The PvP Justice System Concept, now with opt-out

Dubhliam

STEVIL wrote: »

Dubhliam wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

I'm confused! Are the city guards griefing PvE'rs when they kill them whilst invincible? Am I griefing players when I kill them in Cyrodiil? When I continuosly kill NPC's in town while other players witness it and can't do anything about it, is that griefing?

If this was implemented, and I came up with an awesome, boarderline, un-apprehend able, outlaw build. Would that be griefing?? You see, it appears to me that people will refuse to see any positives, with regards perhaps outlaw and enforcer builds, gear sets unique to the roles, crafting stations only accessible to the most cunning of outlaws and proudest of enforcers. But no, even though the PvP side of things can only be activated by failing, making it a very small part of the whole system when talking about skilled thieves and murderers, some of us are just too strung up on the possibility that they, or someone else, 'might' get offended!! What kind of world are we living in??

RE the bold stuff: i bet it depends on whatever definition there is of griefing being used when asked the question. the folks so far who asked offered to find a grief vs grief-proof didn't provide definitions when asked, so, no telling.

BUT by my understanding of the somewhat mainstream definitions, NPCs do not grief... since griefing is usually directed at player actions. So no NPC can grief. NPCs are simply part of the "challenge" aspect of the task in this case. like locks to pick, they slow down your progression and gain depending on how you deal with them.

As for Killing in Cyrodil, no idea without prior agreement on definition and description of circumstances. Obviously, griefing CAn occur in PVP areas. But without specifics, your question is unanswerable.

As for you killing NPCs and other PCs not intervening, again, too little info. Some here have obswerved that their enjoyment is harmed by other PCs killing NPCs and them not being able to act on it. Now to me, thats just an MMO thing, a shared world thing. I cannot control other players characters actions so, as long as they aren't hitting my goals, impeding my progress in whatever i am doing, then mostly, who cares. So, as a for instance, if you are deliberately killing quest-key NPCs in PVE areas and you are doing it with the intent to interrupt and blockade folks trying to run those quests - that might well be griefing in some people's eyes..

As for what kind of world - one where PVP and PVE are separate and where PVE actions cannot open your character to PVP challenges.

Some want that to change. Others Dont.

I am for one all for expanding content related to justie - suggested a DLC based around law and order, criminals and enforcers, guild based on protecting travellers and merchants and caravans with dailies escorts and quest lines. If PVP want a PVP area justice to, sure, why not? if its in a war zone could be "espionage" style stuff.

That all is totally separate from wedding such interesting a diverse content and storylines to PVP GETS TP ATTACK PVE PLAYERS WOO HOO GANK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, broader audience, how about this... if you want all that rich other stuff like sets for enforcers and so on... great but stop trying to shoe horn in PVP GETS PVE VICTIMS as part of the stew?

it makes it look like PVP GETS PVE VICTIMS is the goal and the rest of it all is just the beard, the pretty petals and enticing fragrance around the Flytrap jaws.

I know from seeing threads about justice and law related content coming forward (after both TG and DB) that there seems to be an audience for those kinds of stories and missions and roles and content... as long as you don't poison the tea with the arsenic of PVP GETS PVE victims.

@STEVIL , you keep sorting the playerbase into two baskets with nothing in between. As if the only two fruit in the world were apples and oranges.

Your PVP GETS PVE victims is a generalization.
When you say "PVE victims" you assume those players would be grieved. As if they are being forced into something that disturbs them.
Marking yourself for PvP is a choice. Yes, you would no longer able to Flee as you can now, but that is exactly the thing that needs to be addressed currently:

• Immortal Guards provide no option to fight back to those that want to.
• Those that don't want to can evade paying a bounty for an unlimited time.

You go to great lengths just to leave the "Flee option". Just one option, a simple change that fixes everything that is wrong with the current system.
While in this concept, players would have many options to choose from.
Options. Not forced.

Actually, I dont think i am dividing into absolutes with nothing in between... you seem to eb willing to throw that in though.

However, if you ask most PVP experienced players and if you look at almost any "build threads" on this forum you will come to one simple conclusion: THEY ARE SEPARATE. To answer the questions of what gear you should have equipped, what skills you should have slotted and even what morphs you should take the answers usually depend on "is this for PVE or PVP?"

People heading into PVP zones, know it. It isn't just a click or an accident. So they can answer all those questions for PVP before trotting out into harm's way.
People pursuing PVE goals in PVE zones can likewise answer those questions for PVE and so on.

When I say "getting PVE targets" and "getting PVE victims" i am specifically talking about PVP players jumping targets performing PVE activites in PVE zones who are more likely to not be equipped in PVP gear and setup for PVP.

Now, i KNOW you already were aware of these differences and I am sure those wanting the edge of getting PVP fights against PVE -setups characters are really hoping this wont be pointed out... but hey.there it is.

or, are you saying you disagree with all those other folks and dont think there is a didfference between PVP-setup characters jumping characters setup for PVE? Are you saying that there isn't any significant different in "optimal" or "decent" setup between a PVE-build and a PVP-build? or is that just something you want to keep ignoring, pretending isn't there, etc to sell your plan?

Also, you again try to paint opposition as overjoyed with current system with you "flee one change fixes everything" BS... guess its easier when you just ignore numerous statements from me about that. i think there is a lot that can be added to the current PVE-Justice system and plenty of rich development for it.

I just do NOT see PVP-takeover-PVE-CONTENT as a "solution" that "fixes" more than it "breaks".

Also, i wholeheartily dismiss the argument that it needs to happen because some players are unhappy seeing other players do PVE crime and get away with it. If we start down the road of "other players action bother me even when they dont affect me" we have gone off a cliff because some players might get unhappy seeing animals slaughtered (grinding) or Bosmers killed (quests) or any number of things.

****

Switching " going into PVP" from a significant number of clicks and wait etc to get over into a cyrodil instance to "guards dialog" with a "pay bounty or else" takeaway (and again willfully making it look like bounty is the only thing you lose when paying off guards - when you know its the stuff as well)... is the biggest problem with this "fix" for a problem that doesn't really exist.

You dont want to give the PVE players a choice... you want to make it a RANSOM. You REFUSED when i suggested putting FLEE PVE and FLEE PVP side by side.

You want to make it into "ENTER PVP" OR "PAY RANSOM" (or that PVP prison time sink thingy.)

You say "options" but you insist the rules set it up as RANSOM, as PAY TO AVOID.

I got no problem myself (beyond it appealing IMO to very few p-eople) with a system where the changes to the current system now are:
ADD to the dialog for guards a PVP FLEE and PVP Prison but keep the PVE flee. If either PVP choice is clicked a 10s countdown allows a cancel/confirm.

But IIRC and correct me if i am wrong you dont want that because allowing PVE players to just keep playing PVE as it is now and only dealing with guards including flee or not isn't something you are Ok with as far as justice?

Also, even though you bring it back to "choice" and "flee" as the focus again... I want to be clear... under your proposal if my character murders someone and so is in the "guards kill on sight" wouldn't your enforcers PVP guys get to jump in then without me having "chosen" PVP?

****

At the end of the day, there isn't a PROBLEM here needing fixing.
--- Crime isn't "too easy" when comparing gains over time for that activity vs gains for other activites that are as easy or easier such as grinding, questing, delving etc. having spent plenty of time doing those and more... there isn't a snowballs chance in Alikir that stealing is the heads and shoulders OP option that needs fixing.
--- People who dont like seeing others spending time stealing can get in line with those who dont like seeing people grinding or dont like seeing people farming and all the others in the "who cares what you think about what other people are doing in the game that doesn't impact you one bit" banner. You just dont get PVP rules for every PVE action you dont like.

Also at the end of the day, there isn't a "everything it can be" current system and so improvements are possible and even desired by many who are adamantly opposed to adding PVP-takeaways.
--We want a law and order guild and DLC and storylines and skill lines and dailies etc etc etc. That would be great!
--We want different and more serious challenges and some have already came with guards getting to spotlight stealth and invis, with glowing circles of detection, with stronger traps in TG for instance. But lets get more.
--- But none of that says "and PVP fixes it" or "PVP makes it better"

So dont try and keep painting it into "HAPPY WITH SYSTEM- no PVP" and "unhappy with system - Add pvp"

YMMV

Yes, the builds for PvP and for PvE are different.
But the system I am proposing is not here to promote competitive duels. I know how this sounds... you may make of this as if I want to grief unprepared targets, but that is far from the truth. The Enforcers are here to provide an intelligent repercussion where the Justice system is punishing for not playing it the way it is supposed to be played.

Also, I never "REFUSED" anything. @Tandor made a promising suggestion on how an opt-out system would work, and I presented some of my concerns that neither you nor him failed to address. Twice.

Next... no, you got my concept wrong. I hate to point you to read my concept again (since you already pointed out that I should stop telling people they haven't read my concept, and it comes out as condescending) but if you have read it, the "Heat levels" section clearly states that the highest heat level - Wanted can only be triggered by the Flee dialogue. All other crimes, no matter how severe cannot go past Fugitive, and are not marked for PvP. These heat levels are both true for Enforcers and for Guards. Only in Trespassing areas can a Guard attack an Outlaw before commencing a dialogue, but those areas are inaccessible by Enforcers. Not to mention they are killable now.

As I said, there are TWO problems that need fixing:

• Immortal Guards provide no option to fight back to those that want to.
• Those that don't want to can evade paying a bounty for an unlimited time.

There is always one active thread complaining about Immortal guards, and the first thing people say is: I have been avoiding Guards since a billion years ago, and have X billion bounty.

I am willing to work out an opt-out system or PvE flee, but there are a bunch of details and problems that need to be addressed which you provide no feedback for.

IrishGirlGamer

Tandor wrote: »

IrishGirlGamer wrote: »

Why not just create a PvP Justice System server? If people want to participate in an open world PvP, complete with duels and an active Justice System, they can log in. If they don't, they can choose the PvE server. Problem solved.

