Capture enemy player

Publius_Scipio

Sounds fun, but probably too complicated and not something ZOS would even consider attempting.

That being said, I would allow myself to be captured. Brought back to Kastle Krotha. Then I would free myself and take each one of their digital lives from within their own walls.... As they sleep coming off a sugar rush of M&Ms, Twix, Cap'n Crunch cereal, Snickers, Milky Way bars, Babe Ruth bars, and Gobstoppers.

God_flakes

Typhoios wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

Right, me including. I've resisted buying it because I found it boring. Maybe send them back to the shrine like when you die from slaughterfish?

I could even see them putting a prison or something in one of the towns near each alliances home bases. Chorrol for DC, Cheydinal for EP and I'm drawing a blank for AD, or just a new place in each factions home territory. You could have npc guards and players could also hang around to guard prisoners, but captured players should be able to lockpick or in some way break out and have a cooldown on being captured so they can't be griefed and sent to prison over and over in short time frames.

Awesome!!!! This could add a whole new element to the game and encourage rp and immersion and if done correctly (without grief) it could actually draw some players back who have grown weary of the stack and spam meta. Like I said, it would mean a new objective to group play rather than just "kill kill". There would be a reason to not spam-ap gains could still be made based on captures.

God_flakes

Publius_Scipio wrote: »

Sounds fun, but probably too complicated and not something ZOS would even consider attempting.

That being said, I would allow myself to be captured. Brought back to Kastle Krotha. Then I would free myself and take each one of their digital lives from within their own walls.... As they sleep coming off a sugar rush of M&Ms, Twix, Cap'n Crunch cereal, Snickers, Milky Way bars, Babe Ruth bars, and Gobstoppers.

I want to be captured, too.

SirAndy

God_flakes wrote: »

Did you even bother to read the entire thread? Nobody is suggesting restricting anyone from content.

Your very own words:
"For example, your player is being held at Chal and the only way to rescue them is to siege Chal."

What if they decide to go somewhere else and NOT rescue the imprisoned player? What's he/she gonna do? Sit there for the rest of the day twiddling thumbs?

God_flakes

SirAndy wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

Did you even bother to read the entire thread? Nobody is suggesting restricting anyone from content.

Your very own words:
"For example, your player is being held at Chal and the only way to rescue them is to siege Chal."

What if they decide to go somewhere else and NOT rescue the imprisoned player? What's he/she gonna do? Sit there for the rest of the day twiddling thumbs?

Excuse me but I was attempting to give ideas. You may not like one specific but does this mean you throw the baby out with the bath water? I guess in your world you do. Carry on then, you clearly have nothing to contribute and only want to be negative. If you went on to read the rest of the thread, I admitted holding individual players wasn't the best idea-rather holding buffs.

Luigi_Vampa

SirAndy wrote: »

God_flakes wrote: »

Did you even bother to read the entire thread? Nobody is suggesting restricting anyone from content.

Your very own words:
"For example, your player is being held at Chal and the only way to rescue them is to siege Chal."

What if they decide to go somewhere else and NOT rescue the imprisoned player? What's he/she gonna do? Sit there for the rest of the day twiddling thumbs?

That is what my posts were talking about. @God_flakes admitted that locking a person out of the game was not what was intended. It was just a rough idea to add some new gameplay mechanics.

God_flakes

It's ok, he clearly wants to parse out one idea and beat me over the head with it. It's whatever. I think we all agree preventing someone from actually playing isn't a smart idea. I also don't think we should discount capturing people vs killing them in order to stem the flow of stacking and spamming that is currently making the game unplayable in some instances for some people.

Meilinka

If I can be captured I want access to the zone chat of whatever faction nabbed me so I can ask them where they keep the bacon and whisper them sweet nothings, especially since they probably accidentally captured my useless arse.

God_flakes

Maybe we can make being captured a voluntary setting? "Capturable". And yes! Access to their zone would be unreal! That would be a "perk". Oh how I would love to verbally unload in EP zone.

Lore_lai

I don't think I would like this idea, no offense OP.
I get what you're trying to suggest, as a break from the repetitive aspects, but as far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't like this whole "prisoner" mechanic.

I like to pvp with my friends and I don't think I would have fun if I would have to sit in some cell, even if it's for a short while.
It's enough that I have to deal with crippling lag at times, random ILS that result in force crashes, all the other pvp annoyances, etc. I don't want another thing to interfere with the quality time I like to have with our group.

Conversely, I wouldn't like for my friends to be captured and, knowing how toxic the community is at time, most likely be badgered during this time of captivity.
***
That and I like to keep my ERP outside of PvP when possible.

