Smuggler Archive
Thread: PvP Bounty System/Slicing content
Page 5 of 5
caltex2006
Sun Oct 03, 2004 10:33 pm
#53
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?
people with jedi aren't forced to pvp, why do you think they get a second char...
GTomlinson
Mon Oct 04, 2004 8:26 am
#54
BigSlimUK wrote:
only factioned players run the risk ofbeing on the bh terms. Only a player of an opposite faction can place you on the bh terminals and only high ranking faction players can place bounties(this will reduce the amount of players that can actually place bounties). Also you cant just type in a player's name at the terminal ,
How about a compromise where you cannot put a bounty on someone that is the same faction as you, but neutrals are free game for anyone. RP-wise it makes sense that imps and rebs would protect their own. Using the movies as an example (while hoping this doesn't create another flame-war in the thread), Jabba (neutral) was able to place a bounty on Han Solo's (initially neutral) head.
you can go to the terminal and see if there are any overt/tef'd players of the opposite faction inthe area, if there areyou can place a bounty on their head, this action will in turn make you overt for at least an hour so you run the risk of being placed on the bh terminals too.
Oh, PLEASE let's not add another TEF. These things are so screwed up as it is, I'd hate to be the instigator of another bugged TEF.
Also the number of opposite faction players/npc's will affect how much your bounty can be, players that havent's killed any stormies for example will not be worth any money to a bh. The more you have killed of the opposite faction the more your bounty can potentially be ( player doesnt have to pay the max amount for his bounty) The theory is the more sotmies/rebels a player has killed the more likely he is a higher ranking player and potentially a bigger threat to you (from a role play stand point).
I honestly don't believe griefing will be a problem. My proposal listed a minimum bounty, with a filing fee. This remains an expensive venture for anyone registering a bounty. This is not an effective means of grinding out BH, as it's too expensive. It is also not an effective means of griefing, as it is too expensive. In roleplay, artisans and even dancers should be able to have bounties on their heads for rubbing the wrong people the wrong way.
Also this takes away the forced pvp element because you know you can stay off the bh terms by either being neutral or not killing any opposite faction players/npc's.
I'm a firm believer that you avoid PvP through friendly roleplaying. If you don't want to have a bounty on your head, then don't piss people off. If you do piss someone off, stick your expensive stuff in the bank, line up for your beating and suffer the 1% loss to equipment condition and your pride. Otherwise, beg the bounty hunter to say that he killed you and pay him off.
For a non-Jedi character, I just don't see being killed as that big of a deal.
BigSlimUK
Mon Oct 04, 2004 1:23 pm
#55
Too expensive? you think? Even if the min was 1 million there would be people that could place a bounty on someone 30 times over and still have enough to buy a city.
And my idea about placing the bounty on opposite factinioned players that are overt....ok maybe a tef isnt a good idea, mayeb then instead your are only allowed to place a bounty if you declare yourself overt. And to stop people placing bounties overt then logging off, overt status should last for 1 hour of game time or until dead.
And i do not believe neutral players should be allowed to have bounties placed on their head as this way the anyone's agument that it forces pvp on them would be invalid because they would be consenting to it via choosing to join the galactic civil war by choosing a side.
GrimRebuke
Mon Oct 04, 2004 3:44 pm
#56
BigJim pretty much covered this. Look at UO. They said they would not restrict housing because houses were so expensive not everyone would be able to afford a castle. Well, given a few years, everyone has access to more than sufficient income to build the largest buildings several times over in just a week. This is a perpetual game. At some point, there will be guilds who have all professions within their guild and raise money at an amazing rate. There is no cost you can add to the game that will limit people abusing a system. Nor can you expect people to act in the best interests of the community. This whole, "I'll be nice to you and you'll be nice to me" think doesn't work in an anonymous world of an online MMORPG any more than it works in real life.
If you involve Neutral players, you are making PvP non-consensual. Not only that, but you are unleashing one of the most combat-oriented templates on some poor unsuspecting soul who may not be a combat character at all, or might be a novice marksman. Once you join the GCW, you are consenting to PvP. Yeah, I get mad when a TEF stays there when it ought not and I get killed by 3 buffed and max-equiped 12 year olds yelling 'OWNED' when I'm unbuffed and unarmored wandering around town unaware I'm TEF'd. But I did decide to join the Rebels and whether I am overt or not, I should expect to get killed as a result of that choice.
A person who has chosen to play SWG should not be held to the same standards. I like the idea of only higher-ranking members of a faction being able to place bounties. You could make the line for being able to place a bounty on a character of the opposite faction the same rank that makes you potentially available on the terms for opposing faction bounty-hunters solely for having a rank that would give you a certain notoriety. So, you wouldn't need to TEF the player for placing the bounty. I also like the idea of doing this from a radial menu on overt players or currently TEF'ed players only. If you did this through a radial menu, it would be easy to code the radial selection to only be available when someone has a flag set.
If you involve Neutral players, you are making PvP non-consensual. Not only that, but you are unleashing one of the most combat-oriented templates on some poor unsuspecting soul who may not be a combat character at all, or might be a novice marksman. Once you join the GCW, you are consenting to PvP. Yeah, I get mad when a TEF stays there when it ought not and I get killed by 3 buffed and max-equiped 12 year olds yelling 'OWNED' when I'm unbuffed and unarmored wandering around town unaware I'm TEF'd. But I did decide to join the Rebels and whether I am overt or not, I should expect to get killed as a result of that choice.
A person who has chosen to play SWG should not be held to the same standards. I like the idea of only higher-ranking members of a faction being able to place bounties. You could make the line for being able to place a bounty on a character of the opposite faction the same rank that makes you potentially available on the terms for opposing faction bounty-hunters solely for having a rank that would give you a certain notoriety. So, you wouldn't need to TEF the player for placing the bounty. I also like the idea of doing this from a radial menu on overt players or currently TEF'ed players only. If you did this through a radial menu, it would be easy to code the radial selection to only be available when someone has a flag set.
Page 5 of 5