Maintenance for the week of January 6:
· [COMPLETE] NA megaservers for maintenance – January 8, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 8:00AM EST (13:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] EU megaservers for maintenance – January 8, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 13:00 UTC (8:00AM EST)
· [COMPLETE] NA megaservers for maintenance – January 8, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 8:00AM EST (13:00 UTC)
· [COMPLETE] EU megaservers for maintenance – January 8, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 13:00 UTC (8:00AM EST)
Please Finish The Justice System
-
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭But, for the record, especially for certain quests, where targets may be rather close to lotsa moving parts, being equipped with gear that reduces detection radius or enables faster movement while stealthed or enables cheaper stealth movement do play a role and can help.
That's up to you to prioritize.But to do PVE content having to have and equip a PVP set is what he was referring to.
So... what? God forbids this?
Why is it you think a divine proclamation is somehow relevant or what... necessary?
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."0 -
Daemons_Bane✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭He's not saying that we can't have another gear set, just that it should not be necessary to carry PvP gear, to do PvE0 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭
i prefer to not wear wool.
i especially prefer to not wear wool when going out to do exercize.
isn't it obvious thats a religious issue involving a divine decree?
Another fun mental disconnect:
i happen to prefer butter pecan ice cream to choc chip mint.
i would not be happy if someone insisted they be allowed to put CCM into my BP.
But i do understand why someone who prefers CCM to BP would be fine with that and like it. the fact that i see a difference means i also have to recognize in my own brain that others might see a difference too.
i cant say BP IS MORE FUM and then also say I DONT GET WHY ITS DIFFERENT FOR OTHER IF CCM IS GETTING BP, YOU KNOW BOTH ICE CREAM AND YOU EAT THEM THE SAME WAY..
Contrast that to those saying how much more fun it is to add PVP to PVE but also then saying they dont get why it bothers others to have that happen or why it matters because you know killed by guard is same as killed by enforcer.
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."0 -
Tandor✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
I was responding to the suggestion that wearing it in order to survive against dedicated PvPers wouldn't be a problem as it was related to being in town where there wouldn't be any mob combat necessitating PvE gear being worn. My post #250 refers.0 -
wolfxspice✭✭✭wolfxspice wrote: »i'v been reading this thread, yes and i see their point, but theirs something they seem to be ignoring, dont steal, if you do dont get caught.
Why not steal?
No, No No for those about to jump in with "so easy..." etc not about that but about more specifically, what is it about stealing that says it alone among the casual pve content and activity of the game SHOULD have PVP consequences?
its clearly not that "within the game world it is wrong" because as has been pointed out within the cultures thru the game and races thru the game there are tons of other "wrong" things that are done within casual pve content and play that are not allowing PVP intervention.
its clearly not about "innocents" or non-combatents being the targets being the targets because there are plenty of cases where within the game the player can choose to take the "kill innocents" options and no PVP option to stop them is available. if i decide to kill the civilians trapped in the sacrificial nodes instead of taking the longer rescue route you dont get the option to PVP me.
So when you say the folks who dont want PVP consequences are ignoring the "dont steal"... I am not ignoring it at all. I just dont understand how "dont steal" is an answer.
please tell me.
But consider - lets propose adding PVP mercenaries to DELVES. let players sign up with the bosses in delves who get tired of continually getting beaten down by PCs. if the mercenary spots intruders that can challenge them, if they find the intruder has taken stuff from within the delve they can take it back. . if the intruder is spotted attacking the delve's inhabitants then the mercenary can intervene and hey definitely if they attack the boss who pays the rent then BAM WHAM PVP game on.
How is that any less valid to then say "dont delve" if someone doesn't want PVP consequences for running PVE quests into delves or just running casual pve play into delves than it is to say "dont steal" for someone to play casual or quested injustice play?
What is different about a player choosing to play the casual injustice content (sneaking around, lifting good off people with pickpockets, swiping goods from crates and barrels and wardrobes, sometimes attacking and killing folks witha risk of bounty and being attacked by NPCs in PVE) that says this PVE should get PVP play added into it?
And why is it that the PVP element some people want to have added is typically so completely one-sided? So-called enforcers can find and kill so-called thieves engaging in PVE play and cost them the stuff they stole AND extra gold on top of that, but why cant those thieves cant pickpocket good from the enforcers or even take one gold off them if the enforcer loses the fight?
I can even steal from the NPC guards that are unkillable... but not from the enforcers? The thieves have something at risk.... why not the enforcers?
man you went on a rant, but here's my answer to the please tell me part, if you don't steal (or don't get caught stealing) then their no bounty, no bounty means no pvp in your pve content. the only people i can see that would be against this are the people that have a 10mil bounty from the murder farm in craglorn. your whole second point about the delves makes no sense, and your point about the enforcers not having ant risk, they do you can kill them, hell make it so their is a consequence, something like you get x amount of gold when you kill them, and they cant be a enforcer unless they have over x amount of gold.I'm a casual now2 -
Khenarthi✭✭✭✭✭
✭wolfxspice wrote: »wolfxspice wrote: »i'v been reading this thread, yes and i see their point, but theirs something they seem to be ignoring, dont steal, if you do dont get caught.
