Please Finish The Justice System

bellanca6561n

Yes, you might find this funny. But flagging murders as killable by other players will let the players decide if they are amused. Risk and reward. Just ask risk. Done and dusted.

[Edit to remove advertising]

AzraelKrieg

They have already said no to this many times already. There is no point in continuing to ask. If you want to beat on someone, wait for the next update and challenge them to a duel

Tavore1138

Yawn, risk for players - reward for griefers.

MasterSpatula

Ah, the PVP aspect of the Justice system. Proof that ZOS is actually capable of letting go of a terrible idea. Occasionally.

Majic

There ain't no justice in this world.

bellanca6561n

AzraelKrieg wrote: »

They have already said no to this many times already. There is no point in continuing to ask. If you want to beat on someone, wait for the next update and challenge them to a duel

I thought so too. Problem is you will be able to turn dueling off. And this sort will....all....of....them.

MasterSpatula wrote: »

Ah, the PVP aspect of the Justice system. Proof that ZOS is actually capable of letting go of a terrible idea. Occasionally.

Yes, because the UO veterans left. Doesn't mean it was a bad idea. And just saying it is doesn't make it one.

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to those opinions you can defend.

Then again, I can't really defend the notion of adding digital society features to this online game. The audience who'd want that is too small to support the sort of production values this game has.

Crap....I've defended your opinion in the end. It likely would have been a terrible idea for this audience and this market

You can play games online or you can play online games. This one is not the latter.

brandonv516

What does one get for killing all those NPCs? Is there an achievement by chance?

Mic1007

brandonv516 wrote: »

What does one get for killing all those NPCs? Is there an achievement by chance?

There is one for 100 murders. Mas Murderer.

Cazic

The PvP end of the justice system would actually ruin the system as it is in its current state.

Right now the risk vs reward ratio is good with the guards and loss of gold being the biggest threats. It's fun, repeatable content that you can do at your own pace.

Having other players in theee lurking around and interfering would just disrupt the rhythm and frustrate lot of players who make the justice system a large part of their game play routine.

ZOS does not want the overland PvE areas to become PvP environments. That's in the interest if a very large portion of the player base who are not interested in PvP. Dueling is the closest thing we'll get, and is actually quite valuable to PvP in general.

DBZVelena

There is no skill in killing enmass.
Far better is it, when you kill an npc and nobody sees you do it.

STEVIL

@bellanca6561n

"But flagging murders as killable by other players will let the players decide if they are amused"

yes. it would.

But if i am playing a vampire and you go around killing npc vampires shouldn't i also get to decide that i am not amused by you killing my kin and challenge you?

if i am playing a green pact and see you startiong fires in forests burning tents...

If i play a characater that sees you killing dominion ships in your territory and killing dominion soldiers...

if i am an etc etc etc etc etc etc etc even when or especially when there are quests involved - you know like many Db or TG quests do.

Why decide that one and only one PC-vs-NPC activity deserves the "i am not amused so BAMF PVP" option in a world that is NOT ours and does not share our moralities in many of their cultures?

And also, all the other stuff said above about why it is bad.

The GAME establishes killing civilians and robbery as valid PC activities, valid content to pursue, and basically a valid in-game activity for PVE. it is not currently out of whack balance wise with other repeatable "acquisition" content like grinding, delving, questing etc as far as GAINS over TIME - it even skews a little low.

i do like however the comment about how dueling isnt an answer because they can decline... which is telling about how letting the other players have a choiceto choose not to fight other players is a problem.

MasterSpatula

bellanca6561n wrote: »

MasterSpatula wrote: »

Ah, the PVP aspect of the Justice system. Proof that ZOS is actually capable of letting go of a terrible idea. Occasionally.

Yes, because the UO veterans left. Doesn't mean it was a bad idea. And just saying it is doesn't make it one.

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to those opinions you can defend.

Who TF says I can't defend my opinion? This discussion has been had ad nauseum, and I'm really not interested in yet again relating my personal experiences with the Bounty Hunting system in Star Wars Galaxies (and the bragging of my own guildies over the griefing they did), only to have players who want this griefers' wet dream in ESO tell me that my experiences did not happen. I've had that conversation. I'm done with it.

