|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Argent Mordred
DUST University Ivy League
3
|
Posted - 2013.10.04 21:29:00 -
[1] - Quote
I don't think the bounty system will be developed (if it is developed) for a long time. So if there is no rush, why not have the bounty able to be set on a player in quarters?
I see a couple reasons for setting a bounty on a player, one, a key player is causing trouble and killing him might help one side in their battle, or two, to cost a player isk and/or tax his psyche. A player accepts the contract when the target is online and then either goes to the battle or station the target is in and attempts to kill him. It might add to the suspense of players if they can hear shooting from the hall outside their quarters.
The players with bounties don't know whether the person shooting is collecting a bounty on another player in the same section of station, or an assassin who was detected by station security in the act and is coming for them. Plus, at any time, an assassin might have successfully avoided detection and be about to slip in and put a round through the back of your head. Of course, turn about is fair play and the target might be vigilant and waiting for the target with his best fitting (presumably the default fitting shown in quarters that is whatever the target has favorited). The fitting of the target or the assassin would be lost on their death. Also keep in mind that a player losing a suit in quarters might not seem like much, but unlike a battle, the risk of a target's death and loss isn't balanced against the payoff of winning a battle.
With regards to bounties happening in battle, maybe a player (or players) could slip in (like SickJ suggested) and pose as members of one of the teams until they can kill the target. Maybe they should have to do something to reveal their true nature before they can make the kill, when they do that, the friendly fire constraints (if they are on, like in a pub match) will between the target, the assassin, and perhaps their squads (maybe in certain cases there could be a kill team and the target's squad could also help protect him in that case) would be able to shoot and kill each other.
I have no problems with anyone being able to shoot and get a reward for killing a bounty hunter instead of the proposed system in the last paragraph, but it needs to be balanced so that killing the target isn't impossible. |
Argent Mordred
DUST University Ivy League
4
|
Posted - 2013.10.05 21:56:00 -
[2] - Quote
SickJ wrote:What I actually had in mind was that the bounty hunters would show up as yellow dots (like an installation that nobody's hacked yet) and thus possibly have to deal with both teams shooting at them - we wouldn't want it to be too easy would we? Is that guy after one of us or one of them? I think he's after one of them... but let's kill him just in case.
I assumed you meant as a neutral, but I proposed the hunters being disguised for exactly the reason you have mentioned. If there is no penalty for shooting a neutral without reason, other than him shooting back at you, what's to stop the hunters from just getting plugged for absolutely no reason, repeatedly, over and over?
You might think that players wouldn't waste their time, but considering how many blueberries do pointless things like shooting in the air or at the MCC; I think people would do it just to be safe or just because they are trigger-happy and don't care who they shoot. If too many people do that, then the result would be that few people would bother doing bounties (at least the battlefield kind) finding it near impossible and it would become dead content.
There would still be uncertainty about who's side they were on. Under my proposed system, they could slip in on the same person's team and try to kill him; or they could join the other team and hope to run into him and kill him then. When they reveal themselves, they would switch to a bounty hunting or a neutral side and color, causing everyone in the vicinity to wonder who they were after.
Also, maybe the player shouldn't know when exactly the bounty ends, at least in certain circumstances. They would just get a general time like days, weeks, a month. It could help to keep suspense and paranoia up, or give an advantage to the hunter as the target starts to relax, thinking himself safe. The target would ultimately know when it is over, but wouldn't have a precise date when he would know he was home free. |
|
|
|