Why not steal?
No, No No for those about to jump in with "so easy..." etc not about that but about more specifically, what is it about stealing that says it alone among the casual pve content and activity of the game SHOULD have PVP consequences?
its clearly not that "within the game world it is wrong" because as has been pointed out within the cultures thru the game and races thru the game there are tons of other "wrong" things that are done within casual pve content and play that are not allowing PVP intervention.
its clearly not about "innocents" or non-combatents being the targets being the targets because there are plenty of cases where within the game the player can choose to take the "kill innocents" options and no PVP option to stop them is available. if i decide to kill the civilians trapped in the sacrificial nodes instead of taking the longer rescue route you dont get the option to PVP me.
So when you say the folks who dont want PVP consequences are ignoring the "dont steal"... I am not ignoring it at all. I just dont understand how "dont steal" is an answer.
please tell me.
But consider - lets propose adding PVP mercenaries to DELVES. let players sign up with the bosses in delves who get tired of continually getting beaten down by PCs. if the mercenary spots intruders that can challenge them, if they find the intruder has taken stuff from within the delve they can take it back. . if the intruder is spotted attacking the delve's inhabitants then the mercenary can intervene and hey definitely if they attack the boss who pays the rent then BAM WHAM PVP game on.
How is that any less valid to then say "dont delve" if someone doesn't want PVP consequences for running PVE quests into delves or just running casual pve play into delves than it is to say "dont steal" for someone to play casual or quested injustice play?
What is different about a player choosing to play the casual injustice content (sneaking around, lifting good off people with pickpockets, swiping goods from crates and barrels and wardrobes, sometimes attacking and killing folks witha risk of bounty and being attacked by NPCs in PVE) that says this PVE should get PVP play added into it?
And why is it that the PVP element some people want to have added is typically so completely one-sided? So-called enforcers can find and kill so-called thieves engaging in PVE play and cost them the stuff they stole AND extra gold on top of that, but why cant those thieves cant pickpocket good from the enforcers or even take one gold off them if the enforcer loses the fight?
I can even steal from the NPC guards that are unkillable... but not from the enforcers? The thieves have something at risk.... why not the enforcers?
man you went on a rant, but here's my answer to the please tell me part, if you don't steal (or don't get caught stealing) then their no bounty, no bounty means no pvp in your pve content. the only people i can see that would be against this are the people that have a 10mil bounty from the murder farm in craglorn. your whole second point about the delves makes no sense, and your point about the enforcers not having ant risk, they do you can kill them, hell make it so their is a consequence, something like you get x amount of gold when you kill them, and they cant be a enforcer unless they have over x amount of gold.
There is an achievement for paying 100.000 gold in bounties. Your proposed system would make this even more awful for the achievement hunters.Edited by Khenarthi on September 28, 2016 9:46PMPC-EU0 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭wolfxspice wrote: »wolfxspice wrote: »i'v been reading this thread, yes and i see their point, but theirs something they seem to be ignoring, dont steal, if you do dont get caught.
Why not steal?
No, No No for those about to jump in with "so easy..." etc not about that but about more specifically, what is it about stealing that says it alone among the casual pve content and activity of the game SHOULD have PVP consequences?
its clearly not that "within the game world it is wrong" because as has been pointed out within the cultures thru the game and races thru the game there are tons of other "wrong" things that are done within casual pve content and play that are not allowing PVP intervention.
its clearly not about "innocents" or non-combatents being the targets being the targets because there are plenty of cases where within the game the player can choose to take the "kill innocents" options and no PVP option to stop them is available. if i decide to kill the civilians trapped in the sacrificial nodes instead of taking the longer rescue route you dont get the option to PVP me.
So when you say the folks who dont want PVP consequences are ignoring the "dont steal"... I am not ignoring it at all. I just dont understand how "dont steal" is an answer.
please tell me.
But consider - lets propose adding PVP mercenaries to DELVES. let players sign up with the bosses in delves who get tired of continually getting beaten down by PCs. if the mercenary spots intruders that can challenge them, if they find the intruder has taken stuff from within the delve they can take it back. . if the intruder is spotted attacking the delve's inhabitants then the mercenary can intervene and hey definitely if they attack the boss who pays the rent then BAM WHAM PVP game on.
How is that any less valid to then say "dont delve" if someone doesn't want PVP consequences for running PVE quests into delves or just running casual pve play into delves than it is to say "dont steal" for someone to play casual or quested injustice play?
What is different about a player choosing to play the casual injustice content (sneaking around, lifting good off people with pickpockets, swiping goods from crates and barrels and wardrobes, sometimes attacking and killing folks witha risk of bounty and being attacked by NPCs in PVE) that says this PVE should get PVP play added into it?
And why is it that the PVP element some people want to have added is typically so completely one-sided? So-called enforcers can find and kill so-called thieves engaging in PVE play and cost them the stuff they stole AND extra gold on top of that, but why cant those thieves cant pickpocket good from the enforcers or even take one gold off them if the enforcer loses the fight?
