Please Finish The Justice System

burglar

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

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.

You aren't making any rational sense. Why would pvpers complain about questing players? Questers are targets to kill. There's no reason to complain about them. You're trying to create equality in the rationale between PvPers and PvEers to reinforce the validity of your point regarding PvEers. It's well known that people who pvp are more open to a broader range of experiences, and people who prefer pve are more controlled and contained in their experiences. They like things that are predictable, pvpers like things that aren't. It's fine to not want to experience certain things, but pvp players are more likely to ask for an expansion of options, unlike the pve players who ask for more limitations - at least in regards to pvp.

apostate9

STEVIL wrote: »

vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »

JKorr wrote: »

LegendaryArcher wrote: »

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

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

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

Please explain the griefing to me.

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

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

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

RE bold

yes thats it - exactly dead spot on...

for those who simply Dont want PVP consequences for PVE play the answer for them is to form up gangs to sit around and wait for opportunities to protect themselves through the awesome joy that is PVP!!!

This nails it on the head!

Dead spot on.

Very illuminating.

Very telling.

.

Again since you people seem to be ignoring it. The only people who would be put in this position, are the people who signed up to be guards, or those who let their bounties get silly large. So those who want to use the pvp part of the system. The people who don't want pvp consequences for pve still wouldn't have them. But keep being afraid of stuff that won't affect you I guess.

Very illuminating.

Very telling.

Last time i checked getting any bounty even a high bounty was a PVE action. It is running PVE content.

This is simply put PVP players wanting to take over some PVP content to turn it into a PVP enabling action.

The mental gymnastics needed to in one sentence describe pve choices enabling pvp vulnerability and then in the very nect sentence say there wouldnt be pvp consequences for pve is frankly amazing.

Accepting a duel enables pvp in while running in pve areas. Traveling to Cyrodiil enables pvp.

I can see why giving players a choice would be scary to some, because decisions are hard. Perhaps a few more mental gymnastics by some isnt such a bad thing.

STEVIL wrote: »

LaiTash wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

Last time i checked getting any bounty even a high bounty was a PVE action. It is running PVE content.

This is simply put PVP players wanting to take over some PVP content to turn it into a PVP enabling action.

The mental gymnastics needed to in one sentence describe pve choices enabling pvp vulnerability and then in the very nect sentence say there wouldnt be pvp consequences for pve is frankly amazing.

What's the point in making a MMO if all inter-player interactions are limited to PvP paddock, trading, and a few dungeons you occasionaly run with a random group? It's actually a single-player game without all the advantages of single-player games.

Thats quite a straw man you hsve there.

There are plenty of folks who group with guildies and friends, not just random groups.
There are plrnty of folks who group for trials.
There arr plenty who interact for rp.

A game doesnt have to be pointless as an mmo if it doednt allow pvp assault on pve players.

The apparent need of some pvp players to get pve players as targets is telling.

I mean, pvp players can go into cyro to get fights against people wsnting pvp, people ecpecting pvp and people geared for pvp any day every day.

In OneT they can even get the same with dueling most anywhere.

There are lotsa consensual pvp opportunities.

But i guess for some that just isnt the same as getting a non-consensual pvp fight against someone performing pve, geared for pve and who maybe more commonly plays pve, is it?

Guess if that pve player didn't want non-consensual pvp they shouldnt have dressed so provo... errr...racked up that bounty.

Illuminating, how some think pve actions justify pvp attacks.

It is funny that you assume everyone wants to gank people who cant play. Im not sure why you are so afraid.

For many it is simply something fun. I try to steal. You try to stop me.

First bold - yes both those choices which aren't pve actions enable pvp. What is being suggested here and then in following sentences denied is making a PVE action enable pvp.

Second bold - i repeatedly say some and you turn it into me saying everyone for your straw reply? Very telling. very illuminating

You know fear is a path to the dark side right?

Again Im not sure what is so scary for you. So if you choose to let your bounty get so high someone might try to stop you. It is a choice. And here ill throw this in since the fear is strong with you, once your bounty hit that point you have an option pop up. Either you would be flagged pvp until your bounty went down or the guards would be unkillable again. Because obviously if you had player guards real guards would have to be killable.

And before you go on about pve action blah blah blah. A pop up menu and pressing E is all i have to do to get into cyrodiil. So the same restriction would apply.

Now you can let go your fear.

