Bounty Hunter Archive
Thread: Bounty Hunter VS Bounty Hunter
SomeUser wrote:
Forced PvP is a unique quality to the Jedi profession as a consequence and deterrent for having a character that is 1.5x more powerful then average. Allowing a weaker character to "attack" a more powerful character whose class must be kept in check makes sense.
Allow forced PvP in other professions doesnt make sense and it WILL NOT HAPPEN. SOE made it clear already it the GCW changes (you can be "on leave" [no one can attack you], "Overt" [only NPCs can attack you], and "special forces" [then, and only then, can a PC attack you]). It is obvious SOE isnt wanting to force PvP on 99% of its player base. SOE clearly looks at forced PvP as a negative consequence reserved for curbing a powerful Jedi class from becoming too numerous and to slow its "growth".
Using this on BH will only act to curve the BH population which is already inadequate in lowering/keeping in check the Jedi population. If you want to PvP and you're not a Jedi go Overt Special Forces or play a Jedi.
Some of these ideas are interesting but clearly not where SOE is headed. If anything, maybe when there is a major BH revamp, some additional "ideas" could be considered... However, I think that is a LONG way down the road folks.
Message Edited by SomeUser on 06-26-2005 08:15 PM
If a bounty hunter is already stalking a mark(a jedi) he's already looking for a PvP fight so if he encounters another bounty hunter stalking the same mark, PvP will not really be forced upon them. The way I see this is, it will hone the skills of a bounty hunter in preparation to taking on a jedi. They don't HAVE to fight one another...one can back down and drop the mission....
Slysix wrote:
SomeUser wrote:
Forced PvP is a unique quality to the Jedi profession as a consequence and deterrent for having a character that is 1.5x more powerful then average. Allowing a weaker character to "attack" a more powerful character whose class must be kept in check makes sense.
Allow forced PvP in other professions doesnt make sense and it WILL NOT HAPPEN. SOE made it clear already it the GCW changes (you can be "on leave" [no one can attack you], "Overt" [only NPCs can attack you], and "special forces" [then, and only then, can a PC attack you]). It is obvious SOE isnt wanting to force PvP on 99% of its player base. SOE clearly looks at forced PvP as a negative consequence reserved for curbing a powerful Jedi class from becoming too numerous and to slow its "growth".
Using this on BH will only act to curve the BH population which is already inadequate in lowering/keeping in check the Jedi population. If you want to PvP and you're not a Jedi go Overt Special Forces or play a Jedi.
Some of these ideas are interesting but clearly not where SOE is headed. If anything, maybe when there is a major BH revamp, some additional "ideas" could be considered... However, I think that is a LONG way down the road folks.
Message Edited by SomeUser on 06-26-2005 08:15 PM
If a bounty hunter is already stalking a mark(a jedi) he's already looking for a PvP fight so if he encounters another bounty hunter stalking the same mark, PvP will not really be forced upon them. The way I see this is, it will hone the skills of a bounty hunter in preparation to taking on a jedi. They don't HAVE to fight one another...one can back down and drop the mission....
Ok, **if** we are saying a BH is only eligible to be "attack" by another BH only while "on the hunt" (as opposed to at anytime if his mission success is too high or low) and only by another BH (as opposed toJedi) we **still** have major problems.
The biggest one being that, as SOE pushes more towards BH vs Jedi being 100% one_on_one, it will be even more critical for BH to stalk their prey for hours if not days... If we allow the BH in question to be ganked at any time he is holding the Jedi mission all this will accomplish is to discourage BH from picking up higher level Jedi missions if not discourage BH all together! In fact, under the best case scenarios, the Jedi that suffer the most will be the lower level paddies. What BH is going to open himself up for attack for hours if not days on end risking his expensive equipment for a 200k mark when he can dispose of a bunch of 50k - 100k marks in a much shorter time thus reducing his risk???
**Edit**
Had to edit some of this post as I realize I started to address another thread within this one LoL
Message Edited by SomeUser on 06-27-2005 12:05 PM
Vezek
SomeUser wrote:
Ok, **if** we are saying a BH is only eligible to be "attack" by another BH only while "on the hunt" (as opposed to at anytime if his mission success is too high or low) and only by another BH (as opposed toJedi) we **still** have major problems.
The biggest one being that, as SOE pushes more towards BH vs Jedi being 100% one_on_one, it will be even more critical for BH to stalk their prey for hours if not days... If we allow the BH in question to be ganked at any time he is holding the Jedi mission all this will accomplish is to discourage BH from picking up higher level Jedi missions if not discourage BH all together! In fact, under the best case scenarios, the Jedi that suffer the most will be the lower level paddies. What BH is going to open himself up for attack for hours if not days on end risking his expensive equipment for a 200k mark when he can dispose of a bunch of 50k - 100k marks in a much shorter time thus reducing his risk???
