EllasDad, post: 235, member: 365 wrote:

Source? I was a BH on live from Pre-CU until the servers shut down, and often would group hunt the tougher targets but was never able to attack my fellow BHs

You can't attack/hunt group members

StukaAttacks, post: 233, member: 38 wrote:

When the BH system was reintroduced to the NGE. BHs were able to attack each other if they had the same contract.

Source? I was a BH on live from Pre-CU until the servers shut down, and often would group hunt the tougher targets but was never able to attack my fellow BHs

Carista, post: 215, member: 399 wrote:

OK, I can't hold it; where did you find this information? Because on live, the BH system was never opt-out. It was forced on the hunted by placing a bounty of 20K or higher. For the BH it was opt-in as it was their primary source of jobs, but for the rest it forced on them.

I'm sorry to say, but your reaction sounds like that of a man not being able to deal with valid points of insight. You, my good sir/madam, need to point out where the information about the BH system as you claim is being provided. Because it most certainly is not (!) being provided in this thread, just claimed by you. So, provide some evidence that supports your claim.

this is the stuff that kills the fun in pvp, you literally said that you wont ever flag up or bounty hunt planet side, If you dont have anything productive or helpful to add, kindly take it to another suggestion :). There is literally no point to you finding and creating arguments where there isnt any. So again I want to hear feedback and how everyone feels, but you arguing over nonsense over and over about the fine point of this thread title (3 words) isnt helping anyone and just creating drama.

Griffy, post: 219, member: 386 wrote:

There is no other way to get bountied if you aren’t PvPing, hence why they go hand in hand.

Also hence why they stated, much like the current opt-in system, in which you blatantly disregarded by saying it’s not an opt-in system.

Carista, post: 218, member: 399 wrote:

Right, looks like you might want to direct a portion of your brain to reading: it states Place a bounty.

I'm not expecting any answer on this as I am not enganging any further in a childish discussion.

There is no other way to get bountied if you aren’t PvPing, hence why they go hand in hand.

Griffy, post: 216, member: 386 wrote:

Maybe if you’d take a portion of that super powered brain, that can remember so much from “live,” and directed it towards the patch notes you could find the changes without looking silly. But I’ll break it down Barney style and highlight them for you.

Right, looks like you might want to direct a portion of your brain to reading: it states Place a bounty.

I'm not expecting any answer on this as I am not enganging any further in a childish discussion.

Carista, post: 215, member: 399 wrote:

OK, I can't hold it; where did you find this information? Because on live, the BH system was never opt-out. It was forced on the hunted by placing a bounty of 20K or higher. For the BH it was opt-in as it was their primary source of jobs, but for the rest it forced on them.

I'm sorry to say, but your reaction sounds like that of a man not being able to deal with valid points of insight. You, my good sir/madam, need to point out where the information about the BH system as you claim is being provided. Because it most certainly is not (!) being provided in this thread, just claimed by you. So, provide some evidence that supports your claim.

Maybe if you’d take a portion of that super powered brain, that can remember so much from “live,” and directed it towards the patch notes you could find the changes without looking silly. But I’ll break it down Barney style and highlight them for you.

Attachments

Griffy, post: 214, member: 386 wrote:

Bh system is already an opt-in/out like system. I think you’re just missing the entire discussion here and throwing whatever you want into play.

OK, I can't hold it; where did you find this information? Because on live, the BH system was never opt-out. It was forced on the hunted by placing a bounty of 20K or higher. For the BH it was opt-in as it was their primary source of jobs, but for the rest it forced on them.

I'm sorry to say, but your reaction sounds like that of a man not being able to deal with valid points of insight. You, my good sir/madam, need to point out where the information about the BH system as you claim is being provided. Because it most certainly is not (!) being provided in this thread, just claimed by you. So, provide some evidence that supports your claim.

