Ranger Archive
Thread: CU Proposal to rework Scout to sort out SL and Ranger problems
Page 1 of 2
KundoJet
Tue Apr 12, 2005 8:58 am
#1
I'm moving this to a seperate thread (from page 4 of the SP debate) because I think it's a proposal that merits discussion. I've posted it on the Scout and SL forums as well, sowe'll see what they think.
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 own 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 (Melee profs are forced to spend 29 SP getting Ranged Support - 15 SP more than it should be, and 29 SP more than ranged profs, since they'll get Rnged Support anyway with their combat prof).
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.
Ziege19
Tue Apr 12, 2005 9:14 am
#2
I entirely agree that some adjustments to the Scout profession are the way to reduce Ranger SP requirements. If, as you suggest, the current Scout abilities are condensed into two Ranger required branches, there are any number of things that could be done to the remaining two branches. One could be a SL branch, one could be focused more on BH, CH or BE requirements. There are any number of ways to make this workable.
Great post.
Great post.
AragornSoS
Tue Apr 12, 2005 9:21 am
#3
Some interesting ideas, but for some reason, this really doesn't seem very appealing to me. Maybe it's becuase I tend to be one of those who view Ranger more as the recon / stealth type class (which is has great potential for). This just sounds like you're taking some skills from SL (or beefing them up more) and cutting out a lot of the PvNPC, PvPC, GWC role that Rangers have been looking for and asking for for some time now. While I certainly enjoy hunting, it's not the *only* thing I want to do in the game. We are creature-centric now becuase that is primarily where the skills we DO have are useful (i.e. not broken or purposefully gimped at the moment). There is no reason we HAVE to remain creature centric, as that would (As many have pointed out) gate us from probably 2/3 of the game artifically. No other profession is so gated.
I do think there are some interesting ideas in your proposal, I'm just not sure that I have enough info to really say if it's "great" or not at this point, other than a gut feel that it seems like we'd ultimately be losing a lot and having a pure PvCreature role thrust on Ranger, which isn't what I would want to see happen to the class. I'm still not even all that hung up on being the highest SP cost profession in the game. I rather look on that as something for the few of us who DO master to be proud of. I don't want to be "leet", I do want the skills I have to mean something and make me a viable member of any group in the post-CU world, and I want the OPTION to engage in PvE, PvP and GCW content as much or as little as I want. If I have the skills to be the uber-est hunter int he galaxy, then certainly I should be able to use a lot of that knowledge in the war and against NPCs and Players. I don't want Ranger "dumbed down" (which this sort of feels like for some reason, I can't put my finger on exactly what tho), I want it brought up to it's full potential.
Vorpaks
Tue Apr 12, 2005 9:26 am
#4
This is a well thought out proposal. 
One thing that jumps out at me though is whether this would "overload" scout. If you look at the base professions like marksman, brawler, medic there are not a lot of skills/mods in there. Add all the things this would give to scout and master scout almost seems like a elite profession all on its own. Not that that is a bad thing. 
The other thing that jumps out at me is that it includes a lot of additions which realistically I don't think are going to happen right now. I think the skill point reduction argument is an argument for a quick fix that will keep the profession viable while we wait for the revamp.
I have no problem with the idea of a skill point reduction but I do not think it should happen before we find out what additions are planned for out profession. Otherwise we might end up in a situation 6 months or more down the line when our profession is going into revamp, and you have potentially new devs/people who weren't aware of the issues looking at Ranger and thinking "Oh, it only costs XX skillpoints..."
So basically what I am hoping for is something very similar to what you propose - skillpoint reduction at the same time as enhancements are added. I like the idea, but sadly I don't think the added enhancements part is going to happen at this time. Not when you look at how much has to be done before May 5th to get the game playable.
I would definitely link this post into the Ranger revamp thread and also remember it when we get a focus thread similar to the one the Smugglers got - as a suggestion on how a skillpoint reduction could be done without loosing any of the abilities/schematics of Rangers.
One thing that jumps out at me though is whether this would "overload" scout. If you look at the base professions like marksman, brawler, medic there are not a lot of skills/mods in there. Add all the things this would give to scout and master scout almost seems like a elite profession all on its own. Not that that is a bad thing. The other thing that jumps out at me is that it includes a lot of additions which realistically I don't think are going to happen right now. I think the skill point reduction argument is an argument for a quick fix that will keep the profession viable while we wait for the revamp.