Different preferences are not fear. just different preferences.

i have no issues whatsoever with the current unkillable guards.

i would have a problem with throwing a dialog i have to respond to when i get hit with a risky instance of bounty. Seems designed to just slow down my response and maneuvers long enough for something bad to happen.

I imagine PVPers having a PVE DECLINE dialog eating up their key-clicks at the start of a pvp fight wouldn't be on the "YAY LETS DO THAT list.

Thats not fear either - its just wanting to play what you want to play and not be forced out of it into something you dont because some other players feels entitled to make you.

Again, a cute way to make PVE play more difficult unless they take the PVP... like i said... keeps getting thrown into that "but its optional" etc.

gathering a high bounty is a PVE action is playing PVE content and should not engender a need for PVP decline or vulnerability to non-concensual PVP play.

And once again the key deception is duplicated...

You tie the entry into cyrodil which is entirely player prompted, doesn't come up in play on its own and doesn't spawn out of a PVE content action with the automatic pop-up in play when certain PVE content conditions are met as if one is consensual and the other is as well.

this has nothing to do with fear, but choice, but the fear thing i guess is more useful baiting for some who dont want the consensual thing to be kept in focus?

Naw. You sound scared.

Daemons_Bane

LaiTash wrote: »

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?

Giving PvP enabled thieves extra loot would be a bad move in the long run.. then you would have the PvE players calling for better rewards for their quests in Cyrodill.. Besides, you could say that better thieves, avoiding the enforcers, already have a higher chance for good loot

jircris11

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.

i recommend trying to play archage or black desert. the moment you are able to be killed you will be hunted by higher lvls non stop.

LaiTash

jircris11 wrote: »

i recommend trying to play archage or black desert. the moment you are able to be killed you will be hunted by higher lvls non stop.

I've been playing black desert (and a whole lot of other PvP-oriented games) and never felt "hunted". You won't be "hunted" unless you're trying to take one of the top grinding spots (which most of those who whine about PK do). Other than that, most PvP is guild wars. Low karma consequences are too rough to waste it on lowbies, so there's always a reason. Maybe things have changed over the year, of course, but i doubt that.

Giving PvP enabled thieves extra loot would be a bad move in the long run.. then you would have the PvE players calling for better rewards for their quests in Cyrodill.. Besides, you could say that better thieves, avoiding the enforcers, already have a higher chance for good loot

Better thieves would be getting even better rewards if they don't have to avoid enforcers. As for cyrodiil, you can do PvE there for days and never get killed anyway.

Tandor

LaiTash wrote: »

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?

Are you now saying that you support a totally unforced opt-in, i.e. a player would have to elect entirely freely to participate in the PvP regardless of his bounty and with no "threshold"?

Daemons_Bane

LaiTash wrote: »

jircris11 wrote: »

i recommend trying to play archage or black desert. the moment you are able to be killed you will be hunted by higher lvls non stop.

I've been playing black desert (and a whole lot of other PvP-oriented games) and never felt "hunted". You won't be "hunted" unless you're trying to take one of the top grinding spots (which most of those who whine about PK do). Other than that, most PvP is guild wars. Low karma consequences are too rough to waste it on lowbies, so there's always a reason. Maybe things have changed over the year, of course, but i doubt that.

Giving PvP enabled thieves extra loot would be a bad move in the long run.. then you would have the PvE players calling for better rewards for their quests in Cyrodill.. Besides, you could say that better thieves, avoiding the enforcers, already have a higher chance for good loot

Better thieves would be getting even better rewards if they don't have to avoid enforcers. As for cyrodiil, you can do PvE there for days and never get killed anyway.

According to what you've said yourself, you want better rewards since you risk more when you can die.. The PvE players in Cyrodill can die too.. So according to you and your risk vs reward ideas, PvE players in Cyrodill should get better loot..

LaiTash

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

According to what you've said yourself, you want better rewards since you risk more when you can die.. The PvE players in Cyrodill can die too.. So according to you and your risk vs reward ideas, PvE players in Cyrodill should get better loot..

First of all, you don't loose anything in Cyrodiil pvp. Second, it's not that dangerous in Cyrodiil. But i'm not against better rewards there, if it's well balanced. Why is this a problem?

Anyway, what else do you propose? No one wants a justice system that simply doesn't work, so it's either that, or the bounty threshold.

Conquistador

LOL, THAT IS AWESOME.