I can even steal from the NPC guards that are unkillable... but not from the enforcers? The thieves have something at risk.... why not the enforcers?
man you went on a rant, but here's my answer to the please tell me part, if you don't steal (or don't get caught stealing) then their no bounty, no bounty means no pvp in your pve content. the only people i can see that would be against this are the people that have a 10mil bounty from the murder farm in craglorn. your whole second point about the delves makes no sense, and your point about the enforcers not having ant risk, they do you can kill them, hell make it so their is a consequence, something like you get x amount of gold when you kill them, and they cant be a enforcer unless they have over x amount of gold.
and again we come back to the justice content being taken over and transformed into PVP content.
Dont want PVP content, dont use the justice system, dont do injustice activities and hey those two DLC you boguyt and paid for... toguh cuz now those are PVP enabling content.
not an answer... its a heist.
Add dueling to pve zones... not enough.
Even if they add justice to cyrodil... not enough.
must takeover a large chunk of pve content with a "dont use or else" for PVP.
Edited by STEVIL on September 28, 2016 10:38PMProudly 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."3 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭wolfxspice wrote: »wolfxspice wrote: »i'v been reading this thread, yes and i see their point, but theirs something they seem to be ignoring, dont steal, if you do dont get caught.
Why not steal?
No, No No for those about to jump in with "so easy..." etc not about that but about more specifically, what is it about stealing that says it alone among the casual pve content and activity of the game SHOULD have PVP consequences?
its clearly not that "within the game world it is wrong" because as has been pointed out within the cultures thru the game and races thru the game there are tons of other "wrong" things that are done within casual pve content and play that are not allowing PVP intervention.
its clearly not about "innocents" or non-combatents being the targets being the targets because there are plenty of cases where within the game the player can choose to take the "kill innocents" options and no PVP option to stop them is available. if i decide to kill the civilians trapped in the sacrificial nodes instead of taking the longer rescue route you dont get the option to PVP me.
So when you say the folks who dont want PVP consequences are ignoring the "dont steal"... I am not ignoring it at all. I just dont understand how "dont steal" is an answer.
please tell me.
But consider - lets propose adding PVP mercenaries to DELVES. let players sign up with the bosses in delves who get tired of continually getting beaten down by PCs. if the mercenary spots intruders that can challenge them, if they find the intruder has taken stuff from within the delve they can take it back. . if the intruder is spotted attacking the delve's inhabitants then the mercenary can intervene and hey definitely if they attack the boss who pays the rent then BAM WHAM PVP game on.
How is that any less valid to then say "dont delve" if someone doesn't want PVP consequences for running PVE quests into delves or just running casual pve play into delves than it is to say "dont steal" for someone to play casual or quested injustice play?
What is different about a player choosing to play the casual injustice content (sneaking around, lifting good off people with pickpockets, swiping goods from crates and barrels and wardrobes, sometimes attacking and killing folks witha risk of bounty and being attacked by NPCs in PVE) that says this PVE should get PVP play added into it?
And why is it that the PVP element some people want to have added is typically so completely one-sided? So-called enforcers can find and kill so-called thieves engaging in PVE play and cost them the stuff they stole AND extra gold on top of that, but why cant those thieves cant pickpocket good from the enforcers or even take one gold off them if the enforcer loses the fight?
I can even steal from the NPC guards that are unkillable... but not from the enforcers? The thieves have something at risk.... why not the enforcers?
man you went on a rant, but here's my answer to the please tell me part, if you don't steal (or don't get caught stealing) then their no bounty, no bounty means no pvp in your pve content. the only people i can see that would be against this are the people that have a 10mil bounty from the murder farm in craglorn. your whole second point about the delves makes no sense, and your point about the enforcers not having ant risk, they do you can kill them, hell make it so their is a consequence, something like you get x amount of gold when you kill them, and they cant be a enforcer unless they have over x amount of gold.
PVP deaths have no risk because there are no consequences. (outside pf IC.) there is literally nothing at stake. Except for "criminals" in the enforcer" setups we have seen discussed so far.
PVP setup character attacking PVE setup character, frankly, next to no risk of loss and if some of the proposals which guarantee first strike to the enforcers etc went thru... even less.
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."1 -
LaiTash✭✭✭must takeover a large chunk of pve content with a "dont use or else" for PVP.
Like we don't have enough PvE content or adding some PvP (only after you reach a certain bounty threshold) will ruin everything. Ah yes, it will upset people who want another achievement for nothing. I want an Emperor achievement but i *** in PvP, can i haz one?
0 -
Osteos✭✭✭✭✭
✭[quote="STEVIL;3397047"
And why is it that the PVP element some people want to have added is typically so completely one-sided? So-called enforcers can find and kill so-called thieves engaging in PVE play and cost them the stuff they stole AND extra gold on top of that, but why cant those thieves cant pickpocket good from the enforcers or even take one gold off them if the enforcer loses the fight?
