Bounty Hunter Archive
Thread: Bounty Hunter Wars Vision of an improved Player Bounty System (updated 06/09/2005)
KetsuekiRyu
Tue Nov 16, 2004 9:36 am
#79
Great ideas, but I think that in the case of Jedis, Master BH should be able to attack any jedi that "reveals" themselves by using the lightsabre or force powers within a certain distance from the BH, (like 20m, meaning close not 300m away). This would make the Jedi more fearful in using the lightsabre and their force powers. Now don't get me wrong, I am not a Jedi hater, I just believe that hunting them is part of the whole Jedi and BH experience. This would allow the master BH him/herself to decide if they wanted to attack the jedi or not.
I know this sounds harsh, but in reality, if a jedi was using his lightsabre or force powers in public, BH would come out of the wood work to kill them, being as there is a bounty on ALL jedi, not just a few. Also, make it so only Master BH can hunt jedi. It used to mean something when you became a master BH, you were one of the elite to be dedicated to becomeing one. Now since we don't have to master scout anymore (which is good) everyone and their mothers are getting the Eyeshot and invest to 3 so they can kill jedis. Kind of makes the profession useless that way.
Glzmo
Tue Nov 16, 2004 9:55 am
#80
BenkeiHami wrote:
Capt wrote:
BarneyIX wrote:
2. He wants to instituted a Visibility system for Bounty Hunters. -> Effect-> BH now have to worry about being hunted themselevs and remove focus from hunting other Jedi.
We have nothing to really lose by hunting.
We only gain the chance of being hunted while we have chosen to take part in PvP - by taking a mission. Our role isn't to hunt Jedi, it's to hunt bounty and to get paid. If someone has that bounty, and hasn't been paid yet - let's try and take it from them.
It's a concept. It's possibly interesting. It probably won't get implemented, but let's have fun and flesh it out.
It occurs to me that we are so used to think of PC marks as jedi only, if smugglers were put in the mix they would have nothing to lose by dieing same as us. The incentive to survive wouldn't be there, assuming missions are created by them failing these high level missions, with the only punisment being dieing why would they try anything else.
Thatsmostly outside the scope of this thread but the point is when we start adding other players to this system they won't have the same incentive to survive as jedi.
Indeed. But why not allow smugglers to be hunted like it is in Star Wars? The problem is, that many Bounty Hunters do not hunt because they want to collect bounties and because it is their job, but they hunt solely to kill Jedi, which shouldn't be the reason to become a bounty hunter in a roleplaying game. If they change the profession name to 'Jedi Hunter' that would be fine, but if they don't, I don't see a reason why smugglers shouldn't get the immersion they have deserved for such a long time.
It would be just as annoying to be killed by a Bounty Hunter, even when there was no XP loss in case of the smuggler and the bounty hunter when they have bounties on their head, perhaps even in the middle ofa smuggler/bounty huntermission which would be caused to fail by getting killed, perhaps. What does a Bounty Hunter player care about if another player looses experience or something else?
Solutions for this would include to either take away the penalty for Jedi as well, which wouldn't be right, or have smugglers and bounty hunters that are killed when they are marks to loose something as well.
Perhaps this could be XP or even skills, altough I think it would be better if it was the inability to take higher level smuggler/bounty hunter missions for a certain time (a day or two?), asthe failed smuggler's or bounty hunter'semployers would have 'lost trust' inhimand hewould have to regain it again.
BenkeiHami
Tue Nov 16, 2004 10:05 am
#81
That would be enough for me, I don't neccesarily want people to be losing XP because of me but I'd be bored pretty quick if every mark I came to said "Just make it quick". I'd be fine if BHs lost something for failing a mission, not just cancelling or someone else finishing before you though.
Glzmo wrote:
Indeed. But why not allow smugglers to be hunted like it is in Star Wars? The problem is, that many Bounty Hunters do not hunt because they want to collect bounties and because it is their job, but they hunt solely to kill Jedi, which shouldn't be the reason to become a bounty hunter in a roleplaying game. If they change the profession name to 'Jedi Hunter' that would be fine, but if they don't, I don't see a reason why smugglers shouldn't get the immersion they have deserved for such a long time.
It would be just as annoying to be killed by a Bounty Hunter, even when there was no XP loss in case of the smuggler and the bounty hunter when they have bounties on their head, perhaps even in the middle ofa smuggler/bounty huntermission which would be caused to fail by getting killed, perhaps. What does a Bounty Hunter player care about if another player looses experience or something else?
