"You also have to be careful about treading on the territory of other professions"
I understand that but like what? We have stepped on no-ones toes, these are simply advancments over EXISTING ranger skills, no one else has then, nor are any of them making other profession's redundant.
Ranger isn't suppose to be anything other than just an advancement over Scout. That is why they have that pre-req. Just as Rifles is just an advancement over the Rifle branch of Marksman. TKA is jsut and advancement of the Unarmed of Brawler. All elites are extensions over their base profession. Right now this is true (except for tracking which is a unique skill we have different from Scout). In the future hopefully it will be different. The possible usefullness of wilderness survival has really capped out at scout. To make us a viable profession above scout we need those unique skills. Hopefully stealth/recon will be one of those.
Plus you do realize what the counter for your argument is don't you? Make it a requisite that you maser marksman to get novice rifleman and make three of your four rifle lines useless and then we will be comparable.
Paks Master Ranger/MasterCreature Handler -I support ATK play
"Ranger isn't suppose to be anything other than just an advancement over Scout. That is why they have that pre-req. Just as Rifles is just an advancement over the Rifle branch of Marksman. TKA is jsut and advancement of the Unarmed of Brawler. All elites are extensions over their base profession"
Nope. Riflemen do have a role, pistoleers do have a role. You cannot become the sniper with marksman skills, you cannot become the machine gunner without getting rifleman, you are simply a character that shoots using a rifle, not a rifleman.
Rangers are not scouts +, they are rangers, they should NEVER be improved scouts with a little added on here and there, they should be RANGERS through and though. Our pre-reqs and starting profession simply give us the basis to move forward, you pick up a rifle and use it, then you can develope into a rifleman and have a role highlighting this. You starting using traps, camps, concealment, survival which then opens up the door to developing those skills into ranger, a seperate and unique profession that builds on what you learn and turns it into something new and different.
Rifle Using does not equal Rifleman
Unarmed use does not equal TK
Enegineering does not make you a weaponsmith or an architect or a armoursmith.
They all have unique roles, yes they take what they learn in the basic professions but they branch out into something unique, their own zone, their own profession and skills that set them apart from any other.
Dont ask for us to be scout+, a profession such as ours must have a unique identity, something that sets it apart from all others but ultimatly branches off on its own and moves the profession sideways aswel as upwards.
And I think this is what about 50% of the Rangers see themselves as - but what is the use for this kind of Ranger in the game? RP is nice and all, but useful skills are better in my opinion. I am not an RP'er though myself. Also, what about the rest of the Rangers? There is a very large contigent of Rangers who do see themselves as military Rangers and Owen needs to represent those people as well. And you have to always remember this game is based on star wars. It is not LOTR or the Old West or Yellowstone or any of that. There is a Galactic Civil War going on and people are going to use the skills they have (camo and survival) to best serve their cause and their war (stealth, recon, etc.)
Nothing wrong with wanting useful skills. Nor am I say you shouldn't have them. It's the direction of those skills that we are talking about.
Yes there are military Rangers as you put it. But people are mistaking the two Ranger types. They see the title Ranger and assume the military kind. Which helps prove my point that words mean things. And titles are important to avoid confussion.
And as I said. Since there is no military pre-req, an expectation of military Ranger is misplaced.
Well first - why? And second most Rangers do have a combat profession. The roles and skills of Ranger are meant to enhance this profession. In the ambush example you listed above this seems to work perfectly. THe Ranger skills allow for the concealment, the combat skills allow for the beat-down afterwards.
And the combat skills come from the combat professions.
I disagree - I think a lot of military skills would help a wilderness survivalist and I KNOW a lot of military personnel are trained in wilderness survival. Ala Greg Brown even.
Few military skills are useful in wilderness survival. You don't use small unit tactics when hunting deer for example. Nor are a lot of military personnel trained in wilderness survival. Generally it is only special forces units and pilots. They make up a very small percentage of overall military personnel.
Would there be a problem with asking for weapon certs? Is remaining a triple master profession necessary? And why are weapon certs automatically "military" skills? I use my weapon skills for hunting mainly. And I use my weapon skills to kill storm troopers. The weapon itself is not one or the other - its how you use it. And that is an RP choice, not something that should be decided by what profession you take.
