Maintenance for the week of January 6:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – January 6
• NA megaservers for maintenance – January 8, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 8:00AM EST (13:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – January 8, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 13:00 UTC (8:00AM EST)
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – January 6
• NA megaservers for maintenance – January 8, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 8:00AM EST (13:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – January 8, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 13:00 UTC (8:00AM EST)
Please Finish The Justice System
-
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »LegendaryArcher wrote: »My post might make some of you facepalm, but can anyone explain to me what exactly this griefing would look like?
Let's take the most simple system: Upstanding, Disreputable, Notorious, Fugitive as they are now and a 5th "rank" where PvP comes into play. Doesn't matter if that player is free to kill for everyone or one must take a special quest to have this player assigned as target, where is the griefing potential?
The justice system is about being careful and not getting caught. I have gotten all my Justice achievements very long time ago and have never been running around even close to Fugitive. If you go on a rampage in the city, why not have the risk of being taken down by someone smarter than the *** guard AI?
Please explain the griefing to me.
None of the bounty hunters would hang out around the refuge doors to take a shot at a target trying to get into the sanctuary, would they? Because once they get to the refuge they can get rid of their bounty..... No one would hang out around wayshrines to take a shot at someone with a bounty porting in, would they? No one would camp quest locations to take a shot at a target, would they? Nah, none of them would ever think about doing something like that....
And? If you made it so people couldn't be attacked before the bounty was high enough, those people would actually have to try to get it into a place where they could be attacked. I mean I'm A horrible thief/assassin and I've only ever had a bounty of 10k once and I let it happen. Also don't forget the pack of thieves who might sign up to protect their own. Killing these ganking guards.
So so what if the scenario you are afraid of happens? The people you are trying to protect would have signed up.
RE bold
yes thats it - exactly dead spot on...
for those who simply Dont want PVP consequences for PVE play the answer for them is to form up gangs to sit around and wait for opportunities to protect themselves through the awesome joy that is PVP!!!
This nails it on the head!
Dead spot on.
Very illuminating.
Very telling.
.Proudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
YFMV Your Fun May Vary.
First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
"The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."5 -
Lukati_K✭✭✭It's an Elder Scrolls game: player freedom should come first, remember that for many of us this is the first/only online experience.
It's not quite an Elder Scrolls game though. Besides the name/lore, this online version bears almost no similarities with its distant single player cousins. There were consequences for stealing, and the older the ES game, the worse the penalty for getting caught. These penalties included time spent in jail and loss of skill (Light Armor skill drops to 48 from 50.) Guards wouldn't just follow you for 200 meters and then suddenly forget where they were. Even in Skyrim, you had to outrun guards for a long time, sometimes even take shelter in a cave.
Sometimes it's nice to faceroll content, but only when there is a challenge presented to begin with. The justice system offers no such challenge, so it quickly becomes a boring chore. I mean, how many of us have the Black Market Mogul achievement? How many of us have stolen countless items, watching guards and citizens less than 15 feet away feel compelled to remain oblivious because anything more of a challenge would incite a whole generation of gamers who want nothing to do with anything remotely considered a challenge?
Player freedom should be a priority, but not when it undermines the quality of a game, its mechanics and content simply for the sake of those who no longer feel like challenge should be synonymous with gaming.The PVP aspect was easily exploitable, they said so themselves.
It is not in the game for a reason.
Between you feeling a little unconformtable seeing pixels on a screen representing dead NPC's that had no use in the game and a bad system where griefers and exploiters take all the advantages, I find it to be an easy pick.
To be fair, your statement is a bit of a misnomer. The people who said the PvP aspect was exploitable (Firor and Co.) are not the same people who had designed it (Sage and Co.) There's a number of potential reasons that Firor and Co. didn't want to add the PvP aspect for(couldn't properly finish it, no money to be made, bigger fish to fry coding wise), but dozens of MMO's have found ways to achieve an opt-in open world PvP design that doesn't allow players to grief others. Quit acting like this a clear black and white choice, where your only options are to either have useless dead NPC's laying about, or succumb to this imagined torrent of griefers and exploiters who come rushing over the hill Braveheart style in an attempt to sap the fun out your whole gaming experience.Edited by Lukati_K on September 25, 2016 1:49PM5 -
Garwulf✭✭✭LegendaryArcher wrote: »My post might make some of you facepalm, but can anyone explain to me what exactly this griefing would look like?
Let's take the most simple system: Upstanding, Disreputable, Notorious, Fugitive as they are now and a 5th "rank" where PvP comes into play. Doesn't matter if that player is free to kill for everyone or one must take a special quest to have this player assigned as target, where is the griefing potential?
The justice system is about being careful and not getting caught. I have gotten all my Justice achievements very long time ago and have never been running around even close to Fugitive. If you go on a rampage in the city, why not have the risk of being taken down by someone smarter than the *** guard AI?
Please explain the griefing to me.
None of the bounty hunters would hang out around the refuge doors to take a shot at a target trying to get into the sanctuary, would they? Because once they get to the refuge they can get rid of their bounty..... No one would hang out around wayshrines to take a shot at someone with a bounty porting in, would they? No one would camp quest locations to take a shot at a target, would they? Nah, none of them would ever think about doing something like that....
A simple wayshrine in at least one refuge would solve that problem. If not under attack you can port to a refuge from anywhere. . It would make people think about their criminal actions and its possible consequence.
However ZoS' trainee criminals would get upset ... So it will be a no go.
0 -
vyndral13preub18_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »LegendaryArcher wrote: »My post might make some of you facepalm, but can anyone explain to me what exactly this griefing would look like?
Let's take the most simple system: Upstanding, Disreputable, Notorious, Fugitive as they are now and a 5th "rank" where PvP comes into play. Doesn't matter if that player is free to kill for everyone or one must take a special quest to have this player assigned as target, where is the griefing potential?
The justice system is about being careful and not getting caught. I have gotten all my Justice achievements very long time ago and have never been running around even close to Fugitive. If you go on a rampage in the city, why not have the risk of being taken down by someone smarter than the *** guard AI?
Please explain the griefing to me.
None of the bounty hunters would hang out around the refuge doors to take a shot at a target trying to get into the sanctuary, would they? Because once they get to the refuge they can get rid of their bounty..... No one would hang out around wayshrines to take a shot at someone with a bounty porting in, would they? No one would camp quest locations to take a shot at a target, would they? Nah, none of them would ever think about doing something like that....
And? If you made it so people couldn't be attacked before the bounty was high enough, those people would actually have to try to get it into a place where they could be attacked. I mean I'm A horrible thief/assassin and I've only ever had a bounty of 10k once and I let it happen. Also don't forget the pack of thieves who might sign up to protect their own. Killing these ganking guards.
So so what if the scenario you are afraid of happens? The people you are trying to protect would have signed up.
RE bold
yes thats it - exactly dead spot on...
for those who simply Dont want PVP consequences for PVE play the answer for them is to form up gangs to sit around and wait for opportunities to protect themselves through the awesome joy that is PVP!!!
This nails it on the head!
Dead spot on.
Very illuminating.
Very telling.
.
Again since you people seem to be ignoring it. The only people who would be put in this position, are the people who signed up to be guards, or those who let their bounties get silly large. So those who want to use the pvp part of the system. The people who don't want pvp consequences for pve still wouldn't have them. But keep being afraid of stuff that won't affect you I guess.
Very illuminating.
Very telling.3 -
Knootewoot✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Only thing they should add, imho, is that when you are caught by a guard you should have the option to pay your sentence (and go to jail for x amount of hours but can escape if you had lockpicks but stuff is in evidence chest except all lockpicks)
Caught by guard:
- pay fine
- serve sentence
- clemency
- flee٩(͡๏̯͡๏)۶
"I am a nightblade. Blending the disciplines of the stealthy agent and subtle wizard, I move unseen and undetected, foil locks and traps, and teleport to safety when threatened, or strike like a viper from ambush. The College of Illusion hides me and fuddles or pacifies my opponents. The College of Mysticism detects my object, reflects and dispels enemy spells, and makes good my escape. The key to a nightblade's success is avoidance, by spell or by stealth; with these skills, all things are possible."1 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »LegendaryArcher wrote: »My post might make some of you facepalm, but can anyone explain to me what exactly this griefing would look like?
Let's take the most simple system: Upstanding, Disreputable, Notorious, Fugitive as they are now and a 5th "rank" where PvP comes into play. Doesn't matter if that player is free to kill for everyone or one must take a special quest to have this player assigned as target, where is the griefing potential?
The justice system is about being careful and not getting caught. I have gotten all my Justice achievements very long time ago and have never been running around even close to Fugitive. If you go on a rampage in the city, why not have the risk of being taken down by someone smarter than the *** guard AI?
Please explain the griefing to me.
