Please Finish The Justice System

cjthibs

Wow. I can't believe this thread is still going.

We've got a few reasonable folks willing to compromise and entertain other ideas and two or three that just mindlessly throw out the same argument over and and over and simply refuse to even hear what the others are saying. Amazing.

Just because you enjoy something the way it doesn't mean it can't be made better or even that it makes sense the way it is.

And seriously...the argument about adding risk for the hypothetical enforcers is a bit illogical. Do we penalize cops who fail to catch a burglar? ...should we?

Those of you who think there is enough risk for the thieves, you do understand that theft is a crime that would leave you without a hand in most societies even up to fairly recent times? (And still will in some parts of the world) The meaning behind those mindless clicks is a crime, not some casual questing.

LaiTash

IwakuraLain42 wrote: »

What you really don't seem to get is the fact that the vast majority of the players do not want to play PvP.

Never speak for the majority. And even if it was indeed the fact, the minority also has the voice. Unless you're russian.

Just look at the few campaigns and the players you see there (which are mostly the same) to see how unpopular PvP really is

Maybe it has something to do with how bad and pointless those campaigns are? Or maybe some people just don't like being forced into reservations like that? I don't bother going there as well, it doesn't mean i have no interest in pvp.

UPD: Oh and ALSO campaign can be underpopulated because people have to PvE in order to be any successfull in PvP. Or maybe not all players are into PvP or PvE 100% of time? I'm like 80% into PvE, for example.

Majic

Vox Populae

LaiTash wrote: »

Like you people don't act like this.

And what do you mean by "you people"?

I personally think an opt-in PvP option for the Justice System would be awesome. I think it's great that the largest zone in the game is a PvP zone. I'm happy that the Imperial City expansion was made for people who like that style of play.

I play tons of online games, and in every one of them other than MMOs, the only reason to play online is for PvP.

And yet I don't go around calling people who enjoy PvE "carebears", otherwise cast aspersions on them for daring to like something different from me or otherwise act like I never left middle school.

Turns out "my people" don't have to be jerks to enjoy PvP and support it in MMOs. Indeed, my greatest lament is that the juvenile toxicity which infests PvP in general drives people away from what could otherwise be the most fun and challenging game mode possible in an MMO.

The point of my screed is that it is not only counterproductive and self-defeating to try to cram PvP down the throats of people who aren't interested, but harmful to PvP throughout the genre as a whole -- and beyond. I mean damn, just look at how draconian Riot had to get to deal with toxicity in League of Legends, and even with their noble efforts, it's still a problem.

I don't expect online PvP in any format to ever be free of adolescent bravado or puerile posturing, but I do think it could benefit from better representation by those who enjoy it for the challenge rather than as a means of offloading emotional baggage or channeling psychopathology.

And just to be crystal clear, I'm pointedly not naming names nor characterizing any specific person here, just saying if the shoe fits, take it off.

All of which is moot in the context of this thread, because as Matt Firor pointed out back in January, it's not going to happen. We all know that, but it doesn't keep threads like these from popping up, and the same old tedious us/them bickering dragging on for page after endless page.

Nor does it keep me from indulging the temptation to see if, for the first time in recorded history, one of these threads didn't go that way. Alas, so far, no surprises.

But having said all that, I'm nonetheless sympathetic to those among us who wanted (and still want) the PvP component of the Justice System to become a reality someday, respect the rights of players to lobby for what they want, and respect those who do the same.

After all, the forums aren't, nor should they ever be, a PvP-only area.

STEVIL

Greifenherz wrote: »

LaiTash wrote: »

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.

the consensual part has been a somewhat constant sticking point, across most of the threads.

Sometimes, it is hidden under an opt-in system wedded to a system change to the PVE opt-out that makes it so unproductive by comparison to the opt-in and other PVE activities so the result is basically either functionally forcing folks out of the PVE opt-out play in large numbers or forcing them into the PVP opt-in.

Adding PVP options is not sufficient for some, unless it includes the takeaway of PVP and it does seem that for all the rhetoric about how many people would love the PVP solutions and flock to it, some of them dont seem to be really confident that it would stand on its own as a consensual participation.

To me (I have said in other threads)
right now a PVP player can get PVP battles any day by going into cyrodil, but those are against PVP players running PVP builds who want it (mostly.) if they want the "thrill of the chase" or "cat and mouse" they can even do that too. nothing stopping a PVP player from tagging an enemy and then focusing on evading and escaping (playing the robber on the run) or focusing on chasing down any who run (assuming someone runs instead of fights.)