Weapon certs aren't military skills. They are however combat skills.
Is crawling speed really useful in PvP? If traps worked on NPC and PCs they would be military skills - using a weapon against a person is no longer hunting, it is war. Yes, right now our skills are all outdoors skills, but we expect that to change so that we are more useful and versatile as a profession, and not gated from a huge amount of game content.
No. You can use a firearm without any military training and still kill someone. A hunter without any military skills can track people. If I make a trip wire trap for an animal it will also work against a person. Thosre aren't military skills.
Our kind is. That is why we are not suggesting putting survival skills into the combat professions like commando or rifleman or pikeman. Normal soldiers would not have this training. However a soldier agumented by survival skills (ie: Ranger) would be able to use those skills to fight tactically in situations where it would be useful.
Agree.
That is what we are hoping for. To be able to be stealthy against PCs and NPCs the same way we are stealthy against animals would open up huge opporunities for the professiona dn also fulfill the vision of Ranger that many palyers have. Being able to use traps against PCs would be excellent, provided of course that traps are revamped to bring their damage dealing and effects in-line with what you can get in a specials line of a combat profession.
Agree
Actually Ranger does not have a defined vision - that is what we are creating here.
Disagree. Professions are defined by their skills and pre-reqs. Which is all Scout based.
What would be the point of doing this? Our main skill right now is organic resource collecting - are you saying we should follow around combat professions and harvest what they kill? This sounds extremely unnattractive and unfun. No, to PLAY Ranger you really do need a combat profession.
Agree. And something needs to be done to make Rangers more useful overall. However that should be done in the context of their role.
You guys type too fast. Sorry if any of this is out of order. I am confused on one point - how did "military" and Commandos come into the argument? I thought we were talking about stealth recon here? I have to reiterate Commandos=not stealthy at ALL. Rangers=stealthy (or so our camo suggests )
Here is how it came in. There are two meanings to the word Ranger. The outdoors version and the military version. In the military context Ranger is just another name for Commando. Commandos (true meaning not SWG which is where your confusion is) are stealthy (to an extent).
Phew, I know I missed a ton. Oh yes... if we are rethinking the main focus title then I would say not "survivalist" please. It has too many negative connotations (there is no need for wilderness survival and probably never will be). Plus it is a passive word. We want an active word that will get people excited. Recon is an active word, so I'd rather stick with that one if a better one does not emerge.
Recon may sound better. But it is also inaccurate. Though Survivalist may have some negative connotations. So do Assassin and Commisar. And those are both less descriptive of the skills they represent than Survivalist would be for Ranger.
Right now this is true (except for tracking which is a unique skill we have different from Scout). In the future hopefully it will be different. The possible usefullness of wilderness survival has really capped out at scout. To make us a viable profession above scout we need those unique skills. Hopefully stealth/recon will be one of those.
Which indicates we have to find ways to make those skills useful again. Stealth/Recon isn't the issue.
Plus you do realize what the counter for your argument is don't you? Make it a requisite that you maser marksman to get novice rifleman and make three of your four rifle lines useless and then we will be comparable.
Not comparable. Your arguement here is that some of your branches are useless. That just means we need to fix them. But they still need to be extensions of what leads to them.
"And as I said. Since there is no military pre-req, an expectation of military Ranger is misplaced"
No waste, there is no FIREARM or MELEE pre-reqs. Take a look at our tree, we already have a weapon, traps. Theres are not firearms nor melee weapons yet are still pure combat related. Advancing upon this is just one of our justifications for becoming MORE military orientated. Stop thinking that you need to be holding a firearm or sword in your hand to be military orientated.
In ROTJ i saw Ewoks using traps in something id call a MILITARY operation.
Im sorry for just highlighting your responses i realy am but i seams not that the role is misplaced but your perceptions that a military unit must have a firearm or a melee weapon in his/her hand.
Nope. Riflemen do have a role, pistoleers do have a role. You cannot become the sniper with marksman skills, you cannot become the machine gunner without getting rifleman, you are simply a character that shoots using a rifle, not a rifleman.