**Edit**
Had to edit some of this post as I realize I started to address another thread within this one LoL
Message Edited by SomeUser on 06-27-2005 12:05 PM
I'm not saying that a bounty hunter is open to attack from ANY bounty hunter...I talking about a bounty hunter being able to engage another bounty hunter when they're hunting the same mark.
This I believe is a viable option instead of SOE's push toward 100% 1 vs 1. Unless two bounty hunters REALLY trust each other not to attack and they're cooperating to take the same mark then things still work... However if a bounty hunter can't be trusted then no one will work with them for fear of getting shot in the back... He'll develop a name and as such will end up having to solo his hunts.
Message Edited by Slysix on 06-27-2005 06:21 PM
Slysix wrote:
I'm not saying that a bounty hunter is open to attack from ANY bounty hunter...I talking about a bounty hunter being able to engage another bounty hunter when they're hunting the same mark.
SomeUser wrote:
Ok, **if** we are saying a BH is only eligible to be "attack" by another BH only while "on the hunt" (as opposed to at anytime if his mission success is too high or low) and only by another BH (as opposed toJedi) we **still** have major problems.
The biggest one being that, as SOE pushes more towards BH vs Jedi being 100% one_on_one, it will be even more critical for BH to stalk their prey for hours if not days... If we allow the BH in question to be ganked at any time he is holding the Jedi mission all this will accomplish is to discourage BH from picking up higher level Jedi missions if not discourage BH all together! In fact, under the best case scenarios, the Jedi that suffer the most will be the lower level paddies. What BH is going to open himself up for attack for hours if not days on end risking his expensive equipment for a 200k mark when he can dispose of a bunch of 50k - 100k marks in a much shorter time thus reducing his risk???
**Edit**
Had to edit some of this post as I realize I started to address another thread within this one LoL
Message Edited by SomeUser on 06-27-2005 12:05 PM
SomeUser wrote:Oh I see... So Jedi can have their guild members take their bounty and stand guard until the BH with their mark engages them... Then the Jedi and BH can ganged up on the BH... Right? LoLSorry man, this wont happen. I'm not saying you're coming from a bad place, I'm just saying that just off the top of my head I can come up with several major issues that would be near impossible to solve within the constrains of programming to prevent this system from being abused.
Answered this bounty guard"scenario" in a previous post above. So I'll restate it. If a bounty hunter kills of another bounty hunter because they're after the same mark, the winning bounty hunter is locked in to finishing off that mark. He will not be able to pick up further missions. In addition, he either kills off the mark OR he drops the mission, in which case his bank account is deducted by an equivalent (or more) value of the posted bounty. A bounty hunter can onlyBE the best if he can compete with his fellow hunters, otherwise he's just calling himself the best.
Slysix wrote:
SomeUser wrote:
Oh I see... So Jedi can have their guild members take their bounty and stand guard until the BH with their mark engages them... Then the Jedi and BH can ganged up on the BH... Right? LoL
Sorry man, this wont happen. I'm not saying you're coming from a bad place, I'm just saying that just off the top of my head I can come up with several major issues that would be near impossible to solve within the constrains of programming to prevent this system from being abused.
Answered this bounty guard"scenario" in a previous post above. So I'll restate it. If a bounty hunter kills of another bounty hunter because they're after the same mark, the winning bounty hunter is locked in to finishing off that mark. He will not be able to pick up further missions. In addition, he either kills off the mark OR he drops the mission, in which case his bank account is deducted by an equivalent (or more) value of the posted bounty. A bounty hunter can onlyBE the best if he can compete with his fellow hunters, otherwise he's just calling himself the best.
SomeUser wrote:
Well first, I dont agree with a negative reward system when it comes to BH. The nature of what we do has the odds against us. Second, even if the system that you described was put into place, what Jedi wouldnt prefer to pay a guild BH to die for him to prevent his exp loss?
Negative reward is already in place for Jedi so I do not think implementing such will not be a game breaker. The negative reward only comes into effect when the bounty hunter drops the mission after he's been locked in(ie: killed another bounty hunter for the mark)...this is to ensure that players to not overly"exploit" the bounty gurad scenario.
As for Jedi to pay a guild BH to die for him....What prevent's that now?
Slysix wrote:
SomeUser wrote:
Well first, I dont agree with a negative reward system when it comes to BH. The nature of what we do has the odds against us. Second, even if the system that you described was put into place, what Jedi wouldnt prefer to pay a guild BH to die for him to prevent his exp loss?
