Please Finish The Justice System

LaiTash

Besides the pvp population makes up a small number of players in any mmo. that is why there are very few pvp focused mmos.

Yet any decent mmo has both aspects, not to say you don't have to focus on PvP to still enjoy it. That strict line between these aspects exists only in some people's heads, who'd be better off with single player games or MOBA and i wonder why they even bother playing a MMORPG. Some of them whine about having to do PvE to be competitive in PvP, some won't let a slightest PvP element to interrupt their skyrim with friends experience, both are utter BS.

yes let us add another pvp element, must i remind you it is because of the pvp focused players that all the nerfs happen to the items and classes. I do not mind pvp i even join in but people who do nothing but pvp lack an understanding of the effect changes made for pvp have on pve

And that's another reason why separating PvP crowd from PvE is a bad idea. MMOs with no such firewall have no such problems.

Doctordarkspawn

LaiTash wrote: »

Besides the pvp population makes up a small number of players in any mmo. that is why there are very few pvp focused mmos.

Yet any decent mmo has both aspects, not to say you don't have to focus on PvP to still enjoy it. That strict line between these aspects exists only in some people's heads, who'd be better off with single player games or MOBA and i wonder why they even bother playing a MMORPG. Some of them whine about having to do PvE to be competitive in PvP, some won't let a slightest PvP element to interrupt their skyrim with friends experience, both are utter BS.

yes let us add another pvp element, must i remind you it is because of the pvp focused players that all the nerfs happen to the items and classes. I do not mind pvp i even join in but people who do nothing but pvp lack an understanding of the effect changes made for pvp have on pve

And that's another reason why separating PvP crowd from PvE is a bad idea. MMOs with no such firewall have no such problems.

Let me reccomend you do an experiment.

Go into the Imperial city. With any build.

Attempt to do the quests there, and trust the enemy players will ignore you.

GET THIS THROUGH YOUR MIND, RIGHT NOW. PVP is a fundementally different game. The ballance, the tactics, the set choices, the build choices, it is almost completely different in every game because that's just how it works. It's a different ball game.

THAT SAID, mashing the PVE and PVP crowd only ends with unhappy people. The above example exemplifies it wonderfully, I dont go into Cyro to do quests because I -WILL- get ganked, I -WILL- be extorted, and it -HAS- happened before. I have had people try to extort gold from me to let me quest on my merry way.

People dont want to be ganked while questing. PVPers dont want questers taking up campaign slots. Neither camp likes the other, for their goals are a fundemental conflict of interest. This isn't ZOS seperating the playerbase, this is the playerbase making up it's mind about who exactly it dislikes and why, and the quality of life forming from it. Quit trying to attribute the seperation to ZOS.

Daemons_Bane

LaiTash wrote: »

And that's another reason why separating PvP crowd from PvE is a bad idea. MMOs with no such firewall have no such problems.

If that's what you believe, you have not played enough mmo games yet

LaiTash

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Attempt to do the quests there, and trust the enemy players will ignore you.

No one proposes FFA PvP, so it's irrelevant. It would be ok in a mmo where you can just skip dialogues, but not here, i admit that.

The ballance, the tactics, the set choices, the build choices, it is almost completely different in every game because that's just how it works.

Just true for any MMO, yet some still manage to have both aspects successfully integrated.

PVP and PVE do not have the same audience. The seperation is unconcious, and on the part of the playerbase. REALIZE, AND ACCEPT. Please.

How about no?

Doctordarkspawn

LaiTash wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

Attempt to do the quests there, and trust the enemy players will ignore you.

No one proposes FFA PvP, so it's irrelevant. It would be ok in a mmo where you can just skip dialogues, but not here, i admit that.

The ballance, the tactics, the set choices, the build choices, it is almost completely different in every game because that's just how it works.

Just true for any MMO, yet some still manage to have both aspects successfully integrated.

PVP and PVE do not have the same audience. The seperation is unconcious, and on the part of the playerbase. REALIZE, AND ACCEPT. Please.

How about no?

How about yes. How about you stop cherrypicking what you want to see and adress the -rest- of my points please? How about you adress the fact the divide is not of ZOS's creation, please?

Adress. My. Points.

