Maintenance for the week of January 6:
· [COMPLETE] NA megaservers for maintenance – January 8, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 8:00AM EST (13:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] EU megaservers for maintenance – January 8, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 13:00 UTC (8:00AM EST)
· [COMPLETE] NA megaservers for maintenance – January 8, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 8:00AM EST (13:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] EU megaservers for maintenance – January 8, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 13:00 UTC (8:00AM EST)
Justice system sugestion (Addition) - Killing Other players in PVE.
-
Halorin✭✭✭I am certain that there will be a threshold of criminal activity before the possibility of running into other players becomes something to be concerned with, and I sincerely hope that the real worthwhile rewards are on the other side of that threshold, leaving people to enjoy vials of water worth 1 gold a piece for those afraid to accept real consequences for their efforts.
Core parts of this game are based on the idea of community involvement. We would have seen talks of traditional auction houses by now if they were going to abandon everything they stood for in order to cater to the lowest common denominator.
Citing the Veteran Rank system in comparison to this is a laughable prospect at best. Veteran Ranks are a core and mandatory part of the progression path. While I disagree with lowered difficulty, I can understand why they'd want to make it easier for people who aren't skilled or committed enough to the game since there needs to be people subscribing for the game to run. In its place, we are getting a better system that is a benefit for everyone in the Champions system.
But the Justice system is an optional gameplay dynamic. If someone stops subscribing because an optional addition to the game isn't exactly how they want it to be, they were likely going to leave the game over anything else by now.
There's also the possibility that the NPC guards are extremely difficult to fight or escape from, so difficult that players might even be easier to deal with. Would you then complain that the NPC guards were too tough and infringing on your want to play a criminal?3 -
yarnevk✭✭✭Again you ignore that players should have a choice to accept PVE or PVP consequences this is not about ignoring criminal consequences as you continue to try to make it about. It should not be up to you to decide that all criminals are subject to PVP. It is not about avoiding the feature to avoid PVP, because being criminals in TES has always been part of its gameplay (unlike other RPG games that force you to be the moral hero), so people indeed would rather quit than be subject to PVP to play that desired gameplay, in the same manner some quit rather than be forced to group.
The guards should be as tough as they was in the prior games, because the only one being hurt is the NPCs. Nobody is going to be stealing and murdering other players as a criminal so those doing it do not need to be punished by PVP to discourage them. Since you can have what you want with a justice-PVP/PVE consequence options that does not affect your PVP gameplay at all, it is clear that you want to victimize PVE players with your PVP which is exactly why such features should never get off the ground unless PVE can opt out of PVP in their criminal gameplay.Edited by yarnevk on July 28, 2014 7:16PM2 -
theyancey✭✭✭✭✭
✭The ONLY winners with the Justice System, are the PVP players.
No amount of spinning the facts, twisting the details or So-and-So said at Q-Con will change that.
Yes it is %100 speculation right now, but it is a damn slippery slope introducing "consensual" or "decision based" PVP into a PVE player area. Once they start down the slide, there will be no turning back.
I am all for playing as you want, but when my playstyle and your playstyle clash, there are no winners. One playstyle will suffer, and in the long run, both will.
Which is why we need separate shards within the megaserver. The only thing that will come from the proposed mixing will be lost subs and that hurts all of us.
3 -
Nox_Aeterna✭✭✭✭✭
✭I am certain that there will be a threshold of criminal activity before the possibility of running into other players becomes something to be concerned with, and I sincerely hope that the real worthwhile rewards are on the other side of that threshold, leaving people to enjoy vials of water worth 1 gold a piece for those afraid to accept real consequences for their efforts.
Core parts of this game are based on the idea of community involvement. We would have seen talks of traditional auction houses by now if they were going to abandon everything they stood for in order to cater to the lowest common denominator.
Citing the Veteran Rank system in comparison to this is a laughable prospect at best. Veteran Ranks are a core and mandatory part of the progression path. While I disagree with lowered difficulty, I can understand why they'd want to make it easier for people who aren't skilled or committed enough to the game since there needs to be people subscribing for the game to run. In its place, we are getting a better system that is a benefit for everyone in the Champions system.
But the Justice system is an optional gameplay dynamic. If someone stops subscribing because an optional addition to the game isn't exactly how they want it to be, they were likely going to leave the game over anything else by now.
There's also the possibility that the NPC guards are extremely difficult to fight or escape from, so difficult that players might even be easier to deal with. Would you then complain that the NPC guards were too tough and infringing on your want to play a criminal?
Hum you are missing 2 things:
First , while maybe not many would unsub because the justice system got PvP , many may avoid it because it got PvP , so they never even try it. So there is a feature many will not test and that could keep them playing instead of just quitting because they got bored.
Second , when they add the thieves and DB guilds , it may become the only way to lvl those guilds , which then would force PvE players into PvP to lvl them. THAT , might get people to unsub actually.
