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.

  • White wabbit
    White wabbit
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭
    Face palm !!!! So old thread gets closed so open another one , isn't that just spamming
    Edited by White wabbit on October 4, 2016 7:06AM
  • STEVIL
    STEVIL
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭
    Dubhliam wrote: »
    STEVIL wrote: »
    Dubhliam wrote: »
    Dubhliam wrote: »
    Introduction
    My opinion is that the Iron Wheel guild story line and skill line should come as an extension of the Dark Brotherhood DLC, since it is lacking true endgame content. It is ultimately to ZOS to look at the revenue of each particular DLC, and decide whether they will upgrade some of the past DLC, or sell it as a part of a new DLC.
    I am using names like Outlaw, Enforcer, the Iron Wheel guild, Prison etc. as general terms that most forum users will recognize and understand instantly. That does not mean some other names could not be given that are more appropriate.
    Dubhliam wrote: »
    Enforcer activities
    • There is an extensive Iron Wheel storyline, during which you will encounter many new NPC characters, along with some TG and DB NPCs like Walks Softly, Silver Claw, Kor and Hildegard.
    • Certain repeatable quests send the Enforcer in search of missing persons (NPCs) or wanted criminals (NPCs) that the Enforcer must find with vague descriptions and sketches. Note: some of those NPCs will turn aggressive when interacted with. Finding two or three missing persons before handing in will grant better rewards.
    • There are also different kinds of repeatable quests called "Community Service" quests. Those include anything from escorting Merchants, delivering crafting crates, finding lost pets and other.

    I hope you can see our proposals are not that dissimilar. The only difference is that I propose adding PvP options alongside it.

    So is that a YES, adding the content i describe would cause you outrage maybe to straw break levels if it was not paired with a PVP justice inclusion?

    Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.
    And not just a maybe, I would definitely quit the game if that were to happen.

    Now, let's turn that around.
    Let's say you get exactly the kind of PvE update you propose.
    Is there any reason why it should not be paired with the PvP concept that is proposed here?

    Remember, it is fully optional for both sides, and consentual.

    Thank you fot the answer.

    TLDR ABSTRACT I reject content or accept it for what it does, not because i didnt get other additional content i wanted married with it.

    My answer is longer but hopefully fully answering your question so you dont have to repeat it.

    Whether *an* optional, full consensual pvp element is added with this type of pve content or on its own is fine with me provided it does not disrupt current content. This applies for justice, dueling, ICP hard mode, ICP Hot Daedra Behind Bars or whatever.

    Other folks getting something they want ADDED is never going to be a cause of ire for me UNLESS what they want is to takeaway from or takeover content for other or direct interference in the play of others.

    When they did a DLC for the Hist which added no new solo content, only group stuff, you did not see me complaining and i even commented in s gripe thread or two that as a primarily solo playing sub i had no prob with it and hoped it was lotsa fun for those who do that. No rage quit cux it wasnt the justice themed or vampire themed content i want to see added.

    A "rage quit" over soneone else getting content they like is just not me. I see more stuff others enjoy that doesnt detriment different players as still benefitting me indirectly cuz more players means longer game survival.

    As for specifically *this threads proposal* you have made changes since i last read it so i cannot speak to the current version but the last version i read should never be added imo because of its direct impacts on opted out players, a lack of needed protections and a few other places where it falls down.

    Would i quit the game if that version were added with or without a married pve justice expansion? I would definitely quit the negatively impacted pve injustice play or reduce it drastically, but whether i quit the rest of the gane would depend on how much it broke the rest of the game for me.

    Key differences are:
    1 my decisions would be based on the actual impact on my play, not that someone else got what they wanted added and i didn't.
    2 i see zero reason that just whether a pvp justice addition was or was not being paired with a pve justice expansion would make me angry. I dont see it as vital they be s joint project. If update 15 were THING BLUE LINE the justice pve expansion and update 17 were WHAT YA GONNA DO a massive PVP expansion including justice themed pvp play, or reverse that order, it isnt gonna bother me about the order.







    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."

  • STEVIL
    STEVIL
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭
    Dubhliam wrote: »

    Remember, it is fully optional for both sides, and consentual.

    So what happens when nobody opts in to this proposed sytem, or the numbers are so unfairly balanced, it kills said system?

    No, far better to just work on a non-PvP solution to a botched attempt. I'd even go so far as to say scrap the entire thing and start over, from scratch.

    See, the exact same thing is going on about Open space and solo play in this other game. Those in the one mode of play (the PvP mode) are not finding anyone to pick on except other people wanting combat and in combat oriented builds. The non-combat oriented people are puttering about with their non-combat builds in non-combat places while the PvP crowd literally foams at the mouth wanting to somehow get those people out of solo play AND FORCE THEM INTO GAME PLAY THEY DO NOT WANT.
    Guaranteed that'll happen here. It's not just isolated incidents in another game. When your "consensual PvP" idea comes up against the concept that nobody wants open world PvP going on around them, it completely shatters. Then it won't be long until people are up in arms about forcing those opting out to opt in. Enticing them. Making uneven and imbalanced gameplay for choosing to opt out of combat.

    Long story short, not just no, but h-e-double hockey sticks no.

    i am not a fan of slippery slope, camel's nose counter arguments.

    I am not for adding the last version of this proposal i read for reasons contained within it, not the imagined future possible other systems that might come.

    i agree with you, based on the posts of the pro-pvp crowd, that not enough pvp-justice players would be happy with a rfull opt-in consensual and not enough fans of pve-justice play would be enticed into it on the surface to provide sufficient numbers to play to make it worthwhile.
    i agree with you that a big part of pvp justice for a strong element within its support base was to get pve players drug in or pve content taken over.

