Forums » Suggestions
it seems to me that this thread needs a mediator, so rather than saying who i think is right i will outline what i see as the arguments on both sides and their direct consequences, and let people draw their own conclusions.
The pro-penalty group says:
1. people with bountys on their heads take an XP penalty and therefor the hunters should also take an XP penelty if they fail to kill their target.
corelary: this is sety as an XP penalty because thye penalties should be equal for hunter and hunted, as it is the farest, and monetary penalties are insignifigant.
2. players with bountys are not bad players, they are just playing the game in the path of their choice.
corelary: because they are just playing the game they should not be penalised for doing so.
Most of the people in this group think that the penalys for hunter and hunted should be equal because that is the farest way to handle it from a gameplay perspective, some also think there is no need for these penalties at all.
the anti-penalty group says:
1. characters should be held acountable for their actions, and bountys are a way of enforcing this
corelary: anyone with a bounty on their head has done something to get it, therefor if they don't want the penalty they should avoid bounty offences, whereas those who enforce the bountys are tools of the system and to penalyse somone who gives thier "life" to enforct those laws doesn't make sence frome a roleplaying perspective.
2. "the path of an outllaw is a lonly and dangerous one"
corelary: because being hunted by bounty hunters and being generaly despised an penalysed by the governments they have wronged is part of being a pirate, privater, or mercenary (i think that coveres the majority of bounty offences), it is reasonable for players who chose to partake in bounty gaining actiones to face the consequences if they get cought.
it seems that the consensis of this group is that the XP penalty for players with a bounty should remane as is, and there should be a monetary or standing penalty for hunters that fail.
The central argument seems to be: fairness vs roleplaying
i hope this was as unbiased as posable
The pro-penalty group says:
1. people with bountys on their heads take an XP penalty and therefor the hunters should also take an XP penelty if they fail to kill their target.
corelary: this is sety as an XP penalty because thye penalties should be equal for hunter and hunted, as it is the farest, and monetary penalties are insignifigant.
2. players with bountys are not bad players, they are just playing the game in the path of their choice.
corelary: because they are just playing the game they should not be penalised for doing so.
Most of the people in this group think that the penalys for hunter and hunted should be equal because that is the farest way to handle it from a gameplay perspective, some also think there is no need for these penalties at all.
the anti-penalty group says:
1. characters should be held acountable for their actions, and bountys are a way of enforcing this
corelary: anyone with a bounty on their head has done something to get it, therefor if they don't want the penalty they should avoid bounty offences, whereas those who enforce the bountys are tools of the system and to penalyse somone who gives thier "life" to enforct those laws doesn't make sence frome a roleplaying perspective.
2. "the path of an outllaw is a lonly and dangerous one"
corelary: because being hunted by bounty hunters and being generaly despised an penalysed by the governments they have wronged is part of being a pirate, privater, or mercenary (i think that coveres the majority of bounty offences), it is reasonable for players who chose to partake in bounty gaining actiones to face the consequences if they get cought.
it seems that the consensis of this group is that the XP penalty for players with a bounty should remane as is, and there should be a monetary or standing penalty for hunters that fail.
The central argument seems to be: fairness vs roleplaying
i hope this was as unbiased as posable
now, that've finished mediating, i'm going to say that i agree with the people who say XP penalty for the player with the bounty and a monetary penalty for the hunter.
here are my reasons:
vendetta is a MMORPG. the RPG part stands for roleplaying game. as such i side with the roleplay based argument that the XP penalty is a result of the fact that they got cought doing something illegal and couldn't avoid the enforcers (bounty hunters). they chose to follow the outlaw path and thus chose the consequences along with it.
also as a side note i think the player posted bounty system was removed because people were abusing it somehow, i'm not exactly shore how.
here are my reasons:
vendetta is a MMORPG. the RPG part stands for roleplaying game. as such i side with the roleplay based argument that the XP penalty is a result of the fact that they got cought doing something illegal and couldn't avoid the enforcers (bounty hunters). they chose to follow the outlaw path and thus chose the consequences along with it.
also as a side note i think the player posted bounty system was removed because people were abusing it somehow, i'm not exactly shore how.
great outline Lord Q
Well the player created ones were being abused via 3 bounties of 1 mil bein put on my head, causing me to lose around 14% of my xp across the board.
Everyone seems to be putting stiffer penalties on us pirates. It already IS tough. I run out of money quite often.
If you want to get rid of pirates... well, fine, but you'll quickly run out of battles.
The fact is, Piracy is GOOD for establishing pvp in a game that is a little lacking in real warfare.
What are bounty hunters going to hunt if nobody goes and gets a bounty?
We need a system of rewards and penalties on BOTH sides so we can
see more interesting gameplay and strong players pursuing these paths.
Everyone seems to be putting stiffer penalties on us pirates. It already IS tough. I run out of money quite often.
If you want to get rid of pirates... well, fine, but you'll quickly run out of battles.
The fact is, Piracy is GOOD for establishing pvp in a game that is a little lacking in real warfare.
What are bounty hunters going to hunt if nobody goes and gets a bounty?