With both of those things said , we still did not see how it actually works."Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
-Hanlon's razor1 -
Halorin✭✭✭Again you ignore that players should have a choice to accept PVE or PVP consequences this is not about ignoring criminal consequences as you continue to try to make it about. It should not be up to you to decide that all criminals are subject to PVP. It is not about avoiding the feature to avoid PVP, because being criminals in TES has always been part of its gameplay (unlike other RPG games that force you to be the moral hero), so people indeed would rather quit than be subject to PVP to play that desired gameplay, in the same manner some quit rather than be forced to group.
The guards should be as tough as they was in the prior games, because the only one being hurt is the NPCs. Nobody is going to be stealing and murdering other players as a criminal so those doing it do not need to be punished by PVP to discourage them. Since you can have what you want with a justice-PVP/PVE consequence options that does not affect your PVP gameplay at all, it is clear that you want to victimize PVE players with your PVP which is exactly why such features should never get off the ground unless PVE can opt out of PVP in their criminal gameplay.
I'm actually not that big into PvP. I think you are just being too sensitive to the inclusion of PvP in the justice system. A player guard can't go around attacking anyone. They are attacking criminals that have large enough a bounty on their head that said criminal can be attacked. Assuming there is a threshold for player involvement, so long as you stay below that you would never be attacked by a player.
There are a lot of factors to consider that I think will make PvP in the justice system a smaller deal than you're making it out to be. Tamriel is a big place, and I can't see player guards roaming all of Glenumbra, Stormhaven, Rivenspire, and every other town in search of you and finding you the moment you steal. If you get caught stealing in a populated area, you're just a bad thief. That is, unless the bounty system allows players to track criminals, which is something of a slippery slope.
There are so many towns in the game that it's likely you will never run into another player guard if you took some time to plan your activity.
It's totally immersion breaking for a player guard to stand there and look at some guy stealing and the NPC guards aren't programmed well enough to see it, but they can do nothing about it.
ESO is the first Elder Scrolls game to introduce multiplayer to this extent to my knowledge, so I'm not sure there's much precedent to be hand in the argument of 'well in past games we didn't have to worry about players'. Those were single player games. This is new territory for the franchise, and so far the decision is to include the involvement of other players in your criminal activity.
There's no victimization going on in a system that has been designed from the outset to involve other players.
Your want for a safety bubble of consequences you can circumvent would break the possibilities of immersion, which is something I think is lacking in this game. You say that only the NPCs would be hurt, but that means you are looking at the game from a disconnected gameplay design sense.
I want to play a player guard because it's what my character would do. He'd want to protect citizens from murderers and thieves. If there was a dynamic source of content that was PVE where my character could hunt down criminals, then I'd engage in that.
But roleplay through gameplay design is something I think is missing from MMOs and games like ArcheAge are superior in that regard. Even if you don't roleplay in that game, your actions of farming, crafting, and trade is in a form of roleplaying because your playing the game puts you in the shoes of your character.
The PVE design of this game make that impossible, because you are just following the same linear path everyone else does.
The justice system is the first step toward players stepping into the shoes of their characters in a way that's personal and unique to them.
I'm not even that great at PVP in this game, but the justice system would make me want to try it out.
If there's to be any PVE-only variant of the justice system, I hope that it's just some minor league, small reward threshold you'd have to hover under before the real rewards come into play that expose you to potential player involvement. Because that's part of the immersion.
4 -
yarnevk✭✭✭PVP is not a necessary component for sandbox gameplay. For example Wurm Online gives you a choice of PVP or PVE islands, and like many games that do, PVP is the minority player given the choice even in the niche indy game market. So your premise that it is requirement of AAA sandbox games to survive itself is false, nor was this game every promised to be anything but a themepark MMO it was not designed to be a sandbox as it has restricted level linear quest zones. I am not about to play a game that requires me to PVP to level in the thieves/assassins guild.
It is not immersive to my roleplay as a criminal to have to face another player in PVP, especially since you can have the choice of PVP Justice while I can have the choice of PVE justice so that both play how what we think is best. Again it is not your place to be telling me what MY risk level is for risking PVP or that I may enjoy it or I might want to play more sandbox and it is better for MY roleplay. I have played and quit PVP games, I understand why people want to play them so I am proposing that they can, just give those who do not want to play the ability to stick with PVE consequences only. Telling me I cannot play a thief unless I want to PVP is not what TES is about, and it is something people that people will quit over rather than have others impose it on them. There are plenty of other RPG that enable thief/assassin class play without involving PVP.
Edited by yarnevk on July 28, 2014 8:35PM2 -
Kafolarbear✭✭✭PvP for PvP areas only please.
PvP in PvE areas ends with loads of peeved lower level players being killed by some oik, set on griefing as many people as possible day after day. With no chance to defend themselves, it becomes irritating very quickly and will cause people to leave.
no thank you
You did not read at all, he suggested that there would be limitations to who a player can and can't kill.