None of the bounty hunters would hang out around the refuge doors to take a shot at a target trying to get into the sanctuary, would they? Because once they get to the refuge they can get rid of their bounty..... No one would hang out around wayshrines to take a shot at someone with a bounty porting in, would they? No one would camp quest locations to take a shot at a target, would they? Nah, none of them would ever think about doing something like that....
And? If you made it so people couldn't be attacked before the bounty was high enough, those people would actually have to try to get it into a place where they could be attacked. I mean I'm A horrible thief/assassin and I've only ever had a bounty of 10k once and I let it happen. Also don't forget the pack of thieves who might sign up to protect their own. Killing these ganking guards.
So so what if the scenario you are afraid of happens? The people you are trying to protect would have signed up.
RE bold
yes thats it - exactly dead spot on...
for those who simply Dont want PVP consequences for PVE play the answer for them is to form up gangs to sit around and wait for opportunities to protect themselves through the awesome joy that is PVP!!!
This nails it on the head!
Dead spot on.
Very illuminating.
Very telling.
.
Again since you people seem to be ignoring it. The only people who would be put in this position, are the people who signed up to be guards, or those who let their bounties get silly large. So those who want to use the pvp part of the system. The people who don't want pvp consequences for pve still wouldn't have them. But keep being afraid of stuff that won't affect you I guess.
Very illuminating.
Very telling.
Last time i checked getting any bounty even a high bounty was a PVE action. It is running PVE content.
This is simply put PVP players wanting to take over some PVP content to turn it into a PVP enabling action.
The mental gymnastics needed to in one sentence describe pve choices enabling pvp vulnerability and then in the very nect sentence say there wouldnt be pvp consequences for pve is frankly amazing.
Proudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
YFMV Your Fun May Vary.
First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
"The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."2 -
LaiTash✭✭✭
Last time i checked getting any bounty even a high bounty was a PVE action. It is running PVE content.
This is simply put PVP players wanting to take over some PVP content to turn it into a PVP enabling action.
The mental gymnastics needed to in one sentence describe pve choices enabling pvp vulnerability and then in the very nect sentence say there wouldnt be pvp consequences for pve is frankly amazing.
What's the point in making a MMO if all inter-player interactions are limited to PvP paddock, trading, and a few dungeons you occasionaly run with a random group? It's actually a single-player game without all the advantages of single-player games.1 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭
Last time i checked getting any bounty even a high bounty was a PVE action. It is running PVE content.
This is simply put PVP players wanting to take over some PVP content to turn it into a PVP enabling action.
The mental gymnastics needed to in one sentence describe pve choices enabling pvp vulnerability and then in the very nect sentence say there wouldnt be pvp consequences for pve is frankly amazing.
What's the point in making a MMO if all inter-player interactions are limited to PvP paddock, trading, and a few dungeons you occasionaly run with a random group? It's actually a single-player game without all the advantages of single-player games.
Thats quite a straw man you hsve there.
There are plenty of folks who group with guildies and friends, not just random groups.
There are plrnty of folks who group for trials.
There arr plenty who interact for rp.
A game doesnt have to be pointless as an mmo if it doednt allow pvp assault on pve players.
The apparent need of some pvp players to get pve players as targets is telling.
I mean, pvp players can go into cyro to get fights against people wsnting pvp, people ecpecting pvp and people geared for pvp any day every day.
In OneT they can even get the same with dueling most anywhere.
There are lotsa consensual pvp opportunities.
But i guess for some that just isnt the same as getting a non-consensual pvp fight against someone performing pve, geared for pve and who maybe more commonly plays pve, is it?
Guess if that pve player didn't want non-consensual pvp they shouldnt have dressed so provo... errr...racked up that bounty.
Illuminating, how some think pve actions justify pvp attacks.
Proudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
YFMV Your Fun May Vary.
First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
"The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."4 -
vyndral13preub18_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »LegendaryArcher wrote: »My post might make some of you facepalm, but can anyone explain to me what exactly this griefing would look like?
Let's take the most simple system: Upstanding, Disreputable, Notorious, Fugitive as they are now and a 5th "rank" where PvP comes into play. Doesn't matter if that player is free to kill for everyone or one must take a special quest to have this player assigned as target, where is the griefing potential?
The justice system is about being careful and not getting caught. I have gotten all my Justice achievements very long time ago and have never been running around even close to Fugitive. If you go on a rampage in the city, why not have the risk of being taken down by someone smarter than the *** guard AI?
Please explain the griefing to me.
None of the bounty hunters would hang out around the refuge doors to take a shot at a target trying to get into the sanctuary, would they? Because once they get to the refuge they can get rid of their bounty..... No one would hang out around wayshrines to take a shot at someone with a bounty porting in, would they? No one would camp quest locations to take a shot at a target, would they? Nah, none of them would ever think about doing something like that....
And? If you made it so people couldn't be attacked before the bounty was high enough, those people would actually have to try to get it into a place where they could be attacked. I mean I'm A horrible thief/assassin and I've only ever had a bounty of 10k once and I let it happen. Also don't forget the pack of thieves who might sign up to protect their own. Killing these ganking guards.
So so what if the scenario you are afraid of happens? The people you are trying to protect would have signed up.
RE bold
yes thats it - exactly dead spot on...
for those who simply Dont want PVP consequences for PVE play the answer for them is to form up gangs to sit around and wait for opportunities to protect themselves through the awesome joy that is PVP!!!
This nails it on the head!
Dead spot on.
Very illuminating.
Very telling.
.
Again since you people seem to be ignoring it. The only people who would be put in this position, are the people who signed up to be guards, or those who let their bounties get silly large. So those who want to use the pvp part of the system. The people who don't want pvp consequences for pve still wouldn't have them. But keep being afraid of stuff that won't affect you I guess.
Very illuminating.
Very telling.
Last time i checked getting any bounty even a high bounty was a PVE action. It is running PVE content.
This is simply put PVP players wanting to take over some PVP content to turn it into a PVP enabling action.
The mental gymnastics needed to in one sentence describe pve choices enabling pvp vulnerability and then in the very nect sentence say there wouldnt be pvp consequences for pve is frankly amazing.
Accepting a duel enables pvp in while running in pve areas. Traveling to Cyrodiil enables pvp.
I can see why giving players a choice would be scary to some, because decisions are hard. Perhaps a few more mental gymnastics by some isnt such a bad thing.
Last time i checked getting any bounty even a high bounty was a PVE action. It is running PVE content.
This is simply put PVP players wanting to take over some PVP content to turn it into a PVP enabling action.
The mental gymnastics needed to in one sentence describe pve choices enabling pvp vulnerability and then in the very nect sentence say there wouldnt be pvp consequences for pve is frankly amazing.
What's the point in making a MMO if all inter-player interactions are limited to PvP paddock, trading, and a few dungeons you occasionaly run with a random group? It's actually a single-player game without all the advantages of single-player games.
Thats quite a straw man you hsve there.
There are plenty of folks who group with guildies and friends, not just random groups.
There are plrnty of folks who group for trials.
There arr plenty who interact for rp.
A game doesnt have to be pointless as an mmo if it doednt allow pvp assault on pve players.
The apparent need of some pvp players to get pve players as targets is telling.
I mean, pvp players can go into cyro to get fights against people wsnting pvp, people ecpecting pvp and people geared for pvp any day every day.
In OneT they can even get the same with dueling most anywhere.
There are lotsa consensual pvp opportunities.
But i guess for some that just isnt the same as getting a non-consensual pvp fight against someone performing pve, geared for pve and who maybe more commonly plays pve, is it?
Guess if that pve player didn't want non-consensual pvp they shouldnt have dressed so provo... errr...racked up that bounty.
Illuminating, how some think pve actions justify pvp attacks.
It is funny that you assume everyone wants to gank people who cant play. Im not sure why you are so afraid.
For many it is simply something fun. I try to steal. You try to stop me.
Edited by vyndral13preub18_ESO on September 25, 2016 6:17PM3 -
LaiTash✭✭✭
Last time i checked getting any bounty even a high bounty was a PVE action. It is running PVE content.
This is simply put PVP players wanting to take over some PVP content to turn it into a PVP enabling action.
The mental gymnastics needed to in one sentence describe pve choices enabling pvp vulnerability and then in the very nect sentence say there wouldnt be pvp consequences for pve is frankly amazing.
What's the point in making a MMO if all inter-player interactions are limited to PvP paddock, trading, and a few dungeons you occasionaly run with a random group? It's actually a single-player game without all the advantages of single-player games.
Thats quite a straw man you hsve there.
There are plenty of folks who group with guildies and friends, not just random groups.
There are plrnty of folks who group for trials.
There arr plenty who interact for rp.
A game doesnt have to be pointless as an mmo if it doednt allow pvp assault on pve players.
The apparent need of some pvp players to get pve players as targets is telling.
I mean, pvp players can go into cyro to get fights against people wsnting pvp, people ecpecting pvp and people geared for pvp any day every day.
In OneT they can even get the same with dueling most anywhere.
