A Final Plea for the Full Justice System - Using Dueling

Arthur_Spoonfondle · October 2016

BoloBoffin wrote: »

And I have proposed just such a system and continue to be amenable to suggestions. And in the end, my motivations and character continue to be questioned by people who would never approve of the system. So, yeah, I'm not the obstinate one.

You appear only to be amenable to suggestions that are in-line with your own thoughts.

Kalebron · October 2016

If this ever happens I will quit the game. People choose to do pvp in the pvp realm but not in pve. I cannot understand why people want to force others to do pvp...

CapuchinSeven · October 2016

BrianDavion wrote: »

fact is this type of stuff isn't to people's liking. every MMO I've ever played? the PVP servers die first. there's a reason for that

Yeah, because people are carebears that want reward without risk.

bellanca6561n · October 2016

As a STRONG advocate for "finishing" the justice system even I cannot abide the notion of making people duel me when I catch them murdering civilians.

Why?

Because of the 40 or so dueling challenges I have issued to murderers (probably more) not a single murderer has taken me up on it. NOT ONE. Just the invitation has forced some players to log out of the game immediately.

This tells me something important: I'd be making them do something very much against their will were they forced to duel me.

My sense of justice may be important to me, as it should be for every full featured human being. But it's not important enough to force it onto a total stranger in a digital world.

There are few culturally literate people in game development. The industry actually and actively selects against that quality. Thus we'll have to suffer such game systems as this.

JKorr · October 2016

CapuchinSeven wrote: »

BrianDavion wrote: »

fact is this type of stuff isn't to people's liking. every MMO I've ever played? the PVP servers die first. there's a reason for that

Yeah, because people are carebears that want reward without risk.

Or there are some overly aggressive hardcore type pvp players who manage to ruin the game and discourage other players, even the pvp focused ones from participating.

People have made suggestions about a pve instance for the pvp area of Cyrodiil so the pvp players wouldn't have to deal with the population cap being hit with groups of non-pvp carebears doing book and shard runs while actively avoiding pvp completely. The pvp players instantly start ranting about how it would ruin the game to do that. Not sure how, since it would free up pvp space for pvp players, but it might have something to do with their suspicion that many pvp players would cheerfully move to the pve instance so they could complete content without the pvp stuff. Or they think they would be missing a lot of easy to gank targets or something.

Not everyone really cares that someone else can defeat them. Congratulations, you're better than I am. Now please go away so I can play the game; the game is NOT "Ultimate Dueling" or "I R LEET U R NOT". There is a story and quests in there that doesn't involve another player killing you.

Tandor · October 2016

CapuchinSeven wrote: »

BrianDavion wrote: »

fact is this type of stuff isn't to people's liking. every MMO I've ever played? the PVP servers die first. there's a reason for that

Yeah, because people are carebears that want reward without risk.

Indeed, and those carebears are the PvPers who only want an easy fight against lower level players (unless they've got their friends with them when they're happy to take on an equal level player). Note I'm not saying all PvPers are like that, but some are and they're the ones that (a) are the true "carebears" and (b) are responsible for lots of PvPers deserting PvP servers when they realise that what they asked for with such a server isn't what they end up with.

STEVIL · October 2016

CapuchinSeven wrote: »

BrianDavion wrote: »

fact is this type of stuff isn't to people's liking. every MMO I've ever played? the PVP servers die first. there's a reason for that

Yeah, because people are carebears that want reward without risk.

in PVE combat your armor degrades esp if you die.
in PVP combat no such degradation even in loss.
Not seeing PVE as the ones opposed to risk there.

In PVE combat, rezz for free takes you to wayshrine/waypoint otherwise death req gem use/loss.
In PVP Dueling, rezz is free.
Not seeing PVE as the ones who want lack of risk.

CapuchinSeven · October 2016

JKorr wrote: »

CapuchinSeven wrote: »

BrianDavion wrote: »

fact is this type of stuff isn't to people's liking. every MMO I've ever played? the PVP servers die first. there's a reason for that

Yeah, because people are carebears that want reward without risk.

Or there are some overly aggressive hardcore type pvp players who manage to ruin the game and discourage other players, even the pvp focused ones from participating.

People have made suggestions about a pve instance for the pvp area of Cyrodiil so the pvp players wouldn't have to deal with the population cap being hit with groups of non-pvp carebears doing book and shard runs while actively avoiding pvp completely. The pvp players instantly start ranting about how it would ruin the game to do that. Not sure how, since it would free up pvp space for pvp players, but it might have something to do with their suspicion that many pvp players would cheerfully move to the pve instance so they could complete content without the pvp stuff. Or they think they would be missing a lot of easy to gank targets or something.

