Ranger Archive

I will not pretend to be as fluent as some of my many ranger brothers who have come before me with ideas on the future of the ranger profession. I will also not pretend that my ideas are as fleshed out or as original, nonetheless I thought in light of the fact that we might be asked for a contribution that I would assemble my own thoughts on the matter of a "revamp." Ive already drawn the comparisons between the Scout profession in SWG and the non-weapons training that militaries around the world use and have used since the beginning of written history. (And lets face it, the origins of war go way back before the beginnings of writing) The fact that peoples around the world understood the importance of training, of organization, of discipline and drilling in battle so early in history is extremely telling of its true and continuing importance. Anyone who would belittle the fact that we are simply "super scouts" doesn't place a proper importance on scout training nor draw a conclusion on where that type of training can ultimately end up. Just because scout covers the basics doesn't mean the specialization cannot go above and beyond that. Ive taken my own look at scout and ranger and drawn my own conclusions about the core of skills that exist between the two and need to be expanded upon many times to make ranger work effectively. These are CONCEALMENT, DETERMENT, DETECTION, and ENTRENCHMENT. Here is a small overview

CONCEALMENT: This is a tricky issue, because like many rangers I believe that our skills should drop us from the radar and visual, but the problem that immediately arises is the fact that we're used to our concealment lasting through combat. Not simply "used to", I find it to be a highly necessary and useful function, as you can feel much more comfortable engaging combat with those rancors without worrying as much about the nightsisters hanging out nearby. But of course we'd never be granted a skill that makes us virtually untouchable in combat (by being invis). So, how to reconcile the two seeming incongruities without adding too much complexity (which is best saved for other systems). What occurred to me is that a ranger is probably not going to rely on one layer of concealment, so why are we relying on one layer only? It doesn't seem like it would be too hard to modify the system to allow camoflauge as well as maskscent. So instead of an either/or system for maskscent and conceal it would allow both.. Follow the reasoning for a sec: Maskscent would provide a layer of protection against creatures, conceal would grant a layer against creatures as well as npc's. So for the commands we have right now we would have two potential checks against creatures, one against npc's. Then we add one more command, /camo, which would give us an additional check against both npc's and creatures, as well as dropping us from the radar and hiding us from sight. Both /conceal and /camo would require the camo kit, which still retains its functionality for non-scouts like crafters trying to safely get to their factories. Fully layered in concealment with /maskscent, /conceal, and /camo we would have three checks against creatures, two against npcs, and one drop on players. More than likely none would be applicable in combat, and each would likely have a good cooldown timer before it could be reapplied if broken, so that if you're being nonchalant and driving your swoop in circles around a group of rancors you're likely to be discovered quickly but if you are quiet and cautious you should have a level of stealth unmatched by anyone else.

DETERMENT: In a word, traps. But of course the trapping system as we know it is long long due for a change. I am in complete agreement with the old holo ideals that ranger traps should be set traps. (Traps prepared on the ground in advance) These are not the run of the mill traps that make up the scout lines but should be of the far more powerful variety. They will include npc's as well as enemy pc's in their applications. There will surely be the ones that everyone expects, the area roots, the area snare, the area kd, area dizzy/stun/blind, area bleed, etc... but also its a time to bring new ideas into the fray about what traps do. Keep in mind that Ive named it determent for what I believe is a valid reason. A rangers job should be all about detering an enemies movement in the way that he wants to go and encourage the movement in the way the ranger wants to go. Misdirection and misinformation is at the heart of the recon unit. Ranger to ranger warfare is usually going on long before the actual battalions of troops engage each other in combat. How to accomplish this? One thought is to allow a concealment or non-concealment functionality to traps. Why? Well consider that sometimes you do not want to have enemies moving in a certain way, to flank your position for instance, and you leave a wide variety of traps down in order to give an enemy pause about going in that way. Ambushes come to mind as well, the enemy sidesteps the traps they see but fall into the ones they dont see. There is a functionality precedent for harmful objects that you see, for instance faction scanners, and this can be the de facto standard for traps that are placed in this way. Rangers would then be given an option to conceal traps that are set. Traps would remain in place until triggered or disarmed by an opposing ranger. Perhaps a 30 minute standard before falling apart? As I see it, there are two ways that you could implement set area traps. One is largely inspired by the way that current traps operate: target walks over trap area and is instantly inflicted with the state for that trap. This is a system not without merit. The other idea is to have the trap act almost as a mini-lair or a small factional device: target walks over trap area and an object pops up which denotes the trap and has its own hitpoints, and will hold its effect until it is destroyed. Both have pros and cons associated with them. Obviously for traps that inflict dizzy, blind, stun you dont want that effect wearing off immediately, but for traps that root you might be more inclined to have that trap hold longer by associating it with its own hitpoints. Obviously there will be balance issues to be addressed regardless, but its better to start strong and finish good than to start weak and finish with nothing. Additional trap ideas that we might consider include:

-Vehicle dismount traps, (although Im perfectly willing to accept that zipping around on a swoop while SF is just asking to get your bike blown up I fear this would be a bit too strong and instead they can just knock you from your vehicle.

-Hallucinogenic/Pheremone Dispersal, would act in a way as to make a mob believe that one of its own is in fact an enemy, and attack it instead of attacking you. Against players this trap could possibly inflict a tef against a group member, which might be in itself harmless, but you never know how people would react to all of a sudden having a red dot in their midst. Shoot first, ask questions later might well be the norm in that situation and plays right into the ranger ideals of misdirection.