Overall I like the idea as long as there are 2 servers for people who do and don't want it.Edited by Kafolarbear on July 28, 2014 8:37PMVeteran Rank 5 Khajiit Nightblade.
For the Queen; for Elswyr!0 -
Cyberdown✭✭✭I think having an optional world pvp system would be beyond fantastic.
What if it worked much like vampires and warewolfs? You join the thieves guild or the ordinators. Anyone in the opposite faction could potentially be gankable in game. There would need to be a law system in place to set thieves as wanted criminals and ordinators as assassination targets. It would be 100% optional to join either...and per character...so im thinking it would be more of an endgame activity. Bonus points for killing enemy factions who belong to your enemy guild.
Its a shame they made the game faction locked regions too...I think that some form of endgame pve that causes you to go to other factions areas and do recon missions within high level areas would be fantasic...you would need an open world game for that to work though.Edited by Cyberdown on July 28, 2014 8:41PM1 -
Halorin✭✭✭PVP is not a necessary component for sandbox gameplay. For example Wurm Online gives you a choice of PVP or PVE islands, and like many games that do, PVP is the minority player given the choice even in the niche indy game market. So your premise that it is requirement of AAA sandbox games to survive itself is false, nor was this game every promised to be anything but a themepark MMO it was not designed to be a sandbox as it has restricted level linear quest zones. I am not about to play a game that requires me to PVP to level in the thieves/assassins guild.
It is not immersive to my roleplay as a criminal to have to face another player in PVP, especially since you can have the choice of PVP Justice while I can have the choice of PVE justice so that both play how what we think is best. Again it is not your place to be telling me what MY risk level is for risking PVP or that I may enjoy it or I might want to play more sandbox and it is better for MY roleplay. I have played and quit PVP games, I understand why people want to play them so I am proposing that they can, just give those who do not want to play the ability to stick with PVE consequences only. Telling me I cannot play a thief unless I want to PVP is not what TES is about, and it is something people that people will quit over rather than have others impose it on them. There are plenty of other RPG that enable thief/assassin class play without involving PVP.
Who are you to say what TES is about? There haven't been any other multiplayer TES games for there to be a precedent one way or the other. The justice system is likely to not be a themepark element, so your promise argument carries absolutely no value to me.
No stance from the developers have been taken to say that the justice system and related guilds are a PVP activity with a PVE slant or a PVE activity with a PVP slant.
My proposal would allow you to play a thief without being in PVP. You just wouldn't get the same set of rewards as someone that wants to take the risk of being attacked by another player. While I have my opinion about people who want to play thieves while wanting to avoid player-based consequences, I think there are ways to cater to that crowd without complete separation.
Either a threshold is set where if your bounty goes over a certain amount other players can go after you or having some actions (killing NPCs as an example) puts a bounty on you that can be claimed by other players. So long as you operated under that threshold, you could enjoy your playerless experience.
But we can go back and forth over opinions and mindsets until the end of time. The inarguable facts are that the developers want to have PvP as a component of the justice system to some capacity. To what capacity, we don't know yet.
So you can make all the complaints and concerns you want. Just as you are free to post here voicing your disapproval in hopes that the developers see it and change their mind, I am free to voice my approval in hopes that they don't.3 -
smeeprocketnub19_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭smeeprocketnub19_ESO wrote: »
Also, I really do hope there is a way to be flagged without racking up a bounty. I like to be able to go where I please without npc guards trying to arrest me. I just want the possibility of player guards attacking me. Plus having my flag wear off and having to go all the way to a city to get another one (it would be in khenarthi's roost I think, I never go there and have even already spotted m'iaq there,) would be a pita. I don't want the bounty to wear off.
So you don't really want a justice system, you just want open world PvP.
well, umm yea, I haven't really been shy about that, have I? Opt in is as good as completely open to me as long as I can attack people that are able to attack me and noncombatants can't get involved.
But I very much want the justice system so I can also be a criminal. I signed up for this game excited about the thieves guild and dark brotherhood and have been waiting for a very long time for it.
In single player TES games I steal anything that isn't nailed down and usually have quite a bit of money later on, and a lot of stuff I can't sell at max value to fences, because it's worth too much.
I love stealing, and assassination. The Dark Brotherhood is utterly psychopathic and a very messed up cult, and that is just too cool. When Lucien LaChance tells you to kill all the people you have become friends with in the cheydinhal DB sanctuary... that was so much fun. I poisoned every single one of them with an apple, and then took out the vampire after they had all expired. It was glorious.
They need to implement poison apples with this!
Oh or to bring up a few other awesome kills, dropping that minotaur head on that one elf, then sneaking out without even being noticed, or killing that woman in skyrim while she spoke at her wedding....
good times!