Not everyone really cares that someone else can defeat them. Congratulations, you're better than I am. Now please go away so I can play the game; the game is NOT "Ultimate Dueling" or "I R LEET U R NOT". There is a story and quests in there that doesn't involve another player killing you.

Tandor wrote: »

CapuchinSeven wrote: »

BrianDavion wrote: »

fact is this type of stuff isn't to people's liking. every MMO I've ever played? the PVP servers die first. there's a reason for that

Yeah, because people are carebears that want reward without risk.

Indeed, and those carebears are the PvPers who only want an easy fight against lower level players (unless they've got their friends with them when they're happy to take on an equal level player). Note I'm not saying all PvPers are like that, but some are and they're the ones that (a) are the true "carebears" and (b) are responsible for lots of PvPers deserting PvP servers when they realise that what they asked for with such a server isn't what they end up with.

STEVIL wrote: »

CapuchinSeven wrote: »

BrianDavion wrote: »

fact is this type of stuff isn't to people's liking. every MMO I've ever played? the PVP servers die first. there's a reason for that

Yeah, because people are carebears that want reward without risk.

in PVE combat your armor degrades esp if you die.
in PVP combat no such degradation even in loss.
Not seeing PVE as the ones opposed to risk there.

In PVE combat, rezz for free takes you to wayshrine/waypoint otherwise death req gem use/loss.
In PVP Dueling, rezz is free.
Not seeing PVE as the ones who want lack of risk.

I was 90% joking and 10% tired of people bunny hop killing 20 civilians in front of me, leaving the ground covered in bodies and my hero standing and watching.

BlanketFort · October 2016

BoloBoffin wrote: »

Forcing players to not do something they don't want to do? If you don't want to do the time, don't do the crime.

You're breaking my heart with the newb stories. Tell you what - allow the enforcers to only challenge people with notorious or fugitive level bounties. That should protect the poor little day one players with someone else's banana in their unsuspecting hands. And then thieves could clean their bounties with a couple of pardons when they spot a red eye floating through the crowd.

How to stop the enforcers from camping the refuge entrances? Open up the other three planned entrances in each city with a refuge as originally designed. Will enforcers camp all five in every city? Maybe, just maybe thieves will get through once or twice or find another city where the enforcers don't have all five locked down?

You have PvP in the PvE worlds now. This would blend in with the existing duels you already see Tamriel-wide.

Except the "time" does not mean "being bludgeoned to submission by an overly eager PvPer". I'm against open world PvP THAT YOU ARE FORCED TO DO.

As for your solution to Enforcers camping around a refuge entrance: seriously? That's it? "Maybe they are not camping at this one entrance, maybe they are?" That isn't really an ironclad solution, now is it?

Let it die. Please, leave PvE alone. You've got a whole zone dedicated to face rolling each other and now you can duel, too. The difference is that the people you beat to a pulp there, WANTED TO BE THERE AND HAVE THEIR FACES BEATEN TO A BLOODY PULP.

I don't even know why I'm writing here. I don't partake in murder sprees or stealing/pickpocketing. But I just find the idea horrendous and easily abused. worse would be enforcers gloating over their victory and name calling the thief. Yeah. Really magnificent game experience.

BlanketFort · October 2016

BoloBoffin wrote: »

Mic1007 wrote: »

Yeah... no thanks. The griefing would reach ridiculous levels severly quickly.

I do not see how. If it takes at least a notorious level of bounty to even be eligible for a challenge or wearing an enforcer tabard to enable being pounced upon by a thief, then people who are in those states are volunteering for duels. That's all this proposal is saying.

Argh... "volunteering"?? If that were me, I'd just be stealing more carefully and if I were to get a notorious bounty (who knows, perhaps I slipped up. Spammed an AoE or something) it certainly isn't because I've "volunteered" for a darn duel!

And your added bonus of thieves pouncing on enforcers... how is that a bonus? Look, it seems like you like to do PvP. Kindly stick to duels and cyrodiil and don't bring any of that into a PvE situation that the other player will be forced to do. I mean, it's pretty much like duelling, true, but those two sending each other spells and attacks and what-not WILLINGLY agreed to it.
Any gameplay that will force players into anything, shouldn't happen.

BoloBoffin · October 2016

BlanketFort wrote: »

BoloBoffin wrote: »

Mic1007 wrote: »

Yeah... no thanks. The griefing would reach ridiculous levels severly quickly.