LaiTash

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

How about yes. How about you stop cherrypicking what you want to see and adress the -rest- of my points please?

I trust i did. Just because you repeat yourself doesn't mean i have to answer every single sentence.

How about you adress the fact the divide is not of ZOS's creation, please?

So what? Just because many mmo's follow the same stupid cliche doesn't make it a good thing.

Doctordarkspawn

LaiTash wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

How about yes. How about you stop cherrypicking what you want to see and adress the -rest- of my points please?

I trust i did. Just because you repeat yourself doesn't mean i have to answer every single sentence.

How about you adress the fact the divide is not of ZOS's creation, please?

So what? Just because many mmo's follow the same stupid cliche doesn't make it a good thing.

You didn't. You refuse to acknowledge that the reason PVP and PVE dont mix, is because the audiences are different, and actively hate each other. You refuse to even include most of the sentances that even convey this idea. It's fundementally censorship through omission, because you do not give onlookers the full story, nor a full response. You. Are. Intellectually. Dishonest.

Daemons_Bane

@Doctordarkspawn I think you might as well spare the time.. Tons of fair arguments have been laid before him, to no effect

Doctordarkspawn

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

@Doctordarkspawn I think you might as well spare the time.. Tons of fair arguments have been laid before him, to no effect

I think I will.

LaiTash

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

You didn't. You refuse to acknowledge that the reason PVP and PVE dont mix, is because the audiences are different, and actively hate each other

That's because that statement is simply false.

helediron

LaiTash wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

You didn't. You refuse to acknowledge that the reason PVP and PVE dont mix, is because the audiences are different, and actively hate each other

That's because that statement is simply false.

Can we make somekind prize of most stubborn dead horse beater of this year?
Popcorn time.

Tandor

LaiTash wrote: »

Besides the pvp population makes up a small number of players in any mmo. that is why there are very few pvp focused mmos.

Yet any decent mmo has both aspects, not to say you don't have to focus on PvP to still enjoy it. That strict line between these aspects exists only in some people's heads, who'd be better off with single player games or MOBA and i wonder why they even bother playing a MMORPG. Some of them whine about having to do PvE to be competitive in PvP, some won't let a slightest PvP element to interrupt their skyrim with friends experience, both are utter BS.

yes let us add another pvp element, must i remind you it is because of the pvp focused players that all the nerfs happen to the items and classes. I do not mind pvp i even join in but people who do nothing but pvp lack an understanding of the effect changes made for pvp have on pve

And that's another reason why separating PvP crowd from PvE is a bad idea. MMOs with no such firewall have no such problems.

No, what is utter BS is someone telling another person how they should play the game. I am all in favour of games having both types of playstyle as well as other aspects like trading, crafting, fishing, housing, collecting, etc. However, it should be entirely down to individual players to choose how to spend their time in the game and it isn't for some players to tell other players that they must play the game the same way as them.

There are several reasons why games with no separation of the PvE and PvP playstyles avoid what you consider to be a problem. One is that the games have separate servers for non-consensual PvP (an option not available under the megaserver system adopted by ZOS), another is that the games are designed from the outset to combine PvE and open world PvP (which ESO was not), and the final one is that that the games are fully consensual for PvP which is what ESO currently provides but which you are seeking to change.

What would actually resolve the problem you refer to would be if you accepted that there was no valid reason to oppose such a significant change to the balance of the game in existing areas being made completely and unconditionally optional so that players could make a simple choice as to whether or not they chose to engage in the new content - exactly as has been provided in the case of dueling.

STEVIL

LaiTash wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

You dont get to tell me when to stop my PVE play of a given type or else get PVPed on... any more than i should be able to tell you (or get enforced by rule) that you have killed too many folks in PVP too quickly or ran with zergs too long and now you have to go jump into maelstrom arena.

You can go play PVP zerging or pvp dueling as long as you want and deal with the PVP consequences of that play... and i would never ever dream of telling you otherwise or getting rules passed to stop that or go get some PVE done.

But that's exactly how ESO threats PvP players, actually. Especially with One Tamriel BoP changes.

Actually to be clear eso requires pve of pvp players by requiring level 10 to get into cyrodil. Unless dueling allows level 3-9 play or the cyrodil limit is/was removed then currently pvp requires pve play.