Now, coming soon, the same PVP players can get duels consentually initiated in PVE areas, but again the consensual means its likely many of these will be accepted by PVP players ready to duel (for the most part.) As noted these duels can be the culmination of other gameplay like a good cops and robbers cat and mouse chase/escape thing since the duel dialog is launched at close range interact distance just like a dialog for enforcer/criminal would.

The notion that a PVP player looking for PVP play would go to a PVE city and walk around "as an enforcer hoping to find some other PVP enthused criminal to not just play justice but to screw up enough to meet some threshold to enable the play to begin is just so amazingly unfathomably inefficient a gameplay design as to be just unreasonable. having an engine of gameplay be that coincidentally triggered is just such bad design as to be obviously not something any designer would put into place and expect success.

But, in spite of some folks insistance that consensual organized cops and robbers cat and mouse gameplay themed by and driven by injustice content is not possible because folks cannot ever agree etc... there are already organized pvp dueling and ladders and tourneys and so forth - before ZOS did their dueling thing - running thru guilds and groups on PVP.

So the ability of PVPers to come togehter, codify rules of competiton of a given theme, rally and organize events and play with times and places has already been proven in cases where there is sufficient interest in the gameplay.

But, of course, the difference is none of those get PVE players sucked in and served up and none of those take any PVE content away that players currently enjoy.

White wabbit

Question have Zos implied any where that they are thinking of entertaining the idea of looking into the possibility of the justice system being impermented ? If not why is this discussion carrying on ?

Marto

This is not a PVP game.

It never was, it never will.

You paid 60 dollars for a plethora of quests, dungeons, and a bit of PVP conent.

But mostly quests. Almost only quests. Out of every hour of work Zenimax has put into this game, most has been directed towards quests or the questing system.

That's the meat of the game, that is the core design that has to be kept. The reason why PVP Justice was scrapped is because it rivaled the idea that PVE zones HAVE to be safe.

LaiTash

But, in spite of some folks insistance that consensual organized cops and robbers cat and mouse gameplay themed by and driven by injustice content is not possible because folks cannot ever agree etc... there are already organized pvp dueling and ladders and tourneys and so forth - before ZOS did their dueling thing - running thru guilds and groups on PVP.

Organized EVENTS are not the same. First try to organize something like this, succeed, and then i'll beleive it's possible (and that your leadership and organizing skills are way better then most of us simple folk have). From my experience, it's not.

STEVIL

White wabbit wrote: »

Question have Zos implied any where that they are thinking of entertaining the idea of looking into the possibility of the justice system being impermented ? If not why is this discussion carrying on ?

During one of the announcements or podcasts, while they were clear it isn't happening, one of the Zos folks gave the genreric tech speak compnay jargon line along the lines of "but you never say never" kind of thing with no indication it was anything more than a PC type response. i saw it and my universal corporate response answer processor (U-CRAP) rendered it as "i dont want to have an argument so... just say indefinite maybe."

the reason its still going on is even though threads get locked down for this many times it was made clear they are allowed to bring up new threads on even dead topics as much as they want provided they remain civil.

White wabbit

Personally I have no issue as long as I can opt out , which I have a suspicion the majority may pick which then raises the question is it really worth being to the game to satisfy a few

Khenarthi

White wabbit wrote: »

Personally I have no issue as long as I can opt out , which I have a suspicion the majority may pick which then raises the question is it really worth being to the game to satisfy a few

My opinion as well. I do not want pvp consequences to thieving, as long as I can flag myself off those (like I will be doing with duels), I will continue to be a happy thief. If others want to opt in by following @STEVIL 's creative idea, it will be their prerogative, but I am very grateful that ZOS will not force pvp on me outside of Cyro/IC.

Also, @Majic your latest comment was awesome and you are awesome!

LaiTash

Marto wrote: »

You paid 60 dollars for a plethora of quests, dungeons, and a bit of PVP conent.

Every single player ES game has this (except for a bit of PVP), and of way better quality. ES could benefit so much from adding the online component, but instead it suffered from it. Such a shame.

STEVIL

cjthibs wrote: »

Wow. I can't believe this thread is still going.

We've got a few reasonable folks willing to compromise and entertain other ideas and two or three that just mindlessly throw out the same argument over and and over and simply refuse to even hear what the others are saying. Amazing.

Just because you enjoy something the way it doesn't mean it can't be made better or even that it makes sense the way it is.

And seriously...the argument about adding risk for the hypothetical enforcers is a bit illogical. Do we penalize cops who fail to catch a burglar? ...should we?