    So whether or not it is wise to spend time on a development for full consensual opt-in on its own is another matter.

    but i would not reject the addition of a fully consensual opt-in justioce ADDITION on fears of what happens when it mutates to something else.

    I didn't look at Shadows of the Hist DLC and say "dont do it cuz what if later they change all delves into four man dungeons."

    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."

  • STEVIL
    STEVIL
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭
    Dubhliam wrote: »
    They might have as well ditched Dueling because someone in the dev team said:
    "But what if nobody duels?"
    "Yeah, you're right, let's not risk that!"

    More to the point, they maybe already ditched PVP justice because not of fears of it not being played, not of maybes but because of metrics which indicated to them it actually would not get enough traction to be worth the time and risk.

    Note that dueling has not just fully consensual opt-out but also has individual specific opt-out without consequences even after opting-in to the general play.

    I have not seen any PVP justice system which allows you to choose to ignore *as an opted in player* a given specific individual without significant consequences. (except the CJP outline i presented.) So that means by opt-ing-in I automatically open myself to either directly play with another player i have cause to not want to be involved with. There is no dueling opt-in but decline a specific duel request equivalent in this or the other pvp justice proposals i am aware of outside of CJP. There is no "I'll take my chances with the guards, not you" option to turn down someone who you feel you dont want to play with.

    That is a specific and significant safety element that for pve justice would CERTAINLY drive down its PVP adopters but might maybe could also draw in more pve players - but confidence in loss and suspicion of gain dont tend to promote taking the chances.

    But a metric like "how many players currently pplaying pve justice have had cases of harassment by other players we had to intervene with and how many of those were done by pvp focused players" would be a decent indicator of the weights for each. that is a metric they could have looked at when they made their decisions about ending pvp justice and when they decided what restrictions to put into dueling.




    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."

  • Tandor
    Tandor
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Osteos wrote: »
    A compromise means that you have to be willing to give up something too. No changes for opt out players isn't giving up a thing. A complete unwillingness to compromise at all.

    You can be a condescending as you want about players not liking npcs being murdered in front of them or bodies lying in the street. Your gaming experience isn't more important then anyone else's.

    The justice system is flawed and incomplete.

    It can fairly be argued that accepting the principle of PvP being added to PvE content in PvE areas is a pretty big compromise in the first place for those who believe PvP should be kept in the PvP zones. It's proponents conceding the need for it to be optional is simply matching that compromise.
  • STEVIL
    STEVIL
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭
    Tandor wrote: »
    Osteos wrote: »
    A compromise means that you have to be willing to give up something too. No changes for opt out players isn't giving up a thing. A complete unwillingness to compromise at all.

    You can be a condescending as you want about players not liking npcs being murdered in front of them or bodies lying in the street. Your gaming experience isn't more important then anyone else's.

    The justice system is flawed and incomplete.

    It can fairly be argued that accepting the principle of PvP being added to PvE content in PvE areas is a pretty big compromise in the first place for those who believe PvP should be kept in the PvP zones. It's proponents conceding the need for it to be optional is simply matching that compromise.

    I either have a serious disagreement here or i dont.

    if you mean allowing even if opt-in to decline a specific duel vs a specific person - then yeah i can see that as a compromise on the pvper side because it allows the PVP player to dabble with friends and not be exposed to others.

    if you mean the opt-out totally setting, no, not a compromise on the pvp side but a basic starting core principle.
    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."

  • Tandor
    Tandor
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    STEVIL wrote: »
    Tandor wrote: »
    Osteos wrote: »
    A compromise means that you have to be willing to give up something too. No changes for opt out players isn't giving up a thing. A complete unwillingness to compromise at all.

    You can be a condescending as you want about players not liking npcs being murdered in front of them or bodies lying in the street. Your gaming experience isn't more important then anyone else's.

    The justice system is flawed and incomplete.

    It can fairly be argued that accepting the principle of PvP being added to PvE content in PvE areas is a pretty big compromise in the first place for those who believe PvP should be kept in the PvP zones. It's proponents conceding the need for it to be optional is simply matching that compromise.

    I either have a serious disagreement here or i dont.

    if you mean allowing even if opt-in to decline a specific duel vs a specific person - then yeah i can see that as a compromise on the pvper side because it allows the PVP player to dabble with friends and not be exposed to others.

    if you mean the opt-out totally setting, no, not a compromise on the pvp side but a basic starting core principle.

    It's a basic starting core principle for both sides of the argument. PvEers want a full opt-out, PvPers don't. Another basic starting core principle is the very concept of having PvP in PvE areas. PvPers want it, PvEers don't.

    My point is that PvEers make an initial compromise in conceding the idea of PvP in PvE areas, and are simply asking PvPers to match that compromise by conceding the need for it to be fully optional.

    Once both those points are conceded, we can all have a meaningful discussion about the best way of implementing any such changes, but that's prevented from happening in most of these threads because while one side is prepared to make the compromise of having PvP in PvE areas the other side won't make the compromise of having that change made purely optional in an unconditional way.

    It's unreasonable for PvPers to tell us that they're wanting PvP added to PvE content and that if we don't want to PvP we shouldn't do the PvE content or at least manage it better, and then complain that by insisting on it being optional we're not willing to compromise. Being unwilling to compromise would be saying a firm "NO" to any form of PvP outside of Cyrodiil and Imperial City. We've already compromised by saying we're happy to consider the principle of PvP being added to PvE content and it's for the PvPers to match that compromise by agreeing that it should be unconditionally optional. Then we shall both have compromised on our preferred starting position and can move the discussion forward.
  • Dubhliam
    Dubhliam
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Tandor wrote: »
    ...
    Once both those points are conceded, we can all have a meaningful discussion about the best way of implementing any such changes, but that's prevented from happening in most of these threads because while one side is prepared to make the compromise of having PvP in PvE areas the other side won't make the compromise of having that change made purely optional in an unconditional way.