I would be fine with that being removed. If experienced folks want to journey unto cyrodil with iron sword, a few scraps of armor and three skills, let them.

But BOP doesnt require pve play of pvpers. If there are sets you want that are being bop in pve play then you are being driven by your wants, not mandated by the system. You are not ever suddenly jumped by an npc guard and thrown into pve maelstrom after losing your fifth pvp fight in an hour... for instance. Also, other pvp diehards who dont pve are just as unable to get the pve reward as you are, due to their choice, so its not even a competitive issue, unless you are complaining aboit folks who have completed more content types having more options.

Now, personally, i think the cyrodil limit was to keep new players from getting exposed to pvp until they had some degree of expertise, but even for that it would make sense to be account based.

But, realy, just because eso currently does require some pve play due to the level requirement, that doesnt support adding more such cross-gameplay force outs. It doesnt support taking away content, but just like i said, should lead to adding content by adding the option to go pvp day one, which i hope dueling does.

There is nothing wrong with having game design which has different rewards keyed to different play.

If i choose to not do group play, i dont get access to group play bop rewards.
If i choose to not do maelstrom, i dont get maelstrom bop rewards.
If i dont do pve then i dont get pve bop rewards.

But if i choose to not play pve, i currently do not get thrown into maelstrom for losing too many pvp fights in a row or too quickly but it seems some want people who choose to not pvp to be thrown into pvp justice if they rack up sufficient bounty...

See the diff?

ASIDE - I am not a fan of lotsa bop myself.

LaiTash

STEVIL wrote: »

But BOP doesnt require pve play of pvpers. If there are sets you want that are being bop in pve play then you are being driven by your wants, not mandated by the system.

If you want to have a bounty higher then a threshold then you are being driven by your wants as well. One has to do PvE to be any competitive in PvP. But somehow most PvP people don't *** about it. Just as most PvE people don't see a problem with enforcer system. Unfortunately those who do are the loudest of both sides, and that's why we can't have nice things.

STEVIL

@LaiTash

Based on your recent comnents and many comnents you have made throughout, it seems that you believe there should not be game elements that separate pve play from pvp play, pve players from pve players or maybe at least shouldnt for the majority of the gameplay.

Is that an accurate statement?

Answering for myself, i do believe there should be strict separation of pve play and players from pvp play and players with of course freedom to move back and forth between whenever you want but never forced.

Osteos

I don't think there should be a separation of players. We are all playing eso. The great pvp/pve divide is all in some peoples heads.

I pve and I pvp regularly and I enjoy both. So do a lot of others.

Do I want open would pvp? Nope.
Do I want someone who accidentally steals a radish to be subject to pvp justice? Nope
Do I want to add some content that allows others to participate in the justice system in ways they find fun? Yep.

Daemons_Bane

Osteos wrote: »

I don't think there should be a separation of players. We are all playing eso. The great pvp/pve divide is all in some peoples heads.

I pve and I pvp regularly and I enjoy both. So do a lot of others.

Do I want open would pvp? Nope.
Do I want someone who accidentally steals a radish to be subject to pvp justice? Nope
Do I want to add some content that allows others to participate in the justice system in ways they find fun? Yep.

Getting closer at least, to something that I can get behind A few things though.. That the separation only exists in people's head, does not make it less real.. Some people are 100% opposed to PvP, and these people need to be respected and listened to as well as any other groups.. For the bold part, this is why a lot of us push for the idea that participation in the "new" justice system, must be 100% voluntary

Daemons_Bane

The best PvP/PvE single world system that I have seen for a loooooong time, was where the world had lots of PvP zones.. On the map they would be marked with red to make them clearly visible, and when you walked into it, you would be notified that PvP was now on.. If you instead was more of the open world type, you could simple type "/pvp" in chat to toggle it on.. To prevent people misusing the toggle, when you typed "/pvp" again, you would get a 10 min timer.. If you didn't attack any other player in those 10 minutes, it would be off..

This system gave birth to tons of cool battles in ruined towns, and populated towns as well, giving it a more vibrant and living feel.. Riding into town and seeing 40-50 people running around, faction against faction, made you want to dismount, grab your gun and help defend your faction

STEVIL

Osteos wrote: »

I don't think there should be a separation of players. We are all playing eso. The great pvp/pve divide is all in some peoples heads.