PS: They are not going to make two seperate servers, that would be dumb. They have said zero about that so it is just wishful thinking. This comes down to choosing to participate or not. Did you know that every rank in cyrodiil gives you a skillpoint. That means that *gasp* you do not have access to those skillpoints unless you pvp. There is currently content hidden behind a pvp wall and has been since beta.Edited by smeeprocketnub19_ESO on July 28, 2014 9:19PMDear Sister, I do not spread rumors, I create them.1 -
Tandor✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭smeeprocketnub19_ESO wrote: »Did you know that every rank in cyrodiil gives you a skillpoint. That means that *gasp* you do not have access to those skillpoints unless you pvp. There is currently content hidden behind a pvp wall and has been since beta.
Indeed, and as a non-PvP'er that doesn't bother me in the slightest given the present set-up. However, that set-up is changing, and many will be critical of giving PvP'ers the option to follow their playstyle outside of Cyrodil without offering PvE'ers the option to follow their playstyle in Cyrodil.
1 -
TehMagnus✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭
In short, this justice system and all the resources going into its development is being wasted on pvp-only players, which are the minority in any game.
Of course not since the percentage of the players that get caught will probably be a minority
See you're adding in pve players not getting caught as players on the team of "we love pvp consequences in the justice system" when they're actually on the "we want pve consequences only in the justice system" team.
It would be better to just roll this out as pve consequences with opt-in pvp for those that actually want to have pvp all over town in the open world.
Opt-in pvp is NOT "do not get caught" - opt-in pvp would have to be a toggle, where you can choose whether or not to involve other hostile players in your game.
There will never be Opt-in PVP in the justice system.
Listen to Paul Sage's wise words, he began by saying this:
"If guards are only NPCs, I know you guys will find a way to abuse & exploit the system so we are puting in players in the guard faction"..
Oh so it's better that people get pvp forced on them rather than they get to run away with 9 gold pieces worth of sweet rolls. I see where this game is heading.
It's not forced, they choose to try to get away with 9 gold pieces worth of sweet rolls.
It IS forced - they wanted to interact only with NPCs not other players.
It isn't forced, interaction for that particular part of the game, (like going to cyrodill) implies interaction with players. It's just the way it's done. Following your (allways amazing) logic, players who want to interact only with NPCs in Cyrodill (since there are dungeons & dolmens aka pve content) should be able to "opt out of pvp" and just go to Cyrodill without being engaged by other players
wich would be ridiculous since Cyrodill is for PVP, just like justice system will have pvp. Don't like it? don't do it, just like you don't go to Cyrodill Edited by TehMagnus on July 28, 2014 11:09PM1 -
TehMagnus✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭Hell no, if you get a bounty in every single town and somehow manage to never get murdered by player guards in every single town then you get to never use the banks.
Wasn't that the whole point of player guards according to some guy back there and Paul Sage - that people wouldn't get to avoid consequences?
If you get a bounty in every single town then you should pay the guards to have your bounty cleared. This post, to me, confirms that you just want the feeling that you could have consequences for your actions but you never want to actually face them.
Or at the very least, your words suggest that ONLY players would pose a threat to you and not NPC guards, which is why Paul Sage specifically pointed out that player guards are meant to be a deterrent for players' circumventing NPC guards.
I'm glad that the developers are making the danger and consequence real for players like you. This false illusion of danger you're after is not something that should be pushed for at the detriment of the community's opportunity for dynamic content.
This o This.2 -
TehMagnus✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭
The first statement they made on banker NPCs and other important NPCs was that they were able to be attacked and would be reactive, so that griefing of other players would be possible (knocking people out of the banking window and so on).They've already said that important NPCs can't be killed, so criminals won't be able to grief players that way.
I'm not sure if they have reconsidered this given it being brought to their attention, if not then it's a shame and will be an issue in the live game, and if so then it's something that indicates they are open to a reworking of the system as initially proposed.
And so here we are suggesting improvements.
Lie. Nothing was ever said about important NPCs being attackable.
In the video you clearly see random NPCs being attacked no important NPCs ZOS devs wouldn't be so noobish to make it possible to knock people out of the banking window and so on and never said or hinted anything that could led anyone to believe this is possible.
Most likely it won't even be possible to target the important NPCs.The ONLY winners with the Justice System, are the PVP players.
No amount of spinning the facts, twisting the details or So-and-So said at Q-Con will change that.
Yes it is %100 speculation right now, but it is a damn slippery slope introducing "consensual" or "decision based" PVP into a PVE player area. Once they start down the slide, there will be no turning back.
I am all for playing as you want, but when my playstyle and your playstyle clash, there are no winners. One playstyle will suffer, and in the long run, both will.
The only winners are the players playing an MMO and not a solo game IMO.5 -
babylon✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭
In short, this justice system and all the resources going into its development is being wasted on pvp-only players, which are the minority in any game.
Of course not since the percentage of the players that get caught will probably be a minority
See you're adding in pve players not getting caught as players on the team of "we love pvp consequences in the justice system" when they're actually on the "we want pve consequences only in the justice system" team.
