind, to the side, scouting the area and generally enjoying the run. Would a Squad Leader want to get that far away? What if the Squad ran into trouble and needed a morale boost?
So like I said, I do see the benefits for Rangers... and the extension of our leadership role into actual leadership abilities. But I do not see Ranger jiving with the Squad leader vision. Skill points I am not so worried about. If you kill the marksman/ranged support pre-req then getting Ranger/SL is not so painful. But vision and direction I do not see meshing well.
oh, and /cheer Owen. Rangers should not be creature only. It doesn't make sense logically and it is not fun. They should be better suited for attacking creatures maybe, but not gated from using their skills against NPCs.
If we have no reason to belive that a revamp will be good, or even occur, why should we put all our money on a merger being good or even happening? If we can't trust the devs to revamp us properly, how can we trust them to merge acceptably (when most of us don't want it in the first place).
Kinshi wrote:
To the folks holding out for revamp...
The odds of Israelis and Palestinians making lasting peace are greater than Ranger or SL seeing the revamps they desire. I still think its wishful thinking, and we do our professionsby disservice for holding out for for what is not even a statement. SOE has given us NOTHING to warrant holding out. NOTHING. Not a promise, not a timeline, not a statement..NADA. Im not going to bet my profession on nothing.
Calculus_Entropy wrote:
If we have no reason to belive that a revamp will be good, or even occur, why should we put all our money on a merger being good or even happening? If we can't trust the devs to revamp us properly, how can we trust them to merge acceptably (when most of us don't want it in the first place).
Kinshi wrote:
To the folks holding out for revamp...
The odds of Israelis and Palestinians making lasting peace are greater than Ranger or SL seeing the revamps they desire. I still think its wishful thinking, and we do our professionsby disservice for holding out for for what is not even a statement. SOE has given us NOTHING to warrant holding out. NOTHING. Not a promise, not a timeline, not a statement..NADA. Im not going to bet my profession on nothing.
QFE
For once, I agree totally with Calc.
Nemo0 wrote:
While I hope your timeline is wrong, I agree with most of what you say here.
I certainly hope it's wrong too. I'd actually hope they could spend another 3-6 months on Smuggler, then move onto Ranger and get that done by early 2006 (if not sooner). But I've found by being pessimistic, I'm more likely to be pleasantly surprise.
DaveG wrote:
WornTraveler wrote:well I just asked Tiggs if this was oficcially being considered to happen, and the answer was a simple no...In that case then, that is, as they say, is that. That is assuming of course that Tiggs has been told what's going on or not.((Walks away from thread)).
/targ DaveG
/fol
/mutter There is no spoon. There is no spoon.
Darth_Sushi wrote:
It's not like I have some kind of monopoly on speaking for all Squad Leaders, either.
Carry on.
Nope... A duty but not a monopoly.
Calculus_Entropy wrote:
Dariane_Kamutsovy wrote:
Calculus_Entropy wrote:
If we have no reason to belive that a revamp will be good, or even occur, why should we put all our money on a merger being good or even happening? If we can't trust the devs to revamp us properly, how can we trust them to merge acceptably (when most of us don't want it in the first place).
Kinshi wrote:
To the folks holding out for revamp...
The odds of Israelis and Palestinians making lasting peace are greater than Ranger or SL seeing the revamps they desire. I still think its wishful thinking, and we do our professionsby disservice for holding out for for what is not even a statement. SOE has given us NOTHING to warrant holding out. NOTHING. Not a promise, not a timeline, not a statement..NADA. Im not going to bet my profession on nothing.
QFE
For once, I agree totally with Calc.
Lol...I agreed with your first post in this thread...it threw me for a loop. And, you made me laugh with the muddy soldier comment... Dare I say this signifies the end of the Galaxy?
The end of the Galaxy? Hmm.. I hope not.. I'd miss it. Otoh, maybe it's a new beginning
I don't think the idea is a bad idea.. more of a poor choice.
However, if my options turn out to be:
- Wait for a revamp that will never come because the devs don't have any idea how to go about it (yes I know there have been 20 Gobzillion ideas in the forums but you know how that goes).
- Watching Ranger skills parsed out to the other professions until it becomes a simple matter to lop off the Ranger branch
- Merging with SL to create a Pathfinder profession
I'll take number 3. 