Please Finish The Justice System

Daemons_Bane

PvP can be endgame, even though confined to a single zone

LaiTash

STEVIL wrote: »

Adding Consensual Justice pvp play with restrictions modeled on dueling without the hits on pve justice - a definite maybe could be and worth considering.

So all the restrictions and limitations are only for PvPers. It's not what people call a compromise you know.

STEVIL

@Lukati_K
""Big deal" in response to "my dream" doesn't exactly make it seem like my opinion is on equal footing with your own. "

FWIW everyone;s right to an opinion to me is considered equal.
Everyone's opinion, to me, will each be given the rest they warrant by dint of their reasoning.

this is decidedly different from everyone's preferences.

A preference is "i like chocolate ice cream better than vanilla" or "justice with pvp would be more fun that without"... both are stating internal valuations, not conclusions about external phenomena.

Whether or not the ZOS decision to scrap PVP Justice was an example of wisdom or not is an example of an opinion. Since it refers to outside phenomena with theoretically observable results, the various quality of opinions can be evaluated and each given their proper amount of respect.

In my opinion, it was wisdom because:

1 A lot of players would have stopped playing justice content had many of the suggestions that would satisfy the bulk of pvp justice posters gone thru... yet we can observe today those people playing the content without pvp justice (and as many pvp posts indicate - enough to draw attention of others not participating in it.)

2 At the same time, a number of pvp players seem to indicate that adding it as completely consensual isn't acceptable either. So doing a lot of work to alienate a current participating group or to fail to draw in a lot of the target audience... seems a worse path.

3 Because the challenges to reward to time rations measure up on par with other casual pve activities such as questing, grinding, delving etc and actually fall in the middle of the pack making it a viable option that doesn't overshadow the others.

4 Because with invulnerable guards, detection zones and the bounty system it provides challenges that have markedly different tactics, setup, skills and gameplay than the normal "fight your way thru" does. This makes it alternative content with actual differences.

This #4 is one of the basic underlying issues i have with the proponents who talk about how much better killable PVP enforcers will be than unkillable guards from a FUN aspect.


if its changed to PVP enforcers instead of unkillable guards, then you have just taken the "solution" right back to "just burn down your adversary and its good enough." if you are a good strong take on all challengers and win pvper, you wont need to try stealth play or subtlety at all, because you are just fine with getting into the PVP side and burning down your enemies as the solution to the gameplay challenge. matter of fact, getting bounty might even be necessary to get into the pvp side... so subtle stealth play is actually somewhat counter productive. Flagrant crimes are actually your friend if you want to "play thru" be beating the PVP enforcers yet the rhetoric is its wanted to reduce the flagrant crimes.

For all the misdirection about the cat and mouse play, the proposals still keep adding to the current justice content "burn down your opponent and its good enough" solutions that aren't there now.

Thats not to me adding new and interesting more fun stuff to "boring content", its taking unique content and adding "same old burn down" as an option and that is a step towards more boring.

Anybody IMO saying that it would be more fun if the unkillable guards go away and are replaced by PVP enforcers, are advocating for reducing the play needed by allowing the absolutely most common solution throughout all of ESo - just burn them down as an alternative way to "beat" that content.

That is not an opinion I have to respect - "reducing more content to burn down enemy is good enough". - though i do respect their preference to have burn down play be a solution to all their gameplay needs..

STEVIL

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?

To be clear, it wont break my game, depending on the details left out of your list.

it may break my participation in justice content, driving me out. (If it applies to all PVE justice for example.)

It could break my participation in the game as a whole if the easy-to-do accidental pick up of tabletop items (no setting to prevent), or the easy to do accidental shooting bounty producing targets who were not bounty producing targets when you started the attack (a current setting option may resolve this but it blocks a lot of content from being played) also kic things off.

it was NOT CLEAR in the original expositions about what Justice system would be that once they had the system in place with PVP enabled that there would be a non-pvp option left as is with full opt-in. that led to quite a bit of dialog about examples like i just gave.

Also, it is quite clear from numerous posts on this thread and others that a good number of the pvp justice system want it to have "play-in" and not "opt-in" implementation.

So again, its the details and once you hit the details, not so simple.

STEVIL

LaiTash wrote: »

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.

and in a few days when they get out of cyrodil with the fully conditional dueling with its restrictions... I will be fine with that too if it holds up the way it played on PTS.

LaiTash

STEVIL wrote: »

and in a few days when they get out of cyrodil with the fully conditional dueling with its restrictions... I will be fine with that too if it holds up the way it played on PTS.