I do not see how. If it takes at least a notorious level of bounty to even be eligible for a challenge or wearing an enforcer tabard to enable being pounced upon by a thief, then people who are in those states are volunteering for duels. That's all this proposal is saying.

Argh... "volunteering"?? If that were me, I'd just be stealing more carefully and if I were to get a notorious bounty (who knows, perhaps I slipped up. Spammed an AoE or something) it certainly isn't because I've "volunteered" for a darn duel!

And your added bonus of thieves pouncing on enforcers... how is that a bonus? Look, it seems like you like to do PvP. Kindly stick to duels and cyrodiil and don't bring any of that into a PvE situation that the other player will be forced to do. I mean, it's pretty much like duelling, true, but those two sending each other spells and attacks and what-not WILLINGLY agreed to it.
Any gameplay that will force players into anything, shouldn't happen.

You would manage your bounty level to avoid duels. That's precisely my point. Others would gleefully maintain a higher bounty to fight enforcers. It would be a voluntary option to duel and not something you're FORCED to do.

If you can't see how a thief ganking an enforcer out of the blue and starting a mandatory duel with the enforcer stunned and down on health is an advantage for the thief, maybe you should get acquainted with this game more.

Tandor · October 2016

BoloBoffin wrote: »

BlanketFort wrote: »

BoloBoffin wrote: »

Mic1007 wrote: »

Yeah... no thanks. The griefing would reach ridiculous levels severly quickly.

I do not see how. If it takes at least a notorious level of bounty to even be eligible for a challenge or wearing an enforcer tabard to enable being pounced upon by a thief, then people who are in those states are volunteering for duels. That's all this proposal is saying.

Argh... "volunteering"?? If that were me, I'd just be stealing more carefully and if I were to get a notorious bounty (who knows, perhaps I slipped up. Spammed an AoE or something) it certainly isn't because I've "volunteered" for a darn duel!

And your added bonus of thieves pouncing on enforcers... how is that a bonus? Look, it seems like you like to do PvP. Kindly stick to duels and cyrodiil and don't bring any of that into a PvE situation that the other player will be forced to do. I mean, it's pretty much like duelling, true, but those two sending each other spells and attacks and what-not WILLINGLY agreed to it.
Any gameplay that will force players into anything, shouldn't happen.

You would manage your bounty level to avoid duels. That's precisely my point. Others would gleefully maintain a higher bounty to fight enforcers. It would be a voluntary option to duel and not something you're FORCED to do.

If you can't see how a thief ganking an enforcer out of the blue and starting a mandatory duel with the enforcer stunned and down on health is an advantage for the thief, maybe you should get acquainted with this game more.

No thanks, that's forcing you to adapt your PvE in order to avoid PvP. Just accept a complete and unconditional opt-out in the game settings like we have for dueling, that's the only basis on which those who don't want PvP added to PvE content will even consider accepting it.

Bouldercleave · October 2016

BoloBoffin wrote: »

BlanketFort wrote: »

BoloBoffin wrote: »

Mic1007 wrote: »

Yeah... no thanks. The griefing would reach ridiculous levels severly quickly.

I do not see how. If it takes at least a notorious level of bounty to even be eligible for a challenge or wearing an enforcer tabard to enable being pounced upon by a thief, then people who are in those states are volunteering for duels. That's all this proposal is saying.

Argh... "volunteering"?? If that were me, I'd just be stealing more carefully and if I were to get a notorious bounty (who knows, perhaps I slipped up. Spammed an AoE or something) it certainly isn't because I've "volunteered" for a darn duel!

And your added bonus of thieves pouncing on enforcers... how is that a bonus? Look, it seems like you like to do PvP. Kindly stick to duels and cyrodiil and don't bring any of that into a PvE situation that the other player will be forced to do. I mean, it's pretty much like duelling, true, but those two sending each other spells and attacks and what-not WILLINGLY agreed to it.
Any gameplay that will force players into anything, shouldn't happen.

You would manage your bounty level to avoid duels. That's precisely my point. Others would gleefully maintain a higher bounty to fight enforcers. It would be a voluntary option to duel and not something you're FORCED to do.

If you can't see how a thief ganking an enforcer out of the blue and starting a mandatory duel with the enforcer stunned and down on health is an advantage for the thief, maybe you should get acquainted with this game more.

So your answer is to simply make it a gank fest on both sides of the coin? Thanks but no thanks. When I PvE, I want to do so on my terms - when I PvP, I'll go where the PvP is.