I can even steal from the NPC guards that are unkillable... but not from the enforcers? The thieves have something at risk.... why not the enforcers?
[/quote]
What would you pickpocket off of players? If you die to a guard you lose your stolen goods and the gold amount equal to your bounty. You would loose the same to a player but that doesn't mean he gets your goods or gold.
Also I am curious how high of a bounty do you run around with? Several post have been made that enforcers would only become involved after a bounty reached a certain level. If you kept your bounty lower, by not being so obvious with theft/murder then you have opted out of the system.
Also the delve discussion is just plain nonsense. A pvp delve portion was never discussed but a pvp justice portion was. Yes it was but on the back burner but since then we have had the Thieves guild and Dark brotherhood added and they have passives that make criminal activities even easier. You also seem to ignore the fact that the people interested in this want to be the criminals as much as the enforcers.
Fact is it could be implemented with minimal interference to most players. It would add a lot to the game. You could still steal and murder.
Also I pvp almost every night. I very rarely get whispers, in fact i can count on 1 hand the # of hate whispers. I have gotten lots of other whispers, friendly ones about good fights. Yep occasionally I get t-bagged, I couldn't care less about that. Pvp and pve aren't really all that different. Most players are just there to have fun.DAGGERFALL COVENANTNA PCFormer Vehemence MemberOnistka Valerius <> Artemis Renault <> Gonk gra-Ugrash <> Karietta <> Zercon at-Rusa <> Genevieve Renault <> Ktaka <> Brenlyn Renault2 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭must takeover a large chunk of pve content with a "dont use or else" for PVP.
Like we don't have enough PvE content or adding some PvP (only after you reach a certain bounty threshold) will ruin everything. Ah yes, it will upset people who want another achievement for nothing. I want an Emperor achievement but i *** in PvP, can i haz one?
this is quite telling.
No, imo, we dont have enough pve content. I hope they add more.i have made plenty of suggestions about adding ablot more justice themed content.
I also feel they should add more pvp content. Battlegrounds or arenas or whatever you want to call them for whatever play the pvpers want for themselves. I was happy they added dueling with all its caveats and protections.
I would never ever tell anyone there is "enough" of the content they prefer.
Except for any attempt to force/trick others into that content.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."0 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭[quote="STEVIL;3397047"
And why is it that the PVP element some people want to have added is typically so completely one-sided? So-called enforcers can find and kill so-called thieves engaging in PVE play and cost them the stuff they stole AND extra gold on top of that, but why cant those thieves cant pickpocket good from the enforcers or even take one gold off them if the enforcer loses the fight?
I can even steal from the NPC guards that are unkillable... but not from the enforcers? The thieves have something at risk.... why not the enforcers?
What would you pickpocket off of players? If you die to a guard you lose your stolen goods and the gold amount equal to your bounty. You would loose the same to a player but that doesn't mean he gets your goods or gold.
Also I am curious how high of a bounty do you run around with? Several post have been made that enforcers would only become involved after a bounty reached a certain level. If you kept your bounty lower, by not being so obvious with theft/murder then you have opted out of the system.
Also the delve discussion is just plain nonsense. A pvp delve portion was never discussed but a pvp justice portion was. Yes it was but on the back burner but since then we have had the Thieves guild and Dark brotherhood added and they have passives that make criminal activities even easier. You also seem to ignore the fact that the people interested in this want to be the criminals as much as the enforcers.
Fact is it could be implemented with minimal interference to most players. It would add a lot to the game. You could still steal and murder.
Also I pvp almost every night. I very rarely get whispers, in fact i can count on 1 hand the # of hate whispers. I have gotten lots of other whispers, friendly ones about good fights. Yep occasionally I get t-bagged, I couldn't care less about that. Pvp and pve aren't really all that different. Most players are just there to have fun.[/quote]
You really cant imagine what could be pickpockted off of other players in enforcer mode if the at risk for criminals is valuable goods including possibly maps, set pieces up to purple iirc even ones being worn, uncommon style components etc etc etc? Guess any risk to pvp play or consequence for loss in pvp play outside of IC is mind numbimg for some.
First bold - i commit in game between my characters easily 20 injustice acts a day minimum, not average, but really minimum barring days i dont play. The last time i got hit with a bounty, had one assigned, was today, but its been likely weeks before that. I rarely ever get bountied because i am one of those players i describe as experienced, skilked and equipped for the task and i approach it with planning, forethought and caution.
When i get bounty, its no problem. Why?
First, because i always have an exit ready. If thing gang aglay in big huge way, i hit the exit plan, get somewhere safe and reboot.
Second, because i spent time developing skills like clemency so if it all goes south but short of kilk on sight, i can basically talk my way past one catch and thats always enough
Third, because i am equipped with pptions forvescaping guards like invis-health-immov which covers most guard threat in one gulp.
Fourth because i am equipped with leniencies etc so if need be for me to continue play right away i can slough off t9ns of bounty.
I have only accrued high bounty over say 1000 twice that i recall.