You keep talking about dueling as if it's some wow feature for PvPers, while it's a common thing in any decent MMO and should've been here from day one. Maybe there'd be more people interested in PvP if they had a chance to practice without being one-shot in cyro then.

STEVIL

LaiTash wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

Adding Consensual Justice pvp play with restrictions modeled on dueling without the hits on pve justice - a definite maybe could be and worth considering.

So all the restrictions and limitations are only for PvPers. It's not what people call a compromise you know.

uhhh... what?

Ok so maybe you dont already pve a lot but in case you dont let me list a few examples of current restrictions on PVEers play...

PVE PLAYERS CANNOT
Attack other players.
Buff/heal other players opponents
Typically in the vast majority of the content they cannot "takeaway" or "spoof" quest triggers - though in some cases the resources can be taken but respawn quickly such as when the objective if to gather lotsa croc kills, senche kills or ogre teeth. many times though you can pick up the "orders" or "keys" even though someone else is right there.

Putting restrictions on PVP play into PVE zones to ensure that the choice to play it is consensual when the pve players cant force non-consensual play at all without also opting-in... seeing that as only restricting the PVPers is when PVEers had the restriction all along... very very disturbing if you think about it.

STEVIL

LaiTash wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

and in a few days when they get out of cyrodil with the fully conditional dueling with its restrictions... I will be fine with that too if it holds up the way it played on PTS.

You keep talking about dueling as if it's some wow feature for PvPers, while it's a common thing in any decent MMO and should've been here from day one. Maybe there were more people interested in PvP if they had a chance to practice without being one-shot in cyro.

maybe, maybe not. dont know.

But i haven't based any position on how soon dueling shoulda, coulda, woulda been in any different reality.

i do think its restrictions are well thought through and if they turn out to be sufficient then it would serve the pvp-justice community better to look forward and use that as a starting point rather than keep going backward to a scrapped model and insist on a play-in not-opt-in model.

living in the past and focusing on what could have might have should have been back in the day can sometimes keep one looking back and not forward on the road ahead to get to a goal.

huh... isn't there even a quest where the answer is that the most important step is the one you take now, since yesterday step has already happened and tomorrows may never happen?

Well, as long as in the now looking back to what might have been and play-in not opt-in (or the sideways, kinda concealed same thing of opt-in-buts) the choice to make today's step move closer to the goal is lost.

IMO.

Dubhliam

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.

You have the link in my signature.

Even with a proposed opt-in system, there will always be some other reason to hate.
"I don't want to LOOK at PvP, even if not participating."
"Opted-in players get better rewards, it's unfair."
"Even if I will NEVER participate, I cannot state how much disadvantage opted-in criminals have against enforcers."
"Nobody will participate, it's a waste of ZOS' resources, They should fix X/Y."

Tandor wrote: »

In any event, this proposal is going nowhere and the whole issue of PvP in the Justice System having been clearly rejected by ZOS really does now deserve to be put to rest.

and many many more.

They are just being falsely in favor of an "opt-out" system solely to throw an argument at our face.

Honestly, all of you in favor of PvP Justice, there is no reasoning with any of the opposed players.
They will NEVER be happy, and they will NEVER change their opinion.

It's useless to reason with them.
Give up trying and wait for a better MMO to come out.
It's a sad reality for us.

STEVIL

Dubhliam wrote: »

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.

You have the link in my signature.

Even with a proposed opt-in system, there will always be some other reason to hate.
"I don't want to LOOK at PvP, even if not participating."
"Opted-in players get better rewards, it's unfair."
"Even if I will NEVER participate, I cannot state how much disadvantage opted-in criminals have against enforcers."
"Nobody will participate, it's a waste of ZOS' resources, They should fix X/Y."

Tandor wrote: »

In any event, this proposal is going nowhere and the whole issue of PvP in the Justice System having been clearly rejected by ZOS really does now deserve to be put to rest.

and many many more.

They are just being falsely in favor of an "opt-out" system solely to throw an argument at our face.

Honestly, all of you in favor of PvP Justice, there is no reasoning with any of the opposed players.
They will NEVER be happy, and they will NEVER change their opinion.

It's useless to reason with them.
Give up trying and wait for a better MMO to come out.
It's a sad reality for us.

Fact, myself and others who are opposed to the PVP justice proposals (some or all) have changed their minds at times and even put forth frameworks for possible consensual opt-in justice systems...

but then you already knew that when you posted this, i suspect.

But hey, on an aside - following your lead i am considering putting some pvp justice content into my sig so all my posts can be a reference to the topic.

Would you be Ok if i used this quote from you in my sig if i decide to go that route?

@Dubhliam
Honestly, all of you in favor of PvP Justice, there is no reasoning with any of the opposed players.
They will NEVER be happy, and they will NEVER change their opinion.