STEVIL · October 2016

Bouldercleave wrote: »

BoloBoffin wrote: »

BlanketFort wrote: »

BoloBoffin wrote: »

Mic1007 wrote: »

Yeah... no thanks. The griefing would reach ridiculous levels severly quickly.

I do not see how. If it takes at least a notorious level of bounty to even be eligible for a challenge or wearing an enforcer tabard to enable being pounced upon by a thief, then people who are in those states are volunteering for duels. That's all this proposal is saying.

Argh... "volunteering"?? If that were me, I'd just be stealing more carefully and if I were to get a notorious bounty (who knows, perhaps I slipped up. Spammed an AoE or something) it certainly isn't because I've "volunteered" for a darn duel!

And your added bonus of thieves pouncing on enforcers... how is that a bonus? Look, it seems like you like to do PvP. Kindly stick to duels and cyrodiil and don't bring any of that into a PvE situation that the other player will be forced to do. I mean, it's pretty much like duelling, true, but those two sending each other spells and attacks and what-not WILLINGLY agreed to it.
Any gameplay that will force players into anything, shouldn't happen.

You would manage your bounty level to avoid duels. That's precisely my point. Others would gleefully maintain a higher bounty to fight enforcers. It would be a voluntary option to duel and not something you're FORCED to do.

If you can't see how a thief ganking an enforcer out of the blue and starting a mandatory duel with the enforcer stunned and down on health is an advantage for the thief, maybe you should get acquainted with this game more.

So your answer is to simply make it a gank fest on both sides of the coin? Thanks but no thanks. When I PvE, I want to do so on my terms - when I PvP, I'll go where the PvP is.

yup.

play-in models are not voluntary, they are content ransom, play the way i say or get PVP..

BoloBoffin · October 2016

Tandor wrote: »

a complete and unconditional opt-out in the game settings

It's not a complete and unconditional opt-out if you have a setting to adjust. The condition is toggling the setting. In my proposal, the condition is keeping your bounty disreputable or non-existent after spending a skill point to enable justice system duels. I'm not concerned with winning over the forum enforcers here. I'm happy to present my ideas here, but I don't find the forum participants to be a fair representation of people actually playing the game.

White wabbit · October 2016

When is this idea going to go the same way as the Dodo

BoloBoffin · October 2016

White wabbit wrote: »

When is this idea going to go the same way as the Dodo

When did the extinction of the dodo become something people were glad happened?

White wabbit · October 2016

God I was hop

BoloBoffin wrote: »

White wabbit wrote: »

When is this idea going to go the same way as the Dodo

When did the extinction of the dodo become something people were glad happened?

Not sure how you can comment on that people wanted when I was the only person that posted it

Tandor · October 2016

BoloBoffin wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

a complete and unconditional opt-out in the game settings

It's not a complete and unconditional opt-out if you have a setting to adjust. The condition is toggling the setting. In my proposal, the condition is keeping your bounty disreputable or non-existent after spending a skill point to enable justice system duels. I'm not concerned with winning over the forum enforcers here. I'm happy to present my ideas here, but I don't find the forum participants to be a fair representation of people actually playing the game.

That's rather silly nit-picking, in my view. It would be sensible for the setting to be opt-out by default, so there would be no conditions to be met if you didn't want PvP in your PvE content. In any event, however, trying to compare altering a game setting to managing your bounty is feeble in the extreme. If that's the best answer you have to the case for a complete and unconditional opt-out then it would be better to concede the point and make your proposal more acceptable to a wider section of the community.

BoloBoffin · October 2016

Tandor wrote: »

BoloBoffin wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

a complete and unconditional opt-out in the game settings

It's not a complete and unconditional opt-out if you have a setting to adjust. The condition is toggling the setting. In my proposal, the condition is keeping your bounty disreputable or non-existent after spending a skill point to enable justice system duels. I'm not concerned with winning over the forum enforcers here. I'm happy to present my ideas here, but I don't find the forum participants to be a fair representation of people actually playing the game.

That's rather silly nit-picking, in my view. It would be sensible for the setting to be opt-out by default, so there would be no conditions to be met if you didn't want PvP in your PvE content. In any event, however, trying to compare altering a game setting to managing your bounty is feeble in the extreme. If that's the best answer you have to the case for a complete and unconditional opt-out then it would be better to concede the point and make your proposal more acceptable to a wider section of the community.

When "the community" is a few forum posters who would accept absolutely no full justice system whatsoever, then I'm good with the proposal as it currently is. I do need to do a writeup on the proposal as it currently is, though.