I think you are missing the point. All Rifle skills are derived from the pre-reqs. Rifleman are super Marksman Rifle users. The machine gun aspect comes from that extension. But it is still an extension from the base.
Rangers are and will need to be an extension of the base. That doesn't mean they aren't unique however. You take those base skills and expand upon them.
The problem derives if you are asking for abilities that don't derive from that point.
I'm not against what you've suggested. It sounds good. I don't like the terms as it derives from a starting point that you don't have. It has the potential of giving a false impression. And has the very real possibility of being used as the starting point to latter intrude on the territory of other professions based on the perception of the title.
If the primary role is Recon. What is recon? The gathering of intel on an enemy force. That means not just locating them. But also finding out what equipment they carry. Does that mean Rangers should have the ability 'look' at another players equipment to see its stats? Or should something like that, if in game, be the territory of Smugglers?
Also note that Recon deals with enemy forces. It has nothing to do with hunting. Other than hunting people.
If you start making them like military Rangers (Commandos). Then you will start seeing requests for other Commando abilities based on what the RL versions can do. That is where we will see the treading on other professional abilities.
It won't happen short term. It's a long term thing. But it will happen.
No waste, there is no FIREARM or MELEE pre-reqs. Take a look at our tree, we already have a weapon, traps. Theres are not firearms nor melee weapons yet are still pure combat related. Advancing upon this is just one of our justifications for becoming MORE military orientated. Stop thinking that you need to be holding a firearm or sword in your hand to be military orientated.
Traps are not military. They are combat or hunting but military they are not.
In ROTJ i saw Ewoks using traps in something id call a MILITARY operation.
They used traps such as a trip wire and the log crush. But they didn't learn those from a military view. Those are extenstions of hunting traps.
Which is a great reason for your traps to work on NPCs and PCs. But don't confuse those with military training.
Nor would I call the Ewoks in those scenes military. Primitive socities like those are highly unlikely to have a military. They were hunters. The scene was a large scale hunting operation.
Right now this is true (except for tracking which is a unique skill we have different from Scout). In the future hopefully it will be different. The possible usefullness of wilderness survival has really capped out at scout. To make us a viable profession above scout we need those unique skills. Hopefully stealth/recon will be one of those.
Which indicates we have to find ways to make those skills useful again. Stealth/Recon isn't the issue.
Plus you do realize what the counter for your argument is don't you? Make it a requisite that you maser marksman to get novice rifleman and make three of your four rifle lines useless and then we will be comparable.
Not comparable. Your arguement here is that some of your branches are useless. That just means we need to fix them. But they still need to be extensions of what leads to them.
Exact;y Which is where the recon application of our skills comes in. It seems we are actually agreeing here except on the part about people expecting Ranger to be a combat-oriented profession and the thing about pre-reqs.
People already come into this profession expecting it to be combat oriented. They come in expecting to be able to do the things we've laid out and are dissapointed when they find out they can't. Then they come to the forums and ask why and suggest ideas... and NRass Calc and Owen take those ideas and turn them into documents like this. We are not creating an expectation, we are defining an expectation that is already there and has always been there.
To say flat out that Rangers can't have skills that support combat because we have no pre-reqs in a combat profession has too many exceptions to be a set in stone truth. We have one whole line (traps) that is completely combat-oriented. There are several other combat-support professions that so not have pre-reqs in combat professions. And why impose limits like this anyway? The ability to mix and match skills to your character and combat style is one of the great strengths of SWG. Ranger can add a really unique flavor to combat if we are allowed to use them against PCs and NPCs. I would hate to see that potential be discarded for a pre-conceived notion that already has several notable exceptions to it.
Paks Master Ranger/MasterCreature Handler -I support ATK play
Exact;y Which is where the recon application of our skills comes in. It seems we are actually agreeing here except on the part about people expecting Ranger to be a combat-oriented profession and the thing about pre-reqs.
Which is my concern. By labeling those as such and giving the primary role as Recon which is a military term and useage, it sets an expectation and future expectations based on it.