When I turn off PVP mode (or, in ESO, when I leave Cyrodiil), I'm done PVPing. Period.

This topic is settled. Move on.

AndyTGD

Most immersive MMORPG evaaaah!

Tandor

If we're going to insist on flogging dead horses, couldn't we just stick to the trading system? That at least needs fixing, whereas the Justice System is fine as it is.

Waffennacht

STEVIL wrote: »

@bellanca6561n

"But flagging murders as killable by other players will let the players decide if they are amused"

yes. it would.

But if i am playing a vampire and you go around killing npc vampires shouldn't i also get to decide that i am not amused by you killing my kin and challenge you?

if i am playing a green pact and see you startiong fires in forests burning tents...

If i play a characater that sees you killing dominion ships in your territory and killing dominion soldiers...

if i am an etc etc etc etc etc etc etc even when or especially when there are quests involved - you know like many Db or TG quests do.

Why decide that one and only one PC-vs-NPC activity deserves the "i am not amused so BAMF PVP" option in a world that is NOT ours and does not share our moralities in many of their cultures?

And also, all the other stuff said above about why it is bad.

The GAME establishes killing civilians and robbery as valid PC activities, valid content to pursue, and basically a valid in-game activity for PVE. it is not currently out of whack balance wise with other repeatable "acquisition" content like grinding, delving, questing etc as far as GAINS over TIME - it even skews a little low.

i do like however the comment about how dueling isnt an answer because they can decline... which is telling about how letting the other players have a choiceto choose not to fight other players is a problem.

Love that line lmfao. Awesome

bellanca6561n

STEVIL wrote: »

@bellanca6561n

"But flagging murders as killable by other players will let the players decide if they are amused"

yes. it would.

But if i am playing a vampire and you go around killing npc vampires shouldn't i also get to decide that i am not amused by you killing my kin and challenge you?

if i am playing a green pact and see you startiong fires in forests burning tents...

If i play a characater that sees you killing dominion ships in your territory and killing dominion soldiers...

if i am an etc etc etc etc etc etc etc even when or especially when there are quests involved - you know like many Db or TG quests do.

Why decide that one and only one PC-vs-NPC activity deserves the "i am not amused so BAMF PVP" option in a world that is NOT ours and does not share our moralities in many of their cultures?

And also, all the other stuff said above about why it is bad.

The GAME establishes killing civilians and robbery as valid PC activities, valid content to pursue, and basically a valid in-game activity for PVE. it is not currently out of whack balance wise with other repeatable "acquisition" content like grinding, delving, questing etc as far as GAINS over TIME - it even skews a little low.

i do like however the comment about how dueling isnt an answer because they can decline... which is telling about how letting the other players have a choiceto choose not to fight other players is a problem.

Pardon the lag...I'd given up and only saw this string of responses this evening.

You make some excellent points which is why, in the end, I conceded that this game is ill suited for digital community features....what is often called "a living world" where an online community mimics aspects of a physical one.

You do eliminate player choice on the one hand to enable player impact and influence on the other. And that influence can become tyrannical as it often does with human societies.

The alternative is players having no impact on the game at all really. And that seems to work. It's why they call these theme park games. They're multiplayer but not too multiplayer. You have persistent player groups but are allowed so many that calling a guild a guild in this game is like calling a traffic jam a block party.

I understand this. I began developing online games before they were allowed on the Internet and understand that we could do things then you cannot do now because the audience then was small. It was also a very different audience. The average age of online game players before Ultima Online was 37.

What got me worked up was simply the sound of someone fighting for air through their own blood and body fluids. I'm certainly not alone in having heard that sound many times...for real. It was meant to provoke a response. But I could not respond.

Could I at least provide treatment for these victims....take the kill away from a murderer if I cannot kill the murderer? Not even if I'm right there when they're attacked?

Can I not stop an attack in progress at least?

I didn't mean, to use the old expression, to beat a dead horse to death. This is not exactly a warm forum and I'm seldom inclined to come here. But just standing there when this happens and others beg for their lives. How is that a game?

I just don't get it.

vyndral13preub18_ESO

It really wouldnt be that hard to give the system an opt in or opt out feature.

I think most people are just afraid that zos cant dont it with out breaking everything.