    ...

    I cannot speak for other people in other threads, but in this specific thread, I made exactly that compromise.

    Players in this concept can opt-out and participate in their normal day to day Justice activities without ever fearing of having any interaction with other players.

    Players can play both as criminals or as cops in a PvE manner, where cops opt-in for PvP by marking themselves "On-Duty" and criminals opt-in for PvP by marking themselves as "Outlaws".

    @Tandor and @STEVIL please take a read through the concept after the latest changes and let me know if there is anything in here that still affects opted-out players negatively.
    Apart from "having PvP in PvE zones" which is actually already the case with duels.
    >>>Detailed Justice System Concept thread<<<
  • Dubhliam
    Dubhliam
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    STEVIL wrote: »

    I have not seen any PVP justice system which allows you to choose to ignore *as an opted in player* a given specific individual without significant consequences. (except the CJP outline i presented.) So that means by opt-ing-in I automatically open myself to either directly play with another player i have cause to not want to be involved with. There is no dueling opt-in but decline a specific duel request equivalent in this or the other pvp justice proposals i am aware of outside of CJP. There is no "I'll take my chances with the guards, not you" option to turn down someone who you feel you dont want to play with.

    I completely disagree with what you say here.

    You accept all and any risk by opting yourself for PvP Justice.
    There would be no sense in opting in if you could still "decline" an Enforcer interaction. This is not in any way different than being opted out.

    Besides, you cannot choose which players you will fight when you enter Cyrodiil. You willingly took the risk by entering a PvP area, you need to take responsibility and not expect the game to hold your hand every step of the way.
    The same applies when you opt-in for PvP Justice.

    You don't want to be involved? Opt out and play purely PvE.
    Simple.
    >>>Detailed Justice System Concept thread<<<
  • Tandor
    Tandor
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Dubhliam wrote: »
    @Tandor and @STEVIL please take a read through the concept after the latest changes and let me know if there is anything in here that still affects opted-out players negatively.

    I can't really comment at this stage in that respect. Until One Tamriel launches I haven't been able to do the relevant DLC content because the only character I have at level 50 is a holy paladin type templar who is not doing the Thieves Guild or Dark Brotherhood, and my assassin nightblade and other more suitable characters are at levels where doing the DLC content would result in them being ridiculously over-leveled when returning to the base content. I don't therefore have enough knowledge or experience of those DLCs to know how their PvE content would be impacted by your tying them into the PvP element of the Justice System. That will of course change with One Tamriel and I anticipate my assassin nightblade in particular trying out those DLCs shortly.

    In the meantime, however, it is clear that your proposals are very tied in with DLCs that I haven't done and can't comment on, and indeed researching the implications of your proposals would in any event involve my being hit by a lot of spoilers for content I haven't yet done. Naturally I want to avoid that!

    It was certainly always my belief and hope that those two guilds should be a central part of the Justice System but I only ever saw them as providing PvE improvements to the Justice System rather than contributing to the PvP open world "creep" (by which I mean its gradual spread beyond Cyrodiil and Imperial City) that we are seeing already with dueling. As a principle, therefore, I would much prefer to approach improvements to the Justice System from a PvE point of view and then see how that could (if then deemed still to be needed) be extended consensually to include some PvP elements - rather than ignoring the obvious PvE tie-in between the Justice System and the TG and DB guilds and aiming purely for PvP changes to the Justice System no matter the assurances that they didn't impact on the PvE content.
  • Dubhliam
    Dubhliam
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Made some changes to the reward loot tables to make them more in line with the One Tamriel itemization changes.
    Dubhliam wrote: »
    Outlaw rewards
      Bahraha's Curse
      Syvarra's Scales
      Shadow Dancer
      Darkstride
      Night Mother

      Stygian
      Sithis' Touch
      [/list]

      Enforcer rewards
        Bahraha's Curse
      Syvarra's Scales
      Magicka Furnace
      Fiord's Legacy

      Prisoner's Rags
      AkatoshMeridia's Blessed Armor
      Jyggalag's Order (new*)
      [/list]
      Jyggalag's Order
      This set comes in any weight.
      2 piece bonus: adds Magicka regeneration
      3 piece bonus: adds 4% healing taken
      4 piece bonus: adds maximum Health
      5 piece bonus: Jyggalag's Blessing
      Immunity duration after using Break Free increased by 3 seconds.
      When breaking free from a Fugitive effect, gain Major Expedition and Major Berserk for 4 seconds
      .

      >>>Detailed Justice System Concept thread<<<
    • Dubhliam
      Dubhliam
      ✭✭✭✭✭
      Tandor wrote: »
      Dubhliam wrote: »
      @Tandor and @STEVIL please take a read through the concept after the latest changes and let me know if there is anything in here that still affects opted-out players negatively.

      I can't really comment at this stage in that respect. Until One Tamriel launches I haven't been able to do the relevant DLC content because the only character I have at level 50 is a holy paladin type templar who is not doing the Thieves Guild or Dark Brotherhood, and my assassin nightblade and other more suitable characters are at levels where doing the DLC content would result in them being ridiculously over-leveled when returning to the base content. I don't therefore have enough knowledge or experience of those DLCs to know how their PvE content would be impacted by your tying them into the PvP element of the Justice System. That will of course change with One Tamriel and I anticipate my assassin nightblade in particular trying out those DLCs shortly.

