The Scribes of Fate DLC and Update 37 base game patch are now available to test on the PTS! You can read the latest patch notes here: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/categories/pts
Maintenance for the week of February 6:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – February 6
• EU megaservers for maintenance – February 7, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 17:00 UTC (12:00PM EST)
• NA megaservers for patch maintenance – February 8, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 10:00AM EST (15:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for patch maintenance – February 8, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 15:00 UTC (10:00AM EST)

The PvP Justice System Concept, with opt out.

  • MasterSpatula
    MasterSpatula
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    I already have a perfectly good opt-out for this.
    "A probable impossibility is preferable to an improbable possibility." - Aristotle
  • Dubhliam
    Dubhliam
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    senhavran wrote: »
    @Dubhliam you're not giving up, I respect that!

    But if this PvP justice system can not be forced on everyone, that won't stop everyone to kill every NPC's in towns and steal everything in plain (plane? English is not my native language, sorry) sight without any consequences. That's what upset me the most and the reason I could be for a PvP justice system even if I am a PvE person and don't play PvP at all.

    Yet, I think that the justice system as it is can be improved so that a NPC threatening a player to call the guards, actually does, I don't really want a PvP justice system, just a more immersive one where NOT being spotted matters.

    Actually, only opted in (Outlaw) players can kill Guards:
    • Wanted Outlaws are able to damage and kill Guards.
    Criminals that are not opted in will still fight against immortal Guards. The Hounds companions are however not immortal.
    Divinius wrote: »
    Dubhliam wrote: »
    Since the mods did not grant my appeal, this will be a new, clean thread.
    @IndyWendieGo , @Tipsy , @NeillMcAttack , we can continue the discussion about PvP Justice here.
    I like how you extended a personal invitation to the posters that liked your idea, but conveniently left out the several posters that were opposed but still offered constructive criticism to it, like @Tandor , @STEVIL , and myself.

    EDIT:
    Also, as long as you are willing to admit that PvP Justice is about as likely to be implemented as Dragon Mounts and Unicorns, then I personally have no problem with it being discussed. :)

    Sorry @Divinius , it's not personal.
    The people I tagged were the people that contacted me via PM after the old thread got closed, it has nothing to do with being opposed to the idea.

    I always knew the futility of this thread, as shown in the Introduction, but nevertheless, I'd much rather spend my free time on the forum discussing this in a constructive manner than just comment on whatever seems to be a recently popular topic.
    EDIT: we can always dream, right? :smiley:
    Edited by Dubhliam on July 27, 2016 9:21AM
    >>>Detailed Justice System Concept thread<<<
  • Dubhliam
    Dubhliam
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Dubhliam wrote: »
    Since the mods did not grant my appeal, this will be a new, clean thread.
    @IndyWendieGo , @Tipsy , @NeillMcAttack , we can continue the discussion about PvP Justice here.

    Since I already made some changes today, I'd like some feedback on a particular problematic:
    -added this line in the General section:
    • If a player does not have sufficient gold to pay his bounty when either being accosted, or killed by a Guard or an Enforcer, he is then transferred to the Prison instance to wait out his bounty.

    This will actually make non opted Criminals able to enter the Prison instance where PvP penalties are applicable.
    How can we prevent this from happening?
    How would you deal with opted out players not having enough gold to pay their bounties?

    Maybe a bail bondsman somewhere in the system? Maybe in the dialogue along with the court. Activates the bank menu where players could then withdraw the gold and pay things off that way. Maybe also have edicts disabled in there? That could be something that you could potentially explore or nab ideas off of.

    I actually like the idea, but we have to look at all the IF possibilities.
    Having a possibility to pay out the bounty is great, but there is still a chance that a player could not have enough gold, or simply does not want to pay. In that case he is going to prison, which is actually a PvPvE instance.
    And that is the situation we want to avoid: opted out players open to PvP penalties.
    Unless your proposal is to have only two options for opt'out players:
    • interact with banker (pay the bounty)
    • bondsman (the amount is automatically retracted from your inventory as you gain gold from various activities)
    The thing that bugs me with the Bondsman is: what happens if the bond is not paid in full, yet the Criminal has repeated offences and got caught with another bounty? Instead of preventing players from racking up bounty, now it is possible for them to rack up debt.
    Sounds a lot like real life :smiley:
    Tipsy wrote: »
    Dubhliam wrote: »
    Tipsy wrote: »
    So I'll repost feedback I was writting when your previous topic was shut down.

    To the FUGITIVE level ,I'd add UNDERCOVER
    So i'd scrap the automatic "detection refresh" of enforcers.Check
    The criminal awareness would only become active if the criminal player is either tagged by another enforcer & comes in short range of another enforcer.
    How would this "tagging" by enforcers work?
    Or when the enforcer catches the criminal commiting more crime.
    Remember that only NPCs can spot crime, not players.
    Since each aliance would have their own justice system and agents coming after fugitives,the fugitive also gets a few escape manoeuvres to play with."thats where ther new "undercover" joins the game.
    (like we discussed with the different aliance agents coming after a fugitive who've commited crime in 2 or more alliances,being able to pit them against each other and use the chaos to escape)
    Although open world would now have PvP elements, it should be restricted to Enforcers vs. Outlaws. There should be no fighting among other players, regardless of Alliance.
    Also knocking npc chasers out with a blackjack weapon,using certain environmental traps,..So it would become an exciting cat and mouse game for both the fugitive and the enforcers.

    If the player is caught, they have these option;
    -Pay their bounty
    -Attempt to flee (the more innocent option where the players who do this remain fugitive as long as they are not arrested, pve-only.Resist arrest impossible if caught.
    -Resist all(the "you call this a crime?you can all kiss em" pvp choice) wich enables the wanted mode.The reward will increase over time for the wanted player depending on how long they can stay
    out of hands of the enforcers and guards.As the reward will increase for the enforcer depending on how long a criminal has been wanted.
    Since enforcer flag themselves to hunt down criminal players,and the criminal chooses the "you can all kiss em" option.It is consensual pvp.