Khenarthi

bellanca6561n wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

@bellanca6561n

"But flagging murders as killable by other players will let the players decide if they are amused"

yes. it would.

But if i am playing a vampire and you go around killing npc vampires shouldn't i also get to decide that i am not amused by you killing my kin and challenge you?

if i am playing a green pact and see you startiong fires in forests burning tents...

If i play a characater that sees you killing dominion ships in your territory and killing dominion soldiers...

if i am an etc etc etc etc etc etc etc even when or especially when there are quests involved - you know like many Db or TG quests do.

Why decide that one and only one PC-vs-NPC activity deserves the "i am not amused so BAMF PVP" option in a world that is NOT ours and does not share our moralities in many of their cultures?

And also, all the other stuff said above about why it is bad.

The GAME establishes killing civilians and robbery as valid PC activities, valid content to pursue, and basically a valid in-game activity for PVE. it is not currently out of whack balance wise with other repeatable "acquisition" content like grinding, delving, questing etc as far as GAINS over TIME - it even skews a little low.

i do like however the comment about how dueling isnt an answer because they can decline... which is telling about how letting the other players have a choiceto choose not to fight other players is a problem.

Pardon the lag...I'd given up and only saw this string of responses this evening.

You make some excellent points which is why, in the end, I conceded that this game is ill suited for digital community features....what is often called "a living world" where an online community mimics aspects of a physical one.

You do eliminate player choice on the one hand to enable player impact and influence on the other. And that influence can become tyrannical as it often does with human societies.

The alternative is players having no impact on the game at all really. And that seems to work. It's why they call these theme park games. They're multiplayer but not too multiplayer. You have persistent player groups but are allowed so many that calling a guild a guild in this game is like calling a traffic jam a block party.

I understand this. I began developing online games before they were allowed on the Internet and understand that we could do things then you cannot do now because the audience then was small. It was also a very different audience. The average age of online game players before Ultima Online was 37.

What got me worked up was simply the sound of someone fighting for air through their own blood and body fluids. I'm certainly not alone in having heard that sound many times...for real. It was meant to provoke a response. But I could not respond.

Could I at least provide treatment for these victims....take the kill away from a murderer if I cannot kill the murderer? Not even if I'm right there when they're attacked?

Can I not stop an attack in progress at least?

I didn't mean, to use the old expression, to beat a dead horse to death. This is not exactly a warm forum and I'm seldom inclined to come here. But just standing there when this happens and others beg for their lives. How is that a game?

I just don't get it.

Some DLC quests require assassinating NPCs. And yes the gurgle-arghhh sound they do is unpleasant and awful but if you stop the murder, you prevent another player from completing their quest: how's that fair? If someone paid for a DLC they should be able to play it, yes?

Besides, like @STEVIL pointed out, the fact that you don't seem to like that people can choose to autodecline duel and therefore effectively opt-out of the "punishment" you would dish out for their crime, speaks volumes - and not in your favour.

It's an Elder Scrolls game: player freedom should come first, remember that for many of us this is the first/only online experience.

vyndral13preub18_ESO

Khenarthi wrote: »

bellanca6561n wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

@bellanca6561n

"But flagging murders as killable by other players will let the players decide if they are amused"

yes. it would.

But if i am playing a vampire and you go around killing npc vampires shouldn't i also get to decide that i am not amused by you killing my kin and challenge you?

if i am playing a green pact and see you startiong fires in forests burning tents...

If i play a characater that sees you killing dominion ships in your territory and killing dominion soldiers...

if i am an etc etc etc etc etc etc etc even when or especially when there are quests involved - you know like many Db or TG quests do.

Why decide that one and only one PC-vs-NPC activity deserves the "i am not amused so BAMF PVP" option in a world that is NOT ours and does not share our moralities in many of their cultures?

And also, all the other stuff said above about why it is bad.

The GAME establishes killing civilians and robbery as valid PC activities, valid content to pursue, and basically a valid in-game activity for PVE. it is not currently out of whack balance wise with other repeatable "acquisition" content like grinding, delving, questing etc as far as GAINS over TIME - it even skews a little low.

i do like however the comment about how dueling isnt an answer because they can decline... which is telling about how letting the other players have a choiceto choose not to fight other players is a problem.

