Other Bounties Suggestion

[StepoKedur]

Hi folks,

I've been thinking about this for a while, and it has been mentioned in various in game chats and posts here.

I'm wondering how feasable it is to add other players to the bounty boards, as well as jedi?

The way I'm thinking of would be player kills and PVP. Neither method involves players submitting bounties.

The PVP is easiest in concept maybe - if a player kills x amount of opposite faction players their opposite faction may put their names on the bounty boards. This could be tied in with rank, so the higher you are, the smaller value x would be.

The second starts with the current jedi/BH system.

If a BH kills x amount of jedi aligned with a particular faction, then that faction puts a bounty on the BH. So if an Imp BH kills so many Rebel aligned Jedi then the Rebels would put that BH on the boards. These of course could be hunted by other BH.

This would allow greater variation, and maybe accolades for the BH or the PVP player who kills a BH hunting them. Maybe gaining faction points if say a pistoleer defeats an enemy faction BH after him.

It would spice things up a little, and add a little more content (not that content is really lacking) and a tad more depth to the whole GCW too.

You could almost imagine BH1 hunting BH2 while BH2 hunts a jedi, or BH3 and BH4 hunting a couple of Captains. BH3 makes a kill and gets the rewards. BH4 is killed by the captain and the captain gets faction points, maybe BH4 loses faction points when killed.

It could take a bit of works but would be interesting

[Buntar]

If this were to be put into effect, I think it'd be cool to only let Master BH's take these missions. It would again make MBH more attractive than a hybrid build.

[tyodi]

If a certain player is forever griefing people, or constantly spawn camping....why not allow someone to place a bounty on those players? So lets say someone if AFK loot camping, why not allow a player who is fed up with the same player doing this, to be able to place a bounty on said player. I would put in a slight proviso here, a mail should be sent to the player, warning them that a bounty has been requested against them, and the reason why (does not have to say by whom) and they have a certain time to move away from the area. Now if said player takes heed and moves on, then that bounty gets put on hold....however if said player does not move (i.e. they are AFK) then that bounty goes live. If a certain player (based on IP not character name) is continually reported for the same thing in the same areas, I would also like to see them get instantly placed on the bounty boards just by going back to those areas within a 48hr period after their last bounty was placed...again keeping those areas free of campers so others can enjoy them.

This does two things, one it enables said camper to be taken out by a bounty hunter to free up the area for others, and two it enables the community itself to police certain unwanted behaviours without the need to bother Devs to intervene.

[StepoKedur]

That could be an idea...

What do bounty hunters think of this?

[zzyzxisinthemix]

Cool idea. people who heal a BH become attack-able and vice versa with people who heal a jedi

[Cynar]

Too much potential for abuse. Some people don't like to pvp and it's a choice that could be forced on them. I could see crafters and entertainers being griefed.

[zzyzxisinthemix]

Too much potential for abuse. Some people don't like to pvp and it's a choice that could be forced on them. I could see crafters and entertainers being griefed.

It wouldnt be considered "pvping" if they heal a jedi or a BH in combat?

[Cynar]

Too much potential for abuse. Some people don't like to pvp and it's a choice that could be forced on them. I could see crafters and entertainers being griefed.

It wouldnt be considered "pvping" if they heal a jedi or a BH in combat?

That would, yes. There would have to be a strict structure to it. In other words non-combants would not be viable candidates. There are a lot of people out there that do not participate in pvp or decide that they want to only at certain times. If you implement a system like that then no one could pvp without being vulnerable to it's affects. That's why you have covert. Sometimes regular characters don't want to pvp.

[zzyzxisinthemix]

Too much potential for abuse. Some people don't like to pvp and it's a choice that could be forced on them. I could see crafters and entertainers being griefed.

It wouldnt be considered "pvping" if they heal a jedi or a BH in combat?

That would, yes. There would have to be a strict structure to it. In other words non-combants would not be viable candidates. There are a lot of people out there that do not participate in pvp or decide that they want to only at certain times. If you implement a system like that then no one could pvp without being vulnerable to it's affects. That's why you have covert. Sometimes regular characters don't want to pvp.