    I have considered the "PvE flee option" before, but in the end decided to go with the opt-out route because people need to have an option that has zero interaction with other players.
    I'm not sure if your suggestions have opt-out in mind.

    It seems hard for me to get people to understand me at times,and I might use terms that seem odd sometimes.Its just that english is not my native language.
    I called them agents and not guards because they spawn at the fugitive's location in the wilderness ,and have different AI to hunt down fugitives rather than patrolling cities.
    The normal flee is indeed pve flee.But that doesn't take away that enforcers can tag you(which is simply marking you on the map ,making NPC agents aware of your location)
    As the fugitive, you have to try to go undercover and there would be different manoeuvres a fugitive can do in an attempt to reduce the time the icon apears above their heads.

    So enforcers act as witnesses (for pve flee) and will be notified that there was an outlaw crime in an area
    and if enforcers are able to catch on to the fugitive and tag them(also useful for a group of enforcers chasing a fugitive pvp flee)
    (no matter if they have chosen "normal pve flee" or "resist all pvp flee")
    There will appear an icon above their head ,so enforcers are able to make npc agents aware of the whereabouts of a fugitive in the wilderness.
    And the fugitive gets a range of manoeuvres to try to go undercover again.
    If the agents catch/kill the fugitive the enforcer gets a boons/reward(less than when they get to kill a fugitive in pvp mode)
    If the fugitive is able to go undercover again,points to the outlaw.(reward is also smaller in pve flee mode as they take less risk)
    This way pve players and pvp players can choose the style they want as both options are fun & have purpose for both types of players

    for the pve flee,players can not directly be accosted by a player enforcer
    Next to accost,kill, the tag would be the "tip/give away the location" option
    For pve flee ,enforcers could only use the tip/give away location option.
    Since the fugitive can benefit from it if he/she is able to go undercover again & the enforcer gets a reward if the fugitive gets caught.(pve flee means accepting surrender to agents or guards,pvp flee means oppose all & everyone can kiss em)
    it does serve a purpose for both.
    Maybe a refresh tag by enforcers would be too much?Perhaps the tag only refreshes if the fugitive bumps into a group of wandering agents?Or in which circumstances?

    Since there would be reward to get without getting involved in pvp for a fugitive,it would be hard to see why any kind of interaction would bother them.
    But nothing surprises me nowadays...
    But also,if interaction bothers them,then why do they even play an mmo?



    So in fact, your suggestion is very similar to what my original concept was, before I implemented the opt out.
    I agree, it is an MMO, player interaction should be encouraged.
    But still, players should have options. They should have the ability to avoid interaction if they don't want to participate in such activities.
    That is the reason I went for the opt-out approach instead of the PvE flee approach, as seen in your suggestion.
    Because there would still be forced player interaction.

    That being said, there are some notable ideas in your suggestion worth looking into, and reworking to accommodate the opt-out concept.
    >>>Detailed Justice System Concept thread<<<
  • Tipsy
    Tipsy
    ✭✭✭
    Dubhliam wrote: »
    I agree, it is an MMO, player interaction should be encouraged.
    But still, players should have options.
    They should have the ability to avoid interaction if they don't want to participate in such activities.
    That is the reason I went for the opt-out approach instead of the PvE flee approach, as seen in your suggestion.
    Because there would still be forced player interaction.

    That being said, there are some notable ideas in your suggestion worth looking into, and reworking to accommodate the opt-out concept.

    I don't think its forced player interaction,but just interaction that fits within the context of being an outlaw of highest level.
    The choice is in the flee(pve) / resist all(pvp) option.So the player has all the options.
    Since the tag is seperately;not related to the pvp/pve choice,but just to the status of being a most wanted outaw,
    I don't understand why people would have anything against this interaction,it would almost be hypocrit
    since most players want recognition,they want to be noticed & they want meaningful interaction within the right context.
    Why else play an mmo?
    If players don't want interaction they should just go play a single player game.

  • STEVIL
    STEVIL
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭
    Tipsy wrote: »
    Why else play an mmo?
    If players don't want interaction they should just go play a single player game.

    RE the bold : For a great many different reasons they dont have to justify.

    Also, many players do want interaction but some dont. Both just fine and welcome in most successful MMOs. But more to the point...

    Even among the ones who want interactions they want some degree of control over WHO they interact with. Any sort of "accost" by other PCs for PVE activities takes that away from them. Any sort of new system enabled griefing such as porting guards into areas where they aren't or where they follow patterns (and allow quests) etc all goes against that.

    people may go to bars, for example, IRl to socialize and maybe get lucky... but that doesn't mean they want to give up their right to choose their partners.

    fairly straightforward that.

    And more to the point, they wont give up that choice. if circumstances (such as new rules or rough patrons) remove it from them, they will find another bar (mmo) which doesn't or at least switch to activities just as enjoyable and rewarding without the removal of choice.
    Edited by STEVIL on July 27, 2016 12:45PM
    Proudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
    YFMV Your Fun May Vary.

    First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
    "The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."

  • Tipsy
    Tipsy
    ✭✭✭
    if you drive drunk ,cause an accident and get caught by a police office,you cant just say to the police officer "you cant accost me,I don't want to interact with you, begone"
    Its a natural consequence of your behavior that you'll be accosted.

    And infact you are in control of what you do(how far you cross the line) and who you interact with.If you choose the flee(pve) option only pve agents can arrest/accost you(and don't forget you have manoeuvres to go undercover when tagged)
    The tag itself is unrelated to pve/pvp.You make that choice when you select pve flee or resist all(pvp where you make it clear that everyone can all kiss em)
    The tag is in context of being an outlaw of highest level(unrelated to pvp/pve)

    Don't forget that the fugitive has manoeuvres to go undercover.
    A tag does not mean that guards instantly spawn at your location.But they will walk out of building to chase you ,and roaming groups of agents will show up to chase you.
    Edited by Tipsy on July 27, 2016 1:06PM
  • Divinius
    Divinius
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Tipsy wrote: »
    if you drive drunk ,cause an accident and get caught by a police office,you cant just say to the police officer "you cant accost me,I don't want to interact with you, begone"
    Its a natural consequence of your behavior that you'll be accosted.
    Yes. Because that's real life. This is A GAME! You know, something people play for fun? I can't get drunk and mow people over with my car in real life, but I can in a game (GTA anyone?), because it's a game. That's the point of games. To do fun things you can't do in real life, like kill people with swords. (And for the record, you DO get accosted in this game. It's just by NPCs, which apparently isn't good enough for some people.)