Whatzituyah

LaiTash wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

According to what you've said yourself, you want better rewards since you risk more when you can die.. The PvE players in Cyrodill can die too.. So according to you and your risk vs reward ideas, PvE players in Cyrodill should get better loot..

First of all, you don't loose anything in Cyrodiil pvp. Second, it's not that dangerous in Cyrodiil. But i'm not against better rewards there, if it's well balanced. Why is this a problem?

Anyway, what else do you propose? No one wants a justice system that simply doesn't work, so it's either that, or the bounty threshold.

Isn't Imperial City in Cyrodiil? Don't you lose stones there? @LaiTash

Daemons_Bane

LaiTash wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

According to what you've said yourself, you want better rewards since you risk more when you can die.. The PvE players in Cyrodill can die too.. So according to you and your risk vs reward ideas, PvE players in Cyrodill should get better loot..

First of all, you don't loose anything in Cyrodiil pvp. Second, it's not that dangerous in Cyrodiil. But i'm not against better rewards there, if it's well balanced. Why is this a problem?

Anyway, what else do you propose? No one wants a justice system that simply doesn't work, so it's either that, or the bounty threshold.

It's not that dangerous thieving either, if you do not get caught, so why are you entitled to better rewards.. Can you really not see that giving better rewards for doing PvP in a PvE area, without doing the same for PvE in a PvP area, would look bad.?

And I will take your last question as a joke since numerous suggestions and arguments have laid before you over and over again in this thread

STEVIL

"It's not that dangerous thieving either, if you do not get caught, so why are you entitled to better rewards.. Can you really not see that giving better rewards for doing PvP in a PvE area, without doing the same for PvE in a PvP area, would look bad.?"



outside of IC a PVP fight has ZERO risk. The only "loss" the that if you use an expendable resource it is gone. thats because PVP players, unlike PVE players, have a setuo that eliminates the usual damage to equipment. Since they cannot rez themselves, no soul gem loss either, though they may of course get some charity from others. In dueling they even get a free on the spot rezz. However they gain rewards for fights, including Ap. So we know PVP players are not as a rule in the no risk no reward mindset.

For dueling in PVE zones, again no risk but no reward this time.

For PVE injustice the risk of loss is practically nil for experienced players who know what they are doing with properly equipped and skilled characters as far as the casual content is concerned. Difficulty rises for the special content. Difficulty for less experienced, less knowledgeable and especially rookie characters (who wont have easy access to things like edicts, invis pots, cc immunities skills etc) rises quite a bit.

Currently the rewards for PVE injustice play over time is on par with grinding, delving, questing and the other casual content/activities. The rewards vary in type but the net values are comparable, which is why it is Ok right now in that regard, IMO.



IMO, if a consensual opt-in justice system were put in place, the "extra rewards" above opted-out PVE Injustice play should be keyed to the interaction with enforcers. give crooks and enforcers Xp for their successful interactions with each other - focused on the skill lines - but also with some drawback bounty/reputation and caps on rate (fence/turn-in limit) and for the ***-for-tat targetting of both sides (enforcers confiscate your bounty and hot items but crooks can steal them right back or kill for them. )

You likely shouldn't get better rewards as a crook for "opting-in" for consensual injustice if you never see an enforcer.

Either way, its not in cyrodil so no Ap either way.

How many PVP players are interested in the spend time on a patrol in hopes of finding opted-in thief for a non-ap generating pvp conflict chance that in many cases the other guy might just elect to "pay the fines" instead of fight? i dont know, but then i always thought going to cyrodil was a better idea for PVP opportunities than the PVP-Justice was anyway - well as long as its opt-in and not play-in of course.

i mean, normally i figured it would only be viable if they coordinated their groups and stuff so like some guild got its folks
together for a bunch of cops and a bunch of robbers in a given town... but the PVP crowd says they wont do that sort of thing so... i am at a loss.

STEVIL

ProbablePaul wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

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.

You aren't making any rational sense. Why would pvpers complain about questing players? Questers are targets to kill. There's no reason to complain about them. You're trying to create equality in the rationale between PvPers and PvEers to reinforce the validity of your point regarding PvEers. It's well known that people who pvp are more open to a broader range of experiences, and people who prefer pve are more controlled and contained in their experiences. They like things that are predictable, pvpers like things that aren't. It's fine to not want to experience certain things, but pvp players are more likely to ask for an expansion of options, unlike the pve players who ask for more limitations - at least in regards to pvp.

and yet on this thread we have seen repeatably multiple PVE players who are Ok with ADDING a NEW consensual opt-in of a justice PVP option, while we also see a number of PVP players opposed to that unless it also has a non-consensual play-in component that takes currently acceptable PVE play (higher bounty pve) and turns it into PVP.

