Please Finish The Justice System

Nestor

This thread is illustrates the reason as to why the Enforcer System should never be implemented. Just like the Devs said, they could not come up with a system that would appeal to everyone, nor can the community.

Daemons_Bane

cjthibs wrote: »

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.

Yeah maybe.. But still no.. It needs to be 100% voluntary.. That keeps the griefers as far away from their dream targets as possible, and it also ensures that the fight will only include people that wish it

Khenarthi

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?

The achievement is 100.000 gold in bounties. Significantly more than 1.000 only.

Tandor

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.

We don't disagree at all. By making the Justice System tougher I am referring solely to the upper end of it. I'm not suggesting that the entry level difficulty should be raised, simply that the difficulty level along with the penalties and rewards should be higher the more you advance in the Justice System so as to provide a real challenge. I too would envisage that being achieved through additional content, not simply dumping more guards or confiscating more gold etc.

LaiTash

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

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

I don't think an achievement is a valid argument against any mechanics whatsoever.

Daemons_Bane

LaiTash wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

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

I don't think an achievement is a valid argument against any mechanics whatsoever.

Of course it is, if that mechanic can result in a person ruining another persons experience on purpose.. You would still get your PvP justice system, but only against people who are willing to fight you.. Are you that desperate to avoid people who are willing/capable to fight back?

cjthibs

Khenarthi 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?

The achievement is 100.000 gold in bounties. Significantly more than 1.000 only.

It doesn't appear to be all at once.

LaiTash

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Of course it is, if that mechanic can result in a person ruining another persons experience on purpose..

And what about experience of those who find the current system too easy and unchallenging to even waste time on? It's usually ruined the first time they try the justice system. No, it doesn't take time to master. It's actually absurdely easy from the very beginning and absurdely profitable in respect to risk vs reward. Yeah, it's not that profitable on higher levels. But the risk of loosing some gold is even less challenging then.

You would still get your PvP justice system, but only against people who are willing to fight you.. Are you that desperate to avoid people who are willing/capable to fight back?

Hmm? As i pointed out earlier in this thread, i'm not planning to become an enforcer, so...

Daemons_Bane

LaiTash wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Of course it is, if that mechanic can result in a person ruining another persons experience on purpose..

And what about experience of those who find the current system too easy and unchallenging to even waste time on? It's usually ruined the first time they try the justice system. No, it doesn't take time to master. It's actually absurdely easy from the very beginning and absurdely profitable in respect to risk vs reward. Yeah, it's not that profitable on higher levels. But the risk of loosing some gold is even less challenging then.

You would still get your PvP justice system, but only against people who are willing to fight you.. Are you that desperate to avoid people who are willing/capable to fight back?

Hmm? As i pointed out earlier in this thread, i'm not planning to become an enforcer, so...

Bold: Those people would fight the players that signed up for the system, making it a better fight for everyone.. If people really want a fight, instead of a gank fest, they would rather go up against people that are there for that reason..

Bold 2: If you are not even gonna participate, why is it such a big deal to you, forcing people into it? That seems kind of sardistic

LaiTash

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Bold: Those people would fight the players that signed up for the system, making it a better fight for everyone

You're signing up by reaching the bounty threshold. I'm not sure how would one achieve that if not intentionally. As for the checkbox-style opt-in, well it could work of course, if the reward will worth it. But i'm afraid the same people who complain about "PvP response for PvE activities" will complain about them being "penalized" for not participating in PvP.

Khenarthi

LaiTash wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

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

I don't think an achievement is a valid argument against any mechanics whatsoever.

Well your opinion is very different from mine in many ways.

Daemons_Bane

LaiTash wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Bold: Those people would fight the players that signed up for the system, making it a better fight for everyone

You're signing up by reaching the bounty threshold. I'm not sure how would one achieve that if not intentionally. As for the checkbox-style opt-in, well it could work of course, if the reward will worth it. But i'm afraid the same people who complain about "PvP response for PvE activities" will complain about them being "penalized" for not participating in PvP.

Again, no.. A system that forces people, is not a working system
Gotta explain the second bold part better

cjthibs

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

LaiTash wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Bold: Those people would fight the players that signed up for the system, making it a better fight for everyone

You're signing up by reaching the bounty threshold. I'm not sure how would one achieve that if not intentionally. As for the checkbox-style opt-in, well it could work of course, if the reward will worth it. But i'm afraid the same people who complain about "PvP response for PvE activities" will complain about them being "penalized" for not participating in PvP.