Those of you who think there is enough risk for the thieves, you do understand that theft is a crime that would leave you without a hand in most societies even up to fairly recent times? (And still will in some parts of the world) The meaning behind those mindless clicks is a crime, not some casual questing.

and here we go again though even more explicitly stated.

First yes something you like can be improved. thats why i myself and many others want more justice content added including a justice themed dlc with dailies and questlines and skill lines etc etc - so a YUGE expansion of PVE justice content is right on lets get it.

But many of us dont feel forcing PVP justice into PVE justice, taking away PVE justice elemtns either explicitly or de facto in the process, is improving it or making it better.

So, you know, i dont really see anybody arguing against improvement or making things better - the straw man you tossed in - but i do see people arguing against a specific type of content change. that is a whole different thing.

but the more explicit thing is, as i have noted before the addition of the "stealing is wrong" argument to support any changes runs headlong into the fact that in this established mythical world stealing is not always wrong (IE not all take stuff from owners content is red flag) and many many other things within the perspective of the cultures in the world are just as wrong or more. if "its wrong" supports changes to justice system for pvp-interference, "its wrong" also supports pvp-interference in a wide variety of other casual gameplay activities depending on who, what where and how much.


As for risk, yes, i think there is currently sufficient risk in casual injustice gameplay. i say that because it is very comparable in risk-gains-time to the other casual gameplay activities including delving, grinding and questing. in other words, based on the content in the game it will be competing with for player participation it is correctly scaled for risk-time-gains and seems to get ample play in the gam,e as is.

or if you want the 1-2-3

1. people play it - quite a bit in fact. See it in use most every time i log in and am in areas it works in, just like i see people in delves most every time, just like i see people grinding, just like i see people questing.
2. its on par with other similar content in terms of time-reward-risk and like them has a slightly different skew between the types of rewards than the others when looked at from a view of different rewards including gold, mats, sets, sellables, consumables, experience and skill points.
3. it provides unique challenges/systems different from the others.

so you know - good thing.

Edit to add: on the whole society cuts off hands for thieveing thing - what are the penalties historical and current for getting caught stealing orders and burning supplies and siege equipment of enemy troops? Do those events in game now across the world provide PVP-interference if not done well enough? No they dont. So why should injustice content be that exception?

Tandor

White wabbit wrote: »

Question have Zos implied any where that they are thinking of entertaining the idea of looking into the possibility of the justice system being impermented ? If not why is this discussion carrying on ?

No, there's been no such indication. The "never say never" comment @STEVIL refers to above was indeed a standard "How do I get out of this?" response which meant nothing. However, some posters believe that no matter how long and hard they flog a long-dead horse they can still detect a pulse.

Nestor

White wabbit wrote: »

Personally I have no issue as long as I can opt out , which I have a suspicion the majority may pick which then raises the question is it really worth being to the game to satisfy a few

Not only that, but there would have to be some Threshold for the Bounty. I rarely, if ever, get a Bounty, and when I do, I deal with it by using a Pardon Edict, or just paying a Guard or Fence. The typical Bounties I get are small enough that I imagine I would never trigger the Threshold. I also don't think I am in the minority in how much Bounty I accrue.

So, even if they implemented this, there would be a bunch of Enforcers standing around looking for someone to enforce and never finding them between opt outs and thresholds.

cjthibs

STEVIL wrote: »

so you know - good thing.

Edit to add: on the whole society cuts off hands for thieveing thing - what are the penalties historical and current for getting caught stealing orders and burning supplies and siege equipment of enemy troops? Do those events in game now across the world provide PVP-interference if not done well enough? No they dont. So why should injustice content be that exception?

We can openly attack people who burn our siege equipment...which is as it should be. Which is the same as it should be for thieves and murderers.

Here's the thing, there is content for thieving which is entirely safe, they're called heists and sacraments for murder.
I would suggest we keep that as is, and introduce other mechanics for players being caught stealing and murdering out in the open. That way there is an option, which is more fun than stealing from random houses full of brain-dead NPC's anyway, in which there is zero interference. If you don't want the additional challenge, stick to heists and sacraments. Easy.

As for the rest of your argument, which I didn't bother to quote, it's more of the same, 'I like it as is,' which is not an argument at all.

And @Tandor , I'm with you, I know it's not going to happen, I just enjoy talking about what it could have been.

@Nestor , I actually highly doubt that gangs of people would just be standing around towns waiting to catch a thief. It might be that way for the first week or two after a system like this went in, but that sounds terribly boring. What I'd expect to find afterwards would be some occasional incidents where someone witnesses a crime by chance, and decides to go after the criminal. (Could be totally wrong, but that's how it has worked in most games with similar systems I've played.)