    I have played many MMOs. And all of the ones I've played have either had NO PvP at all, or had PvP that was completely separate and isolated so I could avoid it entirely. I love MMOs and playing with other people. I hate PvP and playing against other people.

    Please stop trying to shove PvP down everyone's throat before you end up getting this thread locked like that last one. @Dubhliam is actually trying to offer ideas that everyone can get behind. Don't wreck this for him again.

    Edited by Divinius on July 27, 2016 1:20PM
  • STEVIL
    STEVIL
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭
    Tipsy wrote: »
    if you drive drunk ,cause an accident and get caught by a police office,you cant just say to the police officer "you cant accost me,I don't want to interact with you, begone"
    Its a natural consequence of your behavior that you'll be accosted.

    And infact you are in control of what you do(how far you cross the line) and who you interact with.If you choose the flee(pve) option only pve agents can arrest/accost you(and don't forget you have manoeuvres to go undercover when tagged)
    The tag itself is unrelated to pve/pvp.You make that choice when you select pve flee or resist all(pvp where you make it clear that everyone can all kiss em)
    The tag is in context of being an outlaw of highest level(unrelated to pvp/pve)

    Don't forget that the fugitive has manoeuvres to go undercover.
    A tag does not mean that guards instantly spawn at your location.But they will walk out of building to chase you ,and roaming groups of agents will show up to chase you.

    See this is where things get really odd.

    To me, having a player i dont choose to spend my time with enabled to change how the environment reacts to me and specifically in an adverse way **is** forcing interaction on me.

    The tag seems like effectively a "flee debuff". It make enemies take different and more agressive moves against me.

    How is this different from say me hitting a player with a damage debuff while they are grinding? Or being able to heal their targets in the grind or delve? Even if its not pvp combat, its still pvp interaction.

    I would especially think you would understand that given your arguments about how just seeing other players committing certain crimes affects you.

    And again no pve choice should lead to pvp outcomes especially as options in a list of bad options.







    Proudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
    YFMV Your Fun May Vary.

    First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
    "The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."

  • Dubhliam
    Dubhliam
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    @Tipsy , I appreciate your effort with the suggestions, but I have already set my mind to an opt-out solution instead of the PvE flee.
    There is no point discussing it anymore, I won't revert the complete opt-out from the concept.
    If you wish to contribute to the concept, please have the suggestions embrace that idea of opting out.

    There is currently one issue I am trying to address: players avoiding the bounty payment by having no gold in their inventory.
    A partial solution (at least for the opted in players) is this:
    • If a player does not have sufficient gold to pay his bounty when either being accosted, or killed by a Guard or an Enforcer, he is then transferred to the Prison instance to wait out his bounty.
    However, this means opted out players are able to enter the Prison instance (that is reserved for opted in players only), which opens up PvP penalties.
    As I said, I am fully embracing the "absolutely no PvP for opted-out players" policy, and I would like some suggestions on how this could be improved.
    >>>Detailed Justice System Concept thread<<<
  • Tipsy
    Tipsy
    ✭✭✭
    @STEVIL First thing to remember is that the interaction happens in context of being the highest level of outlaw.Even in PVE now,the environment reacts to that in an adversed way.
    There is a condition that has to be met before enforcer are able to tag you;you have to have the highest outlaw level.
    .Obviously it was your choice to indulge in such an amount of criminal actvities.
    Since pve environment already reacts to you in an adversed way now when you oppose the law,the player tagging you does not change how the environment reacts to you.
    It is the standard way the environment reacts to you when you break the law.
    So you could also say "why would you spend time in an mmo with all these people you don't know?" Perhaps as an opportunity to meet new players/people?
    Interaction with unfamiliar players is not something vile and evil,
    I see it as a way to bring players together and an opportunity to make new friends.
    Because ,how would you know beforehand its not a player you'd choose to spend time with?

    The tag is only temporary and the fugitive has an arsenal of manoeuvres to go undercover and diminish the time the tag remains.The tag loses accuracy of the fugitive's location on the map based on how well the fugitive uses the arsenal of skills that are presented to him/her.
    Enemies will not become more aggresive against you because of the tag.A tag simply enables another stage in an attempt to catch the criminal(And its still the choice of the player to chooice flee or resist all.)
    It is different from you hitting a player with a damage debuff because there is no relation/context for you giving them a damage debuff if they are grinding.
    While here there is a context ;you reached the highest level breaking the law and thus the game enabled a new stage to catch you as a consequence to those actions.(and whether that stage is pve/pvp is your choice)
    Edited by Tipsy on July 27, 2016 3:16PM
  • starkerealm
    starkerealm
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Flagging oneself for PvP sounds simple enough to work. However, I've seen in other games players find ways to force a player to be flagged.

    Here's a fun idea, on a NB, blade of woe some poor schmuck in Glenumbra, near the bank. Use Cloak to get to the fountain, and hide. Wait for a player to start spamming heals... WHEEE! :D
  • Korah_Eaglecry
    Korah_Eaglecry
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭
    ZOS has been clear. They will not let players kill the guards.
    Penniless Sellsword Company
    Captain Paramount - Jorrhaq Vhent
    Korith Eaglecry * Enrerion Aedihle * Laerinel Rhaev * Caius Berilius * Seylina Ithvala * H'Vak the Grimjawl
    Tenarei Rhaev * Dazsh Ro Khar * Yynril Rothvani * Bathes-In-Coin * Anaelle Faerniil * Azjani Ma'Les
    Aban Shahid Bakr * Kheshna gra-Gharbuk * Gallisten Bondurant * Etain Maquier * Atsu Kalame * Faulpia Severinus
    What is better, to be born good, or to overcome your evil nature through great effort? - Paarthurnax
  • Tipsy
    Tipsy
    ✭✭✭
    Dubhliam wrote: »
    @Tipsy , I appreciate your effort with the suggestions, but I have already set my mind to an opt-out solution instead of the PvE flee.
    There is no point discussing it anymore, I won't revert the complete opt-out from the concept.
    If you wish to contribute to the concept, please have the suggestions embrace that idea of opting out.