Pardon the lag...I'd given up and only saw this string of responses this evening.

You make some excellent points which is why, in the end, I conceded that this game is ill suited for digital community features....what is often called "a living world" where an online community mimics aspects of a physical one.

You do eliminate player choice on the one hand to enable player impact and influence on the other. And that influence can become tyrannical as it often does with human societies.

The alternative is players having no impact on the game at all really. And that seems to work. It's why they call these theme park games. They're multiplayer but not too multiplayer. You have persistent player groups but are allowed so many that calling a guild a guild in this game is like calling a traffic jam a block party.

I understand this. I began developing online games before they were allowed on the Internet and understand that we could do things then you cannot do now because the audience then was small. It was also a very different audience. The average age of online game players before Ultima Online was 37.

What got me worked up was simply the sound of someone fighting for air through their own blood and body fluids. I'm certainly not alone in having heard that sound many times...for real. It was meant to provoke a response. But I could not respond.

Could I at least provide treatment for these victims....take the kill away from a murderer if I cannot kill the murderer? Not even if I'm right there when they're attacked?

Can I not stop an attack in progress at least?

I didn't mean, to use the old expression, to beat a dead horse to death. This is not exactly a warm forum and I'm seldom inclined to come here. But just standing there when this happens and others beg for their lives. How is that a game?

I just don't get it.

Some DLC quests require assassinating NPCs. And yes the gurgle-arghhh sound they do is unpleasant and awful but if you stop the murder, you prevent another player from completing their quest: how's that fair? If someone paid for a DLC they should be able to play it, yes?

Besides, like @STEVIL pointed out, the fact that you don't seem to like that people can choose to autodecline duel and therefore effectively opt-out of the "punishment" you would dish out for their crime, speaks volumes - and not in your favour.

It's an Elder Scrolls game: player freedom should come first, remember that for many of us this is the first/only online experience.

Because it would be easy to avoid. For example say you are only flagged as killable to a bounty hunter once your bounty passes 5-10kish. Something you actually have to try to let happen. And say the bounty hunters had to sign up. Both parties have now effectively opted in. No one is getting killed on accident.

Now all the pvers have to cry about is oh no people are fighting while I'm trying to rp walk around.

Doctordarkspawn

PVP is broken and I would very much like it if it stayed out of the PVE area's.

RebornV3x

No we have to think of the PVE carebears and so we can't have nice things like a completed justice system.

leeux

No PvP justice system is needed to solve the problem in your picture... What's needed is better guard placement and to stop that kind of behaviour, more guards should spawn the more a player kills, until it becomes impossible to escape.

I find it hilarious that there are no guards placed near areas with high density of killable NPCs in central cities, like Daggerfall main door, for example.

LaiTash

Khenarthi wrote: »

Some DLC quests require assassinating NPCs. And yes the gurgle-arghhh sound they do is unpleasant and awful but if you stop the murder, you prevent another player from completing their quest: how's that fair? If someone paid for a DLC they should be able to play it, yes?

By that logic, ZoS should also make DLC mobs have 1 hp so that every carebare who paid for the DLC could play the content, right?

It's an Elder Scrolls game: player freedom should come first, remember that for many of us this is the first/only online experience.

If this game was about freedom, there'd be ultima-style free open-world pvp.

Arthur_Spoonfondle

RebornV3x wrote: »

No we have to think of the PVE carebears and so we can't have nice things like a completed justice system.

If you don't like it, go and play something else. The majority of players don't want what you want, tough.

BlackEar

The PVP aspect was easily exploitable, they said so themselves.
It is not in the game for a reason.


Between you feeling a little unconformtable seeing pixels on a screen representing dead NPC's that had no use in the game and a bad system where griefers and exploiters take all the advantages, I find it to be an easy pick.

LegendaryArcher

My post might make some of you facepalm, but can anyone explain to me what exactly this griefing would look like?

Let's take the most simple system: Upstanding, Disreputable, Notorious, Fugitive as they are now and a 5th "rank" where PvP comes into play. Doesn't matter if that player is free to kill for everyone or one must take a special quest to have this player assigned as target, where is the griefing potential?

