Clerics1985 wrote: »TL;DR
I got to about the second Post. I think it's pretty detailed and I like the thought process, here's where you hit a Wall on my end. You state that "enforcers" are Not allowed to take part in DB/TG DLC. * why would they force this if they wouldn't force alliance/faction lock-in. For it to work you are going to have to find a Way to Appease The masses, meaning you can't Pull 2 DLCs off a players Base game just because they "opt" into a "enforcer" roll there's got to be better way around this?
Not being detected should be crucial, I don't bother to stealth sometimes and I don't even get caught. I should be affraid of having a bounty, but I'm not.
This game needs separate PvP and PvE. Separate servers, separate skills, separate systems, separate zones, open world PvP. There a real enforcer/justice system could work, the PvP could have better performance because it is not cluttered with PvE players on the same server, PvP could have skills designed specifically for it that don't have to take PvE effects into account, PvE could have skills designed specifically for it that don't have to take PvP effects into account. When issues arise in PvP they can be fixed without worrying how the rest of the game will be impacted.NewBlacksmurf wrote: »First....you put a lot of thought into this and it shows. Well done
For me, there is no way in heck I see any PvP of this type going over well.
I will say this tho....If you remove the criminal and bounty aspects and just change Cyrodil completely like Imperial City does, then a lot of your idea would work.
Just consider that in Cyrodil, the PvE aspects there are largely frustrating for people who don't have interest in PvP.
There seems to be more players who PvE more often than they PvP and this is just possibly due to the design of this game.
If ZOS could remove all FPS issues, server stability, loading problems and actually have PvP skills that are separate from PvE so we stop seeing all the Nerf, this buff that threads, this becomes possible in an environment like IC or Cyrodil.
Clerics1985 wrote: »TL;DR
I got to about the second Post. I think it's pretty detailed and I like the thought process, here's where you hit a Wall on my end. You state that "enforcers" are Not allowed to take part in DB/TG DLC. * why would they force this if they wouldn't force alliance/faction lock-in. For it to work you are going to have to find a Way to Appease The masses, meaning you can't Pull 2 DLCs off a players Base game just because they "opt" into a "enforcer" roll there's got to be better way around this?
All the previous threads were heavily debated whether this system would be good or not.
Note that two polls were done, both of which heavily favored the implementation.
@Lefty_Lucy 's thread had an astounding 75% vote for PvP Justice.
The concerns of those that didn't want to see it implemented were mostly about griefing and exploiting. And it was very hard for me to reason with those people.
Now that you are presented with a detailed concept on which you can comment your concerns, all your arguments fall down to:
"Just leave it alone"
So much for arguments.
If you have nothing constructive to add to this discussion, I would kindly ask you to refrain from posting.
One of my threads already got closed in the past because the discussion got heated and it pretty much down boiled to "I said this, you said that".
Instead, you can comb through my concept and look for holes in the system where it can be abused or improved upon.
I also made a poll, and it had 66% "for" votes.notimetocare wrote: »All the previous threads were heavily debated whether this system would be good or not.
Note that two polls were done, both of which heavily favored the implementation.
@Lefty_Lucy 's thread had an astounding 75% vote for PvP Justice.
The concerns of those that didn't want to see it implemented were mostly about griefing and exploiting. And it was very hard for me to reason with those people.
Now that you are presented with a detailed concept on which you can comment your concerns, all your arguments fall down to:
"Just leave it alone"
So much for arguments.
If you have nothing constructive to add to this discussion, I would kindly ask you to refrain from posting.
One of my threads already got closed in the past because the discussion got heated and it pretty much down boiled to "I said this, you said that".
Instead, you can comb through my concept and look for holes in the system where it can be abused or improved upon.
Polls are biased by being only the forum base. Polls by popular streamers are even more biased because of that streamers followerbase. It totalled 600 votes, 450 yes votes is led than he had in stream followers. Really think that is a valid poll?
I always wondered this what if ZOS did a game wide poll and this system was voted to he added to the game.What would all the nay sayers say then if it shows truly that the vast majority wants this added to the game.Not to mentioned 500-1000 people is a good simple sizes for a company.If the majority of those sampled like a idea a normal company would work on it.notimetocare wrote: »All the previous threads were heavily debated whether this system would be good or not.
Note that two polls were done, both of which heavily favored the implementation.
@Lefty_Lucy 's thread had an astounding 75% vote for PvP Justice.
The concerns of those that didn't want to see it implemented were mostly about griefing and exploiting. And it was very hard for me to reason with those people.
Now that you are presented with a detailed concept on which you can comment your concerns, all your arguments fall down to:
"Just leave it alone"
So much for arguments.
If you have nothing constructive to add to this discussion, I would kindly ask you to refrain from posting.
One of my threads already got closed in the past because the discussion got heated and it pretty much down boiled to "I said this, you said that".
Instead, you can comb through my concept and look for holes in the system where it can be abused or improved upon.
Polls are biased by being only the forum base. Polls by popular streamers are even more biased because of that streamers followerbase. It totalled 600 votes, 450 yes votes is led than he had in stream followers. Really think that is a valid poll?