We need a system of rewards and penalties on BOTH sides so we can
see more interesting gameplay and strong players pursuing these paths.
I see and agree with both sides to a point.
I WOULD like to see some form of restrictions placed on the bounty hunters, perhaps require them to "actively" seek a bounty, something like a mission where they have to choose a target, instead of just being able to collect one. right now most people collect bountys by accident, not by intent.
I dont think there should be an XP penalty for being a bounty hunter, however if bounty hunting were made more of a mission than a more interesting penalty would be to require that a bounty hunter be HOMED in the capital of the nation he/she is attempting to collect a bounty for.
At the same time the bounties themselves need to be reworked. there should be a difference between a "criminal" bounty, such as is placed on a pirate, and a "celebrity" bounty, such as might be placed on a particularly well known enemy of your nation.
If i remember my history correctly the red baron of WWI fame had a bounty on his head, not because he was evil, but because he was such a well known adversary.
If someone with a criminal bounty is killed, I have no problem with the Xp loss being taken by that person, with no concequences to the hunter.
On the other hand if someone who has a celebrity bounty is killed, I would expect the hunter to take a severe reputation hit with the nation that the celebrity was a member of. After all the bounty is not for evil acts, its because the person in question is feared by his opponents.
Which brings me to my last point, there should be some warning to a player who is about to recieve a bounty, as well as some form of list of things that will cause you to recieve a bounty.
At present how you get a bounty is mostly a guess, my last bounty i recieved for killing a single itani trader deep in the heart of serco space. (it was self defense, honest he rammed me with his pointy atlas) I had done nothing else for several weeks other than trade, and i suspect that most of the bounty was caused by my CtC efforts a few weeks prior.
I WOULD like to see some form of restrictions placed on the bounty hunters, perhaps require them to "actively" seek a bounty, something like a mission where they have to choose a target, instead of just being able to collect one. right now most people collect bountys by accident, not by intent.
I dont think there should be an XP penalty for being a bounty hunter, however if bounty hunting were made more of a mission than a more interesting penalty would be to require that a bounty hunter be HOMED in the capital of the nation he/she is attempting to collect a bounty for.
At the same time the bounties themselves need to be reworked. there should be a difference between a "criminal" bounty, such as is placed on a pirate, and a "celebrity" bounty, such as might be placed on a particularly well known enemy of your nation.
If i remember my history correctly the red baron of WWI fame had a bounty on his head, not because he was evil, but because he was such a well known adversary.
If someone with a criminal bounty is killed, I have no problem with the Xp loss being taken by that person, with no concequences to the hunter.
On the other hand if someone who has a celebrity bounty is killed, I would expect the hunter to take a severe reputation hit with the nation that the celebrity was a member of. After all the bounty is not for evil acts, its because the person in question is feared by his opponents.
Which brings me to my last point, there should be some warning to a player who is about to recieve a bounty, as well as some form of list of things that will cause you to recieve a bounty.
At present how you get a bounty is mostly a guess, my last bounty i recieved for killing a single itani trader deep in the heart of serco space. (it was self defense, honest he rammed me with his pointy atlas) I had done nothing else for several weeks other than trade, and i suspect that most of the bounty was caused by my CtC efforts a few weeks prior.
A bounty is no more than a reward for killing a player. If that player is killed, the killer gets rewarded. That's how bounties work. That's all they are: rewards.
What many of you are describing as an alternative to bounty hunting is more like contract killing. If you signed a contract to kill a player, it's conceivable that the contract could have a penalty against you, should you fail to fulfill your agreement [to kill that player]. It's not reasonable to expect bounty hunters to pay a penalty of any kind for failure; that's not bounty hunting you're describing, it's contract killing.
If you're going to sign such a contract, you need incentive to balance the threat of penalty: either an advance payment, or a really whopping big eventual payment.
I don't see a problem with the idea that, if there's a bounty on your head, bounty is paid to the next person who kills you [assuming he's paid the marshall the standard 50K bribe to become a bounty hunter]. That's what bounties are. You claim them after having accomplished the task; you don't sign a contract obliging you to accomplish the task.
What many of you are describing as an alternative to bounty hunting is more like contract killing. If you signed a contract to kill a player, it's conceivable that the contract could have a penalty against you, should you fail to fulfill your agreement [to kill that player]. It's not reasonable to expect bounty hunters to pay a penalty of any kind for failure; that's not bounty hunting you're describing, it's contract killing.
If you're going to sign such a contract, you need incentive to balance the threat of penalty: either an advance payment, or a really whopping big eventual payment.
I don't see a problem with the idea that, if there's a bounty on your head, bounty is paid to the next person who kills you [assuming he's paid the marshall the standard 50K bribe to become a bounty hunter]. That's what bounties are. You claim them after having accomplished the task; you don't sign a contract obliging you to accomplish the task.
Why do we have to bribe the marshalls, anyway? Bounty hunters don't pay for permission to kill or capture a wanted fugitive. I could see paying for a good spy report on where the fugitive was last seen, in what kind of ship, but if the marshalls knew that, why pay a bounty hunter?