Additional penalties on death for bounty hunters


  • TF#1 - WHISPERER

    According to the last roadmap, blue players will only drop 1 or 2 items on death. This is fine if we consider that blue players are usually gatherers or players doing low level content. They don't actually stand a real chance in a fight so they also don't suffer most of the consequences.
    The problem I see with this though is that Bounty Hunters too are blue, and they are very very ready to fight. They are out there looking to take heads.
    Doesn't seem fair that in a Red vs Bounty Hunter fight, the only one risking something is the Red.
    Being a Bounty Hunter should provide you with the chance to reap a reward from hunting Reds, but should also lose you the blue protection, or at least a part of it.

    This is something that was not detailed in the roadmap, so maybe that this is already planned. Just wanted to make sure that this aspect was considered.



  • I both agree and and disagree on bounty hunter's(BH) current situation. I agree that they are players who are ready to fight and not completely "innocent". Furthermore, if every single Good alignment player can become BH, it would be a bit too much and unbalanced. However, I disagree that the BHs should be considered as "Red" players when it comes to PvP drops while fighting against Red players. This is kind of contradictory to the basic principle of the BH system and also has the potential to incentivize Evil players as they now have the chance to kill a "Good" player and obtain all of their loot.

    I have a different suggestion about the BH system that might solve the issues you stated. There should be conditions for someone to become a BH, for example:

    • The player should have "Good" alignment for a certain amount of time before applying to become a BH.
    • The player cannot change its alignment for a certain amount of time after becoming a BH.

    Those changes would make BH system a prestigious role that only who are committed would utilize.


  • Content Creator

    as the goal is to incentivize being a good/bounty hunter player, and deincintivize being a malicious PvP player, the system is just fine as it is. They don't want to reward evil in ANY way. If you choose the evil path, there isn't really reward, there is just the ability to go exercise your evil inclinations on other players within the limits established. Bounty Hunters, on the other hand, are performing a direct service for the other players and in a way, for the developers, by providing a check to evil players, and as such, their risk should be mitigated in some respect, and the current level is just about right. We still need to test, of course, test, test, and retest, but I think this level works fine.


  • TF#12 - PEOPLE'S HERALD

    @GamerSeuss said in Additional penalties on death for bounty hunters:

    as the goal is to incentivize being a good/bounty hunter player, and deincintivize being a malicious PvP player, the system is just fine as it is. They don't want to reward evil in ANY way. If you choose the evil path, there isn't really reward, there is just the ability to go exercise your evil inclinations on other players within the limits established. Bounty Hunters, on the other hand, are performing a direct service for the other players and in a way, for the developers, by providing a check to evil players, and as such, their risk should be mitigated in some respect, and the current level is just about right. We still need to test, of course, test, test, and retest, but I think this level works fine.

    i disagree. if you fight bad (i hate using evil) your gear should be on the line just as it is for the bad person.


  • Content Creator

    @Jetah That's just it, they don't want players to want to fight 'as bad' on Syndesia, but they do want them to have the option, and have to accept some limitations for doing so. They want PvP to be an option on Syndesia overall, but not a popular or majorly sought after option...and the community at large has been by and large behind that as there are generally more PvE players than PvP players in most games, and the PvP players can tend to be the most disruptive.

    They would prefer PvP players try to stick to Tartarus as much as possible, but allow for PvP on Syndesia because it is meant to be the middle ground between the 3 worlds, allowing for a mixed playstyle.

    They have also said they want to reward Bounty Hunters for providing a service by keeping the 'bad' players under wraps as much as possible. They count as Blue, which is the midpoint, so they do lose some in combat, but not as much as a Red does, because red is the dreaded voluntary 'bad-aligned' PvP player maliciously attacking the often unassuming PvE characters.

    Their other option, as they've said, is to restrict PvP type play on Syndesia to strictly Guild Wars type situations where you can only initiate PvP against a member of a declared Guild enemy guild member or ally, and then often for a set period of time before such large encompassing conflicts are resolved and set back to neutral grounds.