I pve and I pvp regularly and I enjoy both. So do a lot of others.

Do I want open would pvp? Nope.
Do I want someone who accidentally steals a radish to be subject to pvp justice? Nope
Do I want to add some content that allows others to participate in the justice system in ways they find fun? Yep.

don't think there should be a separation of players. We are all playing eso. The great pvp/pve divide is all in some peoples heads.

Currently in ESO there are the following "divisions of players" that are not simply and explicitly player's choosing
1 .Must get to level 10 to get to cyrodil at all.*
2. Currently only see and limited interact in PVE zones with players of other alliances. (Going away with OneT.)
3. Purchased DLC zones which only those who have paid can get to.*
4. Must get to some level to get into craglorn at all.*

*Obviously, you can technically still interact with players at other areas but since you cannot get to these areas you cannot interact with them there so it is a separation.

The separation of PVE play from PVP play (going away in some part with Dueling) by setting that content into different zones (except for IC) is not a "separation of players" by ESO.

players choosing to not go into PVP zones because they dont enjoy the gameplay there, that is a separation by the players simply choosing who they play with and what they want to play.

Some may feel that shouldn't be allowed... we shouldn't be allowed to choose who we directly interact with... and want that changed. i am not one.

players can interact within the above exceptions and play whatever content together they mutually agree upon.

In my view as @STEVIL i think its right that just like i cannot drag a player wanting to play PVP into the new PVE Hist dungeon if they dont explicitly choose to do so... no matter how many times they fail at PVP fighting (intentional or not). I cannot conscript him into playing in that dungeon because he is bad at PVP but stubbornly insists on doing it because its what he prefers.

Currently the game does not allow that and i would opposed that being added even if some players would find conscripting pvp players into a dungeon to be something "they find fun".

In your view, open to anyone, SHOULD a player who is very bad at PVE justice (intentional or not) and stubbornly keeps at it because he wants to and accrues a high bounty be allowed to be conscripted into a PVP fight with an enforcer if he doesn't want to? Should there be a separate opt-in required away from the gameplay as many of us insist on?

The game currently doesn't allow that. Would you oppose it being added even if some players would be of a sort to find dragging that player into PVP enforcer fight (without prior opt-in) to be something "that they find fun"?

i am asking specifically because while some folks are being very clear about consensual opt-in vs PVE play-in for exposing players to enforcer PVP attacks, other sometimes seem to move around with vague non-specifics.

i want to "Do I want to add some content that allows others to participate in the justice system in ways they find fun? Yep." as well - with tons of new PVE justice content, dailies, delves, world bosses, entire zone, questlines, skill, lines etc just like we saw in Db and TG.

But some want to have that include non-consensual (PVE)play-in triggers instead of consensual opt-in systems and i draw the line at adding content for "in ways they find fun" when that "ways they find fun" includes directly drawing others into the play against their will with PVP attacks or interference.

For any player-player interactive content*, my position is:

1. Consensual opt-in required at a minimum - sure.
2. Non-consensual play-in (of other content) allowed in place of the opt-in - nope.

*obviously this includes grouping, dueling as well as PVP.

LaiTash

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Getting closer at least, to something that I can get behind

This is actually what this thread is all about. No one tells you should be a subject to PvP if you've just stolen a few things.

Daemons_Bane

LaiTash wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Getting closer at least, to something that I can get behind

This is actually what this thread is all about. No one tells you should be a subject to PvP if you've just stolen a few things.

Except for the implementations that you guys suggest.. But I don't really expect that to get through to you, so I'm hoping that someone else may have some useful suggestions for how we can make this work

LaiTash

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Except for the implementations that you guys suggest.. But I don't really expect that to get through to you, so I'm hoping that someone else may have some useful suggestions for how we can make this work

That's the original zeni implementation. And we actually suggested a checkbox with better stealables for those who signs up for PvP-enabled justice. Yet there are people who still object no matter what.

Daemons_Bane

There was a reason that the idea was scrapped..

LaiTash

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

There was a reason that the idea was scrapped..

That was the only possible reasonable and compromise way of doing this i can think of. Without better rewards involved, it just won't work.