God_flakes

I think you're just another person overreacting rather than contributing. The idea of players being removed for lengthy periods was already dismissed. It's not even up for debate anymore.

Lore_lai

And it seems like you flare up anytime someone disagreed with you or didn't praise your idea.

What's the point of starting a discussion on a forum if you're going to shut down anyone who disagrees with you, even if they do so in a civil manner and with their own arguments as to why they disagree (ie. not just say "NO, because I said so THAT'S WHY")?

God_flakes wrote: »

The idea of players being removed for lengthy periods was already dismissed. It's not even up for debate anymore.

I never said "lengthy periods".

Lore_lai wrote: »

I don't think I would have fun if I would have to sit in some cell, even if it's for a short while.

And I specified why I would personally not like it.

I guess this is the point where two reasonable people agree to disagree so have a nice day!

God_flakes

I flared up because it's clear you didn't take the time to read the entire thread before writing your novel. Had you taken the time it required to do so you would have seen the idea of cells or removing players was dismissed a long time ago and other ideas were proposed instead. But ok thanks for your "input".

Lore_lai

I actually did read the thread and the only other suggestion I see is that capturing an enemy EMP would remove the associated buffs.
In which case this is about "capturable" EMPs or "capturable" EMP buffs (if the EMP him/herself is not going to be actually held hostage somewhere), and not about all players in general. And that might change the whole dynamic/subject of the discussion.

Porting a player to IC as consequence for being "captured" and just requiring them to go through 1-2 loading screens to get back to their friends is also not something I find as enjoyable and engaging content, quite the contrary.

You obviously still have into consideration "prisons" and players guarding the hostage (maybe you should pay more attention to what you write and not forget, just look a couple of posts higher) so that is what I was referring to when I expressed my opinion.

God_flakes

Wow. Do you have any idea what brainstorming means? It literally means throwing out ideas, tossing them around. Dismissing some, embracing others. You come late to the game and want to start chit with me because you didn't like *some* of the ideas tossed around and semi-approved of some? Seriously?

As a side note: it was also suggested captured players get ported to the wayshrine similar to a slaughterfish death or even ported to gates when you can't otherwise Rez. You have a problem with being *separated* from the security blanket of your group when die, also? Do you never die? Never forced to Rez at the transit shrine at the gate?

Lore_lai

At this point you're just twisting my words simply because you cannot accept that I will not agree with you (wow! people can have different opinions).

I addressed why I don't agree with your other options, I expressed that EMP buff capture would be another matter altogether and my main concern was addressing that it would not be a fun mechanic (for me) to be held hostage in some cage while I'm there to pvp not play the damsel in distress.

God_flakes

No, I get you don't agree with me. Heck, even I don't agree with my initial suggestion to hold enemies even for a few minutes. I'm just not sure why you're so hard up to beat the horse's corpse over this.

I'm also not sure why you're so opposed to captured players being ported somewhere and being forced to port or ride back to their group when that's already happening and you clearly still pvp despite it

Lore_lai

Because it felt that you were getting aggressive about it when I just expressed my opinion. Accusing me of overreacting and making assumptions that I didn't read the thread. Just that.

Removing EMP buff actually sounds interesting (as long as the EMP doesn't get captured) but, like I said, it just feels like that would be another subject for another discussion.

God_flakes

@Lore_lai, let me approach it with you this way. When you die in this game there is penalty and a mechanic to address that penalty: you either rez at a keep, wait for a rez or rez at a camp. All of these involve some sort of waiting and usually some sort of hassle/grief. What I am proposing is a mechanic by which capturing the enemy is more appealing than storming into a group and spamming ulti and dps (which I am sure we can both agree has been the cause of lag and is becoming stale). It would take your enemy out of the fight by capturing them and forcing them to rez elsewhere (ic has been ruled out) like the wayshrine or transitus for example...but capturing would be harder than outright killing, to balance the scales. Make sense? So tell me again what is it about this that upsets you so? Making someone rez somewhere? Taking them out of the fight momentarily? The possible potential Zerg busting properties? What? Stop saying cage and prison cell. Stop deliberately misstating what has been suggested. Set aside the emp buff capturing for a moment.

Lore_lai

I'm sorry, I thought the topic was "capture enemy player" and that is what I was referring to when I stated my opinion.
And why do you want me to set aside the other suggestions in this thread?
First you accuse me of not paying attention to them and not mentioning them, and now you only want me to discuss the suggestion you want (rez at shrine).