So, maybe the generalizations and certainties about what PVE players and PVP players want doesn't quite hold as much sway for this topic if one reads the posts. the biggest difference here is basically over choice - should pve players be allowed to choose to play the pve content they have now without getting pvped on if a pvp justice were added.

it seems to me (not from broad generalizations about expansion of options and so forth, but from the posts on numerous threads) that the CONSENSUAL question is the poison pill and the deal breaker.

For PVE players, many times taking current PVE content and turning an element of it into a play-in for PVP is a flat-out deal breaker. Consensual opt-in settings, sure some of them go for that, but almost nobody wants the non-consensual play-in attached to existing pve play.

On the flip side, the CONSENSUAL also smacks the PVP side, because while some are Ok with an opt-in consensual, quite a few are not. they insist on a pve-switch to play-in, letting some currently non-pvp gameplay turn into a pvp play-in. They seem pretty adamant about it. Seems like a deal breaker. (oddly some of them make inconclusive unclear statements about it.) Another group, who "agrees" with the consensual, wants to wed the proposal to a massive uptick in PVE casual justice difficulties lowering its "reward-time" significantly. that would of course be a kind of push for that content to either be less played overall or to get more to opt-in. But the net result is, the consensual divides the PVP side as well.

these divisions are likely, imo, one of the big reasons it isn't happening: you cannot make anything that will be good enough for enough players to engage in it to make it worth the time and effort and risk to implement.

Doctordarkspawn

ProbablePaul wrote: »

Doctordarkspawn wrote: »

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.

You aren't making any rational sense. Why would pvpers complain about questing players? Questers are targets to kill. There's no reason to complain about them. You're trying to create equality in the rationale between PvPers and PvEers to reinforce the validity of your point regarding PvEers. It's well known that people who pvp are more open to a broader range of experiences, and people who prefer pve are more controlled and contained in their experiences. They like things that are predictable, pvpers like things that aren't. It's fine to not want to experience certain things, but pvp players are more likely to ask for an expansion of options, unlike the pve players who ask for more limitations - at least in regards to pvp.

...I'm sorry, what?

I dont care about equality, I could care less about PVPers. The only reason I say PVPers hate PVEers in their campaign is I've seen it happen. I've seen the complaints.

Dubhliam

STEVIL 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

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.

Oh, so you remember such small details, and even after posting 46 times (yes, I counted) in 6 pages of the thread that is named "The PvP Justice System Concept, with opt-out", YOU DON'T RECALL?!!

Oh, the selective amnesia is real.

You only reference my thread when you try to showcase some of the more "negative" and "less fair" aspects of my concept, but you fail to mention the context they were proposed in.
My concept includes an opt-in.

As I said before in this thread, unless you decide to comment on the full length of the text in my thread, please refrain from forwarding those ideas here to showcase "just how unfair some suggestions might be".

Looking forward to not hearing from you again,

Dubhliam

Osteos

I'm not opposed to better loot/rewards from the Cyrodiil quests. I think you only get experience and gold, its been a long time since I did those quests. My only concern is if the rewards are too good then people will complain that they have to go to Cyrodiil to get those rewards.

For example if the repeatable town quests had coffers with a chance to drop Alliance motifs or armor sets, would people be happy or angry that they would have to be subject to pvp to get those rewards?

STEVIL

Dubhliam wrote: »

STEVIL 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

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.

Oh, so you remember such small details, and even after posting 46 times (yes, I counted) in 6 pages of the thread that is named "The PvP Justice System Concept, with opt-out", YOU DON'T RECALL?!!

Oh, the selective amnesia is real.

You only reference my thread when you try to showcase some of the more "negative" and "less fair" aspects of my concept, but you fail to mention the context they were proposed in.
My concept includes an opt-in.

As I said before in this thread, unless you decide to comment on the full length of the text in my thread, please refrain from forwarding those ideas here to showcase "just how unfair some suggestions might be".

Looking forward to not hearing from you again,

Dubhliam

i do recall that proposal as one of the ones where there was the aspect of wedded to throwing so many wrenches into the PVE side it made PVP the more desirable - ie basically kill the viability pve justice play but have the opt-in to pvp for more. its what i think of as a but-out system... "you can opt-out but..." where the but is bad.