FoolishHuman · October 2016

I don't get it. So if I commit a crime against an NPC, a player should punish me and the NPCs (guards) not get involved?
Does that mean with your proposal I should then vice versa also be able to blade of woe and pickpocket the "enforcers" and other players? There is no way to ever make that fair. Crimes against NPCs should be handled by NPCs and Players shouldn't "enforce" justice or commit crimes against other players, or this game becomes anarchy.

Tandor · October 2016

BoloBoffin wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

BoloBoffin wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

a complete and unconditional opt-out in the game settings

It's not a complete and unconditional opt-out if you have a setting to adjust. The condition is toggling the setting. In my proposal, the condition is keeping your bounty disreputable or non-existent after spending a skill point to enable justice system duels. I'm not concerned with winning over the forum enforcers here. I'm happy to present my ideas here, but I don't find the forum participants to be a fair representation of people actually playing the game.

That's rather silly nit-picking, in my view. It would be sensible for the setting to be opt-out by default, so there would be no conditions to be met if you didn't want PvP in your PvE content. In any event, however, trying to compare altering a game setting to managing your bounty is feeble in the extreme. If that's the best answer you have to the case for a complete and unconditional opt-out then it would be better to concede the point and make your proposal more acceptable to a wider section of the community.

When "the community" is a few forum posters who would accept absolutely no full justice system whatsoever, then I'm good with the proposal as it currently is. I do need to do a writeup on the proposal as it currently is, though.

What has never been tested is the approach PvEers would give to a proposal for PvP being added to the Justice System where that proposal was from the very outset based on an entirely unconditional opt-out mechanism for PvP. Every single topic that is raised on this subject is based on PvEers being forced into PvP by one means or another at the expense of their chosen PvE playstyle. When in one or two of those topics a concession has finally been wrung out of the odd PvPer as to the unconditional nature of any opt-out it has been a classic case of too little, too late.

As for your definition of "community", I can just as easily refer to a few forum posters who clamour for PvP to be added to the Justice System. Most players regardless of their position on it are actually bored to death already with this subject which they rightly regard as closed.

STEVIL · October 2016

BoloBoffin wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

BoloBoffin wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

a complete and unconditional opt-out in the game settings

It's not a complete and unconditional opt-out if you have a setting to adjust. The condition is toggling the setting. In my proposal, the condition is keeping your bounty disreputable or non-existent after spending a skill point to enable justice system duels. I'm not concerned with winning over the forum enforcers here. I'm happy to present my ideas here, but I don't find the forum participants to be a fair representation of people actually playing the game.

That's rather silly nit-picking, in my view. It would be sensible for the setting to be opt-out by default, so there would be no conditions to be met if you didn't want PvP in your PvE content. In any event, however, trying to compare altering a game setting to managing your bounty is feeble in the extreme. If that's the best answer you have to the case for a complete and unconditional opt-out then it would be better to concede the point and make your proposal more acceptable to a wider section of the community.

When "the community" is a few forum posters who would accept absolutely no full justice system whatsoever, then I'm good with the proposal as it currently is. I do need to do a writeup on the proposal as it currently is, though.

You say full, others use different words for it.

White wabbit · October 2016

The same agreement could be said that " the community " is a few forum posters that want a Justive system ,so are a few trying to implement something that the majority don't want

Rastafariel · January 2017

I want a justice system, but I dont wish to force PvP on people. It should be consentual. Like a duel invitation or if in Cyrodiil, anything goes.

Metafae · January 2017

The point of being a thief is to flee when you're spotted by authority. If you initiated combat with a player who has a bounty, and they escape the flags area, you should be the one to pay for failing to capture your target.

There is even a footpad passive in TG which will have an NPC spawn to teleport you to the nearest refuge if you're fleeing a fight.

If people camped the entrance, you'd only need to touch the door to escape and win.

But even after all this, you should be able to opt out of the whole system, but there should be incentive to be opted in, so that you get more reward if you escape players.

And if as a bounty hunter, you accidentally steal, you can no longer be a bounty hunter for 24 hours.

It can still be abused though.

DocFrost72 · January 2017

Necro'd, and I didn't see date. Ignore.

Tai-Chi · January 2017

NO VIGILANTES. No , No, No!!!

Neither Cyrodiil not Tamriel needs members of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority. The lawful Guards are well equipped for this role and are not inadequate in executing their duties.

By the Eights, what is Nirn coming to!

BoloBoffin · January 2017

All I am saying is give Law and Order a chance.