I'm all for separate consensual PvP (or PvE only) and open PvP servers with separate rulesets, although the problem with them tends to be that after a short time the open PvP servers become deserted and then there are calls from the PvPers to be merged back with the consensual PvP (or PvE only) servers.

In the case of ESO, of course, there's the extra complication of the megaserver system. That would probably mean there would have to be separate PvP instances instead, which PvPers are all ok with until the PvEers then ask for a separate PvE instance of Cyrodiil and IC !

If that many people want consensual, open-world PvP (and I'm not saying they don't - clearly a lot of people want this), then the server or megaserver instance would not be deserted. And if it/they do become deserted, then what does that say about the number of people who really want to spend game time in an open world PvP?

Even if they make the argument: "Wait, PvP is deserted! Merge us back with PvE." How does merging the two instances even help them? It's not like the people on the PvE will suddenly want to PvP. All they will do is bring PvP players into a PvE space. How does that increase the number of people who want to PvP?

It doesn't. In fact, the only real way it would increase numbers is if some PvPers used baiting, name-calling, flaming, challenging, spamming, and other annoying behavior to try and annoy other players enough to either (1) force them to fight or (2) force them from the game.

And if that is NOT a motivation of PvPers, then there is NO logical reason for them ever to be merged with a PvE environment. None. Not even one.

As for Cyrodiil: I can't see it as a PvE environment without a LOT of work. Cyrodiil was pure PvP from day one and works best that way.

Tandor

IrishGirlGamer wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

IrishGirlGamer wrote: »

Why not just create a PvP Justice System server? If people want to participate in an open world PvP, complete with duels and an active Justice System, they can log in. If they don't, they can choose the PvE server. Problem solved.

I'm all for separate consensual PvP (or PvE only) and open PvP servers with separate rulesets, although the problem with them tends to be that after a short time the open PvP servers become deserted and then there are calls from the PvPers to be merged back with the consensual PvP (or PvE only) servers.

In the case of ESO, of course, there's the extra complication of the megaserver system. That would probably mean there would have to be separate PvP instances instead, which PvPers are all ok with until the PvEers then ask for a separate PvE instance of Cyrodiil and IC !

If that many people want consensual, open-world PvP (and I'm not saying they don't - clearly a lot of people want this), then the server or megaserver instance would not be deserted. And if it/they do become deserted, then what does that say about the number of people who really want to spend game time in an open world PvP?

Even if they make the argument: "Wait, PvP is deserted! Merge us back with PvE." How does merging the two instances even help them? It's not like the people on the PvE will suddenly want to PvP. All they will do is bring PvP players into a PvE space. How does that increase the number of people who want to PvP?

It doesn't. In fact, the only real way it would increase numbers is if some PvPers used baiting, name-calling, flaming, challenging, spamming, and other annoying behavior to try and annoy other players enough to either (1) force them to fight or (2) force them from the game.

And if that is NOT a motivation of PvPers, then there is NO logical reason for them ever to be merged with a PvE environment. None. Not even one.

As for Cyrodiil: I can't see it as a PvE environment without a LOT of work. Cyrodiil was pure PvP from day one and works best that way.

Have you perhaps misread what I said? You're mentioning "consensual, open world PvP" servers not becoming deserted but I'm not talking about consensual, open world PvP, I'm talking about PvP that is conditional on player consent as distinct from open i.e. free-for-all PvP. It's typically the open i.e. free-for-all PvP servers that become deserted, not those servers that cater for those who want to PvE or who elect to PvP only when they feel like it, i.e. consensually.

As I understood your previous post, you were suggesting an open i.e. free-for-all PvP server for those who wanted a PvP Justice System, your point presumably being that there wouldn't be a need for any opt-out as people would only log in if they wanted to PvP. My point was that I think the demand for that kind of server would be very short-lived as most players would soon tire of the constant ganking and griefing and would look to return to a consensual PvP server where they could decide when they wanted to PvP and when they wanted to opt out. As such the server would soon become increasingly empty and non-viable.

As for PvPers on a pure PvP server wanting to merge back with the PvE server, the reason that helps them is because they don't want to play on an empty server. EQ is a good example of that. The PvP servers at their peak only ever represented 10% of the total servers, and when their population fell they became non-viable so players asked to move back and SOE closed the PvP servers. Now there are none, while there are 22 servers in total. The same with EQ2 where there are now 9 servers with no PvP servers among them. That's the current server status on each game according to the official website. The PvPers in such situations either stick to PvE or consensual PvP if available. Or they move on. There isn't anything that increases the number of people that want to PvP, and adding PvP to the Justice System in ESO won't increase the number of people that want to PvP over the long-term, but it will reduce the number of people that want to PvE unless they have an effective opt-out from PvP.

I don't personally see Cyrodiil as a pure PvE environment other than for the purpose of collecting skyshards. There's rather more to be gained by PvEers, of course, in respect of a PvE instance of IC. The only reason it gets mentioned is because when PvPers ask for PvP instances of the open world then PvEers will inevitably ask for PvE instances of the PvP zones too, and the PvPers resist that.

IrishGirlGamer

Tandor wrote: »

IrishGirlGamer wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

IrishGirlGamer wrote: »

Why not just create a PvP Justice System server? If people want to participate in an open world PvP, complete with duels and an active Justice System, they can log in. If they don't, they can choose the PvE server. Problem solved.

I'm all for separate consensual PvP (or PvE only) and open PvP servers with separate rulesets, although the problem with them tends to be that after a short time the open PvP servers become deserted and then there are calls from the PvPers to be merged back with the consensual PvP (or PvE only) servers.

In the case of ESO, of course, there's the extra complication of the megaserver system. That would probably mean there would have to be separate PvP instances instead, which PvPers are all ok with until the PvEers then ask for a separate PvE instance of Cyrodiil and IC !

If that many people want consensual, open-world PvP (and I'm not saying they don't - clearly a lot of people want this), then the server or megaserver instance would not be deserted. And if it/they do become deserted, then what does that say about the number of people who really want to spend game time in an open world PvP?

Even if they make the argument: "Wait, PvP is deserted! Merge us back with PvE." How does merging the two instances even help them? It's not like the people on the PvE will suddenly want to PvP. All they will do is bring PvP players into a PvE space. How does that increase the number of people who want to PvP?

It doesn't. In fact, the only real way it would increase numbers is if some PvPers used baiting, name-calling, flaming, challenging, spamming, and other annoying behavior to try and annoy other players enough to either (1) force them to fight or (2) force them from the game.

And if that is NOT a motivation of PvPers, then there is NO logical reason for them ever to be merged with a PvE environment. None. Not even one.

As for Cyrodiil: I can't see it as a PvE environment without a LOT of work. Cyrodiil was pure PvP from day one and works best that way.

Have you perhaps misread what I said? You're mentioning "consensual, open world PvP" servers not becoming deserted but I'm not talking about consensual, open world PvP, I'm talking about PvP that is conditional on player consent as distinct from open i.e. free-for-all PvP. It's typically the open i.e. free-for-all PvP servers that become deserted, not those servers that cater for those who want to PvE or who elect to PvP only when they feel like it, i.e. consensually.

As I understood your previous post, you were suggesting an open i.e. free-for-all PvP server for those who wanted a PvP Justice System, your point presumably being that there wouldn't be a need for any opt-out as people would only log in if they wanted to PvP. My point was that I think the demand for that kind of server would be very short-lived as most players would soon tire of the constant ganking and griefing and would look to return to a consensual PvP server where they could decide when they wanted to PvP and when they wanted to opt out. As such the server would soon become increasingly empty and non-viable.

As for PvPers on a pure PvP server wanting to merge back with the PvE server, the reason that helps them is because they don't want to play on an empty server. EQ is a good example of that. The PvP servers at their peak only ever represented 10% of the total servers, and when their population fell they became non-viable so players asked to move back and SOE closed the PvP servers. Now there are none, while there are 22 servers in total. The same with EQ2 where there are now 9 servers with no PvP servers among them. That's the current server status on each game according to the official website. The PvPers in such situations either stick to PvE or consensual PvP if available. Or they move on. There isn't anything that increases the number of people that want to PvP, and adding PvP to the Justice System in ESO won't increase the number of people that want to PvP over the long-term, but it will reduce the number of people that want to PvE unless they have an effective opt-out from PvP.

I don't personally see Cyrodiil as a pure PvE environment other than for the purpose of collecting skyshards. There's rather more to be gained by PvEers, of course, in respect of a PvE instance of IC. The only reason it gets mentioned is because when PvPers ask for PvP instances of the open world then PvEers will inevitably ask for PvE instances of the PvP zones too, and the PvPers resist that.

No, I understood what you said before and now. Perhaps I'm communicating poorly, so let me try again. With respect to paragraph 2, I agree and that's my point. A pure PvP environment would mean just what you said. Ganking. Grieving. Zergs. And so on. People would soon realize they didn't want that. How can you complete a quest or farm for materials with people ganking you all the time?

To some degree, my original post was ironic. Offer that to people, and see how many really want it. I've never played EQ2 but I'm not surprised that those servers went away. Your point, which you've made twice now, is that those servers become non-viable because no one wants to subject themselves to that kind of gameplay. I get it. I understand.

But we can solve this by simply merging PvP and PvE. Is that what I'm understanding?

The alternative proposed is a consensual PvP environment, where players can opt-in or opt-out as they wish. This allows players to choose to PvP when they want, to and still have an entire zone (remembering, as you noted, that we're on a megaserver but in zones) to sell stuff to, chat with in Zone chat, and otherwise feel like their playing a social game. And I can see why they would want that.

But that proposal (perhaps not yours) is based on the idea that all that PvE and PvP (whether pure PvP or just a Justice System) would require to exist harmoniously side by side is some form of an opt-out mechanism.

And this is where I disagree.

I wouldn't mind an opt-in justice system if there was a way to prevent people from ganking, grieving and otherwise making the game annoying for other players. I just don't see that happening. I didn't see it happening when the IC was released (and yes, I know it wasn't pure opt-in, although by going there you kind of opt-in) but I was hopeful. And we have seen how that has turned out.