There are lotsa consensual pvp opportunities.
But i guess for some that just isnt the same as getting a non-consensual pvp fight against someone performing pve, geared for pve and who maybe more commonly plays pve, is it?
Guess if that pve player didn't want non-consensual pvp they shouldnt have dressed so provo... errr...racked up that bounty.
Illuminating, how some think pve actions justify pvp attacks.
I'm not sure why you mark off PvP from PvE that much. Why can't PvE activities lead to PvP consequences? Yeah, i think pve actions can justify pvp attacks, unless i consider other player characters as something that doesn't belong to that world. Hey, why i can kill or rob alsmost any NPC, but when it comes to PC, i, the Radiant Champion, Eye of the Queen, Vanquisher of Molag Bal, Saviour to This and That et cetera, forced to watch some cat killing an innocent altmer woman right before my eyes, powerless to do anything. It seems like there should be an option to disable rendering other players because all they do is consume my limited cpu power, except for a few RPers. I know there can't be any form of oldschool free-pvp, but the justice system as it was planned was great, and what we have now is a total boredom with no challenge whatsoever.Edited by LaiTash on September 25, 2016 6:31PM5 -
vyndral13preub18_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭
Last time i checked getting any bounty even a high bounty was a PVE action. It is running PVE content.
This is simply put PVP players wanting to take over some PVP content to turn it into a PVP enabling action.
The mental gymnastics needed to in one sentence describe pve choices enabling pvp vulnerability and then in the very nect sentence say there wouldnt be pvp consequences for pve is frankly amazing.
What's the point in making a MMO if all inter-player interactions are limited to PvP paddock, trading, and a few dungeons you occasionaly run with a random group? It's actually a single-player game without all the advantages of single-player games.
Thats quite a straw man you hsve there.
There are plenty of folks who group with guildies and friends, not just random groups.
There are plrnty of folks who group for trials.
There arr plenty who interact for rp.
A game doesnt have to be pointless as an mmo if it doednt allow pvp assault on pve players.
The apparent need of some pvp players to get pve players as targets is telling.
I mean, pvp players can go into cyro to get fights against people wsnting pvp, people ecpecting pvp and people geared for pvp any day every day.
In OneT they can even get the same with dueling most anywhere.
There are lotsa consensual pvp opportunities.
But i guess for some that just isnt the same as getting a non-consensual pvp fight against someone performing pve, geared for pve and who maybe more commonly plays pve, is it?
Guess if that pve player didn't want non-consensual pvp they shouldnt have dressed so provo... errr...racked up that bounty.
Illuminating, how some think pve actions justify pvp attacks.
I'm not sure why you mark off PvP from PvE that much. Why can't PvE activities lead to PvP consequences? Yeah, i think pve actions can justify pvp attacks, unless i consider other player characters as something that doesn't belong to that world. Hey, why i can kill or rob alsmost any NPC, but when it comes to PC, i can't even prevent him from killing an innocent? It seems like there should be an option to disable rendering other players because all they do is consume my limited cpu power, except for a few RPers. I know there can't be any form of oldschool free-pvp, but the justice system as it was planned was great, and what we have now is a total boredom with no challenge whatsoever.
Well it is a fairly easy way to make gold. I can see why some might want to protect that. Wouldnt want other players getting in that way of free easy gold.2 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »LegendaryArcher wrote: »My post might make some of you facepalm, but can anyone explain to me what exactly this griefing would look like?
Let's take the most simple system: Upstanding, Disreputable, Notorious, Fugitive as they are now and a 5th "rank" where PvP comes into play. Doesn't matter if that player is free to kill for everyone or one must take a special quest to have this player assigned as target, where is the griefing potential?
The justice system is about being careful and not getting caught. I have gotten all my Justice achievements very long time ago and have never been running around even close to Fugitive. If you go on a rampage in the city, why not have the risk of being taken down by someone smarter than the *** guard AI?
Please explain the griefing to me.
None of the bounty hunters would hang out around the refuge doors to take a shot at a target trying to get into the sanctuary, would they? Because once they get to the refuge they can get rid of their bounty..... No one would hang out around wayshrines to take a shot at someone with a bounty porting in, would they? No one would camp quest locations to take a shot at a target, would they? Nah, none of them would ever think about doing something like that....
And? If you made it so people couldn't be attacked before the bounty was high enough, those people would actually have to try to get it into a place where they could be attacked. I mean I'm A horrible thief/assassin and I've only ever had a bounty of 10k once and I let it happen. Also don't forget the pack of thieves who might sign up to protect their own. Killing these ganking guards.
So so what if the scenario you are afraid of happens? The people you are trying to protect would have signed up.
RE bold
yes thats it - exactly dead spot on...
for those who simply Dont want PVP consequences for PVE play the answer for them is to form up gangs to sit around and wait for opportunities to protect themselves through the awesome joy that is PVP!!!
This nails it on the head!
Dead spot on.
Very illuminating.
Very telling.
.
Again since you people seem to be ignoring it. The only people who would be put in this position, are the people who signed up to be guards, or those who let their bounties get silly large. So those who want to use the pvp part of the system. The people who don't want pvp consequences for pve still wouldn't have them. But keep being afraid of stuff that won't affect you I guess.
Very illuminating.
Very telling.
Last time i checked getting any bounty even a high bounty was a PVE action. It is running PVE content.
This is simply put PVP players wanting to take over some PVP content to turn it into a PVP enabling action.
The mental gymnastics needed to in one sentence describe pve choices enabling pvp vulnerability and then in the very nect sentence say there wouldnt be pvp consequences for pve is frankly amazing.
Accepting a duel enables pvp in while running in pve areas. Traveling to Cyrodiil enables pvp.
I can see why giving players a choice would be scary to some, because decisions are hard. Perhaps a few more mental gymnastics by some isnt such a bad thing.
Last time i checked getting any bounty even a high bounty was a PVE action. It is running PVE content.
This is simply put PVP players wanting to take over some PVP content to turn it into a PVP enabling action.
The mental gymnastics needed to in one sentence describe pve choices enabling pvp vulnerability and then in the very nect sentence say there wouldnt be pvp consequences for pve is frankly amazing.
What's the point in making a MMO if all inter-player interactions are limited to PvP paddock, trading, and a few dungeons you occasionaly run with a random group? It's actually a single-player game without all the advantages of single-player games.
Thats quite a straw man you hsve there.
There are plenty of folks who group with guildies and friends, not just random groups.
There are plrnty of folks who group for trials.
There arr plenty who interact for rp.
A game doesnt have to be pointless as an mmo if it doednt allow pvp assault on pve players.
The apparent need of some pvp players to get pve players as targets is telling.
I mean, pvp players can go into cyro to get fights against people wsnting pvp, people ecpecting pvp and people geared for pvp any day every day.
In OneT they can even get the same with dueling most anywhere.
There are lotsa consensual pvp opportunities.
But i guess for some that just isnt the same as getting a non-consensual pvp fight against someone performing pve, geared for pve and who maybe more commonly plays pve, is it?
Guess if that pve player didn't want non-consensual pvp they shouldnt have dressed so provo... errr...racked up that bounty.
Illuminating, how some think pve actions justify pvp attacks.
It is funny that you assume everyone wants to gank people who cant play. Im not sure why you are so afraid.
For many it is simply something fun. I try to steal. You try to stop me.
First bold - yes both those choices which aren't pve actions enable pvp. What is being suggested here and then in following sentences denied is making a PVE action enable pvp.
Second bold - i repeatedly say some and you turn it into me saying everyone for your straw reply? Very telling. very illuminating
Proudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
YFMV Your Fun May Vary.
First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
"The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."1 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭
Last time i checked getting any bounty even a high bounty was a PVE action. It is running PVE content.
This is simply put PVP players wanting to take over some PVP content to turn it into a PVP enabling action.
The mental gymnastics needed to in one sentence describe pve choices enabling pvp vulnerability and then in the very nect sentence say there wouldnt be pvp consequences for pve is frankly amazing.
What's the point in making a MMO if all inter-player interactions are limited to PvP paddock, trading, and a few dungeons you occasionaly run with a random group? It's actually a single-player game without all the advantages of single-player games.
Thats quite a straw man you hsve there.
There are plenty of folks who group with guildies and friends, not just random groups.
There are plrnty of folks who group for trials.
There arr plenty who interact for rp.
A game doesnt have to be pointless as an mmo if it doednt allow pvp assault on pve players.
The apparent need of some pvp players to get pve players as targets is telling.
I mean, pvp players can go into cyro to get fights against people wsnting pvp, people ecpecting pvp and people geared for pvp any day every day.
In OneT they can even get the same with dueling most anywhere.
There are lotsa consensual pvp opportunities.
But i guess for some that just isnt the same as getting a non-consensual pvp fight against someone performing pve, geared for pve and who maybe more commonly plays pve, is it?