Carista, post: 213, member: 399 wrote:

OK, what you are essentially proposing is reintroducing the TEF as outlined here: https://www.raphkoster.com/2015/04/15/star-wars-galaxies-tefs/. This caused so many edge cases that could give you a TEF, that they did away with it and replaced the entire TEF with, for all intents and purposes, a switch. Meaning that you were opt-out of PvP at any given time and had to actively switch to being combatant (covert) or Special Forces (overt).
I suggest taking the discussion about that to a different thread and leave it out of the BH system thread. It makes the discussion about BH system way to complicated, especially if it is meant to be tied in with the GCW (coming down against that, but not going into that here and now).
As for the BH System to opt-in using a switch (or command); yes please. I prefer opt-in to opt-out anyway.

Bh system is already an opt-in/out like system. I think you’re just missing the entire discussion here and throwing whatever you want into play.

Malakavion, post: 212, member: 144 wrote:

I can see where the confusion came in here, BH and PvP are two swperate systems, yes. However, what I am suggesting is using the BH toggle option, to allow players to be able to hunt you as a bh regardless of moral or factional choices, as well as toggling permaflagging/factional kills before receiving a bounty are applied..... ie. With it off you are safe from having bounties applied, and can grind GCW as you see fit with no real repercussions as you can now. For those with a PvP itch however, toggling it on allows players to place a bounty on you at any time, while also permaflagging players as SF once certain GCW ranks are reached, in this state killing so many GCW npc's will flag the player as SF, if such a rank to be automatically flagged has not been reached, with the possibility of a bounty being automatically being placed on your head as well for killing x amount of GCW targets.

OK, what you are essentially proposing is reintroducing the TEF as outlined here: https://www.raphkoster.com/2015/04/15/star-wars-galaxies-tefs/. This caused so many edge cases that could give you a TEF, that they did away with it and replaced the entire TEF with, for all intents and purposes, a switch. Meaning that you were opt-out of PvP at any given time and had to actively switch to being combatant (covert) or Special Forces (overt).
I suggest taking the discussion about that to a different thread and leave it out of the BH system thread. It makes the discussion about BH system way to complicated, especially if it is meant to be tied in with the GCW (coming down against that, but not going into that here and now).
As for the BH System to opt-in using a switch (or command); yes please. I prefer opt-in to opt-out anyway.

Carista, post: 204, member: 399 wrote:

Hang on.... Since when is the BH system PvP? It's about a person taking up a contract on another person; in essence a duel where the hunter gets payed if the mark is defeated. In PvP, it's one faction against another; in this game empire against rebel alliance. This would mean that, unlike the original BH system, all other faction members able able to attach the hunter as well, as well as all faction members of the hunter are able to defeat the mark (and thus leaving the hunter without getting paid). It kind of defeats the entire point of the BH system, doesn't it?
Having said that; I think that a good bounth hunter is never going to pick a side. Afterall, a contract is a contract, no matter who puts it out; the empire, the alliance or whatever criminal organization out there.
I kind of make me wonder if the entire discussion about PvP and rank priviledges is relevant to begin with in regards to the BH system.
FYI: I'm one of those players that will hardly ever engage in PvP planetside. In space, that will be different story.

I can see where the confusion came in here, BH and PvP are two swperate systems, yes. However, what I am suggesting is using the BH toggle option, to allow players to be able to hunt you as a bh regardless of moral or factional choices, as well as toggling permaflagging/factional kills before receiving a bounty are applied..... ie. With it off you are safe from having bounties applied, and can grind GCW as you see fit with no real repercussions as you can now. For those with a PvP itch however, toggling it on allows players to place a bounty on you at any time, while also permaflagging players as SF once certain GCW ranks are reached, in this state killing so many GCW npc's will flag the player as SF, if such a rank to be automatically flagged has not been reached, with the possibility of a bounty being automatically being placed on your head as well for killing x amount of GCW targets.

csr_nord, post: 210, member: 209 wrote:

Player choose to opt into the player bounty system when they pvp and death blow other players.

I didn't read how the hunted opted-in to this system..... This person just gets it forced onto them. And that is without taking the GCW ranks into account that from officer ranks would force you to be perma SF. And the fact PvP gets forced on you is what I am arguing against.
I would completely agree if everyone could say if they want to opt-in on the BH system or not. But that choice is not being offered: you're being forced into it without any option what-so-fricking-ever to even opt-out. It's like the spam-mails we all love to hate.