Most recently, i went to village full of innocents with almost no guards and spent nearly an hour grinding them circuit style like they were big cats around Riften. This was part of an intentional test to verify gains/risk/time for that play vs delving, gtinding, questing etc.this was spurred by claims by others that the gains for injustice eere out of whack with the other cadual play. I had lots of ecperience with the more subtle stealth oriented play and knew it was in line but figured i should test the other before determining the claims crefibility. So, it was a deliberate effort sparked by these i now know specious clsims.
The other time i walked into a quest room and misclicked and fireballed one of many grays, several went red, i was expecting red and it just snowballed. That was long ago, likely just a few months after injustice content systems hit, well before tg and db.
When i accrue evrn the little bounties, i get out of harms wsy and usually wait out the bounty if i dont have a pressing need. If i have a presding need i usually burn edicts to clear it. The really high bounty for the test gave me a chance to burn that gold pardon.
So, truth is IF the system had a bounty levrl keyed buy in, it would be likely as i pkay now it would never get that trigger. But as i have said repeatably, the devil is in the details and we have to seevall the belks and ehistles that get slipped in like say bounty multipliers, 0c rnforcers being able to spot crimes snd generste bounty, pc runners being able to redirect guards etc etc etc that would amazingly and totally fur sure not intentionally make a "reasonable bounty trigger" in the system now much more likely...
But really, honestly, truly, if there is any pve action trigger for pvp intrusiin added, even one i am likely to never trip with my playstyle, i stop all injustice play on the spot.
Second bold
As long as claims to support the need for pvp justice for pve injustice involve the risk v gains or gsins for time of injustice, the comparisons of casual injustice play risk-gain-time with the other casusl play options including delves, grinds, quests is absolutely relevant.
As long as claims to support the need for pvp justice for pve injustice involve immersive elements or in game beliefs (its a crime. I shouldnt have to sit by) the same comparison with other casual play including delves, grinds, quests are relevant.
Third bold, you may see this interference to by your own admisdion "most players" as minimal or maybe acceptable losses, but to me and many others adding player interference at any level to "most players" would be a giant red "game killer ahead" traffic light, stop sign and friggin' gator filled moat of a roadblock.
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."0 -
LaiTash✭✭✭I would never ever tell anyone there is "enough" of the content they prefer.
I'm not sure. Maybe it's my english, but this sounds like "you can eat trash cans refuse, and we even donate to food charity, why do you still pretend to be hungry?":Add dueling to pve zones... not enough.
Even if they add justice to cyrodil... not enough.
0 -
altemriel✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭bellanca6561n wrote: »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]
If it would be done like the dueling will be, that it would be optional to participate, that would be fun!0 -
Greifenherz✭✭✭After reading through the entire thread I must say it's amazing how mousehole-sized tunnel vision can get for some players of this game, completely disregarding the playstyles of others over their own.
A complete opt-in or opt-out for the PvP justice system would be the most elegant entry point for this feature, but then again the rules would have to be designed intricately to stay 'balanced' and keep players engaged. As far as I know currently Cyrodiil PvP has severe trouble staying 'balanced' and keeping players engaged.
Having to wear gear designed for PvP in an area that is 99% designated to and intended for PvE just because 1% of that area may or may not trigger a PvP response is not engaging to your typical PvE player, and is a hatemail to new players of the game.
The current justice system is a PvE system, therefore PvE content your typical PvE player can and will engage in. What's suggested here is taking PvE content away from your typical PvE player, unless there's a complete opt-in or opt-out. Instead of taking PvE content away in favor of PvP content maybe adding PvP content on top would be...I don't know. Cooler?
This is merely my opinion, and being merely my opinion it is not above the opinion of others.
That said I'm in love with this idea right there! I saved it and when dueling strikes I hope I will find people to try this out with me!
but to answer your initial question:
DUELING FOR JUSTICE
Two player both agree beforehand to "duel for justice"
two players agree to use a certain city at a certain time.
one player runs OUTLAW and his goal is to not get spotted by the other player and to steal kill civie do as much injustice as he can within that city/village and that time frame.
one player runs the ENFORCER, his objective is to patrol around, find the player running OUTLAW and challenge him to a duel.
By agreement if the OUTLAW is caught (offered a duel) by the ENFORCER, he must accept the duel. basically they have agreed the ENFORCER has a warrant for the OUTLAW - regardless of actual ESO bounties.
By agreement the OUTLAW cannot choose to pay off bounties acrued during the game time.
Obviously, if the OUTLAW gets spotted/chased by guards and a shout/chase begins or gets actual ESO bounty which limits his movements within the city that will make it more likely the ENFORCER can hear the commotion and find him. If the OUTLAW gets bountied and cannot walk around freely, again, easier to find.
THE PRIZE: If not found, at the end of the time limit, the OUTLAW is paid gold equal to the amount of stolen loot he collected during the play BY THE ENFORCER. If found and dueled and the OUTLAW wins, the outlaw KEEPS THE LOOT BUT DOESN'T GET ANYTHING EXTRA FROM THE enforcer. IF THE ENFORCER wins the OUTLAW must liquidate the goods stolen and pay double the gold to the ENFORCER.
