Smuggler Archive
Thread: Revamp Discussion: Contraband & Smuggling Missions
This can give the choice of PvP or PvE ... but I don't like it. If I were a BH, I would rather kill my target than let him bribe me.
Jhovial wrote:
What Geevo said
But I did have an idea (can anyone else smell the smoke billowing from my ears?)
Say we all get placed on the players bounty hunter terminal. No matter what PvP or PvE a player bounty hunter is coming after us. When the player bounty hunter finds us he gets a radial or something that pops up a box that you can either pay your bounty or die. If you don't want to pay your bounty (should be at least the cost of the bounty hunters mission + some) you select no, your tef'ed and you two can go at it. I think further that the box should have a time limit before it auto's to one option or another. Details could be worked out on this further such as do you loose money when you die, does the bounty hunter get more money or less money if he brings you in dead or alive, etc etc.
Smuggler_Caylin wrote:
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.
I like what you said, and I guess we will have to wait for the combat rebalance to see if they fix the "need" to use sliced weapons to gain any decent dmg in gameplay. So I guess I could agree that if the combat rebalance fixes the need for sliced items (weapons/armor) then an additional degree of consequence can be enabled to the risk/reward system.
Though I still hold to the fact that PvE'ers will be forced into a PvP atmosphere simply for playing the game and trying to be equal to PvP'ers..... which to me makes me feel like PvE'ers are truely a lower class of player.
GamerProX wrote:
Smugglers...come on, dont screw the BH's with a BH NPC that chases you, thats a huge slap in the face. Let us help each other to reach a common goal.
I do not think any smuggle wants to screw any BH... but there are alot of smugglers who do not want to participate in PvP. So using your own words... should PvE'ers just get a huge slap in their face and told to either quit or PvP?
Geevo wrote:
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.
How is an NPC not smart enough to hunt down and kill a player? Simple tell the server to introduce a BH in the players vicinity at some random time after they reach a certain visibility.
The NPC doesn't have to hunt down the player. The only thing a player is going to see from either a PC or NPC bounty is them being attacked.
You have smuggler A sitting in the bar, when all of a sudden he's being shot at... this is easily reproduceable.
NPC's now have the ability to circumvent building/wall structures in order to continue and attack. There are no structures that can limit a NPC from attacking you.
So I strongly say that they can both hunt down and kill with the same effectiveness if not better than a player. NPC's are dumb, but they are coded so that taking advantage of them isn't possible (unless you find a new trick).
So I'm telling you now, NPC's can hunt (because the server knows where you are) and they can kill. I think your argument has no base.
(PvP) ... but limit it to Incap only (no DB allowed)
Geevo wrote:
I like that ... if the person elects PvE ... then still have player bounties
PvE is determined by history of play (how many PvP kills does a Smuggler have ... and how recent)
This is also a great idea
Both people get to have thier fun I like it.
One of the Four Horsemen of the Smuggler Apocalypse! 
Geevo wrote:
I like that ... if the person elects PvE ... then still have player bounties
PvE is determined by history of play (how many PvP kills does a Smuggler have ... and how recent)
It amazes me how many times a PvE'er has to say this... It is not the "kill" we are worried about, it is not the "death" we are worried about it... It is the PLAYSTYLE!
I wish I could make it more simple then that but I can not... we do not like the pvp playstyle at all. We do not like the atmosphere surrounding a large portion of those that pvp... it ruins the game for us. Not the death, not the kill... but the actualy interaction PvP causes is what ruins the game.
We are for dying, we are for fighting....what we are not for is a game ruining experience and being told to go play sims if we do not like it. That is completely disrespectful.