      In the meantime, however, it is clear that your proposals are very tied in with DLCs that I haven't done and can't comment on, and indeed researching the implications of your proposals would in any event involve my being hit by a lot of spoilers for content I haven't yet done. Naturally I want to avoid that!

      It was certainly always my belief and hope that those two guilds should be a central part of the Justice System but I only ever saw them as providing PvE improvements to the Justice System rather than contributing to the PvP open world "creep" (by which I mean its gradual spread beyond Cyrodiil and Imperial City) that we are seeing already with dueling. As a principle, therefore, I would much prefer to approach improvements to the Justice System from a PvE point of view and then see how that could (if then deemed still to be needed) be extended consensually to include some PvP elements - rather than ignoring the obvious PvE tie-in between the Justice System and the TG and DB guilds and aiming purely for PvP changes to the Justice System no matter the assurances that they didn't impact on the PvE content.

      Apart from the "Becoming an Enforcer" section where there are tiny spoilers in the starting quests of both DB and TG, there is nothing in here to be worried about, really.

      Also, it is quite interesting to realize you haven't even read the concept so far, but you manage to input some feedback regardless.

      So far I came to an understanding that both you and STEVIL agree that the current (PvE) Justice System needs improvements.
      I made some PvE suggestions, but decided to abandon them completely because they were only used as counter arguments for the implementation of the PvP part.
      I'll leave any and all suggestions that touch on the PvE (opt-out) part of the Justice System and Enforcer storyline to you, STEVIL, the devs or anyone else for that matter.

      What I am interested about is the feedback about this concept, in it's current form where it is completely optional and it does not impose on players that don't want to PvP.
      Is there any reason why there should not be a PvP addition to the PvE Justice system in any current of future form?
      >>>Detailed Justice System Concept thread<<<
    • Daemons_Bane
      Daemons_Bane
      ✭✭✭✭✭
      ✭✭
      Dubhliam wrote: »
      STEVIL wrote: »

      I have not seen any PVP justice system which allows you to choose to ignore *as an opted in player* a given specific individual without significant consequences. (except the CJP outline i presented.) So that means by opt-ing-in I automatically open myself to either directly play with another player i have cause to not want to be involved with. There is no dueling opt-in but decline a specific duel request equivalent in this or the other pvp justice proposals i am aware of outside of CJP. There is no "I'll take my chances with the guards, not you" option to turn down someone who you feel you dont want to play with.

      I completely disagree with what you say here.

      You accept all and any risk by opting yourself for PvP Justice.
      There would be no sense in opting in if you could still "decline" an Enforcer interaction. This is not in any way different than being opted out.

      Besides, you cannot choose which players you will fight when you enter Cyrodiil. You willingly took the risk by entering a PvP area, you need to take responsibility and not expect the game to hold your hand every step of the way.
      The same applies when you opt-in for PvP Justice.

      You don't want to be involved? Opt out and play purely PvE.
      Simple.

      I agree here.. If you voluntarily sign up for the multiplayer justice part, you are in for the whole package.. Any player joining PvP knows this, and should expect it to be so
    • Tandor
      Tandor
      ✭✭✭✭✭
      ✭✭✭✭✭
      Dubhliam wrote: »
      STEVIL wrote: »

      I have not seen any PVP justice system which allows you to choose to ignore *as an opted in player* a given specific individual without significant consequences. (except the CJP outline i presented.) So that means by opt-ing-in I automatically open myself to either directly play with another player i have cause to not want to be involved with. There is no dueling opt-in but decline a specific duel request equivalent in this or the other pvp justice proposals i am aware of outside of CJP. There is no "I'll take my chances with the guards, not you" option to turn down someone who you feel you dont want to play with.

      I completely disagree with what you say here.

      You accept all and any risk by opting yourself for PvP Justice.
      There would be no sense in opting in if you could still "decline" an Enforcer interaction. This is not in any way different than being opted out.

      Besides, you cannot choose which players you will fight when you enter Cyrodiil. You willingly took the risk by entering a PvP area, you need to take responsibility and not expect the game to hold your hand every step of the way.
      The same applies when you opt-in for PvP Justice.

      You don't want to be involved? Opt out and play purely PvE.
      Simple.

      I agree here.. If you voluntarily sign up for the multiplayer justice part, you are in for the whole package.. Any player joining PvP knows this, and should expect it to be so

      I agree with that too. As I understood it, however, the point @STEVIL was making was that it isn't the way it works in dueling where you can opt in for dueling but still have control over which duels you accept. I can imagine a situation in the Justice System where you could opt in to the PvP as a criminal but get constantly harrassed by an enforcer who constantly follows you around and - assuming you can't defeat him - that could conceivably lead to a situation in which you're happy to face enforcers but not that particular one because he's just after a cheap kill time and time again. That's the only justification I could see for having the same opting arrangements that dueling has, but it's of no consequence to me as I don't PvP.
      Edited by Tandor on October 4, 2016 3:26PM
    • Tandor
      Tandor
      ✭✭✭✭✭
      ✭✭✭✭✭
      Dubhliam wrote: »
      Tandor wrote: »
      Dubhliam wrote: »
      @Tandor and @STEVIL please take a read through the concept after the latest changes and let me know if there is anything in here that still affects opted-out players negatively.

      I can't really comment at this stage in that respect. Until One Tamriel launches I haven't been able to do the relevant DLC content because the only character I have at level 50 is a holy paladin type templar who is not doing the Thieves Guild or Dark Brotherhood, and my assassin nightblade and other more suitable characters are at levels where doing the DLC content would result in them being ridiculously over-leveled when returning to the base content. I don't therefore have enough knowledge or experience of those DLCs to know how their PvE content would be impacted by your tying them into the PvP element of the Justice System. That will of course change with One Tamriel and I anticipate my assassin nightblade in particular trying out those DLCs shortly.

