Please Finish The Justice System

STEVIL

LaiTash wrote: »

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.

You seem to be confusing believing to be false with not believing to be true.

i believe a claim to be true when i see evidence to support that conclusion.
i believe a claim to be false when i see evidence to support that conclusion.
until one or the other of those occurs, its simply not believed.

i hope that is plain and simple enough for you to get (re: the language)

STEVIL

Tandor wrote: »

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".

just simply... yes.

LaiTash

STEVIL wrote: »

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.

You didn't do much PvP did you?

LaiTash

STEVIL wrote: »

You seem to be confusing believing to be false with not believing to be true.

i believe a claim to be true when i see evidence to support that conclusion.
i believe a claim to be false when i see evidence to support that conclusion.
until one or the other of those occurs, its simply not believed.

i hope that is plain and simple enough for you to get (re: the language)

Yet you must choose whethere you assume it's true or not, you can't base your conclusions on "i don't know".

STEVIL

LaiTash wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

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.

You didn't do much PvP did you?

I have stated before, i do not have any interest in pvp.

That doesnt change the facts.

STEVIL

LaiTash wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

You seem to be confusing believing to be false with not believing to be true.

i believe a claim to be true when i see evidence to support that conclusion.
i believe a claim to be false when i see evidence to support that conclusion.
until one or the other of those occurs, its simply not believed.

i hope that is plain and simple enough for you to get (re: the language)

Yet you must choose whethere you assume it's true or not, you can't base your conclusions on "i don't know".

Actually, yes i can.

You can claim to be a gold medal olympic bobsledder.
I can conclude i dont know if thats true or not and so not let that claim affect my cinclusions either way.

Same with any claims about how much someone prefers to be the crook in pvp justice,

Instead, i can focus on the actual impact proposals can have.

LaiTash

STEVIL wrote: »

LaiTash wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

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.

You didn't do much PvP did you?

I have stated before, i do not have any interest in pvp.

That doesnt change the facts.

That does change the facts because you're trying to argue about things you know nothing about. To say consumables are optional for PvP is the same as saying having armor equipped is optional for PvE. And there's more truth to the latter statement.

helediron

@LaiTash , i believe next week you will have your justice system with PvP. Just start a duel! Nothing new needs to be implemented!

IC showed that for major PvE content only absolute PvP opt-out is acceptable with no extra rewards for PvP. That means that again 90% will opt out. There is no need to find compromise. Dueling is enough.

LaiTash

helediron wrote: »

@LaiTash , i believe next week you will have your justice system with PvP. Just start a duel! Nothing new needs to be implemented!

IC showed that for major PvE content only absolute PvP opt-out is acceptable with no extra rewards for PvP. That means that again 90% will opt out. There is no need to find compromise. Dueling is enough.

Dueling is not enough. And there is always need for compromise.

Daemons_Bane

LaiTash wrote: »

helediron wrote: »

@LaiTash , i believe next week you will have your justice system with PvP. Just start a duel! Nothing new needs to be implemented!

IC showed that for major PvE content only absolute PvP opt-out is acceptable with no extra rewards for PvP. That means that again 90% will opt out. There is no need to find compromise. Dueling is enough.

Dueling is not enough. And there is always need for compromise.

Yet you have proven quite unwilling to make such a compromise..

Majic

Can anyone explain how the endless tail-chasing in this thread is bringing the Justice System any closer to including PvP?

Not seeing a lot of progress on that front.

Daemons_Bane

In this current discussion, the problem revolves around whether it should be forced on players or not.. Most PvE people would like to see it be voluntary, while some PvP players would like it to be forced upon people, when they reach a certain bounty limit..

Tandor

Majic wrote: »

Can anyone explain how the endless tail-chasing in this thread is bringing the Justice System any closer to including PvP?

Not seeing a lot of progress on that front.

It isn't bringing it any closer. On the contrary, such threads simply serve to remind ZOS of the wisdom of their decision. I do believe, however, that a different approach from its proponents could actually lead to a different outcome.