So there you go. two players by mutual agreement play a cat and mouse cops and robber game within a given city.- the actual justice system plays a role but most of the player-on-player game is handled by the dueling and prior agreement.
Not a big difference between this and much of the enforcer criminal gameplay being sought - well except for that who "we agree beforehand consensual" bit.
Story-wise you can consider the enforcer to be a bounty hunter operating not with the cooperation of the locals.
of course, the another reason the OUTLAW will not want to accrue bounty is that if they are dueled guards can still come after them while in the duel.
and see if they agree before hand, back to consensual agreed gameplay, the enforcer isn't "asking" just triggering a dialog that the OUTLAW has agreed to accept. Not entirely unlike certain PVP justice proposals that allow the "flee/pvp/fight as one otion alongside "pay bounty" even for PVP Justice.
Details, again with the details...
1 -
Majic✭✭✭✭✭
Indeed. Obnoxious, insular, PvP-obsessed Internet Tough Guys wanting everything their way, throwing insults around like cheap confetti and railing against anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with every self-focused demand they make are the primary reasons PvP isn't more popular among the general player base.Greifenherz wrote: »After reading through the entire thread I must say it's amazing how mousehole-sized tunnel vision can get for some players of this game, completely disregarding the playstyles of others over their own.
Not that I mind. Watching it play out over and over again in this forum and in every other MMO forum since the dawn of time is something of a spectator sport in itself.
I guess some "carebears" care more than others.
Edited by Majic on September 29, 2016 11:50AMEpopt Of The Everspinning Logo, Church Of The Eternal Loading Screen
And verily, verily, spaketh the Lord: "Error <<1>>"0 -
LaiTash✭✭✭Indeed. Obnoxious, insular, PvP-obsessed Internet Tough Guys wanting everything their way, throwing insults around like cheap confetti and railing against anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with every self-focused demand they make are the primary reasons PvP isn't more popular among the general player base.
Like you people don't act like this. All we want is a limited PvP element added to the current system, and we're only asking for this because it was once promised and many people were waiting for this. We don't want free open world pvp. We don't want you to drop all your stuff on death. What we actually want is a compromise. But NO you people don't want any compromise, you say NO because you want THAT ACHIEVEMENT and OH BUT I'LL HAVE TO WEAR PVP GEAR IN PVE ZONE TO GET IT. Isn't THAT egoistic by yours standarts?
Yeah we're free to go, but it's the elder scrolls mmo many of us 've been waiting since Daggerfall probably, and we're not getting another one. So, personally, i hate to see it's becoming a bad single player ES sequel with cooperative mode, because we've seen that in battlespire.Edited by LaiTash on September 29, 2016 12:20PM2 -
Greifenherz✭✭✭I'm not agreeing with Majic, and in my comment I didn't call out anyone. Why? Because both PvP and PvE sides are equally egoistic.
The crucial point for me is that this isn't merely adding, but this is changing. You don't only add to the justice gameplay but also fundemantelly change what justice gameplay is right now.
So what you're doing with that is taking away something people currently have and enjoy in favor of changing it to something people have expected because it was being considered without any promise of actual enjoyment.
Rejecting changing what you have is equally as egoistical as demanding what you don't have. It's a stalemate. Therefore I think a different solution has to be found.
Addon: As in my previous comment stated I really, really like the idea @STEVIL proposed and think something in this direction would be a good way to go. This is also the same direction a complete opt-in / opt-out feature would go in my opinion.Edited by Greifenherz on September 29, 2016 12:37PM0 -
Dubhliam✭✭✭✭✭
✭Daemons_Bane wrote: »Daemons_Bane wrote: »Some examples I've run across in these discussions is stuff like
A: If the "PvP activation" triggers on bounty size, it sucks for the people who would go for achievements that automatically amass large bounties
B: How would you protect yourself against a ganker with an invisibility potion, without having to change gear/setup?
C: What stops them from camping the hideout entries, nuking any player with an active bounty?
All that stuff is something that needs to be taken care of.. And that is just a few issues.. I saw a suggestion some time ago that I actually liked a lot.. Lets say I'm robbing some merchant in Wayrest, and a player sees it.. Then that players runs over to me and presses E, or whatever you use as activate.. Then I am marked for, lets say 10 secs.. Now if that person that marked me, can get to a guard and alert him via a talk option, within those 10 seconds, then I would automatically be targeted by said guard.. I think that system has potential and could end up being good
A. Risk vs. Reward.
B. Same way I do in PvP, by using the Sentry set (which is cheap) or detection potions.
C. Nothing. But refer to B.
I actually like this idea. Requiring opposing player interaction to identify a target for enforcers.
You don't see a problem when you have to gear for PvP, when you just want to do PvE?
In that particular system, no, because you're not fighting anything else...
It's not like that would require you to throw on PvP gear in the middle of a dungeon or something. We're talking about around town mostly, so...no mobs.