Guess if that pve player didn't want non-consensual pvp they shouldnt have dressed so provo... errr...racked up that bounty.
Illuminating, how some think pve actions justify pvp attacks.
I'm not sure why you mark off PvP from PvE that much. Why can't PvE activities lead to PvP consequences? Yeah, i think pve actions can justify pvp attacks, unless i consider other player characters as something that doesn't belong to that world. Hey, why i can kill or rob alsmost any NPC, but when it comes to PC, i, the Radiant Champion, Eye of the Queen, Vanquisher of Molag Bal, Saviour to This and That et cetera, forced to watch some cat killing an innocent altmer woman right before my eyes, powerless to do anything. It seems like there should be an option to disable rendering other players because all they do is consume my limited cpu power, except for a few RPers. I know there can't be any form of oldschool free-pvp, but the justice system as it was planned was great, and what we have now is a total boredom with no challenge whatsoever.
this game has proceeded for several years and with good reason to have a solid firewall between pve activities and pvp. their attempt at overlap by running pve quests into pvp zones proved not to get them the results they wanted. their development of PVP-PVE injustice showed them its just not a good idea to proceed. Many PVE players dont want PVp.
So yeah i concur with and support that specific firewall between PVP and PVE. i can say with certainty that I NEVER did any IC content PVE questing, even with offers to go in with gangs, specifically because it involved PVP.
I can and do fully respect that my choices for my actions are my own, yours are your own, and i should not be able to inflict mine on you. i shouldn't be able to take over your game play directly by forcing you to quest with me into a PVE delve if you want to play PVP duels. Similarly, you shouldn't be able to do the same to me with pvp DUELS OR WHATEVER OTHER JUSTIFICATION YOU WANT.
Now, lets consider the "but why not" from an in character perspective.
Your pet case is of course "killing innocents" for content in PVE where you think that should enable non-consensual PVP mandatory forced participation.
Well... hey what about...
I am playing a vampire and i see your character questing in Shadowfen killing vampires? You are literally murdering my people. Time for me to force you out of your quest and into non-consensual pvp duels?
I am playing a member of the aldmeri dominion and you are killing my kinfolk who yeah have landed on your shores and are setting up a beachhead but i agree with what they are doing so... hey look, its bangkorai right we already have an agreement with the local magistrates and your PC is interfering in tandem with some inhuman hag beast. Time for some force you out of quest and into non-consensual mandatory pvp play.
hey, i am a member of the green pact and you are setting fires in wooded areas near some ruins. Time for some Time for me to force you out of your quest and into non-consensual pvp duels?
hey, i am a werewolf and you are killing my kinfolk in support of some horrific noise-making minstrels even to the point of trying to kill the pack leader when he tries to shut them up... Time for me to force you out of your quest and into non-consensual pvp duels?
What a minute there, i decided eating giant flesh to grow stronger is the right choice to protect the village and save lives and now you are here trying to disrupt that plan by choosing a different quest solution so... Time for me to force you out of your quest and into non-consensual pvp duels?
HEY... now you dont see the big picture... the lead vampire is right and the rebl "vegetarian vamps" will eventually go berserk and slaughter many so I need to stop you from helping them so that all in all more will be saved... Time for me to force you out of your quest and into non-consensual pvp duels?
See how ugly the game gets when whatever PVE actions someone doesn't like allowing others to do" becomes justification for mandatory, non-consensual PVP combat.
BUT HERE IS THE GOOD NEWS...
right now you can (if both you and the other player want to) play out just such a challenge. Just open a dialog, start a duel and fight it out.
if its over a crime you witnessed, then agree before hand they will "pay a bounty" if they lose and you will "pay off their bounty" if you lose.
You could even FORM A GUILD of like minded folks. have guild tabards for the roles. have your guild master send out a daily "locations for pvp justice today" and whenever one of your enforcers withnessed a guildie doing criminal stuff they could challenge duel and so on.
For those who want all this done between consenting players, the mechanics are there... or will be in about 10 days more or less.
But this seems to be not sufficient - only involving folks who consent - for some - cuz it sure seems that most every time it comes up it involves "PVE ACTION provokes PVP response" or even if an opt-out is given that is married to "and lets make pve only injustice play much harder not worth doing without commensurate rewards for the raise in difficulty so folks wont bother with the non-pve content."
Proudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
YFMV Your Fun May Vary.
First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
"The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."1 -
vyndral13preub18_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »LegendaryArcher wrote: »My post might make some of you facepalm, but can anyone explain to me what exactly this griefing would look like?
Let's take the most simple system: Upstanding, Disreputable, Notorious, Fugitive as they are now and a 5th "rank" where PvP comes into play. Doesn't matter if that player is free to kill for everyone or one must take a special quest to have this player assigned as target, where is the griefing potential?
The justice system is about being careful and not getting caught. I have gotten all my Justice achievements very long time ago and have never been running around even close to Fugitive. If you go on a rampage in the city, why not have the risk of being taken down by someone smarter than the *** guard AI?
Please explain the griefing to me.
None of the bounty hunters would hang out around the refuge doors to take a shot at a target trying to get into the sanctuary, would they? Because once they get to the refuge they can get rid of their bounty..... No one would hang out around wayshrines to take a shot at someone with a bounty porting in, would they? No one would camp quest locations to take a shot at a target, would they? Nah, none of them would ever think about doing something like that....
And? If you made it so people couldn't be attacked before the bounty was high enough, those people would actually have to try to get it into a place where they could be attacked. I mean I'm A horrible thief/assassin and I've only ever had a bounty of 10k once and I let it happen. Also don't forget the pack of thieves who might sign up to protect their own. Killing these ganking guards.
So so what if the scenario you are afraid of happens? The people you are trying to protect would have signed up.
RE bold
yes thats it - exactly dead spot on...
for those who simply Dont want PVP consequences for PVE play the answer for them is to form up gangs to sit around and wait for opportunities to protect themselves through the awesome joy that is PVP!!!
This nails it on the head!
Dead spot on.
Very illuminating.
Very telling.
.
Again since you people seem to be ignoring it. The only people who would be put in this position, are the people who signed up to be guards, or those who let their bounties get silly large. So those who want to use the pvp part of the system. The people who don't want pvp consequences for pve still wouldn't have them. But keep being afraid of stuff that won't affect you I guess.
Very illuminating.
Very telling.
Last time i checked getting any bounty even a high bounty was a PVE action. It is running PVE content.
This is simply put PVP players wanting to take over some PVP content to turn it into a PVP enabling action.
The mental gymnastics needed to in one sentence describe pve choices enabling pvp vulnerability and then in the very nect sentence say there wouldnt be pvp consequences for pve is frankly amazing.
Accepting a duel enables pvp in while running in pve areas. Traveling to Cyrodiil enables pvp.
I can see why giving players a choice would be scary to some, because decisions are hard. Perhaps a few more mental gymnastics by some isnt such a bad thing.
Last time i checked getting any bounty even a high bounty was a PVE action. It is running PVE content.
This is simply put PVP players wanting to take over some PVP content to turn it into a PVP enabling action.
The mental gymnastics needed to in one sentence describe pve choices enabling pvp vulnerability and then in the very nect sentence say there wouldnt be pvp consequences for pve is frankly amazing.
What's the point in making a MMO if all inter-player interactions are limited to PvP paddock, trading, and a few dungeons you occasionaly run with a random group? It's actually a single-player game without all the advantages of single-player games.
Thats quite a straw man you hsve there.
There are plenty of folks who group with guildies and friends, not just random groups.
There are plrnty of folks who group for trials.
There arr plenty who interact for rp.
A game doesnt have to be pointless as an mmo if it doednt allow pvp assault on pve players.
The apparent need of some pvp players to get pve players as targets is telling.
I mean, pvp players can go into cyro to get fights against people wsnting pvp, people ecpecting pvp and people geared for pvp any day every day.
In OneT they can even get the same with dueling most anywhere.
There are lotsa consensual pvp opportunities.
But i guess for some that just isnt the same as getting a non-consensual pvp fight against someone performing pve, geared for pve and who maybe more commonly plays pve, is it?
Guess if that pve player didn't want non-consensual pvp they shouldnt have dressed so provo... errr...racked up that bounty.
Illuminating, how some think pve actions justify pvp attacks.
It is funny that you assume everyone wants to gank people who cant play. Im not sure why you are so afraid.
For many it is simply something fun. I try to steal. You try to stop me.
First bold - yes both those choices which aren't pve actions enable pvp. What is being suggested here and then in following sentences denied is making a PVE action enable pvp.
Second bold - i repeatedly say some and you turn it into me saying everyone for your straw reply? Very telling. very illuminating
You know fear is a path to the dark side right?
Again Im not sure what is so scary for you. So if you choose to let your bounty get so high someone might try to stop you. It is a choice. And here ill throw this in since the fear is strong with you, once your bounty hit that point you have an option pop up. Either you would be flagged pvp until your bounty went down or the guards would be unkillable again. Because obviously if you had player guards real guards would have to be killable.