Negative reward is already in place for Jedi so I do not think implementing such will not be a game breaker. The negative reward only comes into effect when the bounty hunter drops the mission after he's been locked in(ie: killed another bounty hunter for the mark)...this is to ensure that players to not overly"exploit" the bounty gurad scenario.
As for Jedi to pay a guild BH to die for him....What prevent's that now?
Ok, I went back over some of what was being said (do several things at once tonight ) The element of BH vs Jedi was put into SWG for a few reasons:
)
SomeUser wrote:
Ok, I went back over some of what was being said (do several things at once tonight
1. SOE decided that Jedi's main role was as a PvP class.
2. SOE decided that Jedi had to have a added element of "danger" to make up for the increase in power
3. SOE decided, due to 1 & 2, to combine the PvP element of Jedi with the method of control Jedi population and skill development.
Jedi skill loss isnt about griefing, it is about a game mechanic working as intended and designed. Jedi need to get use to that and stop trying to find methods in which to share their misery. If one doesnt like forced PvP dont play a Jedi. Trying to discourage BH from hunting Jedi via forced PvP on BH or credit loss does **not** provide any benefit to the balance of gameplay! In fact, it has the ability to do the exact opposite!
A BH losing money after seeing a mark is out of his league, is of the same faction, or hiding in a house/Kash/public structure is BS. The Jedi vs BH system was designed against the Jedi interests 100%. Reducing that % by any amount is nothing short then pandering to 15yrs powergamers who are pissed they cant /afk powergrind their way to a full template in 2 weeks.
If we are to penalize BH for dropping missions so should be penalize ALL professions who drops missions... So, just like the BH who loses 100k+ for dropping a mission where his marks hides in his house to grief a BH out of money, so should a combat toon lose 10k when he drops his mission when it doesnt spawn. I could go on and on all day why any possible negative reward system for BH is a bad idea.
Either Jedi needs to be a tough class to play or SOE needs to just take BH vs Jedi out, give everyone a Jedi when they create their character, and just make SWG KOTOR online. Jedi cant have it both ways! They cant have an easy profession, be unique, and have 1.5x the power of everyone else. Something has to be done to balance all this out... I hardly think Jedi have the short end of the stick ATM... Especially when they are about to get a boost to damage and a reduction in force power costs (sure Jedi will whine about their healing being nerfed, but that is just to balance 4-0-0-0 healers with UbEr healing abilities who invest a relatively small amount of skill points. Jedi can still use food and stims like everyone else and stilluse a decent hitting heal with 4-0-0-0.... Now it just wont be so insanely unbalanced
In no way did I state that Bounty Hunters should loose credits for dropping a mission excpet when he has killed another bounty hunter for a mark. This is to prevent the persons from exploiting the defend the jedi with a bounty hunter thingy. What I'm trying to advocate inincreased PvPCONTENT for Bounty Hunters.
The gist of of this thread is to give more PvP content for bounty hunters. Allowing bounty hunters to fight each other if they are hunting the same mark will do just that. This is not a thread about Jedi, this is about a thread about Bounty Hunters and increasing the fun factor in playing them.
Slysix wrote:
In no way did I state that Bounty Hunters should loose credits for dropping a mission excpet when he has killed another bounty hunter for a mark. This is to prevent the persons from exploiting the defend the jedi with a bounty hunter thingy. What I'm trying to advocate inincreased PvPCONTENT for Bounty Hunters.
The gist of of this thread is to give more PvP content for bounty hunters. Allowing bounty hunters to fight each other if they are hunting the same mark will do just that. This is not a thread about Jedi, this is about a thread about Bounty Hunters and increasing the fun factor in playing them.
Ok.... So why again cant a BH who desires more PvP just not go Special Forces?
Just not sure where the fun is in opening myself to being hunted after dropping a mission when that Jedi logged off or was hiding in his house... But hey, that is just my opinion
Yoshiyuki wrote:According to the BH creed no BH should interfere with another BH and his hunt for the mark.
Generally Speaking if I'm already fighting a Jedi the other BH should walk away. Or he can wait till the jedi kills me and then kill the jedi.
A BH should never wait for 1 BH to Incap the jedi and then move in for the DB. That is just wrong. IF they do this they should be tefed againts the other jedi.
I agree with the creed, and I agree with what you're saying. However, how about some sort of "I was here first"/"I got the incap" tag for the engaging/incapping BH instead of tef for jedi, so if another comes along and steals the win (but isn't grouped with you. Nothing says BH can't work together.) you can engage him just like we currently engage jedi; with a first strike. There could be a 10 minute or so timer for the TEF though so it wouldn't become a "let me go get doctor buffs in mos eisley where I get -10 fps and then kill you while you go LD" situation. Thats strictly for the jedi.