But I'm not a PvPer, I have no interest in PvP. The notion that when I enter a town to engage in PvE activitiesthe Justice system I should be equipped in PvP gear is both impractical and absurd.
fixed.
Also, you should be equipped for PvP only if you plan on failing.2 -
Tandor✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Indeed. Obnoxious, insular, PvP-obsessed Internet Tough Guys wanting everything their way, throwing insults around like cheap confetti and railing against anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with every self-focused demand they make are the primary reasons PvP isn't more popular among the general player base.
Like you people don't act like this. All we want is a limited PvP element added to the current system, and we're only asking for this because it was once promised and many people were waiting for this. We don't want free open world pvp. We don't want you to drop all your stuff on death. What we actually want is a compromise. But NO you people don't want any compromise, you say NO because you want THAT ACHIEVEMENT and OH BUT I'LL HAVE TO WEAR PVP GEAR IN PVE ZONE TO GET IT. Isn't THAT egoistic by yours standarts?
Yeah we're free to go, but it's the elder scrolls mmo many of us 've been waiting since Daggerfall probably, and we're not getting another one. So, personally, i hate to see it's becoming a bad single player ES sequel with cooperative mode, because we've seen that in battlespire.
It's nothing to do with achievements for me, it's to do with keeping the vastly different playstyles separate. They simply don't mix well together - especially in games that were designed at the outset to keep them apart. I have no issue with PvP and have been involved in it in other games with both success and enjoyment, but it isn't something I'm remotely interested in so far as ESO is concerned. This isn't BDO or ArcheAge, I'd expect the different playstyles to be merged there.
I have no problem with there being PvP in Cyrodiil, and I have no problem with battlegrounds and arenas being added to the game as has been confirmed. I'd prefer the PvE in Imperial City not to be locked behind PvP but I get that it was primarily a PvP DLC so I'm happy with it the way it is. In the same way, the overland areas were designed for PvE and I'm unhappy with the idea of adding PvP to them rather than keeping PvP separate, and fortunately ZOS have taken the same view.
We'll see how dueling in towns works out, it could be damaging to the PvE both for immersion and performance or not, too soon to say with any certainty. My hunch is that it will be a seven day wonder and then the PvPers will be asking for something else - as was the case with Imperial City. Let's face it, competitive players of any playstyle have a habit of asking for something and then complaining about it as soon as they get it
!
Adding a PvP element to the Justice System would just about turn out ok if there was a complete opt-out setting unrelated to bounty thresholds or other conditions, but there are real concerns with that over the ability to exploit which sadly is a common feature of PvP (and competitive PvE but to a markedly lesser degree). Given the difficulty in preventing exploits between enforcers and criminals and the contentious nature of placing the PvP element purely in PvE areas, I think ZOS made the right decision to abandon it. Small-scale PvP is, however, here with dueling, and further options will be here before too long with battlegrounds and arenas. With those additions in mind, and if ZOS can just get a grip on both server performance and cheating then I believe that PvP will be in a very healthy condition in this game - for those that want it, and without impacting unduly on those who do not.Edited by Tandor on September 29, 2016 12:54PM0 -
LaiTash✭✭✭Greifenherz wrote: »Addon: As in my previous comment stated I really, really like the idea @STEVIL proposed and think something in this direction would be a good way to go. This is also the same direction a complete opt-in / opt-out feature would go in my opinion.
Except that it's not going to work. I've been to mmo since the time of MUDs and such ideas just don't work out, it's just too difficult to find enough like-minded people who'd like to participate (even if they would if such a thing was a part of a core gameplay), too difficult to get the quorum on details, and it's nearly impossible to make it just work. Drama is all you achieve in the end. And i think it's going to be even more problematic in 2016, since the community has changed, and not for the better. Yes, there are many "features" a community could implement on their own, without any intervention from the devs. But it never does, even if everyone want them.
The only way i see it now is there could be an option to whether participate in the complete system (i.e. with enforcers) or not. But it will only work if those who do will be getting better loot. But i don't think zeni will do this, even if they undo their decision to bury the enforcer part. It's just too much confusion this way.
Edited by LaiTash on September 29, 2016 12:57PM0 -
Greifenherz✭✭✭Except that it's not going to work. I've been to mmo since the time of MUDs and such ideas just don't work out, it's just too difficult to find enough like-minded people who'd like to participate (even if they would if such a thing was a part of a core gameplay), too difficult to get the quorum on details, and it's nearly impossible to make it just work. Drama is all you achieve in the end. And i think it's going to be even more problematic in 2016, since the community has changed, and not for the better. Yes, there are many "features" a community could implement on their own, without any intervention from the devs. But it never does, even if everyone want them.
This remarkably sounds like "not enough players would consent to this feature so it'd be better to force them to it".
Given you have to consensually open a menu and consensually queue yourself in a campaign to engage in PvP normally you could also expect people to consensually open a menu and opt in for PvP justice system. You could also dedicate a DLC zone to it, maybe with a 'player governed' city or the likes. This is just a rough idea, I don't know or care nearly enough about Elder Scrolls lore alone to deem it feasible.3 -
LaiTash✭✭✭Greifenherz wrote: »This remarkably sounds like "not enough players would consent to this feature so it'd be better to force them to it".