LaiTash

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

LaiTash wrote: »

helediron wrote: »

@LaiTash , i believe next week you will have your justice system with PvP. Just start a duel! Nothing new needs to be implemented!

IC showed that for major PvE content only absolute PvP opt-out is acceptable with no extra rewards for PvP. That means that again 90% will opt out. There is no need to find compromise. Dueling is enough.

Dueling is not enough. And there is always need for compromise.

Yet you have proven quite unwilling to make such a compromise..

WHAT?!!! I'm silent...

Daemons_Bane

So you claim

STEVIL

LaiTash wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

LaiTash wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

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.

You didn't do much PvP did you?

I have stated before, i do not have any interest in pvp.

That doesnt change the facts.

That does change the facts because you're trying to argue about things you know nothing about. To say consumables are optional for PvP is the same as saying having armor equipped is optional for PvE. And there's more truth to the latter statement.

Yes, both can be done. They get harder to win of course,

So, in truth, the facts did not change.

But let me get straight, all those pvp ganker focusing on high burst damage, surprise and fights lasting less than 30 seconds (or then run) and all those zerg mobs jumping much smaller groups with multi jbeams behind walls of tanks... you believe each of them burns thru lots of consumables the way you portray?

Or does the rate of consumabke burn vary a lot depending on playstyle and tactical choices?

And, of course, since there has never been an ESO justice system with pvp, we are all discussing something we know nothing about.

Lukati_K

Tandor wrote: »

Majic wrote: »

Can anyone explain how the endless tail-chasing in this thread is bringing the Justice System any closer to including PvP?

Not seeing a lot of progress on that front.

It isn't bringing it any closer. On the contrary, such threads simply serve to remind ZOS of the wisdom of their decision.

It is not wisdom that brings you the conclusion to leave a half-baked justice system as is. Whatever side of the fence you are on here, it doesn't matter. We all lose when a huge change to the game is left unfinished.

I said it in a previous post - plenty of other MMO's have found ways to accomplish putting in the equivalent of a justice system with PvP included. Cops and robbers has been a fan favorite game in both real life and in video gaming, and with a proper opt-in system in place, it could be really fun for anyone willing to give it a try.

It's been mentioned many, many times that this will just be a vehicle for PvP'ers who want to grief PvE'ers. Allow me to flip the script.

Why are PvE'ers happy with a hollow, dumbed down version of a justice system that, in its current state, is nothing more than a slow grind of gold? There's absolutely no challenge in stealing, no challenge in hiding, and not even a challenge to avoid being killed by an invincible guard. After 50 meters of chasing, the guard suddenly wakes up from his amnesia and not only stops chasing you, but runs back to the very same spot he came from. NPC's can't even alert the guard to your presence, nor are they even remotely capable of defending themselves.

As it stands, this system should be unacceptable for all parties involved.

I once dreamed of holding a guild event where people flagged for both sides of the conflict, and we went at each other like rabid animals, one side trying to rob a town blind, the other side trying to protect the town. We all have fun, we all make some gold, and it's something unique, something that isn't dungeons or keep sieges. That dream was doused in gasoline and lit on fire by a lazy, financially minded company, further motivated by some poorly informed gamers who thought the sky was going to fall on them, when all they would have to do is be a little more mindful of their surroundings, or even *gasp* just not flag themselves.

The fact is and remains; there's plenty of compromise to be had on this issue, and we could live, thrive even, with a PvP aspect to the justice system, but it doesn't matter, because ZOS has made a career out of taking the path of least resistance. Let's not confuse that with wisdom.

Daemons_Bane

Lukati_K wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

Majic wrote: »

Can anyone explain how the endless tail-chasing in this thread is bringing the Justice System any closer to including PvP?

Not seeing a lot of progress on that front.

It isn't bringing it any closer. On the contrary, such threads simply serve to remind ZOS of the wisdom of their decision.

