Bounty Boards

[SnakThree]

Hey there. I thought for a while whethet to post this and tell my point on it or not, and as you see it, I decided to do it.

We all know how traders, miners are the pinnacles of activity for all others, since they draw piracy, which in return draws law enforcers and such.

But why is it that unlawful factions bounty those parties? I think it is silly, since:
1. They are partly throwing away their own role delivery, in which they should be the ones interacting with traders and miners.
2. Those are meaningless bounties, since it does not provide any advantages, that is, unlawfuls cannot gain much from one less miner or trader, unlike from having mercs to take down PvP oriented military/police ships etc.
3. It is a bit of ooRP to have money to waste on taking out those targets you should be taking out yourself.
4. Non-ending money for criminal faction that struggles to survive? ooRP imho.
...

However, if this would be endedm there would be more problems if factions, which have bountied traders/miners are not showing their activity to keep balance in space:
1. More money would be in economy.
2. Possibility to see even faster aquired Battleships by new players.
3. Possibility for new players to not have enough interaction to be on learning curve,
...

_________________________

While rule-wise it would be inbalancing to forbid such bounties, but game-wise, I think it would make more sense as faction would be forced to tighten up and show activity of their own to be remembered as part of Sirius.


What do you think guys in general?

---

[Rodriguez]

I think that unlawful factions not always aim for the credits, and that if they place a bounty on an enemy faction is because they want to send a message.

I don't see it wrong when GC puts a bounty on Samura.
Or BMM on Samura.
Or Kishiro on Samura.
Or anyone on Samura, we all hate Samura.

There are things beyond piracy and credits.

---

[VoluptaBox]

I think that unlawful factions not always aim for the credits, and that if they place a bounty on an enemy faction is because they want to send a message.

I don't see it wrong when GC puts a bounty on Samura.
Or BMM on Samura.
Or Kishiro on Samura.
Or anyone on Samura, we all hate Samura.

There are things beyond piracy and credits.

C--Sebs said it well enough :rolleyes:

[SnakThree]

I think that unlawful factions not always aim for the credits, and that if they place a bounty on an enemy faction is because they want to send a message.

I don't see it wrong when GC puts a bounty on Samura.
Or BMM on Samura.
Or Kishiro on Samura.
Or anyone on Samura, we all hate Samura.

There are things beyond piracy and credits.

I was talking about PvP oriented factions putting bounties on traders/miners.

Corporations should be playing their dirty games.

But I think criminals are ought to do it themselves, since in imagiinary RP, they don't have endless money to waste on mercs, while themselves not doing enough to compensate for those salaries.

If GC wants to harm Samura, I think GS should harm it Samura.

That of course is my opinion, but I hope there are people who will agree to me and factions who changes their targets if this gets acknowledged by bigger part of community.

---

[Rodriguez]

I was talking about PvP oriented factions putting bounties on traders/miners.

Corporations should be playing their dirty games.

But I think criminals are ought to do it themselves, since in imagiinary RP, they don't have endless money to waste on mercs, while themselves not doing enough to compensate for those salaries.

If GC wants to harm Samura, I think GS should harm it Samura.

That of course is my opinion, but I hope there are people who will agree to me and factions who changes their targets if this gets acknowledged by bigger part of community.

First at all, your definition of PvP oriented faction is wrong to me, all the factions are pvp oriented, in shooting game, you can't avoid pvp no matter how hard you try.

GC can't go to shoot Samura in Rheinland, MM can (just as an example).

And I think that the imaginary money should be left out of the table, there are many things that can't be played out, the game has its limits. Unfourtanely, money here is infinite.

Hogosha wanting Junkers dead is a good example of why bounties are good. (Considering .:j:. more like a trading faction).

And Junkers reaction is good as well.

---

[SnakThree]

I don't see trading factions as PvP oriented, since they prioritise to make money firstly. Escorts are ought to be used as scouts and distractions, not as fighting buddies near transports (unless worst case scenario).

And I do understand the out of ZoI thing, which I forgot to exclude.

I was suppsed to say that PvP-oriented factions in their ZoI should do the work themselves instead of employing mercenaries.

---

[Rodriguez]

I don't see trading factions as PvP oriented, since they prioritise to make money firstly. Escorts are ought to be used as scouts and distractions, not as fighting buddies near transports (unless worst case scenario).

And I do understand the out of ZoI thing, which I forgot to exclude.

I was suppsed to say that PvP-oriented factions in their ZoI should do the work themselves instead of employing mercenaries.

And I think that's up to the factions, and that they shouldn't be dennied the chance of bountying their enemies.

The Red Hessian Army for a long long time refused to place bounties on their enemies, and they did the job. No one forced them, but I really think it's just a internal decision that has to be taken by the faction.

And that factions decide to play more as traders than anything else doesn't mean that the NPC faction is not PvP oriented. I could make a KNF transport and trade all day, but not because of that it's a trading faction.

---

[SnakThree]

And I am not trying to take away their right to do that.

I am rather seeking way to find compromise to be good for both sides. Only mercenaries would suffer for less income at start. But, if the trade/mining faction starts making more money, they could increase payments for taking down criminal.

I simply hope that those who are still bountying their direct enemies, especially trade/mining targets, will see reason to lossen up a bit on them, and see motivation to do it themselves, maybe less frequently than mercenaries, but it would in return be rarer and more trilling experience instead of ~"I see bounty, dai"

---

[Rodriguez]

While rule-wise it would be inbalancing to forbid such bounties, but game-wise, I think it would make more sense as faction would be forced to tighten up and show activity of their own to be remembered as part of Sirius.

Allow me to disagree with your last post, compared to your first post.

If you are affraid for any personal experience, then those mercenaries are doing their job well, and the bounty is working.

There are many things the trading/mining factions can do to avoid mercenaries, but I don't think that forbidding Bounties is healthy.

As the money can't be quantified in this game, otherwise all the factions should have a limited amount of ships controlled by players and NPCs, guns, equipment, etc. Not to mention the commodities... we have to considerer that there's an extremely ridiculous amount of money out in space, and that even any John Doe can have a millions of millions.

---

[SnakThree]

Ye. Some flaws in delivering my opinion are there clearly visible. When I said it I was firstly thinkin of a rule, but since it would be inbalancing, I thought of simple agreement between those who would like this idea would be enough.

---