If you say the primary role is Recon, people have an expectation based on that. And they also will base future requests based on that. If Rangers primary role is Recon (gathering intel on the enemy) then is it that much of a jump for someone to decide that Rangers in that role should say have the ability to determine the vulnerability times of bases. Isn't that after all gathering info on the enemy (Recon)?
To say flat out that Rangers can't have skills that support combat because we have no pre-reqs in a combat profession has too many exceptions to be a set in stone truth. We have one whole line (traps) that is completely combat-oriented. There are several other combat-support professions that so not have pre-reqs in combat professions. And why impose limits like this anyway? The ability to mix and match skills to your character and combat style is one of the great strengths of SWG. Ranger can add a really unique flavor to combat if we are allowed to use them against PCs and NPCs. I would hate to see that potential be discarded for a pre-conceived notion that already has several notable exceptions to it.
Not disagreeing with you here. Some things I'd like to see for Ranger other than those mentioned. Damage bonuses vs creatures. Damage bonus would work with any weapon being used. Poison/Disease/State resists vs creature attacks. Creature damage mitigation. There is a large host of ideas such as these that can allow Rangers to augment. And allowing Rangers to combine with whatever combat profession they want to allow a variety.
Though I'm not sure I'd say there are several other combat augmentation profession that don't require combat pre-reqs. Creature Handler would seem to be the only one. Unless you are counting Doc as a combat augmentation.
"I think you are missing the point. All Rifle skills are derived from the pre-reqs. Rifleman are super Marksman Rifle users. The machine gun aspect comes from that extension. But it is still an extension from the base"
No im getting it, i just dont agree with what you are saying. By your statements you are saying that if i got rifles in marksman i could be a lesser gunner? Nope, you can use rifles LIKE a rifleman but you only get the gunner role once you get rifleman boxes. This is what im getting at. Although there is no other way for a rifleman to advance over marksman rifles without actually using rifles you still get your own unique roles.
Recon IS based off scout, thats what we are all trying to say. We have stealth already, can be enhanced and paves the way for intel gathering (who would you want to look at someone's weapon stats? thats spying, leave it to the smugs i dont want it. Give us the ability to show enemy possitions, put IR markers onto targets the group can track them and bingo you got scouting/recon skills). We explore which allows us to get to our targets, move better than anyone in the game and seek out new places, boldly going no...... oops wrong story.
Anyways here it is:
Scout Exploration: Traversing terrain, getting better at exploring the world and basic camoflauge.
Reconnified (new word): Being adept at getting from point A to point B, seeking out new places/targets and advanced stealth
Scout Trapping: Basic trap making, used as a combat tool.
Reconnified: Ambush tactics using ingenious (devs said it not us) traps and sharp mental reflexes (again devs said it not us).
Scout Hunting: Gathering information about your prey, understanding how to hit your prey better, being able to utilise the remains.
Reconnified: Mastery of information gathering and information relay, knowing how to take down your prey faster and more effectively and being able to better utilise the remains.
Scout Survival: Being able to survive in the wild using the wilderness as a tool.
Reconnified: Being the master of the wilderness, able to weild the wilderness.
Now in this 4 tier run down i have advanced upon the scout basics into a unique profession that has developed its own paths, roles and direction yet has been based on the starting profession before it.
Pathfinding, Stealth, Ambushing, Survival, Intel Gathering, Intel Relaying and Hunting have all featured here and have all been based on our pre-requisit skills and developed into a unique skill set.
Definitely Doc as a combat agumentation. That's a good example actually because Docs can use their skills to agument a combat profession (heal themselves during battle) but they need that combat profession to do anything offensive (so to speak). Combat medics have a pre-req and can be very offensive (so, um, to speak). The idea of stealth and recon is not offensive in itself, but you would be able to mix it with a combat profession to make the combat profession more offensive (such as in the ambush example). Now traps are where it gets sticky (and thats not a pun - all the sticky traps are in scout). Since that is and has always been an offensive combat ability but is not considered as such because it is not in the recognized combat professions. Details of how those things balance and work need to be ironed out. But I am excited at the potential they represent.
I have no problem with not calling our main focus Recon (just please not "survivalist" even the word makes me bitter). But I do have a problem with the idea that Ranger skills can not be used in a military type application or used to enhance a combat profession.