    There is currently one issue I am trying to address: players avoiding the bounty payment by having no gold in their inventory.
    A partial solution (at least for the opted in players) is this:
    • If a player does not have sufficient gold to pay his bounty when either being accosted, or killed by a Guard or an Enforcer, he is then transferred to the Prison instance to wait out his bounty.
    However, this means opted out players are able to enter the Prison instance (that is reserved for opted in players only), which opens up PvP penalties.
    As I said, I am fully embracing the "absolutely no PvP for opted-out players" policy, and I would like some suggestions on how this could be improved.

    I'm confused now about "opting out" as I see my idea as full op-out too.
    However,I do believe that meaningful player interaction is crucial for an mmo.
    so perhaps there we differ in opinion?

    what about community service wher they can reduce their bounrt by helping out new players or something?
  • STEVIL
    STEVIL
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭
    Tipsy wrote: »
    First thing to remember is that the interaction happens in context of being the highest level of outlaw.Even in PVE now,the environment reacts to that in an adversed way.
    There is a condition that has to be met before enforcer are able to tag you;you have to have the highest outlaw level.
    .Obviously it was your choice to indulge in such an amount of criminal actvities.
    Since pve environment already reacts to you in an adversed way now when you oppose the law,the player tagging you does not change how the environment reacts to you.
    It is the standard way the environment reacts to you when you break the law.
    So you could also say "why would you spend time in an mmo with all these people you don't know?" Perhaps as an opportunity to meet new players/people?
    Interaction with unfamiliar players is not something vile and evil,
    I see it as a way to bring players together and an opportunity to make new friends.
    Because ,how would you know beforehand its not a player you'd choose to spend time with?

    The tag is only temporary and the fugitive has an arsenal of manoeuvres to go undercover and diminish the time the tag remains.The tag looses accuracy of the fugitive's location on the map based on how well the fugitive uses the arsenal of skills that are presented to him/her.
    Enemies will not become more aggresive against you because of the tag.A tag simply enables another stage in an attempt to catch the criminal(And its still the choice of the player to chooice flee or resist all.)
    It is different from you hitting a player with a damage debuff because there is no relation/context for you giving them a damage debuff if they are grinding.
    While here there is a context ;you reached the highest level breaking the law and thus the game enabled a new stage to catch you as a consequence to those actions.(and whether that stage is pve/pvp is your choice)

    Wow, ok, several things all together.

    You now say
    Since pve environment already reacts to you in an adversed way now when you oppose the law,the player tagging you does not change how the environment reacts to you.

    But above you described very different environment reactions based on the tag so it appears the words "does not change" are being used in a way i am unfaniliar with.

    But they will walk out of building to chase you ,and roaming groups of agents will show up to chase you.

    Then you divert into this...
    Interaction with unfamiliar players is not something vile and evil,
    I see it as a way to bring players together and an opportunity to make new friends.
    Because ,how would you know beforehand its not a player you'd choose to spend time with?


    No one is saying interaction is evil or vile. The subject is potentialky enabling intentional interference under the mask of justice, posdibly non-consensual because choosing to do pve does not count as consenting to pvp interaction.

    Then back to this

    It is different from you hitting a player with a damage debuff because there is no relation/context for you giving them a damage debuff if they are grinding.

    Those are pve activities which dont qualify as consent to establishing any pvp context.

    No matter how much fun you may think a part of a game shoujd be, you dont get to mechanically force it onto others who arent interested. This is true of many many things.

    Proudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
    YFMV Your Fun May Vary.

    First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
    "The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."

  • Divinius
    Divinius
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Dubhliam wrote: »
    There is currently one issue I am trying to address: players avoiding the bounty payment by having no gold in their inventory.
    A partial solution (at least for the opted in players) is this:
    • If a player does not have sufficient gold to pay his bounty when either being accosted, or killed by a Guard or an Enforcer, he is then transferred to the Prison instance to wait out his bounty.
    However, this means opted out players are able to enter the Prison instance (that is reserved for opted in players only), which opens up PvP penalties.
    As I said, I am fully embracing the "absolutely no PvP for opted-out players" policy, and I would like some suggestions on how this could be improved.
    Well, currently, if accosted by an NPC guard, and you don't have the gold to pay, your only other option (outside of special abilities like clemency) is to choose to flee, correct? So opted-out players would have to escape the guards. Failing to do so would get them killed, and their stolen items repossessed. If they don't have enough gold to pay the bounty, the bounty remains and they could get accosted again.

    If you are looking for an additional penalty for not being able to pay the bounty when killed (for opted-out players), I'm not sure what to suggest. Their bounty would have gone up when they chose to flee, but you could give them an additional bounty increase (maybe add a "20% more bounty" penalty for not having enough gold?) or something. Seems like a boring solution, but it's something.

    Alternately, you could have some kind of PvE version of the Prison system. That would be a whole different thing to design though.

    I know your focus is to work on the PvP side of things, but with a full opt-out, you now have the entire other side of the new system (the PvE-only side) to flesh-out as well. That could be a whole thread in itself. :)
  • Dubhliam
    Dubhliam
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Flagging oneself for PvP sounds simple enough to work. However, I've seen in other games players find ways to force a player to be flagged.