But its been a while.

But, really, you expect to be able to tell people whether or not to comment on ideas you post to a public forum even if those other threads aren't the ones you started and even if you or your thread aren't specifically named or linked? You also expect to tell them to only comment on all of the text any time they reference it?

that is interesting.

you know, some folks might have seen that as an opportunity for you to yourself provide whatever magical context makes non-competitive fights being not a goal of a pvp justice a good thing or the full text that makes it clear why criminals cannot attack guards outright but have to wait or whatever that was if having that context or full text mattered to you.

Some, but not all, of course.

LaiTash

Whatzituyah wrote: »

Isn't Imperial City in Cyrodiil? Don't you lose stones there? @LaiTash

And that is why you get some unique rewards there already.

AmberLaTerra

Dahveed wrote: »

Yet another potentially cool idea destroyed by carebears and crybabies.

Why is it so hard to figure out? An opt-in version of this kind of system would be easy to implement and basic. Just like in WoW you could flag or un-flag yourself for pvp.

What the hell is the big deal?

the problem is every time one of these threads come up the idea of making it an opt-in system is hated by the real carebears in the form of the PVPers who are to afraid of equal term PVP against another PVPer and just want to crush noobs.

No one would object if it had a pure 100% opt-in option for this, but they ones who want this do not want it to be opt in, they want it to be 100% mandatory that PvE actions can mean being PVPed. As long is there is no way to flag oneself open to PVP justice with only an opt-in that must be selected in settings it will never work, and that kind of opt-in will never work for the ones in this thread who want PVP justice as it will not feed them their easy kills but only people who know how to PVP and fight back.

What is more of a carebear the PVE player who wants no part of PVP, or the PVP player who is too scared to face other PVPers and wants to be feed PVE targets.

STEVIL

AmberLaTerra wrote: »

Dahveed wrote: »

Yet another potentially cool idea destroyed by carebears and crybabies.

Why is it so hard to figure out? An opt-in version of this kind of system would be easy to implement and basic. Just like in WoW you could flag or un-flag yourself for pvp.

What the hell is the big deal?

the problem is every time one of these threads come up the idea of making it an opt-in system is hated by the real carebears in the form of the PVPers who are to afraid of equal term PVP against another PVPer and just want to crush noobs.

No one would object if it had a pure 100% opt-in option for this, but they ones who want this do not want it to be opt in, they want it to be 100% mandatory that PvE actions can mean being PVPed. As long is there is no way to flag oneself open to PVP justice with only an opt-in that must be selected in settings it will never work, and that kind of opt-in will never work for the ones in this thread who want PVP justice as it will not feed them their easy kills but only people who know how to PVP and fight back.

What is more of a carebear the PVE player who wants no part of PVP, or the PVP player who is too scared to face other PVPers and wants to be feed PVE targets.

Well remember now the rhetoric is also that PVE folks dont want risk and PVP players are fine with it, which is so obviously why 99% or more PVE combat comes with armor loss and the death/fail had even stiffer armor loss but PVP combats have no armor loss at all.

PVE players loses PVE fight, they actually lose something thay had to start...
PVP player loses a PVP fight, any losses or just not gaining the AP from a win?

And yeah, full consensual opt-in with no play-in or takeaway of existing content or crapping on the opt-out content - the big stumbling block poison pill.

LaiTash

and that kind of opt-in will never work for the ones in this thread who want PVP justice as it will not feed them their easy kills but only people who know how to PVP and fight back

Bah.
I think most people who want this change want to be thieves, not enforcers. Because, personally, i find the role of an enforcer a bit boring and THAT what needs some enhancement here, really (and probably that's one of the true reason the whole idea was scraped).
And why do you always think most PvPers even CARE fighting those who can't fight back? Yeah, sometimes i kill lowbies in those open world PvP mmos, but it's only after they ignore a modest plea to leave some specific spot i want repeated thrice. After that they probably think "oh she only can fight those who can't fight back", which is stupid because best spots are the ones you can always find someone better then you, counting to three...

LaiTash

STEVIL wrote: »

PVE players loses PVE fight, they actually lose something thay had to start...
PVP player loses a PVP fight, any losses or just not gaining the AP from a win?

Well, you don't die that often in PvE, and most of the time you actually die it's due to the most difficult content where rewards are way better then some AP.