The justice system is about being careful and not getting caught. I have gotten all my Justice achievements very long time ago and have never been running around even close to Fugitive. If you go on a rampage in the city, why not have the risk of being taken down by someone smarter than the *** guard AI?

Please explain the griefing to me.

LaiTash

BlackEar wrote: »

The PVP aspect was easily exploitable, they said so themselves.
It is not in the game for a reason.


Between you feeling a little unconformtable seeing pixels on a screen representing dead NPC's that had no use in the game and a bad system where griefers and exploiters take all the advantages, I find it to be an easy pick.

So, like... griefers and exploiters will be forcing you to slay npc, out in the open?

vyndral13preub18_ESO

LegendaryArcher wrote: »

My post might make some of you facepalm, but can anyone explain to me what exactly this griefing would look like?

Let's take the most simple system: Upstanding, Disreputable, Notorious, Fugitive as they are now and a 5th "rank" where PvP comes into play. Doesn't matter if that player is free to kill for everyone or one must take a special quest to have this player assigned as target, where is the griefing potential?

The justice system is about being careful and not getting caught. I have gotten all my Justice achievements very long time ago and have never been running around even close to Fugitive. If you go on a rampage in the city, why not have the risk of being taken down by someone smarter than the *** guard AI?

Please explain the griefing to me.

There wouldn't be any if the system was done right. It basically comes down to the pvers who want to pretend pvp doesn't exist and don't want to see people fighting. And for Zos I think they are either afraid they can't do it right, or that it would take to much time and cost to much for something that a good chunk of players aren't interested in.

JKorr

RebornV3x wrote: »

No we have to think of the PVE carebears and so we can't have nice things like a completed justice system.

No, we have to take into account the psychopathic pvp camping ganking griefers so we can actually manage to play a nice game.

Works both ways.

JKorr

LegendaryArcher wrote: »

My post might make some of you facepalm, but can anyone explain to me what exactly this griefing would look like?

Let's take the most simple system: Upstanding, Disreputable, Notorious, Fugitive as they are now and a 5th "rank" where PvP comes into play. Doesn't matter if that player is free to kill for everyone or one must take a special quest to have this player assigned as target, where is the griefing potential?

The justice system is about being careful and not getting caught. I have gotten all my Justice achievements very long time ago and have never been running around even close to Fugitive. If you go on a rampage in the city, why not have the risk of being taken down by someone smarter than the *** guard AI?

Please explain the griefing to me.

None of the bounty hunters would hang out around the refuge doors to take a shot at a target trying to get into the sanctuary, would they? Because once they get to the refuge they can get rid of their bounty..... No one would hang out around wayshrines to take a shot at someone with a bounty porting in, would they? No one would camp quest locations to take a shot at a target, would they? Nah, none of them would ever think about doing something like that....

vyndral13preub18_ESO

JKorr wrote: »

LegendaryArcher wrote: »

My post might make some of you facepalm, but can anyone explain to me what exactly this griefing would look like?

Let's take the most simple system: Upstanding, Disreputable, Notorious, Fugitive as they are now and a 5th "rank" where PvP comes into play. Doesn't matter if that player is free to kill for everyone or one must take a special quest to have this player assigned as target, where is the griefing potential?

The justice system is about being careful and not getting caught. I have gotten all my Justice achievements very long time ago and have never been running around even close to Fugitive. If you go on a rampage in the city, why not have the risk of being taken down by someone smarter than the *** guard AI?

Please explain the griefing to me.

None of the bounty hunters would hang out around the refuge doors to take a shot at a target trying to get into the sanctuary, would they? Because once they get to the refuge they can get rid of their bounty..... No one would hang out around wayshrines to take a shot at someone with a bounty porting in, would they? No one would camp quest locations to take a shot at a target, would they? Nah, none of them would ever think about doing something like that....

And? If you made it so people couldn't be attacked before the bounty was high enough, those people would actually have to try to get it into a place where they could be attacked. I mean I'm A horrible thief/assassin and I've only ever had a bounty of 10k once and I let it happen. Also don't forget the pack of thieves who might sign up to protect their own. Killing these ganking guards.

So so what if the scenario you are afraid of happens? The people you are trying to protect would have signed up.