Solutions for this would include to either take away the penalty for Jedi as well, which wouldn't be right, or have smugglers and bounty hunters that are killed when they are marks to loose something as well.
Perhaps this could be XP or even skills, altough I think it would be better if it was the inability to take higher level smuggler/bounty hunter missions for a certain time (a day or two?), asthe failed smuggler's or bounty hunter'semployers would have 'lost trust' inhimand hewould have to regain it again.
CaixCatab
Tue Nov 16, 2004 10:57 am
#82
Replying twice, just because I have them all jumbled in the order they were posted, not who posted it:
Revisiting the updated version...
1. I still think that's a bad idea and serves only to elimate diversity amoung the BH templates. If I'm going to be using a pistol to kill my mark, I should have enough skill points to excel in pistols, not getting carbineer skills.
3. As I said earlier, as long as visibility resets to 0 on death, having only mission for each type means once you have a BH mission for you, you can ignore your visibility altogheter. This doesn't reward people who continue to try and stay hidden properly while at the same time it doesn't penalize those who choose to ignore visibility completely. Well, taking gradual visibility decay into account, people who continue to stay hidden gets a slight advantage, we're still not penalizing people who ignore it.
I want them penalized =P
4. Nice change. Not as much because it reduces terminal camping (there's a crapload of them out there after all) but because it means you can't end up in a fight two planets away from your mark.
5. I still think they should be allowed to group for the aforementioned reasons. What purpose does preventing them from grouping really serve?
6., 7. and9. all makes sense, as do 10., 11.,and12.
8. could be exploited, but it'd be a pain the rear to do. Perhaps introduce a timer before that condition goes active? An hour after you go terminal with your visibility should be enough to ensure someone besides your alt or mate gets the mission.
... moving on...
You don't really know who is hunting your mark anyway. The only way to know before the mark is killed is when you see it being attacked, and even then, it is uncertain.
Once it is killed, though, and the race for the monetary reward begins, you will be able to track the holder of the proof, in which case you will only know who he is when you already have him in sight. Be aware, though, you won't have the exclusive right to the first strike like on a mark and your Bounty Hunter visibility may rise because of breaking the Bounty Hunter's Creed.
Personally, I think all bounty-hunters with the active mission should be informed when the mission stops tracking the jedi and starts tracking another bounty-hunter. This would mostly be to allow bounty-hunter who do not wish to engage other bounty-hunters a chance to withdraw that doesn't mean they have to travel any longer. Preferably, it includes the name of the hunter (Can't speak for anyone else, but step one after accepting a mission for me is to change the name in my /target macro. I just press 'F' for find on my keyboard and it scans the immediate surronding for him) to give us more of an option to pull out early. Is that someone I like? Someone I will kill? Does his faction alignment give me second thoughts about killing him? Does he own an uber mindfire T-21 so trying to kill him would be suicide etc.
I don't know...after the economy slumps because of the mission payout changes, this would be much more money than it is right now. Also, the rewards shouldn't be too high compared to the new mission payout levels (not talking about bounty hunter mission payouts here, as I expect them to be the highest in the game, together with smuggler mission payouts, as they both are risky, tough and borderline illegal activities).
Before they nerf buffs so we actually have to group to kill the lair (not just to get the full reward), mission payments are down by around a third (comparing 30K Janta's to 12K missions you can solo pull on Endor/Yavin).
CaixCatab
Tue Nov 16, 2004 11:01 am
#83
This system promotes animosity between bounty Hutners by promoting kill stealing AND/OR killing a weakened bounty hunter WHILE one the mark. Am I the ONLY one who can see this? There would be 2 ways to break this either are not good and BOTH would make the victimized BH who was attempting to complete his mission very very angry. This is known as animosity.
Kinda like a jedi trying to grind through padawan. He has a mission, and killing him will halt his progress. I'm not entirely sure how long 300K's worth of jedi exp takes to grind, but I figure it's quite some time (Now that there's no geo labs to go to).
So what if it thicks him off to be outsmarted, outwitted and outgunned (and subsequently killed)? If they can't handle dying, they can go play an architect. Our profession is geared for PvP.
And "victimized" because he gets killed? Do tell, if a Padawan gets killed his he "vicitimized" if he has to clone? 'course not. He chose to get into the jedi system, he pays the consequenses. We go after a mark, we pay the consequenses.
Where did I meintion solely hunting Jedi?
You said that our focus was killing jedi.
And if the Bounty was a Jedi then what would I be?