      In the meantime, however, it is clear that your proposals are very tied in with DLCs that I haven't done and can't comment on, and indeed researching the implications of your proposals would in any event involve my being hit by a lot of spoilers for content I haven't yet done. Naturally I want to avoid that!

      It was certainly always my belief and hope that those two guilds should be a central part of the Justice System but I only ever saw them as providing PvE improvements to the Justice System rather than contributing to the PvP open world "creep" (by which I mean its gradual spread beyond Cyrodiil and Imperial City) that we are seeing already with dueling. As a principle, therefore, I would much prefer to approach improvements to the Justice System from a PvE point of view and then see how that could (if then deemed still to be needed) be extended consensually to include some PvP elements - rather than ignoring the obvious PvE tie-in between the Justice System and the TG and DB guilds and aiming purely for PvP changes to the Justice System no matter the assurances that they didn't impact on the PvE content.

      Apart from the "Becoming an Enforcer" section where there are tiny spoilers in the starting quests of both DB and TG, there is nothing in here to be worried about, really.

      Also, it is quite interesting to realize you haven't even read the concept so far, but you manage to input some feedback regardless.

      So far I came to an understanding that both you and STEVIL agree that the current (PvE) Justice System needs improvements.
      I made some PvE suggestions, but decided to abandon them completely because they were only used as counter arguments for the implementation of the PvP part.
      I'll leave any and all suggestions that touch on the PvE (opt-out) part of the Justice System and Enforcer storyline to you, STEVIL, the devs or anyone else for that matter.

      What I am interested about is the feedback about this concept, in it's current form where it is completely optional and it does not impose on players that don't want to PvP.
      Is there any reason why there should not be a PvP addition to the PvE Justice system in any current of future form?

      I followed enough of the very initial discussion to have a general understanding of how the proposal would work but was really only concerned with the opt-out part of it which dominated pretty much the whole thread. Once the initial discussion was closed down by the mods you raised this additional topic which I didn't follow as it related to a closed thread and I had given my concluding view just before it was closed. I only came here in the last day or two because it linked from the other discussion we've been involved in and which didn't relate to your proposal. Since returning here I've been posting purely in relation to the principle of opting out in these topics generally, until you asked me specifically to look at your current proposal when I made it clear immediately that I was not qualified to do so.

      I must let @STEVIL speak for himself, but my position in relation to the Justice System is that I am perfectly happy with it as it is, but that I would welcome it being strengthened by being tied in to the TG and DB guilds, primarily from a PvE point of view although I recognise there is some demand for that strengthening to include PvP. At the moment, however, the signs are that no change is proposed under any playstyle and I'm relaxed about that. There's plenty of PvE content with more to come and PvPers have dueling coming tomorrow as well as battlegrounds/arenas to look forward to. "It is a dead parrot" as someone once said :smiley: !
    • Dahveed
      Dahveed
      ✭✭✭✭✭
      I, for one, would LOVE to be an outlaw criminal in this system.

      I know my voice is just a drop in the ocean here, but I find that overall the game lacks excitement in the open world.

      Back in Vanilla WoW it used to be thrilling when I knew that my life could end at any moment in the open world... it added danger to the world, made it feel more real.

      There is no danger anywhere in Tamriel. The NPCs are complete garbage. Hopefully One Tamriel can slightly improve this (I'm not holding my breath), but an ENTIRE WORLD of idiot NPCs just standing around waiting for me to kill them isn't exciting or dangerous.

      Being an outlaw and being hunted by players WOULD BE FRICKEN AWESOME!!!!
    • Dubhliam
      Dubhliam
      ✭✭✭✭✭
      Tandor wrote: »
      Dubhliam wrote: »
      STEVIL wrote: »

      I have not seen any PVP justice system which allows you to choose to ignore *as an opted in player* a given specific individual without significant consequences. (except the CJP outline i presented.) So that means by opt-ing-in I automatically open myself to either directly play with another player i have cause to not want to be involved with. There is no dueling opt-in but decline a specific duel request equivalent in this or the other pvp justice proposals i am aware of outside of CJP. There is no "I'll take my chances with the guards, not you" option to turn down someone who you feel you dont want to play with.

      I completely disagree with what you say here.

      You accept all and any risk by opting yourself for PvP Justice.
      There would be no sense in opting in if you could still "decline" an Enforcer interaction. This is not in any way different than being opted out.

      Besides, you cannot choose which players you will fight when you enter Cyrodiil. You willingly took the risk by entering a PvP area, you need to take responsibility and not expect the game to hold your hand every step of the way.
      The same applies when you opt-in for PvP Justice.

      You don't want to be involved? Opt out and play purely PvE.
      Simple.

      I agree here.. If you voluntarily sign up for the multiplayer justice part, you are in for the whole package.. Any player joining PvP knows this, and should expect it to be so

      I agree with that too. As I understood it, however, the point @STEVIL was making was that it isn't the way it works in dueling where you can opt in for dueling but still have control over which duels you accept. I can imagine a situation in the Justice System where you could opt in to the PvP as a criminal but get constantly harrassed by an enforcer who constantly follows you around and - assuming you can't defeat him - that could conceivably lead to a situation in which you're happy to face enforcers but not that particular one because he's just after a cheap kill time and time again. That's the only justification I could see for having the same opting arrangements that dueling has, but it's of no consequence to me as I don't PvP.

      The grief by method of "harassing players by following them around" can never be fully avoided.
      Players have the freedom to go wherever they please, talk to whomever they please and play however they want.