I'm sorry, but joining PvE and PvP (even utilizing an opt-in system) is like marrying Sansa Stark to Ramsay Bolton - and telling her everything is going to be fine because she can just say no.

Right.

Tandor

@IrishGirlGamer I agree with your last post entirely, it seems we're now on the same wavelength !

I don't personally want any PvP associated with PvE content in PvE zones, the only reason I have contributed to this and other threads like it is to see whether anyone making or supporting such a proposal is open to an effective opt-out mechanism for the PvP element or whether they are only really interested in pursuing a griefing agenda. They never are open to an effective opt-out mechanism, of course, their opt-out suggestions are always based around limiting the PvEers actions within the PvE content, and the answer here is pretty clear by now, underlining the sound reasoning on which ZOS made their decision to drop the PvP element of the Justice System, namely the need to keep PvP and PvE entirely separate from now on as trying to merge the two is hugely divisive and never likely to work.

STEVIL

BenLocoDete wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

TLDRBS - BS = but Skimmed

I fully support a law enforcer type of DLC quest story line.

In my version, it ran thru the guilds and after the main quests the infinite repeatables hadf a highly variable "meet X at wayshrine Y, escort to spot Z then maybe carry on maybe not" with a lot of different combos for the travellers, threat and intrigues/challenges making for lotsa variety.

main diff is.... nothing PVP inside the regular PVE world.

Could certainly have repeatables that started in cyrodil and those would be PVP of course but you could also reject those and take the next PVE one instead. PVP ones would not need NPC ADVERSARIES.

But NO to any injection of PVP outside of designated areas. Thats a non-starter for me.

I should thank you for your generosity as to allow anything other people want to happen.

Yes, sarcasm. I doubt you'll have the same attitude after 1, 2 or three PvP devoted DLCs to balance the almost exclusive PvE policy of the latter ones. Actually, the hunger of the PvEers seems to have no end, not only they have every province but the central one exclusive to them, but feel right to ask a boot in the arse for the PvPers of Cyrodiil.

At this moment there are dozens of people on forums already requesting to have a PvE-exclusive campaign in the imperial province and the overall acceptance would probably be around the hundreds of thousand(yes I'm in favor of it too). It has been a major request for years and the developers are somewhat still entitled to offer a game that mixes both(although latest DLCs were technically PvE, and the future ones featuring housing, "style parlor", Vvardenfell, Clockwork City and One Tamriel doesn't seem to move towards changing that.

Oh, town capture, yeah, I'm sure you're happy with how little interest you have on that, as probably everybody.

PvPers got hardly anything out of past DLCs, the Cyrodiil optimizations being the most often directly targeted and highly arguable.

I remember the time(couple weeks ago actually) when we used to download mods to make the enemies have better AI, enhanced AI, improved AI hardcore mega ultra survival AI and this is where ESO stands out - it has the potential of human AI, one of the reasons many decided to give it a go.

Some people call themselves PvEers and some are not interested at all in the war(myself included) but agree that the difficulty curve is somewhat weird, as with Skyrim.

ESO stands best for TES-coOP, despite almost non-existent AI and bland storyline, it has improvements regarding (some)aspects of its predecessors(the most noticeable the insanely huge world) what is very welcome. Not enough of a single-player, though - lacks the modable freedom the previous titles offer - and unfortunately a bad MMO, because it misses the point when it comes to expanding the potential of the genre.

My suspicion is that when ZOS makes decisions on what to invest time in, PVP vs PVE, its not based off a sense of "equality between names" that would maybe lead PVP and PVE to be seen as 50/50. my bet is it is based on several slightly more detailed analysis of data such as: players/time spent PVE vs PVP (ie the amoutn of audience participation), money being made from players and broken down by activity done where the more profits come from, future "what attracts new players etc etc etc.

So, i dont ever sit back and think PVP and PVE should get equal time... because i know that is not how smart business decisions are made.

IF zos decides "hey we can make more short term/long term with 9 months of PVP exclusive (mostly) content i am sure that is where they would go... not because they are greedy but also because their data would be telling them "that is what our players prefer to do."

I would read into the paths they have chosen that the opposite is true but that is just speculation.

But frankly if zos were to make that turn, i would likely still play. But once it got bad enough that, as you suggest, my "attitude" would mrph... i would most likely simply stop playing, unsub and move on to a game that focused more on what i enjoyed doing.

or i **might** hang around on the fuorums and try to promote more PVE content.

But i would not be here suggesting we "steal" things PVP has away from them and turn it into a PVE grab bag.

That seems to be the modus operandi of PVPers.

Case in point, in another thread about future developments, i agreed and chimed in with ideas and said in essence i would pay cashey money for Zos to produce a DLC upgrade which features upgraded craglorn (scaled and removing solo-blocking mechanics), a PVE only instance of Cyrodil (daily "war" quests etc) and a PVE only instance of IC for those who wanted the content but not the grief of PVP.

Key was... pve only instances" not taking away the existing PVP at all. Just giving all players a chance to explore the regions and content whether they are PVE or PVP.

As opposed to - NO PVE FLEE OPTION as seen in this discussion.

IMX PVE players that dont want to PVP dont go lobbying to steal stuff from or take away options from or remove choices currently held by PVP players. I dont see thewad after thread calling for that.

I cannot say the same about PVP players who seem to be constany trying to find ways to take away some of the PVE justice options.

That, to me, is a very telling difference.

STEVIL

IrishGirlGamer wrote: »

Why not just create a PvP Justice System server? If people want to participate in an open world PvP, complete with duels and an active Justice System, they can log in. If they don't, they can choose the PvE server. Problem solved.

i agree and no doubt if the goal is to not get PVP attacks onto PVE players, it would be a positive option for PVP players.

Whether ZOS finds the audience for PVP justice sufficient to warrant that resource dump or not is another issue.

Their past prioritization says its unlikely.

ZOS_DaryaK

We've removed a few posts that had started derailing this discussion.

BenLocoDete

Previous quotes(by the way how do I set them to automatically hidden?)

STEVIL wrote: »

BenLocoDete wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

TLDRBS - BS = but Skimmed

I fully support a law enforcer type of DLC quest story line.

In my version, it ran thru the guilds and after the main quests the infinite repeatables hadf a highly variable "meet X at wayshrine Y, escort to spot Z then maybe carry on maybe not" with a lot of different combos for the travellers, threat and intrigues/challenges making for lotsa variety.

main diff is.... nothing PVP inside the regular PVE world.

Could certainly have repeatables that started in cyrodil and those would be PVP of course but you could also reject those and take the next PVE one instead. PVP ones would not need NPC ADVERSARIES.

But NO to any injection of PVP outside of designated areas. Thats a non-starter for me.

I should thank you for your generosity as to allow anything other people want to happen.

Yes, sarcasm. I doubt you'll have the same attitude after 1, 2 or three PvP devoted DLCs to balance the almost exclusive PvE policy of the latter ones. Actually, the hunger of the PvEers seems to have no end, not only they have every province but the central one exclusive to them, but feel right to ask a boot in the arse for the PvPers of Cyrodiil.

At this moment there are dozens of people on forums already requesting to have a PvE-exclusive campaign in the imperial province and the overall acceptance would probably be around the hundreds of thousand(yes I'm in favor of it too). It has been a major request for years and the developers are somewhat still entitled to offer a game that mixes both(although latest DLCs were technically PvE, and the future ones featuring housing, "style parlor", Vvardenfell, Clockwork City and One Tamriel doesn't seem to move towards changing that.

Oh, town capture, yeah, I'm sure you're happy with how little interest you have on that, as probably everybody.

PvPers got hardly anything out of past DLCs, the Cyrodiil optimizations being the most often directly targeted and highly arguable.

I remember the time(couple weeks ago actually) when we used to download mods to make the enemies have better AI, enhanced AI, improved AI hardcore mega ultra survival AI and this is where ESO stands out - it has the potential of human AI, one of the reasons many decided to give it a go.

Some people call themselves PvEers and some are not interested at all in the war(myself included) but agree that the difficulty curve is somewhat weird, as with Skyrim.

ESO stands best for TES-coOP, despite almost non-existent AI and bland storyline, it has improvements regarding (some)aspects of its predecessors(the most noticeable the insanely huge world) what is very welcome. Not enough of a single-player, though - lacks the modable freedom the previous titles offer - and unfortunately a bad MMO, because it misses the point when it comes to expanding the potential of the genre.

My suspicion is that when ZOS makes decisions on what to invest time in, PVP vs PVE, its not based off a sense of "equality between names" that would maybe lead PVP and PVE to be seen as 50/50. my bet is it is based on several slightly more detailed analysis of data such as: players/time spent PVE vs PVP (ie the amoutn of audience participation), money being made from players and broken down by activity done where the more profits come from, future "what attracts new players etc etc etc.

So, i dont ever sit back and think PVP and PVE should get equal time... because i know that is not how smart business decisions are made.

IF zos decides "hey we can make more short term/long term with 9 months of PVP exclusive (mostly) content i am sure that is where they would go... not because they are greedy but also because their data would be telling them "that is what our players prefer to do."

I would read into the paths they have chosen that the opposite is true but that is just speculation.

But frankly if zos were to make that turn, i would likely still play. But once it got bad enough that, as you suggest, my "attitude" would mrph... i would most likely simply stop playing, unsub and move on to a game that focused more on what i enjoyed doing.

or i **might** hang around on the fuorums and try to promote more PVE content.

But i would not be here suggesting we "steal" things PVP has away from them and turn it into a PVE grab bag.

That seems to be the modus operandi of PVPers.

Case in point, in another thread about future developments, i agreed and chimed in with ideas and said in essence i would pay cashey money for Zos to produce a DLC upgrade which features upgraded craglorn (scaled and removing solo-blocking mechanics), a PVE only instance of Cyrodil (daily "war" quests etc) and a PVE only instance of IC for those who wanted the content but not the grief of PVP.

