Smuggler Archive
Thread: Revamp Discussion: Contraband & Smuggling Missions
For all you latecomers. Here is a solution. Stop the arguing people. If this idea doesn't please everyone, please feel free to pick it apart.
I suggest you all drop your blasters and voice some support for it here! It respects all players playstyles, and furthermore ensures that those who mess with the law get what is coming to them! Hiyaahhh!!!
DRWolfe wrote:
'Sok Ternque. This discussions getting everyone a bit on edge, which is what I was hoping to ease up a bit. The focus needs to switch from the pros/cons of PvP and PvE and why one's better than the other and work on something both sides like. Along with that, I think we're close. Here's a summary:
The player has a switch set on his character, either in the launchpad settings or by some in-game means like Covert/Overt (probably better if someone wants PvE on one character and PvP on another) that will determine if a character is PvE or PvP for purposes of illegal activity visibility. Covert/Overt will continue to determine PvE or PvP for GCW.
Once a character's visibility has increased enough to get a Bounty, one of two things happens depending on this flag.
PvP Flag: Character is put on the Bounty Hunter terminals for PC BHs to hunt the character down. If the BH dies, another can try as usual.
PvE Flag: A random number is generated (say from 15-180) that indicates how long in actual online minutes before an NPC Bounty Hunter will track down the character. When this timer expires, a ship lands and the BH emerges to attack the character. If the character or the BH is not killed, a new random number is generated (this one from 120-240) and this is how long before another attempt is made. If the BH dies, the random number for the next attempt will be longer (say 180-300). These times can be adjusted for balancing risk vs. annoyance factor.
Either way, if the player is killed, the bounty is removed and visibility is reduced a great amount.
Sound good so far?
JTGAlpha wrote:
No, I don't enjoy PvP. I just plan on being a smooth enough smuggler to avoid it.
Well I wish you all the luck and hope you succeed, but that still does not address the fact a playstyle we do not wish to particpate in was proposed to take place.
Fortunately alot of players seem to also agree that all playstyles need to be respected and are now in discussion of how to impliment it 
RellikCro wrote:
I disagree with you on this. If you are put into a PvP situation without declaring a faction and going overt then to a large base of players (PvE'ers) that is forced unconsentual PvP.
No, forced means that you have no way to avoid it. The way this system is spelled out does allow you a way to avoid it, and therefore is not forced.
I fail to see how we can get our message across any clearer... we do not want PvP in anykind of form at all... ever... for any reason. And we make up the largest peice of the playerbase pie.
Your point? There is still a built in way to avoid it, without the added safeguards that I am a proponent of. This means that you would not be subject to PvP unless you chose to.
I like it Geevo. However, the rewards I think should be the same provided the NPCs are as tough as the PCs.
Geevo wrote:
How about an option during the first mission that you get an option to choose PvP or PvE.
The first mission says something like:
I see you are a new employee, as a courtesy I must warn you that failure will result in a bounty placed on your life. I will give you this option, do you want one of Jabba's (or whatever employer) personal Bounty Hunter to kill you? Or, would you prefer an open contract to all takers? (Still with the skill level qualifications built in).
If a player changes their mind, they must meet with Jabba the Hutt 'to plead forgiveness' ... and for a price, can change the option in the future.
The rewards for missions should reflect the risk ... PvP should pay more than PvE.
JTGAlpha wrote:
No, I don't enjoy PvP. I just plan on being a smooth enough smuggler to avoid it.
Then you would obviously set the flag to PvP and fight BHs if your unfortunate enough to become hunted...
Some people on the other hand would set it to PvE and get ganked by an NPC BH..
Both sides win here.. what is your argument?
Ryutek wrote:
I like it Geevo. However, the rewards I think should be the same provided the NPCs are as tough as the PCs.
Geevo wrote:
How about an option during the first mission that you get an option to choose PvP or PvE.
The first mission says something like:
I see you are a new employee, as a courtesy I must warn you that failure will result in a bounty placed on your life. I will give you this option, do you want one of Jabba's (or whatever employer) personal Bounty Hunter to kill you? Or, would you prefer an open contract to all takers? (Still with the skill level qualifications built in).
If a player changes their mind, they must meet with Jabba the Hutt 'to plead forgiveness' ... and for a price, can change the option in the future.
The rewards for missions should reflect the risk ... PvP should pay more than PvE.
Even if you have the same HAM & Weapon strength ... PvP is more difficult (in my opinion) ... NPCs don't 'think' ... they just go at it. Therefore, I would still say PvP should pay better because of the increased risk.
An example, I will walk up to nearly any PvE target and attack away (even multiple targets). There was one time we (a group of 4) were in the Krayt Graveyard with two Krayt Dragons (no I don't remember which type...but I think Canyon) ... I got one agro'd on me ... and then tried to get the 2nd Agro'd on me too with no concern on living. I was buffed, spiced, drunk, and full. We were able to use tactics that we knew PvE targets would just attack what they are agro on. You can't do that with PvP ... PvP can see what is (or is not) working and adjust.
Message Edited by Geevo on 06-17-2004 02:41 PM
Ternque01 wrote:
For all you latecomers. Here is a solution. Stop the arguing people. If this idea doesn't please everyone, please feel free to pick it apart.
I suggest you all drop your blasters and voice some support for it here! It respects all players playstyles, and furthermore ensures that those who mess with the law get what is coming to them! Hiyaahhh!!!