Again, no.. A system that forces people, is not a working system
Gotta explain the second bold part better

force: make (someone) do something against their will.

You have the option of not reaching the threshold...therefore you wouldn't be 'forced' to do anything.

Daemons_Bane

cjthibs wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

LaiTash wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Bold: Those people would fight the players that signed up for the system, making it a better fight for everyone

You're signing up by reaching the bounty threshold. I'm not sure how would one achieve that if not intentionally. As for the checkbox-style opt-in, well it could work of course, if the reward will worth it. But i'm afraid the same people who complain about "PvP response for PvE activities" will complain about them being "penalized" for not participating in PvP.

Again, no.. A system that forces people, is not a working system
Gotta explain the second bold part better

force: make (someone) do something against their will.

You have the option of not reaching the threshold...therefore you wouldn't be 'forced' to do anything.

It will still be forcing them, since they can't do a PvE activity as much as they like, since at some point they will be forced into a PvP activity instead.. Keep to the system where people signed up of their own free will, not by doing an activity..

The fact that you want to prey upon people, instead of fighting a crowd that wants it, is part of why people are against this.. You come off as people who are not looking for a fair fight, instead seeking easy targets

STEVIL

cjthibs wrote: »

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.

and again you choose to miss the point and mischaracterize.

As i stated in that post i am all for adding new more difficult content just not at the same time moving the existing content which is comparable to the other casual content to all be the more difficult because it makes it prohibitive for new players to join in and get the play time to get good.

You cant just take the whole of a set of content and make it into an elitist playground, because new folks wont be able to get to the good enough to play without the experience and gameplay at the opening difficulties.

You dont get to maelstrom arena or wrothgar world boss or even old orsinium dungeon soloing levels by starting off with one weapon three skills and BAM here are five bears and six harpies have fun newbie. You get there by "hey its one wolf" then "hey its two wolves" then etc etc etc.

I know some dont care about newbies. i know some might see newbies wracking up higher bounties as preferred targets since, well you know, they wont have the edicts to burn off bounties, they wont have the clemencies, the invis potions etc.

But some do and so we dont want to see the casual content regeared up to "challenging for elites" levels.

We prefer for more content to be added that has the higher difficulty and higher rewards.

again, add stuff thats lacking, dont takeaway whats there, dont takeover stuff people already play and enjoy... not that hard a concept for game content choices for some folks but apparently it is for others.

LaiTash

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

It will still be forcing them, since they can't do a PvE activity as much as they like, since at some point they will be forced into a PvP activity instead.. Keep to the system where people signed up of their own free will, not by doing an activity..

Managing your bounty is not that hard and doesn't require you to limit yourself noticeably.

Daemons_Bane

If you have to reach a 100K bounty, that is a significant piece of work.. Having to defend that against ganking morons is not fair to that player

cjthibs

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

cjthibs wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

LaiTash wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Bold: Those people would fight the players that signed up for the system, making it a better fight for everyone

You're signing up by reaching the bounty threshold. I'm not sure how would one achieve that if not intentionally. As for the checkbox-style opt-in, well it could work of course, if the reward will worth it. But i'm afraid the same people who complain about "PvP response for PvE activities" will complain about them being "penalized" for not participating in PvP.

Again, no.. A system that forces people, is not a working system
Gotta explain the second bold part better

force: make (someone) do something against their will.

You have the option of not reaching the threshold...therefore you wouldn't be 'forced' to do anything.

It will still be forcing them, since they can't do a PvE activity as much as they like, since at some point they will be forced into a PvP activity instead.. Keep to the system where people signed up of their own free will, not by doing an activity..

The fact that you want to prey upon people, instead of fighting a crowd that wants it, is part of why people are against this.. You come off as people who are not looking for a fair fight, instead seeking easy targets

No, it's not. There is still a choice. Let me ask you this, how much of a bounty do you usually rack up at one time?
Over a thousand gold? Or do you go and handle it before then?

As others in this thread have demonstrated there are people on the other side who would want to participate.
You called me out for 'speaking for entire groups,' but that's exactly what you're doing right now.

Tandor

cjthibs wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

LaiTash wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Bold: Those people would fight the players that signed up for the system, making it a better fight for everyone

You're signing up by reaching the bounty threshold. I'm not sure how would one achieve that if not intentionally. As for the checkbox-style opt-in, well it could work of course, if the reward will worth it. But i'm afraid the same people who complain about "PvP response for PvE activities" will complain about them being "penalized" for not participating in PvP.