Key was... pve only instances" not taking away the existing PVP at all. Just giving all players a chance to explore the regions and content whether they are PVE or PVP.

As opposed to - NO PVE FLEE OPTION as seen in this discussion.

IMX PVE players that dont want to PVP dont go lobbying to steal stuff from or take away options from or remove choices currently held by PVP players. I dont see thewad after thread calling for that.

I cannot say the same about PVP players who seem to be constany trying to find ways to take away some of the PVE justice options.

That, to me, is a very telling difference.

Definitely agree on your first points in here, but isn't too late to turn this game into a single player one?

I don't mean to take what was given to PvEers and deliver to PvPers. But look at the suggestion I made a few posts ago about making southern Cyrodiil plagued by criminality and violence, with the Enforcer system available only to those areas, I see immediately complaints from people arguing that they want to visit all the cities from older games in peace without being obliterated by evil golden geared CP capped PvPers and they even add that they want to steal and murder in those towns and be left alone because that's their right. What kind of argument is this? It belongs far more as a subject for pathologists and psychiatrists to study than something developers should summarily support.

RPGs, TES and MMO games:

Look at recent story-based RPG titles, they bury Skyrim if not for the modability of the latter, and ESO won't move ground, it resembles Oblivion(and I freaking love TESIV) but due to its broader public policy, cannot attend individual requests, and at this moment barely stand as an MMO due to its extensive use of phasing and instantiation.

And by individual support, I'd mean offer far more customization, classes, roles, options(more emotes, buy a cart and open a market stand, hire mercenaries etc) other than just grinding and capping characters. The game is huge, and the times for MMOs and social interaction are prominent.

ESO advertises itself as an MMORPG where you can be whoever you wish and do whatever you want(tm) but you can't really immerse yourself in it without having to fake a barbarous amount of time and pretend you didn't see the absolute lack of proper response from the world to all those crimes and whole town slaughtering that often take part.

MMOs - immersion and interaction

Sometimes the glimpse of Second Life - Tamriel Edition hints in and well, and why not expand the amount of time you can simply be idle, without having to grind weapons, champion whatever and hitting the Emperors place? It is great housing is in development, but what are people going to do in their houses? Light torches and asynchronously try to play a song?

I constantly log in and all I see is lonely people running around, sprinting everywhere and grinding every bit of accomplishment despite the beautiful world around them to enjoy and live up. This is more like the stand I make and the direction I'd wish for the game, and concepts like the one present in this thread seem to bear fruit to more ways of interaction between players and a believable, alive and breathing world.

ZOS must make a stand, and decide if they are going to build an MMO or a single-player game, and I feel most of the time missing my point in here because I usually play single-player games, not a fan of MMO at all, but ESO being an MMO brought me here to experience really the social interaction between players. This isn't anybody's game, so let's discuss the ways it might happen instead of bluntly "no no this is our game go PvP elsewhere".

BenLocoDete

Tandor wrote: »

@IrishGirlGamer I agree with your last post entirely, it seems we're now on the same wavelength !

I don't personally want any PvP associated with PvE content in PvE zones, the only reason I have contributed to this and other threads like it is to see whether anyone making or supporting such a proposal is open to an effective opt-out mechanism for the PvP element or whether they are only really interested in pursuing a griefing agenda. They never are open to an effective opt-out mechanism, of course, their opt-out suggestions are always based around limiting the PvEers actions within the PvE content, and the answer here is pretty clear by now, underlining the sound reasoning on which ZOS made their decision to drop the PvP element of the Justice System, namely the need to keep PvP and PvE entirely separate from now on as trying to merge the two is hugely divisive and never likely to work.

You try to sound like the most reasonable person in the world but why do you ignore @Dubhliam efforts to content your contributions inside his concept?

Of course PvP only server is off-limits but it is interesting to note how some of you believe you own the game. From the very first impression of this subject and remains still(as with your trial to summarize how "PvPers" are not ever ok with an opt-out system) is that you don't want anything related to PvP to be in the works. This is because, as you put and let's say that I agree with you, PvP and PvE will never work together. Ok, now let's look at what:

• PvPers seems to want - more content designed around that, arenas, full Justice System and PvP everywhere.
• PvEers want: PvPers on a separate server.

So tell me about reasoning regarding that, you can't give anything to PvPers because PvEers want that and want PvPers out. This is quite childish.

STEVIL

@BenLocoDete

Regarding this:

I don't mean to take what was given to PvEers and deliver to PvPers. But look at the suggestion I made a few posts ago about making southern Cyrodiil plagued by criminality and violence, with the Enforcer system available only to those areas, I see immediately complaints from people arguing that they want to visit all the cities from older games in peace without being obliterated by evil golden geared CP capped PvPers and they even add that they want to steal and murder in those towns and be left alone because that's their right. What kind of argument is this? It belongs far more as a subject for pathologists and psychiatrists to study than something developers should summarily support.

ESO has at the developer and design level established that "criminal" or "illegal" activities within the game as well as what we would consider immoral activites IRl are well within the bounds of player activities. This is not new to the TG and DB DLCs either. It has existed from day one in various quests and such. How many quests left it up to you as to whether the NPC suffered "mob justice" or "revenge murder" as opposed to getting handed over to authorities or given a trial? How many quests involved stealing things or helping criminals even within the main quest lines?

before the devs inplemented justice , running into a tavern and looting every cabinet, barrel and crate was "acceptable." it was recommended. it was profitable. Go back and look at guides for the first say six months and you will see lotsa tips on how to do it most efficiently, which places to hit etc. It wasn't called stealing even when you took stuff from people in need, emptying the cabinets of refugees for food you could craft .

With JUSTICE system, the developers applied an expansion to that activity of taking from others for profit and even the killing of civies. It added more systems, guards, bounty and other drawbacks. Some of the profits potential had increases but at the same time they added bounty and limits on selling per day - both of which applied a "slow down" element. The gain per time spent was reigned in somewhat.

And that is the key you see - gains vs time spent. (from a game balance mechanics POV.)

I can spend my playtime running around farming stuff like maybe lions and tiger and bears for hides or just picking flowers
I can spend my time running around hitting mobs (grinding)
i can spend my time running around questing.
i can spend my time running around in trials and such.
i can spend my time running around PVPing.
I can spend my time running around crafting and/or marketing.

In short, i can spend my time running around taking part in whatever activities i enjoy that the game supports.

But each should have basically similar overall "gains per time" that are on par with the others. Each of course have differences - not gonna advance my skill points with picking flowers as fast as i will questing or even grinding.

JUSTICE PVE took a vanilla part of the game (run around empty cabinets etc) that my bet is many people were doing (and ZOS saw that) and added more depth to it, checks, balances and made it a "game" within itself.

They doubled and trippled down on this behavior being "just part of the game" again in TG and DB.

So when these other players are claiming a "right" to engage in this activity within the game as much as they want, facing and beating the "challenges" (which are really just speed bumps - no more difficult than beating up a pride of lions or pack of wolves or clutch of mudcrabs or scouting party of pirates) they are absolutely correct within the game world and game design. Its just another way to spend your time in this game.

My bet is you could find folks in the game who find it more objectionable to jump lions, tiger and bears to profit off their skins than find it obejectional for an argonian to rob a dunmer.

As for being left alone while doing it, well as far as other PC intervention - yes.

if as you say they have gotten good enough to beat the guards, why should they suddenly have that time and effort and practice thrown out the window by having PVP thrown into the mix?

Should we add anti-grinding PVP "green warriors" out patrolling looking fort mudcrab butchers or lion hunters?

How many other "spend time, overcome "challenges" (speedbumps), gain from activity over time" do we try to "improve" by adding "and get jumped by PVP for PVE activity."

As for applying modern day morality to the game...

What if my follower of the green pact (or whatever the dont cut trees sect is) decides that logging camp cutting down trees needs to pay for their crimes against nature?

BenLocoDete

WoT

STEVIL wrote: »

@BenLocoDete

Regarding this:

I don't mean to take what was given to PvEers and deliver to PvPers. But look at the suggestion I made a few posts ago about making southern Cyrodiil plagued by criminality and violence, with the Enforcer system available only to those areas, I see immediately complaints from people arguing that they want to visit all the cities from older games in peace without being obliterated by evil golden geared CP capped PvPers and they even add that they want to steal and murder in those towns and be left alone because that's their right. What kind of argument is this? It belongs far more as a subject for pathologists and psychiatrists to study than something developers should summarily support.

ESO has at the developer and design level established that "criminal" or "illegal" activities within the game as well as what we would consider immoral activites IRl are well within the bounds of player activities. This is not new to the TG and DB DLCs either. It has existed from day one in various quests and such. How many quests left it up to you as to whether the NPC suffered "mob justice" or "revenge murder" as opposed to getting handed over to authorities or given a trial? How many quests involved stealing things or helping criminals even within the main quest lines?

before the devs inplemented justice , running into a tavern and looting every cabinet, barrel and crate was "acceptable." it was recommended. it was profitable. Go back and look at guides for the first say six months and you will see lotsa tips on how to do it most efficiently, which places to hit etc. It wasn't called stealing even when you took stuff from people in need, emptying the cabinets of refugees for food you could craft .

With JUSTICE system, the developers applied an expansion to that activity of taking from others for profit and even the killing of civies. It added more systems, guards, bounty and other drawbacks. Some of the profits potential had increases but at the same time they added bounty and limits on selling per day - both of which applied a "slow down" element. The gain per time spent was reigned in somewhat.

And that is the key you see - gains vs time spent. (from a game balance mechanics POV.)

I can spend my playtime running around farming stuff like maybe lions and tiger and bears for hides or just picking flowers
I can spend my time running around hitting mobs (grinding)
i can spend my time running around questing.
i can spend my time running around in trials and such.
i can spend my time running around PVPing.
I can spend my time running around crafting and/or marketing.

In short, i can spend my time running around taking part in whatever activities i enjoy that the game supports.