It would be better to just roll this out as pve consequences with opt-in pvp for those that actually want to have pvp all over town in the open world.
Opt-in pvp is NOT "do not get caught" - opt-in pvp would have to be a toggle, where you can choose whether or not to involve other hostile players in your game.
There will never be Opt-in PVP in the justice system.
Listen to Paul Sage's wise words, he began by saying this:
"If guards are only NPCs, I know you guys will find a way to abuse & exploit the system so we are puting in players in the guard faction"..
Oh so it's better that people get pvp forced on them rather than they get to run away with 9 gold pieces worth of sweet rolls. I see where this game is heading.
It's not forced, they choose to try to get away with 9 gold pieces worth of sweet rolls.
It IS forced - they wanted to interact only with NPCs not other players.
It isn't forced snip
The areas was up till now were separate and so if I didn't want to do pvp I wasn't in Cyrodiil. If I wanted to pvp I would go to Cyrodiil. Now they're making it so if I want to do some pve content that has always been fun for me (killing and stealing) I am quite possibly forced to do pvp as well. So yes it is forced pvp, and your denial isn't a compelling argument at all, despite what you imagine.0 -
babylon✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭
The first statement they made on banker NPCs and other important NPCs was that they were able to be attacked and would be reactive, so that griefing of other players would be possible (knocking people out of the banking window and so on).They've already said that important NPCs can't be killed, so criminals won't be able to grief players that way.
I'm not sure if they have reconsidered this given it being brought to their attention, if not then it's a shame and will be an issue in the live game, and if so then it's something that indicates they are open to a reworking of the system as initially proposed.
And so here we are suggesting improvements.
Lie. Nothing was ever said about important NPCs being attackable.
Nope, not lies, get your facts straight for once. A ZOS employee stated bankers would be attackable AND reactive.ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »The current plan is that important NPCs (quest NPCs, bankers, stablemasters, merchants) will not be killable when the Justice System goes live. However, they will be attackable, react accordingly, and you will incur bounty for doing so.
If you were a decent person you would apologise for calling me a liar.Edited by babylon on July 28, 2014 11:33PM0 -
TehMagnus✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭
In short, this justice system and all the resources going into its development is being wasted on pvp-only players, which are the minority in any game.
Of course not since the percentage of the players that get caught will probably be a minority
See you're adding in pve players not getting caught as players on the team of "we love pvp consequences in the justice system" when they're actually on the "we want pve consequences only in the justice system" team.
It would be better to just roll this out as pve consequences with opt-in pvp for those that actually want to have pvp all over town in the open world.
Opt-in pvp is NOT "do not get caught" - opt-in pvp would have to be a toggle, where you can choose whether or not to involve other hostile players in your game.
There will never be Opt-in PVP in the justice system.
Listen to Paul Sage's wise words, he began by saying this:
"If guards are only NPCs, I know you guys will find a way to abuse & exploit the system so we are puting in players in the guard faction"..
Oh so it's better that people get pvp forced on them rather than they get to run away with 9 gold pieces worth of sweet rolls. I see where this game is heading.
It's not forced, they choose to try to get away with 9 gold pieces worth of sweet rolls.
It IS forced - they wanted to interact only with NPCs not other players.
It isn't forced snip
The areas was up till now were separate and so if I didn't want to do pvp I wasn't in Cyrodiil. If I wanted to pvp I would go to Cyrodiil. Now they're making it so if I want to do some pve content that has always been fun for me (killing and stealing) I am quite possibly forced to do pvp as well. So yes it is forced pvp, and your denial isn't a compelling argument at all, despite what you imagine.
It's not forced PVP since untill now you haven't been stealing and you havent been murdering NPCs. It's a new addition to the game that involves a bit of PVP.
So no, it's not forced PVP, it's opt-in PVP, since noone is forcing you to steal or murder NPCs (like nobody forces you to go to Cyrodill) and it's not something you could do before.
I will repeat the key words for you: New Functionality | Involves PVP | You don't have to partake in it.
Your denial and lies (about how the system will supposedly grieve players) won't get you far. I'm hoping it kicks in soon so that chest loot abusers are very very sad
. Edited by TehMagnus on July 28, 2014 11:34PM2 -
TehMagnus✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭
The first statement they made on banker NPCs and other important NPCs was that they were able to be attacked and would be reactive, so that griefing of other players would be possible (knocking people out of the banking window and so on).They've already said that important NPCs can't be killed, so criminals won't be able to grief players that way.
I'm not sure if they have reconsidered this given it being brought to their attention, if not then it's a shame and will be an issue in the live game, and if so then it's something that indicates they are open to a reworking of the system as initially proposed.
And so here we are suggesting improvements.
Lie. Nothing was ever said about important NPCs being attackable.
IMO.
Nope, not lies, get your facts straight for once. A ZOS employee stated bankers would be attackable AND reactive.
Link? Proof? mmh?