    Here's a fun idea, on a NB, blade of woe some poor schmuck in Glenumbra, near the bank. Use Cloak to get to the fountain, and hide. Wait for a player to start spamming heals... WHEEE! :D
    There are multiple things proposed in this concept that serve to prevent such griefing:
    • The "prevent attacking innocents" option is now turned on by default for new characters. When the "you cannot attack this target..." notification is triggered for the first time, a tutorial is also shown that clearly states attacking innocents is a crime and will grant you a bounty along with instructions where to turn off the prevent attacking innocents option.
    • The "prevent attacking innocents" option also prevents players from healing or buffing players engaged in Justice Combat that are not in the same group. Does not apply in Cyrodiil or Imperial City, or when becoming a Wanted.
    • The "Auto loot stolen items" option now also applies to items on display.
    • Enforcers cannot turn off the "prevent attacking innocents option" and cannot loot stolen goods, pickpocket, and enter any Trespassing area, as well as Outlaw refuges, the Thieves Den or Dark Brotherhood Sanctuary.
    Needless to say, if someone has the Prevent attacking innocents turned off, he should be careful where he spams his heals.
    I am not quite sure how it works currently on live, but I'll try to do some testing.

    That being said, I encourage you to read through the concept and point out any possible exploits or ways to grief in it.
    Divinius wrote: »
    Dubhliam wrote: »
    There is currently one issue I am trying to address: players avoiding the bounty payment by having no gold in their inventory.
    A partial solution (at least for the opted in players) is this:
    • If a player does not have sufficient gold to pay his bounty when either being accosted, or killed by a Guard or an Enforcer, he is then transferred to the Prison instance to wait out his bounty.
    However, this means opted out players are able to enter the Prison instance (that is reserved for opted in players only), which opens up PvP penalties.
    As I said, I am fully embracing the "absolutely no PvP for opted-out players" policy, and I would like some suggestions on how this could be improved.
    Well, currently, if accosted by an NPC guard, and you don't have the gold to pay, your only other option (outside of special abilities like clemency) is to choose to flee, correct? So opted-out players would have to escape the guards. Failing to do so would get them killed, and their stolen items repossessed. If they don't have enough gold to pay the bounty, the bounty remains and they could get accosted again.

    If you are looking for an additional penalty for not being able to pay the bounty when killed (for opted-out players), I'm not sure what to suggest. Their bounty would have gone up when they chose to flee, but you could give them an additional bounty increase (maybe add a "20% more bounty" penalty for not having enough gold?) or something. Seems like a boring solution, but it's something.

    Alternately, you could have some kind of PvE version of the Prison system. That would be a whole different thing to design though.

    I know your focus is to work on the PvP side of things, but with a full opt-out, you now have the entire other side of the new system (the PvE-only side) to flesh-out as well. That could be a whole thread in itself. :)

    Yeah, that is exactly what I was thinking.
    The reason I think an additional system should be in place is to prevent the abusal of the Justice System where people rack up massive bounties.
    Even with the introduction of spawnable Guards, much of the risk can be avoided by simply not carrying any gold.

    I was hoping to avoid an additional Prison instance just for that purpose, but it seems there is no better idea so far.
    >>>Detailed Justice System Concept thread<<<
  • Tipsy
    Tipsy
    ✭✭✭
    @STEVIL

    The justice system makes different environmental reactions based on your amount of crime

    "
    Disreputable – the lowest level. All guards will generally ignore you unless you approach them.
    Notorious – You’ll be chased down by the guards, who enlist other guards to assist in the pursuit.
    "

    as you can see the adversity increases as you keep commiting crime and reach higher levels of the justice system.
    It is not the player that increases the adversity;it is the justice level and your doing,as you oppose the law & that makes the game environment react differently to you.
    So no,the player tagging you does not change how the environment reacts to you,its the new level of justice system.
    And ofcourse ther will be even more adversity in that new level;guards walking out of buildings to chase you,roaming groups of agents you can bump into.
    The enforcer is just pawn in the manhunt as he tags you(or can kill you if you resist all).You can counter it by using subterfuge & going undercover again.
    Making the mark on the map vanish,or less accurate.
    The way I see it,the new justice level would be an enriching addon to the game
    If you choose the flee option(pve) the enforcer does not interfere with your situation as you created the situation yourself(infact he does you a favor by tagging you as you'd be rewarded if you can go undercover
    so you could take it as a challenge when in the situation of having the hightest criminal level on your head)
    The tag is in no way pvp interaction,as the enforcer can not harm you in any way.(if you choose flee at least)
    The example you gave of a player hittng a player with a damage buff to someone grinding is a different scenario.In that case there is no consent,but neither is there a right context for that interaction to even happen
    in the first place.It would just be senseless.So I agree,in that situation that pve activity would not qualify as consent to establish pvp context
    here the interaction happens in an ingame context that is appropriate.And as you choose flee or resist all; there is mutual consent.
    It offers free choice to the player;not interested choose flee & only the agents can arrest you ,unless you are able to avoid them long enough and get a reward instead.Enforcers tagging you might even be a blessing
    as it increases the reward for you if you are good enough in going undercover.(or it rewards the enforcers if the pve agents arrest you)
    If you choose resist all you just tell em all to kiss em & thus you accept that enforcers could take you down(pvp)
    I think it fits rather perfectly & has the right context for this addition.
    Wouldn't even need to force it into it;the justice system naturally lends itself for the improvement.
    Edited by Tipsy on July 27, 2016 7:30PM
  • Divinius
    Divinius
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    EDIT: Never mind. I can't even understand that post enough to form a reasonable response.
    Edited by Divinius on July 27, 2016 7:32PM
  • starkerealm
    starkerealm
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Dubhliam wrote: »
    Flagging oneself for PvP sounds simple enough to work. However, I've seen in other games players find ways to force a player to be flagged.