But each should have basically similar overall "gains per time" that are on par with the others. Each of course have differences - not gonna advance my skill points with picking flowers as fast as i will questing or even grinding.

JUSTICE PVE took a vanilla part of the game (run around empty cabinets etc) that my bet is many people were doing (and ZOS saw that) and added more depth to it, checks, balances and made it a "game" within itself.

They doubled and trippled down on this behavior being "just part of the game" again in TG and DB.

So when these other players are claiming a "right" to engage in this activity within the game as much as they want, facing and beating the "challenges" (which are really just speed bumps - no more difficult than beating up a pride of lions or pack of wolves or clutch of mudcrabs or scouting party of pirates) they are absolutely correct within the game world and game design. Its just another way to spend your time in this game.

My bet is you could find folks in the game who find it more objectionable to jump lions, tiger and bears to profit off their skins than find it obejectional for an argonian to rob a dunmer.

As for being left alone while doing it, well as far as other PC intervention - yes.

if as you say they have gotten good enough to beat the guards, why should they suddenly have that time and effort and practice thrown out the window by having PVP thrown into the mix?

Should we add anti-grinding PVP "green warriors" out patrolling looking fort mudcrab butchers or lion hunters?

How many other "spend time, overcome "challenges" (speedbumps), gain from activity over time" do we try to "improve" by adding "and get jumped by PVP for PVE activity."

As for applying modern day morality to the game...

What if my follower of the green pact (or whatever the dont cut trees sect is) decides that logging camp cutting down trees needs to pay for their crimes against nature?

Loved it, this is the point, make it believable, create a truly Tamrielic sandbox experience and not only a TES stamp in a regular MMO.

Why can't they even balance the gains of hunting down players to be around the same "speed bump" of the other activities, so you can simply choose, hunt down a pack of wolves, or farm the outside of an outlaw refuge. It is griefable only if you put little thinking on it and this is probably where we agree, that the system would be overly simplified and probably exploitable, but it can be fair and it can be funny, given that enough effort is put into implementing it.

I for one am even pro to player pickpocketing - make it that you lost a few gold and ingredients to that criminal you just noticed slipping around you. It was just a few coins, but what if an algorythm made it that the lucky pickpocket got your most valuable ingredient? Are you going to leave the game and stop playing? C'mom, immerse yourself, join up with people, create gangs to steal or to enforce law over marketplaces for a fee.

It is griefable if you don't balance it. Just want to go for a quick afk and is afraid of being picked, put /AFK and your character starts to act suspicious, and that avoids being pickpocketed. Game lagged and you were killed, you can't argue something like this in Cyrodiil... And what if you can perform the black sacrament and have a highly skilled assassin to go after the enforcer that killed you in that afternoon? Can you imagine the joy of receiving a letter saying:

"The deed is done, praise Sithis." ?

Raise a few numbers, lower others, they all have the statistics for it, but do add features, options and interaction because these are things that offer replayability, different paths for you to choose and experiences to enjoy.

What a sad and boring thing to finally get the best gear, max the CP counter, kill everyone in one shot, conquer the crown and sit your character waiting to see what new items and hamster wheels the next update will bring.

STEVIL

Dubhliam wrote: »

Yes, the builds for PvP and for PvE are different.
But the system I am proposing is not here to promote competitive duels. I know how this sounds... you may make of this as if I want to grief unprepared targets, but that is far from the truth. The Enforcers are here to provide an intelligent repercussion where the Justice system is punishing for not playing it the way it is supposed to be played.

Also, I never "REFUSED" anything. @Tandor made a promising suggestion on how an opt-out system would work, and I presented some of my concerns that neither you nor him failed to address. Twice.

Next... no, you got my concept wrong. I hate to point you to read my concept again (since you already pointed out that I should stop telling people they haven't read my concept, and it comes out as condescending) but if you have read it, the "Heat levels" section clearly states that the highest heat level - Wanted can only be triggered by the Flee dialogue. All other crimes, no matter how severe cannot go past Fugitive, and are not marked for PvP. These heat levels are both true for Enforcers and for Guards. Only in Trespassing areas can a Guard attack an Outlaw before commencing a dialogue, but those areas are inaccessible by Enforcers. Not to mention they are killable now.

As I said, there are TWO problems that need fixing:

• Immortal Guards provide no option to fight back to those that want to.
• Those that don't want to can evade paying a bounty for an unlimited time.

There is always one active thread complaining about Immortal guards, and the first thing people say is: I have been avoiding Guards since a billion years ago, and have X billion bounty.

I am willing to work out an opt-out system or PvE flee, but there are a bunch of details and problems that need to be addressed which you provide no feedback for.

RE first bold...

Crime, bounty, guards etc as implemented now IS EXACTLY how that element in game is meant to be played. if you play skillfully, you get certain gains over certain time. if you hack and slah, different types of results but still things work a certain way. unless you find a BUG or an EXPLOIT then its not a case of not as it was meant to be but instead more "not the way i want." those are two very different things and, for now at least, you dont get to attack other PCs for doing stuff you dont want them to do in PVE.

RE Second bold...

By refused you haven't added it or agreed to it so, at least by now, having had it presented multiple times you have refused to add it.

let me explain why i keep asking.

The key point at the discussion then was in essense if you add PVP flee and PVE FLEE (with safety countdown) to the dialog then you enable those who want PVP without taking away options from those who just are fine with PVE flee. It was stated off and on the only way you get PVP involvement was to have chosen FLEE.

but then you said this...

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/3161607/#Comment_3161607

Next, I have thought about your proposal, but I have an issue with it:
Say an Outlaw gets a bounty, the Enforcers is notified, goes into pursuit and catches the Outlaw. The Outlaw is then presented with both the PvP and regular Flee option, of which he chooses the regular, PvE option.
What happens then?
There is no Guard in the vicinity to tart chasing him, since it is the Enforcer that caught him, not the Guard.

this right here is where you belieyour entire insistance that there is no PVP unless FLEE was chosen. this is where you allow some form of "griefing" to players who have NOT chosen to let other PCs engage them.

You have a PC-PVE with bounty stopped by a PC-PVP. No prior flee dialog choice made or in effect (presumably)since no guards around, just bounty.

So at this point you have a PC-PVP stopping a PVE-PC engaged in PVE activities who has not once chosen PVP-FLEE.
Even though it is not combat, it is still PVP. Its not even indirect PVP like killing crocs in an area where there is a killing croc quest goal, its direct interference.
Since you so far have refused to let PVE FLEE be an option you have setup a ransom system - where PVP- players can force other PCs to go pvp or lose.

Obviously a PVE FLEE button st this stage would let the PC go into normal PVE FLEE mode. the PC-PVP gets nothing more than what he already did (interfering with PVE only activities)... cannot attack the PVE character. Done and done. So its pretty much not gonna get him a PVP combat option.

However, the PVP-PC still may have gotten what they wanted if the intent was to "make it less fun for the PVE player because of two reasons:
1 - They player has been forced from "bounty" to "on the run" so thats a thing. Run into guard while on the run, no dialog, no 10s or so to asses pay or flee.
2 - They have delayed the PC. While that dialog exchange is going on, guard are moving around. So even if the PC-PVE had done homework and cased movements and had the escape planned (a legit in game PVE activity) now a PC just interrupted that effort and if done right, can cause the outcome to switch from success to fail to fail even if they never get a combat moment.

So while the idea of "only if PVP flee" keeps getting pushed... reality is when push comes to shove letting PVP players go after even PVE ONLY preferring player without an opted-in flee dialog seems a goal, based on what the rules do you are proposing and even in the example you bring up.

Thats why i asked about having both options when you said the stuff about only if choose flee.
Thats why i asked about putting both side by side so it isnt Ransom-otr- PVP
Thats why i asked about PC spotting crime after you clearly presented this example where PC-PVP gets involved without GUARDS at all.

thats why this still seems to be a way to allow PCs who want PVP but not against folks ready for PVP to go after other PCs who want no part of PVE, either by getting direct PVP or by disrupting their PVE activities and forcing ransom-or-not choices.

While again i am fine with expanded law and order content, i am against a PVP takeover.

Kudos tho for being honest that spawning uncompetitive PVP fights is an oiutcome of your proposal.

That certainly will help anybody assess the potential gain vs harm of such a system.

The PVP-on-PVE parts of your proposal dont "solve" problems.

Finally, and let me be clear i dont intend to go read your whole series of posts again so instead i will ask you:

HOW DOES YOUR PLAN SOLVE THE UNKLIIABLE GUARDS?
Are guards killable?
Does winning the PVP FLEE PVP battle clear all my bounty and let me then walk past the unkillable guards?
Do NPC guards ignore me while i am in PVP Justice fight mode? or Dot ehy jump in giving your "uncompetitive" guy with passives for the justice fight etc NPC allies to help out?
or does winning the PVP fight against the enforcer just mean, as it does not when i outrun a guard, i still have my issues to contend with except that i just had to fight some number of PCs in an area where guards are also looking for me?

Does the above seem to you to make time spent "stealing stuff" on par in terms of "risk vs reward for time spent" with farming, grinding, questing delving and all the other "PVE without direct PVP obstructions" activites? or is that balance, like competitive fights also not a goal you bother with when writing rules and systems?

STEVIL

Jaronking wrote: »

stevenbennett_ESO wrote: »

I'm one of those people who would absolutely hate to have the PvP Justice system implemented. I wouldn't quit ESO, but I'd be highly frustrated that a segment of the game I'm finding highly enjoyable right now thanks to the recent DLCs would be seriously nerfed by my need to avoid the PvP griefers who would be lurking around in towns to kill anyone who happens to trigger the PvP flag. I don't do PvP -- I'm absolutely terrible at it, and would stand no chance. (And I "Flee" all the time -- it's a matter of honor that I should never pay a bounty to a Guard...)

