Smuggler Archive
Thread: Revamp Discussion: Contraband & Smuggling Missions
HOTDOG wrote:
I GOT IT! I GOT IT! I GOT IT! I GOT IT!
The answer is INFAMY!
In other words the whole player base earns INFAMY when they commit crimes be they Quasi-legal, Banned, or Highly Illegal.
BUT Highly Illegal crimes ALSO earn the player VISIBILITY!
Commiting acts that give you Infamy would result in PvE punishments like- Being aggro'd to security types, loss of faction and heavy fines. Commiting acts that give you visibility could land you on the BH terminals.
With this system GMs proposal works- You just have to make Highly Illegal crimes acts that a smuggler wouldn't neccesarily need to level.
Example:
Quasi-legal:
Giggledust, Being under the influence of spice, holding sliced weapons and armor.
Banned:
Muon, Pixie, selling spice, slicing weapons, slicing terminals.
Highly Illegal:
possession of Glitterstim (a jedi spice), using Lightsabers and force powers, Skimming off missions given by certain NPCs (Jabba, Nym), Running Data disk (spy) missions for either faction.
So you see- Highly Illegal stuff would be things that are done by people open to PvP in the first place and so having PvP BHs come after them FITS.
Also- as someone suggested earlier in this long ass thread, there could be TWO types of smuggler missions- Both would earn you INFAMY if you failed them but one would also earn you visibility.
Example:
One mission says:
Deliver Crates (2500 units) of MUON for Jabba.
Smuggling XP earned 2500
Delivery Reward: 20k
Your cut: 7k
Infamy earned for failure/non-completion: 20
Visibility earned for failure/non-completion: 0
No visibility will be earned upon failure or non-completion of this mission.
The other mission says:
Deliver Crates (2500 units) of Glitterstim for Jabba.
Smuggling XP earned 2000
Delivery Reward: 35k
Your cut: 12k
Infamy earned for failure/non-completion: 20
Visibility earned for failure/non-completion: 10
Failure or non completion of this mission will result in visibility and possibly a bounty on your person.
To go even further- there could be factional NPCs found in bases and cantinas that would have smuggling missions. Where a smuggler would deliver certain plans from one point to another that could earn them great amounts of faction and visibility upon completion. If they failed they would get neither.
THAT is the answer to the problem-
This way there are:
NO PC BHs
NO Unconsentual PvP
NO Hard to code hang ups.
Now correct me if I am wrong but I seem to recall that when the crackdown came out some jedi would be walking in the wilderness and suddenly a squad of Imps would land and attack them. I think that is what should happen when you have hit your Infamy cap. It doesn't neccessarily have to be Imps either- it could be Hard to kill Cor sec- Fed dub- etc. Would this be hard to code?
As far as punishment for Imps- I don't think they should have to fight STs but if they get caught they should be HEAVILY FINED and lose faction- maybe even a rank if they fall below 200. That would be more than fair and would not break immersion.
So there it is- You can be Infamous as hell and have the cops after you but if you get your visibility up then expect to get a visit from your local BH!
Message Edited by HOTDOG on 06-21-2004 12:23 PM
First I know GM already responded to this thread..
But I really like this idea, it keeps content high, it keep continuity high, it allows for both styles of play without any switches or mechasims that need to be turned on/off and if I read it right it allows for PvE'ers that might want to dabble into the realm of PvP the ability without being stuck into the system if they no longer feel it is for them.
Great idea
GreenMarine wrote:
- ...
- I still like the idea of including the human BHer element. I don't want to eliminate the PvP element completely.
- A PvP death alone may not be tough enough punishment. Certainly not when compared to a PvE death.
- The devs need to be aware of possible issues with farming faction or working with BHers to farm the visibility system. I think we can solve both of them.
#2. I agree, don't completely. If visibility is designed to dwindle down over time then the element of PvP should remain a risk as part of the profession. I am a non-PvP player too. As long as I can attempt to keep my selfclean enough to avoid it; this works as it adds flavor.