It is not wisdom that brings you the conclusion to leave a half-baked justice system as is. Whatever side of the fence you are on here, it doesn't matter. We all lose when a huge change to the game is left unfinished.

I said it in a previous post - plenty of other MMO's have found ways to accomplish putting in the equivalent of a justice system with PvP included. Cops and robbers has been a fan favorite game in both real life and in video gaming, and with a proper opt-in system in place, it could be really fun for anyone willing to give it a try.

It's been mentioned many, many times that this will just be a vehicle for PvP'ers who want to grief PvE'ers. Allow me to flip the script.

Why are PvE'ers happy with a hollow, dumbed down version of a justice system that, in its current state, is nothing more than a slow grind of gold? There's absolutely no challenge in stealing, no challenge in hiding, and not even a challenge to avoid being killed by an invincible guard. After 50 meters of chasing, the guard suddenly wakes up from his amnesia and not only stops chasing you, but runs back to the very same spot he came from. NPC's can't even alert the guard to your presence, nor are they even remotely capable of defending themselves.

As it stands, this system should be unacceptable for all parties involved.

I once dreamed of holding a guild event where people flagged for both sides of the conflict, and we went at each other like rabid animals, one side trying to rob a town blind, the other side trying to protect the town. We all have fun, we all make some gold, and it's something unique, something that isn't dungeons or keep sieges. That dream was doused in gasoline and lit on fire by a lazy, financially minded company, further motivated by some poorly informed gamers who thought the sky was going to fall on them, when all they would have to do is be a little more mindful of their surroundings, or even *gasp* just not flag themselves.

The fact is and remains; there's plenty of compromise to be had on this issue, and we could live, thrive even, with a PvP aspect to the justice system, but it doesn't matter, because ZOS has made a career out of taking the path of least resistance. Let's not confuse that with wisdom.

Call it what you want, wisdom or something else.. That won't change the fact that as it stands now, it was the right decision to not take the Justice System further at this time.. Furthermore, you say that we all lose.. I think you forget that some players are happy with the system as it is now.. They like for being casual, a place they can come to, for example, unwind from the stress of a long day.. You call it an unacceptable system, but you can only speak for yourself.. Again, some people like it as it is, and those guys' opinion matters just as much as yours.. You mention a dream? Big deal.. Don't forget that if the system is not made properly, your dream becomes reality by torching someone elses dreams

STEVIL

Tandor wrote: »

Majic wrote: »

Can anyone explain how the endless tail-chasing in this thread is bringing the Justice System any closer to including PvP?

Not seeing a lot of progress on that front.

It isn't bringing it any closer. On the contrary, such threads simply serve to remind ZOS of the wisdom of their decision. I do believe, however, that a different approach from its proponents could actually lead to a different outcome.

I agree cpmpletely.

If dueling gets traction, starting from the position that you could provide some justice framing on top of that base would serve them well.

But they insist on swallowing their own involuntary play-in poison pill (or pve justice crippling opt-in-but) in sufficient number or sufficient fervor to keep this just the frequent thread bait. It keeps even attempts like the dueling based guild play model or CJP as DOA.

As Teddy Churchill once said "We have nothing to fear, but our most fervent supporters" (or something like that.)

Majic

"The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing."

-- Socrates

JKorr

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.

Actively hate might be going a bit far, but I'd be perfectly content to quarantine all the pvp on a separate server, so all the bloodthirsty psychopathic serial killers could feed on each other to their heart's content and the pve players who actually want a story in their game could have access to all the areas without the toxic epeen waving gankers who live to ruin other player's experience.

Only issue seems to be the pvp players don't want any areas that don't have easy kills they can exploit. And yes, there seem to be a lot of players with that mindset. Many posts during the IC event brought that out clearly. People encouraging the pve players to go try the IC event, because they were ambushing/ganking the pve'rs and getting thousands of telvar stones. No pve players, no easy kills. They didn't say anything about going after other pvpers.

JKorr

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.