1 -
babylon✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭
The first statement they made on banker NPCs and other important NPCs was that they were able to be attacked and would be reactive, so that griefing of other players would be possible (knocking people out of the banking window and so on).They've already said that important NPCs can't be killed, so criminals won't be able to grief players that way.
I'm not sure if they have reconsidered this given it being brought to their attention, if not then it's a shame and will be an issue in the live game, and if so then it's something that indicates they are open to a reworking of the system as initially proposed.
And so here we are suggesting improvements.
Lie. Nothing was ever said about important NPCs being attackable.
IMO.
Nope, not lies, get your facts straight for once. A ZOS employee stated bankers would be attackable AND reactive.
Link? Proof? mmh?
In the post you just quoted, but snipped the ZOS quote out of.0 -
babylon✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭
In short, this justice system and all the resources going into its development is being wasted on pvp-only players, which are the minority in any game.
Of course not since the percentage of the players that get caught will probably be a minority
See you're adding in pve players not getting caught as players on the team of "we love pvp consequences in the justice system" when they're actually on the "we want pve consequences only in the justice system" team.
It would be better to just roll this out as pve consequences with opt-in pvp for those that actually want to have pvp all over town in the open world.
Opt-in pvp is NOT "do not get caught" - opt-in pvp would have to be a toggle, where you can choose whether or not to involve other hostile players in your game.
There will never be Opt-in PVP in the justice system.
Listen to Paul Sage's wise words, he began by saying this:
"If guards are only NPCs, I know you guys will find a way to abuse & exploit the system so we are puting in players in the guard faction"..
Oh so it's better that people get pvp forced on them rather than they get to run away with 9 gold pieces worth of sweet rolls. I see where this game is heading.
It's not forced, they choose to try to get away with 9 gold pieces worth of sweet rolls.
It IS forced - they wanted to interact only with NPCs not other players.
It isn't forced snip
The areas was up till now were separate and so if I didn't want to do pvp I wasn't in Cyrodiil. If I wanted to pvp I would go to Cyrodiil. Now they're making it so if I want to do some pve content that has always been fun for me (killing and stealing) I am quite possibly forced to do pvp as well. So yes it is forced pvp, and your denial isn't a compelling argument at all, despite what you imagine.
It's not forced PVP
It isn't opt-in pvp, because people want to steal and kill NPCs without doing any pvp. So the choice is either kill and steal and have pvp forced on them, or continue the pve game but without the crime content which they really wanted to enjoy but now can't or they'll have pvp forced on them.1 -
Jack-0✭✭✭✭✭What would be nice: Order/Chaos groups like UO, i.e. so you have to sign up to/consent to pvp and pick a side to be on. By doing so, you would freely attackable to opposing groups. Participation unlocked at VR12/highest level/rank.
Best case scenario: red/grey/blue setup for murderer/thief/innocent with rules giving guard protection or zone-wide controls preventing/deterring pvp in specific(low level?) towns/outposts/zones.2 -
TehMagnus✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭
The first statement they made on banker NPCs and other important NPCs was that they were able to be attacked and would be reactive, so that griefing of other players would be possible (knocking people out of the banking window and so on).They've already said that important NPCs can't be killed, so criminals won't be able to grief players that way.
I'm not sure if they have reconsidered this given it being brought to their attention, if not then it's a shame and will be an issue in the live game, and if so then it's something that indicates they are open to a reworking of the system as initially proposed.
And so here we are suggesting improvements.
Lie. Nothing was ever said about important NPCs being attackable.
IMO.
Nope, not lies, get your facts straight for once. A ZOS employee stated bankers would be attackable AND reactive.
Link? Proof? mmh?
In the post you just quoted, but snipped the ZOS quote out of.
You mean the post that you edited to include a made up a quote instead of providing a link?2 -
TehMagnus✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭
In short, this justice system and all the resources going into its development is being wasted on pvp-only players, which are the minority in any game.
Of course not since the percentage of the players that get caught will probably be a minority
See you're adding in pve players not getting caught as players on the team of "we love pvp consequences in the justice system" when they're actually on the "we want pve consequences only in the justice system" team.
It would be better to just roll this out as pve consequences with opt-in pvp for those that actually want to have pvp all over town in the open world.
Opt-in pvp is NOT "do not get caught" - opt-in pvp would have to be a toggle, where you can choose whether or not to involve other hostile players in your game.
There will never be Opt-in PVP in the justice system.
Listen to Paul Sage's wise words, he began by saying this:
"If guards are only NPCs, I know you guys will find a way to abuse & exploit the system so we are puting in players in the guard faction"..
Oh so it's better that people get pvp forced on them rather than they get to run away with 9 gold pieces worth of sweet rolls. I see where this game is heading.
It's not forced, they choose to try to get away with 9 gold pieces worth of sweet rolls.
It IS forced - they wanted to interact only with NPCs not other players.