    Here's a fun idea, on a NB, blade of woe some poor schmuck in Glenumbra, near the bank. Use Cloak to get to the fountain, and hide. Wait for a player to start spamming heals... WHEEE! :D
    There are multiple things proposed in this concept that serve to prevent such griefing:
    • The "prevent attacking innocents" option is now turned on by default for new characters. When the "you cannot attack this target..." notification is triggered for the first time, a tutorial is also shown that clearly states attacking innocents is a crime and will grant you a bounty along with instructions where to turn off the prevent attacking innocents option.
    • The "prevent attacking innocents" option also prevents players from healing or buffing players engaged in Justice Combat that are not in the same group. Does not apply in Cyrodiil or Imperial City, or when becoming a Wanted.
    • The "Auto loot stolen items" option now also applies to items on display.
    • Enforcers cannot turn off the "prevent attacking innocents option" and cannot loot stolen goods, pickpocket, and enter any Trespassing area, as well as Outlaw refuges, the Thieves Den or Dark Brotherhood Sanctuary.
    Needless to say, if someone has the Prevent attacking innocents turned off, he should be careful where he spams his heals.
    I am not quite sure how it works currently on live, but I'll try to do some testing.

    That being said, I encourage you to read through the concept and point out any possible exploits or ways to grief in it.

    That list might have more weight if it wasn't things that were originally suggested back when the system was being put into place. Including defaulting the "prevent attacking innocents" setting to on. ZOS took that advice under advisement and decided not to change anything.

    Also, on the subject of the Items on display...
    Further, having a “No Theft” toggle would remove interactivity in the world and it would eliminate one of the few non-combat risks that people might encounter. Sometimes even the most careful player will run into a hostile monster by accident (and sometimes they get killed by this), but we do not allow players to toggle off hostility. That would be quite odd, right?

    Or... as I wrote at the time:
    I'm sorry, are you literally claiming that having a player's character choose to pick up and pocket an item against the wishes of that player is an intended element of difficulty?

    You can follow the quote links if you want to see the discussion in full.
  • STEVIL
    STEVIL
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭
    Tipsy wrote: »
    @STEVIL

    The justice system makes different environmental reactions based on your amount of crime

    "
    Disreputable – the lowest level. All guards will generally ignore you unless you approach them.
    Notorious – You’ll be chased down by the guards, who enlist other guards to assist in the pursuit.
    "

    as you can see the adversity increases as you keep commiting crime and reach higher levels of the justice system.
    It is not the player that increases the adversity;it is the justice level and your doing,as you oppose the law & that makes the game environment react differently to you.
    So no,the player tagging you does not change how the environment reacts to you,its the new level of justice system.
    And ofcourse ther will be even more adversity in that new level;guards walking out of buildings to chase you,roaming groups of agents you can bump into.
    The enforcer is just pawn in the manhunt as he tags you(or can kill you if you resist all).You can counter it by using subterfuge & going undercover again.
    Making the mark on the map vanish,or less accurate.
    The way I see it,the new justice level would be an enriching addon to the game
    If you choose the flee option(pve) the enforcer does not interfere with your situation as you created the situation yourself(infact he does you a favor by tagging you as you'd be rewarded if you can go undercover
    so you could take it as a challenge when in the situation of having the hightest criminal level on your head)
    The tag is in no way pvp interaction,as the enforcer can not harm you in any way.(if you choose flee at least)
    The example you gave of a player hittng a player with a damage buff to someone grinding is a different scenario.In that case there is no consent,but neither is there a right context for that interaction to even happen
    in the first place.It would just be senseless.So I agree,in that situation that pve activity would not qualify as consent to establish pvp context
    here the interaction happens in an ingame context that is appropriate.And as you choose flee or resist all; there is mutual consent.
    It offers free choice to the player;not interested choose flee & only the agents can arrest you ,unless you are able to avoid them long enough and get a reward instead.Enforcers tagging you might even be a blessing
    as it increases the reward for you if you are good enough in going undercover.(or it rewards the enforcers if the pve agents arrest you)
    If you choose resist all you just tell em all to kiss em & thus you accept that enforcers could take you down(pvp)
    I think it fits rather perfectly & has the right context for this addition.
    Wouldn't even need to force it into it;the justice system naturally lends itself for the improvement.

    @Divinius Believe me, i agree with you.

    @Tipsy

    The fact that you seem to insist on a line of reasoning which basically seems to be that everything that happens is Ok because at some point the player did a PVE thing you feel establishes sufficient context to allow other players to interfere added in with the fact that you also seem unwilling to acknowledge that an "enforcer" or whatever you call them tagging you also then changes the situation - even though you stated how it does - creates a rather nice wall of opacity that seems to prevent any progress.

    just because "to you" the injustice acts provide sufficient context for PVP intrusion doesn't make it so, even as you dismiss my grinding example as not having sufficient context for the same - both of which are just simple opinions of yours. To give you some context, in many places poaching deer on the king's lands would serve up a much more severe penalty than playing cutpurse shenanigans on a peasant would. My khajiit might get more upset seeing lions and tigers slaughtered for pelts than they would seeing a traditional enemy cut down n peacetime.

    But those are just opinions, not objective facts i would suggest be forced into the play preferences of others under the sheep's clothing of "they asked for it by committing pve crimes."

    Also, PVP is player-versus-player and as a term is not strictly limited to combat. A player being able to somehow "spot you" or "tag you" and in doing so make your success chances less likely is PVP - its just not one you can fight back against. If you believe that this will frustrate players into turning PVP on so they can go hit the guy who keeps making their tasks harder, my opinion would be you would fail at that goal and just simply drive those folks to not do the injustice activities as much if at all. They have lots of other ways to spend their playtime and chosing one that sets them up for basic PVP or griefing is most likely to just reduce the play of that activity. Its bad game design to build additional features that make something less likely to be played because they are more frustrating than other options.

    Not sure what to say other than that.

    But you do remain consistent - gotta have forced involvement. So there is that.
    Proudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
    YFMV Your Fun May Vary.

    First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
    "The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."

  • Acrolas
    Acrolas
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Forum PVP Enforcer Concept:

    If you make an overly elaborate suggestion thread and don't pay a $1 million dollar "bounty" to ZOS to personally bankroll that idea, your thread gets locked and you can only post in the official Prison thread until you work enough to make $1 million dollars.

