Ranger Archive
Thread: Ranger: The Cross-Purpose Class Theory (name edited)
Page 1 of 3
Phenix1050
Mon Sep 20, 2004 10:35 am
#1
It has been often said that there are three classes of characters in this game. In fact, it has come to the point that it almost goes unsaid. There are the crafters, the combat classes and then there are the support classes. Crafters, obviously, craft items in the game. Combat classes handle all the aspects of the combat. But there is no absolute when it comes to support classes. Doctors, entertainers, rangers, and other classes are all mass-lumped into this third category with reckless abandon, and I belive that it is high time that someone came out and argued that there are, in fact four classes of characters in this game. I know this might confound a few people, but in the end, I think it will become clear that some very basic assumptions that have been made are, in fact, false. This means a lot of arguments that rely on these assumptions (I will cover a few examples later) are based on an illogical premise and must therefore be reconsidered.
Firstly, there are the crafting professions. As it was said, these are professions whose skills translate ONLY into the ability to craft bigger and better items. As their skill trees progress, they gain access only to new schematics and gain the ability to craft more efficiently, resulting in better quality items. These are pretty much self-explanatory.
Secondly, there are the combat professions. Again, as they progress, their skills deal exclusively with combat. New weapons, new attacks and better defenses are all awarded in these skilltrees. Even the Teras Kasi ability to meditate constitutes a form of combat skill, as they are able to recover from the effects of combat and return to action sooner and are able to do so more effectively.
Third there are the support classes. Unlike traditional assumptions, these classes could also be characterized as the healing professions. Their skills translate into ability to help others. That is their SOLE ability. Thus doctors, medics, and entertainers are the only real support classes. This new definition is important because it reveals a great deal about what we consider support. Support is something that is behind the lines, used behind the scenes. Thus, doctors as is, don't really fall into this category, as they are able to take part in battle with great efficiency. (Personally, I believe that doctors shouldn't be able to buff themselves or heal themselves as effectively as they can another person. The use of higher medicine should have to be performed by another. No surgeon in the world performs gastrointestinal surgery on themselves. But this is a topic for another post). Regardless of how it works out, the only professions which can truly be deemed solely as support are those whose skills do not apply damage, but instead heal the combat classes. Thus, much to the malign of many arguments, Rangers are not, in fact, a support class.
The fourth group is theCross-Purpose class. These, quite simply, are Professions which combine skills similar to two or more of the above groups, and use an amalgamation of these skills to define their own unique set of skills into an identity. Combat medics are an excellent example of this. They craft both poisons and medicines, defining them as both a support class and a combat class. While most of the time, they are used in the latter role, there is no reason that an effective combat medic can't also be used to assist players in need. Smugglers are another example of a class designed as across-purpose class. They craft items which assist people do combat, defining them as either a crafting profession or as a support class. However, they also have combat abilities and weapons certifications that are unique to their class. in addition to all that, they have a unique identity as the only class who can buy factions points with credits and the only class who can permanently upgrade a weapon. Soon, their combat role will be fleshed out, as well as their litany of unique skills. The other two classes which should most accurately be defined as a cross-proffession class are Rangers and Squad Leaders. Squad Leaders are also receiving a much-needed update.As such,an effective squad leaderwill beboth a combat and a support proffession. Perhaps, if fortifications are implemented, they will also be a crafting class. Again, we see that classes do not need to be assigned to only one class. There are several examples in-game that prove that cross-proffessionclasses are a reality.
Now we come to the proffession that this theory was written for: The Rangers. Called by many a support class, the Rangers actually have a much different role when broken down. Firstly, we are a crafting proffession. Three of our skill trees are designed where we open up new and better items, some of which we can experiment on (and all of which we SHOULD be able to experiment on). Traps, Camo kits and camps are all crafting items. We also could be considered to have the roots of a support class (defined as a healing profession) with our camps abilities to heal wounds and increase the usefulness of medicine. In addition, we are a combat class. Yes, that's right, I said it. Our traps do little damage, but they are designed with the ability to cause the same state effects that a combat class can create. Much like pure combat classes, our state attacks are less damaging (in terms of damage only, unarmedknockdown2 is less usefull than unarmedhit3). Thus, like smugglers, we are an amalgamation of all three classes. We are not a support class, but rather aclass with unique abilities, much like smuggler is going to become.