And before you go on about pve action blah blah blah. A pop up menu and pressing E is all i have to do to get into cyrodiil. So the same restriction would apply.
Now you can let go your fear.2 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »LegendaryArcher wrote: »My post might make some of you facepalm, but can anyone explain to me what exactly this griefing would look like?
Let's take the most simple system: Upstanding, Disreputable, Notorious, Fugitive as they are now and a 5th "rank" where PvP comes into play. Doesn't matter if that player is free to kill for everyone or one must take a special quest to have this player assigned as target, where is the griefing potential?
The justice system is about being careful and not getting caught. I have gotten all my Justice achievements very long time ago and have never been running around even close to Fugitive. If you go on a rampage in the city, why not have the risk of being taken down by someone smarter than the *** guard AI?
Please explain the griefing to me.
None of the bounty hunters would hang out around the refuge doors to take a shot at a target trying to get into the sanctuary, would they? Because once they get to the refuge they can get rid of their bounty..... No one would hang out around wayshrines to take a shot at someone with a bounty porting in, would they? No one would camp quest locations to take a shot at a target, would they? Nah, none of them would ever think about doing something like that....
And? If you made it so people couldn't be attacked before the bounty was high enough, those people would actually have to try to get it into a place where they could be attacked. I mean I'm A horrible thief/assassin and I've only ever had a bounty of 10k once and I let it happen. Also don't forget the pack of thieves who might sign up to protect their own. Killing these ganking guards.
So so what if the scenario you are afraid of happens? The people you are trying to protect would have signed up.
RE bold
yes thats it - exactly dead spot on...
for those who simply Dont want PVP consequences for PVE play the answer for them is to form up gangs to sit around and wait for opportunities to protect themselves through the awesome joy that is PVP!!!
This nails it on the head!
Dead spot on.
Very illuminating.
Very telling.
.
Again since you people seem to be ignoring it. The only people who would be put in this position, are the people who signed up to be guards, or those who let their bounties get silly large. So those who want to use the pvp part of the system. The people who don't want pvp consequences for pve still wouldn't have them. But keep being afraid of stuff that won't affect you I guess.
Very illuminating.
Very telling.
Last time i checked getting any bounty even a high bounty was a PVE action. It is running PVE content.
This is simply put PVP players wanting to take over some PVP content to turn it into a PVP enabling action.
The mental gymnastics needed to in one sentence describe pve choices enabling pvp vulnerability and then in the very nect sentence say there wouldnt be pvp consequences for pve is frankly amazing.
Accepting a duel enables pvp in while running in pve areas. Traveling to Cyrodiil enables pvp.
I can see why giving players a choice would be scary to some, because decisions are hard. Perhaps a few more mental gymnastics by some isnt such a bad thing.
Last time i checked getting any bounty even a high bounty was a PVE action. It is running PVE content.
This is simply put PVP players wanting to take over some PVP content to turn it into a PVP enabling action.
The mental gymnastics needed to in one sentence describe pve choices enabling pvp vulnerability and then in the very nect sentence say there wouldnt be pvp consequences for pve is frankly amazing.
What's the point in making a MMO if all inter-player interactions are limited to PvP paddock, trading, and a few dungeons you occasionaly run with a random group? It's actually a single-player game without all the advantages of single-player games.
Thats quite a straw man you hsve there.
There are plenty of folks who group with guildies and friends, not just random groups.
There are plrnty of folks who group for trials.
There arr plenty who interact for rp.
A game doesnt have to be pointless as an mmo if it doednt allow pvp assault on pve players.
The apparent need of some pvp players to get pve players as targets is telling.
I mean, pvp players can go into cyro to get fights against people wsnting pvp, people ecpecting pvp and people geared for pvp any day every day.
In OneT they can even get the same with dueling most anywhere.
There are lotsa consensual pvp opportunities.
But i guess for some that just isnt the same as getting a non-consensual pvp fight against someone performing pve, geared for pve and who maybe more commonly plays pve, is it?
Guess if that pve player didn't want non-consensual pvp they shouldnt have dressed so provo... errr...racked up that bounty.
Illuminating, how some think pve actions justify pvp attacks.
It is funny that you assume everyone wants to gank people who cant play. Im not sure why you are so afraid.
For many it is simply something fun. I try to steal. You try to stop me.
First bold - yes both those choices which aren't pve actions enable pvp. What is being suggested here and then in following sentences denied is making a PVE action enable pvp.
Second bold - i repeatedly say some and you turn it into me saying everyone for your straw reply? Very telling. very illuminating
You know fear is a path to the dark side right?
Again Im not sure what is so scary for you. So if you choose to let your bounty get so high someone might try to stop you. It is a choice. And here ill throw this in since the fear is strong with you, once your bounty hit that point you have an option pop up. Either you would be flagged pvp until your bounty went down or the guards would be unkillable again. Because obviously if you had player guards real guards would have to be killable.
And before you go on about pve action blah blah blah. A pop up menu and pressing E is all i have to do to get into cyrodiil. So the same restriction would apply.
Now you can let go your fear.
Different preferences are not fear. just different preferences.
i have no issues whatsoever with the current unkillable guards.
i would have a problem with throwing a dialog i have to respond to when i get hit with a risky instance of bounty. Seems designed to just slow down my response and maneuvers long enough for something bad to happen.
I imagine PVPers having a PVE DECLINE dialog eating up their key-clicks at the start of a pvp fight wouldn't be on the "YAY LETS DO THAT list.
Thats not fear either - its just wanting to play what you want to play and not be forced out of it into something you dont because some other players feels entitled to make you.
Again, a cute way to make PVE play more difficult unless they take the PVP... like i said... keeps getting thrown into that "but its optional" etc.
gathering a high bounty is a PVE action is playing PVE content and should not engender a need for PVP decline or vulnerability to non-concensual PVP play.
And once again the key deception is duplicated...
You tie the entry into cyrodil which is entirely player prompted, doesn't come up in play on its own and doesn't spawn out of a PVE content action with the automatic pop-up in play when certain PVE content conditions are met as if one is consensual and the other is as well.
this has nothing to do with fear, but choice, but the fear thing i guess is more useful baiting for some who dont want the consensual thing to be kept in focus?
Proudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
YFMV Your Fun May Vary.
First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
"The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."1 -
LaiTash✭✭✭I am playing a vampire and i see your character questing in Shadowfen killing vampires? You are literally murdering my people. Time for me to force you out of your quest and into non-consensual pvp duels?
That and other examples are irrelevant, because there's no way to implement such form of pvp without turning the game into deathmatch. Justice system, on the other hand, wouldn't do that. If you don't want to pvp and still want to commit "crimes" - just don't get caught! It's simple, isn't it?I can and do fully respect that my choices for my actions are my own, yours are your own, and i should not be able to inflict mine on you.
So as i said, you could just as well just turn rendering other characters not partied with you off. It would only make the game better and more immersive then it is now. Or make all overland zones instanced like the harborage. No more those filthy Other Players killing a boss right before you came in, forcing you to wait until it respawns. Seriously, it would be a huge improvement to the game as there is no real point of other PCs hanging around, except for an occasional dance party on the market maybe.Edited by LaiTash on September 25, 2016 7:13PM1 -
vyndral13preub18_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »LegendaryArcher wrote: »My post might make some of you facepalm, but can anyone explain to me what exactly this griefing would look like?
Let's take the most simple system: Upstanding, Disreputable, Notorious, Fugitive as they are now and a 5th "rank" where PvP comes into play. Doesn't matter if that player is free to kill for everyone or one must take a special quest to have this player assigned as target, where is the griefing potential?
The justice system is about being careful and not getting caught. I have gotten all my Justice achievements very long time ago and have never been running around even close to Fugitive. If you go on a rampage in the city, why not have the risk of being taken down by someone smarter than the *** guard AI?
Please explain the griefing to me.
None of the bounty hunters would hang out around the refuge doors to take a shot at a target trying to get into the sanctuary, would they? Because once they get to the refuge they can get rid of their bounty..... No one would hang out around wayshrines to take a shot at someone with a bounty porting in, would they? No one would camp quest locations to take a shot at a target, would they? Nah, none of them would ever think about doing something like that....
And? If you made it so people couldn't be attacked before the bounty was high enough, those people would actually have to try to get it into a place where they could be attacked. I mean I'm A horrible thief/assassin and I've only ever had a bounty of 10k once and I let it happen. Also don't forget the pack of thieves who might sign up to protect their own. Killing these ganking guards.
So so what if the scenario you are afraid of happens? The people you are trying to protect would have signed up.
RE bold
yes thats it - exactly dead spot on...
for those who simply Dont want PVP consequences for PVE play the answer for them is to form up gangs to sit around and wait for opportunities to protect themselves through the awesome joy that is PVP!!!