It isn't forced snip
The areas was up till now were separate and so if I didn't want to do pvp I wasn't in Cyrodiil. If I wanted to pvp I would go to Cyrodiil. Now they're making it so if I want to do some pve content that has always been fun for me (killing and stealing) I am quite possibly forced to do pvp as well. So yes it is forced pvp, and your denial isn't a compelling argument at all, despite what you imagine.
It's not forced PVP
It isn't opt-in pvp, because people want to steal and kill NPCs without doing any pvp. So the choice is either kill and steal and have pvp forced on them, or continue the pve game but without the crime content which they really wanted to enjoy but now can't or they'll have pvp forced on them.
Well they probably also wanted to experiment Cyrodill without being "forced" into pvp and they cant. They prolly will have to deal with it just like they did with Cyrodill (or don't get caught). 1 -
babylon✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭
The first statement they made on banker NPCs and other important NPCs was that they were able to be attacked and would be reactive, so that griefing of other players would be possible (knocking people out of the banking window and so on).They've already said that important NPCs can't be killed, so criminals won't be able to grief players that way.
I'm not sure if they have reconsidered this given it being brought to their attention, if not then it's a shame and will be an issue in the live game, and if so then it's something that indicates they are open to a reworking of the system as initially proposed.
And so here we are suggesting improvements.
Lie. Nothing was ever said about important NPCs being attackable.
IMO.
Nope, not lies, get your facts straight for once. A ZOS employee stated bankers would be attackable AND reactive.
Link? Proof? mmh?
In the post you just quoted, but snipped the ZOS quote out of.
You mean the post that you edited to include a made up a quote instead of providing a link?
Excuse me? Click the quote post, it links directly to the ZOS employee. This is the second time you've accused me of lying, i am not going to respond to your ridiculous accusations or circular posts again.1 -
TehMagnus✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭
The first statement they made on banker NPCs and other important NPCs was that they were able to be attacked and would be reactive, so that griefing of other players would be possible (knocking people out of the banking window and so on).They've already said that important NPCs can't be killed, so criminals won't be able to grief players that way.
I'm not sure if they have reconsidered this given it being brought to their attention, if not then it's a shame and will be an issue in the live game, and if so then it's something that indicates they are open to a reworking of the system as initially proposed.
And so here we are suggesting improvements.
Lie. Nothing was ever said about important NPCs being attackable.
IMO.
Nope, not lies, get your facts straight for once. A ZOS employee stated bankers would be attackable AND reactive.
Link? Proof? mmh?
In the post you just quoted, but snipped the ZOS quote out of.
You mean the post that you edited to include a made up a quote instead of providing a link?
Excuse me? Click the quote post, it links directly to the ZOS employee. This is the second time you've accused me of lying, i am not going to respond to your ridiculous accusations or circular posts again.
True, I apologise.
Then again you forgot to add this:ZOS_JessicaFolsom wrote: »1 -
yarnevk✭✭✭It isn't opt-in pvp, because people want to steal and kill NPCs without doing any pvp. So the choice is either kill and steal and have pvp forced on them, or continue the pve game but without the crime content which they really wanted to enjoy but now can't or they'll have pvp forced on them.
I have a poll requesting option for having player choice of PVE and PVP consequences (yes vote) in the upcoming crime systems (choose at login or arrest TBD), or shall it be crime systems force PVP consequences only (no vote).
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/122788/pve-pvp-options-for-justice-system-criminal-guilds
Edited by yarnevk on July 28, 2014 11:51PM0 -
babylon✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭It isn't opt-in pvp, because people want to steal and kill NPCs without doing any pvp. So the choice is either kill and steal and have pvp forced on them, or continue the pve game but without the crime content which they really wanted to enjoy but now can't or they'll have pvp forced on them.
I have a poll requesting option for choosing between PVE/PVP consequences (yes vote) in the upcoming crime systems, or shall it be crime systems force PVP consequences only (no vote).
http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/122788/pve-pvp-options-for-justice-system-criminal-guilds
I've already voted in there.1 -
nerevarine1138✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
In short, this justice system and all the resources going into its development is being wasted on pvp-only players, which are the minority in any game.
Of course not since the percentage of the players that get caught will probably be a minority
See you're adding in pve players not getting caught as players on the team of "we love pvp consequences in the justice system" when they're actually on the "we want pve consequences only in the justice system" team.
It would be better to just roll this out as pve consequences with opt-in pvp for those that actually want to have pvp all over town in the open world.
Opt-in pvp is NOT "do not get caught" - opt-in pvp would have to be a toggle, where you can choose whether or not to involve other hostile players in your game.
There will never be Opt-in PVP in the justice system.
Listen to Paul Sage's wise words, he began by saying this:
"If guards are only NPCs, I know you guys will find a way to abuse & exploit the system so we are puting in players in the guard faction"..
Oh so it's better that people get pvp forced on them rather than they get to run away with 9 gold pieces worth of sweet rolls. I see where this game is heading.