      This method of harassing is not only limited to PvP Justice, or PvP in general.
      There is no way to stop a player from following another player around and disrupt him in his PvE activities.
      For example, take all resource nodes right under his nose. Or killing mobs that are goals in a quest (Mad Urkaazbur the Ogre, or King Chief Edu, anyone?).

      The key here is not to reward such harassment and not to encourage it in any way.
      As for my concept, I don't think it would encourage this kind of harassment in any way. I am not saying these situation will be non-existent. But these are most definitely edge cases.
      As with any kind of harassment in the game, this is dealt by reporting the offender.

      >>>Detailed Justice System Concept thread<<<
    • STEVIL
      STEVIL
      ✭✭✭✭✭
      ✭✭✭
      My point was that when looking at how each implementation works to bring in players or drive them off, dueling with its broad opt-in AND then a per request decline will have more appeal than the usual all-in pvp style being carried forth here in pvp justice.

      We already had one player just yesterday am it to intentionally doing things to annoy pve justice players to drive them away and even counting kills. When zos loops at metrics to assess players interested, harass reports likely will play a role unless they can allow you to be selective as dueling does.

      Telling the players concerned over harassment that they must play one on one with their harassed if they opt-in means fewer would play.

      But hey maybe the audience is so big they don't need to worry with it.

      Their data guys prolly already figured it for tham.
      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
      ✭✭✭✭✭
      STEVIL wrote: »
      My point was that when looking at how each implementation works to bring in players or drive them off, dueling with its broad opt-in AND then a per request decline will have more appeal than the usual all-in pvp style being carried forth here in pvp justice.

      We already had one player just yesterday am it to intentionally doing things to annoy pve justice players to drive them away and even counting kills. When zos loops at metrics to assess players interested, harass reports likely will play a role unless they can allow you to be selective as dueling does.

      Telling the players concerned over harassment that they must play one on one with their harassed if they opt-in means fewer would play.

      But hey maybe the audience is so big they don't need to worry with it.

      Their data guys prolly already figured it for tham.

      Opted in players can only be killed-on-sight in two ways:
      • attacking a Guard or Enforcer (yes, only the Outlaws have the first strike now)
      • choosing to "flee" a Guard or Enforcer
      There should be no additional declines of specific Enforcer encounters. Please stop comparing the PvP Justice system to dueling, those are fundamentally different systems.

      As for harassment.
      Let's take a detailed look at the rewards Enforcers get for accosting and/or killing an Outlaw.

      I listed a few item sets that are awarded to Enforcers. This is the main incentive for Enforcers.
      Now, those items would only be awarded by dailies, meaning PvP Heist, PvP Sacrament, and PvP Prison. All of these are limited to once per day, and it is the game that assigns players to instances, the players don't get to choose who they will be up against.

      Now there are also repeatable quests that also give rewards for catching Outlaws in the open world. These do not award item sets, only a few guild points and some gold/consumables. I may have not explicitly stated that in the concept, but it is intuitive by itself, if one was to compare these quests to DB and TG dailies.
      Now remember, even these rewards are tied to quests. Meaning an Enforcer would need to pick up the quest, then hand in the quest afterwards, disabling the Enforcer from actively following someone around.

      Catching an Outlaw without having an active repeatable quest grants nothing.
      Edited by Dubhliam on October 5, 2016 10:54AM
      >>>Detailed Justice System Concept thread<<<
    • AmberLaTerra
      AmberLaTerra
      ✭✭✭✭
      This system is still 100% broken as it still gives the enforcer first strike assured.

      OK lets go with an example of how broken this it. My Khajiit NB is an enforcer. I see an outlaw who can be attacked. I attack. Incap strike freezes the outlaw. Rapid Strikes procs my Veldriths, Red Mountian, and Vpiers. Outlaw dead. 9 seconds later I can insta kill another outlaw.

      This is not PVP Justice, it is PVP Ganking

      And reversing as you did in the last post just makes it outlaw Ganking the enforcers. Still completely broken.

      Name one class that can survive 54k proc damage along with the damage from incap and rapid strikes. After all this is not in Cyro there is no battle spirit halving my damage.

      In the end no matter what concept you come up with for PVP Justice that is what it will boil down to instant kill ganks by one side or the other. That is why it will never work, in less of course your answer is to outlaw solo justice play in which case I guess we can just delete the thieves guild and DB DLC's people bought as they will their solo quests and storylines will be banned.
      Edited by AmberLaTerra on October 5, 2016 10:41AM
      PAWS (Positively Against Wrip-off Stuff) - Say No to Crown Crates!

      CP 365 Nord DK DPS EP
      CP 365 Imperal DK Stam Tank EP
      Level 9 Imperial Stam Templar EP
      Cp 365 Khajiit Stam Blade EP

      For the glory of the Pact
    • Dubhliam
      Dubhliam
      ✭✭✭✭✭
      This system is still 100% broken as it still gives the enforcer first strike assured.
      Outdated rant, this has been changed.
      I felt it necessary to prevent the Outlaws from having the first strike to protect the Enforcer from being harassed simply for having chosen to be an enforcer.
      Since then, I changed it so that the Enforcer cannot participate (or be forced into) in PvP Justice before marking themselves as "On-Duty".
      Besides, even when Enforcers did have the first strike, Outlaws weren't unsuspecting targets. Remember, Outlaws cannot be attacked until they trigger the WANTED heat by choosing to flee (in addition to attacking an "On-Duty" Enforcer, since recently).
      OK lets go with an example of how broken this it. My Khajiit NB is an enforcer. I see an outlaw who can be attacked. I attack. Incap strike freezes the outlaw. Rapid Strikes procs my Veldriths, Red Mountian, and Vpiers. Outlaw dead. 9 seconds later I can insta kill another outlaw.