    Just imagine how low the suggestion rate would be. The forum would be like... actually discussing actual actualities in action. Just as the original forum gods, Busty Threadkiller and Allcaps McCraps, decreed from their lofty mIRC chat that one lonely night in 1988, capped off with an endearing, "¯\_(ツ)_/¯" for maximum emphasis.
    signing off
  • Tipsy
    Tipsy
    ✭✭✭
    @STEVIL
    when choosing flee(pve),the player/enforcer tagging you does not interfere,but just brings you to the attention of authorities and the authority takes the hint and could interfere.(if they catch on to you & when you fail to go undercover)
    So players blow the whistle on you,expose you but do not interfere.(at least not in the pve option)
    They tell authority that something bad is happening in the hope that the authority (roaming pve agents)can interfere and stop it.
    There is no "pvp intrusion" as the player has the choice ;flee(pve only without player interference) restist all(pvp options where enforcer are also allowed to interfere)
    It is fully consesual.In no way forcing preference on others.
    The tag is not related to pvp,but the justice system setup to make it possible for the manhunt to happen,and there will be rewards to win for either the pve enforcer that tags(reward when fugitive gets caught by pve agents in pve mode ,or killed in the resist all mode)
    and the fugitive if they can go undercover when tagged(both in pve and pve mode,but in pve mode only PVE agents can interfere)
    Infact it can increase your success chances both in the pve flee/pvp resist all option if you successfully go undercover.
    All the skills the fugitive has in the arsenal would allow them to counter the tag in the pve mode,or fight back and flee in the pvp mode.
    Players can reach the new highest justice level and still enjoy it in a pve-only manner.
    In no way is there a "setup for basic pvp or griefing" as players has all the options to choose.
    On the contrary,I think these features would bring more player activity to all areas & gives more to enjoy in all areas so older content never goes obselete.
    It is the way you look at it...
    Edited by Tipsy on July 27, 2016 8:58PM
  • STEVIL
    STEVIL
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭
    Tipsy wrote: »
    @STEVIL
    when choosing flee(pve),the player/enforcer tagging you does not interfere,but just brings you to the attention of authorities and the authority takes the hint and could interfere.(if they catch on to you & when you fail to go undercover)
    So players blow the whistle on you,expose you but do not interfere.(at least not in the pve option)
    They tell authority that something bad is happening in the hope that the authority (roaming pve agents)can interfere and stop it.
    There is no "pvp intrusion" as the player has the choice ;flee(pve only without player interference) restist all(pvp options where enforcer are also allowed to interfere)
    It is fully consesual.In no way forcing preference on others.
    The tag is not related to pvp,but the justice system setup to make it possible for the manhunt to happen,and there will be rewards to win for either the pve enforcer that tags(reward when fugitive gets caught by pve agents in pve mode ,or killed in the resist all mode)
    and the fugitive if they can go undercover when tagged(both in pve and pve mode,but in pve mode only PVE agents can interfere)
    Infact it can increase your success chances both in the pve flee/pvp resist all option if you successfully go undercover.
    All the skills the fugitive has in the arsenal would allow them to counter the tag in the pve mode,or fight back and flee in the pvp mode.
    Players can reach the new highest justice level and still enjoy it in a pve-only manner.
    In no way is there a "setup for basic pvp or griefing" as players has all the options to choose.
    On the contrary,I think these features would bring more player activity to all areas & gives more to enjoy in all areas so older content never goes obselete.
    It is the way you look at it...

    @Tipsy
    Bringing "your character to the attention of the authorities" IS interfering when a significant part of the chalenge is escaping notice of the authoritiea. That is not a matter of how you look at it, it's just fact.It is very much the same as if we had players,able to buff delve occupants (challenge there is to beat them) or spwed buff npcs in some of the racing quests.

    You may see that interference as more dun, you have commented on wanting to enforce, but others would see that as an unwelcome intrusion.

    There are many many examples of activities which are fun when consensual but not when unwelcome and forced.
    Proudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
    YFMV Your Fun May Vary.

    First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
    "The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."

  • starkerealm
    starkerealm
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    @Stevil, it's grieffing. Pure and simple. Bringing attention of the authorities, and making it harder to function as a thief? Yeah.
  • Tipsy
    Tipsy
    ✭✭✭
    @STEVIL
    I'd call it expose you,since they do not hinder you ,I wouldn't call it interfere since you still have the options to escape when tagged and it doesn't make it a certainty that authority(pve agents or watever) will catch you.
    So you'd be ok with it if only agents could tag you then in the pve mode?
    I admit I fail to see why this all is such a big deal when the tag is not related to pvp and just a tool to expose a criminal of highest level.
    While the criminal has the tools to use subterfuge and go undercover again...
    When you get caught you could say that one player has interfered ,unless the tag happens anonymously >:)

    @starkerealm
    Since the tag can reward the fugitive when going undercover,I think a griefer wouldn't enjoy that.
    Edited by Tipsy on July 27, 2016 9:34PM
  • STEVIL
    STEVIL
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭
    @Tipsy
    So you'd be ok with it if only agents could tag you then in the pve mode


    I am fine if pve does pve. Whether I am ok or not with adding a pve tag to the current justice would depend on specifics. I am, as stated, very concerned that desires by those opposed to the current choices of other players to engage in injustice activities don't wind up adding under the sheep clothing of more fun or more challenge "improvements" that throw it out of whack with the other in game alternatives and end up reducing participation.

    But for me and others there is a YUGE difference between the pve adversary doing what it does and allowing a player to be or impact the adversary.
    Proudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
    YFMV Your Fun May Vary.

    First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
    "The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."

  • Tipsy
    Tipsy
    ✭✭✭
    @STEVIL I just want to be clear about one thing about what i'm going to say now;II'm not trying to force or oppose some kind of system for it.I'm just going to say this because ,at the moment,there is one thing that bothers me when talking about pve does pve.