Pvp players complain mostly because they questers are there taking up slots that could be used by other pvpers who actually want to fight the war. Granted many enjoy the easy kills, but if they are more into results for the war than being able to gank a carebear, those slots are useless for the war.

Tandor

Lukati_K wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

Majic wrote: »

Can anyone explain how the endless tail-chasing in this thread is bringing the Justice System any closer to including PvP?

Not seeing a lot of progress on that front.

It isn't bringing it any closer. On the contrary, such threads simply serve to remind ZOS of the wisdom of their decision.

It is not wisdom that brings you the conclusion to leave a half-baked justice system as is. Whatever side of the fence you are on here, it doesn't matter. We all lose when a huge change to the game is left unfinished.

I said it in a previous post - plenty of other MMO's have found ways to accomplish putting in the equivalent of a justice system with PvP included. Cops and robbers has been a fan favorite game in both real life and in video gaming, and with a proper opt-in system in place, it could be really fun for anyone willing to give it a try.

It's been mentioned many, many times that this will just be a vehicle for PvP'ers who want to grief PvE'ers. Allow me to flip the script.

Why are PvE'ers happy with a hollow, dumbed down version of a justice system that, in its current state, is nothing more than a slow grind of gold? There's absolutely no challenge in stealing, no challenge in hiding, and not even a challenge to avoid being killed by an invincible guard. After 50 meters of chasing, the guard suddenly wakes up from his amnesia and not only stops chasing you, but runs back to the very same spot he came from. NPC's can't even alert the guard to your presence, nor are they even remotely capable of defending themselves.

As it stands, this system should be unacceptable for all parties involved.

I once dreamed of holding a guild event where people flagged for both sides of the conflict, and we went at each other like rabid animals, one side trying to rob a town blind, the other side trying to protect the town. We all have fun, we all make some gold, and it's something unique, something that isn't dungeons or keep sieges. That dream was doused in gasoline and lit on fire by a lazy, financially minded company, further motivated by some poorly informed gamers who thought the sky was going to fall on them, when all they would have to do is be a little more mindful of their surroundings, or even *gasp* just not flag themselves.

The fact is and remains; there's plenty of compromise to be had on this issue, and we could live, thrive even, with a PvP aspect to the justice system, but it doesn't matter, because ZOS has made a career out of taking the path of least resistance. Let's not confuse that with wisdom.

That's why I said that I believed that a different approach from the proponents of PvP in the Justice System would have a different outcome. Claiming that the only way to improve the present PvE system is by adding a PvP element that is not wholly optional is never going to be the way to start a fruitful discussion. There are PvE ways of improving the system, and there are PvP ways of doing so that could be entirely optional as dueling is. Unfortunately, the concept of - as you put it - players just not flagging themselves is not generally accepted by the proponents of PvP in the Justice System who have also dismissed the idea of running things like guild events.

As I have said many times, if PvPers can accept that any PvP added to PvE content should be entirely and truly optional, then there are plenty of ways in which PvEers would be perfectly happy to take the discussion further, but imposing PvP on PvEers doing PvE content is a straight deal-breaker and ensures that we never get to the compromise stage.

Lukati_K

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Call it what you want, wisdom or something else.. That won't change the fact that as it stands now, it was the right decision to not take the Justice System further at this time..

I disagree. Also, what was that about me speaking for myself?

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Furthermore, you say that we all lose.. I think you forget that some players are happy with the system as it is now.. They like for being casual, a place they can come to, for example, unwind from the stress of a long day..

Did you even read? I didn't forget anything. I acknowledged that they are satisfied, and asked why. Also, what was that about me speaking for myself?

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

You call it an unacceptable system, but you can only speak for yourself.. Again, some people like it as it is, and those guys' opinion matters just as much as yours.. You mention a dream? Big deal..

Did you really just say everyone's opinion is equal and then make small of mine?

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Don't forget that if the system is not made properly, your dream becomes reality by torching someone elses dreams.