      This is not PVP Justice, it is PVP Ganking
      "an Outlaw that can be attacked"?
      You mean someone that has an active bounty and willfully chose to flee/attack a Guard?
      My guess is that person is expecting to be attacked soon.
      There is no room for "gank" talk in this system.
      Besides, what you describe is skill/class imbalance. Not something I am willing to dabble in while proposing a PvP Justice system. I'd like to stay on topic.
      And reversing as you did in the last post just makes it outlaw Ganking the enforcers. Still completely broken.
      Once again, although Outlaws have the upper hand now because they can first strike, the only eligible targets are Enforcers that marked themselves as "On-Duty". Again, hardly an unsuspecting target, those Enforcers should not opt in for PvP if they are not prepared to get jumped on.

      Now, let's take a look at the Outlaw's incentive to gank an Enforcer.
      If an Outlaw has no bounty, they get nothing out of it. No incentive to jump on an Enforcer whatsoever.
      If they do have a bounty, they might reason that "offence is the best defence" but at the same time they have now marked themselves as WANTED and can be found easily and attacked freely by Enforcers, with greatly reduced chances of getting away.
      Name one class that can survive 54k proc damage along with the damage from incap and rapid strikes. After all this is not in Cyro there is no battle spirit halving my damage.
      You obviously missed a few details from the proposal I wrote.
      I you even read any of it, but let's assume you have.
      • Scales of Pitiless Justice DB passive now additionally reduce damage taken from Enforcers by 5/10/15/20%.
      • Unyielding Guard passive reduces damage taken from Wanted players by 10/20/30/40%
      Now these numbers are still up for discussion, but don't for a second assume I have not considered the Battle Spirit Buff, or that I have some secret agenda where I want to push for short gank-like duels.
      I may still revise those passives and give them a little boots, if nothing else, but to compensate for the fact that the Battle Spirit gives an additional 5000 health.
      In the end no matter what concept you come up with for PVP Justice that is what it will boil down to instant kill ganks by one side or the other. That is why it will never work, in less of course your answer is to outlaw solo justice play in which case I guess we can just delete the thieves guild and DB DLC's people bought as they will their solo quests and storylines will be banned.

      Nothing gets deleted.
      This is an opt-out (opt-in) proposal.
      I guess this answers my initial doubts whether you have read the proposal (or the thread title for that matter).
      Edited by Dubhliam on October 5, 2016 12:48PM
      >>>Detailed Justice System Concept thread<<<
    • AmberLaTerra
      AmberLaTerra
      ✭✭✭✭
      And proc sets still one hit regardless of any statement about being ready. People in Cyrodiil and IC are ready for PVP and still get ganked.

      You obviously do not PVP much if you do not understand that very basic exists in mass there, and this system would just bring it outside Cyro and have no impact other then easy kills for one side or the other as it is made.

      Once again it comes down to not a lack of reading on a part of a critic of yours but a complete lack of even understanding the concept of how PVP in this game actually works, and how your carefully crafted system will lead to nothing more then stealthed enforcers ganking Outlaws the moment they get marketed for PVP or stealthed outlaws ganking enforcers the moment they mark themselves "on duty".

      Those are simply the logical facts of what such a system will boil down to in the end. One side or the other simply griefing the opposite side with quick strikes from stealth to kill them.

      In the end a system like that makes justice PVP even more pointless then not having it at all. Then again of course you did say earlier in this thread camping is rare in Cyro, when the bridges are almost constantly camped in less one alliance has the keeps on both sides of the bridge as they are choke points and can only be passed when the campers are cleared. Also proving how little you PVP to know how it works in this game.

      To actually believe the ganking meta is just going to vanish and not be the core of justice PVP without serious terms on how it works much like dueling has is like pigs will fly.

      Not to mention how much advantage you want to give Enforces over outlaws with higher damage mitigation and any other way that the you can to keep the balance in their favor skill advantages that make there combat better to OP reward potions and ways of detecting outlaws well beyond the current ways they can be detected.

      The deck is stacked against the outlaw in every respect enough so to making ganking their only option to attempt to even the playing field.
      PAWS (Positively Against Wrip-off Stuff) - Say No to Crown Crates!

      CP 365 Nord DK DPS EP
      CP 365 Imperal DK Stam Tank EP
      Level 9 Imperial Stam Templar EP
      Cp 365 Khajiit Stam Blade EP

      For the glory of the Pact
    • Dubhliam
      Dubhliam
      ✭✭✭✭✭
      And proc sets still one hit regardless of any statement about being ready. People in Cyrodiil and IC are ready for PVP and still get ganked.

      You obviously do not PVP much if you do not understand that very basic exists in mass there, and this system would just bring it outside Cyro and have no impact other then easy kills for one side or the other as it is made.

      Once again it comes down to not a lack of reading on a part of a critic of yours but a complete lack of even understanding the concept of how PVP in this game actually works, and how your carefully crafted system will lead to nothing more then stealthed enforcers ganking Outlaws the moment they get marketed for PVP or stealthed outlaws ganking enforcers the moment they mark themselves "on duty".

      Those are simply the logical facts of what such a system will boil down to in the end. One side or the other simply griefing the opposite side with quick strikes from stealth to kill them.

      In the end a system like that makes justice PVP even more pointless then not having it at all. Then again of course you did say earlier in this thread camping is rare in Cyro, when the bridges are almost constantly camped in less one alliance has the keeps on both sides of the bridge as they are choke points and can only be passed when the campers are cleared. Also proving how little you PVP to know how it works in this game.

      To actually believe the ganking meta is just going to vanish and not be the core of justice PVP without serious terms on how it works much like dueling has is like pigs will fly.