This nails it on the head!
Dead spot on.
Very illuminating.
Very telling.
.
Again since you people seem to be ignoring it. The only people who would be put in this position, are the people who signed up to be guards, or those who let their bounties get silly large. So those who want to use the pvp part of the system. The people who don't want pvp consequences for pve still wouldn't have them. But keep being afraid of stuff that won't affect you I guess.
Very illuminating.
Very telling.
Last time i checked getting any bounty even a high bounty was a PVE action. It is running PVE content.
This is simply put PVP players wanting to take over some PVP content to turn it into a PVP enabling action.
The mental gymnastics needed to in one sentence describe pve choices enabling pvp vulnerability and then in the very nect sentence say there wouldnt be pvp consequences for pve is frankly amazing.
Accepting a duel enables pvp in while running in pve areas. Traveling to Cyrodiil enables pvp.
I can see why giving players a choice would be scary to some, because decisions are hard. Perhaps a few more mental gymnastics by some isnt such a bad thing.
Last time i checked getting any bounty even a high bounty was a PVE action. It is running PVE content.
This is simply put PVP players wanting to take over some PVP content to turn it into a PVP enabling action.
The mental gymnastics needed to in one sentence describe pve choices enabling pvp vulnerability and then in the very nect sentence say there wouldnt be pvp consequences for pve is frankly amazing.
What's the point in making a MMO if all inter-player interactions are limited to PvP paddock, trading, and a few dungeons you occasionaly run with a random group? It's actually a single-player game without all the advantages of single-player games.
Thats quite a straw man you hsve there.
There are plenty of folks who group with guildies and friends, not just random groups.
There are plrnty of folks who group for trials.
There arr plenty who interact for rp.
A game doesnt have to be pointless as an mmo if it doednt allow pvp assault on pve players.
The apparent need of some pvp players to get pve players as targets is telling.
I mean, pvp players can go into cyro to get fights against people wsnting pvp, people ecpecting pvp and people geared for pvp any day every day.
In OneT they can even get the same with dueling most anywhere.
There are lotsa consensual pvp opportunities.
But i guess for some that just isnt the same as getting a non-consensual pvp fight against someone performing pve, geared for pve and who maybe more commonly plays pve, is it?
Guess if that pve player didn't want non-consensual pvp they shouldnt have dressed so provo... errr...racked up that bounty.
Illuminating, how some think pve actions justify pvp attacks.
It is funny that you assume everyone wants to gank people who cant play. Im not sure why you are so afraid.
For many it is simply something fun. I try to steal. You try to stop me.
First bold - yes both those choices which aren't pve actions enable pvp. What is being suggested here and then in following sentences denied is making a PVE action enable pvp.
Second bold - i repeatedly say some and you turn it into me saying everyone for your straw reply? Very telling. very illuminating
You know fear is a path to the dark side right?
Again Im not sure what is so scary for you. So if you choose to let your bounty get so high someone might try to stop you. It is a choice. And here ill throw this in since the fear is strong with you, once your bounty hit that point you have an option pop up. Either you would be flagged pvp until your bounty went down or the guards would be unkillable again. Because obviously if you had player guards real guards would have to be killable.
And before you go on about pve action blah blah blah. A pop up menu and pressing E is all i have to do to get into cyrodiil. So the same restriction would apply.
Now you can let go your fear.
Different preferences are not fear. just different preferences.
i have no issues whatsoever with the current unkillable guards.
i would have a problem with throwing a dialog i have to respond to when i get hit with a risky instance of bounty. Seems designed to just slow down my response and maneuvers long enough for something bad to happen.
I imagine PVPers having a PVE DECLINE dialog eating up their key-clicks at the start of a pvp fight wouldn't be on the "YAY LETS DO THAT list.
Thats not fear either - its just wanting to play what you want to play and not be forced out of it into something you dont because some other players feels entitled to make you.
Again, a cute way to make PVE play more difficult unless they take the PVP... like i said... keeps getting thrown into that "but its optional" etc.
gathering a high bounty is a PVE action is playing PVE content and should not engender a need for PVP decline or vulnerability to non-concensual PVP play.
And once again the key deception is duplicated...
You tie the entry into cyrodil which is entirely player prompted, doesn't come up in play on its own and doesn't spawn out of a PVE content action with the automatic pop-up in play when certain PVE content conditions are met as if one is consensual and the other is as well.
this has nothing to do with fear, but choice, but the fear thing i guess is more useful baiting for some who dont want the consensual thing to be kept in focus?
Ah i assumed it was fear since you went on a long rant about how people just wanted to kill people who couldnt fight back. It seems you are ok pointing out when people dont share your view point. But are not afraid to make up silly stuff when others dont share yours. atleast we have that in common.
Im not sure how choosing the nonpvp option would make the game harder, it is the way it is now. And actually once i thought about it, the guards would have to stay unkillable until you flagged pvp, to keep all the pvers honest. If they could kill the guards their is no justice system at all.Edited by vyndral13preub18_ESO on September 25, 2016 7:19PM2 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭I am playing a vampire and i see your character questing in Shadowfen killing vampires? You are literally murdering my people. Time for me to force you out of your quest and into non-consensual pvp duels?
That and other examples are irrelevant, because there's no way to implement such form of pvp without turning the game into deathmatch. Justice system, on the other hand, wouldn't do that. If you don't want to pvp and still want to commit "crimes" - just don't get caught! It's simple, isn't it?I can and do fully respect that my choices for my actions are my own, yours are your own, and i should not be able to inflict mine on you.
So as i said, you could just as well just turn rendering other characters not partied with you off. It would only make the game better and more immersive then it is now. Or make all overland zones instanced like the harborage. No more those filthy Other Players killing a boss right before you came in, forcing you to wait until it respawns. Seriously, it would be a huge improvement to the game as there is no real point of other PCs hanging around, except for an occasional dance party on the market maybe.
First bld... sorry but turning injustice pve play into deathmatch is apparently a good thing that will add to the play of pve injustice content and make the game better - so if that is true why wont that also apply to these other pve content play?
As for "simple" not get caught etc... nope... not so simple. there are a whole lot of "what if" and "how to" to be worked out like "can pvp enforcer players witness crimes and provoke bounty?" See if that answer is YES then that turns a whole lot of content where players know where the injustice quests send people into deathmatch. if that answer is No then it seems this whole "but i shouldn't have to sit by and watch crimes" is shown to be utter BS.
The game has currently a lot of injustice content - two DLC in fact with dailies of many different types that send you around the world. There is no question that while "within game persepctive" it is illegal it is still "outside the game perspective" valid content to be played as PVE. Its not like an exploit or improper gaming behavior, its just an alternative set of questlines and casual content that someone can play if they like it better than say delving or dungeoning or questing or pvping.
if you choose to use "in game perspective morality" to justify PVP forced non-consensual content then there are as i listed above a whole lot of other "morality" triggers ready in the wings. if all those are dismissed because the players wouldn't like being forced into PVP, then that also applies to the PVE justice content, right?
that is actually quite simple, unlike enabling PVP-forced-by-PVE-content.
Proudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
YFMV Your Fun May Vary.
First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
"The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."1 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »LegendaryArcher wrote: »My post might make some of you facepalm, but can anyone explain to me what exactly this griefing would look like?
Let's take the most simple system: Upstanding, Disreputable, Notorious, Fugitive as they are now and a 5th "rank" where PvP comes into play. Doesn't matter if that player is free to kill for everyone or one must take a special quest to have this player assigned as target, where is the griefing potential?
The justice system is about being careful and not getting caught. I have gotten all my Justice achievements very long time ago and have never been running around even close to Fugitive. If you go on a rampage in the city, why not have the risk of being taken down by someone smarter than the *** guard AI?
Please explain the griefing to me.
None of the bounty hunters would hang out around the refuge doors to take a shot at a target trying to get into the sanctuary, would they? Because once they get to the refuge they can get rid of their bounty..... No one would hang out around wayshrines to take a shot at someone with a bounty porting in, would they? No one would camp quest locations to take a shot at a target, would they? Nah, none of them would ever think about doing something like that....
And? If you made it so people couldn't be attacked before the bounty was high enough, those people would actually have to try to get it into a place where they could be attacked. I mean I'm A horrible thief/assassin and I've only ever had a bounty of 10k once and I let it happen. Also don't forget the pack of thieves who might sign up to protect their own. Killing these ganking guards.
So so what if the scenario you are afraid of happens? The people you are trying to protect would have signed up.
RE bold
yes thats it - exactly dead spot on...
for those who simply Dont want PVP consequences for PVE play the answer for them is to form up gangs to sit around and wait for opportunities to protect themselves through the awesome joy that is PVP!!!
This nails it on the head!
Dead spot on.
Very illuminating.
Very telling.
.
