*JeeTeeOh* Posted Apr 1, 2011, 8:05 pm	Feel free to move this if I'm posting in the wrong area.... Recently ran into a situation where I may or may not have had another gang drop a great big bounty on my head. Why is irrelevant, and bounties are a fine way to hassle somebody. It's also a way for someone who is unwilling to engage in straight-up warfare (but who is really rich) to make life hell for another gang (who may not have similar resources) with exactly zero risk to themselves. My proposal is simple: tie the contract hits (passive-aggressive war) to PvP status (active, real-risk war). They obviously aren't directly related to each other, but it ensures nobody can dump hundreds of thousands of dollars into hasslin' another gang without the possibility of consequences.
The Paranoid Tourist Posted Apr 1, 2011, 8:19 pm	I agree completely.
Kornkob The Dude Posted Apr 1, 2011, 8:23 pm	You certainly shouldn't be allowed to hassle someone anonymously. But I agree. If you are willing to put a hit out on someone your flag should come on and not be closable for a couple weeks after the hit is successful or withdrawn.
*Tango* Posted Apr 1, 2011, 8:33 pm	Sounds good to me. Include a warning/popup: "This will flag you for PVP Combat for x weeks. Are you sure?"
*jimmylogan* Posted Apr 1, 2011, 8:49 pm	Disagree - bounties have nothing to do with PvP status. You are welcome to put a bounty on someone else at any time. If they were suddenly flagged but you still didn't know who it was how would you retaliate?
The Paranoid Tourist Posted Apr 1, 2011, 9:37 pm	The difference, Jimmy, is that someone with high funds can put a hit on someone with low funds, but they cannot retaliate in kind. In PvP the amount of cash you have makes no difference. A rich person putting a hit on a poor person is doing so with no risk to themselves.
*Tango* Posted Apr 1, 2011, 9:52 pm	what would it take away from the game? not much what does it add? balance in rp terms how are you going to widely get out the word of a bounty and keep everyone from knowing who is paying the bill?
*JeeTeeOh* Posted Apr 1, 2011, 9:53 pm	*jimmylogan* said: If they were suddenly flagged but you still didn't know who it was how would you retaliate? That isn't the point, really.  If somebody wants to quietly put a hit out on you and hope you don't find out who it is, they can certainly do that.  All I'd like to see is the availability -- if and when they are found out -- of an answer that isn't based purely on dollars and cents.  If they're gonna hit somebody, there should be a means to hit back, whether I'm in the penthouse or livin' in my Moray.  This is Darkwind.  When all else fails, we settle it with guns and gas pedals. Don't we?
*JeeTeeOh* Posted Apr 1, 2011, 9:55 pm	Tango said: what would it take away from the game? not much what does it add? balance in rp terms how are you going to widely get out the word of a bounty and keep everyone from knowing who is paying the bill? Yeah.  That.  Good point Tango.
The Paranoid Tourist Posted Apr 1, 2011, 9:56 pm	JeeTeeOh said: This is Darkwind.  When all else fails, we settle it with guns and gas pedals.Don't we? I wish everyone saw it that way.
*Tinker* Posted Apr 1, 2011, 10:14 pm	*jimmylogan* said: If they were suddenly flagged but you still didn't know who it was how would you retaliate? Easy. You always have a chance to see who put the hit on you in your activities page if you win the combat against the npc gang that hit you. Think it's a great idea.
*JeeTeeOh* Posted Apr 1, 2011, 10:16 pm	For what it's worth, I'll quote the gangleader that got me thinking about this: "I'm proud to say I bountied a marshall out of Darkwind once [...] 200 mil in bounties!" Now do I believe it?  Not for a second.  But as something that is very much within the realm of possibility (albeit a very extreme example), and presently can be done with impunity, it troubles me. With that I'll bow out for a bit and let the discussion take its course.