      Not to mention how much advantage you want to give Enforces over outlaws with higher damage mitigation and any other way that the you can to keep the balance in their favor skill advantages that make there combat better to OP reward potions and ways of detecting outlaws well beyond the current ways they can be detected.

      The deck is stacked against the outlaw in every respect enough so to making ganking their only option to attempt to even the playing field.

      If I was to show you my Emperor costume, would you stop being so condescending?
      >>>Detailed Justice System Concept thread<<<
    • I_killed_Vivec
      I_killed_Vivec
      ✭✭✭✭✭
      Dubhliam wrote: »
      Opted in players can only be killed-on-sight in two ways:
      • attacking a Guard or Enforcer (yes, only the Outlaws have the first strike now)
      • choosing to "flee" a Guard or Enforcer

      Are the guards invincible? Because it doesn't sound much fun if you attempt to flee from a guard only to find yourself battling an invincible guard and a ganking enforcer.

      If they aren't invincible then there will be squads of ruffians killing off the guards before going on a murder spree!

      Now, how does that affect non-PvP justice players? Will there be no guards because the PvP justice players killed them all? Or will there be invincible guards? But that brings us back to the first problem - PvP justice with invincible guards doing all the work while "enforcers" stand around waiting to finish someone off...

      So... invincible guards, or not?

    • Dubhliam
      Dubhliam
      ✭✭✭✭✭
      Dubhliam wrote: »
      Opted in players can only be killed-on-sight in two ways:
      • attacking a Guard or Enforcer (yes, only the Outlaws have the first strike now)
      • choosing to "flee" a Guard or Enforcer

      Are the guards invincible? Because it doesn't sound much fun if you attempt to flee from a guard only to find yourself battling an invincible guard and a ganking enforcer.

      If they aren't invincible then there will be squads of ruffians killing off the guards before going on a murder spree!

      Now, how does that affect non-PvP justice players? Will there be no guards because the PvP justice players killed them all? Or will there be invincible guards? But that brings us back to the first problem - PvP justice with invincible guards doing all the work while "enforcers" stand around waiting to finish someone off...

      So... invincible guards, or not?

      Excellent point.
      This is what my concept stands on so far:
      Dubhliam wrote: »
      Becoming an Outlaw
      • Wanted Outlaws are able to damage and kill Guards.

      So basically, you can kill guards if you are opted for PvP, and you can't kill them if you are opted out.
      Also note that attacking Guards will trigger the WANTED heat, making Outlaws kill-on-sight and easily trackable by Enforcers.
      So killing Guards would really be looking for trouble against opponents that have an advantage.
      And I firmly stand on the principle that Enforcers should have some advantage in the fight.

      I know it's not that simple, and that killing Guards also affects opted out players.
      Since Guards have always been invincible, we have never had to see them respawn. Should the respawn be (almost) instant? Where would be the respawn locations?

      This is still open for debate, once again... excellent question.
      EDIT: I added this in the feedback section in regard to this:
      • How to deal with Guard respawns? How long should the timer be and where would they respawn?
      Edited by Dubhliam on October 5, 2016 2:15PM
      >>>Detailed Justice System Concept thread<<<
    • Dubhliam
      Dubhliam
      ✭✭✭✭✭
      I boosted the damage preventing passives:
      • Scales of Pitiless Justice DB passive now additionally reduce damage taken from Enforcers by 5/10/15/2020/30/40/50%.
      • Unyielding Guard passive reduces damage taken from Wanted Outlaw players by 10/20/30/4015/30/45/60%.

      This is to compensate at least a bit for not having the 5000 Health bonus from the Battle Spirit buff.
      If you have any other suggestions, I'd like to hear them.
      Edited by Dubhliam on October 5, 2016 3:44PM
      >>>Detailed Justice System Concept thread<<<
    • STEVIL
      STEVIL
      ✭✭✭✭✭
      ✭✭✭
      just as an odd aside, at a recent podcast, the zos folks said they had seen recent cases where guards were killed by groups of people so beefed up they overcame the ridiculous guard sustain on their own.

      So it turns out pve guards are actually killable... just really really really really really really hard to.
      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."

    • Milvan
      Milvan
      ✭✭✭✭✭
      Wow, OP kind have a lot of of free time on his hands.

      I mean, really A LOT OF it.
      “Kings of the land and the sky we are; proud gryphons.” Stalker stands, the epitome of pride. Naked and muscular, his wings widen and his feet dig in as if he alone holds down the earth and supports the heavens, keeping the two ever separate.”
      Gryphons guild - @Milvan,
    • sirston
      sirston
      ✭✭✭✭✭
      Becoming an Enforcer
      *Requires access to the Dark Brotherhood DLC.



      You lost me there. Something that was a free update then moved to a paid DLC. you are more then welcomed to send me $40 for all DLC's.
      Whitestakes Revenge
      WoodElf Mag-Warden
      Sirston
      Magickia Dragonknight


      T0XIC
      Pride Of The Pact
      Vehemence
      The Crimson Order

      victoria aut mors
    • Marto
      Marto
      ✭✭✭✭✭
      Dubhliam wrote: »
      I boosted the damage preventing passives:
      • Scales of Pitiless Justice DB passive now additionally reduce damage taken from Enforcers by 5/10/15/2020/30/40/50%.
      • Unyielding Guard passive reduces damage taken from Wanted Outlaw players by 10/20/30/4015/30/45/60%.

      This is to compensate at least a bit for not having the 5000 Health bonus from the Battle Spirit buff.
      If you have any other suggestions, I'd like to hear them.

      Textbook example of Pay-To-Win. Not everyone has the DLC.
      "According to the calculations of the sages of the Cult of the Ancestor Moth, the batam guar is the cutest creature in all Tamriel"
    This discussion has been closed.