I have no problem with the idea of a skill point reduction but I do not think it should happen before we find out what additions are planned for out profession. Otherwise we might end up in a situation 6 months or more down the line when our profession is going into revamp, and you have potentially new devs/people who weren't aware of the issues looking at Ranger and thinking "Oh, it only costs XX skillpoints..."
So basically what I am hoping for is something very similar to what you propose - skillpoint reduction at the same time as enhancements are added. I like the idea, but sadly I don't think the added enhancements part is going to happen at this time. Not when you look at how much has to be done before May 5th to get the game playable.
I would definitely link this post into the Ranger revamp thread and also remember it when we get a focus thread similar to the one the Smugglers got - as a suggestion on how a skillpoint reduction could be done without loosing any of the abilities/schematics of Rangers.
JascoSmlee
Tue Apr 12, 2005 9:39 am
#5
What I want for Ranger:
- Leave skill points and pre-reqsalone.
- Give us CL and Health to match any other elite 'combat' prof (Use rescue/trapping line to add bonuses).
- Let us use traps on NPC (even players at Master or Trap Master)
- Let Camo take us of rader as long as we don't attack and fix it to work against damn thugs too (Master or Wayfarer).
- Makeforaging and camping useful (dunno how though ).
That is really all I want. 
Message Edited by JascoSmlee on 04-12-2005 05:40 PM
Ziege19
Tue Apr 12, 2005 9:51 am
#6
AragornSoS wrote:Some interesting ideas, but for some reason, this really doesn't seem very appealing to me. Maybe it's becuase I tend to be one of those who view Ranger more as the recon / stealth type class (which is has great potential for). This just sounds like you're taking some skills from SL (or beefing them up more) and cutting out a lot of the PvNPC, PvPC, GWC role that Rangers have been looking for and asking for for some time now. While I certainly enjoy hunting, it's not the *only* thing I want to do in the game. We are creature-centric now becuase that is primarily where the skills we DO have are useful (i.e. not broken or purposefully gimped at the moment). There is no reason we HAVE to remain creature centric, as that would (As many have pointed out) gate us from probably 2/3 of the game artifically. No other profession is so gated.I do think there are some interesting ideas in your proposal, I'm just not sure that I have enough info to really say if it's "great" or not at this point, other than a gut feel that it seems like we'd ultimately be losing a lot and having a pure PvCreature role thrust on Ranger, which isn't what I would want to see happen to the class. I'm still not even all that hung up on being the highest SP cost profession in the game. I rather look on that as something for the few of us who DO master to be proud of. I don't want to be "leet", I do want the skills I have to mean something and make me a viable member of any group in the post-CU world, and I want the OPTION to engage in PvE, PvP and GCW content as much or as little as I want. If I have the skills to be the uber-est hunter int he galaxy, then certainly I should be able to use a lot of that knowledge in the war and against NPCs and Players. I don't want Ranger "dumbed down" (which this sort of feels like for some reason, I can't put my finger on exactly what tho), I want it brought up to it's full potential.
I'm not sure he meant that this change alone would fix Ranger; only that it would fix the problem of Ranger having such a disproportionate SP requirement. Ranger still would certainly need some more abilities, even with a reduced SP requirement.
Myself, I think keeping the current SP requirement would be acceptable ONLY if Ranger is given significant PvP abilities and becomes one of the more powerful professions. Power, in my mind, should be proportionate to SP requirements. From my perspective, though, I'd rather see a moderate boost in Ranger powers and a reduced SP requirement. I don't want Ranger to be one of the most powerful classes because I don't want the kiddies flocking to it. And the only way that I can see to justify the highest SP requirement in the game would be to make Ranger just that powerful.
KundoJet
Tue Apr 12, 2005 9:51 am
#7
Thanks, guys - keep the feedback coming!
Aragorn, I see where you're coming from in terms of leaving Rangers focused too much perhaps on creature-based skills. The reduction in SP, however, does give you more freedom to take some BH or SL as it suits in order to gain some different abilities... but I agree, there may be other changes necessary to the Ranger prof specifically to make it more versatile, and I wouldn't want to excluse those changes from consideration in addition to this proposal.
As to Scout being overloaded, that's a legitimate concern, and I think the solution there would be to reduce somewhat the mods available for skills received in Scout, and increase the mods available from their corollaries in Ranger or SL (for example, perhaps Mask Scent from Scout should only give you a 50% mod in the fourth box, instead of 70%, but it goes up to 60% in Novice Ranger, and increases further as part of the Camo line).. So Scout gives you a low-level familiarty with a lot of different skills, but you need to pursue one or both of Ranger and/or SL in order to max out the effectiveness of those abilities... much as you have to master an elite combat profession to build on Marksman or Brawler abilities.
