Quit Revamp

[NOFUN]

A Survivalist subguild? I -love- that idea. I have to say I like that idea better than any other sugggested.
Survivalists excel in surviving in the wilds. They are better than average at navigating through storms, finding food, and camping out in the wilds.
Skills- Increased Forage (ability to forage for food), Increased Direction Sense, and the ability to quit in any outdoor rooms.

This is the idea that I was referring to.

So, all of the useful skills of a ranger without actually needing to play one. How about a subguild that allows me to parry, disarm and bash?

[jhunter]

As Drunkendwarf said, there's alot more to rangers than those couple of skills. If you don't believe that, it just shows there's still alot for you to learn. Also, rangers would still be capable of doing two of those skills much better. A ranger guild pc is still going to be the -master- of the wilds compared to any other guild of pc with that subguild idea implemented.

[NOFUN]

As Drunkendwarf said, there's alot more to rangers than those couple of skills. If you don't believe that, it just shows there's still alot for you to learn. Also, rangers would still be capable of doing two of those skills much better. A ranger guild pc is still going to be the -master- of the wilds compared to any other guild of pc with that subguild idea implemented.

But those skills are the main reasons people play rangers. Sure, they might have a few other quirks but those are small in comparison. If you wanted to be good with poisons you'd be an assassin, if you wanted to be a good fighter you'd play a warrior.

Tell me, honestly if we made sneak, back-stab and poison available to everyone that anyone would still bother to pick assassins? Or if bash, disarm and parry was skill every one had people would still pick warriors?

[jhunter]

As Drunkendwarf said, there's alot more to rangers than those couple of skills. If you don't believe that, it just shows there's still alot for you to learn. Also, rangers would still be capable of doing two of those skills much better. A ranger guild pc is still going to be the -master- of the wilds compared to any other guild of pc with that subguild idea implemented.

But those skills are the main reasons people play rangers. If you wanted to be good with poisons you'd be an assassin, if you wanted to be a good fighter you'd play a warrior.

Tell me, honestly if we made sneak, back-stab and poison available to everyone that anyone would still bother to pick assassins? Or if bash, disarm and parry was skill every one had people would still pick warriors?

Speak for yourself. Those skills aren't the -main- reason I play rangers. It might be true for you but it isn't true for everyone. Sneak -is- available to anyone, with the right subguild.

[NOFUN]

As Drunkendwarf said, there's alot more to rangers than those couple of skills. If you don't believe that, it just shows there's still alot for you to learn. Also, rangers would still be capable of doing two of those skills much better. A ranger guild pc is still going to be the -master- of the wilds compared to any other guild of pc with that subguild idea implemented.

But those skills are the main reasons people play rangers. If you wanted to be good with poisons you'd be an assassin, if you wanted to be a good fighter you'd play a warrior.

Tell me, honestly if we made sneak, back-stab and poison available to everyone that anyone would still bother to pick assassins? Or if bash, disarm and parry was skill every one had people would still pick warriors?

Speak for yourself. Those skills aren't the -main- reason I play rangers. It might be true for you but it isn't true for everyone. Sneak -is- available to anyone, with the right subguild.

What are the main reasons you play rangers? Good job dodging the question by the way.

[Thunkkin]

Tell me, honestly if we made sneak, back-stab and poison available to everyone that anyone would still bother to pick assassins? Or if bash, disarm and parry was skill every one had people would still pick warriors?

Yes.

Guilds aren't just about individual skills, they're about skill synergies. Central to that is the synergies available once you have certain caps in a broad range of skills that go together. It's just as much about the toolbox as a whole as it is about any individual tool.

[jhunter]

 A ranger possesses two primary abilities: to know where she is at all times and to stalk and kill prey.  Ranger skills involve hunting persons or animals, exceptional powers of observation, a strong aptitude for archery, and some moderate skill with weapons. Exceptional rangers are able to move silently and remain unseen in the wilderness, detect sounds from far away, work with poisons, and parry enemy blows. Rangers are also able to rescue friends from deadly situations, bandage serious wounds, and have a well-known rapport with animals and can ride beasts of burden from the beginning. Any traveler would be a fool to neglect to take a ranger along as a guide, and good rangers can make large sums of money in this profession. In addition, rangers are excellent scouts and spies, able to eavesdrop without being noticed--good rangers can even act as assas- sins. If nothing else, rangers are superior hunters and can typically feed themselves in such places as the Grey Forest (q.v.), and can bring back skins of animals to sell.