Daemons_Bane

I actually highly doubt that gangs of people would just be standing around towns waiting to catch a thief. It might be that way for the first week or two after a system like this went in, but that sounds terribly boring. What I'd expect to find afterwards would be some occasional incidents where someone witnesses a crime by chance, and decides to go after the criminal. (Could be totally wrong, but that's how it has worked in most games with similar systems I've played.)

This is the part where I think you might be wrong, though I hope not.. There will always be people who get off on killing others to annoy them, and the easier targets, the better..

Tandor

cjthibs wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

so you know - good thing.

Edit to add: on the whole society cuts off hands for thieveing thing - what are the penalties historical and current for getting caught stealing orders and burning supplies and siege equipment of enemy troops? Do those events in game now across the world provide PVP-interference if not done well enough? No they dont. So why should injustice content be that exception?

We can openly attack people who burn our siege equipment...which is as it should be. Which is the same as it should be for thieves and murderers.

Here's the thing, there is content for thieving which is entirely safe, they're called heists and sacraments for murder.
I would suggest we keep that as is, and introduce other mechanics for players being caught stealing and murdering out in the open. That way there is an option, which is more fun than stealing from random houses full of brain-dead NPC's anyway, in which there is zero interference. If you don't want the additional challenge, stick to heists and sacraments. Easy.

As for the rest of your argument, which I didn't bother to quote, it's more of the same, 'I like it as is,' which is not an argument at all.

And @Tandor , I'm with you, I know it's not going to happen, I just enjoy talking about what it could have been.

@Nestor , I actually highly doubt that gangs of people would just be standing around towns waiting to catch a thief. It might be that way for the first week or two after a system like this went in, but that sounds terribly boring. What I'd expect to find afterwards would be some occasional incidents where someone witnesses a crime by chance, and decides to go after the criminal. (Could be totally wrong, but that's how it has worked in most games with similar systems I've played.)

I think what we'd be more likely to find is that after the novelty had worn off the only people doing the PvP element would be friends pursuing the achievements etc by fixing it on the lines of "You be the enforcer, I'll be the criminal, and here's what we'll do, and then we'll switch roles..." which is I imagine precisely the sort of exploit that ZOS had in mind when deciding it would be unworkable (along with other exploits based on any opt-out mechanism).

I'm wholly in favour of making the Justice System tougher, with greater penalties for being caught especially for murder and for those with high bounties, but they should be PvE penalties for PvE crimes. Of course, it comes down to risk versus reward so the higher penalties might in some cases need to be countered by increased rewards.

However, once you introduce player justice into a predominantly PvE game then you change the whole nature of the game and I think that is something ZOS eventually realised as indicated in their Road Ahead announcement of the abandonment of the original idea - which they also reminded us in that announcement was always heavily caveated (rather than being something that should automatically be delivered because it was promised which is the line some take).

cjthibs

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

I actually highly doubt that gangs of people would just be standing around towns waiting to catch a thief. It might be that way for the first week or two after a system like this went in, but that sounds terribly boring. What I'd expect to find afterwards would be some occasional incidents where someone witnesses a crime by chance, and decides to go after the criminal. (Could be totally wrong, but that's how it has worked in most games with similar systems I've played.)

This is the part where I think you might be wrong, though I hope not.. There will always be people who get off on killing others to annoy them, and the easier targets, the better..

Absolutely. There are people like that, but they aren't nearly as common as people think. At least, not in my experience.
People here on the forums think that all PvP'ers are tea-bagging hate-whisperers, but in actuality that's just not the case. Sure, it happens, but it isn't as frequent as it's made out to be.

Daemons_Bane

cjthibs wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

I actually highly doubt that gangs of people would just be standing around towns waiting to catch a thief. It might be that way for the first week or two after a system like this went in, but that sounds terribly boring. What I'd expect to find afterwards would be some occasional incidents where someone witnesses a crime by chance, and decides to go after the criminal. (Could be totally wrong, but that's how it has worked in most games with similar systems I've played.)

This is the part where I think you might be wrong, though I hope not.. There will always be people who get off on killing others to annoy them, and the easier targets, the better..

Absolutely. There are people like that, but they aren't nearly as common as people think. At least, not in my experience.
People here on the forums think that all PvP'ers are tea-bagging hate-whisperers, but in actuality that's just not the case. Sure, it happens, but it isn't as frequent as it's made out to be.