Lukati_K

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

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

Not a single word cut from your post - I even pasted both your original version and my quoted version into another document to confirm. Not a single word. Do I have to add something of my own to make it a legitimate opt-in system?

Better yet, don't reply. If you're convinced that there is text 'magically missing' then the situation we discuss has got to be the least of your concerns.

Lukati_K

STEVIL wrote: »

@Lukati_K
""Big deal" in response to "my dream" doesn't exactly make it seem like my opinion is on equal footing with your own. "

FWIW everyone;s right to an opinion to me is considered equal.
Everyone's opinion, to me, will each be given the rest they warrant by dint of their reasoning.

this is decidedly different from everyone's preferences.

A preference is "i like chocolate ice cream better than vanilla" or "justice with pvp would be more fun that without"... both are stating internal valuations, not conclusions about external phenomena.

Whether or not the ZOS decision to scrap PVP Justice was an example of wisdom or not is an example of an opinion. Since it refers to outside phenomena with theoretically observable results, the various quality of opinions can be evaluated and each given their proper amount of respect.

In my opinion, it was wisdom because:

1 A lot of players would have stopped playing justice content had many of the suggestions that would satisfy the bulk of pvp justice posters gone thru... yet we can observe today those people playing the content without pvp justice (and as many pvp posts indicate - enough to draw attention of others not participating in it.)

2 At the same time, a number of pvp players seem to indicate that adding it as completely consensual isn't acceptable either. So doing a lot of work to alienate a current participating group or to fail to draw in a lot of the target audience... seems a worse path.

3 Because the challenges to reward to time rations measure up on par with other casual pve activities such as questing, grinding, delving etc and actually fall in the middle of the pack making it a viable option that doesn't overshadow the others.

4 Because with invulnerable guards, detection zones and the bounty system it provides challenges that have markedly different tactics, setup, skills and gameplay than the normal "fight your way thru" does. This makes it alternative content with actual differences.

This #4 is one of the basic underlying issues i have with the proponents who talk about how much better killable PVP enforcers will be than unkillable guards from a FUN aspect.


if its changed to PVP enforcers instead of unkillable guards, then you have just taken the "solution" right back to "just burn down your adversary and its good enough." if you are a good strong take on all challengers and win pvper, you wont need to try stealth play or subtlety at all, because you are just fine with getting into the PVP side and burning down your enemies as the solution to the gameplay challenge. matter of fact, getting bounty might even be necessary to get into the pvp side... so subtle stealth play is actually somewhat counter productive. Flagrant crimes are actually your friend if you want to "play thru" be beating the PVP enforcers yet the rhetoric is its wanted to reduce the flagrant crimes.

For all the misdirection about the cat and mouse play, the proposals still keep adding to the current justice content "burn down your opponent and its good enough" solutions that aren't there now.

Thats not to me adding new and interesting more fun stuff to "boring content", its taking unique content and adding "same old burn down" as an option and that is a step towards more boring.

Anybody IMO saying that it would be more fun if the unkillable guards go away and are replaced by PVP enforcers, are advocating for reducing the play needed by allowing the absolutely most common solution throughout all of ESo - just burn them down as an alternative way to "beat" that content.

That is not an opinion I have to respect - "reducing more content to burn down enemy is good enough". - though i do respect their preference to have burn down play be a solution to all their gameplay needs..

The justice system is "burn down your oppenent is good enough" as it stands. I crush Hallin's Stand in Bangkorai on a daily basis. I can take my time and steal/kill all sneaky sneaky, or I can pop chests and faceroll npc's. Mute point. The bounty, guards, and detection zones are laughable in terms of challenge, and the only difference in outcome is whether you have a large bounty or not. What's wrong with flagrant crimes if you're flagged and your whole purpose is looking for a fight? This still doesn't ruin anyone's gameplay, flagged or not.

Replacing guards with enforcers is a terrible idea, and not one I subscribe to. In fact, most of what "others" have said is really far off-base with what I'd consider a compromise in this matter. If we can stick to what I've said when you quote me, that'd be great. I"m not here to defend the "stick-in-mud" masses.

Lukati_K

STEVIL wrote: »

To be clear, it wont break my game, depending on the details left out of your list.

it may break my participation in justice content, driving me out. (If it applies to all PVE justice for example.)

It could break my participation in the game as a whole if the easy-to-do accidental pick up of tabletop items (no setting to prevent), or the easy to do accidental shooting bounty producing targets who were not bounty producing targets when you started the attack (a current setting option may resolve this but it blocks a lot of content from being played) also kic things off.

it was NOT CLEAR in the original expositions about what Justice system would be that once they had the system in place with PVP enabled that there would be a non-pvp option left as is with full opt-in. that led to quite a bit of dialog about examples like i just gave.