Which BTW - it's another thing altogether if we just talk about a force-rez at shrine/keep (make the player not being able to be resurrected on the spot/not able to use a forward camp) and we are no longer discussing "captures".
But if you want to call it that then ok.
That in itself I would like to see - having more ways to prevent battle-rezzes. I just thought the topic was another. *shrug*

RinaldoGandolphi

I get the idea, the brain storming has brought out some really good ones.

im not sure why jail cell is still being brought up, we got past that part of brainstorming session wuite awhile ago so why are we still arguing over that mechanic?

Everyone plays horse simulator as it its, adding something interesting to do in between horse simulator wouldn't be all that bad....capturing a player does have to mean a jail cell, it could simply mean being ported to Chroll, Cheydinhall, Cropsford, or Vlastrus and being forced to escape that guards there.

I think something like that is what @God_flakes is trying to say, not locking anyone up in a cell.

it would be more fun to have to escape from an enemy controlled town then rez at the same keep and camp all the time, just my 2 cents.

Rohamad_Ali

Lore_lai wrote: »

I'm sorry, I thought the topic was "capture enemy player" and that is what I was referring to when I stated my opinion.
And why do you want me to set aside the other suggestions in this thread?
First you accuse me of not paying attention to them and not mentioning them, and now you only want me to discuss the suggestion you want (rez at shrine).

Which BTW - it's another thing altogether if we just talk about a force-rez at shrine/keep (make the player not being able to be resurrected on the spot/not able to use a forward camp) and we are no longer discussing "captures".
But if you want to call it that then ok.
That in itself I would like to see - having more ways to prevent battle-rezzes. I just thought the topic was another. *shrug*

This is now a Nerf Emperor Thread by capture

God_flakes

Lore_lai wrote: »

I'm sorry, I thought the topic was "capture enemy player" and that is what I was referring to when I stated my opinion.
And why do you want me to set aside the other suggestions in this thread?
First you accuse me of not paying attention to them and not mentioning them, and now you only want me to discuss the suggestion you want (rez at shrine).

Which BTW - it's another thing altogether if we just talk about a force-rez at shrine/keep (make the player not being able to be resurrected on the spot/not able to use a forward camp) and we are no longer discussing "captures".
But if you want to call it that then ok.
That in itself I would like to see - having more ways to prevent battle-rezzes. I just thought the topic was another. *shrug*

I was punning the current "kill enemy player" bounties and assumed that was obvious. I guess I need to be careful how well I explain myself for the more literal.

Rin, thanks for the assist. Maybe this will help her. Capture doesn't have to literally mean hold prisoner. All along I was trying to brainstorm a suggestion to alter two things: how players are taken out of battles and how combat is waged (in some instances). Btw I love the idea of force rezzing at towns! Dev's please consider this as this could be a segue into making towns more relevant. There SHOULD be a penalty to being captured and it should involve some sort of port and it needs to remove the player from the immediate battle to make it appealing to the forces attempting to capture rather than kill.

PosternHouse

OP just wants slaves for ... recreational purposes.

Rohamad_Ali

PosternHouse wrote: »

OP just wants slaves for ... recreational purposes.

I can't argue that logic .

God_flakes

Implying I need to abduct men and force them into slavery...

Wait

Meilinka

Maybe I want to be captured....

The question is, do you want to capture Mei?

SneaK

The only way I could see something like this remotely working would be with the additions of town captures in Cyrodiil.

For instance, let's say Cropsford was just taken over by EP, while 5 AD players were in the radius of Cropsford, they are then deemed as POWs.

Capturing a town would also spawn an Alliance type of guardian/boss. Let's say an elite group of Imperial'esk soldiers defending the town. If the POW's can kill the boss/guardian, they can overthrow the town and will no longer be POWs. If they die, they die and can respawn at gates, or be resurrected but cannot leave the town until it's overthrown. If other alliance members of the POWs want to come bail them out and overthrow the town, they'd have to kill the guardian/boss, and claim the town. <--Would grant a decent amount of AP/XP.

Alliance members can defend the town from uprising POWs and attackers, and gain defensive AP ticks, plus whatever other bonuses capping said town would grant.

God_flakes

Love it, Sneak!!! Anything to add fresh content to pvp. And to avoid the QQ the captured enemies can still get away from the town and guards but if they don't flip the flag, it remains in the opposing force's point column.

SneaK

God_flakes wrote: »

Love it, Sneak!!! Anything to add fresh content to pvp. And to avoid the QQ the captured enemies can still get away from the town and guards but if they don't flip the flag, it remains in the opposing force's point column.

Exactly. I could see some really fun scenarios playing out for some small scale battles like this. You could be a solo player (have to be difficult though) and take out the town boss, thus capturing the town. Meanwhile, let's say there were 5 enemy players in the radius of said town when it flipped, you'd have to defend the town with the "boss" from the 5 POWs. I think it would actually be a lot of fun.