JS Posted Apr 1, 2011, 10:38 pm	*Tinker* said: *jimmylogan* said: If they were suddenly flagged but you still didn't know who it was how would you retaliate? Easy. You always have a chance to see who put the hit on you in your activities page if you win the combat against the npc gang that hit you. Think it's a great idea. This is an interesting deal.  I get bountied about once every 2 days when I am doing travels.  I assume it is from the NPCs as my percentage of finding out is about 5% I'd say.  I was very suprised to recently get the message as to which NPC it was just the other day.  Some of them could be PCs, but I never know because they are nearly always "unknown". I think for RP purposes, it would be nice to always know or nearly always know who it was when it is an NPC, as retaliation is not as big a deal.  I dont have an issue with it being difficult to find out with PCs doing it to you. It was mentioned that players wihtout the resources cannot retaliate, that is not exactly true.  Because frankly, you can grief a powerful player by throwing cheap bounties his way constantly so he has to fight all the losers you send his way instead of whatever it is he is targeting.  That is a form of revenge in itself.  Additionally, that level player is not bothered by bounties, no matter how much you spend, its more likely you gave him good loot than hurt him if you spend a bunch of money on a high fame gang.
*JD_Basher* jd.basher@charter.net Posted Apr 2, 2011, 12:06 am	How about this........... in the example below, the "Player" is the person putting the bounty on another member. The "victim" is...ummm The "victim".... All bounties will be paid (removed from the players account) immediately upon taking out a "hit" on another players gang. All other monetary costs incurred by continuous "hunts" on a single member are progressive and the DW game funds will be removed from the players account. If the player does not renew the bounty and fails to pay the cost of the inital bounty plus extra costs, cannot put a bounty on the same person more than once in the same time frame as the bounty. If someone has the cahones to put a bounty on you they have 3 choices. (1) Low level bounty: Costs 30k. (charged to the player for the first bounty.) The player who bounties another has only ONE bounty hunter gang to choose from. The player will be given a choice of 3 AI "hunter gangs" chosen randomly. (because he wants it be relatively secret) Only one bounty per 48 hours is allowed (real time) and it must be renewed before the 48 is up OR pay a 10% "re-bounty" fee on the original 30k AND the cost goes up to 45k for the second week adding to the cost progressively If the hit is unclaimed after 48 hours. The low level bounty is a short duration event in the lives of the "victims" ....... But it becomes much more of a drain (monetarily) on the the one paying for the hit if he continues to pay for them. (2) Mid Level Bounty: Costs 75K (Charged to the player). Mid Level bounties allow 2 Hunter AI gangs to be selected and the bounty will be in effect for 72 hours (3 days real time). If the bounty is not renewed before the 72hr time limit, the player will pay a 50% "re-bounty" fee PLUS the cost goes up to 90K for the second week progressively. Mid Level bounties last one day longer. The victim is preyed on for a little longer by different hunter gangs, and is MUCH more expensive for the player to keep another player under a "Bounty-Hold" (3) High Level Bounty: Costs 250k (Yeah... Again, charged to the player) High Level Bounties allow 4 hunter gangs to be chosen. Bounty lasts for 120 hours (5 days) 72 hours to renew the bounty or suffer an 80% "Re-Fee" on top of the 500k dollar renew adjusted cost. ================ edit: Each time the Player renews a bounty within the time constraint, the cost will go up 10% without incurring the "late fee".
The Paranoid Tourist Posted Apr 2, 2011, 12:34 am	Sorry, JD, but that really doesn't help the problem at hand. Not that it's a bad idea, per se....
The Paranoid Tourist Posted Apr 2, 2011, 12:50 am	To explain myself a bit better: The problem is not just one of money, it's also of style or role playing. Hiring Hank puts a contract hit on Self-Sufficient Sam. Self-Sufficient Sam successfully repels the attack and finds out that Hiring Hank hired them. Self-Sufficient Sam's style is not to send someone else to do his dirty work, he would prefer to do it himself. Self-Sufficient Sam goes to attack Hiring Hank, only to find that Hiring Hank's PvP flag is off. Self-Sufficient Sam feels that, if Hiring Hank wants to engage in such PC vs PC behavior, he should be open to all types of it, not just the roundabout matter of contract hits. While the cash argument also holds sway, both of these are really at work, here.
*JD_Basher* jd.basher@charter.net Posted Apr 2, 2011, 12:58 am	No problem.... Just an idea PT!
