Ranger Archive
Thread: Vs Player or vs Creatur?
So I got to thinking what would you all prefer, that our traps worked on NPCs and Creatures or that they worked on NPCs and Players. Personally I would prefer the former, I am not a PvP fan of any kind, and prefer corporation over direct competition.
Traps not affecting creatures might be a balance issue. After all if traps could seriously hurt a Krayt or other high end contend then they might be to powerful against players. I know some faction NPC's can have rather high amounts of health as well, but it would be likely that traps would just be ineffective against them. And lets just admit it, if traps worked on creatures but was inefficient on anything above CL 80 we would likely want that changed, and if not many of the rangers coming for the FOTM templates would certainly complain.
So, if it came down to a choice what traps could affect besides NPCs, would you wand it to be creatures or Players?
Well common sense would presume that if it blew up a npc then it would blow up a creature so it should really be both but ...if there had to be a choice
I would suggest ranger traps be used on NPC and players but here is the catch have trapping from scout be used as a pre-req for ranger so u also naturallly have traps that affect creatures as well built in to the pre reqs, not the ideal solution as mentioned above but still we kinda have the best of both worlds then.
It is easy to say I wand it all. However the Jack of all triads are the master of non. And we certainly will not become the best at everything. So we will have to make a choice sooner or later when it comes to our rewrap. When we are testing it, we cant ask for everything or the DEVs wound take us seriously, and will there for give us non of what we asked for.
One of the things I always liked abut the ranger forum, was that most of our idea topics had checks and balances, everything had drawbacks so it would be a choice of style over just choosing the most ubre option.
It would be sad if we were already loosing that, when we do not even have the rewrap in testing yet.
I don't think that asking for the 4 (?) traps we're slated to get to work in all aspects of combat is "asking for everything". Heck, it even seems like folks have mostly accepted that the Scout traps will stay creature only, and perhpas the Ranger traps simply broaden out to include NPCs and Players. I recall just that same logic from several proposals (Where Rangers get the ability to trap NPCs, then maybe Masters can trap players). It's not like we're asking to one shot kill krayts, it's not like we're asking for the skill to pull 1 million credits out of thin air ever 10 min... we simply want the few skills and abilities that we have for combat to actually WORK in combat. I fail to see how it's unbalancing since darn near every other profession has SOME kind of special that applies a state, ALL of which do damage, and NONE of which are limited ot only 1 type of opponent. I'd even settle for strong states / low to mid damage, or a tradeoff there from experimentation (more effect on one lessens the effect of the other - high damage / low duration and strenght states, low damage / long duration and high strength states, whatever). I just don't want to see the devs repeat the EXACT SAME MISTAKE with traps that has plagued us forever (limiting them to only a subset of "things which one might fight").
If it works on pets, it should work on any creature.
We've made the same argument the other way around reagrding our current traps and it's still valid.
Besides, you can't increase one type of weapon in power in order to compensate, so ahving it hit all targets is just common sense.
If a Bounty Hunter can use duelist stance against a durni, my 100% kinetic explosive can hurt a durni.
Oku Kee'lus If our future traps are an issue of being over effective, there is a simple solution.
Make them affective towards anyone and anything in the blast radius, including friendly fire.
Now traps can be affective versus NPC and Creatures, but have adownside that being they are not the safe weapons like other professions have. Able to spray an area hitting only the bad guys but avoiding the good guys.
Well the trap question is a matter of logic. I am sure there will be a trap line in the new tree and at master will more than likely be the player bio sample skill. Just a guess.
My main concern is how well the new temp is laid out. I hope that the dev's have made it costly so as to limit the dablers and I pray that the master box is loaded with all the uber mods and nifty pvp stuff. My biggest fear is that we will see so many temps out there with 1 ranger line for concealment.
SeanBlader wrote:
Takes 1 line to conceal, 2 lines to move while concealed. It's already a lot more expensive than Cloak.
Velzhaed wrote:
Consider- a Jedi's saber works on creatures, NPC's and players.
So does a Rifleman's rifle.
So does a Smuggler's pistol.
So does a BH's lightning rifle.
So does a TK's fists.
So does a Swordsman's power hammer.
And so on. Why should the ranger weapon (since we don't have a specific type of weapon- we have traps) be any different?
Yes, and for that matter, those all work INSIDE the confines of a city as well. I'd guess that the issue w/placable traps in a city is that they;'re going to reuse some of the code that determines if you can "build" or "place" something in a location on not - all well and good, but then what OTHER combat skills and abilities will a Ranger have that allow them to engage in combat when inside a city (which on some planets and some servers is darn near 2/3 of the planet).???
Consider- a Jedi's saber works on creatures, NPC's and players.
So does a Rifleman's rifle.
So does a Smuggler's pistol.
So does a BH's lightning rifle.
So does a TK's fists.
So does a Swordsman's power hammer.
And so on. Why should the ranger weapon (since we don't have a specific type of weapon- we have traps) be any different?