Don't pretend to speak for people as a group
The thing is that from what I've experienced through a *** of games, is that the people who actually want a PvP experience, aka the more polite and relaxed folks, will stay in the PvP areas.. The ones who come to prey upon the PvE crowd, are the ones looking for the easy kills, not looking for a decent fight.. It's the same kind of people that, to make an example we can all understand, would camp starter areas for enemy races in WoW

cjthibs

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

cjthibs wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

I actually highly doubt that gangs of people would just be standing around towns waiting to catch a thief. It might be that way for the first week or two after a system like this went in, but that sounds terribly boring. What I'd expect to find afterwards would be some occasional incidents where someone witnesses a crime by chance, and decides to go after the criminal. (Could be totally wrong, but that's how it has worked in most games with similar systems I've played.)

This is the part where I think you might be wrong, though I hope not.. There will always be people who get off on killing others to annoy them, and the easier targets, the better..

Absolutely. There are people like that, but they aren't nearly as common as people think. At least, not in my experience.
People here on the forums think that all PvP'ers are tea-bagging hate-whisperers, but in actuality that's just not the case. Sure, it happens, but it isn't as frequent as it's made out to be.

Don't pretend to speak for people as a group
The thing is that from what I've experienced through a *** of games, is that the people who actually want a PvP experience, aka the more polite and relaxed folks, will stay in the PvP areas.. The ones who come to prey upon the PvE crowd, are the ones looking for the easy kills, not looking for a decent fight.. It's the same kind of people that, to make an example we can all understand, would camp starter areas for enemy races in WoW

'People' is an unspecified quantity.
What I was referring to is the general sentiment one would gain by reading the forums without actually experiencing the game for themselves. Not the opinion of 'everyone.'

And yeah, like I said, it happens. But that is a different scenario entirely. In an Open-PvP world there is no opt-in/opt-out nor is there a mechanic to control what makes you attackable. What we are discussing here would have those mechanisms, so it would be under the player's control whether or not they were interested in this type of experience.

Daemons_Bane

But generally in this discussion, people are not proposing an opt in/out system.. They keep returning to the suggestion that the system must kick in when you go over a certain bounty limit.. That's the mistake that keeps being brought back

cjthibs

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

But generally in this discussion, people are not proposing an opt in/out system.. They keep returning to the suggestion that the system must kick in when you go over a certain bounty limit.. That's the mistake that keeps being brought back

The bounty threshold IS an opt-in.
Be aware of your bounty...don't go over, and you have effectively opted out.

STEVIL

cjthibs wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

so you know - good thing.

Edit to add: on the whole society cuts off hands for thieveing thing - what are the penalties historical and current for getting caught stealing orders and burning supplies and siege equipment of enemy troops? Do those events in game now across the world provide PVP-interference if not done well enough? No they dont. So why should injustice content be that exception?

We can openly attack people who burn our siege equipment...which is as it should be. Which is the same as it should be for thieves and murderers.

Here's the thing, there is content for thieving which is entirely safe, they're called heists and sacraments for murder.
I would suggest we keep that as is, and introduce other mechanics for players being caught stealing and murdering out in the open. That way there is an option, which is more fun than stealing from random houses full of brain-dead NPC's anyway, in which there is zero interference. If you don't want the additional challenge, stick to heists and sacraments. Easy.

As for the rest of your argument, which I didn't bother to quote, it's more of the same, 'I like it as is,' which is not an argument at all.

And @Tandor , I'm with you, I know it's not going to happen, I just enjoy talking about what it could have been.

@Nestor , I actually highly doubt that gangs of people would just be standing around towns waiting to catch a thief. It might be that way for the first week or two after a system like this went in, but that sounds terribly boring. What I'd expect to find afterwards would be some occasional incidents where someone witnesses a crime by chance, and decides to go after the criminal. (Could be totally wrong, but that's how it has worked in most games with similar systems I've played.)

thanks for making my point with your first bold.

In the game now you can attack other players who burn your siege equipment in cyrodil.
You cant do it anywhere else.
You can in the game now attack NPCs who are doing whatever it is they do, mostly, anywhere. that is regardless of justice content or not.
In the game right now you cannot attack players or significantly interfere with system engaged to assist you other players doing things your "group" thinks is wrong or illegal.

What keeps getting proposed is to allow PVP-interference outside of cyrodil and attacking players who are doing content that is deemed illegal or wrong.

thats a huge change and a significant difference and if it is limited to just "red flag" injustice and not any of the other "but this is wrong" behaviors where "sensibly in perspetive in game" it makes sense there would be consequences" then it makes no sense.