And there are games where defeat in PvP means loosing all your goods and chattels, and PvP folk still loves them.

STEVIL

LaiTash wrote: »

and that kind of opt-in will never work for the ones in this thread who want PVP justice as it will not feed them their easy kills but only people who know how to PVP and fight back

Bah.
I think most people who want this change want to be thieves, not enforcers. Because, personally, i find the role of an enforcer a bit boring and THAT what needs some enhancement here, really (and probably that's one of the true reason the whole idea was scraped).
And why do you always think most PvPers even CARE fighting those who can't fight back? Yeah, sometimes i kill lowbies in those open world PvP mmos, but it's only after they ignore a modest plea to leave some specific spot i want repeated thrice. After that they probably think "oh she only can fight those who can't fight back", which is stupid because best spots are the ones you can always find someone better then you, counting to three...

First bold - two reasons i think its mostly prefer-to-be-enforcers - experience and inductive reasoning (i think that is correct term.)

Experience - across so many threads about pvp justice, it has seemed the majority of the want pvp justice areguers most of the time spoke from the perspective of being enforcers, wanting to play enforcers, being disturbed by folks killing and wanting to be able to stop them etc etc etc etc etc etc. its not even close to anywhere similar to the ones where they posted on how much fun it would be to have people jumping them while thieving.

Inductive reasoning - given a significant portion and the most deal-breaking of the poison pill divisive push from the PVP side (and getting fervent opposition from the PVE side) has been whether or not the criminal get to choose to opt-in - it makes no rational sense to assume that is because the PVP players want to play the crook side and want to not have an option to opt-in or not. if you main goal is to play the crook in PVP justicehaving a choice in whether or not you play the crook as PVE or PVP isn't important to your play. if your goal is to play the cop in pvp cops and robbers, it does become vital whether or not the crook has an opt-in/opt-out option because it gives you more potential playmates, some forced of course.

Second bold - Well, a recent thread explicitly stated that competitive combats in justice pvp wasn't the goal or wasn't a goal. there are other reasons but let me point something out to you. i DONT think most PVP players want to just go after easy kills fresh meat unprepared pve player etc types. It may well be the case, but i do not have sufficient evidence to support such a claim. For PVP justice pushers, i am even more confident that its a majority, that its most, but again no evidence sufficient to prove it even with all the experience form mixed pvp pve in the collective history...

But the key is it doesn't have to be MOST at all to be a serious problem.

thats because one PVP predator can hit many many different pve players and especially since there are known quest points involved then with a play-in without opt-in angle some are arguing for, even if the ones wanting to go after unprepared pve players is a minority they can still slam the heck out of so many as to be a problem for whether or not the pve players even stick with the content or go elsewhere.

If the PVP justice crowd wanted to play the crook mostly AND to only get fighting with experienced PVPers wanting the play it makes no sense for the constant pushback on a full opt-in, no takeaway pve, no screw over opt-out options. but thats not what we are seeing.

What we see is most commonly, but not exclusively, after a lot of push for no opt-in or for a play-in or the other non-consensual elements (in short forcing the crook into the play instead of leaving it an option) there comes an 11th hour "oh no i really want this so i can play the crook" claim to be made.

Look at this thread alone - how many times have you seen posts which ask for some form of "the crook gets mad eligable to PVP by having bounty"? Quite a few right. Crook plays PVE the "wrong way" and they get PVP.

have you seen as many as three posts where the argument was "the character should be forced into enforcer role if they do abc in pve"? Were there any?

makes no sense to claim its about getting to play the crook in a pvp justice if the rules that keep getting pushed are about forcing PVE crooks into pvp - regardless of how many 11th hour "no really i want to be pvp crook" revelations come out.

STEVIL

LaiTash wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

PVE players loses PVE fight, they actually lose something thay had to start...
PVP player loses a PVP fight, any losses or just not gaining the AP from a win?

Well, you don't die that often in PvE, and most of the time you actually die it's due to the most difficult content where rewards are way better then some AP.

And there are games where defeat in PvP means loosing all your goods and chattels, and PvP folk still loves them.

dont die often + but when you do you lose stuff
vs
die however often it happens but when it does you lose nothing.

As for rewards, you dont get a lot of pve rewards for dieing. You seem to be confusing the rewards for winning with what happens when you die.

LaiTash

have you seen as many as three posts where the argument was "the character should be forced into enforcer role if they do abc in pve"? Were there any?

