Squad Leader Archive
Thread: Combined Ranger/SL
I've only been squad leader 2(?) days now, but I think it's fantastic, and provides and in game mechanism for what already kinda happens when we go guild-hunting or whatever.
And I must say that I really am intrigued and excited by the possibilities.
I might have a slightly more objective view having only just come into the profession, and I may be slightly naive on some points and completely wrong on others.
Here is the thread on the ranger forums.
These are my ideas:
From a technical perspective:
It's viable on a limited resources, limited timescale.
From what I've read, neither side would be that 'bothered' (apart from the few hard core out there) so it wouldn't affect subscriptions (like the mass exodus after the CU went in).
All the code is there, if they merge and fix, both sides would counter the benefits of getting what they should have had in the first place against a greater role.
From a roleplay point of view:
Pathfinders are very different from both Squad Leader and Rangers. They track, and hunt, and provide recon and many other military functions, but they do not lead. They are sent out in advance to 'find the path'.
At the moment, the emphasis on rangers is ye olde style safari hunter from the British colonial times, with a blunderbus. (Well, ok not quite, it's more a hunter from a small tribe kinda thing, but I had to get the word 'blunderbus' in somewhere).
Also, at the moment the Squad Leader is exactly that - they lead a squad.
Pathfinders are small squads of people that have the abilities of a ranger (geared towards a more military function) but they are still lead by a squad leader. To be honest, a Pathfinder is more a merge of Rifleman and Ranger than Squad Leader and ranger.
It could just be the provisional name that has been suggested to maybe be possibly introduced that is throwing me off thinking about the functionality of such a profession, but at the moment that's all we have. If it was something like Safari Leader it might make more sense
A merge would probably (at the easiest) consist of two branches of a pathfinder being the combination of all branches of Squad Leader, and the same from Ranger. All the skills are still there, plus some others (for both sides).
Actually thinking about it, the combination would be far more like Martin Sheen's character in 'Apocalypse Now' - leadership qualities so he can get done what he needs done with whatever resources come about, combined with the hardiness and survival skills that come from ranger. (I can't remember what his 'skillset' was called apart from 'assassin', but that again takes away from the idea of what is behind it.) Perhaps gear it in the form of the US Army's Rangers and we'd have what the combination would be.
There is another concern/advantage, which probably won't come up much, but as I'm in the middle of moving from this profession to squad leader I've been thinking about it alot - Bounty Hunter. To be the most effective bounty hunter, it would become a requirement that you'd become a pathfinder. It's a concern because BH/Pathfinder would become the BH FOTM, and an advantage as it would give BHs that added skills they would need to effectively hunt and kill their marks (Jedis can stop whining already, ok? *grin*) There is a huge debate at the moment (and probably will be till the end of time) about Jedi v. BH. Jedi says 'stop hunting me, I'm only padawan' BH says 'yes, but you're my only viable target because full templated Jedi are too hard'. Jedi says 'we want somewhere to grind' devs go 'ok, have kashyyyk, we'll not let BH seeker droids work there as we can't be bothered to fix it' BHs go (and this is probably a quote) 'What The Francis?!'. Having the pathfinder profession along with BH would essentially make Kashyyyk less of a Jedi FOTM grinding spot, and also a more RP BH spot - and I can guaruntee that BHs would love this kinda profession - it's more what a BH is truly about.
You could even leave it open ended - 'You have had a form of training - whether from the military, a mercenary group, or your society - that allows you to make clear decisions in the field; understand how the environment affects both you and any other with you; adapt to any encounter you may have; and generally provide support in a wide range of activities'.
I've ranted on a fair bit here and I apologise, but the use of the term 'pathfinder' I think has thrown alot of people off, along with what the end result would actually be. If we look for an in-game, paradigm fitting justification for this (reasons behind it, training involved, role description etc) then I think this could be a viable alternative for both profession - if not the whole game. At the moment it's all 'what would I as a SL/Ranger get out of it' not 'what about this new role could be exciting and unique in the world'. Let's be honest - neither side would be losing anything, we'd be gaining. Gaining extra abilities, abilities we should have had already but now work, a unique place in the universe, a unique place in the in-game social structure.
But most of all - it is a viable, workable alternative to lying in the background, always at the bottom of the list of profession to fix/revamp, and would provide a worthwhile experience for everyone involved.