  • TF#1 - WHISPERER

    I'd put bounty hunters at least on neutral level of drops. After all according to the roadmap, bounty hunters can be neutral, they are not always blue.


  • TF#8 - GENERAL AMBASSADOR

    Their other option, as they've said, is to restrict PvP type play on Syndesia to strictly Guild Wars type situations where you can only initiate PvP against a member of a declared Guild enemy guild member or ally, and then often for a set period of time before such large encompassing conflicts are resolved and set back to neutral grounds.

    Although I like this concept in theory, I feel like it would be difficult to implement cause it will be dependent on the population size of Syndesia as well as how many guilds there will be. For all I know this will workout fine and there will be hundreds of guilds and thousands of players ideally, as Syndesia will be a popular planet for sure. The other issue I see is in solo players, I feel like this concept excludes solo players who would like to pvp, unless there is a piece to this concept I am missing?


  • Content Creator

    @LordGorgeous a solo player could ally him/herself with a guild during a particular 'feud' and then they are stuck until that feud ends. The main way a solo'ist will PvP however will probably be, if this is the way they go, as a Demon in Tartarus.


  • TF#12 - PEOPLE'S HERALD

    @GamerSeuss

    there's a planet for those that want pve without pvp (well outside of invasions). they should choose that instead.


  • Content Creator

    @Jetah yes, and there is a planet for those who want unrestricted PvP.

    They stated that the goal for Syndesia, the Human planet is to not be another PvP world, or a no PvE world, but rather a world where PvP is allowable, but hindered/punished, and PvE is possible, but fraught with the danger brought on by those who still insist on PvP play...a mixed bag. Each planet has its purpose, and there is no excuse for trying to make Syndesia a copy of Tartarus, or a copy of Arborea.


  • TF#12 - PEOPLE'S HERALD

    They should just zone it so there is organized pvp. If pvp is allowed everywhere then it is just another pvp world. I don't care what different rules exist it is still pvp all the time.


  • Content Creator

    @Farlander zoning it is the mistake too many other MMORPGs already do. I play a lot of Old School RuneScape, and you can't really do any Wilderness content without being ganked by a PvPer.

    By making PvP available on Syndesia, but not overly appealing, they satisfy that half-way point between a PvP and non-PvP game. If you make it PvP zones, then everyone in that zone/those zones will either be actively PvPing, or running for their lives all the time.


  • TF#12 - PEOPLE'S HERALD

    @GamerSeuss Yes but if you go into those zones you know to expect pvp. I know in SWG those zones were always deserted. As with most mmos pvp ranks low on the server population. If any of the past games I have played are an indication the vast majority of the players are mostly pve and those that would do pvp from that lot don't want to do it that often and want to do so at their choice, not having it forced upon them. I won't play on the human world if it is open pvp, period. That means two worlds I won't be able to explore. Once I start playing if that is inhibitive to my game progression then I will just drop from the game.


  • TF#1 - WHISPERER

    @Farlander said in Additional penalties on death for bounty hunters:

    @GamerSeuss Yes but if you go into those zones you know to expect pvp. I know in SWG those zones were always deserted. As with most mmos pvp ranks low on the server population. If any of the past games I have played are an indication the vast majority of the players are mostly pve and those that would do pvp from that lot don't want to do it that often and want to do so at their choice, not having it forced upon them. I won't play on the human world if it is open pvp, period. That means two worlds I won't be able to explore. Once I start playing if that is inhibitive to my game progression then I will just drop from the game.

    The developers' intention to include open world PvP on Syndesia has been known for some time. Unlike Tartaros, they are imposing a variety of mechanics on Syndesia to curtail excess ganking and griefing. Those mechanics need to be tested and refined so that they do their job properly... but the goal here is nothing new.


  • TF#12 - PEOPLE'S HERALD

    @Farlander
    you have the option to pvp during an invasion, which means you can do pvp on your terms (well when the invasion happens).

    even the pve beast world will have some pvp via these invasions.


Log in to reply
 

Copyright © 2021 Dynamight Studios Srl | Fractured