"So what does this mean?", you might be asking yourself. Changing the name of the class doesn't change who we are. Well, read on and learn yourself something, then. Because so many people have characterized us as a support class, we have been restricted in our design. Rangers aren't a combat class, they say. Well, I think that I have shown that as a hybrid class, we have abilities akin to combat classes. Our skills right now seem to point to the fact that while we may not be a pure combat profession, much like smuggler, the very nature of our proffession involves risks. Thus, combat skills are necessary to counteract said dangers. Thus, Rangers, like smugglers, need to have a unique set of skills to get around these dangers. Well, what skills are you talking about? I'm glad your asked.
Rangers need unique skills to deal with their threats. Increased defense, disease/poison resists, increased to-hit mods, dodge or block modifiers or specific toughness with regard to creatures or even unique weapons to counteract their specific dangers. Whereas smugglers need to deal with threats inside a city, and are therefore getting a new type of combat (dirty in-fighting), Rangers must deal with animal threats. Thus, we should be geared to do damage towards creatures. Much like smugglers can choose to master both TKM and Pistoleer an adept Ranger should also have access to alternate forms of combat. However, Ranger skills being directed towards wilderness combat, our weapons should be restricted to doing damage to creatures. This is what the hunting bow and hunting knife are all about. They are designed, as outlined in the outdoorsman 2.1, as doing damage solely to creatures by way of a new damage type that all animals are vulnerable (or have very low resistances) to. There could also be defensive mods to make us safer, and not nececsarily the best combat proffession.
Thus, it is theory of this author that Rangers are not asking for anything out of the ordinary when asking for unique skills in combat. As a Cross-Purpose class that deals with unique sets of dangers, we should be every bit as capable as a smuggler when it comes to dealing with our unique threats. Theories have been shot down by several authors with the argument that "Rangers are a support class". This, however is simply a misunderstanding and is based upon the (false) assumption that there are only three classes in the game. While those arguments may have some decent points, the fact that they are based upon flawed logic renders them unusable. There are valid points for not having Ranger weapons, but most of them rely upon the fact that a "support class" cannot also be a "combat class". However, the model of the smuggler proves that erroneous. A smuggler can be both, and do both profficiently, in addition to having unique skills.
This is my hopes for the Rangers as well. We should be a unique amalgamation of skills. We would never be as all-around versatile in combat as a Fencer/TKM/Master Brawler or a TKM/Commando. However, we face specific dangers dictated by our skills. Specifically, we deal with animal threats. Thus, having skills to do damage to animals or being better able to defend against creatures is a necessity for us. Ranger weapons, and several other ideaswhich have been shot down under the "three-class system" appear to be both logical and, in some cases, necessary, when one properly considers the concept ofCross-Purpose classes.
I hope this sparks some good discussion and that those who use the "three-class system" will be able to critique it fairly, and not find themselves insulted in any way. I myself have fallen prey to the assumption of there being only three-classes and it has taken me a while to flesh out what a Hybrid profession truly is. In the end, I doubt it will sway many of those who feel that there should be no Ranger weapons or combat mods, but I hope it at least opens the door for more ideas which may have been considered illogical under the assumption of Rangers being a support class.
Message Edited by Phenix1050 on 09-21-2004 01:21 AM
Calculus_Entropy
Mon Sep 20, 2004 10:52 am
#2
I will address your crafting comments first. When arguing that we should be considered a hybrid profession, you stated we are crafters. I disagree. We are not designed to be crafters, and the crafted goods are meant to benefit ourselves (not to be sold to others). In short, the ability to craft does make one a crafter. I would rather use the fact that we supply crafters and medical types with the resources they need, as a means of showing how we are a hybrid profession. We can control agro critters and we can supply crafters at. al. with resources from critters.
Another point I will need to bring up now (that has been brought up in the past) is that we have no basis fordirect combatskills as we have no combat prereq for Ranger. All I am saying here is that people who think we should do damage with these proposed weapons need to know that we have no basis for dealing appreciable damage solely from Ranger skill. This does not mean we shouldn't have a weapon, but I can't see any use for it other than state effects. Having said that, i have been toying with the idea of changing the Ranger trapping line to a Ranger (STATE) weapon line once our revamp time comes around in the future.
Nemo0
Mon Sep 20, 2004 11:06 am
#3
I have to agree with Calc here.
I'm not sure if you've seen the original Smuggler prereqs but they included artisan skills and such as well as combat skills (I think they had business 4, engineering 4, unarmed 4, and pistols 4). They changed that because the skill point cost was a bit excessive, not because it wasn't appropriate for the skills. They were designed to be a hybrid class as you imply.
Combat Medics are also designed as a Hybrid class. They branch off of Ranged Support 4 and Master Medic.
Bounty Hunters are also a Hybrid class. They get Scout and Marksman skills.
etc.