I still haven't forgotten anything, and I just gave you a perfectly legitimate example of how it can be made properly, and how people could choose to not participate if that was their desire.

Speaking of desires, I desire to speak to someone on other side of the fence, who's actually open to dialogue. I know, I know - unicorn in a hay stack.

Daemons_Bane

Lukati_K wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Call it what you want, wisdom or something else.. That won't change the fact that as it stands now, it was the right decision to not take the Justice System further at this time..

I disagree. Also, what was that about me speaking for myself?

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Furthermore, you say that we all lose.. I think you forget that some players are happy with the system as it is now.. They like for being casual, a place they can come to, for example, unwind from the stress of a long day..

Did you even read? I didn't forget anything. I acknowledged that they are satisfied, and asked why. Also, what was that about me speaking for myself?

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

You call it an unacceptable system, but you can only speak for yourself.. Again, some people like it as it is, and those guys' opinion matters just as much as yours.. You mention a dream? Big deal..

Did you really just say everyone's opinion is equal and then make small of mine?

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Don't forget that if the system is not made properly, your dream becomes reality by torching someone elses dreams.

I still haven't forgotten anything, and I just gave you a perfectly legitimate example of how it can be made properly, and how people could choose to not participate if that was their desire.

Speaking of desires, I desire to speak to someone on other side of the fence, who's actually open to dialogue. I know, I know - unicorn in a hay stack.

I call it a fact, since that is what it is to me I also believe that I included an example as to why some players are satisfied with the system as it is now.. I have no intention as to make your opinion less important than it is, neither do I believe that I did.. If you misunderstood what I said, sorry for that, but at least quote the entire sentence instead of only taking the part that makes it look better for you What does arouse my interest though, is this "perfectly legitimate example" that you mention I would like to hear more about that.. From the post I quoted you just said a "proper opt-in system", but would you care to elaborate on that? Finally, I'm pretty open minded, but I'm not getting very far with the PvP crowd here.. So I'm a little tired don't take that personally

Lukati_K

Tandor wrote: »

That's why I said that I believed that a different approach from the proponents of PvP in the Justice System would have a different outcome. Claiming that the only way to improve the present PvE system is by adding a PvP element that is not wholly optional is never going to be the way to start a fruitful discussion. There are PvE ways of improving the system, and there are PvP ways of doing so that could be entirely optional as dueling is. Unfortunately, the concept of - as you put it - players just not flagging themselves is not generally accepted by the proponents of PvP in the Justice System who have also dismissed the idea of running things like guild events.

As I have said many times, if PvPers can accept that any PvP added to PvE content should be entirely and truly optional, then there are plenty of ways in which PvEers would be perfectly happy to take the discussion further, but imposing PvP on PvEers doing PvE content is a straight deal-breaker and ensures that we never get to the compromise stage.

I'm with you, totally and completely! I don't want any forced measures taken, on either side. It's a shame too, because with some organization and effort, there could be some really cool multi-guild events, even quasi-faction events! The possibilities are endless when we are given options. Compromise is the key.

For the record, I just want to say that I wasn't coming at you, but it was that "wisdom" word that stood out to me. It was a perfect launching pad.

STEVIL

@Lukati_K
"Why are PvE'ers happy with a hollow, dumbed down version of a justice system "

Quite a few pve injustice players, like myself, have ststed preferences for expansion to the current pve injustice content.

I am not actually aware of anyone who has said keep it as it is dont want no more.

What they have overwhelmingly rejected is the idea of making the expansion and the more be pvp, especially with involuntary play-in triggers or opt-in-buts.

As stated before just because a proposal is rejected its not a sign that they are adverse to any changes or happy where things stand. Though, sometimes making oneself believe that cuts down the sting of rejection.

One can be ok with but not thrilled with living in Texas but still reject an offer to move to antartica.