Again since you people seem to be ignoring it. The only people who would be put in this position, are the people who signed up to be guards, or those who let their bounties get silly large. So those who want to use the pvp part of the system. The people who don't want pvp consequences for pve still wouldn't have them. But keep being afraid of stuff that won't affect you I guess.
Very illuminating.
Very telling.
Last time i checked getting any bounty even a high bounty was a PVE action. It is running PVE content.
This is simply put PVP players wanting to take over some PVP content to turn it into a PVP enabling action.
The mental gymnastics needed to in one sentence describe pve choices enabling pvp vulnerability and then in the very nect sentence say there wouldnt be pvp consequences for pve is frankly amazing.
Accepting a duel enables pvp in while running in pve areas. Traveling to Cyrodiil enables pvp.
I can see why giving players a choice would be scary to some, because decisions are hard. Perhaps a few more mental gymnastics by some isnt such a bad thing.
Last time i checked getting any bounty even a high bounty was a PVE action. It is running PVE content.
This is simply put PVP players wanting to take over some PVP content to turn it into a PVP enabling action.
The mental gymnastics needed to in one sentence describe pve choices enabling pvp vulnerability and then in the very nect sentence say there wouldnt be pvp consequences for pve is frankly amazing.
What's the point in making a MMO if all inter-player interactions are limited to PvP paddock, trading, and a few dungeons you occasionaly run with a random group? It's actually a single-player game without all the advantages of single-player games.
Thats quite a straw man you hsve there.
There are plenty of folks who group with guildies and friends, not just random groups.
There are plrnty of folks who group for trials.
There arr plenty who interact for rp.
A game doesnt have to be pointless as an mmo if it doednt allow pvp assault on pve players.
The apparent need of some pvp players to get pve players as targets is telling.
I mean, pvp players can go into cyro to get fights against people wsnting pvp, people ecpecting pvp and people geared for pvp any day every day.
In OneT they can even get the same with dueling most anywhere.
There are lotsa consensual pvp opportunities.
But i guess for some that just isnt the same as getting a non-consensual pvp fight against someone performing pve, geared for pve and who maybe more commonly plays pve, is it?
Guess if that pve player didn't want non-consensual pvp they shouldnt have dressed so provo... errr...racked up that bounty.
Illuminating, how some think pve actions justify pvp attacks.
It is funny that you assume everyone wants to gank people who cant play. Im not sure why you are so afraid.
For many it is simply something fun. I try to steal. You try to stop me.
First bold - yes both those choices which aren't pve actions enable pvp. What is being suggested here and then in following sentences denied is making a PVE action enable pvp.
Second bold - i repeatedly say some and you turn it into me saying everyone for your straw reply? Very telling. very illuminating
You know fear is a path to the dark side right?
Again Im not sure what is so scary for you. So if you choose to let your bounty get so high someone might try to stop you. It is a choice. And here ill throw this in since the fear is strong with you, once your bounty hit that point you have an option pop up. Either you would be flagged pvp until your bounty went down or the guards would be unkillable again. Because obviously if you had player guards real guards would have to be killable.
And before you go on about pve action blah blah blah. A pop up menu and pressing E is all i have to do to get into cyrodiil. So the same restriction would apply.
Now you can let go your fear.
Different preferences are not fear. just different preferences.
i have no issues whatsoever with the current unkillable guards.
i would have a problem with throwing a dialog i have to respond to when i get hit with a risky instance of bounty. Seems designed to just slow down my response and maneuvers long enough for something bad to happen.
I imagine PVPers having a PVE DECLINE dialog eating up their key-clicks at the start of a pvp fight wouldn't be on the "YAY LETS DO THAT list.
Thats not fear either - its just wanting to play what you want to play and not be forced out of it into something you dont because some other players feels entitled to make you.
Again, a cute way to make PVE play more difficult unless they take the PVP... like i said... keeps getting thrown into that "but its optional" etc.
gathering a high bounty is a PVE action is playing PVE content and should not engender a need for PVP decline or vulnerability to non-concensual PVP play.
And once again the key deception is duplicated...
You tie the entry into cyrodil which is entirely player prompted, doesn't come up in play on its own and doesn't spawn out of a PVE content action with the automatic pop-up in play when certain PVE content conditions are met as if one is consensual and the other is as well.
this has nothing to do with fear, but choice, but the fear thing i guess is more useful baiting for some who dont want the consensual thing to be kept in focus?
Ah i assumed it was fear since you went on a long rant about how people just wanted to kill people who couldnt fight back. It seems you are ok pointing out when people dont share your view point. But are not afraid to make up silly stuff when others dont share yours. atleast we have that in common.
Im not sure how choosing the nonpvp option would make the game harder, it is the way it is now. And actually once i thought about it, the guards would have to stay unkillable until you flagged pvp, to keep all the pvers honest. If they could kill the guards their is no justice system at all.
Ok so again you seem to be skewing two different things together.
if you look back you will find that i frequently, often and actually tried to keep my comments on people wanting to kill unprepared at the "some people" level of characterization. i made it clear over and over it was some poeple, not all people, not everyone etc.
You however, kept talking about MY fear, putting that on me.
Now, maybe for some, the difference between discussing what some people may want and specifically ascribing something to a specific person is not significant, just like to some the difference between consenting to pvp and playing pve content are not significantly different as far as enabling PVP attacks, but to others those two are quite different.
just like some might not see the difference between playing pve content and having a pvp denail pop-up jumping in at critical moments makes a difference either.
just like some people may not see a difference between different preferences and fear.
At least, when it suits their purpose.
Fortunately, ZOS does. that is why they gave an auto-decline option for dueling so PVE players dont have to be forced into dealing with PVPers trying to grief them while they play PVE content if they dont want to.Edited by STEVIL on September 25, 2016 7:33PMProudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
YFMV Your Fun May Vary.
First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
"The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."2 -
vyndral13preub18_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »LegendaryArcher wrote: »My post might make some of you facepalm, but can anyone explain to me what exactly this griefing would look like?
Let's take the most simple system: Upstanding, Disreputable, Notorious, Fugitive as they are now and a 5th "rank" where PvP comes into play. Doesn't matter if that player is free to kill for everyone or one must take a special quest to have this player assigned as target, where is the griefing potential?
The justice system is about being careful and not getting caught. I have gotten all my Justice achievements very long time ago and have never been running around even close to Fugitive. If you go on a rampage in the city, why not have the risk of being taken down by someone smarter than the *** guard AI?
Please explain the griefing to me.
None of the bounty hunters would hang out around the refuge doors to take a shot at a target trying to get into the sanctuary, would they? Because once they get to the refuge they can get rid of their bounty..... No one would hang out around wayshrines to take a shot at someone with a bounty porting in, would they? No one would camp quest locations to take a shot at a target, would they? Nah, none of them would ever think about doing something like that....
And? If you made it so people couldn't be attacked before the bounty was high enough, those people would actually have to try to get it into a place where they could be attacked. I mean I'm A horrible thief/assassin and I've only ever had a bounty of 10k once and I let it happen. Also don't forget the pack of thieves who might sign up to protect their own. Killing these ganking guards.
So so what if the scenario you are afraid of happens? The people you are trying to protect would have signed up.
RE bold
yes thats it - exactly dead spot on...
for those who simply Dont want PVP consequences for PVE play the answer for them is to form up gangs to sit around and wait for opportunities to protect themselves through the awesome joy that is PVP!!!
This nails it on the head!
Dead spot on.
Very illuminating.
Very telling.
.
Again since you people seem to be ignoring it. The only people who would be put in this position, are the people who signed up to be guards, or those who let their bounties get silly large. So those who want to use the pvp part of the system. The people who don't want pvp consequences for pve still wouldn't have them. But keep being afraid of stuff that won't affect you I guess.
Very illuminating.
Very telling.
Last time i checked getting any bounty even a high bounty was a PVE action. It is running PVE content.
This is simply put PVP players wanting to take over some PVP content to turn it into a PVP enabling action.
The mental gymnastics needed to in one sentence describe pve choices enabling pvp vulnerability and then in the very nect sentence say there wouldnt be pvp consequences for pve is frankly amazing.
Accepting a duel enables pvp in while running in pve areas. Traveling to Cyrodiil enables pvp.
I can see why giving players a choice would be scary to some, because decisions are hard. Perhaps a few more mental gymnastics by some isnt such a bad thing.
Last time i checked getting any bounty even a high bounty was a PVE action. It is running PVE content.
This is simply put PVP players wanting to take over some PVP content to turn it into a PVP enabling action.
The mental gymnastics needed to in one sentence describe pve choices enabling pvp vulnerability and then in the very nect sentence say there wouldnt be pvp consequences for pve is frankly amazing.
What's the point in making a MMO if all inter-player interactions are limited to PvP paddock, trading, and a few dungeons you occasionaly run with a random group? It's actually a single-player game without all the advantages of single-player games.
Thats quite a straw man you hsve there.
There are plenty of folks who group with guildies and friends, not just random groups.
There are plrnty of folks who group for trials.