A bounty-hunter. Was Fett suddenly transformed into a Smuggler Hunter when he went after Solo? Or Bossk/Zuckuss/4-LOM when they went after Fett to get Solo (Bounty-Hunter-Hunters)? As for my position, it's simple: We kill people for money. Whether they're jedi or not is irrelevant. I just don't see jedi killing as the sole purpose of our profession,I see it as completing a bounty no matter who it's on. Glowstick or no glowstick, as someone said, it's PvP that doesn't involve lag or dueling. That, and I like the predatorial stalking.
We find people and do things to them for money.
The point is that it adds to your down time. It increases the time that you are spending on this mission and therefore are unable to accept a new mission and begin anew. This means a NET loss in Mark production. This transaltes into less credits and less fun. Busy work is busy work no matter how you dress it up.
If you want to dispute my math or point out why it's illogical, please do so. But in the above example you lost a whopping 7 minutes. Which means your losing less time than when the shuttles were at 10 minutes instead of five (And throughout that example, I took no regards to being able to fly using JTL).
7 minutes of added "downtime" (I'd never refer to traveling through cities while overt as downtime, and seeing as your trackable and attackable I have trouble doing it here aswell) per mission.
Sure doesn't seem like it.
Why doesn't it seem that way?
If my mission times go from 1/2 to an hour then I can only take 1/2 the missions that I normally could during my play time.
EXPLAIN to me how this is NOT the case? Or did you somehow miss my point EACH time I made it?
How'd you end up loosing half an hour? I ended up with around 7 minutes with my math, so where's yours were you lost 30?
You make visibilty harder, less Jedi on terminals, you make missions more complicated and involved with giving NOTHING to bh (why would a BH want this?) you have tried to get BH to combat each other.
1) Because it adds to the thrill of the hunt.
2) It's PvP. Let's face it, the GCW sucks. Last time I tried to get involved large scale, the server crashed. It was Lok. Not Dantooine, not Coronet, but Lok. But this... There's a goal, a purpose, and it's PvP. That, and some predatorial stalking 
Bounty Hunters fighting Bounty Hunters will only serve to weaken us. United we stand divided we fall kinda idea but not really. Once squables begin between fellow bounty hunters they are hard to drop causeing our focus to fall from jedi or marks to Bounty hunters.
Theoretically, seeing as we'd get just as much money for the bounty-hunter, they turn into our marks. And so what if we compete with eachother? Armoursmiths do it all the time, and they don't exactly seem to be known for the most flaming forum here.
1. He wants to make it more difficult for Jedi to gain visibilty.-> Effect -> Less Jedi on Terminals
Because it takes a conscious effort by players to report someone for the terminals? Couldn't that be countered by increaseing the amount of visibility a PC gives contra an NPC (though it's hard to decided how much without getting some hard data on how likely players are to report others. I'd be reporting everyone. Heck, some jedi I decide not to kill because I respect the guild but the jedi aren't hiding I've moved closer just to give them more visibility)
2. He wants to instituted a Visibility system for Bounty Hunters. -> Effect-> BH now have to worry about being hunted themselevs and remove focus from hunting other Jedi.
Not if you don't steal the proof of another player. Which means BH visibility actually penalizes people who fights other BH's. I think it's a clever way to make bounty-hunter think twice about killing other bounty-hunters. And seeing as you seem to think that idea is bad altogheter, I don't seewhyyou dislike this one as it actually penalizes bounty-hunters who choose to kill other hunters.
And what's with the jedi focus? A mark is a mark. You get paid, you've hunted your bounty.
3., he addressed.
4. He wants Bounty Hunters to hunt each other. -> Effect-> this will every bounty hunter at some point to have a mission fail EVEN though they successfully killed the Jedi. How happy are you going to be when you are killed after successfully killing a very very difficult Jedi? Furthermore the BH that attacks you could have simply camped the area and one shot you for the DB.. and yet people as how this will cause anonomisity?
I'd like to point out that you can kill him before you go the for the mark, and the mark will unable to interfere. You have first strike on him, and he has on you. He comes in and kills you when your on a low point in HAM? Tough luck. That's what we bounty-hunters do. Strike at the opportune moment. You'd do it at a jedi mark without doubting, but with bounty-hunters it's suddenly bad?
5. He wants to increas mission length. -> Effect -> This means you will not be able to take as many missions as you would ultimately like.
Quality over quantity. I'd take one fun mission over three dull and repetitive any day.
6. If a Jedi kills all bounty hunters he loses visibility -> Effect -> Despite the killing of several Bounty Hunter somehow in anti world he is rewarded by losing visibility? This makes the least sense of his ideas. A jedi that slays 5 or 10 BH should increase in visibility.