To put it plain and simple for those who need it:
More, better pve justice content - yes.
Involuntary pvp justice taking over parts of pve justice - no.
Voluntary opt-in consensual pvp justice tied with opt-in-but detrimental changes to the existing pve justice - no.
Adding Consensual Justice pvp play with restrictions modeled on dueling without the hits on pve justice - a definite maybe could be and worth considering.

Lukati_K

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Lukati_K wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Call it what you want, wisdom or something else.. That won't change the fact that as it stands now, it was the right decision to not take the Justice System further at this time..

I disagree. Also, what was that about me speaking for myself?

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Furthermore, you say that we all lose.. I think you forget that some players are happy with the system as it is now.. They like for being casual, a place they can come to, for example, unwind from the stress of a long day..

Did you even read? I didn't forget anything. I acknowledged that they are satisfied, and asked why. Also, what was that about me speaking for myself?

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

You call it an unacceptable system, but you can only speak for yourself.. Again, some people like it as it is, and those guys' opinion matters just as much as yours.. You mention a dream? Big deal..

Did you really just say everyone's opinion is equal and then make small of mine?

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Don't forget that if the system is not made properly, your dream becomes reality by torching someone elses dreams.

I still haven't forgotten anything, and I just gave you a perfectly legitimate example of how it can be made properly, and how people could choose to not participate if that was their desire.

Speaking of desires, I desire to speak to someone on other side of the fence, who's actually open to dialogue. I know, I know - unicorn in a hay stack.

I call it a fact, since that is what it is to me I also believe that I included an example as to why some players are satisfied with the system as it is now.. I have no intention as to make your opinion less important than it is, neither do I believe that I did.. If you misunderstood what I said, sorry for that, but at least quote the entire sentence instead of only taking the part that makes it look better for you What does arouse my interest though, is this "perfectly legitimate example" that you mention I would like to hear more about that.. From the post I quoted you just said a "proper opt-in system", but would you care to elaborate on that? Finally, I'm pretty open minded, but I'm not getting very far with the PvP crowd here.. So I'm a little tired don't take that personally

I'm a huge fan of semantics, so first off, "to me" constitutes an opinion. Second, if I have to speak for myself, I can't have you speaking for others either. Intentions are difficult to parse in text, so I try not to guess, and go by what I see. "Big deal" in response to "my dream" doesn't exactly make it seem like my opinion is on equal footing with your own. Also, I did in fact quote your whole post, even if it was statement by statement.

I'm not having a go at you, but there are discrepancies here that I feel needed to be addressed. Did I mention that I'm a huge fan of semantics?

As far as the opt-in system goes, its really quite simple, and by the way, was also the original intention of the devs responsible for the justice system. There is two factions at play here - one is the outlaw faction, and the other is the enforcer faction. Both have NPC's to go talk to, and you sign up with them, and earn/buy their tabard. The tabard is the flag. Put it on and you're in, take it off and you're out. (this would have to be tweaked, don't need anyone doing dirty/righteous deeds and just unflagging all willy-nilly.) There was even a reward system in place for each faction. Kill and steal enough as an outlaw, and you earn a rare treasure map, that leads you to a cache of high quality goods for your perusal. Defend citizens and their treasures, or kill enough outlaws as an enforcer, and you turn in their ill-gotten gains for your own reward. An enforcer treasure map would be the location of a hidden outlaw cache. (Think of these maps as surveys, instanced to you and your group) You could also lose your rare treasure map, as well as any stolen goods and bounty gold, if you were killed by the opposite faction, which would lead to some intense cat and mouse games across all of Tamriel. Most importantly, anyone who's not wearing a tabard is left alone to do as they will.

Who among us has enough courage to pretend this will break their game?

Daemons_Bane

Lukati_K wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Lukati_K wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Call it what you want, wisdom or something else.. That won't change the fact that as it stands now, it was the right decision to not take the Justice System further at this time..

I disagree. Also, what was that about me speaking for myself?

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Furthermore, you say that we all lose.. I think you forget that some players are happy with the system as it is now.. They like for being casual, a place they can come to, for example, unwind from the stress of a long day..