Also, it is quite clear from numerous posts on this thread and others that a good number of the pvp justice system want it to have "play-in" and not "opt-in" implementation.

So again, its the details and once you hit the details, not so simple.

In an opt-in system, you'd have to, you know, opt-in, for any of those situations to effect you in an adverse way. Once you hit the details, its still very simple if we have people willing to critically think and compromise. Don't just sit there and offer a myriad of ways you can be griefed. Offer a way for those situations to be avoided as well, and then you'll actually be contributing to a solution!

Lukati_K

Dubhliam wrote: »

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.

You have the link in my signature.

Even with a proposed opt-in system, there will always be some other reason to hate.
"I don't want to LOOK at PvP, even if not participating."
"Opted-in players get better rewards, it's unfair."
"Even if I will NEVER participate, I cannot state how much disadvantage opted-in criminals have against enforcers."
"Nobody will participate, it's a waste of ZOS' resources, They should fix X/Y."

Tandor wrote: »

In any event, this proposal is going nowhere and the whole issue of PvP in the Justice System having been clearly rejected by ZOS really does now deserve to be put to rest.

and many many more.

They are just being falsely in favor of an "opt-out" system solely to throw an argument at our face.

Honestly, all of you in favor of PvP Justice, there is no reasoning with any of the opposed players.
They will NEVER be happy, and they will NEVER change their opinion.

It's useless to reason with them.
Give up trying and wait for a better MMO to come out.
It's a sad reality for us.

I've followed your thread eagerly awaiting a dev post that amounts to "its not a dead horse, we do toss some ideas around the office here and there, but nothing solid or even worth discussing." I applaud the effort you've given in that thread, regardless of the seemingly predetermined outcome.

Daemons_Bane

Lukati_K wrote: »

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?

Since you think that nothing is missing in what you quoted, I shall paste you the sentence

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

Daemons_Bane

Lukati_K wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

To be clear, it wont break my game, depending on the details left out of your list.

it may break my participation in justice content, driving me out. (If it applies to all PVE justice for example.)

It could break my participation in the game as a whole if the easy-to-do accidental pick up of tabletop items (no setting to prevent), or the easy to do accidental shooting bounty producing targets who were not bounty producing targets when you started the attack (a current setting option may resolve this but it blocks a lot of content from being played) also kic things off.

it was NOT CLEAR in the original expositions about what Justice system would be that once they had the system in place with PVP enabled that there would be a non-pvp option left as is with full opt-in. that led to quite a bit of dialog about examples like i just gave.

Also, it is quite clear from numerous posts on this thread and others that a good number of the pvp justice system want it to have "play-in" and not "opt-in" implementation.

So again, its the details and once you hit the details, not so simple.

In an opt-in system, you'd have to, you know, opt-in, for any of those situations to effect you in an adverse way. Once you hit the details, its still very simple if we have people willing to critically think and compromise. Don't just sit there and offer a myriad of ways you can be griefed. Offer a way for those situations to be avoided as well, and then you'll actually be contributing to a solution!

I think that the confusion arises with "opt in" To me personally, opt in means that I, for example, tick off a box to engage in multiplayer justice.. One of the other options that keeps being suggested here is that when you reach a certain bounty, it should kick in automatically.. That's not opting in imo, that's forcing.. I know that this opinion is shared by other players, and I guess that's what we keep coming back to.. Voluntarily option in, or getting forced in

Lukati_K

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Since you think that nothing is missing in what you quoted, I shall paste you the sentence

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

And here's the post where I excluded that sentence.

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.

Wait, what's that at the bottom in bold?! My initial reply to the sentence I clearly did not exclude. Thanks for coming out.

STEVIL

@Lukati_K

One of of your points i was directly referring to was about wisdom and specifically dealt in context with the wisdom of the PVE only implementation.

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

You responded with
"It is not wisdom that brings you the conclusion to leave a half-baked justice system as is."

and so i gave you reasons why i felt it did show wisdom to leave the system without its pvp elements.

if you are looking for folks to argue agaiunst adding more PVE justice content, you are talking to the wrong guy.

I have stated in this thread, other threads and almost every time that what i would love to see is a full DLC level expansion of the PVE Justice content. outlined it a few times including new region, new guild, new skill lines,main quest line, daily repeatables stemming out of the new guild or mage and fighters guilds (prior to oneT info), new world bosses based on raiding into illegal hubs... basically an entire Justice themed (vs injustice themed like Db and Tg were) playground.