The purpose of that is to reward the jedi for standing his grounds. Personally, I think it's doubtful whether the people who picked up feign death would drop it because they suddenly have a "chance", but it should at least make some jedi at least considering being still and fighting it out. Which is PvP. Which, IMHO, is good.
7. Bounty Hunters cannot group. -> Effect -> He does not want to foster a coopertive environment for BH. He wants to play one off of the other. Also there is no mention of Jedi not group defending.
I agree with you. There are examples of bounty-hunter grouping to split the reward, aswell as people who worked togheter constantly splitting the reward. Bounty-hunters should have the option (both) to join forces (and to fight eachother) for the money.
8. He wants to limit the number of Bounty Hunters per mission. -> Effect -> Now Guilds can protect thier Jedi for uninterrupted xping.
Current hardcap is 5. He suggesting tripling the current onefor high paying marks, and the effect of that would be guilds gaining an increased ability to protect their jedi?
How'd you figure that?
9. He wants to increase mission payouts to offset extra time sink. -> Effect -> We now earn 250k instead of 225k for a mark? Come on that is weak.
So how much extra money would you suggest and why?
10. He wants to have MBH be the only BH to be able to hunt jedi -> Effect -> 3/0/0/0 Dabblers are now prohibited from teh fun of the hunt. The real issue is not that he is concrened about making MBH better its that he KNOWS the BIGGEST weakness that Jedi have atm is from Meleer's because their melee defense PALES in comparssion to Saber Block.
Yes, I'm opposed to that too. Dabbling is half the fun this game has to offer. I *like* juggling my skill points and moving missions to master would just turn us into clones of eachother. Master bounty-hunter needs other enhancements, both to combat ability and to improved tracking ability, but there should still be a choice.
(adding a skill mod that reduces weaponswitch delays would go a long way to do that...)
Furthermore I find it dispicable that you would want to foster hostility within a proffesssion. Hostility is the ONLY thing that will arise when you are capped after successfully killing your mark. No one wants to go through the rigours of hunting, tracking, and then killing a Jedi only to be cheap shotted incaped, DB'd,and then fail the mission.
You can't handle the heat known as PvP, get out of the furnace. You think the jedi wants to die? I bet he doesn't. You think I care when I kill him? No. What makes a bounty-hunter different? Your throwing around the exact same arguments used by people who wants to either see jedi missions removed completely or nerfed into a system where the jedi gets to "choose" between none PvP and PvP mode. Just replace "failing the mission" with "losing exp".
Right, think I said what I wanted to say....
(oh nos, I used another word for crap in my post! ... stupid filter -_-)
Capt
Tue Nov 16, 2004 11:11 am
#84
number 3 I think he covered, by saying you could have a single mission for each type possible for you.
And on DB, it only clears the visibility for the mission type you had selected.
What could be interesting, is if you could somehow pick up each of the missions on that person... after all, Boba Fett did it with Solo (he was the first person supposedly to collect 2 bounties on the same person at the same time)
5. in an ideal world, only one would need to pick up the mission. But, this is SWG, and it's not an ideal world.
I do think that allowing them to group could add another dimension - if the 'package' still has to be delivered. While grouped, there is no TEF but at any point, you could be betrayed (either party). The group could be dropped and the TEF would kick in.
(then, is it safer to just incap them, or to actually kill them? )
8. Instead of clearing off a percentage - why not allow it to increase the decay rate?
Good point about the switch of target. For this, an email should be an OK option, and from then on system messages.
The email tells you it's moved on to a BH, it's up to you whether you're going to carry out that mission from then on.
And on DB, it only clears the visibility for the mission type you had selected.
What could be interesting, is if you could somehow pick up each of the missions on that person... after all, Boba Fett did it with Solo (he was the first person supposedly to collect 2 bounties on the same person at the same time)
5. in an ideal world, only one would need to pick up the mission. But, this is SWG, and it's not an ideal world.
I do think that allowing them to group could add another dimension - if the 'package' still has to be delivered. While grouped, there is no TEF but at any point, you could be betrayed (either party). The group could be dropped and the TEF would kick in.
(then, is it safer to just incap them, or to actually kill them? )
8. Instead of clearing off a percentage - why not allow it to increase the decay rate?
Good point about the switch of target. For this, an email should be an OK option, and from then on system messages.
The email tells you it's moved on to a BH, it's up to you whether you're going to carry out that mission from then on.