*JD_Basher* jd.basher@charter.net Posted Apr 2, 2011, 1:02 am	OK, the "A" and "B" crap just sent my gray matter into overload..... PLEASE stop before I have to kill you! I'm happy with my description, thanks! JD
The Paranoid Tourist Posted Apr 2, 2011, 2:35 am	There ya go, JD. I edited my previous post to, hopefully, be more intelligible.
*JeeTeeOh* Posted Apr 2, 2011, 4:51 pm	The three-stage bounty system sounds like a fine idea too, but as PT suggested my concern is more of a roleplay matter.  In the case of my gang, we're not broke, and we're not real worried about whether or not we've got a bounty on our heads until the end of the world.  We are interested in puttin' a bullet between the eyes of whoever thought a bounty was a good idea, however. It's strictly a play-style issue.  Hiring Hank does his thing, directly attacking another gang while hiding behind a rule designed specifically to enhance players' enjoyment of the game by reducing overall threat level.  Self-Sufficient Sam presently has two choices: sit and take it, or do Hiring Hank's thing.  His gang's real choice of action -- to hit the attacking gang themselves and send a message -- is denied him.  His play style is dictated to him rather than defined by him.
*Tango* Posted Apr 2, 2011, 5:11 pm	JeeTeeOh said: His play style is dictated to him rather than defined by him. Well said.
Ragnak Posted Apr 3, 2011, 5:55 am	What would happen if you had a simple rule that said PCs cant place bounties on another player if their PVP flag is turned on. Gotta beef with them, go fight them. If you cant directly reach out and touch them, then bounties are your only option. I dont mind limited methods of retaliation from gangs who hide behind a flag.
*JeeTeeOh* Posted Apr 3, 2011, 7:43 am	Ragnak said: What would happen if you had a simple rule that said PCs cant place bounties on another player if their PVP flag is turned on. This would recreate the limited-roleplay-option issue (which seems to be what we're dealing with here) in reverse.  Doesn't seem right to not let a gang hire someone else to do their dirty work if that's how they prefer to handle things.
Ragnak Posted Apr 3, 2011, 7:50 am	JeeTeeOh said: Ragnak said: What would happen if you had a simple rule that said PCs cant place bounties on another player if their PVP flag is turned on. This would recreate the limited-roleplay-option issue (which seems to be what we're dealing with here) in reverse.  Doesn't seem right to not let a gang hire someone else to do their dirty work if that's how they prefer to handle things. Point well made.
*jimmylogan* Posted Apr 3, 2011, 2:29 pm	And what if the person you have a beef with has suddenly moved to a town where your camp is NOT located, thus you'd have to move your resources, possibly abandon camp (or at least the supply runs) while you handle this, etc. Just pointing out that there are valid times when 3rd party help is preferred.
*goat starer* Posted Apr 3, 2011, 2:40 pm	*jimmylogan* said: And what if the person you have a beef with has suddenly moved to a town where your camp is NOT located, thus you'd have to move your resources, possibly abandon camp (or at least the supply runs) while you handle this, etc. Just pointing out that there are valid times when 3rd party help is preferred. In the olden days you would simply have hired darth
*jimmylogan* Posted Apr 3, 2011, 2:43 pm	goat starer said: In the olden days you would simply have hired darth LOL - very true
FireFly Posted Apr 3, 2011, 3:58 pm	Rather simple actually, hiring a contract hit is a PvP action, so, if you have the PvP flag set to "Off" you dont get to hire BH's. Simple.
The Paranoid Tourist Posted Apr 3, 2011, 7:35 pm	What FF said. OR if you try to make a contract hit you get a warning telling you that it will turn your PvP flag on if you follow through. Same idea; different method.
FireFly Posted Apr 3, 2011, 7:46 pm	I prefer the method of telling them that they need to put the flag on to use bounty hunters... Less room for "I made a mistake, change it back!" that way.
*JeeTeeOh* Posted Apr 3, 2011, 9:40 pm	FireFly said: I prefer the method of telling them that they need to put the flag on to use bounty hunters... Less room for "I made a mistake, change it back!" that way. It also requires them to take an active role in the switch, so more likely they'll really consider the possible consequences (and maybe even take ownership of 'em when they happen!). So a big +1 on that.