The trade-off for true scouts (as opposed to Rangers or SL's) is that while they may be less effective at some skills, they have more skills to choose from.
And you're right - there's no way something like this would be implemented with the CU - but it COULD form the basis of changes in the profession revamp we've been told to expect post-CU, and it would complete some of the balancing the CU was supposed to accomplish.
Anyway, great thoughts - keep 'em coming! I'm not savvy with links, so I just posted three seperate threads here, in SL and Scout, and will monitor those for feedback as well.
AragornSoS
Tue Apr 12, 2005 10:03 am
#8
The more I think about this (what can I say, I'm bored waiting for a couple VPs to reply to questions I have for work, so I'm on the boards... hehe)... I do like it. I like the idea of spreading the mods more up thru Ranger and SL and CH and such as well, so that simply by going up 1 branch of scout, you don't get as good TN as a Master Ranger for example(I believe that popped up in another thread as well). Then you could end up with a better set of options for a Ranger, and if you added decent skills to the Ranger profession in general along with addressing concerns about CL, health, unique role in the game and the GCW, etc etc - you put us on par with many of the other master elites. AND make it effective to take multiple professions based on Scout and actually be able to DO things with it. Master Ranger / Master SL with dabbling in CH could actually be a fairly interesting and unique combination and might play nicely into anyone that wanted to lead group hunts, lead raids, have decent combat skills, and use pets as a weapon OR a companion.
I just don't want to see a unilateral removal of SPs without also addressing / adding / fixing Ranger skills. And I also think that a lot of thought would need to go into what the 4 branches of Scout would include, since moving to a model similar to Marksman or Brawler does make sense (And would hopefully put scout based combat professions on par with ranged or melee elite combat profs) but you'd also need to take care not to end up with 1 "good branch" that stacks all the desirable mods, and then several branches that end up useless and are only taken to fill a prereq. Seeing what was done with Brawler and Marksman I think it CAN be done, but it would take some work to get all the kinks worked out.
Oculus
Wed Apr 13, 2005 10:02 am
#10
I don't like it.
Either Master Scout would end up becoming worthless, or they'd fill it with so many Ranger-related skill mods and schematics that most would feel "forced" to pick it up anyway.
It's not the issue of putting 140 points into something. It's putting 140 points into something and not being rewarded for it.
It doesn't matter to me if I put 250 SP into Ranger + Combat profession or 250 into Ranger profession w/ combat skills.
Either Master Scout would end up becoming worthless, or they'd fill it with so many Ranger-related skill mods and schematics that most would feel "forced" to pick it up anyway.
It's not the issue of putting 140 points into something. It's putting 140 points into something and not being rewarded for it.
It doesn't matter to me if I put 250 SP into Ranger + Combat profession or 250 into Ranger profession w/ combat skills.
Oku Kee'lus
wizardrahl
Wed Apr 13, 2005 10:25 am
#11
if anyone noticed is the CU Ranger has some armor requisites to battle armor. Not that it would affect me cause i plan on staying as tk-> which means TK wont get any cool lookin armor, just toughned skin(sort of like jedi) Which isnt bad considering encumberance on ham)
KundoJet
Wed Apr 13, 2005 1:41 pm
#12
Oculus wrote:
I don't like it.
Either Master Scout would end up becoming worthless, or they'd fill it with so many Ranger-related skill mods and schematics that most would feel "forced" to pick it up anyway.
It's not the issue of putting 140 points into something. It's putting 140 points into something and not being rewarded for it.
It doesn't matter to me if I put 250 SP into Ranger + Combat profession or 250 into Ranger profession w/ combat skills.
I see your point. Two thoughts:
1) Who takes Master Scout now, if they aren't going to move on to take Ranger? I have not found a single person, but would be happy to discover some do. In the absence of such a discovery, I can't really see how Master Scout could be said to have any inherent value now...under this proposal, you'd have people who dabbled in Scout, people who took the prereq's for CH, BE, Ranger or SL, people who mastered it and moved on to one of those professions... That represents a lot of different combinations of abilties and styles of play from just the one basic profession,and that doesn't strike me as a bad thing.
2) I agree that you should get fair and reasonable return for your SP investment, one way or another. I wouldn't be opposed to seeing a full-value 140-point Master Ranger (with skills and abilities to match), but approached this exercise from the standpoint that it made sense for Ranger to have the same cost as other elite professions.
Page 1 of 2