Smuggler Archive
Thread: Revamp Discussion: Contraband & Smuggling Missions
That would be so cool. It would add an additional level of risk. And...bottom line...no game is really fun if there isn't a risk of a serious negative consequence. Nor does activity have the flavor of "crime."
Geevo wrote:
There is a difference in risk, you have a more difficult time surviving the PvP bounties ... and there are ways to get off of the terminals (time, slicing, or possibly killing the BH).
True the NPC BHs would be... stupid as compared to a thinking Player; however the bounty would not go away if you simply escaped, the encounter would re-occur until the player dies or the BH dies, or the debt is paid, or the mission sliced.
At the same time one could argue that PvP bountys offer less risk because of the bugged nature of PvP BH missions.
Ternque01 wrote:
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?
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!!!
I agree and love this idea. This is a very good concept.
Jhovial wrote:
Trenque, in theory your idea is good, but in practical applications it is not. A same resist, HAM, skilled, BH NPC does not equal a PC one. If I was to get a mark from anything less then instant death in the PvE alternative, the risk would be substatially less. PvP is hugely more difficult because of the intelligence factor. Sending an NPC after me every so often is not the same as sending a player after me every so often. With your proposed system the only time I would likely die is after quite a few months the bounty hunter spawns while Im in the vette or something similar.
Your idea is not my favorite idea because it lacks an adequate solution to balancing PvP vs. PvE. I wish I could counter and propose an idea that work, but I havent been able to think of one personally that would be even remotely fun.
Only other solution you may accept I can think of is to make players "Take what they dish out" and set the flag PvE/PvP flag automatically based on whether they have killed any PCs recently. Anyone dead set against PvP would obviously never have to fear a PvP encounter, cause they would never kill anyone in PvP.
SBRD0C wrote:
Geevo wrote:
There is a difference in risk, you have a more difficult time surviving the PvP bounties ... and there are ways to get off of the terminals (time, slicing, or possibly killing the BH).
True the NPC BHs would be... stupid as compared to a thinking Player; however the bounty would not go away if you simply escaped, the encounter would re-occur until the player dies or the BH dies, or the debt is paid, or the mission sliced.
At the same time one could argue that PvP bountys offer less risk because of the bugged nature of PvP BH missions.
Valid arguement ... but lets hope in the revamp ... they do it right ... (they are the professionals).
I will always assume they will do it right ... until they don't (then I expect them to fix it). PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE...nobody say 'look at the history' ... I am well aware of it as the rest of you.
SBRD0C wrote:
Jhovial wrote:
Trenque, in theory your idea is good, but in practical applications it is not. A same resist, HAM, skilled, BH NPC does not equal a PC one. If I was to get a mark from anything less then instant death in the PvE alternative, the risk would be substatially less. PvP is hugely more difficult because of the intelligence factor. Sending an NPC after me every so often is not the same as sending a player after me every so often. With your proposed system the only time I would likely die is after quite a few months the bounty hunter spawns while Im in the vette or something similar.
Your idea is not my favorite idea because it lacks an adequate solution to balancing PvP vs. PvE. I wish I could counter and propose an idea that work, but I havent been able to think of one personally that would be even remotely fun.
Only other solution you may accept I can think of is to make players "Take what they dish out" and set the flag PvE/PvP flag automatically based on whether they have killed any PCs recently. Anyone dead set against PvP would obviously never have to fear a PvP encounter, cause they would never kill anyone in PvP.
That is acceptable also... you could also make it auto select PvP if the smuggler is Overt during this time also as Overt is a PvP flag to begin with.
Geevo wrote:
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!!!
There is a difference in risk, you have a more difficult time surviving the PvP bounties ... and there are ways to get off of the terminals (time, slicing, or possibly killing the BH).
I'm sure that you have heard of a NOVA trooper. The simple fact is that NPC's can be made as tough as PC's. I don't think your argument really holds here. NPC's now have the ability to "unstick" themselves if a player tries to get a wall to stop them from coming. An NPC assigned to kill one person, and has effectively the save survival rating as a PC bounty hunter (which can be done easily btw) is a perfect substitute. "Dune Kimogilia" arguments don't hold. If a person can solo a dune kimogilla and still live, they should have an equal chance of blowing a PC BH out of the water...
Answer is VERY clear. Make a NPC that is approximately equal in survivability to a PC BH. End of story, Problem solved. Move the hell on.
Ryutek wrote:
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.
X, Y and Z though are what it takes to actually smuggle in this game.
With the inclusion of missions that are most likely going to be generating a new form of XP for the smuggler to use to progress in, the smuggler has to smuggle and carry contraband items. These items will likely have those various contraband flags attached to them.
So if they are caught, detected or otherwise fail the mission, a smuggler who has NO interest in PVE is therefore eventually forced into a PVP situation whether they want to or not as exp progression in the tree using mission XP.
There is no way to say this is consensual at this point. It is forced PVP without a doubt.
Faction affiliation should not be required to smuggle, nor should pvp be the consequence of smuggling in missions that are required to progress in the skill tree.
I've worked on this long ago and the easiest way I saw was to not have some box telling us we were being hunted and whether or not we wanted a PVP or a PVE encounter, but to simply divide the missions up according to faction.
Imperial smugglers who want to be hunted down in a PVP method, take faction oriented smuggling missions. The same for any rebel player. Require allegiance to the faction in order to gain access to the missions. This means all PVP is consensual. Why? Because the player joined a GCW faction. As previously mentioned its the act of joining a faction that says to the game you have consented to PVP combat, not the act of going Overt. Any faction aligned smuggle mission could have a PVP, bounty hunter intensive, consequence.
Neutral missions should not. They can have immediate consequences for failure maybe, or thelower the faction the player has (Example: -5000 jabba) gives the chance of an NPC bounty hunter hunting you down if you fail a mission for him.
The act of possessing illegal material resulting in PVPis easily justified. It is a purely optional service that can have a pvp consequence. It is a great incentive to participate in PVP if you wish to be more efficient in your ability to kill or survive an encounter. It is not required in the least.
The addition of the Hutt faction though honestly has me worried about what it will do for those smugglers who actually do things for the 'cause' and I don't want to see those players left out of criminal activities because they don't directly work for the hutts.
This was the key thing that drove me to my Crime Lord profession proposal and the addition of a sub-faction within your GCW or Neutral allegiance. That way the player would not be hindered in their pursuit or avoidanceof the GCW cause, but be augmented if they wish to pursue a more criminal lifestyle that would not forfeit their previous allegiance.
One of the Four Horsemen of the Smuggler Apocalypse! 
Ternque01 wrote:
I'm sure that you have heard of a NOVA trooper. The simple fact is that NPC's can be made as tough as PC's. I don't think your argument really holds here. NPC's now have the ability to "unstick" themselves if a player tries to get a wall to stop them from coming. An NPC assigned to kill one person, and has effectively the save survival rating as a PC bounty hunter (which can be done easily btw) is a perfect substitute. "Dune Kimogilia" arguments don't hold. If a person can solo a dune kimogilla and still live, they should have an equal chance of blowing a PC BH out of the water...
Answer is VERY clear. Make a NPC that is approximately equal in survivability to a PC BH. End of story, Problem solved. Move the hell on.
They can be made strong enough to survive ... but to hunt down and kill ... that is a different story.
As for 'End of story, Problem solved. Move the hell on.' ... Calm down, open discussion is good.