Glzmo
Thu Nov 18, 2004 3:06 am
#85
Capt wrote:
number 3 I think he covered, by saying you could have a single mission for each type possible for you.
And on DB, it only clears the visibility for the mission type you had selected.
Exactly.
What could be interesting, is if you could somehow pick up each of the missions on that person... after all, Boba Fett did it with Solo (he was the first person supposedly to collect 2 bounties on the same person at the same time)
This is an interesting suggestion. It is, however, limited by the current 1 bounty mission at once limit. Perhaps it could work, that you could only take two to three missions for the same mark at once, but not missions for different marks.
5. in an ideal world, only one would need to pick up the mission. But, this is SWG, and it's not an ideal world.
I do think that allowing them to group could add another dimension - if the 'package' still has to be delivered. While grouped, there is no TEF but at any point, you could be betrayed (either party). The group could be dropped and the TEF would kick in.
I was thinking about this. It would have to be done that only the person that delivers the proof gets the reward as well, no matter if grouped or not. If they had a pact, they could still split the credits manually, but the one hunter could choose to just take everything and run.
(then, is it safer to just incap them, or to actually kill them? )
Depends if you want to risk it that your rival stays alive, I guess.
8. Instead of clearing off a percentage - why not allow it to increase the decay rate?
Interesting. How exactly did you think that should work?
Good point about the switch of target. For this, an email should be an OK option, and from then on system messages.
The email tells you it's moved on to a BH, it's up to you whether you're going to carry out that mission from then on.
I updated it another way, no e-mails and no automatic system messages, as I don't believe it would be logical. I think it's okay if the tracking droid tells you that the target has changed.
HighT3chR3dn3ck
Thu Nov 18, 2004 3:23 am
#86
1) The only instance that BHs are aloud to kill other BHs is when a BH goes rogue. So BH bounties is a pretty stupid idea.
2) The idea that BHs can't group with each other is another outstandingly stupid idea. If two BHs wish to group so that they can more easily kill their target, then who's stopping them?
3) Also that a jedi/smuggler doesn't lose jedi XP when killed for a smuggler mission is really rather stupid. Anytime a jedi dies they should lose xp. PERIOD. Jedi have it easy enough as it is for as leet as their proffession is.
4) A noise that lets a person know if they've been reported or not? Come on, are you serious? Please tell me you are kidding. No one, anywhere should know if they have a bounty on their own head.
5) BH on BH TEF? ROFLMAO. Get real cheese brain.
6) The proof of a succeful mission? The idea sounds interesting enough, but really way, way to much unneccassary work which I'm sure will also provide the BH proffession with a list of even more bugs. NO!Furthermore, tradable? Are you kidding me? NO! NO! NO! is all i have to say to this idea.
7) I do like the reporting idea. Definetly, players should have to report a jedi to someone of the imperial faciton OR a BH terminal. The idea of a reward is also a good idea. Furthermore, certain NPCs should be turned off as to the whole visibility thing. I mean really? Is a Nightsister or a Tusken going to report an jedi?
8) It's also time the devs. stop listening to whiners and do what is right for the game. (Not directed at you Glzmo. Although, it could be, but you know what I mean. Just everyone in general.)
Capt
Thu Nov 18, 2004 3:55 am
#87
Glzmo wrote:
(then, is it safer to just incap them, or to actually kill them? )Depends if you want to risk it that your rival stays alive, I guess.
How I mean is - you incap them, then they're stuck on the ground for a set time, unless they're TK, there's a doc nearby, or some other factor
You kill them, they may have a ring, there may be a doc to res, or they have to clone...
8. Instead of clearing off a percentage - why not allow it to increase the decay rate?Interesting. How exactly did you think that should work?
Not sure - but a reasonable percentage, but not so much it can be easily exploited.
yarble
Thu Nov 18, 2004 4:20 am
#88
im not sure if this was mentioned casue this thread is way ot long to read each post, but why not have player bounties at inves 3 and move jedi bounties to inves 4 or even master or each just say fu** it and have them both at inves 3.and while the devs are at it, make inves 1 cap at about 1500 bh xp. make dabbling a little harder( haha this coming from a dabbler).
Capt
Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:32 am
#89
HighT3chR3dn3ck wrote:1) The only instance that BHs are aloud to kill other BHs is when a BH goes rogue. So BH bounties is a pretty stupid idea.