There's nothing more deadly in the wilds than a skilled ranger with a bow.

[jhunter]

Tell me, honestly if we made sneak, back-stab and poison available to everyone that anyone would still bother to pick assassins? Or if bash, disarm and parry was skill every one had people would still pick warriors?

Yes.

Guilds aren't just about individual skills, they're about skill synergies. Central to that is the synergies available once you have certain caps in a broad range of skills that go together. It's just as much about the toolbox as a whole as it is about any individual tool.

You got it man.

[Marshmellow]

A Survivalist subguild? I -love- that idea. I have to say I like that idea better than any other sugggested.
Survivalists excel in surviving in the wilds. They are better than average at navigating through storms, finding food, and camping out in the wilds.
Skills- Increased Forage (ability to forage for food), Increased Direction Sense, and the ability to quit in any outdoor rooms.

Nah, better:

Subguild Survivalist     (Character)

Survivalists aren't any better at much than most people, but what they are pretty decent at is getting from one place to the next through the wastes.  They have a good sense of where they're going (direction sense) and can get past many obstacles (climb).  They can keep themselves fed too, having a knack for finding edible roots (food forage) and cleaning their kills (skinning).

I still like this one better, but give it ranger-quit.

[NOFUN]

A ranger possesses two primary abilities: to know where she is at all times and to stalk and kill prey.

Direction sense and hunt. Hunt isn't overwhelmingly useful anyway.

archery, and some moderate skill with weapons.

Warriors can do both of these things, but better.

Work with poisons, and parry enemy blows.

Assassins can do both of these things. Warriors can parry.

Rangers are also able to rescue friends from deadly situations, bandage serious wounds

Warriors can do both of these.

can ride beasts of burden from the beginning.

Every one but elves can ride. But sure, starting at journeyman is helpful.

In addition, rangers are excellent scouts and spies, able to eavesdrop without being noticed--good rangers can even act as assas- sins.

Only if you can convince some one to eat something you've poisoned, or the other person is sleeping. Every guild is going to fuck you up in combat with the sole exception of merchant.

If nothing else, rangers are superior hunters and can typically feed themselves in such places as the Grey Forest (q.v.), and can bring back skins of animals to sell.

Skinning is a useful skill, I'll give you that.

Skills rangers will have that a warrior/survivalist won't: Hunt, skin and poison.
Skills rangers will have that a assassin/survivalist won't: Hunt, skin and rescue.
Gee. Might as well remake ranger into the hunter sub-guild.

[jhunter]

You're just plain wrong about several of those things you posted. Like I said, it's obvious your knowledge of the game is limited.

[NOFUN]

You're just plain wrong about several of those things you posted. Like I said, it's obvious your knowledge of the game is limited.

Care to point out where I was wrong?

[Marc]

As Drunkendwarf said, there's alot more to rangers than those couple of skills. If you don't believe that, it just shows there's still alot for you to learn. Also, rangers would still be capable of doing two of those skills much better. A ranger guild pc is still going to be the -master- of the wilds compared to any other guild of pc with that subguild idea implemented.

But those skills are the main reasons people play rangers. Sure, they might have a few other quirks but those are small in comparison. If you wanted to be good with poisons you'd be an assassin, if you wanted to be a good fighter you'd play a warrior.

Tell me, honestly if we made sneak, back-stab and poison available to everyone that anyone would still bother to pick assassins? Or if bash, disarm and parry was skill every one had people would still pick warriors?

Change your perspective on skills.  Just because it shows up on your skill list doesn't mean you're any good.

People would still play assassins because assassins are the BEST at sneaking, backstabbing and poison.  Other classes get those skills, but people play assassins because they are the BEST.  People would still play warriors because they are the BEST fighters.  They are the BEST at bashing, disarming and parrying.  If you add them to a subguild, they would be capped low (like current subguilds) that they would not be a replacement for the real thing.

[sarc one]People choose rangers because of Strider and LotR.  Anyone saying otherwise is a damn liar![/sarcasm]

Hunt is fucking awesome.
Rangers are brutal fighters hand to hand
If you can't figure out how to poison people, you need to read some history.  Real-world examples aplenty and Rangers are good at most of them.
You should play some rangers for a few 10days and change your tune

Quit will not be changed in 1.Arm.  Nyr all but said this.  Codebase is different to port and the current system has worked for 15+ years.  Perfect?  No, but it is what it is.