I have stated in this hread several times that the path to a possible implementation IMO of a PVP element lies in the forward movement with dueling as a basis for setting up the details of its consensual elements - once dueling proves the concept. i outlined one dueling only consensual playground idea that would need nothing more than dueling added for cops and robbers themed consensual play. It was rejected of course by the usual suspects when a consensual catch is added.

i have stated in this thread in response to someone asking for a possible pvp justice idea scrapping the non-consensual elements, called it Consensual Justice play and while again still an outline it had many of the key elements spelled out.


@Daemons_Bane

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Lukati_K wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

To be clear, it wont break my game, depending on the details left out of your list.

it may break my participation in justice content, driving me out. (If it applies to all PVE justice for example.)

It could break my participation in the game as a whole if the easy-to-do accidental pick up of tabletop items (no setting to prevent), or the easy to do accidental shooting bounty producing targets who were not bounty producing targets when you started the attack (a current setting option may resolve this but it blocks a lot of content from being played) also kic things off.

it was NOT CLEAR in the original expositions about what Justice system would be that once they had the system in place with PVP enabled that there would be a non-pvp option left as is with full opt-in. that led to quite a bit of dialog about examples like i just gave.

Also, it is quite clear from numerous posts on this thread and others that a good number of the pvp justice system want it to have "play-in" and not "opt-in" implementation.

So again, its the details and once you hit the details, not so simple.

In an opt-in system, you'd have to, you know, opt-in, for any of those situations to effect you in an adverse way. Once you hit the details, its still very simple if we have people willing to critically think and compromise. Don't just sit there and offer a myriad of ways you can be griefed. Offer a way for those situations to be avoided as well, and then you'll actually be contributing to a solution!

I think that the confusion arises with "opt in" To me personally, opt in means that I, for example, tick off a box to engage in multiplayer justice.. One of the other options that keeps being suggested here is that when you reach a certain bounty, it should kick in automatically.. That's not opting in imo, that's forcing.. I know that this opinion is shared by other players, and I guess that's what we keep coming back to.. Voluntarily option in, or getting forced in

Also, when one starts addressing "opt-in" and referencing the original dev plan as opt-in, that sows greater confusion because at the time even with offical posting and other sort of news, the opt-in go sig up check box whatever was for enforcers. To become an outlaw you had to commit a crime and gather a bounty.

So that included an opt-in for enforcers but a play-in for criminals.

thats a good part of why i think some feel play-in must be paqrt of it... the whole "it was promised" as if pre-development outlines are carved into stone tablets and thrown onto citires.

IMO especially once dueling gets the roots for consensual play settled, ther e is the mechanical groundwork laid for PPV justice which has not been there so far.

however, it still slams into the "will enough folks play it?" question since without consensual full opt-in required etc the pve crowd will mostly take a pass and with a consensual full opt-in required two chunks of the "want me some pvp justice" folks will be unhappy - the ones wanting to be able to stop those playing with high bounty and leaving bodies around town (they will opt out) and those wanting the original promised play-in version of their dreams. Since some of the PVP group are even against flat-out even having guild organized events to bring together enough crooks and cops at one place at one time to make play possible, it gets even harder to imagine what would satisfy them.

Again, points to the wisdom of the ZOS decision to not include its original design when they launched justice and the decision to not add it in later on when they finally announced it was dead.

Daemons_Bane

Lukati_K wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Since you think that nothing is missing in what you quoted, I shall paste you the sentence

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

And here's the post where I excluded that sentence.

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.

Wait, what's that at the bottom in bold?! My initial reply to the sentence I clearly did not exclude. Thanks for coming out.

I guess that's why you like semantics then But let's move on.. I'm more interested in your opinion about post 527?

Lukati_K

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Lukati_K wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

To be clear, it wont break my game, depending on the details left out of your list.

it may break my participation in justice content, driving me out. (If it applies to all PVE justice for example.)

It could break my participation in the game as a whole if the easy-to-do accidental pick up of tabletop items (no setting to prevent), or the easy to do accidental shooting bounty producing targets who were not bounty producing targets when you started the attack (a current setting option may resolve this but it blocks a lot of content from being played) also kic things off.

it was NOT CLEAR in the original expositions about what Justice system would be that once they had the system in place with PVP enabled that there would be a non-pvp option left as is with full opt-in. that led to quite a bit of dialog about examples like i just gave.

Also, it is quite clear from numerous posts on this thread and others that a good number of the pvp justice system want it to have "play-in" and not "opt-in" implementation.

So again, its the details and once you hit the details, not so simple.

