Smuggler Archive
Thread: PvP Bounty System/Slicing content
Page 1 of 5
lurdanta
Wed Sep 29, 2004 1:04 pm
#1
Any player may access the Bounty Terminals to place a Bounty upon any other player?
Do you mean you think the game should include forced PvP? I like most of your suggestions, but this one is kind of harsh. Not only is this unfair to people who don't PvP, it would instantly be a tool for griefers. I can just see griefers spending all their time putting up bounties on artisans they don't like or just want to mess with.
I don't know, I just think being able to sic a BH on some one for no reason is wrong. And I don't think people should be forced to PvP.
I do like the smuggler slicing to remove missions a good one, especially generating their own bounty if they fail. In fact, why not add a small chance of being caught slicing any terminal or door which generates a BH mission. I think it is appropriate for a BH mission being generated for a character who has actually done something wrong. Allowing anyone to place anyone on the BH mission term is kind of harsh. On the other hand, it would be kind of cool to sic a BH on those pesky spammers that always crowd coronet. This would probably stop that real quick since most of them are afk and easy prey.
Do you mean you think the game should include forced PvP? I like most of your suggestions, but this one is kind of harsh. Not only is this unfair to people who don't PvP, it would instantly be a tool for griefers. I can just see griefers spending all their time putting up bounties on artisans they don't like or just want to mess with.
I don't know, I just think being able to sic a BH on some one for no reason is wrong. And I don't think people should be forced to PvP.
I do like the smuggler slicing to remove missions a good one, especially generating their own bounty if they fail. In fact, why not add a small chance of being caught slicing any terminal or door which generates a BH mission. I think it is appropriate for a BH mission being generated for a character who has actually done something wrong. Allowing anyone to place anyone on the BH mission term is kind of harsh. On the other hand, it would be kind of cool to sic a BH on those pesky spammers that always crowd coronet. This would probably stop that real quick since most of them are afk and easy prey.
Egowyn
Wed Sep 29, 2004 1:13 pm
#2
gota agree with lurdanta here some realy good ideas but player created bounties on other players will force PVP on those who don't wish to partake, as well as be abused for greifing.
Slarus
Wed Sep 29, 2004 3:23 pm
#3
Do you mean you think the game should include forced PvP? I like most of your suggestions, but this one is kind of harsh. Not only is this unfair to people who don't PvP, it would instantly be a tool for griefers. I can just see griefers spending all their time putting up bounties on artisans they don't like or just want to mess with.
We already have forced PvP, it's call the Jedi, but the 15 bucks they spend is not that same as everyone elses so theyc an be forced.
NO ONE should be forced into PvP, period. Not for the sake of some silly concept of timeline or revenge, that kind of PvP only brings out griefers and bullies nothing good EVERY comes of it and it hasnt here either, consent PvP allows folks to choose, after all we pay for this, why should we pay to get abused?
PhoenixOrion
Wed Sep 29, 2004 3:25 pm
#4
Don't much care for smugglers only being able to Slice the Terminals ONCE a day - unless people that take Bounty Missions can only take ONE a day. 
Retroalias
Wed Sep 29, 2004 3:54 pm
#5
PhoenixOrion wrote:Don't much care for smugglers only being able to Slice the Terminals ONCE a day - unless people that take Bounty Missions can only take ONE a day.
Agreed.
SpinningCloud
Wed Sep 29, 2004 4:08 pm
#6
Yes it DOES result in potential griefing. While it costs the person placing the bounty it FORCES PvP on another person without that persons consent...implied or explicit.
Explicet consent should be obvious.
What I mean by 'implied consent' is that taking up Jedi gives implied consent in that ANY player knows that a Jedi will end up on the terms.
Players that have been playing this game already KNOW they are NOT giving consent to PvP just by logging on.
This is what you are suggesting...implied consent by virtue of playing the game. Sorry, this just isn't going to happen, nor should it.
On the other hand, long before beta there was an idea of player created missions. If player A put up a mission and player B took the mission and either failed or took resources or components but didn't deliver final prodcut (as in a crafting mission) then player A could put a bounty on player B.
This idea does NOT force non-concencual PvP since Player B KNOWS that if he takes a mission and either fails or runs off with the goods he can have a bounty placed on him.
In other words, he can log in to the game in assurance that HE will have to take concious actions that can lead to PvP.
Message Edited by SpinningCloud on 09-29-2004 04:09 PM
Golrok
Wed Sep 29, 2004 4:13 pm
#7
omfg it willbe a dream come true if they do this. Even if there isgriefing from it I need some to break the mundane tasks of SWG. PLease devs save the game by going through with this.