[jhunter]

You're just plain wrong about several of those things you posted. Like I said, it's obvious your knowledge of the game is limited.

Care to point out where I was wrong?

Nope. Find out IC.

[NOFUN]

As Drunkendwarf said, there's alot more to rangers than those couple of skills. If you don't believe that, it just shows there's still alot for you to learn. Also, rangers would still be capable of doing two of those skills much better. A ranger guild pc is still going to be the -master- of the wilds compared to any other guild of pc with that subguild idea implemented.

But those skills are the main reasons people play rangers. Sure, they might have a few other quirks but those are small in comparison. If you wanted to be good with poisons you'd be an assassin, if you wanted to be a good fighter you'd play a warrior.

Tell me, honestly if we made sneak, back-stab and poison available to everyone that anyone would still bother to pick assassins? Or if bash, disarm and parry was skill every one had people would still pick warriors?

Change your perspective on skills.  Just because it shows up on your skill list doesn't mean you're any good.

People would still play assassins because assassins are the BEST at sneaking, backstabbing and poison.  Other classes get those skills, but people play assassins because they are the BEST.  People would still play warriors because they are the BEST fighters.  They are the BEST at bashing, disarming and parrying.  If you add them to a subguild, they would be capped low (like current subguilds) that they would not be a replacement for the real thing.

[sarc one]People choose rangers because of Strider and LotR.  Anyone saying otherwise is a damn liar![/sarcasm]

Hunt is fucking awesome.
Rangers are brutal fighters hand to hand
If you can't figure out how to poison people, you need to read some history.  Real-world examples aplenty and Rangers are good at most of them.
You should play some rangers for a few 10days and change your tune

Quit will not be changed in 1.Arm.  Nyr all but said this.  Codebase is different to port and the current system has worked for 15+ years.  Perfect?  No, but it is what it is.

And people will still want to play as rangers because rangers are the best at skinning.

[Thunkkin]

You're just plain wrong about several of those things you posted. Like I said, it's obvious your knowledge of the game is limited.

This.

[drunkendwarf]

If you're sick of hearing the ranger nerf argument than try offering something that isn't "Waaah I want my PC to be able to kill twenty gith like only a warrior/magicker could and explore the world like only a ranger could"

The reason commoners tolerate the oppression of the templarate is because it's safer inside a city state than in the wilds. Your commoner isn't going to set up camp outside of the walls just because he/she feels like it, infact if your character has had very little experience with the wilds he/she is going to do everything he/she can do to avoid it. The wilds are supposed to be dangerous. If rangers get so many cool things then play one. Your commoner shouldn't be going into the wilds to find shit on there own, that's why rangers even exist. Don't know where the log out rooms are? Tough shit.

You don't. Magickers are over populated as it is, the last thing they need is the cool skills that are exclusive to mundanes. Magickers can conjure food, water and some don't even need mounts because they have some kind of magick that lets them move from place to place easily. The problem with magickers being able to quit outside is that every single PC mage would go rogue.

I promise you, if every one was able to quit outside rangers would become rarer than merchants, you say they get all these cool things but the only things that spring to mind are foraging for food/poison/sneak (Which an assassin can do all of, anyway) if rangers did have things that are seemingly as OP as you make them out to be this thread wouldn't even exist as every one would be a ranger.

First off, rangers get several things that assassins don't, and vice versa. Comparing the two is just silly. Even in your example...assassins can NOT forage for food.
Second off, my argument isn't "Waaah I want my PC to be able to kill twenty gith like only a warrior/magicker could and explore the world like only a ranger could". It's if I want to play any kind of outdoor character concept, it's very difficult to do with anything other than a ranger. I said this is fine when it comes to most character concepts, you just have to deal with the ranger skill set and make due. But it doesn't work whatsoever with a mage. Who said anything about pwning the world with my mage? I've had a mage that wanted nothing to do with killing folks or pwning anything - his ultimate goal was to make an awesome garden out in the middle of nowhere.
Not all magickers can conjure food or water. In fact, very few can. Not all have magicks that allow them to move from place to place easily.
I highly disagree rangers would become rare if everyone could quit outside. They have an incredibly useful skill set for wandering the wilds and staying alive.
The problem is the line between IC and OOC is blurred here - people seem to think the ability to quit out is a 'skill'. I see quitting out as purely an OOC action. People are equating quitting out in the wilds as your character setting up camp and indefinitely sitting there with plenty of food/water. So if I quit out in a stable somewhere, is it assumed my character is setting up camp in the stables indefinitely? No. I find this view just silly. I will often times quit out for RL weeks at a time - to imagine my character sitting in the stable this whole time just silly. There's no real good IC explanation for when a character is logged off. Some things are just OOC. Quitting out is one of them.
'Wish up' people say. That doesn't work, especially for off peak characters. I've had to try before, and got no response, had to cut link and logged in several hours later to find my character still just sitting there. Any reliance upon the staff for this is just unreliable. They're not always around.