In an opt-in system, you'd have to, you know, opt-in, for any of those situations to effect you in an adverse way. Once you hit the details, its still very simple if we have people willing to critically think and compromise. Don't just sit there and offer a myriad of ways you can be griefed. Offer a way for those situations to be avoided as well, and then you'll actually be contributing to a solution!

I think that the confusion arises with "opt in" To me personally, opt in means that I, for example, tick off a box to engage in multiplayer justice.. One of the other options that keeps being suggested here is that when you reach a certain bounty, it should kick in automatically.. That's not opting in imo, that's forcing.. I know that this opinion is shared by other players, and I guess that's what we keep coming back to.. Voluntarily option in, or getting forced in

Opt in means exactly that. Whether that is wearing a tabard, checking a box, offering up your social security number, or whatever equivalent makes sense. Until you cross that threshold, you experience the justice system as it is now.

I think that the bounty threshold is a great idea, but also is a divisive mechanic I'd sooner leave out for the sake of establishing some common ground. For what it's worth, I think the bounty would have to be set fairly high, and have in-game prompts that continuously warn you of your potential impending doom. Before I cloud the issue further, let's just stick with complete conscious consent on both sides of the ball, with absolutely no bounty threshold.

Also, as I mentioned to Stevil, I can't possibly answer for what the rest of these people are calling for. I can only answer for myself, and I have only ever suggested opt-in in all phases.

Daemons_Bane

Well it's good to see that we agree on that at least

Katahdin

If you force open world PvP in the PvE zones that you cant opt out of, this game will be dead within a month because 90% of the player base would leave.

It has to have the ability to opt-in/opt-out. You should not be changing content that is currently PvE into forced PvP.
I want to be able to play DB and TG content without PvP consquences. When I want PvP, I go to Cyrodiil and IC.
You will have have dueling as an option in a few days and arenas are coming as well.

Honestly it really sounds as if the proponents of this forced PvP concept are really looking for a different game that this one will never be.

Osteos

No its a matter that some of us don't think its forced if you simply have to be aware of your bounty and manage it accordingly.

In my mind the bounty would be set at a level that is well above what the average player gets during normal game play. For example and these are just my random numbers, if Zos looked at the data on bounties and saw that most people got to about 2000 before they cleared it and very few went over 4 thousand, then the opt in threshold would be at least 3000. That would normal play would still be possible. And yes a warning that your bounty is getting to the threshold would be good.

The bounty opt in system that has been discussed in this thread by myself and other proponents was never intended to catch people who were just doing normal justice system play, it has always been about people who want to be part of pvp justice.

The reason I don't like a full opt in option is what @bellanca6561n indicated. It is a bother to some players that others can just go on murder sprees in town and that they or powerless to do anything about it. It affects their game world in a negative way. The bounty threshold could be a way to keep open murder sprees down, unless you wanted to be flagged. If you don't want to be flagged you can just do what you normally do but be a bit more mindful if your bounty starts to get high.

Most people against it aren't listening or reading what is being said they are making assumptions and wild accusations. They do not want a pvp portion of the justice system and are completely unwilling to compromise.

As I have said before ESO is for all types of players to enjoy and we need to share it and there needs to be content in place for all types of playstyles.

Wolfshead

IwakuraLain42 wrote: »

The main reason why this PvP-Justice system system will never have worked is mostly due to the difference between PvP and PvE playstyles. Most of the player base is not playing PvP (just look at the campaign number or visit them, I mostly see the same ol' players there), this is due to fact that you really need specific gear, skills and training to have any chance at PvP. That's something that most players simply do no want to do. Any kind of PvP based justice system will simply lead to a mass massacre of PvE players by the elite PvP'er, this would kill the game very fast.

And even if you would try to use non-PvP elements to enforce justice (some ideas were posted in last months by users here) I see no way to implement that without giving the potential to griefers (wayshring camping, waiting at the refuges doors, etc). This is IMHO the main reason why ZOS has given up in the concept, it just doesn't work out.

Well if the cant get concept work how did make dueling work basically justice system would work same baiscally same if you do something illegal you would be pvp tag only thing that is different between dueling system and justice system is that would auto trun on if you do something the system feel like a it is illegal while dueling system you have make choose.

Honest is really simple thing to add for as someone as you are dead and the bounty is collect which well happen as you get kill the pvp well trun off auto on all how have take quest.

Money would come from the person the post quest aka a NPC so no one would be lose anything of there own money or gear, weapon.

For go nutes and start killing every NPC and you can basically get away from guards and hide out in thiefs hideout place in any city until you bounty go away feel just silly.

AmberLaTerra

The only way PVP justice would work is with an unconditional opt-in/opt-out.