I understand the argument now but something like this needs to be added, in w/e form. Yea I agree player B has to do something "illegal", and at that moment he makes the conciousdecisionto consentto possible PVP.
Message Edited by Golrok on 09-29-2004 04:16 PM
Duedroth
Wed Sep 29, 2004 4:15 pm
#8
Slarus wrote:Do you mean you think the game should include forced PvP? I like most of your suggestions, but this one is kind of harsh. Not only is this unfair to people who don't PvP, it would instantly be a tool for griefers. I can just see griefers spending all their time putting up bounties on artisans they don't like or just want to mess with.We already have forced PvP, it's call the Jedi, but the 15 bucks they spend is not that same as everyone elses so theyc an be forced.NO ONE should be forced into PvP, period. Not for the sake of some silly concept of timeline or revenge, that kind of PvP only brings out griefers and bullies nothing good EVERY comes of it and it hasnt here either, consent PvP allows folks to choose, after all we pay for this, why should we pay to get abused?
sorry bro but there is NO SUCH THING AS FORCED PVP in this game, Jedi system included. It was your decision to unlock your Jedi, which means that you knew you would be hunted (regardless of what system was in place, bounties on jedi has always either been implemented or said to be coming in the future). If you don't want to be forced into a PvP situation, simply play like everyone else and don't pick up Jedi.
I hate seeing all these Jedi whining abuot the "forced pvp" when it was their CHOICE to take Jedi. When you choose to take something, you are consciously taking the good WITH the bad.
Duedroth
Wed Sep 29, 2004 4:17 pm
#9
oh, and I should add ... your comment about the 15$
YOU FRIGGIN GET A 2ND FREE CHARACTER ... YOU'RE GETTING 30$ WORTH FOR 15$, W-T-F- ARE YOU COMPLAINING ABUOT!!!
sorry for caps, but geez the Jedi just don't stop with the insolent, immature, pointless arguments.
YOU FRIGGIN GET A 2ND FREE CHARACTER ... YOU'RE GETTING 30$ WORTH FOR 15$, W-T-F- ARE YOU COMPLAINING ABUOT!!!
sorry for caps, but geez the Jedi just don't stop with the insolent, immature, pointless arguments.
SpinningCloud
Wed Sep 29, 2004 4:19 pm
#10
Yeah, I agree...if you KNOW that taking a certain SPECIFIC action will lead to PvP then that is NOT "forced PvP".
Choosing tobecome a Jedi doesnot result in forced PvP any more than choosing to bean overt Rebel or Impresults inforced PvP...they are EXACTLY the same thing. For ALL practical purposes Jedi is a third overt faction...and ALL players know that when they become Jedi.
What was suggested in the original post IS forced PvP since merely logging in could result in PvP...and could result in PvP over and over again despite your desire to play with no PvP.
Message Edited by SpinningCloud on 09-29-2004 04:20 PM
Golrok
Wed Sep 29, 2004 4:20 pm
#11
I think certain classes should be excluded from it like the artisan but a smuggler shouldbe up inthe bounty system. I guess I cant argue that "you shouldnt have taken smuggler if you didnt want PVP" since its not been implemented yet, but come on, we're criminals, and should be treated as such occasionally.
SpinningCloud
Wed Sep 29, 2004 4:33 pm
#12
Golrok,
I agree that smugglers SHOULD be included in the bounty system in SOME way.
What I don't agree to is that smugglers should be on the terms in the same way Jedi are.
We should have smuggler missions that, at the highest end have the POTENTIAL to get us BH visibiility. But the reward for these should be particularly high and there should be a way of avoiding visibility by taking certain complicated detection avoidence steps...sort of like a mission within the mission.
You COULD even put in visibility increase for slicing and selling spices if, for example;
1. You used words slice or spice in vicinity and within the earshot of law enforcement NPC types.
2. Traded spices or sliced weapons or smugglers tools within a certain range of law enforcement NPC types.
3. Having a smuggler title displayed with in a certain range of law enforcement NPC types.
4. Where scanned and found with contraband.
These would force a smuggler 'underground' and stop the hawking of smuggler skills in populated areas. To go along with #3 there should be NPC 'informants' that can give players lists of smugglers and their skill levels so the smugglers can be 'searched' for without having to have their titles displayed.
Increasing visibility to BH terms through these lastfour methods AND through special high-end types of Smuggler mission failures should eventually, at some threshold, get you placed on the terms.
BUt then visibility reduction methods would also have to be in place so that you weren't just permanently on the terms the way Jedi seem to be.
Page 1 of 5