Ranger Archive
Thread: With carb as a pre-req you have to admit recon armor makes a lot more sense.
/agree
Personally Im hoping for ranged support4 and trapping4, that way I can keep pistoleer for my recon cert without feeling bad about those lost points
You guys keep harping about the recon slash battle armor cert.
I justused a character builder to check templates. Even with carbine as a prereq and not chaning.
If a Person wanted to go Say Master Ranger and Oh Say Master Rifles or Pistols they would still be able to pickup Medic 0400 Have have more healing than they do now.
So if the Cert was changed to Recon. Those two classes would be screwed under your concept.
Since instead of being battle battle that a carbineer is they would be limited to Recon Recon.
Since I believe more rangers are Pistoleers and Riflemen even under your concept Battle armor offer these people more choices, recon and battle armor.
So again even with Marksman 0040 as a prereq A ranged Ranger can have medic 0400 and heal themselves staying alive quite well.
Ah, perhaps I should re-phrase that:
I meant the devs deciding on changing the armor torecon made sense, instead of just a random whim... didn't mean it was neccasarily the best choice.
-Xenos Allus
Message Edited by XenosAllus on 09-23-2005 10:07 AM
The armors do have different kinds of hinderance, its just not all that noticable because with the whole grind group thing many people don't bother with armor until they get full mitigation. I think Assault effects your movement rate the most, and Recon effects movement the least and accuracy the most, with Battle being in the middle. I've never really bothered to look at the value though, so I could be wrong.
That said, I don't really care what the armor type is. I think there are far too many professions that have Battle armor as opposed to the other types, but I think Ranger is best suited for Battle. Other professions should be changed, but thats not what this is about, so meh.
oh...well..um. then yeah, it does kinda makes sense why they would do that. But personally, I still think it had a lot to do with the simple fact that certain types of armor are called "recon". I honestly thank that's the main reason. It makes sense if you look at the name and appearances only (honestly, scout trooper armor is the best looking factional armor in-game) yeah, recon makes sense. But in terms of functionality, battle makes more sene in my opinion.
XenosAllus wrote:
Ah, perhaps I should re-phrase that:
I meant the devs deciding on changing the armor torecon made sense, instead of just a random whim... didn't mean it was neccasarily the best choice.
Phenix1050 wrote:
oh...well..um. then yeah, it does kinda makes sense why they would do that. But personally, I still think it had a lot to do with the simple fact that certain types of armor are called "recon". I honestly thank that's the main reason. It makes sense if you look at the name and appearances only (honestly, scout trooper armor is the best looking factional armor in-game) yeah, recon makes sense. But in terms of functionality, battle makes more sene in my opinion.
XenosAllus wrote:
Ah, perhaps I should re-phrase that:
I meant the devs deciding on changing the armor torecon made sense, instead of just a random whim... didn't mean it was neccasarily the best choice.
With Ranger's new theme... I would say recon definatly... for the name? No that is just plain silly, but because of what a sneaky spy type would need... recon armor is light and flexible... and is good at taking energy attacks best...
Battle armor is heavy and unflexible...made to take what ever you throw at it.
Yea recon armor makes much more sense and not cause of a stupid name.
Maxanto wrote:
With Ranger's new theme... I would say recon definatly... for the name? No that is just plain silly, but because of what a sneaky spy type would need... recon armor is light and flexible... and is good at taking energy attacks best...
What about recon armor-- IN THE GAME-- makes it more flexible. You can't carry any more when you're wearing light armor. you don't slow down an more with heavy assault armor...so there really is no representation of "weight" or "flexibility" in the game. Again, you're describing what image the word "Recon" brings to mind, not describing how it functions in the game.
And being specialized against energy attacks is bad for a recon unit who sneaks into bases. First off, you're going to fight troops with kinetic guns, secondly you're sneaking inside of bases and coming within melee range of most of them. Wouldn't it make sense to have armor that protects equally well against kinetic and energy attacks? For my money, I'd rather have armor against both.
Battle armor is heavy and unflexible...made to take what ever you throw at it.
Again...there is no "weight" in this game. Battle armor doesn't slow you down or make you less dexterous when you put it on if you're certed for it. There is NO difference in terms of speed or dexterity between battle armor and recon armor. Padded armor is described as lightweight and flexible. Yet I move at the same speed, fire at the same speed, etc. in padded armor as I do in composite armor. Thus, any arguments which include the phrase "weight" or "flexible" are invalid as there is no difference beween the armors.
Yea recon armor makes much more sense and not cause of a stupid name.
Again, the armor in this game doesn't function like armor in the real world. There is no "lightweight:" armor that slows you down less, or "flexible" armor that lets you dodge more. All armors are exactly the same, except for their resistances. So again, all you're doing is using the imagery that those words draws up and using it as an argument, which just goes to prove my point.
Message Edited by Phenix1050 on 09-23-2005 03:54 PM