Ranger does not have combat prereqs. We should be able to defend ourselves but we probably shouldn't be able to kill stuff without a combat profession (at least not very well). Traps are meant to be our defense. They don't work as well as they should but we really should work on boosting them up before having a whole new weapon designed. I can definitely see traps being useful (and even incorporated into a "weapon"). I can also see reasons why we might get defense mods. But I have trouble convincing myself that we deserve a proper weapon. Even smugglers don't get a proper weapon. They have to use the weapons from the marksman or brawler skills. They just get some new specials for their weapon.
In theory, I agree with a lot of what you say. But I don't think it is reason enough to say that we can have a weapon that does a significant amount of damage. If we had the old BH prereqs, I'd be quite happy to agree with a weapon. But, with just scout, I don't see how a weapon really fits. Traps should be our weapon (or something similar). We just need the Devs to make them better (including NPC/PC use, in my opinion).
Phenix1050
Mon Sep 20, 2004 11:16 am
#4
To address your point of what makes a crafting proffession a crafting profftion I must address couple of issues. First, while not primarily designed to be used in selling, I myself and finding it adventageous to purchase traps and camps. I do not personally own a factory, and as such. I find it frustrating to craft hundred of traps. Thus, while there is not a large-market demand for our goods, there are several resaons that traps, camps, and camo kits can be used for selling. Simply because it is not the norm doesn't mean that we can't make it normal for Master Rangers to use scrap resources to makes crates of low-level traps for incoming scouts/Rangers.
Secondly what makes a crafting proffession a crafting proffession, in my opinion, is the ability to make newer and better things. A master Ragner can make better (more uses) camo kits that apply to more planets than a 1444 Ranger. In addition to this, the modular camping proposal, in addition to the outdoorsman 2.1 would rectify the issue of camps and traps not being similar to other forms of crafting. By making experimentation a valid part of all scout/ranger crafting, and increasing the quality of all camps/traps/camokits by means of experimentation, this would give leverage to the fact that Rangers do need to craft a lot and would open up new markets (people would buy the best traps (especially if traps were expanded to have more function).
To address your issue with us being a combat class without prerequisites, I must say that oftentimes, the prereqs of other classes is often laughable. The mere fact that we are forced to master a novice proffession seperates us from other classes. Only doctors, combat medics, bounty hunters and commando's are placed in such a skill-point sucking situation. Rangers are, quite simply, not up to par with these proffessions. The bonuses gained are significantly less than those of the other proffessioins. Ranger weapon skills would be based on their knowledge of creatures and how to hurt them, and thus is unique. To be a pistoleer, you need to practice with a pistol. To be good with a bow, there is no similar class. Thus, any prerequisites in a combat tree would be sillly. Fencer is the only thing that comes close, and that's only in terms of the hunting knife.
In my way of thinking, the Ranger derives his combat skills from an intricate knowledge of the workings of animals and also from mere neccesity. A person who lives out in the woods needs to survive, and rustic weapons are one mode of survival. If a man is without a gun or a knife in the woods, they must adapt and learn to use other weapons. Thus, the difference between scout and Ranger is that scouts must use other weapons to survive, while a Ranger can use less sofisticated weaponry, and, eventually, can master those means of survival into a unique form of combat that focuses solely on animals.
but that's just my two cents.
(by the way, those were two good points calc, and I had tothink to come up with some arguments. I'm very glad this theory has already sparked good conversation)
BlakkStar
Mon Sep 20, 2004 11:23 am
#5
1.There are no classes in this game. It seems that this may be simply arguing semantics but from previous posts I think I'm seeing people discuss roles in terms of a class-based system versus SWG's profession-based system.
2. As far as a hybrids go, as I discussed in the Role-group theory post, there are three rolegroups with hybrids being an amalgamation oftwo or threeof those original role-groups (or in the case of Commandos, a combination of two professions in the same role-group).
3. Ranger are not crafters. I also mentioned in this in my role-group post. True crafters make items that can be used by non-members of that profession. There are items are for the general populace to use. If making a camp, places rangers in the crafting profession, thenmost of the non combat, non-hybrid, non-crafting professions are crafting professions or in your words "hybrids." Entertainers/Musicians craft instruments; Medic/Doctors craft med stuff; Scout/Rangers craft camps.
4. Rangers are not combatants. True the traps do *some* damage but the damage is so small, it is inconsequential. Now this may be a matter of opinion but personally I think that the state effects of traps are conceptually polar to the healstate ability possessed by docs. II think that rangers were meant to be offensivein their combat support role. Thus skills such as/rescue, traps and the creature to-hit bonus exist. Furthermore I think this offensive role is further defined by rangers getting the most defensive mods out of all of the other support professions.