Carista, post: 209, member: 399 wrote:

Seeing as the game doesn't check the account where the character belongs to, to the game it is, for all iontents and puposes, a different player. Now agree with the moral standpoint, from a technical standpoint, it is still valid. Just as a duel is, essentially, closed PvP. Even if it is forced onto others (which can, and maybe has to, also be morally debated).

Player choose to opt into the player bounty system when they pvp and death blow other players.

Griffy, post: 208, member: 386 wrote:

Killing your alt would still be the same player, don’t see how that could even be held up in any argument.

Seeing as the game doesn't check the account where the character belongs to, to the game it is, for all iontents and puposes, a different player. Now agree with the moral standpoint, from a technical standpoint, it is still valid. Just as a duel is, essentially, closed PvP. Even if it is forced onto others (which can, and maybe has to, also be morally debated).

Carista, post: 206, member: 399 wrote:

Hmmmm..... I found this:
Player versus player (PvP) is a type of multiplayer interactive conflict within a game between human players.

This indicates that it is multiple players against multiple players. Going by your definition, ten on one is also PvP, as is killing you alt over and over (fight-clubbing). Maybe there needs to be clear consenses about what PvP is and how it impacts the BH system before (!) any changes are made.

Killing your alt would still be the same player, don’t see how that could even be held up in any argument.

Carista, post: 206, member: 399 wrote:

Hmmmm..... I found this:
Player versus player (PvP) is a type of multiplayer interactive conflict within a game between human players.

This indicates that it is multiple players against multiple players. Going by your definition, ten on one is also PvP, as is killing you alt over and over (fight-clubbing). Maybe there needs to be clear consenses about what PvP is and how it impacts the BH system before (!) any changes are made.

It indicates that you need multiple parties, more than one human player, for pvp. A duel is multiple people. A player bounty contract is multiple people.

csr_nord, post: 205, member: 209 wrote:

A player fighting against another player is the literal definition of pvp.

Hmmmm..... I found this:
Player versus player (PvP) is a type of multiplayer interactive conflict within a game between human players.

This indicates that it is multiple players against multiple players. Going by your definition, ten on one is also PvP, as is killing you alt over and over (fight-clubbing). Maybe there needs to be clear consenses about what PvP is and how it impacts the BH system before (!) any changes are made.

Carista, post: 204, member: 399 wrote:

Hang on.... Since when is the BH system PvP? It's about a person taking up a contract on another person; in essence a duel where the hunter gets payed if the mark is defeated. In PvP, it's one faction against another; in this game empire against rebel alliance. This would mean that, unlike the original BH system, all other faction members able able to attach the hunter as well, as well as all faction members of the hunter are able to defeat the mark (and thus leaving the hunter without getting paid). It kind of defeats the entire point of the BH system, doesn't it?
Having said that; I think that a good bounth hunter is never going to pick a side. Afterall, a contract is a contract, no matter who puts it out; the empire, the alliance or whatever criminal organization out there.
I kind of make me wonder if the entire discussion about PvP and rank priviledges is relevant to begin with in regards to the BH system.
FYI: I'm one of those players that will hardly ever engage in PvP planetside. In space, that will be different story.

A player fighting against another player is the literal definition of pvp.

HayHay, post: 193, member: 56 wrote:

I appreciate the feedback, but in all fairness, this is a pvp thread, not a “stop trying for pvp thread” again I said something along those lines. Obviously lots to work out.

Hang on.... Since when is the BH system PvP? It's about a person taking up a contract on another person; in essence a duel where the hunter gets payed if the mark is defeated. In PvP, it's one faction against another; in this game empire against rebel alliance. This would mean that, unlike the original BH system, all other faction members able able to attach the hunter as well, as well as all faction members of the hunter are able to defeat the mark (and thus leaving the hunter without getting paid). It kind of defeats the entire point of the BH system, doesn't it?
Having said that; I think that a good bounth hunter is never going to pick a side. Afterall, a contract is a contract, no matter who puts it out; the empire, the alliance or whatever criminal organization out there.
I kind of make me wonder if the entire discussion about PvP and rank priviledges is relevant to begin with in regards to the BH system.
FYI: I'm one of those players that will hardly ever engage in PvP planetside. In space, that will be different story.