What you're suggesting ONLY has benefit to the PvP players -- it has NO benefit to PvE players AT ALL. It's just a meaningless hurdle for PvE players, and not a very fun one. ("If I flee from the guards, maybe I can get away," a potentially exciting chase scene, becomes a boring "If I flee from the guards, I'll just be ganked by a dozen annoying PvPers, so why do I even bother playing?")

If you *really* want to have PvP Justice, the only real way to do it is to have a completely separate and isolated instance of the servers for people who want to do PvP Justice. If you want to do PvP Justice, you'd have to be in that instance. Heck - you could then have PvP anywhere in Tamriel, and those of us who don't want to deal with the PvP stuff don't have to see it or know it's happening. SWTOR recently changed how they handle PvP to follow this scheme - every server there now has PvP and PvE instances, and you select which one you want. It's made PvE in that game a LOT more fun, because we no longer have to worry about the annoying PvPers bothering us anymore.

Which is, IMHO, the most likely reason PvP players are into this idea -- the idea of being able to gank PvE players must make them feel like a kid in a candy store. I wonder how many PvPers would still be as strongly supportive of a PvP Justice system if they knew NONE the PvE players wouldn't be involved... And I wonder how many of the people who support PvP Justice identify as PvE players -- I'm guessing it's a tiny percentage if any all all.

AmberLaTerra wrote: »

So this dead horse whipping is still on page one?

The simple fact is the only PVP players who support PVP justice are the ones who need to zerg or only know how to gank and nothing else in PVP.

The good PVPer's are happy with the PVP they have and are not looking for easy kills because they get their kills just fine in Cyro and Imperial city. It is the bad ones who rarely get kills and end up always killed who want this so they can target un-scaled noobs for easy kills.

Let's face facts 90% of these PVP justice supports want to be able to camp quest area's, or starter cities to kill. They would never go after someone in decent gear at their own level, they would go after the low levels that are new and could not defend themselves.

It would destroy thieving as a way for new players to make some money for their horse, first couple bank and bag upgrades and so on, and just lead to those new players quitting in frustration. The only way a MMO survives is by new players coming to the game as older players move on, you cut off that flow of new players by allowing the ones who cannot handle real PVP to constantly grief them you kill the game.

You want PVP go to the PVP zones like I do when I am in the mood for PVP, do not look for ways to slaughter noobs for easy free kills because you cannot handle the real PVPer's.

You really don't know about PVP at all it would seem.Lol most of the best PVPers are tired of Cryo because of how laggy it is.So obviously you don't know what you talking about and just a only PVE Player who want to PVP got ganked and no think all PVPers are like that.Your to bias for your opinion to really mean anything in this doubt unlike @Tandor who at least try to be opened minded.

uhhh... so if the problem with PVP zone is lag and PVE zones dont have the lag is the objective then to move PVP to those zones and have PVP induced lag everywhere? You do get that its not that the Cyrodil region starts with CY thats causing lag, right and that doing lotsa PVP in other zones wont mean miraculously lag free PVP, right?

it will mean, as the op admits, less worry about the targets being outfitted for a tough PVP fight, so in that, fights will be quicker probably.

So there is that.

Divinius

BenLocoDete wrote: »

I for one am even pro to player pickpocketing - make it that you lost a few gold and ingredients to that criminal you just noticed slipping around you. It was just a few coins, but what if an algorythm made it that the lucky pickpocket got your most valuable ingredient? Are you going to leave the game and stop playing?

Would I leave the game if they implemented player pick-pocketing? Are you kidding? If they ever implemented that, I would be long gone before the update even went live.

I've been absent from this thread for days now due to RL obligations, but glad to see a few people stepping in to take on the task of trying to explain why any PvP in the Justice system that doesn't have a full opt-out is a bad idea. And just for the record, though it was a while ago that I was asked:

Yes, I would indeed instantly quit playing if they ever added PvP to the Justice system -- unless it had a full opt-out switch that would allow me to do everything I can now (including fleeing from guards) without ever being able to get flagged for PvP.

Niastissa

Yeh I'm not looking for every zone to be a PVP zone. Sometimes I want to PVE and not have to worry about some tanker behind a rock who wants to come out at the last second during a boss fight and kill me. I'll quit if they even so much as announce this is coming to the game.

STEVIL

Divinius wrote: »

BenLocoDete wrote: »

I for one am even pro to player pickpocketing - make it that you lost a few gold and ingredients to that criminal you just noticed slipping around you. It was just a few coins, but what if an algorythm made it that the lucky pickpocket got your most valuable ingredient? Are you going to leave the game and stop playing?

Would I leave the game if they implemented player pick-pocketing? Are you kidding? If they ever implemented that, I would be long gone before the update even went live.

I've been absent from this thread for days now due to RL obligations, but glad to see a few people stepping in to take on the task of trying to explain why any PvP in the Justice system that doesn't have a full opt-out is a bad idea. And just for the record, though it was a while ago that I was asked:

Yes, I would indeed instantly quit playing if they ever added PvP to the Justice system -- unless it had a full opt-out switch that would allow me to do everything I can now (including fleeing from guards) without ever being able to get flagged for PvP.

FWIW... if any sort of non-consensual PVP were added (outside of PVP zones, without me getting an opt-out, etc) I would very likely stop playing but certainly unsub. There are plenty of options in the game if i want to get into PVP. I like having that choice. if the choice is taken away, i will be inclined to find a game where the choice exists.

A proposal that allows PVP-PC players to stop PVE-PC players and put them in a ransom-or-PVP is removing that choice even if it has a PVE FLEE as well.

In short, in any ftf game, i dont game with players who derive fun from hurting the other players or reducing their fun. if a GM allows it, basically "this is the group" i go elsewhere. IRL FTF its harder to do that than it is online.

if ZOS somehow decided to make it so that in ESO i did not have that choice, they would lose me.

Tandor

BenLocoDete wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

@IrishGirlGamer I agree with your last post entirely, it seems we're now on the same wavelength !

I don't personally want any PvP associated with PvE content in PvE zones, the only reason I have contributed to this and other threads like it is to see whether anyone making or supporting such a proposal is open to an effective opt-out mechanism for the PvP element or whether they are only really interested in pursuing a griefing agenda. They never are open to an effective opt-out mechanism, of course, their opt-out suggestions are always based around limiting the PvEers actions within the PvE content, and the answer here is pretty clear by now, underlining the sound reasoning on which ZOS made their decision to drop the PvP element of the Justice System, namely the need to keep PvP and PvE entirely separate from now on as trying to merge the two is hugely divisive and never likely to work.

You try to sound like the most reasonable person in the world but why do you ignore @Dubhliam efforts to content your contributions inside his concept?

Of course PvP only server is off-limits but it is interesting to note how some of you believe you own the game. From the very first impression of this subject and remains still(as with your trial to summarize how "PvPers" are not ever ok with an opt-out system) is that you don't want anything related to PvP to be in the works. This is because, as you put and let's say that I agree with you, PvP and PvE will never work together. Ok, now let's look at what:

• PvPers seems to want - more content designed around that, arenas, full Justice System and PvP everywhere.
• PvEers want: PvPers on a separate server.

So tell me about reasoning regarding that, you can't give anything to PvPers because PvEers want that and want PvPers out. This is quite childish.

There's nothing childish about my position, nor have I ignored anything that @Dubhliam has put forward, I've been debating his comments pretty much constructively all thread. He has in fact credited me with that already before making an unfortunate comparison that caused a lot of posts to be removed.

I've made it very clear for a long time that I wholly support the case for more PvP in the game and that I have no problem whatsoever with PvP being added to the Justice System provided it is in PvP zones including, I have suggested, new PvP zones designed specifically around PvP additions to the Justice System. I'm more than happy for stuff to be given to PvPers, just not in a way that impacts adversely on existing PvE content. It isn't me that wants to force my playstyle on others with no effective means for those others to opt out of it, yet that is what the PvPers promoting their desired changes to the Justice System always seek to do and I am happy always to engage with them to establish whether they are willing to compromise on that but they never are.

The idea of having PvP on a separate server is not intolerant as you may think, it's so that those who want to PvP consensually and/or PvE can do so under one ruleset while those who want free-for-all open world PvP can do so under a separate ruleset. The purpose of separate servers is not to segregate all PvPers but rather to enable additional PvP options for those who want more PvP than can reasonably be accommodated in a single server/ruleset setting. It's a positive request, not a negative one. However, I have pointed out that such open PvP servers are rarely viable for long because the demand for them tends to fall off very quickly as most PvPers prefer consensual PvP in a mixed PvP and PvE game. Nevertheless, I am not against them in principle, I just don't think they often work out well in practice so that it's usually better to offer those extra PvP options either in separate instances or else with complete and unconditional opt-out mechanisms for those who don't want them. I think recognising that within the core elements of any enhanced PvP proposals will make it far more likely that those proposals will be taken up, rather than basing those proposals around forcing them on all players regardless of their playstyle.

The claim that we PvEers believe we own the game would make more sense if we were demanding that PvP actions and options were altered to accommodate our demands for PvE in PvP areas, but the reverse is of course the case as it is the PvPers who are demanding that PvE actions and options are altered to accommodate their demands for PvP in PvE areas!

Both playstyles are great for those who enjoy them but should never be forced on those who do not, and that is why they should never be mixed together in the same areas or in the same content - as ZOS have clearly determined, and as both you and I would seemingly agree.

STEVIL

Agree with @tandor and also i find it interesting that while lag keeps getting mentioned for PVP and a possible one solution to lag would be a server dedicated to PVP with no PVE drain on server resources... a separate server is seen as hostile to PVP?

But i agree, insufficient PVP demand to justify the resources is likely gonna make it never happen.

BenLocoDete

Tandor wrote: »

BenLocoDete wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

@IrishGirlGamer I agree with your last post entirely, it seems we're now on the same wavelength !

