Ranger Archive

If this is too off topic please delete it. The last thing I want to do is trash up one of the few secitons of the forums that is, for the most part, frequented by people who want information and mature debate not just "my way or now way" indivudals. In other wordsI thought I would get the most constructive input telling me I am off my rocker at the least. The jist of the thread is that an equal con mob to a melee skill and a ranged skill for the same player seem to produce more XP for the ranged player. For more indepth info the link to the thread is here.

http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=brawler&message.id=4996

Here is my idea on the subject (copied for those of us who find it painful to switch sections of the forum all the time. I am not sure how controlled the test was I posted at the end some extra things to avoid to get an acurate comparison.

Based on this information it could be guessed that this is a function of # of hits to kill to generate the amount of xp gained. If it was based on raw damage dealt to kill then Unarmed (don't know if other brawlers work the same way) should get huge xp.This is due to the fact that when I kill something the two HAM bars that didn't kill the opponent are at least half way down.

I would conjecture, if this were in fact how it is supposed to work, that the functionmay be working backwards. Normally a higher-level character will get less xp for a creature that it kills than if a lower level character kills the same MOB assuming that there is no XP cap. This would assume that damage output is the determining factor.

However, if the function is working correctly then there must be some other factors involved. Due to the limited nature of the tests I would guess that passive defense skills come into play (ones that require no activation don't know if those are actually considered passive or not). If this is the case it makes sense that the ranged weapon carriers have a large bonus to XP (or pistol in this case no data on carbines and rifles). In this case since the ranged users have very little defensive stats (in comparison)then they would get much higher XP even though the relative threat level to them is minor,due to the distance andabilityto kite.

It would be nice to have data from the other professions to compare. To be accurate you would need to kill at least 5 of the same creature, conning the same to you with each weapon and then average the XP for each kill. That way if there is minor variation it would absorbany anomalies.Additionallyrecord the number of strikes to kill, defense skills etc. To make this accurate youcouldn't use any special attacks, or abilities.Fore example: notraps, bleeds, state changes (blind, stun, dizzy), posture changes (posture down, knock down.

Thoughts?

Dea'll Flurry

Sadly, I think you are confusing us with an actual combat profession

No actually I put it here because as rangers we have a myriad of combat professions. More importantly I value the opinions of those that post in these threads.

However if that was a hint that I am off base and need to leave this to be discussed elswhere I appologize and digress.

Well, I will say this then: about the only combat effect is a + to hit, seems to be ranged only and I have not seen any effect whatsoever to the con. I will say that Rifleman con seems to go exactly the same as Pistol or carbine: by level only. It's a real problem for Riflemen sense you get a skewing that does not relfect the danger of the X2.5 damage penalty. Some things that con blue to us can kill in one hit. No other class seems to quite have that kind of disparity.