EllasDad, post: 190, member: 365 wrote:

There are a significant number of people who will NEVER PVP. Stop trying to force it. This “generals are always TEFd would drive the non PVP players away in droves.

Honestly, i think you are putting way too much into non PvPers worrying about getting GCW buffs, but that is not something that would totally destroy the system either. i don't personally PvP, never have, though I intend to someday jump into it regularly. There will always need to be a system of checks and balances in this game for pretty much every aspect. that doesn't mean trying to develop a system into something more fun and engaging is trying to force people into content they don't want to run. no one has been trying to do that. its just an idea that needs some development and some checks put in place. I personally think the generals being permaflagged is an awesome idea and as this is a bounty hunting thread, tie that to being opted in to the bounty hunting program, general and don't want to be permaflagged, opt out of bounty hunting, wanna have some fun? opt in and get hunted. This game is still set in a time of war, there is going to be conflict.

Along with this the idea was proposed of being forced SF after so many faction NPC's being killed (full credit to them, not my idea), which i believe should be another option for bounty hunters to collect. i think tying that in with the BH system would also work and be a way to add excitement to the game.... obviously, not everyone will be on board with being flagged for PvP for GCW kills, have the Bounty hunt toggled off as a "safe" mode, no autoflagging/no Bounty Hunting on your character, toggle Bounty hunting on and that puts you at the mercy of being flagged for PvP AND being hunted by bounty hunters after so many GCW kills/reaching general or other officer ranks.... i also believe it should not just be general but other ranks with bounties on flagged players increasing as rank increases, giving incentive to go after HVT's for those that enjoy the thrills of hunting "bigger game" so to speak.

I think that would give the die hard PvPer's or those that enjoy the challenge their own mode of PvP that would be a challenge, and those that don't want to engage or need a break a way to have an escape of sorts. with a timer after you toggle bounty hunting off to keep people from insta-toggling in combat.

Historical reactions: Like × 1

Vikingmando, post: 194, member: 223 wrote:

I mean, while I totally agree with you. I have an alternative. That unless you're Flagged for PvP you cannot benefit from anything in the "officer" ranks of your faction. The GCW was intended to be a multi-faceted system allowing PvP and PvE. Saying your a General rank in the GCW and having access to everything that comes with it but don't PvP is like a " you have your cake and eat it too" situation.

I like this, although it creates issues when your running a multifaction group for the future harder content. I think it’s a great concept but then you wouldn’t have legendary warrior in the “hard mode” content. Not the biggest deal but I can see that leading to groups are harder to get together. Just a thought. I really like the train of thought though.

EllasDad, post: 190, member: 365 wrote:

There are a significant number of people who will NEVER PVP. Stop trying to force it. This “generals are always TEFd would drive the non PVP players away in droves.

I mean, while I totally agree with you. I have an alternative. That unless you're Flagged for PvP you cannot benefit from anything in the "officer" ranks of your faction. The GCW was intended to be a multi-faceted system allowing PvP and PvE. Saying your a General rank in the GCW and having access to everything that comes with it but don't PvP is like a " you have your cake and eat it too" situation.

I havent PvP'd much I think 1000 cumulative kills on legends across all 5 characters. I'm more of a PvEr and I think the system is flawed. Why is it you can be an entertainer sitting afk at a city invasion and hit general without ever being at your keyboard and then benefit from everything that comes with it. I know people who started as entertainer just to hit General then switched to a combat class just to use the rewards/buffs in PvE without ever having to flag special forces. Again the game its self is flawed in many ways. This is just another reason why, but there has to be a compromise.

EllasDad, post: 190, member: 365 wrote:

There are a significant number of people who will NEVER PVP. Stop trying to force it. This “generals are always TEFd would drive the non PVP players away in droves.

I appreciate the feedback, but in all fairness, this is a pvp thread, not a “stop trying for pvp thread” again I said something along those lines. Obviously lots to work out.