Did you even read? I didn't forget anything. I acknowledged that they are satisfied, and asked why. Also, what was that about me speaking for myself?

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

You call it an unacceptable system, but you can only speak for yourself.. Again, some people like it as it is, and those guys' opinion matters just as much as yours.. You mention a dream? Big deal..

Did you really just say everyone's opinion is equal and then make small of mine?

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Don't forget that if the system is not made properly, your dream becomes reality by torching someone elses dreams.

I still haven't forgotten anything, and I just gave you a perfectly legitimate example of how it can be made properly, and how people could choose to not participate if that was their desire.

Speaking of desires, I desire to speak to someone on other side of the fence, who's actually open to dialogue. I know, I know - unicorn in a hay stack.

I call it a fact, since that is what it is to me I also believe that I included an example as to why some players are satisfied with the system as it is now.. I have no intention as to make your opinion less important than it is, neither do I believe that I did.. If you misunderstood what I said, sorry for that, but at least quote the entire sentence instead of only taking the part that makes it look better for you What does arouse my interest though, is this "perfectly legitimate example" that you mention I would like to hear more about that.. From the post I quoted you just said a "proper opt-in system", but would you care to elaborate on that? Finally, I'm pretty open minded, but I'm not getting very far with the PvP crowd here.. So I'm a little tired don't take that personally

I'm a huge fan of semantics, so first off, "to me" constitutes an opinion. Second, if I have to speak for myself, I can't have you speaking for others either. Intentions are difficult to parse in text, so I try not to guess, and go by what I see. "Big deal" in response to "my dream" doesn't exactly make it seem like my opinion is on equal footing with your own. Also, I did in fact quote your whole post, even if it was statement by statement.

I'm not having a go at you, but there are discrepancies here that I feel needed to be addressed. Did I mention that I'm a huge fan of semantics?

As far as the opt-in system goes, its really quite simple, and by the way, was also the original intention of the devs responsible for the justice system. There is two factions at play here - one is the outlaw faction, and the other is the enforcer faction. Both have NPC's to go talk to, and you sign up with them, and earn/buy their tabard. The tabard is the flag. Put it on and you're in, take it off and you're out. (this would have to be tweaked, don't need anyone doing dirty/righteous deeds and just unflagging all willy-nilly.) There was even a reward system in place for each faction. Kill and steal enough as an outlaw, and you earn a rare treasure map, that leads you to a cache of high quality goods for your perusal. Defend citizens and their treasures, or kill enough outlaws as an enforcer, and you turn in their ill-gotten gains for your own reward. An enforcer treasure map would be the location of a hidden outlaw cache. (Think of these maps as surveys, instanced to you and your group) You could also lose your rare treasure map, as well as any stolen goods and bounty gold, if you were killed by the opposite faction, which would lead to some intense cat and mouse games across all of Tamriel. Most importantly, anyone who's not wearing a tabard is left alone to do as they will.

Who among us has enough courage to pretend this will break their game?

Okay lets see then.. You say you quoted my whole post, yet a lot of what I wrote was then magically missing in said quote
You interpret what I said about your dream versus theirs as me making you seem less important.. Well not much I can do about how what I say makes you feel.. lastly, since you describe the dev's orginal idea of the system, I assume that you did not have anything of your own to add to it? Guess I misunderstood the first post then

LaiTash

JKorr wrote: »

Actively hate might be going a bit far, but I'd be perfectly content to quarantine all the pvp on a separate server, so all the bloodthirsty psychopathic serial killers could feed on each other to their heart's content and the pve players who actually want a story in their game could have access to all the areas without the toxic epeen waving gankers who live to ruin other player's experience.

Wow. Now that's what i call carebear. Well you should already be perfectly content because as of now "all the bloodthirsty psychopathic serial killers" and "toxic epeen waving gankers who live to ruin other player's experience" are effectively confined in Cyrodiil, even tho zeni stated more than once that PvP is "endgame" in this mmo.