It makes LESS SENSE for an aldmeri to be allowed to PVP-interfere with another aldmeri "stealing" in an ebonhart town than it does for that same aldmeri standing in an aldmeri camp in an ebonhart stonefalls zone to be able to PVP-interfere with someone running in and burning supplies and boats, but the proposal tries to pretend only being able to pvp-interfere p the thief make sense.

As for again the characterization of opposing views as flatly opposing new ideas and "like it as is" you might indeed want to keep not quoting the parts that flat out show that as a untruth such as the part where i repeated "First yes something you like can be improved. thats why i myself and many others want more justice content added including a justice themed dlc with dailies and questlines and skill lines etc etc - so a YUGE expansion of PVE justice content is right on lets get it".

i think the better point is, i am not aware of ANY pve justice player who has said keep it as is dont do new stuff.
I dont know of any justice pve player who has objected to new justice content being added as long as its pve.

the folks clinging to the OLD and not willing to embrace the NEW seem more to be the ones clinging with tight grips to the OLD and discarded idea of PVP-interference in PVE justice even after it was dismissed by the devs and simply not happening. Some of them even oppose embracing the new dueling and the possibility of getting setup to do consensual justice themed pvp play by fusing the NEW dueling with the old "guild focused on running consensual themed events" to create their own pvp-justice play because its not what they feel was "promised".

the PVE side wants lotsa new stuff for justice... its the PVP side that just wants the old discarded idea - more often than not.

But again, it is not uncommon for folks to try and conflate "they have reasons that they dont like this specific idea" with "the just dont like any new ideas" when it comes to folks who reject someone's pet hope-for.

but really it comes down to it, most often when someone rejects your advances, its not that they reject everyone or reject indiscriminately ( though it might make you feel better to think so with a "she is not into guys" or "he only likes airheads") just that they rejected you.

Tandor

cjthibs wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

But generally in this discussion, people are not proposing an opt in/out system.. They keep returning to the suggestion that the system must kick in when you go over a certain bounty limit.. That's the mistake that keeps being brought back

The bounty threshold IS an opt-in.
Be aware of your bounty...don't go over, and you have effectively opted out.

But that is saying that a PvEer can only do so much of the PvE content before being forcibly opted into PvP. That's very different to having a complete opt-out under the game settings. Why, apart from the potential for exploit by their fellow PvPers, are so many proponents of PvP in the Justice System so unwilling to allow PvEers to opt out totally from the PvP in just the same way they can do for dueling?

Daemons_Bane

cjthibs wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

But generally in this discussion, people are not proposing an opt in/out system.. They keep returning to the suggestion that the system must kick in when you go over a certain bounty limit.. That's the mistake that keeps being brought back

The bounty threshold IS an opt-in.
Be aware of your bounty...don't go over, and you have effectively opted out.

That's forcing PvP on a player trying to get a PvE achievement.. That is simply not okay.. He have not opted in, simply tried to get an achievement

STEVIL

Tandor wrote: »

cjthibs wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

so you know - good thing.

Edit to add: on the whole society cuts off hands for thieveing thing - what are the penalties historical and current for getting caught stealing orders and burning supplies and siege equipment of enemy troops? Do those events in game now across the world provide PVP-interference if not done well enough? No they dont. So why should injustice content be that exception?

We can openly attack people who burn our siege equipment...which is as it should be. Which is the same as it should be for thieves and murderers.

Here's the thing, there is content for thieving which is entirely safe, they're called heists and sacraments for murder.
I would suggest we keep that as is, and introduce other mechanics for players being caught stealing and murdering out in the open. That way there is an option, which is more fun than stealing from random houses full of brain-dead NPC's anyway, in which there is zero interference. If you don't want the additional challenge, stick to heists and sacraments. Easy.

As for the rest of your argument, which I didn't bother to quote, it's more of the same, 'I like it as is,' which is not an argument at all.

And @Tandor , I'm with you, I know it's not going to happen, I just enjoy talking about what it could have been.

@Nestor , I actually highly doubt that gangs of people would just be standing around towns waiting to catch a thief. It might be that way for the first week or two after a system like this went in, but that sounds terribly boring. What I'd expect to find afterwards would be some occasional incidents where someone witnesses a crime by chance, and decides to go after the criminal. (Could be totally wrong, but that's how it has worked in most games with similar systems I've played.)

I think what we'd be more likely to find is that after the novelty had worn off the only people doing the PvP element would be friends pursuing the achievements etc by fixing it on the lines of "You be the enforcer, I'll be the criminal, and here's what we'll do, and then we'll switch roles..." which is I imagine precisely the sort of exploit that ZOS had in mind when deciding it would be unworkable (along with other exploits based on any opt-out mechanism).