That's what we need to look at.
In short - I'm for it if they put at least some effort behind it to justify it, and give it a good place in the universe.
Two things I think worth remembering:
1) This was only vaguely mention in a completely non-professional environment (as I see it) - nothing may come of it. We could be reading far too much into things.
2) If they did merge the two professions, a completely merge is the only thing that is worthy, and if this happens then neither side will lose anything, what so ever. You can still play the lone ranger if you want, it would just provide some flexibility if you had to group. You could still play the squad sergeant if you want, but it would expand on the abilities of a squad leader - call it advanced environmental training.
Owen-Lars wrote:
Screw big game hunters heh, what other combat class gets made useless against 2/3rds of the game?
All creature only does is limit and restrict a profession, take them out of the GCW which this game is primarily about (or should be) and denies them access to end game (pvp). We shouldnt pay 150 skill points to be the equivilant of a 1 mastery profession in pvp, gcw and against humanoid npcs.
Anyway back on topic. I dont hate the idea, i dont love it either. It could work but then again their are better alternatives.but do they have a chance in hell of happening?It all depends on howfar the devs are willing to go with our revamps. If they are willing to go all out and give us profession worth the skill points and off in our own directions then keep us seperate is a great idea. But on the other hand, if the devs only want to commit to fixes and a skill here and there then combining the professions will be the best thing then adding a few skills here and there to merge the two better.
There is no doubt both professions share a lot of qualities and a lot of design goals and it will all depend on how far the devs are willing togo in the revamps whether merging will be worth it.
This merger may be the only thing to break Ranger out of Creature only combat. Owen is dead right, 2/3 of the game is not viable for us...and WE'RE THE MOST EXPENSIVE PROFFESION IN THE GAME!!!! if they want to keep us so restricted to game play, then a master ranger should be able to easily solo any, yes i mean ANY creature in the game! but that's not about to happen. (using bugged traps doesnt count)
I think it will be harder to convince SL's to go for it, mainly because Ranger is entirely f'ed up right now, but if our skills did actually provide benefits *cough*camps*cought* then maybe SL's would go for it.
But i think its our most realistic option. Speaking as a Ranger.
Read that as Impossible.
SickSix wrote:
Owen-Lars wrote:
Screw big game hunters heh, what other combat class gets made useless against 2/3rds of the game?
Creature Handlers and Docs....
All creature only does is limit and restrict a profession, take them out of the GCW which this game is primarily about (or should be) and denies them access to end game (pvp). We shouldnt pay 150 skill points to be the equivilant of a 1 mastery profession in pvp, gcw and against humanoid npcs.
Anyway back on topic. I dont hate the idea, i dont love it either. It could work but then again their are better alternatives.but do they have a chance in hell of happening?It all depends on howfar the devs are willing to go with our revamps. If they are willing to go all out and give us profession worth the skill points and off in our own directions then keep us seperate is a great idea. But on the other hand, if the devs only want to commit to fixes and a skill here and there then combining the professions will be the best thing then adding a few skills here and there to merge the two better.
There is no doubt both professions share a lot of qualities and a lot of design goals and it will all depend on how far the devs are willing togo in the revamps whether merging will be worth it.
I just don't see it. The need to combine Ranger and SL. They have completely different thought processes and positions in the game. Don't really see any similarities other then a shared prereq for 1 column of scout. In what way do you see similarities?
This merger may be the only thing to break Ranger out of Creature only combat. Owen is dead right, 2/3 of the game is not viable for us...and WE'RE THE MOST EXPENSIVE PROFFESION IN THE GAME!!!! if they want to keep us so restricted to game play, then a master ranger should be able to easily solo any, yes i mean ANY creature in the game! but that's not about to happen. (using bugged traps doesnt count)
I think it will be harder to convince SL's to go for it, mainly because Ranger is entirely f'ed up right now, but if our skills did actually provide benefits *cough*camps*cought* then maybe SL's would go for it.
But i think its our most realistic option. Speaking as a Ranger.
Message Edited by Ackehece on 06-07-2005 10:36 PM
Ackehece wrote:
SickSix wrote:
Owen-Lars wrote:
Screw big game hunters heh, what other combat class gets made useless against 2/3rds of the game?