    Even when you solely have pve adversity ingame.You could ruin the experience of fellow pve players playing in that same environment:
    pve adversary can create adversing feeling between pve players.
    Since the Dark brotherhood release I have feelings of hostility towards players going through the dark brotherhood gameplay ,slitting throats in my own alliance.
    Looking at the discussion and the previous one I doubt ther will ever be a solution when even a tag with no relation to the actual pvp is too much to cope with.
    I do think many forget that the experience in the open world parts is not truly their own.
    Personally I'd destroy the dark brotherhood like was possible in the single player games, if that was possible.
    As it stands now there is "passive conflict" (dont know what else to call it) between players who disapprove of dark brotherhood & those that become members.


    Edited by Tipsy on July 27, 2016 10:37PM
  • ahstin2001nub18_ESO
    Divinius wrote: »
    Dubhliam wrote: »
    There is currently one issue I am trying to address: players avoiding the bounty payment by having no gold in their inventory.
    A partial solution (at least for the opted in players) is this:
    • If a player does not have sufficient gold to pay his bounty when either being accosted, or killed by a Guard or an Enforcer, he is then transferred to the Prison instance to wait out his bounty.
    However, this means opted out players are able to enter the Prison instance (that is reserved for opted in players only), which opens up PvP penalties.
    As I said, I am fully embracing the "absolutely no PvP for opted-out players" policy, and I would like some suggestions on how this could be improved.
    Well, currently, if accosted by an NPC guard, and you don't have the gold to pay, your only other option (outside of special abilities like clemency) is to choose to flee, correct? So opted-out players would have to escape the guards. Failing to do so would get them killed, and their stolen items repossessed. If they don't have enough gold to pay the bounty, the bounty remains and they could get accosted again.

    If you are looking for an additional penalty for not being able to pay the bounty when killed (for opted-out players), I'm not sure what to suggest. Their bounty would have gone up when they chose to flee, but you could give them an additional bounty increase (maybe add a "20% more bounty" penalty for not having enough gold?) or something. Seems like a boring solution, but it's something.

    Alternately, you could have some kind of PvE version of the Prison system. That would be a whole different thing to design though.

    I know your focus is to work on the PvP side of things, but with a full opt-out, you now have the entire other side of the new system (the PvE-only side) to flesh-out as well. That could be a whole thread in itself. :)

    im against the bold, as if you are killed or submit, your bounty should be absolved to avoid camping players. the PVP should be based on the bounty- if you have no bounty, you have no PVP as a criminal; if you are a guard, you will have PVP so long as you have your tabard equipped. having PVP wait timers (you had to wait for PVP to "drop") sucks imo. just because you ARE PVP-enabled, doesn't mean you should be FORCED to PVP in ESO-justice, as it just doesn't make sense to me in the context of the system. mind you, my opinion is that you have to first work for "PVP" status as a criminal in justice.

    1 star= guards find you (they can be killed)
    2 star = the whole town of NPCs go after you (all can be killed)
    3 star = region wide PVP (you leave the region and lose your PVP status until a threshold is met to either world PVP status [see 4 star] or you rack up a sufficient bounty for 3 star)
    4 star = world PVP enabled when "x" amount of regions have pvp-enabled bounties (the whole world wants you now)

    NOTE: murder increases your bounty so use that option as a last resort... unless you're into that kinda thing, then more power to ya and kill your way out of town or the region.

    4 star status would need something extreme like you have 3 star rating in three or four regions or something to activate. so you can be wanted in grahtwood (PVP on), and be safe in craglorn (pvp off), until the needed threshold is met. the bounty timer continues, even when outside the region.

    star 1-2 keeps you in a PVE environment
    star 3-4 puts you in a PVP environment with increased rewards based off your bounty for "x" amount of time (the reward idea needs some refinement) or for x amount for the day/week.

    to drop PVP:
    1) pay off the bounty
    2)bribe the NPC to remove your bounty
    3)submit to a player
    4) die to a player/guard
    5) wait out the clock
    6) (option for PVP-criminals) a passive that gives a chance to bribe an NPC to keep the goods, but lose gold paid equivalent to the bounty.

    NOTE: there are options outside of PVP

    my last post before the other thread got locked:

    honestly, my opinion is either make it a balance of opt-in based on bounty amount or don't bother. if its purely a PVP thing, few will participate; if its fully optional, few will participate- both these options make it a waste of time and effort given the issues currently with the game that take greater priority. a balance of some where in the middle that compliments the PVPer, while taking into consideration of the PVEer, is worth exploring and has something to work with...

    to simplify:

    pure PVP system= not worth the effort
    pure opt-out=not worth the effort
    a balanced approach to both = worth exploring (note: i didn't say "doing," there is a difference)
    Edited by ahstin2001nub18_ESO on July 28, 2016 12:37AM
    I will work. I will save. I will sacrifice. I will endure. I will fight cheerfully and do my utmost, as if the whole issue of the struggle depended on me alone.

    Martin A. Treptow
    1894-1918
  • Kalifas
    Kalifas
    ✭✭✭
    Dubhliam wrote: »
    @Tipsy , I appreciate your effort with the suggestions, but I have already set my mind to an opt-out solution instead of the PvE flee.
    There is no point discussing it anymore, I won't revert the complete opt-out from the concept.
    If you wish to contribute to the concept, please have the suggestions embrace that idea of opting out.

    There is currently one issue I am trying to address: players avoiding the bounty payment by having no gold in their inventory.
    A partial solution (at least for the opted in players) is this:
    • If a player does not have sufficient gold to pay his bounty when either being accosted, or killed by a Guard or an Enforcer, he is then transferred to the Prison instance to wait out his bounty.
    However, this means opted out players are able to enter the Prison instance (that is reserved for opted in players only), which opens up PvP penalties.
    As I said, I am fully embracing the "absolutely no PvP for opted-out players" policy, and I would like some suggestions on how this could be improved.
    When a player is opted out. Just have a bed in a prison room that no one else can enter. He can either opt in and try to break out bars or just go to bed and his imprisonment term is over.

    If he goes to bed, upon returning to the open world. He will be unable to steal, murder, or fence for 1 hour.
    An Avid fan of Elder Scrolls Online. Check out my Concepts Repository!
This discussion has been closed.