Tandor

LaiTash wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Except for the implementations that you guys suggest.. But I don't really expect that to get through to you, so I'm hoping that someone else may have some useful suggestions for how we can make this work

That's the original zeni implementation. And we actually suggested a checkbox with better stealables for those who signs up for PvP-enabled justice. Yet there are people who still object no matter what.

Not "no matter what", rather with good reason. You're proposing that the best rewards in what is predominantly PvE content should be reserved for PvPers.

If PvErs proposed that the best rewards in Cyrodiil should be for those doing PvE content - would you be happy with that?

STEVIL

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

LaiTash wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Getting closer at least, to something that I can get behind

This is actually what this thread is all about. No one tells you should be a subject to PvP if you've just stolen a few things.

Except for the implementations that you guys suggest.. But I don't really expect that to get through to you, so I'm hoping that someone else may have some useful suggestions for how we can make this work

TLDR Abstract: With plenty of consensual protections:

• Thieves "stolen goods and bounty" turn into "confiscated goods and fines" when taken by an enforcer and both sides are at risk from having PC players take them from them until they get to dispose of them.
• Enforcers gain bounty-like reputation for turning in confiscated goods and that makes them rewarding targets for PC criminals to steal from or attack.
• Enforcers with no rep show as Yellow to CJS thieves at all times but can spot crimes being committed by CJS thieves proc bounty.
• Enforcers with rep show as red to CJS thieves.
• CJS Criminals with bounty show as yellow to enforcers.
• CJS criminals with heat at the attack on sight show as red.

Ok so here is a stab... at a game mechanics change to allow a new system. the basics.

COMPETITIVE JUSTICE PLAY (CJP)

Core Restrictions:
A player must opt-in for Competitive justice by selecting "Allow Competitive Justice" in PVE areas.
A player in a PVP zone such as Cyrodil is automatically opted in for CJP.
When they opt-in, they select either Enforcer or Criminal status. this cannot be changed for 24 hours and has a phase-in period of 5 minutes before it can be used to engage other players. A player who opts in as either an enforcer or a criminal who has a bounty from non-CJS, pays off the bounty immediately and loses any fencable goods they are carrying on the spot. if they cannot pay, cannot opt-in.
A character cannot opt-out of CJS if they have CJS bounty, CJS reputation or any fencable goods or confiscated goods.
There is a limit of TEN CJS enforcers and TEN CJS criminals active within any "area" which will be generally the size of a city or 500m radius overland. if you enter an area that is overcrowded with enforcers you are notified your enforcer status is temporaily suspended for this reason.
A criminal opted in for CJS play is called a CJS criminal as this document progresses. A criminal not opted in is a PVE criminal and is not subject to any of these.

ENFORCER PLAY in CJS
Enforcers can do what NPC guards do but only for CJS criminals.
They can spot crimes as they are committed by CJS criminals and bounty is applied.
They can challenge CJS criminals with bounties and issue a dialog very similar to the guard dialog with its "PAY BOUNTY" or "FLEE (CJS)" or "CLEMENCY" options (Clemency makes the criminal the equivalent of opted out for that enforcer for the time limit.).
They can attack Fleeing CJS criminals or any criminal subject to attack on sight due to heat.
After a CJS criminal pays bounty to an Enforcer or loses a fight with an enforcer gold equal to that thieve's bounty AND any illegal good" are added to that enforcer's inventory as "confiscated goods."
Enforcers can gain reputation - a trait akin to "bounty" which fades gradually over time.
Enforcers can heal or buff civilians involved in a fight with CJS ciminals.

CRIMINAL PLAY in CJS
Criminals can do all the things criminals can usually do, but have to deal with CJS enforcers.
NPC Guards interact with CJS criminals normally except that while challenged by or fighting with a CJS enforcer, NPC gurards will "let him handle it" and ignore the criminal unless another crime is committed.
Criminal can attack CJS enforcers just like attacking NPC guards or NPC civilians and this includes the option to flee from the dialog when challenged.
if a CJS criminal kills a CJS enforcer they get to take any and all "confiscated goods" that enforcer is carrying included the confiscated gold.
CJS criminals can pickpocket CJS enforcers and if successful gain some portion of the "confiscate goods" that enforcer is carrying, if any.
if a CJS criminal kills a CJS enforcer they gain "experience" in the legerd or TG lines, whichever is lower) line based on the enforcer's current reputation. if they pickpocket the CJS enforcer, they gain a smaller amount but still based on the reputation.