By unconditional I mean a box in the settings screen you click to opt in what can only be adjusted toggled daily so no switching back and forth to troll. This opt-in toggle should also remain locked until a player is level 10 to avoid both Noobs fooling around with the settings ending up getting themselves slaughtered, or max CP players greifing the enforcers with their high CP having an impact on the PVP when a low level enforcer thinks they have a fair fight. Just like PVP in cyrodiil and IC is not available until level 10.

A being in PVP at "X" bounty is a condition
Being force into PVP by a guard chat if you choose to flee is a condition (Yes @Dubhliam I remember your little fake opt out of pay guard your bounty and all loot or face PVP if caught, that is extortion not option)
Being told just do not do justice content if you do not want to deal with PVP is a massive condition.

The simple fact is a toggle in settings for SHOULD satisfy both sides in this debate, but every time such a simple solution is brought up those for PVP justice are all against it as it will not feed them the easy kills they want but only feed them those who know exactly what they are signing up for and are ready for the PVP aspect.

The very simple fact they are against an unconditional opt-in/opt-out shows the truth of their intentions to grief no matter how vehemently they deny those intentions because only facing people who choose to do PVP justice by toggling it on is not acceptable to them.

It simply comes down to they want a system that is unfairly weighted in their favor to the determent of all others, where those of us who are against the ways they want to implement it would be fine with it being added as content as long as it had a clear unconditional opt-out.

AmberLaTerra

Osteos wrote: »

No its a matter that some of us don't think its forced if you simply have to be aware of your bounty and manage it accordingly.

In my mind the bounty would be set at a level that is well above what the average player gets during normal game play. For example and these are just my random numbers, if Zos looked at the data on bounties and saw that most people got to about 2000 before they cleared it and very few went over 4 thousand, then the opt in threshold would be at least 3000. That would normal play would still be possible. And yes a warning that your bounty is getting to the threshold would be good.

The bounty opt in system that has been discussed in this thread by myself and other proponents was never intended to catch people who were just doing normal justice system play, it has always been about people who want to be part of pvp justice.

The reason I don't like a full opt in option is what @bellanca6561n indicated. It is a bother to some players that others can just go on murder sprees in town and that they or powerless to do anything about it. It affects their game world in a negative way. The bounty threshold could be a way to keep open murder sprees down, unless you wanted to be flagged. If you don't want to be flagged you can just do what you normally do but be a bit more mindful if your bounty starts to get high.

Most people against it aren't listening or reading what is being said they are making assumptions and wild accusations. They do not want a pvp portion of the justice system and are completely unwilling to compromise.

As I have said before ESO is for all types of players to enjoy and we need to share it and there needs to be content in place for all types of playstyles.

As for the issues about seeing other players mass murdering and such. What exactly makes your immersion more valuable then their immersion?

Perhaps they are RPing a member of the DB who snapped and has gone rouge killing off contract. That in no way violates the 5 tenants of the brotherhood as a soul to Sithis is a soul to Sithis.

Why should you not liking seeing it ruin their immersion in their RP? What makes you the ONLY ONE who matters in an MMO?

Don't like having to deal with other peoples immersion in the game bothering your immersion in the game, then the answer is simple, go play a single player game where your immersion is the only immersion that matters.

Dubhliam

AmberLaTerra wrote: »

The only way PVP justice would work is with an unconditional opt-in/opt-out.

By unconditional I mean a box in the settings screen you click to opt in what can only be adjusted toggled daily so no switching back and forth to troll. This opt-in toggle should also remain locked until a player is level 10 to avoid both Noobs fooling around with the settings ending up getting themselves slaughtered, or max CP players greifing the enforcers with their high CP having an impact on the PVP when a low level enforcer thinks they have a fair fight. Just like PVP in cyrodiil and IC is not available until level 10.

A being in PVP at "X" bounty is a condition
Being force into PVP by a guard chat if you choose to flee is a condition (Yes @Dubhliam I remember your little fake opt out of pay guard your bounty and all loot or face PVP if caught, that is extortion not option)
Being told just do not do justice content if you do not want to deal with PVP is a massive condition.

The simple fact is a toggle in settings for SHOULD satisfy both sides in this debate, but every time such a simple solution is brought up those for PVP justice are all against it as it will not feed them the easy kills they want but only feed them those who know exactly what they are signing up for and are ready for the PVP aspect.

The very simple fact they are against an unconditional opt-in/opt-out shows the truth of their intentions to grief no matter how vehemently they deny those intentions because only facing people who choose to do PVP justice by toggling it on is not acceptable to them.