Kornkob The Dude Posted Apr 4, 2011, 1:44 pm	JeeTeeOh said: FireFly said: I prefer the method of telling them that they need to put the flag on to use bounty hunters... Less room for "I made a mistake, change it back!" that way. It also requires them to take an active role in the switch, so more likely they'll really consider the possible consequences (and maybe even take ownership of 'em when they happen!). So a big +1 on that. I also think this is an excellent method.
Kornkob The Dude Posted Apr 4, 2011, 1:47 pm	*jimmylogan* said: And what if the person you have a beef with has suddenly moved to a town where your camp is NOT located, thus you'd have to move your resources, possibly abandon camp (or at least the supply runs) while you handle this, etc. Just pointing out that there are valid times when 3rd party help is preferred. Another example: someone with a small gang that is mostly focused on trading and town events might not be equipped to go out and smite someone but they can pay someone who is.
The Paranoid Tourist Posted Apr 4, 2011, 1:56 pm	Kornkob The Dude said: *jimmylogan* said: And what if the person you have a beef with has suddenly moved to a town where your camp is NOT located, thus you'd have to move your resources, possibly abandon camp (or at least the supply runs) while you handle this, etc. Just pointing out that there are valid times when 3rd party help is preferred. Another example: someone with a small gang that is mostly focused on trading and town events might not be equipped to go out and smite someone but they can pay someone who is.  I believe it's well realized that there are gangs that would prefer to hire NPCs to do their dirty work. That's not really at question, here. The question is whether they should be able to without fear of PvP repercussions, as attacking someone else, directly or indirectly, can be seen as participating in PvP.
Kornkob The Dude Posted Apr 4, 2011, 2:27 pm	Dude-- I am totally with you there. If you attack a Player then you should be open to any and all options for retaliation. My opinion: Hire a hitman, PvP flag on. My comment was another example of a legit reason why someone might choose hitman rather than PvP direct.
The Paranoid Tourist Posted Apr 4, 2011, 3:11 pm	No problem, then.
*goat starer* Posted Apr 4, 2011, 5:35 pm	of course if i were going on holiday i would hire a bunch of hits on all you guys... get my PVP flag switched on... and switch it off when i came back
The Paranoid Tourist Posted Apr 4, 2011, 5:47 pm	hehehe. It's hard to solve for every contingency.
Kornkob The Dude Posted Apr 4, 2011, 5:56 pm	Actually, Goats comment is highlighting a previously identified problem with the PvP flag in general. Alternately I could also just put out a hit on you and then only play DW in SS for 2 weeks.
The Paranoid Tourist Posted Apr 4, 2011, 6:20 pm	That's true, but you're limiting yourself. Who's the real winner, there?
Kornkob The Dude Posted Apr 4, 2011, 6:25 pm	Depends on your goals and play style. I, for instance, have played pretty much in SS for the past year and am perfectly happy. I have no plans to move any time soon. Under the current system I can send out all the contract hits I want and no one can PvP me.
The Paranoid Tourist Posted Apr 25, 2011, 9:17 pm	Despite the uncertainty of the future of PvP in Darkwind, I feel the need to bump this.
Hogfather Posted Apr 25, 2011, 9:42 pm	I agree the hiring of hits on other players should be for PvP On only players. However, I feel it should still be anonymous.
Kornkob The Dude Posted Apr 25, 2011, 9:43 pm	I think if you win, you get to know who sent it. /edit and now that I think on it--- those NPCs should be bribable. If I pay them twice as much, why don't they just turn around and go smite the other guy?
The Paranoid Tourist Posted Apr 25, 2011, 10:23 pm	because they've already driven way out there and are thirsting for blood
Groove Champion Posted Apr 25, 2011, 10:24 pm	I don't have a preference... To me there are two potential outcomes: 1. PvP is tied in with bounties and I get to harrass back. (fun) 2. PvP is not tied in with bounties and I can hold my known non-PvP enemies in greater contempt. (fun) --- One suggestion I would like to make: if you defeat a squad of bounty hunters sent to kill you, you should be rewarded with the name of the person who took out the hit against you. Even if the player is PvP-closed it will still afford you the opportunity to seek revenge in town events.