Phenix1050
Mon Sep 20, 2004 11:25 am
#6
I must look at Nemos post for another argument-
They changed the skillpoint costs of Smuggler because they were excessive. I believe that this proves that sometimes, skills can just be justified by the type of class it is. Technically speaking, fist-fighting and shooting pistols doesn't teach you how to make spice. Nor does it teach you to slice into data terminals.
What is happening is that the toon undergoes a fundamental change upon taking an elite novice proffession.Being a smugler seperates your from a person with simply Brawler 4000 and Marksman 4000. You have learned, by taking that novice box, basic skills that apply to the essence of that proffession. Same thing happens at novice Squad Leader. You can shoot (ranged support 4) all day and go on long walks and camps, but that technically doesn't qualify you to lead a squad. There is some inherent knowledge which is imparted at the novice box that changes the way you use the experience you have.
In the case of the Ranger, hunting with other weapons has taught the ranger the soft spots of the animals and surviving in the wilderness has instructed the Ranger in how to adapt. Through unique training, at Novice Ranger, a Ranger learns the art of using rustic weapons in the same way that a Novice Smuggler learns to make spice and slice and a squad leader learns how to lead. Ranger ARE a combat class. Traps do damage. No matter how minimalthe damagemay be, only COMBAT classes can apply state effects. There is no way to deny this. a dancer can't make an enemy dizzy by twirling around really quickly (thought that'd be cool)
Hybrid classes differentiate themselves from merely compilations of two or more skills because they also recieve a unique abilities. Smugglers get slicing, Rangers get tracking, and Sqad leaders get....well they're gonna get good skills, hopefully. The point is that hybrid proffessions are more than a sum of their parts and often times recieve skills that are not neccesarily justified simply by their experience thusfar. Tracking isn't justified by the skills. I camp, but that never taught me to track.I have skinned a creature, but that never taught me to track. I assure you that a trapper learned to track, but not by setting the traps.
Sometimes the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. we already see this in the game and I think it's perfectly reasonable to see it apply to the Rangers.
Message Edited by Phenix1050 on 09-20-2004 02:57 PM
Nemo0
Mon Sep 20, 2004 11:42 am
#7
Phenix1050 wrote:
I must look at Owens' post for another argument-
They changed the skillpoint costs of Smuggler because they were excessive. I believe that this proves that sometimes, skills can just be justified by the type of class it is. Technically speaking, fist-fighting and shooting pistols doesn't teach you how to make spice. Nor does it teach you to slice into data terminals.
What is happening is that the toon undergoes a fundamental change upon taking an elite novice proffession.Being a smugler seperates your from a person with simply Brawler 4000 and Marksman 4000. You have learned, by taking that novice box, basic skills that apply to the essence of that proffession. Same thing happens at novice Squad Leader. You can shoot (ranged support 4) all day and go on long walks and camps, but that technically doesn't qualify you to lead a squad. There is some inherent knowledge which is imparted at the novice box that changes the way you use the experience you have.
In the case of the Ranger, hunting with other weapons has taught the ranger the soft spots of the animals and surviving in the wilderness has instructed the Ranger in how to adapt. Through unique training, at Novice Ranger, a Ranger learns the art of using rustic weapons in the same way that a Novice Smuggler learns to make spice and slice and a squad leader learns how to lead.
Hmm, I seem to have missed Owen's post
.
.As for the argument, yes, I agree that the Devs could add a Ranger weapon if they wanted to. There is nothing stopping them from doing so. But we don't really have an argument saying that they really should implement it. I don't argue with the weapon's inclusion in any sort of proposal because it has a right to be there. It could be implemented if the Devs felt like doing so and it would add to the class. But the only real argument we have for asking for it is "because we want it".
I do agree that it would be nice to have a Ranger weapon. My main concern is that we don't have the skill point cost to justify a USEFUL Ranger weapon (i.e. one that would be used instead of an Elite Combat Profession's weapon) and still have other useful skills. I would rather have traps that work, camps that are useful, good tracking, and stealth than a Ranger weapon. The weapon would be extremely useful to me but I don't see it as enhancing the profession as much as other skills could. If I had to choose between a good weapon with no other skills, a not so good weapon with some useful skills, and no weapon with lots of cool skills, I'd go for the no weapon option with no hesitation. If I want a weapon, I'll use my skill points to get one. I shouldn't be able to get the other skills by taking some other profession in game. I would want them to be unique.