I don't personally want any PvP associated with PvE content in PvE zones, the only reason I have contributed to this and other threads like it is to see whether anyone making or supporting such a proposal is open to an effective opt-out mechanism for the PvP element or whether they are only really interested in pursuing a griefing agenda. They never are open to an effective opt-out mechanism, of course, their opt-out suggestions are always based around limiting the PvEers actions within the PvE content, and the answer here is pretty clear by now, underlining the sound reasoning on which ZOS made their decision to drop the PvP element of the Justice System, namely the need to keep PvP and PvE entirely separate from now on as trying to merge the two is hugely divisive and never likely to work.

You try to sound like the most reasonable person in the world but why do you ignore @Dubhliam efforts to content your contributions inside his concept?

Of course PvP only server is off-limits but it is interesting to note how some of you believe you own the game. From the very first impression of this subject and remains still(as with your trial to summarize how "PvPers" are not ever ok with an opt-out system) is that you don't want anything related to PvP to be in the works. This is because, as you put and let's say that I agree with you, PvP and PvE will never work together. Ok, now let's look at what:

• PvPers seems to want - more content designed around that, arenas, full Justice System and PvP everywhere.
• PvEers want: PvPers on a separate server.

So tell me about reasoning regarding that, you can't give anything to PvPers because PvEers want that and want PvPers out. This is quite childish.

The idea of having PvP on a separate server is not intolerant as you may think, it's so that those who want to PvP consensually and/or PvE can do so under one ruleset while those who want free-for-all open world PvP can do so under a separate ruleset. The purpose of separate servers is not to segregate all PvPers but rather to enable additional PvP options for those who want more PvP than can reasonably be accommodated in a single server/ruleset setting. It's a positive request, not a negative one. However, I have pointed out that such open PvP servers are rarely viable for long because the demand for them tends to fall off very quickly as most PvPers prefer consensual PvP in a mixed PvP and PvE game. Nevertheless, I am not against them in principle, I just don't think they often work out well in practice so that it's usually better to offer those extra PvP options either in separate instances or else with complete and unconditional opt-out mechanisms for those who don't want them. I think recognising that within the core elements of any enhanced PvP proposals will make it far more likely that those proposals will be taken up, rather than basing those proposals around forcing them on all players regardless of their playstyle.

The claim that we PvEers believe we own the game would make more sense if we were demanding that PvP actions and options were altered to accommodate our demands for PvE in PvP areas, but the reverse is of course the case as it is the PvPers who are demanding that PvE actions and options are altered to accommodate their demands for PvP in PvE areas!

Both playstyles are great for those who enjoy them but should never be forced on those who do not, and that is why they should never be mixed together in the same areas or in the same content - as ZOS have clearly determined, and as both you and I would seemingly agree.

We seem to have hit a wall since I agree with most of your reasoning but I'd like to add that I see problems with your suggestions as well.

PvP Server/Phasing

Instead of PvP only, I'd suggest PvP/RP server. I find it suits the roleplay aspect of the game to be able to confront other players and have an argument gone wrong in the Daggerfall plaza worked around blades. It would also populate the world more conveniently, not too much, not deserted.

PvP new locations.

The problem with this idea is the same problem with many requests on forums - PvE-only Cyrodiil, PvE-only IC etc. Although I've read some of you approve new DLC areas dedicated to PvP, the forums are plenty with "Turn PvP area into PvE", at this moment there is one, and they are just as common as the Justice System PvP threads.

Still related to new PvP locations, I'd like to apologize @Tandor indeed your posts and suggestions are not childish, I meant that for those who want every piece of content dedicated to them, and disregard those that want other things, as with the case of offering a PvE-only option to Cyrodiil and a PvE-only IC. I understand it may sound unpretentious as many argue that "we don't want to force our playstyles onto others" but they also mean "we want everything done twice and our part without them" what is unlikely to happen. So, instead, ZOS cater to the broader public and lingers PvP slowly, until it is dead and they can change it, say, "the war is over!"

And the sad part is that we live unequal grounds -the game hardly offers anything to PvP and arenas, a 2 years-old request, is going to be "discussed" next year - so until there if you haven't grown entirely sick of Cyrodiil lag and lack of new content, you might see something for you then.

Tipsy

Dubhliam wrote: »

Heat levels

• Heat levels now apply a bounty modifier similar to Tel Var modifier
• The multipliers for the Disreputable, Notorious, Fugitive and Wanted heats are 1,2,3 and 4 respectively.

DISREPUTABLE

• The Criminal Awareness passive enables Enforces to get a notification that there has been a crime in <Area Name> when an Outlaw becomes Disreputable. Character names are not mentioned.

NOTORIOUS

• As long as the Outlaw's heat is Notorious or higher, the Criminal Awareness passive enables Enforcers to see an Outlaw icon overhead the Outlaw. The icon is not visible while in stealth.

FUGITIVE

• The Criminal Awareness passive enables Enforces to get a Large circle on the map for 30 seconds when an Outlaw becomes Fugitive, indicating an approximate location where the crime was committed. Each subsequent crime spotted while Fugitive will refresh the circle and reduce it's radius.

WANTED

• The highest heat level- Wanted can be only triggered by the "Flee dialogue" when accosted by a guard or Enforcer while having a bounty. This does not apply in Trespassing areas.
• The Flee option clearly indicates you will be flagged for PvP
• If the Criminal Awareness passive is maxed, Enforcers can see the exact location of a Wanted on the map indicated by an Outlaw icon. If the Wanted enters stealth, the icon reverts into a circle on the map on the last non-stealthed location for 30 seconds.
• Players with the Wanted heat are marked for PvP, making them attackable by Guards and Enforcers.
• A Wanted can only attack Guards and/or Enforcers that have dealt damage to him/her.

As I've mentioned in other topics,I believe adding another lvl to the justice system is the right way to go

I think it fits the direction the game is going ,with the soon to release "One Tamriel"
As players of all factions will play together.
The new "wanted" justice level should go hand in hand with granting each alliance their own separate justice system.
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/276626/suggestion-alliance-specific-justice-system-revisit-the-innocent-npc-label

So if a wanted player escapes to another faction,the bounty would not apply(asylum)
and players in same faction can aid the fugitive in name of their own faction where the rules of the other faction do not apply.
for players of the other faction where the fugitive is most wanted and commited crime,that same fugitive would be flagged pvp and there would be a bounty price on the head of the fugitive,rewarded by the faction where the crime was comitted
Surely this would make one Tamriel very exciting to play
If the wanted player is able to flee to alliance where his crime" is seen as a good deed,
the wanted can be rewarded by his own alliance,if the wanted player can stay out of hands of agents of the other faction where the crime was commited.(only active play counts,no log off)

AmberLaTerra

Sorry been busy last couple days so late replying here.

How do I mean it will lead to grieifing?

Take the brand new player fresh out of the tutorial who is level 3-6 depending how long they spent in the tutorial and only has a couple hundred gold.

They decide to steal some things to sell but get seen getting a bounty. Only like 16 gold do to their level but when they only have 200 gold that is a lot to them. The are stopped by a guard and choose to flee to not pay that gold, not their criminal status at max level.

IN your proposal the 10 level 50's with 501 CP just waiting for easy kills in the starter islands all pounce on this poor noob and destroy him.

Said noob says screw this game it just high levels looking to kill new players, and quits because he was griefed, no new players game die.

Other examples would include people camping the sites where DB quests take place or TG quests where just being seen once gives a much larger then normal bounty and making people unable to complete those quests by camping the locations griefing the quests.

SO no justice PVP no matter how you add it will lead to high levels looking to slaughter noobs who run from the guards and will kill the game, or at least kill hole parts of the content for those of us who bought the DLC's or are ESO+.

Wanting to take content away from others just because you want more PVP does not add up to be equal and it will never happen. You can either accept that reality and move on to playing PVP in cyro and imperial city like the rest of us, or go else where for the open world PVP you want.

EVeryone always whines about the lag in PVP, but that because they all play trueflame or blackwater, Hadrus has very little lag and I was having a blast there last night with a couple guild mates like we do one night a week every week.

Cronopoly

Tandor wrote: »

As I understood your previous post, you were suggesting an open i.e. free-for-all PvP server for those who wanted a PvP Justice System, your point presumably being that there wouldn't be a need for any opt-out as people would only log in if they wanted to PvP. My point was that I think the demand for that kind of server would be very short-lived as most players would soon tire of the constant ganking and griefing and would look to return to a consensual PvP server where they could decide when they wanted to PvP and when they wanted to opt out. As such the server would soon become increasingly empty and non-viable.

Such servers have existed in FACT in other MMO's and thrived in their day. Just saying there's no need to wonder about it. I played the Mordred Open PVP server in DAoC (Dark Age of Camelot) for years and had a ball. SWG (Star WarsGalaxies) likewise had Open PVP servers as well and was some of the best MMO time I remember before Sony screwed up the game by changing it trying to copy WoW. /smh

STEVIL

Tipsy wrote: »

Dubhliam wrote: »

Heat levels

• Heat levels now apply a bounty modifier similar to Tel Var modifier
• The multipliers for the Disreputable, Notorious, Fugitive and Wanted heats are 1,2,3 and 4 respectively.

DISREPUTABLE

• The Criminal Awareness passive enables Enforces to get a notification that there has been a crime in <Area Name> when an Outlaw becomes Disreputable. Character names are not mentioned.

NOTORIOUS

• As long as the Outlaw's heat is Notorious or higher, the Criminal Awareness passive enables Enforcers to see an Outlaw icon overhead the Outlaw. The icon is not visible while in stealth.

FUGITIVE

• The Criminal Awareness passive enables Enforces to get a Large circle on the map for 30 seconds when an Outlaw becomes Fugitive, indicating an approximate location where the crime was committed. Each subsequent crime spotted while Fugitive will refresh the circle and reduce it's radius.

WANTED

• The highest heat level- Wanted can be only triggered by the "Flee dialogue" when accosted by a guard or Enforcer while having a bounty. This does not apply in Trespassing areas.
• The Flee option clearly indicates you will be flagged for PvP
• If the Criminal Awareness passive is maxed, Enforcers can see the exact location of a Wanted on the map indicated by an Outlaw icon. If the Wanted enters stealth, the icon reverts into a circle on the map on the last non-stealthed location for 30 seconds.
• Players with the Wanted heat are marked for PvP, making them attackable by Guards and Enforcers.
• A Wanted can only attack Guards and/or Enforcers that have dealt damage to him/her.