Again, no.. A system that forces people, is not a working system
Gotta explain the second bold part better

force: make (someone) do something against their will.

You have the option of not reaching the threshold...therefore you wouldn't be 'forced' to do anything.

You would be. The Justice System offers PvE content in a primarily PvE area where there is no non-consensual PvP. If you can only complete the PvE content by being opted in to the PvP penalties against your desire to stick to PvE then you are being forced to choose between missing out on some of the PvE content or being forced to do PvP. Adding additional rewards to the Justice System but only for those who PvP in a predominantly PvE area is like adding additional rewards in Cyrodiil but only for those who PvE - how many PvPers would be in favour of that, I wonder?

Again, what is the objection to an overall opt-out of the PvP part of the system? Why is it that experienced PvPers looking for a challenge outside of Cyrodiil are so determined to ensure that some of those they PvP against will be players who have no desire, experience, or gear to engage in PvP? Wouldn't the sense of challenge be better met by allowing such players to opt out of the PvP element entirely while still completing the PvE content? That way the PvPers would face a reasonable challenge among themselves while the PvEers could complete their PvE content unhindered.

Daemons_Bane

cjthibs wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

cjthibs wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

LaiTash wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Bold: Those people would fight the players that signed up for the system, making it a better fight for everyone

You're signing up by reaching the bounty threshold. I'm not sure how would one achieve that if not intentionally. As for the checkbox-style opt-in, well it could work of course, if the reward will worth it. But i'm afraid the same people who complain about "PvP response for PvE activities" will complain about them being "penalized" for not participating in PvP.

Again, no.. A system that forces people, is not a working system
Gotta explain the second bold part better

force: make (someone) do something against their will.

You have the option of not reaching the threshold...therefore you wouldn't be 'forced' to do anything.

It will still be forcing them, since they can't do a PvE activity as much as they like, since at some point they will be forced into a PvP activity instead.. Keep to the system where people signed up of their own free will, not by doing an activity..

The fact that you want to prey upon people, instead of fighting a crowd that wants it, is part of why people are against this.. You come off as people who are not looking for a fair fight, instead seeking easy targets

No, it's not. There is still a choice. Let me ask you this, how much of a bounty do you usually rack up at one time?
Over a thousand gold? Or do you go and handle it before then?

As others in this thread have demonstrated there are people on the other side who would want to participate.
You called me out for 'speaking for entire groups,' but that's exactly what you're doing right now.

I can easily rack up 10K+ on a run, if that's what I feel like doing at that time.. Why does that have to force me into what you want? And yes there are people who want to participate.. But why is it not good enough for them to tick a box like in so many other games? That little tiny box would work for both parties.. PvE'ers can do what they like, and the rest can play with the PvP'ers.. I don't talk for the entire group, but I talk for keeping this two things separate.. A system that can force people into something that they do not want to do, is not a working system.. Both you and Laitash seems hellbent on making this system include people who have no interest in PvP, since for some reason, it is not enough for you to only fight the people that are interested in a fight.. That's what I commented on earlier.. Trying to get to fight people that have no interest in PvP, does not make the PvP'ers look good.. It's not beneficial

STEVIL

Tandor wrote: »

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.

We don't disagree at all. By making the Justice System tougher I am referring solely to the upper end of it. I'm not suggesting that the entry level difficulty should be raised, simply that the difficulty level along with the penalties and rewards should be higher the more you advance in the Justice System so as to provide a real challenge. I too would envisage that being achieved through additional content, not simply dumping more guards or confiscating more gold etc.

Ok great, i thought that was the case but as stated some people, obviously, took it as applying further.

BTW to be even more expansive, i said this in another thread.

once OneT gets settled and we have zone scaling across the world and stable - and we have the new normal-vet-hard modes across all dungeons and stable, it is my hope and my belief that ZOs should/will look at taking those existing stable elements and applying them world-wide.

So, for ALL CONTENT EVERYWHERE there would be a normal mode, a veteran mode and a hard mode which hit the scaling engine to raise content levels.

that way, experienced players can choose what they want for difficulty, newbies can learn on normal mode, casuals can set it wherever they want.

i see them slowly building and working to enable all the tools they need for that and hope once the shakedown period on smaller scales is over we can see it enacted on larger scale.