That would be dumb. No one is ever forced to become a cop, unless there's no other job left in town.

makes no sense to claim its about getting to play the crook in a pvp justice if the rules that keep getting pushed are about forcing PVE crooks into pvp - regardless of how many 11th hour "no really i want to be pvp crook" revelations come out

People are just trying to find the best solution. For the justice system to work, there should be enough people who want to become enforcers, and for that there should be enough criminals in PvP justice (no one would want to sit still for hours waiting for some PvP-enabled-criminal to show up). So it's either a part of PvE crowd is pulled into PvP justice with bounty threshold, or there's an opt-in system with advantages significant enough for enough people to join PvP justice willingly.

And if someone claims he want to be a crook, i don't see a single reason not to beleive him and insist he wants to be an enforcer to hunt lowbies.

LaiTash

STEVIL wrote: »

dont die often + but when you do you lose stuff
vs
die however often it happens but when it does you lose nothing.

In PvP you waste your best consumables like there's no tommorow and you don't get gold. Actually after Cyrodiil i usually end up poorer then i was before (since i don't win that often and still need to L2P) and after PvE i tend to get richer even after repairs. So penalty for not winning in cyro are harsh enough and quite compatible to penalty for dying in PvE. If there was an additional penalty for dying in cyro, it would be a ghost town with a few true hardcore ultima veterans running around.

As for rewards, you dont get a lot of pve rewards for dieing. You seem to be confusing the rewards for winning with what happens when you die.

So you don't see how rewards for winning relate to penalty for dying, really?

STEVIL

LaiTash wrote: »

have you seen as many as three posts where the argument was "the character should be forced into enforcer role if they do abc in pve"? Were there any?

That would be dumb. No one is ever forced to become a cop, unless there's no other job left in town.

makes no sense to claim its about getting to play the crook in a pvp justice if the rules that keep getting pushed are about forcing PVE crooks into pvp - regardless of how many 11th hour "no really i want to be pvp crook" revelations come out

People are just trying to find the best solution. For the justice system to work, there should be enough people who want to become enforcers, and for that there should be enough criminals in PvP justice (no one would want to sit still for hours waiting for some PvP-enabled-criminal to show up). So it's either a part of PvE crowd is pulled into PvP justice with bounty threshold, or there's an opt-in system with advantages significant enough for enough people to join PvP justice willingly.

And if someone claims he want to be a crook, i don't see a single reason not to beleive him and insist he wants to be an enforcer to hunt lowbies.

i agree that a major concern for those pushing for a PVP justice system is whether ot not there will be enough people wanting to play both sides if both sides are given a choice. i *believe* that is one of the major issues that caused ZOs to drop it. i also know that for a sizable amount of players there is no amount of reward that would be sufficient to get them to play PVP. Especially if you are looking at the more one on one style of encounter you are most likely imagining with PVP justice.

Consider this for your "rewards sufficient" argument.

Right now there are all those skyshards and chests and special gears and IC this and that throughout Cyrodil IC and such.

Right now, some guilds who want to help their PVE players gain access run basically "protection events" where a bunch of the PVP players and the PVE players (who just want to get access to the stuff) form up a large mob and go after the stuff.

Imagine that same scenario called over into PVP jusitce... where either you have the not senssical at all sight of dozens of folks supporting petty crime in mobs through out the city to keep PVP enforcers at bay...

OR

you setup rules to keep it one-on-one mostly and then the PVE player just say no way.

As for the rest... "if it quacks like a duck" comes to mind. I dont believe everything that is typed on the internet.

LaiTash

STEVIL wrote: »

Consider this for your "rewards sufficient" argument.

Right now there are all those skyshards and chests and special gears and IC this and that throughout Cyrodil IC and such.

Right now, some guilds who want to help their PVE players gain access run basically "protection events" where a bunch of the PVP players and the PVE players (who just want to get access to the stuff) form up a large mob and go after the stuff.

Imagine that same scenario called over into PVP jusitce... where either you have the not senssical at all sight of dozens of folks supporting petty crime in mobs through out the city to keep PVP enforcers at bay...

OR

you setup rules to keep it one-on-one mostly and then the PVE player just say no way.

I'm not telling there should be something special you can't get by other means. There should be rewards just enough to advertise PvP-justice, but not up to the level when everyone and his mother want it.

As for the rest... "if it quacks like a duck" comes to mind. I dont believe everything that is typed on the internet.