#3&4 I would think that adding a faction hit with the faction you are working for will solve both of these issues. For example: You take a job from Jabba and *keep* half the shipment - you take a faction hit with Jabba. If you don't pay - you take a faction hit with Jabba. Also, if a bounty is placed on you from Jabba and a BH kills you - you take a faction hit with Jabba.
At this point you would have to work your faction up with Jabba to do more work for him. This timesink might be enough to deter this form of gameplay depending on how steep the faction hits are.
I've never been witness to such bunch of thin skinned sissies in all my life. This is ONLINE folks, not real life. Figure it out.
And while you're figuring... "Heres your sign!"
GreenMarine wrote:
Okay, I've read everything up to this point. I admit that I did skim through several of the posts at the core of the PvP/PvE debate. Believe me, I've heard all of the arguments on both sides before.
So here's a short summary of a few of my thoughts:
- I'm sympathetic to the views of both the PvPers and the PvEers. The raw visibility proposal probably isn't going to be a good solution on its own. Two ideas that I liked: the "infamy" suggestion and the idea of two types of h/lo missions. Actually, the infamy idea includes the two types of missions as a part of its design.
- I still like the idea of including the human BHer element. I don't want to eliminate the PvP element completely.
- A PvP death alone may not be tough enough punishment. Certainly not when compared to a PvE death.
- The devs need to be aware of possible issues with farming faction or working with BHers to farm the visibility system. I think we can solve both of them.
I'm going to think about this discussion for a bit and when I get more time, post something more in depth.
Neither side of the PvP debate is wrong...they are just very different psychological play styles. It is an issue of MMO ideology similar to real world religion. When you get into these debates try to keep a cool head. Everyone plays differently. In SWG, there is room for each of the different play styles. We can find a smuggler design that fits the requirements of being FUN, that involves RISKS, but doesn't require PvP...and at the same time includes PvP as an element.
Did somebody say "Infamy"?
Is that referring to what I think it is?
cheserna wrote:
I'm really sick of this pvp debate that most carebears are forcing on the development team... and in my very closed eyes I see really only this opinion from people who complain...
"I want the best, super cool everything, with no risk and no penalty"
I've seen this for months in the jedi system, and the same sortof debate is being fought over here with the smuggler system....
The most reasonable solution is to leave it up to the players... if your willing to take the risk of stealing some items for yourself to sell or whatever, then at some point there should be a penalty... and why not allow that penalty be pvp content for the bounty hunter class, thus taking on 2 problems at once....
just like the gcw(where if you don't want to be involved you can be neutral), just like the old jedi system(if you don't want to be hunted, don't use force powers), players should be given a choice.... although in my opinion the development team has broken it's back trying to make sure that players don't have to interact with other players if they don't want to...
Because, unlike your proposal, they are indeed giving the players a choice. PvE or PvP.
if you want to be a smuggler and not be hunted, then don't do things to increase visibility...
if you want to use illegal items(like sliced items, spice, whatever), then you do so at the risk of being hunted...
Yes, I have yet to hear any PvE'er disagree with you on this. We indeed should be hunted.. but with a choice on the playstyle we wish to participate in.
this might even be a great way to lower the "I always have the best of the best" attitude that a lot of players have... well if you really do have the best of the best... you do so at a risk of being hunted down for it...
what players are going to have to realize is that this isn't "forced pvp".. it's a choice you make.. to use spice.. to use sliced weapons.. to slice armor... and a choice that hopefully everyone will have the chance to make...
If in the process of playing my profession, working the skills I have earned, I am "forced" (as in I did not have a choice) to confront another player then it is indeed forced PvP. However means others have already came up with some very great ideas and GM himself said he liked several of them I am extremely confident that a great solution can be had that would allow me to play and stay in PvE while adding the element of PvP for those that wish. This here is truely a form of play giving you true choice.
I'm tired of people thinking this is a one player adventure game....
Do not think anyone does, it is a MMORPG... but what it is not is a FPS. MMORPG does not mean you have to have PvP, in fact there are several widely known MMORPG's that have very little or no PvP in them at all (EQ (seperate servers for PvP, FFXI). And there are some MMORPG's that are almost entirely PvP (Lineage, Lineage2)and those that have a great mix of PvP and PvE (UO, DAoC, SWG - the one we are currently playing and IMHO the best one on the market).