It simply comes down to they want a system that is unfairly weighted in their favor to the determent of all others, where those of us who are against the ways they want to implement it would be fine with it being added as content as long as it had a clear unconditional opt-out.

You are quick to call me out.
My proposed concept has an unconditional opt-in:

Dubhliam wrote: »

Becoming an Outlaw

• Criminals can toggle the Outlaw status by interacting with a Fence. This toggle is available to players without an active bounty and can happen once every 20 hours. Outlaws are "opted-in" for PvP Justice. Pirharri the Smuggler assistant cannot be used to toggle this status.

The "pay bounty" dialogue is just an additional hoop that protects even the opted in players from grief.

Dubhliam wrote: »

Heat Levels

• The highest heat level- Wanted can be only triggered by Outlaw Criminals, by choosing the "Flee dialogue" when accosted by a Guard or Enforcer. This does not apply in Outlaw Prison, which is the only Trespassing area accessible by Enforcers - where Outlaws are constantly marked as Wanted.
• Players with the Wanted heat are marked for PvP, making them attackable by Guards and Enforcers.

Once again, I would like all participants in this thread to stop calling out on my concept because clearly none of you are really interested in reading through it.

LaiTash

Dubhliam wrote: »

As for the issues about seeing other players mass murdering and such. What exactly makes your immersion more valuable then their immersion?

Perhaps they are RPing a member of the DB who snapped and has gone rouge killing off contract. That in no way violates the 5 tenants of the brotherhood as a soul to Sithis is a soul to Sithis.

Why should you not liking seeing it ruin their immersion in their RP? What makes you the ONLY ONE who matters in an MMO?

Don't like having to deal with other peoples immersion in the game bothering your immersion in the game, then the answer is simple, go play a single player game where your immersion is the only immersion that matters.

Because it's what people call bad RP. It would take an army to slaughter half of the town.

helediron

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.

And here i rest my case, some people will NEVER be happy, and they will NEVER change their opinion.

AmberLaTerra

Dubhliam wrote: »

AmberLaTerra wrote: »

The only way PVP justice would work is with an unconditional opt-in/opt-out.

By unconditional I mean a box in the settings screen you click to opt in what can only be adjusted toggled daily so no switching back and forth to troll. This opt-in toggle should also remain locked until a player is level 10 to avoid both Noobs fooling around with the settings ending up getting themselves slaughtered, or max CP players greifing the enforcers with their high CP having an impact on the PVP when a low level enforcer thinks they have a fair fight. Just like PVP in cyrodiil and IC is not available until level 10.

A being in PVP at "X" bounty is a condition
Being force into PVP by a guard chat if you choose to flee is a condition (Yes @Dubhliam I remember your little fake opt out of pay guard your bounty and all loot or face PVP if caught, that is extortion not option)
Being told just do not do justice content if you do not want to deal with PVP is a massive condition.

The simple fact is a toggle in settings for SHOULD satisfy both sides in this debate, but every time such a simple solution is brought up those for PVP justice are all against it as it will not feed them the easy kills they want but only feed them those who know exactly what they are signing up for and are ready for the PVP aspect.

The very simple fact they are against an unconditional opt-in/opt-out shows the truth of their intentions to grief no matter how vehemently they deny those intentions because only facing people who choose to do PVP justice by toggling it on is not acceptable to them.

It simply comes down to they want a system that is unfairly weighted in their favor to the determent of all others, where those of us who are against the ways they want to implement it would be fine with it being added as content as long as it had a clear unconditional opt-out.

You are quick to call me out.
My proposed concept has an unconditional opt-in:

Dubhliam wrote: »

Becoming an Outlaw

• Criminals can toggle the Outlaw status by interacting with a Fence. This toggle is available to players without an active bounty and can happen once every 20 hours. Outlaws are "opted-in" for PvP Justice. Pirharri the Smuggler assistant cannot be used to toggle this status.

The "pay bounty" dialogue is just an additional hoop that protects even the opted in players from grief.

Dubhliam wrote: »

Heat Levels

• The highest heat level- Wanted can be only triggered by Outlaw Criminals, by choosing the "Flee dialogue" when accosted by a Guard or Enforcer. This does not apply in Outlaw Prison, which is the only Trespassing area accessible by Enforcers - where Outlaws are constantly marked as Wanted.
• Players with the Wanted heat are marked for PvP, making them attackable by Guards and Enforcers.

Once again, I would like all participants in this thread to stop calling out on my concept because clearly none of you are really interested in reading through it.

I also remember it took close to 20 pages for you to add in the fence opt in, after being against an opt-in for a long time before you finally caved and edited it in, but by then it was already too late to salvage your thread as you had alienated any support you could have gotten by resisting it for so long.