So guilty until proven innocent? Yeah people lie on the internet sometimes, but still mostly they speak truth.

STEVIL

LaiTash wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

dont die often + but when you do you lose stuff
vs
die however often it happens but when it does you lose nothing.

In PvP you waste your best consumables like there's no tommorow and you don't get gold. Actually after Cyrodiil i usually end up poorer then i was before (since i don't win that often and still need to L2P) and after PvE i tend to get richer even after repairs. So penalty for not winning in cyro are harsh enough and quite compatible to penalty for dying in PvE. If there was an additional penalty for dying in cyro, it would be a ghost town with a few true hardcore ultima veterans running around.

As for rewards, you dont get a lot of pve rewards for dieing. You seem to be confusing the rewards for winning with what happens when you die.

So you don't see how rewards for winning relate to penalty for dying, really?

uhhh... ok so as i said a number of times there is no penalty for dieing in cryodil and there is a penalty for dieing in PVE.

In BOTH you can expend your consumables if you choose to.
In BOTH that is completely optional.
in BOTH expending your consumables and losing is just bad all around.. .and shows pretty poor resource management. i mean you could lose as quickly or quicker without spending a single consumable and be better off.

if you choose to spend a lot of expensive consumables to lose, thats on you.

heck, just tonight i clicked wrong and spent a essense of invis-heal-immov at the friggin craft station... but you dont see me arguing crafting costs because i burn cp150 potions there.

:-)

i notice you limited you "we dont get" PVP to gold. as in your said "In PvP you waste your best consumables like there's no tommorow and you don't get gold."

So let me ask you if you win in PVP do you get things other than gold perhaps? if you lose do you get things other than gold perhaps?

Why the sudden shift to focusing on just gold coming from pvp vs pve?

it just seemed odd.

as for "So you don't see how rewards for winning relate to penalty for dying, really?"

There is now that i recall at least one PVE quest where you had to die to win, so maybe i can see it but iirc that "death" was only a story-line death and not an actual death-for-armor-hit-consumegem etc.

but no, ever since they made the soul shatter into triggering at very low heath, i dont recall ever winning by dieing.

though - i think there may be some sets (PVP maybe) that cause you to do damage when you die and so that might be a case where the death produces winning rewards.

but otherwise. no, i dont see that the penalty for dieing is specifically linked to the reward for winning.

Tandor

Dubhliam wrote: »

STEVIL 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

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.

Oh, so you remember such small details, and even after posting 46 times (yes, I counted) in 6 pages of the thread that is named "The PvP Justice System Concept, with opt-out", YOU DON'T RECALL?!!

Oh, the selective amnesia is real.

You only reference my thread when you try to showcase some of the more "negative" and "less fair" aspects of my concept, but you fail to mention the context they were proposed in.
My concept includes an opt-in.

As I said before in this thread, unless you decide to comment on the full length of the text in my thread, please refrain from forwarding those ideas here to showcase "just how unfair some suggestions might be".

Looking forward to not hearing from you again,

Dubhliam

The thread you link was a continuation of your original thread on the topic where it was many, many pages in before you accepted the need for a fully consensual opt-out mechanism for PvP in the Justice System (which then became an opt-in mechanism). I'm not surprised that some of us can't recall off-hand the precise details of every thread that has been launched on this dead topic as there have been so many of them, all going nowhere as the issue has been decided. It was your pet scheme and you must have spent hours upon hours working out the minutiae with one or two others including away from the thread as I recall so that it is scarcely surprising that you have a much clearer recollection of it all than those who simply contributed to the debate among the other topics they were discussing at the time.

I do recall, however, giving you credit at the time for listening to the arguments for an unconditional opt-out mechanism for PvP in the Justice System and eventually adapting your proposed system accordingly, and it made a big difference to the debate. As @STEVIL rightly summarises in post #464 above the question of consent is a deal-breaker for PvEers and a principle that PvPers object to for reasons that are difficult to establish. There are assorted legitimate grounds for being opposed in principle and in practice to the extension of PvP activities into the open world "safe areas" (to quote the Road Ahead), but it's impossible to get to the stage of considering those if the single deal-breaker of consent isn't first recognised and it's always difficult to understand why PvPers aren't able to accept that as the starting point of their proposals, as it would make overall support for those proposals so much easier to get off the ground. It would be such a different discussion if every proposal on this subject started with the words "Here's my suggestion for adding PvP to the Justice System which would be unconditionally optional just like dueling".