RellikCro wrote:
cheserna wrote:
I'm really sick of this pvp debate that most carebears are forcing on the development team... and in my very closed eyes I see really only this opinion from people who complain...
"I want the best, super cool everything, with no risk and no penalty"
I've seen this for months in the jedi system, and the same sortof debate is being fought over here with the smuggler system....
The most reasonable solution is to leave it up to the players... if your willing to take the risk of stealing some items for yourself to sell or whatever, then at some point there should be a penalty... and why not allow that penalty be pvp content for the bounty hunter class, thus taking on 2 problems at once....
just like the gcw(where if you don't want to be involved you can be neutral), just like the old jedi system(if you don't want to be hunted, don't use force powers), players should be given a choice.... although in my opinion the development team has broken it's back trying to make sure that players don't have to interact with other players if they don't want to...
Because, unlike your proposal, they are indeed giving the players a choice. PvE or PvP.
if you want to be a smuggler and not be hunted, then don't do things to increase visibility...
if you want to use illegal items(like sliced items, spice, whatever), then you do so at the risk of being hunted...
Yes, I have yet to hear any PvE'er disagree with you on this. We indeed should be hunted.. but with a choice on the playstyle we wish to participate in.
this might even be a great way to lower the "I always have the best of the best" attitude that a lot of players have... well if you really do have the best of the best... you do so at a risk of being hunted down for it...
what players are going to have to realize is that this isn't "forced pvp".. it's a choice you make.. to use spice.. to use sliced weapons.. to slice armor... and a choice that hopefully everyone will have the chance to make...
If in the process of playing my profession, working the skills I have earned, I am "forced" (as in I did not have a choice) to confront another player then it is indeed forced PvP. However means others have already came up with some very great ideas and GM himself said he liked several of them I am extremely confident that a great solution can be had that would allow me to play and stay in PvE while adding the element of PvP for those that wish. This here is truely a form of play giving you true choice.
I'm tired of people thinking this is a one player adventure game....
Do not think anyone does, it is a MMORPG... but what it is not is a FPS. MMORPG does not mean you have to have PvP, in fact there are several widely known MMORPG's that have very little or no PvP in them at all (EQ (seperate servers for PvP, FFXI). And there are some MMORPG's that are almost entirely PvP (Lineage, Lineage2)and those that have a great mix of PvP and PvE (UO, DAoC, SWG - the one we are currently playing and IMHO the best one on the market).
I think its safe to let the PvE vs PvP topic die now... GM has seen it all and has spoken in favor of a plan that is good for all of us... no more need to argue..
Ffolks wrote:
Good lord! The PvE vs. PvP debate is ridiculous. You don't want to PvP, don't play a class that involvles PvP.
I've never been witness to such bunch of thin skinned sissies in all my life. This is ONLINE folks, not real life. Figure it out.
And while you're figuring... "Heres your sign!"
As it is, we can play a Smuggler in all its forms without PvP.
If the Smuggler profession goes NC-PvP, then it would take away a whole profession from those that do not wish to PvP.
This is where we put our foot down.
The Devs have restricted the GCW to the PvPrs, and said if you dont want PvP, dont join a Faction.
Fine, if thats the case, thats where the PvP will be in the game, leave the rest of the game open to the PvE playstyle.
And I'll let your namecalling slide this time. Next time I will report you for flameing.
Ffolks wrote:
Good lord! The PvE vs. PvP debate is ridiculous. You don't want to PvP, don't play a class that involvles PvP.
I've never been witness to such bunch of thin skinned sissies in all my life. This is ONLINE folks, not real life. Figure it out.
And while you're figuring... "Heres your sign!"
JTGAlpha wrote:
Actually, point of clarification, we are NOT 100% PvE. The entire underworld line is based on the GCW which IS PvP (do missions and you're going to be PvP flagged).
But I agree...GM has seen the discussion, and is aware of the issue, and has seen various proposals. We can let the debate die now.
here here !!