DRWolfe wrote:
'Sok Ternque. This discussions getting everyone a bit on edge, which is what I was hoping to ease up a bit. The focus needs to switch from the pros/cons of PvP and PvE and why one's better than the other and work on something both sides like. Along with that, I think we're close. Here's a summary:
The player has a switch set on his character, either in the launchpad settings or by some in-game means like Covert/Overt (probably better if someone wants PvE on one character and PvP on another) that will determine if a character is PvE or PvP for purposes of illegal activity visibility. Covert/Overt will continue to determine PvE or PvP for GCW.
Once a character's visibility has increased enough to get a Bounty, one of two things happens depending on this flag.
PvP Flag: Character is put on the Bounty Hunter terminals for PC BHs to hunt the character down. If the BH dies, another can try as usual.
PvE Flag: A random number is generated (say from 15-180) that indicates how long in actual online minutes before an NPC Bounty Hunter will track down the character. When this timer expires, a ship lands and the BH emerges to attack the character. If the character or the BH is not killed, a new random number is generated (this one from 120-240) and this is how long before another attempt is made. If the BH dies, the random number for the next attempt will be longer (say 180-300). These times can be adjusted for balancing risk vs. annoyance factor.
Either way, if the player is killed, the bounty is removed and visibility is reduced a great amount.
Sound good so far?
Ryutek wrote:
RellikCro wrote:
I disagree with you on this. If you are put into a PvP situation without declaring a faction and going overt then to a large base of players (PvE'ers) that is forced unconsentual PvP.
No, forced means that you have no way to avoid it. The way this system is spelled out does allow you a way to avoid it, and therefore is not forced.
I fail to see how we can get our message across any clearer... we do not want PvP in anykind of form at all... ever... for any reason. And we make up the largest peice of the playerbase pie.
Your point? There is still a built in way to avoid it, without the added safeguards that I am a proponent of. This means that you would not be subject to PvP unless you chose to.
Are you talking about the PvP/PvE flag of some sort? Than yes I agree with you that is a clear decisive consent switch that would allow those that want to play the game at it's fullest without being forced into PvP. Because if thru my course of play, playing at my playstyle, am forced to change my playstyle and coup with another then yes that is forced whether or not you like to think I chose that path by slicing a weapon or not. Slicing is part of my profession which I play with a certain playstyle as long as I can take the full benefit of my profession without changing my playstyle then I love the idea
Like I said I am all for consequences but they must be in the same playstyle that you are playing.
Geevo wrote:
Even if you have the same HAM & Weapon strength ... PvP is more difficult (in my opinion) ... NPCs don't 'think' ... they just go at it. Therefore, I would still say PvP should pay better because of the increased risk.
And honestly I agree. The idea was raised earlier though, and met with some resistance, so I'm just playing Devil's Advocate at the moment.
Personally, I wouldn't worry about the flag at all. If you use illegal goods you consent to the risk of PvP, plain and simple. I understand the other side of the argument though, and can see why some sort of choice would be a good way to ensure both playstyles are left intact.
Ternque01 wrote:
Guys guys guys!!! In this incredibly simple system you chose PvE or PvP. Both PC and NPC bounties continue on a player until they die. There is no less risk involved for someone who choses the PvE route as they will be harrassed until their deaths. The proposal includes NPC bounty hunters that are on par difficulty to PC BH's.
Both option are essentially the same!!! Same risk! Same reward! Stop the fighting and start supporting your favorite solution to the problem!!!
RellikCro wrote:
Are you talking about the PvP/PvE flag of some sort? Than yes I agree with you that is a clear decisive consent switch that would allow those that want to play the game at it's fullest without being forced into PvP. Because if thru my course of play, playing at my playstyle, am forced to change my playstyle and coup with another then yes that is forced whether or not you like to think I chose that path by slicing a weapon or not. Slicing is part of my profession which I play with a certain playstyle as long as I can take the full benefit of my profession without changing my playstyle then I love the idea
Like I said I am all for consequences but they must be in the same playstyle that you are playing.
No. Look back at GM's post. It states that the ways to increase visibility are x, y, z. You can still enjoy the game without doing x, y, z, and you can also gain progression in the skill trees without doing x, y, z. That is a safeguard that allows you to not be forced into PvP.
I am in favor of some sort of flag, just to clear up confusion among the playerbase. My personal opinion, however, is that if you make the choice to use illegal items you consent to the risk of PvP.
Ryutek wrote:
Geevo wrote:
Even if you have the same HAM & Weapon strength ... PvP is more difficult (in my opinion) ... NPCs don't 'think' ... they just go at it. Therefore, I would still say PvP should pay better because of the increased risk.
And honestly I agree. The idea was raised earlier though, and met with some resistance, so I'm just playing Devil's Advocate at the moment.
Personally, I wouldn't worry about the flag at all. If you use illegal goods you consent to the risk of PvP, plain and simple. I understand the other side of the argument though, and can see why some sort of choice would be a good way to ensure both playstyles are left intact.
Also, purchasing the game ... you agreed to 'live in the star wars universe' ... The emperor used BHs ... people should 'suck it up and move on...'
Just a matter of PvP vs PvE ... and there needs to be a system to balance the choices vs risk. For the playerbase, I would say the choice of PvP vs PvE could be as simple as 'when was the last time they killed another player ... recent = PvP bounty, not recent = PvE bounty.