Though, as i often caveat, you wont get as much out of it for overland as you do with dungeos. hard mode and vet mode dungeons or trials are "set pieces" where they can literally change the mechanics. overland thats not so much of an option. one wolf in western gelnumbra can only get so much of "hard mode" from scaling.

STEVIL

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

cjthibs wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

LaiTash wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Bold: Those people would fight the players that signed up for the system, making it a better fight for everyone

You're signing up by reaching the bounty threshold. I'm not sure how would one achieve that if not intentionally. As for the checkbox-style opt-in, well it could work of course, if the reward will worth it. But i'm afraid the same people who complain about "PvP response for PvE activities" will complain about them being "penalized" for not participating in PvP.

Again, no.. A system that forces people, is not a working system
Gotta explain the second bold part better

force: make (someone) do something against their will.

You have the option of not reaching the threshold...therefore you wouldn't be 'forced' to do anything.

It will still be forcing them, since they can't do a PvE activity as much as they like, since at some point they will be forced into a PvP activity instead.. Keep to the system where people signed up of their own free will, not by doing an activity..

The fact that you want to prey upon people, instead of fighting a crowd that wants it, is part of why people are against this.. You come off as people who are not looking for a fair fight, instead seeking easy targets

one of the recent threads and proposals for pvp justice takeover even said explicitly that fair fights or was it competitive combats was not a design goal at all and went on to add limits on criminal attacking guards and so forth. it might have gotten to an eventual full opt-in but dont recall.

Daemons_Bane

Well technically it will never BE a fair fight, since only 1 team stands to lose anything.. But that's an entirely different discussion

cjthibs

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

cjthibs wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

cjthibs wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

LaiTash wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Bold: Those people would fight the players that signed up for the system, making it a better fight for everyone

You're signing up by reaching the bounty threshold. I'm not sure how would one achieve that if not intentionally. As for the checkbox-style opt-in, well it could work of course, if the reward will worth it. But i'm afraid the same people who complain about "PvP response for PvE activities" will complain about them being "penalized" for not participating in PvP.

Again, no.. A system that forces people, is not a working system
Gotta explain the second bold part better

force: make (someone) do something against their will.

You have the option of not reaching the threshold...therefore you wouldn't be 'forced' to do anything.

It will still be forcing them, since they can't do a PvE activity as much as they like, since at some point they will be forced into a PvP activity instead.. Keep to the system where people signed up of their own free will, not by doing an activity..

The fact that you want to prey upon people, instead of fighting a crowd that wants it, is part of why people are against this.. You come off as people who are not looking for a fair fight, instead seeking easy targets

No, it's not. There is still a choice. Let me ask you this, how much of a bounty do you usually rack up at one time?
Over a thousand gold? Or do you go and handle it before then?

As others in this thread have demonstrated there are people on the other side who would want to participate.
You called me out for 'speaking for entire groups,' but that's exactly what you're doing right now.

I can easily rack up 10K+ on a run, if that's what I feel like doing at that time.. Why does that have to force me into what you want? And yes there are people who want to participate.. But why is it not good enough for them to tick a box like in so many other games? That little tiny box would work for both parties.. PvE'ers can do what they like, and the rest can play with the PvP'ers.. I don't talk for the entire group, but I talk for keeping this two things separate.. A system that can force people into something that they do not want to do, is not a working system.. Both you and Laitash seems hellbent on making this system include people who have no interest in PvP, since for some reason, it is not enough for you to only fight the people that are interested in a fight.. That's what I commented on earlier.. Trying to get to fight people that have no interest in PvP, does not make the PvP'ers look good.. It's not beneficial

I'm not hellbent on anything. I know this isn't going to make it into the game. Just trying to have a discussion.

I went through a phase where I would rob every single building in a city and I don't think I ever had more than a 500g bounty. And that was filling up my entire inventory, fencing, rinse-and-repeat. You have to -want- to get a bounty like that. Which is why it's a good mechanic. You would basically have to choose to expose yourself in order to get a bounty that high.

LaiTash

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

But why is it not good enough for them to tick a box like in so many other games? That little tiny box would work for both parties..

Because i don't like many thing the game forces me to do but there can't be a checkbox for everything.

Daemons_Bane

cjthibs wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

cjthibs wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

cjthibs wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

LaiTash wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Bold: Those people would fight the players that signed up for the system, making it a better fight for everyone

You're signing up by reaching the bounty threshold. I'm not sure how would one achieve that if not intentionally. As for the checkbox-style opt-in, well it could work of course, if the reward will worth it. But i'm afraid the same people who complain about "PvP response for PvE activities" will complain about them being "penalized" for not participating in PvP.