Paks Master Ranger/MasterCreature Handler -I support ATK play
No im getting it, i just dont agree with what you are saying. By your statements you are saying that if i got rifles in marksman i could be a lesser gunner? Nope, you can use rifles LIKE a rifleman but you only get the gunner role once you get rifleman boxes. This is what im getting at. Although there is no other way for a rifleman to advance over marksman rifles without actually using rifles you still get your own unique roles.
No. What I'm saying is that all Rifle skills are extensions of the base requirements. All the skills I get as Rifle are extensions (improvements) of the basis laid down by the Marksman skills that I have to get beforehand.
Recon IS based off scout, thats what we are all trying to say. We have stealth already, can be enhanced and paves the way for intel gathering (who would you want to look at someone's weapon stats? thats spying, leave it to the smugs i dont want it. Give us the ability to show enemy possitions, put IR markers onto targets the group can track them and bingo you got scouting/recon skills). We explore which allows us to get to our targets, move better than anyone in the game and seek out new places, boldly going no...... oops wrong story.
Recon isn't based on scout. Recon is a military term. Scouting as set up in SWG isn't military. It's creature orientated hunting skills. Yes you have stealth. But stealth isn't Recon.
And I think you are proving my point about ability creep. Marking enemy positions isn't a hunting skill. It's a military skill.
Why wouldn't you want to be able to see stats of another players equipment? You could tell what the weakest resist is for their armor and make it easier to take them down. Seeing the stats of their weapons could let you fine tune your defenses. And that kind of info if intel (Recon).
Anyways here it is:
Very nice. Though your use of Intel is an issue. Hunting Efficiency would seem to be a better useage.
The base skill is all creature related. You don't intel or recon creatures. You do that against people.
"Creature Handler would seem to be the only one. Unless you are counting Doc as a combat augmentation"
I think the argument here has shifted more along the lines of defining military. In my eyes, this is the GCW its a damn war, you fight with the skills you have learnt. As a doc i can heal in combat, therefore i am a combat class, therefore if i participate for a side in the GCW i am a military unit. Now think to the future, i can sneak around and ambush, therefore i am a combat class, therefore if i participate for a side in the gcw i am i military unit.
Military means Soldiers, Armies or War. By soldiers you can include militia, mercinaries, militants. They are all and of the same thing.
If i were a Ranger and fightig for the rebel force i would be a military unit, i would be fighting for an army, a side in the war a cause. If i were a ranger fightig for myself then i would be fighting for a cause, therefore i am a soldier and a military unit.
In a game focused around war ANYTHING and ANYONE can be classed as a military unit so could we please stop using it as an excuse to not have recon as a role?
Recon role can be justified from scout skills, being military in nature has nothing to do with it. Advancing upon skills we already have and developing a new area of scouting not only seems justified but also what you would expect with developing the skills we gained at scout. Again you dont have to be even wielding a weapon to be a military unit. Docs and medics can be military units, rangers should be allowed to be military units and not be tied back because we do not weild a gun.
Vorpaks wrote: I have no problem with not calling our main focus Recon (just please not "survivalist" even the word makes me bitter). But I do have a problem with the idea that Ranger skills can not be used in a military type application or used to enhance a combat profession.
I think you misunderstand me. I'm going to stop using Ranger for a minute as it has two applications. Outdoors skills can be used in military type applications to a limited extend. And they should enhance combat professions.
However military skills are of little to no use in the hunter/outdoorsman text. You don't use small unit tactics to hunt deer. Nor would you call in artillery in general. Though I could see an arguement there when hunting a Krayt or Gorax.
If you have problem with 'survivalist' that's fair enough. But Recon is a military term. It indicates a military nature as the PRIMARY role. Which isn't the case. Having a branch titled this isn't to much of an issue. Though Camoflauge or Stealth might be a bit better.
Make it a requisite that you maser marksman to get novice rifleman and make three of your four rifle lines useless and then we will be comparable. 
Sorry if any of this is out of order. I am confused on one point - how did "military" and Commandos come into the argument? I thought we were talking about stealth recon here? I have to reiterate Commandos=not stealthy at ALL. Rangers=stealthy (or so our camo suggests 