Creature Handlers and Docs....
___________________________________________
uh, how are CH's restricted to only 1/3 of the game? they can use their pets to fight whatever they want.... also, docs are useful in any combat situation. unless i missed something in the CU notes, which is entirely possible.
Message Edited by SickSix on 06-07-2005 09:42 PM
Creature Handlers and Docs? Erm no. Since when couldnt CHs and Docs engage in pvp and pvnpc or pvcreature? They can engage in every combat arena and there is only ranger that cannot.
Ranger has never been focused as hunters. Tell me where in our tree it says we are hunters?
We have better harvesting mods and that means nothing, we can track npcs/pcs/creatures so that doesnt count, we can hide from npcs/creatures (if it ever works), we can trap creatures which is probly the most hunter like ability we have and that is it. Now if you said survivalist or wilderness expert then fair enough point taken but we are not hunters, thats just a role we are pigeon holed into because 90% of our skills do not work.
Im not saying this is good for SLs and they should take it, infact i could understand why they wouldnt want to go for it but there is no denying some areas are similar. Rangers like to lead a group into the wild, SLs like to lead a group in the battle, Rangers like to enhance the group in combat, SLs like to enhance the group in combat. Then there are differences like SLs like to lead through tactics and strategy and the ranger likes to lead through wilderness knowledge and survival techniques.
There are many similar ideals and i know Irott understood these relationships as we have talked about them a good few times. It doesnt mean that we should merge or that a merge is good for either professions but if it were to happen there are various parts of each profession that would merge very well.
Message Edited by Owen-Lars on 06-08-2005 05:49 AM
SickSix wrote:
Ackehece wrote:
SickSix wrote:
Owen-Lars wrote:
Screw big game hunters heh, what other combat class gets made useless against 2/3rds of the game?
Creature Handlers and Docs....
___________________________________________
uh, how are CH's restricted to only 1/3 of the game? they can use their pets to fight whatever they want.... also, docs are useful in any combat situation. unless i missed something in the CU notes, which is entirely possible.
Message Edited by SickSix on 06-07-2005 09:42 PM
CH are limited to lower tiers of combat in the game because they can only control CL 70 creatures... that means any high level content and their main means of attack is nullified and usually eliminated quickly. CL 80 = suicide for CH
Docs have to be the same faction and the same combat level as those they help or they are useless, they gain no combat skills unlike their CM brethern and are restricted in a similar manner to a single other combat mastery like a Ranger is .
Owen-Lars wrote:
Creature Handlers and Docs? Erm no. Since when couldnt CHs and Docs engage in pvp and pvnpc or pvcreature? They can engage in every combat arena and there is only ranger that cannot.
Ranger has never been focused as hunters. Tell me where in our tree it says we are hunters?
We have better harvesting mods and that means nothing, we can track npcs/pcs/creatures so that doesnt count, we can hide from npcs/creatures (if it ever works), we can trap creatures which is probly the most hunter like ability we have and that is it. Now if you said survivalist or wilderness expert then fair enough point taken but we are not hunters, thats just a role we are pigeon holed into because 90% of our skills do not work.
The thing is - have you ever had or even heard from a dev since the game was prebeta that rangers were anything other then big game hunters? No? nor have I. It was the design of the profession to allow for hunting and that the Rangers would be the best hunters around. The camps of course I grant you are broken but your camo works, your tracking works and your traps while not working are designed to only work on creatures. You gain skills to explore and to hunt for bio easier and that is about it... Where do you see pc/npc combat in that?
Im not saying this is good for SLs and they should take it, infact i could understand why they wouldnt want to go for it but there is no denying some areas are similar. Rangers like to lead a group into the wild, SLs like to lead a group in the battle, Rangers like to enhance the group in combat, SLs like to enhance the group in combat. Then there are differences like SLs like to lead through tactics and strategy and the ranger likes to lead through wilderness knowledge and survival techniques.
When have rangers ever enhanced group combat? That is pretty much purely a SL skill. SL's like to lead everywhere including in the wild and have no real need of ranger skills to lead in the wild. SLs of course lead through tactics and strategy and that is pretty much the hard bitten combat vet that SL's want to be.