I'm wholly in favour of making the Justice System tougher, with greater penalties for being caught especially for murder and for those with high bounties, but they should be PvE penalties for PvE crimes. Of course, it comes down to risk versus reward so the higher penalties might in some cases need to be countered by increased rewards.

However, once you introduce player justice into a predominantly PvE game then you change the whole nature of the game and I think that is something ZOS eventually realised as indicated in their Road Ahead announcement of the abandonment of the original idea - which they also reminded us in that announcement was always heavily caveated (rather than being something that should automatically be delivered because it was promised which is the line some take).

About your bold - you and i differ in one regard. i am dead set AGAINST "making the Justice System tougher" even with higher rewards.

I am all in favor of ADDING new content for the justice system that is harder with everything you say there - penalties, risks, rewards.

but if you ratchet up the content of the justice as a whole, based on how easy it is for experienced players with knowledg and gear and skills assigned etc, you KILL the entry level play that is needed to get to that level.

So, IMO, leave the casual injustice play like the other casual content - tough at first but then as you advance and learn how to and what to and when to it becomes mostly easy so the ability to get into it early and play is the same as the other alternatives. otherwise, the flow of new players into that content from the ground level will dry up.

But if you want to add new higher difficulty content like the heists and sacraments and whatever else we want like "world boss" style injustice missions and so on - all for it.

Add to, dont takeover or replace.

thats where you and i disagree.

heck, thats where i disagree with the PVPers really, they want to takeover/takeaway pve play tacking on PVP elements. Add justice content to cyrodil - no thats not what they want. that just adds, doesn't take away. Add a fully opt-in, nah many dont want that - gotta be able to go for PVE players for some. get togehter with like minded pvp folks and do the cops and robbers duel thing. nope that also doesn't take anything away from anybody else so... for some not an option.

cjthibs

Ok... @Tandor @Daemons_Bane , since you both said basically the same thing...

If you are out thieving, trying to make money, do you let your bounty get up to high levels?
I'm sure that you don't, because then one slip up and you're worse off than before.

You CAN completely opt-out, just carry some edicts and watch your bounty. How easy is that?

Nobody wold be forcing anyone to do anything. ...and the achievement would mean even more once you got it.
What is the achievement at anyway? I thought the biggest one was 1,000 gold for one-time transactions.

"Make a one time transaction of 1,000 gold or greater for crimes committed against the citizens of Tamriel."

Seriously, how long does it take to rack up 1,000 gold in bounties? 10 minutes?
You can't find a quiet location and knock this out and then go back to your regularly scheduled programming?

cjthibs

STEVIL wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

cjthibs wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

so you know - good thing.

Edit to add: on the whole society cuts off hands for thieveing thing - what are the penalties historical and current for getting caught stealing orders and burning supplies and siege equipment of enemy troops? Do those events in game now across the world provide PVP-interference if not done well enough? No they dont. So why should injustice content be that exception?

We can openly attack people who burn our siege equipment...which is as it should be. Which is the same as it should be for thieves and murderers.

Here's the thing, there is content for thieving which is entirely safe, they're called heists and sacraments for murder.
I would suggest we keep that as is, and introduce other mechanics for players being caught stealing and murdering out in the open. That way there is an option, which is more fun than stealing from random houses full of brain-dead NPC's anyway, in which there is zero interference. If you don't want the additional challenge, stick to heists and sacraments. Easy.

As for the rest of your argument, which I didn't bother to quote, it's more of the same, 'I like it as is,' which is not an argument at all.

And @Tandor , I'm with you, I know it's not going to happen, I just enjoy talking about what it could have been.

@Nestor , I actually highly doubt that gangs of people would just be standing around towns waiting to catch a thief. It might be that way for the first week or two after a system like this went in, but that sounds terribly boring. What I'd expect to find afterwards would be some occasional incidents where someone witnesses a crime by chance, and decides to go after the criminal. (Could be totally wrong, but that's how it has worked in most games with similar systems I've played.)

I think what we'd be more likely to find is that after the novelty had worn off the only people doing the PvP element would be friends pursuing the achievements etc by fixing it on the lines of "You be the enforcer, I'll be the criminal, and here's what we'll do, and then we'll switch roles..." which is I imagine precisely the sort of exploit that ZOS had in mind when deciding it would be unworkable (along with other exploits based on any opt-out mechanism).

I'm wholly in favour of making the Justice System tougher, with greater penalties for being caught especially for murder and for those with high bounties, but they should be PvE penalties for PvE crimes. Of course, it comes down to risk versus reward so the higher penalties might in some cases need to be countered by increased rewards.