Given you have to consensually open a menu and consensually queue yourself in a campaign to engage in PvP normally you could also expect people to consensually open a menu and opt in for PvP justice system.
As i said, i would be OK with that. IF there would be a bonus for an additional risk. My post was related only to STEVIL's idea on semi-rp player-made justice system. It's not gonna work.You could also dedicate a DLC zone to it
NO PLS. I want a seamless gameplay without having to go here to do PvE and there to do PvP. It's just stupid and immersion-breaking.
2 -
Greifenherz✭✭✭As i said, i would be OK with that. IF there would be a bonus for an additional risk. My post was related only to STEVIL's idea on semi-rp player-made justice system. It's not gonna work.
In that case I misunderstood you, and fully agree with you. The PvP justice system should have better rewards than the PvE one, but nothing too exclusive. Simply better chances at getting valuable loot or such.
To your NO PLS it's sadly too late for that. So far almost all DLC has introduced something exclusive to the DLC region where you have to go to do it. You have to go to Hew's Bane if you want to hide in crates (or however you want to call these). This wouldn't be different in any way. Somewhat the PvE version of IC I wager.Edited by Greifenherz on September 29, 2016 1:21PM0 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Daemons_Bane wrote: »Daemons_Bane wrote: »Some examples I've run across in these discussions is stuff like
A: If the "PvP activation" triggers on bounty size, it sucks for the people who would go for achievements that automatically amass large bounties
B: How would you protect yourself against a ganker with an invisibility potion, without having to change gear/setup?
C: What stops them from camping the hideout entries, nuking any player with an active bounty?
All that stuff is something that needs to be taken care of.. And that is just a few issues.. I saw a suggestion some time ago that I actually liked a lot.. Lets say I'm robbing some merchant in Wayrest, and a player sees it.. Then that players runs over to me and presses E, or whatever you use as activate.. Then I am marked for, lets say 10 secs.. Now if that person that marked me, can get to a guard and alert him via a talk option, within those 10 seconds, then I would automatically be targeted by said guard.. I think that system has potential and could end up being good
A. Risk vs. Reward.
B. Same way I do in PvP, by using the Sentry set (which is cheap) or detection potions.
C. Nothing. But refer to B.
I actually like this idea. Requiring opposing player interaction to identify a target for enforcers.
You don't see a problem when you have to gear for PvP, when you just want to do PvE?
In that particular system, no, because you're not fighting anything else...
It's not like that would require you to throw on PvP gear in the middle of a dungeon or something. We're talking about around town mostly, so...no mobs.
But I'm not a PvPer, I have no interest in PvP. The notion that when I enter a town to engage in PvE activitiesthe Justice system I should be equipped in PvP gear is both impractical and absurd.
fixed.
Also, you should be equipped for PvP only if you plan on failing.
or if they plan for the possibility of failing like reasonable folks will do. i suspect that the semi-taunting aspect of the approach that tells people who have issue with the takeover that its only an issue if you fail type isnt really a path you think will be helpful to the cause.
is it?
Why is it that it seems so often the more PVP or PVP takeover side seems to fall back on this kind of if you were any good you wouldn't be scared of it rhetoric?
this thread shows many examples. the other threads do too. its almost as if the war of ideas and discussion is supposed to be won by tactical skills in the game.
In the fullness that is this game of ESO, i have on more than one occasion chosen what i knew to be the least optimal, less tactical even what some might call the "losing" choices - just to see and experience the other side of the coin.
Not the right choice surely from a PVP perspective but was great fun for me.
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."1 -
IwakuraLain42✭✭✭✭✭Indeed. Obnoxious, insular, PvP-obsessed Internet Tough Guys wanting everything their way, throwing insults around like cheap confetti and railing against anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with every self-focused demand they make are the primary reasons PvP isn't more popular among the general player base.
Like you people don't act like this. All we want is a limited PvP element added to the current system, and we're only asking for this because it was once promised and many people were waiting for this. We don't want free open world pvp. We don't want you to drop all your stuff on death. What we actually want is a compromise. But NO you people don't want any compromise, you say NO because you want THAT ACHIEVEMENT and OH BUT I'LL HAVE TO WEAR PVP GEAR IN PVE ZONE TO GET IT. Isn't THAT egoistic by yours standarts?
Yeah we're free to go, but it's the elder scrolls mmo many of us 've been waiting since Daggerfall probably, and we're not getting another one. So, personally, i hate to see it's becoming a bad single player ES sequel with cooperative mode, because we've seen that in battlespire.
What you really don't seem to get is the fact that the vast majority of the players do not want to play PvP. Just look at the few campaigns and the players you see there (which are mostly the same) to see how unpopular PvP really is. And these players do not want to attach any PvP element to their PvE experience, the failure of IC is a testament to that.
Nobody wants you to leave, just keep PvP elements away from the everyday PvE elements.
2