Again, no.. A system that forces people, is not a working system
Gotta explain the second bold part better

force: make (someone) do something against their will.

You have the option of not reaching the threshold...therefore you wouldn't be 'forced' to do anything.

It will still be forcing them, since they can't do a PvE activity as much as they like, since at some point they will be forced into a PvP activity instead.. Keep to the system where people signed up of their own free will, not by doing an activity..

The fact that you want to prey upon people, instead of fighting a crowd that wants it, is part of why people are against this.. You come off as people who are not looking for a fair fight, instead seeking easy targets

No, it's not. There is still a choice. Let me ask you this, how much of a bounty do you usually rack up at one time?
Over a thousand gold? Or do you go and handle it before then?

As others in this thread have demonstrated there are people on the other side who would want to participate.
You called me out for 'speaking for entire groups,' but that's exactly what you're doing right now.

I can easily rack up 10K+ on a run, if that's what I feel like doing at that time.. Why does that have to force me into what you want? And yes there are people who want to participate.. But why is it not good enough for them to tick a box like in so many other games? That little tiny box would work for both parties.. PvE'ers can do what they like, and the rest can play with the PvP'ers.. I don't talk for the entire group, but I talk for keeping this two things separate.. A system that can force people into something that they do not want to do, is not a working system.. Both you and Laitash seems hellbent on making this system include people who have no interest in PvP, since for some reason, it is not enough for you to only fight the people that are interested in a fight.. That's what I commented on earlier.. Trying to get to fight people that have no interest in PvP, does not make the PvP'ers look good.. It's not beneficial

I'm not hellbent on anything. I know this isn't going to make it into the game. Just trying to have a discussion.

I went through a phase where I would rob every single building in a city and I don't think I ever had more than a 500g bounty. And that was filling up my entire inventory, fencing, rinse-and-repeat. You have to -want- to get a bounty like that. Which is why it's a good mechanic. You would basically have to choose to expose yourself in order to get a bounty that high.

I'm getting tired here, so saying it as clear as I can, for the last time.. A system forcing someone to do something, is not working

STEVIL

LaiTash wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

It will still be forcing them, since they can't do a PvE activity as much as they like, since at some point they will be forced into a PvP activity instead.. Keep to the system where people signed up of their own free will, not by doing an activity..

Managing your bounty is not that hard and doesn't require you to limit yourself noticeably.

unless you mean"by not playing the content" then "not that hard" and "require to limit yourself noticeably" varies greatly on whether you are talking newbies with no edicts to burn off bounty, with no invis potions, with limited gold to pay off bounty, with no clemencies to get one out of jail free and with precious little in the way of skills to help them get away from guards.

Thats a much different animal than what a higher level, seasoned character can do in terms of being able to use edicts, invis potions, clemency, etc etc etc to not just manage bounty but deal with the challenges of red-flagged goods and grayed-people.

Daemons_Bane

LaiTash wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

But why is it not good enough for them to tick a box like in so many other games? That little tiny box would work for both parties..

Because i don't like many thing the game forces me to do but there can't be a checkbox for everything.

But as you stated, you are not even gonna participate, so you are trying to force people into a system that is hurtful to them, and in worst case, the game in general, for no reason? That's dumb as hell

Your argument for this destructive act, is that there is something in the game that you feel forced to do, and do not like.. So since you are hurting, other people must be made to hurt as well.....

LaiTash

STEVIL wrote: »

unless you mean"by not playing the content" then "not that hard" and "require to limit yourself noticeably" varies greatly on whether you are talking newbies with no edicts to burn off bounty, with no invis potions, with limited gold to pay off bounty, with no clemencies to get one out of jail free and with precious little in the way of skills to help them get away from guards.

My gf started playing about 2 weeks ago, no DLC, no ESO+ yet, no troves, no pardons, yet she managed. That is, until she quit stealing because it was so incredibly booooooring. That's one example of how the current system can cause disgust to a new player.

Daemons_Bane

The difference here is that since she is bored, she can stop or take a break, without interference from others.. If she still dislike it, she can move to something else.. IF she wanted to fight others, she could tick the box and go at it.. All of her own free will..

Nothing in your example calls for, or justifies, forcing PvP down the throat of people who does not want PvP