However, once you introduce player justice into a predominantly PvE game then you change the whole nature of the game and I think that is something ZOS eventually realised as indicated in their Road Ahead announcement of the abandonment of the original idea - which they also reminded us in that announcement was always heavily caveated (rather than being something that should automatically be delivered because it was promised which is the line some take).

About your bold - you and i differ in one regard. i am dead set AGAINST "making the Justice System tougher" even with higher rewards.

I am all in favor of ADDING new content for the justice system that is harder with everything you say there - penalties, risks, rewards.

but if you ratchet up the content of the justice as a whole, based on how easy it is for experienced players with knowledg and gear and skills assigned etc, you KILL the entry level play that is needed to get to that level.

So, IMO, leave the casual injustice play like the other casual content - tough at first but then as you advance and learn how to and what to and when to it becomes mostly easy so the ability to get into it early and play is the same as the other alternatives. otherwise, the flow of new players into that content from the ground level will dry up.

But if you want to add new higher difficulty content like the heists and sacraments and whatever else we want like "world boss" style injustice missions and so on - all for it.

Add to, dont takeover or replace.

thats where you and i disagree.

heck, thats where i disagree with the PVPers really, they want to takeover/takeaway pve play tacking on PVP elements. Add justice content to cyrodil - no thats not what they want. that just adds, doesn't take away. Add a fully opt-in, nah many dont want that - gotta be able to go for PVE players for some. get togehter with like minded pvp folks and do the cops and robbers duel thing. nope that also doesn't take anything away from anybody else so... for some not an option.

Ha. So, just as I thought in the beginning, you just want easy-mode. Well, you have it. Enjoy.

Those of us who want something more challenging and therefore, more rewarding, are out of luck. And we know this, that's why we advocate for things like this. Because PvE content is easy, it is inherently easy because computers can't think, they can't adapt. Players, on the other hand, can think, they can adapt, and they can provide an actual organic challenge in a way that a computer can't. It's not because we want to rob you of your faceroll-easy content or prey upon you, we want a challenge.

And I did suggest a system that was fully opt-in. You just don't like the mechanism. Also, it doesn't take away anything, it adds to...you just don't like what it adds.

You accuse me of mischaracterization, but damn man...that's all you've done here. Keep replying to me if you like, but I'm not getting into a discussion with a drama queen.

Daemons_Bane

cjthibs wrote: »

Ok... @Tandor @Daemons_Bane , since you both said basically the same thing...

If you are out thieving, trying to make money, do you let your bounty get up to high levels?
I'm sure that you don't, because then one slip up and you're worse off than before.

You CAN completely opt-out, just carry some edicts and watch your bounty. How easy is that?

Nobody wold be forcing anyone to do anything. ...and the achievement would mean even more once you got it.
What is the achievement at anyway? I thought the biggest one was 1,000 gold for one-time transactions.

"Make a one time transaction of 1,000 gold or greater for crimes committed against the citizens of Tamriel."

Seriously, how long does it take to rack up 1,000 gold in bounties? 10 minutes?
You can't find a quiet location and knock this out and then go back to your regularly scheduled programming?

Bold 1: No you can't.. With your suggestions, you need to earn the achievement before you can COMPLETELY opt out.. Saying that we can use our edits is BS, since that also ruins the achievement.. I have no idea how high the amount needed is, since I don't chase achievements.. But the fact is that it's there, and it should not be hampered by a system that automatically forces you into PvP

cjthibs

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

cjthibs wrote: »

Ok... @Tandor @Daemons_Bane , since you both said basically the same thing...

If you are out thieving, trying to make money, do you let your bounty get up to high levels?
I'm sure that you don't, because then one slip up and you're worse off than before.

You CAN completely opt-out, just carry some edicts and watch your bounty. How easy is that?

Nobody wold be forcing anyone to do anything. ...and the achievement would mean even more once you got it.
What is the achievement at anyway? I thought the biggest one was 1,000 gold for one-time transactions.

"Make a one time transaction of 1,000 gold or greater for crimes committed against the citizens of Tamriel."

Seriously, how long does it take to rack up 1,000 gold in bounties? 10 minutes?
You can't find a quiet location and knock this out and then go back to your regularly scheduled programming?

Bold 1: No you can't.. With your suggestions, you need to earn the achievement before you can COMPLETELY opt out.. Saying that we can use our edits is BS, since that also ruins the achievement.. I have no idea how high the amount needed is, since I don't chase achievements.. But the fact is that it's there, and it should not be hampered by a system that automatically forces you into PvP

If it's 1000 gold bounty, make the threshold 1050. Easy.