Don't be a troll.

Not trolling. Giving an honest opinion.

If your pickpocket can log-off outside with a tent why can't my ranger steal? After all, they're both something every human is capable of doing.

Oh, right. My ranger would get caught every time because my ranger hasn't had any experience stealing.
A pickpocket can survive in the wilderness because.. well.. oh.

Stealing is not an OOC action. Quitting out is.

[Marshmellow]

All I will say is this:  NOFUN, you have obviously not played a well-branched Ranger and/or a well-branched Warrior and/or a well-branched Asssassin (or enough of all three, rather)... etc.  How I (and others) know this?


...you don't seem to understand the fact that Assassins are just the city-version of Rangers (with some overlapping skills and other complementary skills and some other skills that just don't match up in any way shape or form because they are a wilderness guild compared to a city guild)...

...and the suck that is a sub-guild compared to a guild skill.

Anyway, of course Assassins can do some things that Rangers can do, but Rangers can do other things still that make an Assassin/Hunter or a Warrior/Whatever look like a chump when it comes to doing shit in the wild.  I'm not kidding.  How these difference really stack up, you need to discover on your own by playing a variety of characters.  We can't tell you, but trust us when we say that things are more complicated than you seem to regard it.

...and that is one of the things that make this game awesome.

[Marc]

That is one valid reason to play a Ranger.  One of many.

I am shocked this has come up to be fair.  Someone arguing the -Ranger- class is under powered

If the argument is the IC/OOCness of quitting, make up any reason you want.  It will not be changed according to staff.

I personally go with the "Rangers are the only ones who have the sixth sense to find a place to sleep in the wild and wake up again.  Everyone else gets eaten by scrab."

If you want another reason call it balance.  Or tradition.

[drunkendwarf]

It's obvious NOFUN has no idea how rangers actually work. I'm done talking about this with this person.

[NOFUN]

If you're sick of hearing the ranger nerf argument than try offering something that isn't "Waaah I want my PC to be able to kill twenty gith like only a warrior/magicker could and explore the world like only a ranger could"

The reason commoners tolerate the oppression of the templarate is because it's safer inside a city state than in the wilds. Your commoner isn't going to set up camp outside of the walls just because he/she feels like it, infact if your character has had very little experience with the wilds he/she is going to do everything he/she can do to avoid it. The wilds are supposed to be dangerous. If rangers get so many cool things then play one. Your commoner shouldn't be going into the wilds to find shit on there own, that's why rangers even exist. Don't know where the log out rooms are? Tough shit.

You don't. Magickers are over populated as it is, the last thing they need is the cool skills that are exclusive to mundanes. Magickers can conjure food, water and some don't even need mounts because they have some kind of magick that lets them move from place to place easily. The problem with magickers being able to quit outside is that every single PC mage would go rogue.

I promise you, if every one was able to quit outside rangers would become rarer than merchants, you say they get all these cool things but the only things that spring to mind are foraging for food/poison/sneak (Which an assassin can do all of, anyway) if rangers did have things that are seemingly as OP as you make them out to be this thread wouldn't even exist as every one would be a ranger.

