Ranger Archive
Thread: (OT)Should Squad Leaders lose their Survival Pre-req?
Page 1 of 1
BlakkStar
Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:43 pm
#1
I know this is a question that would be better suited to the SL boards but the issue does affect us as Rangers. The biggest issue is the SL demand of Fortifications. I personally believe they can get Fortifications while we get a Camp Revamp that doesn't conflict with Fortifications. In fact I was jotting down some ideas based on the Camping Revamp that I delineated in the Tactical Ranger Proposal.
However as I was writing them down, I realized that getting Fortifications would ultimately have little purpose in looking how PVP exists in-game. Sure we are due for a GCW revamp in 2250, but as it stands not a Fortification would do little to aid a group in combat compared to added skills the SL himself should get. An SL already provides defensive bonuses minus the inconveniences that would come withsetting up a fort and the SL is mobile. Overall the Fortification would force a static battle but smart PVPers would stay away or lead enemies away from the Fortification.
As far as offense, the SL has (and should have and be getting better) commands that boost offense. Any extra firepower (missile launchers, machine gun nests, etc.) would simply be a redundant version of turrets. If anything, E-Webs should be placeable at bases for extra firepower.
As stated before, an SL is mobile. They benefit their team anywhere at anytime and do not relegate their team to staying in one place. The endgame of most PVP battles is either kill all of the enemy or destroy their base. With this in mind where does the fort fit? The attacking party definitely would not be using the fort. The only thing I could surmise would be having forts placeable near the bases. But when you think about it, BASES ARE FORTS! The problem is that bases need to be made more interactive in current battles. Manual-controlled turrets was a step in the right direction. However they could be designed to add more to a battle than a little firepower and being the goal for PVP-raiding parties.
With all this said, I support the idea that SLs SHOULD have fortifications of some form if they are to keep their Survival prerequisite. Rangers of all people know the pain of having skillpoints that don't offer anything to your character. However I personally believe that like SLs should lose their Survival prerequisite in the Scout Profession. Personally I believe that SLs should stay mobile and receive benefits that enhance that concept. Plus like BHs asking for traps for scouts, if they don't have the pre-req then they can't justify asking for it 
.
.Yes I'm evil... 
Calculus_Entropy
Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:50 pm
#2
I agree that SL's should get some type of Fortification, but I am more partial to the idea that they add turrets and whatnot to our camps...AKA, modular camps 
. To answer the question posed in the title..No.
. To answer the question posed in the title..No.
Calculus_Entropy
Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:52 pm
#3
Also remember that the CU will change how PvP is, and perhaps a defensive Fortification will become useful in the future. Besides, who couldn't use more defense .
.
Nemo0
Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:56 pm
#4
No, SLs shouldn't lose the survival prereq. Camps are a very useful gathering point for groups and a SL should be able to make at least a basic one for his group. I'd love to see some way of giving SLs and Rangers different extensions of camping (maybe have the actual bases gained only in Scout/Ranger while the SLs get the ability to beef them up a bit). But they both have to be useful alone (although it would be great to have them supplement each other very well).
A war needs a point. You need to have something worth attacking (and, therefore, worth defending). Giving a Squad Leader the ability to boost the defenses of a location is a good thing. And that means they should have some survival experience. Defense is meant to be easier than attack.
With the coming GCW revamp, I expect that defending locations will be quite important. Fortifications will be useful here, even if they are only enhancements to a base or a camp gained through Scout/Ranger survival trees.
Owen-Lars
Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:36 am
#5
On the point about them loosing the survival pre-req, i dont think they should. As nemo said, they should have at least a basic understanding of survival techniques in order to create a small and basic rally point (scout camps) and understand how to survive in the wilderness.
Im prety much against giving sl their own special stand alone camps simply becausei think that its our domain and no other character should be able to create and maintain high level wilderness habitats.
I would much prefer squadleaders, commandos, creature handlers, doctors and entertainers to be able to ADD to our camps via the modular aproach. Rangers should be the ones that support the group in this manner, other classes including our own should be able to enhance the base abilities of the ranger camps in order to create a specialised camp that is custom made for a specific situation.
All in all i think wilderness habbitats are own domain and always should be, involving others into ENHANCING our camps is something that interests me a great deal and i would love to see in the future. I just dont want to go on a raid and have a group tell me no they dont need my high tech field base (if there was a reason to pop one of course) because they want the sl one instead.
Page 1 of 1