And why wouldn't a BH possibly have a bounty on his head? If he becomes good enough, some people may begin to get scared and requests to have someone to kill him3) Also that a jedi/smuggler doesn't lose jedi XP when killed for a smuggler mission is really rather stupid. Anytime a jedi dies they should lose xp. PERIOD. Jedi have it easy enough as it is for as leet as their proffession is.
Why should we really care what a Jedi does or doesn't lose when they die? We're Bounty Hunters, not Jedi XP Killers. The fact we only hunt Jedi Players is because there is no other player bounty system at present.
As long as we get the kill, that's all that should matter4) A noise that lets a person know if they've been reported or not? Come on, are you serious? Please tell me you are kidding. No one, anywhere should know if they have a bounty on their own head.
As a thought, it's a valid point. The first hint that you have a bounty against you should be either from meeting a BH trying to kill you, or from overhearing someone talk about it.
Someone mentioned that perhaps NPCs could start discussing things like this - I think ity could be interesting if they do this for NPCs in Cantinas - give another reason for people to go in there, along with reasons for entertainers to be ATK so they can perhaps offer information to the people in question for a fee, that sort of thing.5) BH on BH TEF? ROFLMAO. Get real cheese brain.
If you disagree with something, say why, don't just spout insults. It lowers your standing.6) The proof of a succeful mission? The idea sounds interesting enough, but really way, way to much unneccassary work which I'm sure will also provide the BH proffession with a list of even more bugs. NO! Furthermore, tradable? Are you kidding me? NO! NO! NO! is all i have to say to this idea.
And if there were no bugs, would it bother you? I think that handing it to a master level spynet would be enough.
And why not tradeable?
CaixCatab
Thu Nov 18, 2004 6:42 am
#90
1) The only instance that BHs are aloud to kill other BHs is when a BH goes rogue. So BH bounties is a pretty stupid idea.
Uh... Let's go over that again.
If I, as a bounty-hunter, interfere in another bounty-hunters hunt by killing him, I gain bounty-hunter visibility. I am technically not allowed to kill him according to most guild rules (though judging by some of the things BH's as done to eachother, I'd say they're more like guidelines). So, in killing him, I would be designated as a rogue bounty-hunter. Right? I bent the creed and all that. If the only way to get a BH bounty on my head would be to go rogue, and as you say the only time a bounty-hunter is allowed to kill another bounty-hunter is when he is rogue...
This system gives me the option to, should I so desire, go rogue. But if I do, I will get a bounty on my head. So why's the idea stupid?
2) The idea that BHs can't group with each other is another outstandingly stupid idea. If two BHs wish to group so that they can more easily kill their target, then who's stopping them?
I agree. The suggestion as is allows the jedi to, with some pains, set togheter a defensive gank squad. Meanwhile, itdisallows bounty-hunters to cooperate.
3) Also that a jedi/smuggler doesn't lose jedi XP when killed for a smuggler mission is really rather stupid. Anytime a jedi dies they should lose xp. PERIOD. Jedi have it easy enough as it is for as leet as their proffession is.
So on the same note, what about space?
4) A noise that lets a person know if they've been reported or not? Come on, are you serious? Please tell me you are kidding. No one, anywhere should know if they have a bounty on their own head.
They wouldn't. They'd just know their visibility increased. Since they know how visibility is increased anyhow, we're already seeing people blatantly using this to circumvene the visibility mechanism (A guy with jedi robes, jedi title and a spraystick is just as immersion breaking as one with a turned of lightsaber. He just doesn't get any visibility).
5) BH on BH TEF? ROFLMAO. Get real cheese brain.
I agree with Capt. Motivate your opinions.
6) The proof of a succeful mission? The idea sounds interesting enough, but really way, way to much unneccassary work which I'm sure will also provide the BH proffession with a list of even more bugs. NO!Furthermore, tradable? Are you kidding me? NO! NO! NO! is all i have to say to this idea.
Bugs? So? I'm a pistoleer and considering the amount of working specials the pistoleer profession has, if bugs was deciding factor in it's existance it would've been removed. And tradeable adds another twist, since it would allow you to sell the proof to someone else. He could then go cash in on it. It would be less risk for you, but probably less money aswell.
Oh look, someone 1-stared Capt without replying. *mutters something about incessant stupidty and cowardness*
Capt
Thu Nov 18, 2004 6:57 am
#91
CaixCatab wrote:
Oh look, someone 1-stared Capt without replying. *mutters something about incessant stupidty and cowardness*
I'm getting used to it.
I know I'm opinionated - I just prefer to give my opinions that do the weak thing of 1-starring and staying quiet. (if I *really* disagree, I'll 1-star too...)