First off, rangers get several things that assassins don't, and vice versa. Comparing the two is just silly. Even in your example...assassins can NOT forage for food.
Second off, my argument isn't "Waaah I want my PC to be able to kill twenty gith like only a warrior/magicker could and explore the world like only a ranger could". It's if I want to play any kind of outdoor character concept, it's very difficult to do with anything other than a ranger. I said this is fine when it comes to most character concepts, you just have to deal with the ranger skill set and make due. But it doesn't work whatsoever with a mage. Who said anything about pwning the world with my mage? I've had a mage that wanted nothing to do with killing folks or pwning anything - his ultimate goal was to make an awesome garden out in the middle of nowhere.
Not all magickers can conjure food or water. In fact, very few can. Not all have magicks that allow them to move from place to place easily.
I highly disagree rangers would become rare if everyone could quit outside. They have an incredibly useful skill set for wandering the wilds and staying alive.
The problem is the line between IC and OOC is blurred here - people seem to think the ability to quit out is a 'skill'. I see quitting out as purely an OOC action. People are equating quitting out in the wilds as your character setting up camp and indefinitely sitting there with plenty of food/water. So if I quit out in a stable somewhere, is it assumed my character is setting up camp in the stables indefinitely? No. I find this view just silly. I will often times quit out for RL weeks at a time - to imagine my character sitting in the stable this whole time just silly. There's no real good IC explanation for when a character is logged off. Some things are just OOC. Quitting out is one of them.
'Wish up' people say. That doesn't work, especially for off peak characters. I've had to try before, and got no response, had to cut link and logged in several hours later to find my character still just sitting there. Any reliance upon the staff for this is just unreliable. They're not always around.

Don't be a troll.

Not trolling. Giving an honest opinion.

If your pickpocket can log-off outside with a tent why can't my ranger steal? After all, they're both something every human is capable of doing.

Oh, right. My ranger would get caught every time because my ranger hasn't had any experience stealing.
A pickpocket can survive in the wilderness because.. well.. oh.

Stealing is not an OOC action. Quitting out is.

Assassins could forage for food with the survivalist sub-guild.
City-states are supposed to be prison-like. It should be rare and dangerous to leave. I very much doubt your character would want to go outside anyway.
Quitting is a skill, when you're quitting outside the city's walls. Rangers are allowed to because it's assumed they know how to gather food/water. - I now realise I'm wrong about this from nyr's post.

[Cutthroat]

Instead of arguing about quitting everywhere when staff has said several times in the past that it won't be changed, perhaps address things that CAN be changed, or haven't been ruled out yet, like the availability of quit rooms in the wilderness (I personally think there are plenty quit rooms in some areas, but other areas could do with more). That's a far more productive argument than arguing about how guilds and skills work.

[NOFUN]

All I will say is this:  NOFUN, you have obviously not played a well-branched Ranger and/or a well-branched Warrior and/or a well-branched Asssassin (or enough of all three, rather)... etc.  How I (and others) know this?


...you don't seem to understand the fact that Assassins are just the city-version of Rangers (with some overlapping skills and other complementary skills and some other skills that just don't match up in any way shape or form because they are a wilderness guild compared to a city guild)...

...and the suck that is a sub-guild compared to a guild skill.

Anyway, of course Assassins can do some things that Rangers can do, but Rangers can do other things still that make an Assassin/Hunter or a Warrior/Whatever look like a chump when it comes to doing shit in the wild.  I'm not kidding.  How these difference really stack up, you need to discover on your own by playing a variety of characters.  We can't tell you, but trust us when we say that things are more complicated than you seem to regard it.

...and that is one of the things that make this game awesome.

Assassins are just the city-version of Rangers

My point exactly. They shouldn't be able to survive outside the walls because they are the city-version of rangers. It's like, expecting a city elf to survive like a desert elf. It shouldn't happen.

I am shocked this has come up to be fair.  Someone arguing the -Ranger- class is under powered.

I'm not, I'm arguing that quitting outside the walls should remain a ranger only skill.

[Nyr]

Per current staff policy on this as well as code, quitting is not entirely IC or OOC, nor is it a skill.

[Marc]

But those skills are the main reasons people play rangers. Sure, they might have a few other quirks but those are small in comparison. If you wanted to be good with poisons you'd be an assassin, if you wanted to be a good fighter you'd play a warrior.

I am shocked this has come up to be fair.  Someone arguing the -Ranger- class is under powered.

I'm not, I'm arguing that quitting outside the walls should remain a ranger only skill.

Sorry if I misinterpreted.  Sure seemed you were thinking Quit was the beesknees of ranger skills.  I'm probably wrong but if they disabled ranger quit it's my opinion rangers would still be the most popularly played class.  So that's that.

Instead of arguing about quitting everywhere when staff has said several times in the past that it won't be changed, perhaps address things that CAN be changed, or haven't been ruled out yet, like the availability of quit rooms in the wilderness (I personally think there are plenty quit rooms in some areas, but other areas could do with more). That's a far more productive argument than arguing about how guilds and skills work.

Is this possible?  Maybe regular intervals along the north road?  Certain landmarks in the desert?  I don't see it abused too often.  Staff frowns heavily on logging on from conflict.  If someone made a habit, the hammer would fall eventually.