BlakkStar
Mon Sep 20, 2004 11:53 am
#8
Phenix1050 wrote:
I must look at Owens' post for another argument-
In the case of the Ranger, hunting with other weapons has taught the ranger the soft spots of the animals and surviving in the wilderness has instructed the Ranger in how to adapt. Through unique training, at Novice Ranger, a Ranger learns the art of using rustic weapons in the same way that a Novice Smuggler learns to make spice and slice and a squad leader learns how to lead.
This tells all. To me, creature knowledge means we understand the physiology of the creature therefore, it doesn't matter what weapon we use, we still know the creatures weaknesses. Why must a bow be used to hit a creature in his weakspot? How is that better than a T-21?
Damn I gotta go to class... LOL BE back later!
Calculus_Entropy
Mon Sep 20, 2004 1:00 pm
#9
Phenix1050 wrote:
I am trying to fill in all the holes Calc. A lot of them aren't holes, but merely points not fully fleshed out.
I am willing to concede on the crafting issue, but only because that still leaves us as a hybrid proffession. I think with the ability to make modules that can be sold to lesser scouts and squad leaders (if the Modular Camping idea goes in, of course) the argument would still stand, but since it's not neccesary to my main argument, I'll let it go. We are not, as of now, a crafting proffession in the traditional sense.
However, the main point stands. We are a hybrid, but, unlike other hybrids, we are lacking a full palate of skills. Traps are a combat weapons. They apply state effects, damage creatures and are used ONLY during combat. Ranger are a combat class. Getting to Ranger requires hours of killing creatures. Thus the prerequisites is in the getting to Ranger. Perhaps a smart thing to do would be to remove XP from harvesting things you didn't kill. Even in groups, if you did no damage to the creature, you get none of the XP (much the same way that looting a corspe only gives money to group members who are in range/helped kill the creature.
Combat does not imply damage dealing. Traps are used in combat and are state dealers, not damage dealers.
This ensures that a Ranger has combat experience, since they don't get credit for things they didn't help kill.
Still, I think it's obvious that getting through scout almost guarentees killing, which involves combat, which is a reason for us getting weapons
I consider that hole plugged.
The plug just fell out
Phenix1050
Mon Sep 20, 2004 1:04 pm
#10
Traps apply states....AND do damage. I have whittled many a chubba down to 1 pool point through judicious use of traps.
also, I double-sealed the plug.
if combat XP is neccesary rather than (or in addition to) scout XP for Novice Ranger, it ensures we killed stuff. BOOYA!
Message Edited by Phenix1050 on 09-20-2004 04:04 PM
Nemo0
Mon Sep 20, 2004 1:07 pm
#11
Phenix1050 wrote:
Smugglers are getting a revamp, part of which is focuesed on making them more effective in combat. So they don't NEED pistoleer and TKM. This is part of my problem. They have crafting skills while needing only combat XP. Is there really a difference between that and Rangers getting combat skills that apply to creatures only while needing only scouting XP?
Another idea- make Master Ranger based on combat XP. Just like you need so much XP to get to BH, perhaps add a 40k Combat XP requirement to get Novice Ranger, instead of scouting XP. That way, you ensure that Rangers have done lots of combat. How does that strike ya?
But I believe the smuggler skills will be more about getting away from overwhelming combat situations, not winning them. They will have combat skills but with a different focus to a combat profession (at least, I think so). That is the direction I would want for Ranger as well.
As for adding a combat xp requirement, that would alienate the Rangers who don't want to do combat. The entire Ranger tree is not focused on combat, for better or worse. I personally like the non combat Ranger skills. Such a change is almost forcing that away.
Nemo0
Mon Sep 20, 2004 1:09 pm
#12
Phenix1050 wrote:
Traps apply states....AND do damage. I have whittled many a chubba down to 1 pool point through judicious use of traps.
also, I double-sealed the plug.
if combat XP is neccesary rather than (or in addition to) scout XP for Novice Ranger, it ensures we killed stuff. BOOYA!
Message Edited by Phenix1050 on 09-20-2004 04:04 PM
Ah, but you can just use traps that don't cause damage. I believe Wire Mesh traps are one of those and are gained at Novice Scout. Fwoosh.
And adding combat xp is another change that we need to justify. This one seems to boil down to "We want a Ranger weapon so change our requirements so that it fits". Square plugs don't fit round holes.
Message Edited by Nemo0 on 09-20-2004 09:10 PM
Phenix1050
Mon Sep 20, 2004 1:14 pm
#13
Nemo0 wrote:
Square plugs don't fit round holes.
Depends on how hard ya push.
Page 1 of 3