It's not forced, they choose to try to get away with 9 gold pieces worth of sweet rolls.
It IS forced - they wanted to interact only with NPCs not other players.
It isn't forced snip
The areas was up till now were separate and so if I didn't want to do pvp I wasn't in Cyrodiil. If I wanted to pvp I would go to Cyrodiil. Now they're making it so if I want to do some pve content that has always been fun for me (killing and stealing) I am quite possibly forced to do pvp as well. So yes it is forced pvp, and your denial isn't a compelling argument at all, despite what you imagine.
It's not forced PVP
It isn't opt-in pvp, because people want to steal and kill NPCs without doing any pvp. So the choice is either kill and steal and have pvp forced on them, or continue the pve game but without the crime content which they really wanted to enjoy but now can't or they'll have pvp forced on them.
I'm sure people do want to kill and steal without having to face any real threat of consequences. Too bad for them.----
Murray?3 -
babylon✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭nerevarine1138 wrote: »
In short, this justice system and all the resources going into its development is being wasted on pvp-only players, which are the minority in any game.
Of course not since the percentage of the players that get caught will probably be a minority
See you're adding in pve players not getting caught as players on the team of "we love pvp consequences in the justice system" when they're actually on the "we want pve consequences only in the justice system" team.
It would be better to just roll this out as pve consequences with opt-in pvp for those that actually want to have pvp all over town in the open world.
Opt-in pvp is NOT "do not get caught" - opt-in pvp would have to be a toggle, where you can choose whether or not to involve other hostile players in your game.
There will never be Opt-in PVP in the justice system.
Listen to Paul Sage's wise words, he began by saying this:
"If guards are only NPCs, I know you guys will find a way to abuse & exploit the system so we are puting in players in the guard faction"..
Oh so it's better that people get pvp forced on them rather than they get to run away with 9 gold pieces worth of sweet rolls. I see where this game is heading.
It's not forced, they choose to try to get away with 9 gold pieces worth of sweet rolls.
It IS forced - they wanted to interact only with NPCs not other players.
It isn't forced snip
The areas was up till now were separate and so if I didn't want to do pvp I wasn't in Cyrodiil. If I wanted to pvp I would go to Cyrodiil. Now they're making it so if I want to do some pve content that has always been fun for me (killing and stealing) I am quite possibly forced to do pvp as well. So yes it is forced pvp, and your denial isn't a compelling argument at all, despite what you imagine.
It's not forced PVP
It isn't opt-in pvp, because people want to steal and kill NPCs without doing any pvp. So the choice is either kill and steal and have pvp forced on them, or continue the pve game but without the crime content which they really wanted to enjoy but now can't or they'll have pvp forced on them.
I'm sure people do want to kill and steal without having to face any real threat of consequences. Too bad for them.
You keep talking about people not wanting to face the consequences, when it is just about people not wanting to pvp. Try to absorb this piece of information then work with that instead of running around making assumptions and effectively arguing with yourself.1 -
Halorin✭✭✭
In short, this justice system and all the resources going into its development is being wasted on pvp-only players, which are the minority in any game.
Of course not since the percentage of the players that get caught will probably be a minority
See you're adding in pve players not getting caught as players on the team of "we love pvp consequences in the justice system" when they're actually on the "we want pve consequences only in the justice system" team.
It would be better to just roll this out as pve consequences with opt-in pvp for those that actually want to have pvp all over town in the open world.
Opt-in pvp is NOT "do not get caught" - opt-in pvp would have to be a toggle, where you can choose whether or not to involve other hostile players in your game.
There will never be Opt-in PVP in the justice system.
Listen to Paul Sage's wise words, he began by saying this:
"If guards are only NPCs, I know you guys will find a way to abuse & exploit the system so we are puting in players in the guard faction"..
Oh so it's better that people get pvp forced on them rather than they get to run away with 9 gold pieces worth of sweet rolls. I see where this game is heading.
It's not forced, they choose to try to get away with 9 gold pieces worth of sweet rolls.
It IS forced - they wanted to interact only with NPCs not other players.
It isn't forced snip
The areas was up till now were separate and so if I didn't want to do pvp I wasn't in Cyrodiil. If I wanted to pvp I would go to Cyrodiil. Now they're making it so if I want to do some pve content that has always been fun for me (killing and stealing) I am quite possibly forced to do pvp as well. So yes it is forced pvp, and your denial isn't a compelling argument at all, despite what you imagine.
It's not forced PVP
It isn't opt-in pvp, because people want to steal and kill NPCs without doing any pvp. So the choice is either kill and steal and have pvp forced on them, or continue the pve game but without the crime content which they really wanted to enjoy but now can't or they'll have pvp forced on them.
By my definition, stealing from and killing NPCs is opting in to PVP, based on what's been revealed so far. But they have not confirmed or denied how quickly you'd be subjected to PVP, so a lot of your position is based on unconfirmed assumptions.1