CONFISCATED GOODS AND REPUTATION
Once a CJS enforcer gains confiscated goods and gold from CJS criminals, these items stay in the inventory until they are turned into "local authorities" at a nearby fighters guild (the magister.)
A CJS enforcer cannot sell, use, or destroy confiscated goods. They must be turned in. they may not be banked.
A CJS enforcer can lose any or all confiscated goods or gold to being killed by or pickpocketed by a CJS criminal.
there is a limit to the amount of CJS goods that can be turned in during a given day. The CJS enforcer is then "officially" off-duty but can still act as enforcers as long as they wish and as long as their inventory holds.
The gold piece value of the confiscated goods turned in are applied as experience to the enforcer's non-maxed fighter guild or mage guild skill lines whichever is lower.
The value of confiscated goods turned in are added to the enforcer's reputation.
Reputation fades over time or can be bought off with gold by bribing the local thieves guild to lay off.
Similar to bounties, writs of favor and other such items shall be available through similar sources.
if you are killed, reputation is reset as well as the loss of any confiscated goods.

GAMEPLAY AND CJS
For most purposes, a CJS enforcer and a CJS criminal are treated as PVP adversaries for the applicable rules of gameplay - ie stealth makes you invis, heals and buffs dont cross, etc. (Likely need to review these case by case to avoid using an AOE to spotlight criminal as criminals.)
For spotting, a CVS crimnal with a bounty shows YELLOW to the CJS enforcer. One with a kill on sight shows RED. otherwise they show normal green.
For spotting, an enforcer shows YELLOW to a CJS criminal (because this individual has spotting privies unlike the other greens) and one with reputation or shows red.
To be very clear, NPC guards will ignore CJS criminals engaged in active content with a CGS enforcer - including a fight and dialogs unless these NPC guards spot a crime. (need some way to prevent this being abused in odd ways.)

CAVEATS

this is a quick outline. A lot of details need to be worked out.


EDITORIAL

This focuses on setting up as basic competition between enforcers and criminals both opted into CJS.
Like dueling, there is a mandatory opt-in before any of it applies.
Like dueling, the "combat" can be turned down with a "pay bounty option" which ONLY loses you the good and bounty-gold you accrued since opting-in. So there is a "say no to fighting specific people" option.
Like dueling there is a limit to the number of active enforcers and CJS criminals in a given area (10 each.) So they wont be massing in hoards.

The new confiscated goods and reputation system provides an element of risk-reward for both sides.
Turning in good earns reputation... reputation makes you juicier targets for the criminals to gain their own status by killing you or stealing from you.

this turns the stolen goods/confiscated goods into basically "hot mcguffins" able to be taken from the enforcers or criminals.

thats the basic question for the game you see.

The CJS criminal puts some stolen good into play, into contention or basically on the board when they steal them. The game at that point is who gets to take them off board by turning them in - the criminal or the guard?

You can literally have a CJS enforcer "on the run" from a pack of thieves who want to catch him before he makes it fo the fighter's guild to turn in the confiscated goods.

WHY PLAY IT OTHER THAN FUN YOU WANT?
Criminals have new adversaries but also have new targets including guards with confiscated goods and high reps. They can advance their skill lines for L/TG by taking out or robbing enforcers.
Enforcers can gain skill advancement by turning in confiscated goods (and maybe a portion of the vlaue in gold.)
Basically these two additional rewards should be scultped to be setting up comparable rewards for winning at either side.
the idea should be that the CJS based rewards for enforcers key on value of confiscated goods turned in while the criminals CJS based rewards key on the reputation and confiscated goods taken from CJS enforcers.