There are many similar ideals and i know Irott understood these relationships as we have talked about them a good few times. It doesnt mean that we should merge or that a merge is good for either professions but if it were to happen there are various parts of each profession that would merge very well.
Completely different design and background to the professions. Really they would not work together no matter the surface similarities that some people bring up. CH and Ranger are much closer related then SL and ranger by a long shot.
Message Edited by Owen-Lars on 06-08-2005 05:49 AM
Ackehece wrote:
CH are limited to lower tiers of combat in the game because they can only control CL 70 creatures... that means any high level content and their main means of attack is nullified and usually eliminated quickly. CL 80 = suicide for CH
ok, so CH might have a tuff time fighting lvl 70+ critters. ok, but they are still not limited to creature only combat. and maybe they should be asking for a Pet CL increase which i'm sure they are. and can they not call out 3 lvl70 critters?
Docs have to be the same faction IT'S CALLED GOING ON LEAVE and the same combat level as those they help or they are useless, they gain no combat skills unlike their CM brethern and are restricted in a similar manner to a single other combat mastery like a Ranger is . but they can heal themselves. sorry, doctor is still tons more useful than ranger. dont know about the "same combat" level thing.
SickSix wrote:
Ackehece wrote:
CH are limited to lower tiers of combat in the game because they can only control CL 70 creatures... that means any high level content and their main means of attack is nullified and usually eliminated quickly. CL 80 = suicide for CH
ok, so CH might have a tuff time fighting lvl 70+ critters. ok, but they are still not limited to creature only combat. and maybe they should be asking for a Pet CL increase which i'm sure they are. and can they not call out 3 lvl70 critters?
they can call up to CL 70 levels of creature so (cl22 +cl22 + cl26) the devs have stated they will not allow them to call anything higher due to the fact that the profession by itself is only CL54 (same as ranger) and therefore to allow higher would unbalance combat. For CL 80 power they need to have a double combat profession and then that CL 80 is themselves not their creatures. They get no combat mods to their other combat profession so just like Ranger they are required to use another class for CL 80 combat rather then their chosen profession.
Docs have to be the same faction IT'S CALLED GOING ON LEAVE and the same combat
levelclass as those they help or they are useless, they gain no combat skills unlike their CM brethern and are restricted in a similar manner to a single other combat mastery like a Ranger is . but they can heal themselves. sorry, doctor is still tons more useful than ranger. dont know about the "same combat" level thing.
The problem with that is that going on leave stops them from healing those of the same Combat
Level(should have used class here) so They need to be SL to heal SL and Combatent to heal Combatent.Going on leave allows them to heal nuetrals and on leave only. Sure they can heal themselves in combat... Rangers can run up hills in combat.
Message Edited by Ackehece on 06-07-2005 11:13 PM
Owen-Lars wrote:
. . . Rangers like to lead a group into the wild, SLs like to lead a group in the battle, Rangers like to enhance the group in combat, SLs like to enhance the group in combat. Then there are differences like SLs like to lead through tactics and strategy and the ranger likes to lead through wilderness knowledge and survival techniques.
There are many similar ideals and i know Irott understood these relationships as we have talked about them a good few times. It doesnt mean that we should merge or that a merge is good for either professions but if it were to happen there are various parts of each profession that would merge very well.
I have to agree with this analysis. Ranger and Squad Leader have always been complementary professions and there is no denying that synergy. It makes sense for us to work together, even while trying to maintain seperate identities. If the time ever comes that there is a bona-fide recommendation to merge the two, I can't say that would be the end of the world. It is clearly preferable to losing either profession due to lack of time, vision or resources.
I'm not ready to take a position on any merger, mostly because it hasn't actually been mentioned in any official capacity as something that they have even devoted resources to thinking about yet. If it comes down to that, there are certainly ways to make it work pretty well. What I would rather see is some kind of "Pathfinder" (or whatever you want to call it) profession as a post-level 80 option, like a super-elite wilderness/soldier "prestige class" that has Master Squad Leader and Master Ranger as prerequisites. That would be cool.
um, i dont know, but most creatures i fight have just as much TN as i do, if not more. running up hills would really only put more distance between me and ......other players*gasp* but we're only hunters right?
Ackehece wrote:
... Rangers can run up hills in combat.
Message Edited by Ackehece on 06-07-2005 11:13 PM