True. Would love to see that implemented, fairly, that way, if someone is willing to heal a Jedi or a BH during a fight between them, they too should be susceptible to fight

Which then leads to the dog pile scenario...which in the end, is not forced on anyone, but created through peoples own choice to attack or not

[Cynar]

True. Would love to see that implemented, fairly, that way, if someone is willing to heal a Jedi or a BH during a fight between them, they too should be susceptible to fight

Which then leads to the dog pile scenario...which in the end, is not forced on anyone, but created through peoples own choice to attack or not

They are vulnerable to pvp, it's called TEF.

[zzyzxisinthemix]

True. Would love to see that implemented, fairly, that way, if someone is willing to heal a Jedi or a BH during a fight between them, they too should be susceptible to fight

Which then leads to the dog pile scenario...which in the end, is not forced on anyone, but created through peoples own choice to attack or not

They are vulnerable to pvp, it's called TEF.

Even neutral docs who heal a jedi or bh during combat?

[StepoKedur]

My suggestion takes out non combatants anyway. Those BH who hunt jedi don't mind PVP, those who gain faction points get TEFs anyway so are aware of the risk.

This would open out the whole feel of the Star Wars 'Galaxy' to be more immersive, more risk v reward, more content. More missions for BH, faction point gain/loss, nobody knows who could fight who (a BH after a BH after a Jedi sounds interesting if they all ended up at the same location! - plus the BH being hunted may eventually be able to take the BH who killed him as a mark)...

Those who did not PVP would not even need to be worried about dragging themselves into it.

[zzyzxisinthemix]

My suggestion takes out non combatants anyway. Those BH who hunt jedi don't mind PVP, those who gain faction points get TEFs anyway so are aware of the risk.

This would open out the whole feel of the Star Wars 'Galaxy' to be more immersive, more risk v reward, more content. More missions for BH, faction point gain/loss, nobody knows who could fight who (a BH after a BH after a Jedi sounds interesting if they all ended up at the same location! - plus the BH being hunted may eventually be able to take the BH who killed him as a mark)...

Those who did not PVP would not even need to be worried about dragging themselves into it.

yeah sounds awesome, specially if you have some neutral healers who think they can just spam heals in the back without any repercussions who also can become Attackable, once they die, it goes away, if they dont die, it sticks with them for 10 minutes.

[Grumm]

The one thing that bugs me is the fact that we keep on saying oh well these people may not want to pvp, or crafters may get cought up in it. I can see that it's not a PVP server, but if you pick a faction than it should have repercussions. If we go off of what Stepo sugested this will never be an issue. Look if you have a rank in either Army, than you should have to pay the price the higher your rank the more you have to defend so lets say after Sgt you eligable for a bounty be it small. Now a Col on the other hand would yeild a much higher bounty, and a Col Jedi well thats just fun.

[StepoKedur]

Not just colonel jedi mate, think Reb colonel CM rifleman who has killed say 10 players and is on the boards from the higher-ups on the Empire. They don't want a rebel upstart killing thier troops! Get him on the boards, let the BH deal with it

[SnowLily]

The smuggler revamp was going to add non-jedi bounties:) Good read.

http://web.archive.org/web/200502250338 ... e.id=98219

[Draxes]

They had this in NGE, I know... Anyway, the way it worked was if you were factional and active and someone killed you in a non pvp zone, say getting buffed in a cantina, you could then place a bounty on that person to 50000 credits (I think not sure). Then factional bounty hunters could collect the bounty either through a terminal mission or by targeting someone and doing a mark check, think it was something like /mark, and if they had a bounty on them the hunter would get an onscreen notification of it. They take out the mark, collect their bounty instantly, and move on. Duels and pvp zones were exempt from bounty marks if I remember correctly. It was a good system but not sure how it would work in this version of the game.

[KushSan]

The smuggler revamp was going to add non-jedi bounties:) Good read.

http://web.archive.org/web/200502250338 ... e.id=98219

YES, YES and YES!

[Achilles]

I remember, as one of the early MBH on my server, discussing the idea of smuggler bounties very early on in the game. Everyone was up for it, but the dev team wanted to wait for the smuggler revamp. Strange, because even the smugglers were chomping at the bit over this.
If it could be done, it would bring another dimension to the game and I suspect it would make the 'poor' smuggler profession more attractive once again.

[Darkra]

I actually am all for this idea.
In particular the post about smuggler bounties, and also the mention of how NGE did their bounty system; I actually found these implementations in NGE more to the benefit of the game.