Ranger Archive
Thread: What if SL's got Drop Zone camps?
Page 1 of 2
BlakkStar
Fri Aug 13, 2004 1:09 am
#1
Sidenote: This was inspired by looking at Fred's photo gallery in the Misc section.
Looking at the various npc weapons and camps, we have seen items that we didnt have access to at the time be introduced to the game. The day while hunting I stumbled upon some gang on Naboo and they had one of those camps with an awning(sp?) and walk-in tent with the data terminal and chair. Next to the camp wasone of the miniature planet transport shuttles. It occurred to me that if they were to introduce the drop zone/shuttle evac idea that has been mentioned in the SL and Ranger forums, this camp could serve as artwork for the idea without having to introduce anything new. However this particular artwork doesnt seem to mesh well with any ranger camps, where the evac idea would be a add-on to the already exsting camps.
Considering that SL's are required to take the survival tree but don't use camps as part of the SL profession itself, it seems that the shuttle evac idea could easily and justifiably be added to their profession minus needing a ranger's camp to add the drop zone to. Would you feel that we had our toes stepped on by the devs if they gave the SLs this or anyother SL (camp required) idea (e.g. drop zone, defensive structures, turrets etc.) to SLs without needing ranger assistance?
PErsonally I wouldn't mind although, I'd ratherbe interdependent with SLs then not.
Calculus_Entropy
Fri Aug 13, 2004 7:36 am
#2
BlakkStar wrote:
Considering that SL's are required to take the survival tree but don't use camps as part of the SL profession itself, it seems that the shuttle evac idea could easily and justifiably be added to their profession minus needing a ranger's camp to add the drop zone to. Would you feel that we had our toes stepped on by the devs if they gave the SLs this or anyother SL (camp required) idea (e.g. drop zone, defensive structures, turrets etc.) to SLs without needing ranger assistance?
I would only have a problem if they got better camp functionality and we got squat. If they revamp camps as a whole, making all camps useful again (especailly ours), and slip the SL's a 'shuttle camp' I would be fine with that. If they give SL's a camp that is functional, and we get nothing, I will be unhappy 
. You don't want to see me when I am unhappy! 
. You don't want to see me when I am unhappy!
Aileili
Fri Aug 13, 2004 8:38 am
#4
What Calc said...
Though they could mitigate the damage done to my pride my requiring a HTFB as part of the Drop Zone Schematic.
Kyodor
Fri Aug 13, 2004 9:26 am
#5
The expansion of the idea was to also use Rangers as well as Squad Leaders to co operate to allow the Drop Zones. To stop availability to it being overpowering.
An idea was posted later in the thread that Squad Leader should be able to assign the Drop Zone, and have the Range build the Drop Zone camp itself.
An idea was posted later in the thread that Squad Leader should be able to assign the Drop Zone, and have the Range build the Drop Zone camp itself.
ShyGirl
Fri Aug 13, 2004 9:54 am
#6
Kyodor wrote:
The expansion of the idea was to also use Rangers as well as Squad Leaders to co operate to allow the Drop Zones. To stop availability to it being overpowering.
An idea was posted later in the thread that Squad Leader should be able to assign the Drop Zone, and have the Range build the Drop Zone camp itself.
Agree, the Drop Zone camp idea is great.... as long as both professions are required. I don't mind adding more profession dependencies in to the game 
(What I would not like to experence is what Calc mentioned.... I think we need some Love 
)
(What I would not like to experence is what Calc mentioned.... I think we need some Love )
cadmunky
Fri Aug 13, 2004 10:29 am
#7
i'm beginning to see the appeal here. if your proposition includes the faction camp functionality (i.e.: perhaps a faction field colonel for declaring) i think this would make the master ranger a highly sought after resource for PvP battles away from the larger cities and player cities. gives us a little more value in the GCW for those that seek it.
Springbok
Sat Aug 14, 2004 12:44 am
#8
This could be incorporated with Phenix's outdoorsmen proposals. Ranger makes, SL has the onsite needed module for it to be the evac camps...
Ranger_Nizzle
Mon Aug 16, 2004 11:16 am
#9
It is completely unpractical, but if it could be done, I would say to merge SL and Ranger skills. It encompasses a lot of which we have drawn up about our vision of rangers -- "groups of stealth marksman and skilled fighters, wilderness masters and guide to those who are not". It would make sense that we get to supply group terrain and marksmanship bonuses, if you think about the typical Army ranger. ok, well that's a whole nother can of worms I dont wanna open up to discussion.
Odajja
Mon Aug 16, 2004 12:05 pm
#10
Yes a support role. This is what ive based my Ranger toon on. Support the economy. support the battle. HTFB would have a Overt/Covert opyion maybe in a terminal. We can use faction points now in them to get ST arnor and stuff like turrents now. make the Thing a Awsome wonderful thing. Make us needed in PVP.
Owen-Lars
Mon Aug 16, 2004 1:06 pm
#11
What is the reasoning with SL getting evac over Rangers, btw? I still have not heard why just other then "'cause we got squat right now". We had ideas that SL would have for the Field Bases and the modules already. If they want to have it be a module, requiring only them to the ability to drop one but still need a FB to set the area up, I could understand (although respectfully disagree) but them haveing a camp or stand alone "unit"to themselfs scares me.
Yeah i know what you mean Fred. I remembered when you mensioned other professions adding modules to our camps ages ago which spawned the creation of this camp proposal we made: Here
I think camps are OUR domain and our domain only. No-one else should be able to support a habbitat in the wild and provide amenities other than basic camp functions. If someone does have a role in camps, its adding functionality to our camps.
DarthDominus
Mon Aug 16, 2004 2:55 pm
#12
Owen-Lars wrote:
What is the reasoning with SL getting evac over Rangers, btw? I still have not heard why just other then "'cause we got squat right now". We had ideas that SL would have for the Field Bases and the modules already. If they want to have it be a module, requiring only them to the ability to drop one but still need a FB to set the area up, I could understand (although respectfully disagree) but them haveing a camp or stand alone "unit"to themselfs scares me.
Yeah i know what you mean Fred. I remembered when you mensioned other professions adding modules to our camps ages ago which spawned the creation of this camp proposal we made: Here
I think camps are OUR domain and our domain only. No-one else should be able to support a habbitat in the wild and provide amenities other than basic camp functions. If someone does have a role in camps, its adding functionality to our camps.
Completely agreed.
Odajja
Mon Aug 16, 2004 9:32 pm
#13
Owen thats Amazing. Love the ROCD and the Modular concept. to Make a camp for what you need for the task at hand. We would be a verry valuable asset in PVP.
Page 1 of 2