ADDITIONS
Obviously, if there were an enforcer skill line, a lot of these things would swap in easily - passive rep reduction, passive detection increases, passive raises to confiscated good turn in even a "paddy wagon" to turn in good without going back (at 35% higher rep gain?)
Obviously there are a lot of nuances that could be added, like thieves stealing hot merchandise from other thieves maybe at the risk of "reputation" so you are now hunted by both sides of the law.
Obviously new tricks and gadgets to trip up either side by the other make perfect sense.

lots of details need to be fleshed out but this does provide a total opt-in, the basic dueling protections, a clean and absolute division between PVE injustice play and Consensual Justice (CJP)

But since it disallows any PVE play-in and thus no PVE-non-consensual targets and no "justice zergs" etc... will anyone play it? Would enough want anything like this enough to warrant the dev and testing time?

Daemons_Bane

LaiTash wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

There was a reason that the idea was scrapped..

That was the only possible reasonable and compromise way of doing this i can think of. Without better rewards involved, it just won't work.

That's assuming that you're in it for the rewards

STEVIL

LaiTash wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

There was a reason that the idea was scrapped..

That was the only possible reasonable and compromise way of doing this i can think of. Without better rewards involved, it just won't work.

FWIW dueling has been added with no rewards and no gains for participation beyond the fun of it.

However, dueling also brings with it NO RISK.

If adding Consensual justice play adds additional risk of failure to the thieves, then there do have to be offsetting chances at rewards, but not necessarily better rewards in terms of quality.

For instance, if "added risk is i can be stopped, spotted and jumped by PC enforcers and lose my stolen goods/bounty" then added reward could be "but i can jump PC enforcers or steal from them and get something worthwhile."

But for instance, no reason to spawn purple or gold stuff or special pvp sets or monster gear for PVP justice content in PVE areas at higher rates than they do for normal.

burglar

It would be really interesting to have the justice system, because the most interesting and endearing experiences in any MMO i've played has happened in between players that are allowed to influence/affect each other socially and economically. Guild trader's and auction houses are an automatic given, so there's the economic part, but where's the social part? In the justice system!

Tavore1138 wrote: »

Yawn, risk for players - reward for griefers.

JKorr wrote: »

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

Any bad experience is considered grief by those whom complain the most, or the loudest. It's often common to find these same players are very adamant about controlling their environments, and the way the game should work. Which sounds like a personal problem to me. I mean, if I assume griefing means whatever I think is negative, then for me, I'm being griefed when people oppose the justice system, or when people play music while on public voice chat. In this case, that's a personal problem for me, I guess. So I turn off voice chat. My point is, some of you guys think everything you don't like is 'griefing' when really your problem is that you have a low tolerance for hardship. In your example JKorr, yes, that would be 'griefing' if the person could be killed repeatedly, but if your bounty disappeared after a player guard killed you, then you couldn't be killed repeatedly. That's not really griefing.

Also, what I think most people don't consider is that griefers always get their fair share from the community. On pvp servers I've played games on, people can get away with stuff for only so long, and then they get a reputation. A lot of those players, once they establish their reputation would regularly be killed for being weird, and causing trouble. It's not just a constant grief fest, like some believe it will be. A good example was in asheron's call, alliances were formed on the PK(player killer) servers, where 70% of the population would identify as non-pkers that didn't kill anyone unless they had to defend someone or themselves. Then, there were PK guilds who would kill anyone that wasn't in their guild; there were even non-pk guilds who were at war, and would only fight each other. It was a lot of fun, but not for everyone, understandably.

LaiTash

Tandor wrote: »

Not "no matter what", rather with good reason. You're proposing that the best rewards in what is predominantly PvE content should be reserved for PvPers.

Man you're absolutely crazy. Yes, if PvE content in Cyrodiil would be more challenging then PvP - yep, i'd be absolutely happy with that, because, why the hell not? And why the hell would a PvE player worry about someone getting better items at all if not of simple jelausy, it's not like you're going to compete with them, are you?

I guess now you're arguing just for the sake of it.

For instance, if "added risk is i can be stopped, spotted and jumped by PC enforcers and lose my stolen goods/bounty" then added reward could be "but i can jump PC enforcers or steal from them and get something worthwhile."

Ahem, i personally would prefer to avoid enforcers, so what, no nice things for me? I still risk way more then pure PvE thieves. It would be only fair if i'd be rewarded accordingly.

It's a completely opt-in system. You don't loose anything you paid for. You can even still get that achievement you're worried about. SO WTF is it now you don't like?