As I've mentioned in other topics,I believe adding another lvl to the justice system is the right way to go

I think it fits the direction the game is going ,with the soon to release "One Tamriel"
As players of all factions will play together.
The new "wanted" justice level should go hand in hand with granting each alliance their own separate justice system.
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/276626/suggestion-alliance-specific-justice-system-revisit-the-innocent-npc-label

So if a wanted player escapes to another faction,the bounty would not apply(asylum)
and players in same faction can aid the fugitive in name of their own faction where the rules of the other faction do not apply.
for players of the other faction where the fugitive is most wanted and commited crime,that same fugitive would be flagged pvp and there would be a bounty price on the head of the fugitive,rewarded by the faction where the crime was comitted
Surely this would make one Tamriel very exciting to play
If the wanted player is able to flee to alliance where his crime" is seen as a good deed,
the wanted can be rewarded by his own alliance,if the wanted player can stay out of hands of agents of the other faction where the crime was commited.(only active play counts,no log off)

Since you quoted a "wanted" section with words of support I want to be clear about what it is you support:
Do you support the PVP-ransom aspect, where a PVP "enforcer" can stop a PC-PVE player with a bounty from PVE actions and force the guard dialog with PVP-Flee or else pay the bounty lose items etc (or prison arena whatever other ransom aspects)?
Do you support this style of PVP-interrupt-ransom thing for other currently PVE-only activites which some might find offensive or immoral within the game that are as profitable over time or more profitable over time than the current theft system - including but not limited to wholesale slaughter of animals in the wild for their hides, quests which involve stealing even if it is not makred as stealing (certain wine missions come to mind as do many others), outright slaughter of NPC members of your alliance who are just following orders (any number of quests and locations), aiding and abetting slaughter of elven elders by monstrous lamia, etc etc etc?

Just wondering how much of the PVE game you think would be better if it included more PVP-interruption-ransom style mechanics on those only wanting PVE?

STEVIL

jwilkins66ub17_ESO wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

As I understood your previous post, you were suggesting an open i.e. free-for-all PvP server for those who wanted a PvP Justice System, your point presumably being that there wouldn't be a need for any opt-out as people would only log in if they wanted to PvP. My point was that I think the demand for that kind of server would be very short-lived as most players would soon tire of the constant ganking and griefing and would look to return to a consensual PvP server where they could decide when they wanted to PvP and when they wanted to opt out. As such the server would soon become increasingly empty and non-viable.

Such servers have existed in FACT in other MMO's and thrived in their day. Just saying there's no need to wonder about it. I played the Mordred Open PVP server in DAoC (Dark Age of Camelot) for years and had a ball. SWG (Star WarsGalaxies) likewise had Open PVP servers as well and was some of the best MMO time I remember before Sony screwed up the game by changing it trying to copy WoW. /smh

possibly true but PVP only servers or areas - these wouldn't serve up as many non-competitive opportunities as mixed PVP-PVE-ransom would.

Tipsy

@STEVIL

The way I see it,only those reaching the "wanted" level will be flagged pvp,so PVP enforcers can stop PVE players for their crimes.
I think people who solely want to PVE still can do just that.Only should they keep in mind that their actions will no longer go unnoticed by other players.
So they just have to see to it that they do not reach the wanted justice level.
But if a player truly misbehaves, they have it coming;
I dislike watching a fellow alliance player slit the throat of an NPC of your own faction,and all the other players of the same alliance standing there like if nothing has happened
Don't know about the rest but at such moments I'd love to help the guard kill that player & would love to see other players help kill that player.
It might be that I like my own alliance just too much to commit grave crimes there.
But killing an NPC of your own alliance with many players around is like someone reaching for the honey in a bee hive ,without any chance to get the sting.Which needs to chance in my opinion.
Fellow players who slit throat of NPC in their alliance in broad daylight deserve instant pvp flag as they by their action they threaten the cohesion of your own alliance.
By allowing that to happen & staying friendly to such a player,you do not follow the accepted principles of right and wrong behavior.
So in my opinion it is immoral for a player not to attack such a player when they see it happen,as it simply is something traitors would do.

A few days ago a matador got his lungs and aorta pierced by the bull he was torturing,and most people believe he had it coming;
"Who messes with the bull gets the horns"
When many bulls are tortured over the years, nobody ever mentions it..But when the matador dies its suddenly a tragedy...I believe by doin that it was the risk he took
It has little to do with competitive",just granting other players the opportunity to help see justice done.

So each alliance would have their own justice system.Perhaps in Valenwood the slaughter of animal and plants will also make you a hostile target for the bosmer guards.
Because thats the rule of the region.So a risk you take if you kill wildlife and plants there.
If you then escape to ,lets say the Eboheart alliance as a wanted player in ALdmeri Dominion.You wouldn't be a wanted player to Ebonheart pact players.
So in Aldmeri Dominion killing wildlife & plants in some parts would be seen as immoral & conflicting with the traditionally held moral principles.
Its about creating a more logical justice system & one that takes lore into account.

At the same time ,thinking about the upcoming one Tamriel where all players play together.
An improvement to the justice system could make that all the more exciting.

Lunerdog

Why is it that numerous PVP'rs always seem to want to be able to affect the gameplay of people who want absolutely nothing to do with them ?

Why do they argue against a complete "opt out" option ?

PVP among consenting parties is perfectly fine in my book, why try to force it on those who dont want it ?

STEVIL

Tipsy wrote: »

@STEVIL

The way I see it,only those reaching the "wanted" level will be flagged pvp,so PVP enforcers can stop PVE players for their crimes.
I think people who solely want to PVE still can do just that.Only should they keep in mind that their actions will no longer go unnoticed by other players.
So they just have to see to it that they do not reach the wanted justice level.
But if a player truly misbehaves, they have it coming;
I dislike watching a fellow alliance player slit the throat of an NPC of your own faction,and all the other players of the same alliance standing there like if nothing has happened
Don't know about the rest but at such moments I'd love to help the guard kill that player & would love to see other players help kill that player.
It might be that I like my own alliance just too much to commit grave crimes there.
But killing an NPC of your own alliance with many players around is like someone reaching for the honey in a bee hive ,without any chance to get the sting.Which needs to chance in my opinion.
Fellow players who slit throat of NPC in their alliance in broad daylight deserve instant pvp flag as they by their action they threaten the cohesion of your own alliance.
By allowing that to happen & staying friendly to such a player,you do not follow the accepted principles of right and wrong behavior.
So in my opinion it is immoral for a player not to attack such a player when they see it happen,as it simply is something traitors would do.

A few days ago a matador got his lungs and aorta pierced by the bull he was torturing,and most people believe he had it coming;
"Who messes with the bull gets the horns"
When many bulls are tortured over the years, nobody ever mentions it..But when the matador dies its suddenly a tragedy...I believe by doin that it was the risk he took
It has little to do with competitive",just granting other players the opportunity to help see justice done.

So each alliance would have their own justice system.Perhaps in Valenwood the slaughter of animal and plants will also make you a hostile target for the bosmer guards.
Because thats the rule of the region.So a risk you take if you kill wildlife and plants there.
If you then escape to ,lets say the Eboheart alliance as a wanted player in ALdmeri Dominion.You wouldn't be a wanted player to Ebonheart pact players.
So in Aldmeri Dominion killing wildlife & plants in some parts would be seen as immoral & conflicting with the traditionally held moral principles.
Its about creating a more logical justice system & one that takes lore into account.

At the same time ,thinking about the upcoming one Tamriel where all players play together.
An improvement to the justice system could make that all the more exciting.

Thanks, thats exactly what i wanted to know.

Sounds like a massive PVP takeover of formerly pVE activities across tamriel.

So, how about options in PVP Cyrodil where when PVP folks run up and try to fight, a PVE player can force them into running VMOL so the PVP fight gets derailed? Surely, if nonconsensual takeovers of PVE activities can make PVE more exciting, wont non-consensual PVE trials do the same for PVP?

I mean, its not like just letting other people play the partsd they enjoy without other PCs being able to put them into ransom-or-else is as fun as these alternatives, right?

Agalloch

In real life we have pvp even we want it or not ( we have murderers, thieves, wars , terrorists)

ESO is a virtual world..with many things ., even justice system. So why not extend it ?

English is not my native language

Tipsy

@STEVIL

Its not a matter of choosing to cater more to PVP or PVE players.
By the way,I think the "us vs them" mentality in the end hinders both types of players to enjoy the game to the fullest.
The new justice level "wanted" wouldnt be "a massive takeover of pve activities".Since players would first need to reach the wanted level to be flagged pvp.
Its like one commiting terrorist attacks & then expecting to maintain all the rights an innocent being has.
Rather than a takeover,it would allow players to actually defend their alliance from injustice.
Also,did it ever occur that some players might want to help uphold the law instead of break it?
It just makes no sense that you can take no action if you see another player slit the throat of an NPC in your own alliance.
As the champion and defender of the alliance,at least you should be able to thwart those that threaten the cohesion of your alliance like that.
Its treason.And as our great queen says "traitors we end,no question" xD

With the release of One Tamriel,they have the opportunity to make the game more exciting for both types of players.Both pve & pvp players
It is a shame that players that only play pve skip on Cyrodiil now & thus miss a great portion of the game.
Just as it is a shame that cyrodiil is the only place for pvp players to do their thing"
The new justice level + unique justice systems for each alliance could fix all that.
Maybe the ruling faction of cyrodiil can have a Pve only phase for their members,as long as they are the dominant alliance?(just suggestion maybe not best solution to this)
Its good to think about how both areas (pvp-pve) could offer something for each type of player.
Next to the new justice level ,duels with auto accept/decline in the gameplay menu would be sweet too,for those that do not like the question to pop up.