-Creature Holding Cell, would isolate and capture a wild creature until such time as the trap is triggered, releasing a probably irritated creature right into the midst of the group. A creative ranger might also use this trap to isolate babies from a group for later taming by a creature handler.

DETECTION: A key role for any recon unit, this is a skill that also needs to have some things looked at, though admittedly not as much as the trapping system. Though it is true that rangers can "see" cloaked/covered (soon to be camo'ed) enemies, they can only do so by using /areatrack. This skill, while useful, does not currently have the strength needed to be any use whatsoever in a pvp encounter especially when that encounter involves invisibility skills. Note that when I say strength it largely refers to one thing, speed. This is a skill that is not fast enough to be used in a hectic combat situation. How to address this issue, firstly, I think it is necessary to add a tool into our buildable items, if you will, a tracking tool. This could easily operate as a cross between a survey device and the radar, showing various terrain elements, with filters for creatures, npc's, and pc's as well as other structures like bases, turrets, lairs, etc. We could have a new mod introduced to ranger called tracking from 0-100, and this would work similarly to artisan survey, by increasing our range as we increase our skill, hopefully up to a range at least of 1000m. This would reflect a rangers growing skill at discovering and interpretting useful signs which he/she is then presumably entering into his device as a way to keep track of the growing information to achieve a full picture view of his immediate surroundings. In addition to buttons which allow for the filtering of enemies and objects, might I also suggest that it contain a button for "submit report," which would be useable in the event the ranger is in a group being led by a squad leader, by which the said squad leader would then be able to see the tool as the ranger sees it, though perhaps like snapshots for lower SL's and allowing full functionality for master SL. In addition to the new more useful tool, I propose that our detection go one step further, to being able to see through invisibility techniques. We can start at low levels of being able to see said person on radar or perhaps more appropriately on our tool, and as we move up the skill tree we might start to see particle effects, be able to /target that person and at master of being able to see through it completely. I know many jedi will cry foul over such a change, but I believe that when you introduce invisibility units to a game you need to add corresponding detector units. Rangers are unmatched at discovering hidden and useful bits of information about their surroundings and as such I believe are warranted to be the detectors for SWG. Besides, in the event that they one day introduce a pvp planet, the ones who rangers will be doing the most detecting of, is enemy rangers. Ranger versus ranger warfare is, as I indicated earlier, a likely event in the subject of planetary conflict. This is a good, healthy move IMO, and I hope many of you agree.

ENTRENCHMENT: Even despite my lengthy proposals to the changing of the trapping system, I believe that the changes necessary for the camping system go one step further. In case there will be any doubt of my position on this matter, let me make it clear: A TENT IS NOT A CAMP, A CAMP IS NOT A TENT. No matter how pretty our camps may be they will never serve any real function in current application because of a denial of the previous statement. In order to alter the use of camps we must alter the system upon which they are based. This starts from the ground up of the ideals of scout, as a military style outdoorsman training. Again we look to history in this matter, camps have been defending armies for probably as long as said armies have existed. It didnt take long for generals and kings to realize that their soldiers were at their most vulnerable while resting in camp and most effective ready and in formation. A camp is an installation designed to add a large layer of protection to a weary army. The camp is one step away from being a base and it needs to reflect that in its function, for these are the true forward outposts. As such, I believe it is important that we allow the possibility that a camp is a threat and needs to be defeatable. As such, I propose that each camp have a definable object near its center to act as its "lair." This will contain the hitpoints for the base, which will increase as the base complexity increases, for the HTFB this number will probably be on the same order as a large turret, or greater even. Each camp will have a series of defenses, again according to its level, but never acting in such a way as to be defending itself. Im not a big fan of base turrets with their mindless functionality, Id love to see camp turrets but not quite the same way as base turrets. Perhaps more like ship turrets that have to be manually fired or if that is not applicable to the ground game, a compromise that would mean the camp's turrets would not fire unless manned. Each camp turret will also have its own hitpoints, and when it is destroyed it will remain destroyed. Rather than allowing deeded turrets to be added to the camp Im much more in favor of those turrets already existing within the camp kit. The bunkers that exist in the HTFB can easily be made to look and act like a turret system, though of course more would have to be added to make it defendable all the way around. The turrets for a camp would comprise the long range defenses for said camp, though there would also be some shorter range "tripod" guns for close defenses. It would be nice if camp guns could be upgraded based on the skill of the group, most especially commandoes being able to change the tripod guns to flamethrowers. Maybe if the various guns held target in the same way as turrets but when fired would use the special attacks of the person firing it? I think that the primary difference between the tripod guns and the turrets should not be the distance, but the attackable target, in the case of the tripods you are yourself the target, the enemy eliminates you and they eliminate the gun, whereas in the case of the turret they have to destroy the turret hitpoints in order to silence that gun. As such turrets will only be on ranger camps. If I may suggest, basic camp=1tripod, multiperson camp=2tripods, improved camp=3tripods, high quality=1turret/3tripods, field base=3turret/3tripod, htfb= 5turret/3tripod. Also, if we truly make the concession that camps are like our step towards bases, with the high tech field base being the next best thing to a forward outpost, then perhaps we could allow travel functionality to the base. I think it would be possible to allow anyone to use the terminal as an exit route to the planetary designated stronghold, or that a squad leader would be able to talk to a recruiter to transport his group to a HTFB in operation by a friendly SF player.

To those who have made it to the end of the post, congratulations. Ideas, suggestions, the building of the skill-tree mods will be most welcome.

Moff Zalok Onan
Imperial Governor of Dantooine