There arr plenty who interact for rp.
A game doesnt have to be pointless as an mmo if it doednt allow pvp assault on pve players.
The apparent need of some pvp players to get pve players as targets is telling.
I mean, pvp players can go into cyro to get fights against people wsnting pvp, people ecpecting pvp and people geared for pvp any day every day.
In OneT they can even get the same with dueling most anywhere.
There are lotsa consensual pvp opportunities.
But i guess for some that just isnt the same as getting a non-consensual pvp fight against someone performing pve, geared for pve and who maybe more commonly plays pve, is it?
Guess if that pve player didn't want non-consensual pvp they shouldnt have dressed so provo... errr...racked up that bounty.
Illuminating, how some think pve actions justify pvp attacks.
It is funny that you assume everyone wants to gank people who cant play. Im not sure why you are so afraid.
For many it is simply something fun. I try to steal. You try to stop me.
First bold - yes both those choices which aren't pve actions enable pvp. What is being suggested here and then in following sentences denied is making a PVE action enable pvp.
Second bold - i repeatedly say some and you turn it into me saying everyone for your straw reply? Very telling. very illuminating
You know fear is a path to the dark side right?
Again Im not sure what is so scary for you. So if you choose to let your bounty get so high someone might try to stop you. It is a choice. And here ill throw this in since the fear is strong with you, once your bounty hit that point you have an option pop up. Either you would be flagged pvp until your bounty went down or the guards would be unkillable again. Because obviously if you had player guards real guards would have to be killable.
And before you go on about pve action blah blah blah. A pop up menu and pressing E is all i have to do to get into cyrodiil. So the same restriction would apply.
Now you can let go your fear.
Different preferences are not fear. just different preferences.
i have no issues whatsoever with the current unkillable guards.
i would have a problem with throwing a dialog i have to respond to when i get hit with a risky instance of bounty. Seems designed to just slow down my response and maneuvers long enough for something bad to happen.
I imagine PVPers having a PVE DECLINE dialog eating up their key-clicks at the start of a pvp fight wouldn't be on the "YAY LETS DO THAT list.
Thats not fear either - its just wanting to play what you want to play and not be forced out of it into something you dont because some other players feels entitled to make you.
Again, a cute way to make PVE play more difficult unless they take the PVP... like i said... keeps getting thrown into that "but its optional" etc.
gathering a high bounty is a PVE action is playing PVE content and should not engender a need for PVP decline or vulnerability to non-concensual PVP play.
And once again the key deception is duplicated...
You tie the entry into cyrodil which is entirely player prompted, doesn't come up in play on its own and doesn't spawn out of a PVE content action with the automatic pop-up in play when certain PVE content conditions are met as if one is consensual and the other is as well.
this has nothing to do with fear, but choice, but the fear thing i guess is more useful baiting for some who dont want the consensual thing to be kept in focus?
Ah i assumed it was fear since you went on a long rant about how people just wanted to kill people who couldnt fight back. It seems you are ok pointing out when people dont share your view point. But are not afraid to make up silly stuff when others dont share yours. atleast we have that in common.
Im not sure how choosing the nonpvp option would make the game harder, it is the way it is now. And actually once i thought about it, the guards would have to stay unkillable until you flagged pvp, to keep all the pvers honest. If they could kill the guards their is no justice system at all.
Ok so again you seem to be skewing two different things together.
if you look back you will find that i frequently, often and actually tried to keep my comments on people wanting to kill unprepared at the "some people" level of characterization. i made it clear over and over it was some poeple, not all people, not everyone etc.
You however, kept talking about MY fear, putting that on me.
Now, maybe for some, the difference between discussing what some people may want and specifically ascribing something to a specific person is not significant, just like to some the difference between consenting to pvp and playing pve content are not significantly different as far as enabling PVP attacks, but to others those two are quite different.
just like some might not see the difference between playing pve content and having a pvp denail pop-up jumping in at critical moments makes a difference either.
just like some people may not see a difference between different preferences and fear.
At least, when it suits their purpose.
Let me ask you something. Would you have a problem with if it was set up, so people could talk to the assassin or thieves guild leader and flag themselves pvp. Someone wanting to be a guard/bounty hunter would sign up where ever a mob was added. They would be flagged until they talked to that mob again.
No pve content leading to pvp and people have to make the choice knowing full well going in what that choice is.
Edited by vyndral13preub18_ESO on September 25, 2016 8:41PM1 -
LaiTash✭✭✭As for "simple" not get caught etc... nope... not so simple. there are a whole lot of "what if" and "how to" to be worked out like "can pvp enforcer players witness crimes and provoke bounty?" See if that answer is YES then that turns a whole lot of content where players know where the injustice quests send people into deathmatch. if that answer is No then it seems this whole "but i shouldn't have to sit by and watch crimes" is shown to be utter BS.
There's always a way to prevent other players from witnessing your actions. The only problem i see here is thieves/db quests, but i'm sure it can be solved with little effort. I just want more actual interaction between players and more sandbox elements without turning it into some Rust, and a complete justice system would acomplish that. Don't know why anyone would oppose it unless they're afraid of loosing such an easy way to farm gold. Never thought an elder scrolls themed MMO would be an another theme park and Elder Scrolls fans will be happy about it.Edited by LaiTash on September 25, 2016 7:42PM1 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭As for "simple" not get caught etc... nope... not so simple. there are a whole lot of "what if" and "how to" to be worked out like "can pvp enforcer players witness crimes and provoke bounty?" See if that answer is YES then that turns a whole lot of content where players know where the injustice quests send people into deathmatch. if that answer is No then it seems this whole "but i shouldn't have to sit by and watch crimes" is shown to be utter BS.
There's always a way to prevent other players from witnessing your actions. The only problem i see here is thieves/db quests, but i'm sure it can be solved with little effort. I just want more actual interaction between players and more sandbox elements without turning it into some Rust, and a complete justice system would acomplish that. Don't know why anyone would oppose it unless they're afraid of loosing such an easy way to farm gold. Never thought an elder scrolls themed MMO would be an another theme park and Elder Scrolls fans will be happy about it.
I disagree that you need to have pvp elements in pve content in order for such content to be characterized as comolete. Its a notion i find nonsensical in a game with so much pve contrnt. We have a msinline core system involving content in every city and dlc except the pvp zones, twp DLC devoted to injustice content, two injustice skill lines and multiple types of dailies but for some its incomplete unless it includes pvp vs pve players.
Unfathomable.
Also, yes, i consider casual injustice pksy to be lrgit as farming activity as grinding, delving, questing etc. Its current difficulty vs time vs gain is a little sub par to those others but it is close enough. Forcing pvp onto any pve casual activity would be a major error imo.
What i would love to see is an expsnsion of justice content.
New justice quest themed dlc, daily worldwide justice quests including escort missions from mages guild, hunt down worldwide missions from fighters guild, "world boss" style missions rousting a couple new strongholds, new passive lawman skill line, etc. Nothing pvp needed to expand the existing content.
And no there is not aleays a wzy tp prevent players from seeing your actions except by just not doing them. Stealth does not make you unseen UNTIL you and the other player are red vs each other.
Could lotsa things be rewritten to make it happen this way or that way? Sure. But whether or not enough people want it or if it ends up just driving folks awsy from content is another issue entirely.
Proudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
YFMV Your Fun May Vary.
First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
"The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."1 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »LegendaryArcher wrote: »My post might make some of you facepalm, but can anyone explain to me what exactly this griefing would look like?
Let's take the most simple system: Upstanding, Disreputable, Notorious, Fugitive as they are now and a 5th "rank" where PvP comes into play. Doesn't matter if that player is free to kill for everyone or one must take a special quest to have this player assigned as target, where is the griefing potential?
The justice system is about being careful and not getting caught. I have gotten all my Justice achievements very long time ago and have never been running around even close to Fugitive. If you go on a rampage in the city, why not have the risk of being taken down by someone smarter than the *** guard AI?
Please explain the griefing to me.
None of the bounty hunters would hang out around the refuge doors to take a shot at a target trying to get into the sanctuary, would they? Because once they get to the refuge they can get rid of their bounty..... No one would hang out around wayshrines to take a shot at someone with a bounty porting in, would they? No one would camp quest locations to take a shot at a target, would they? Nah, none of them would ever think about doing something like that....
And? If you made it so people couldn't be attacked before the bounty was high enough, those people would actually have to try to get it into a place where they could be attacked. I mean I'm A horrible thief/assassin and I've only ever had a bounty of 10k once and I let it happen. Also don't forget the pack of thieves who might sign up to protect their own. Killing these ganking guards.
So so what if the scenario you are afraid of happens? The people you are trying to protect would have signed up.
RE bold
yes thats it - exactly dead spot on...
for those who simply Dont want PVP consequences for PVE play the answer for them is to form up gangs to sit around and wait for opportunities to protect themselves through the awesome joy that is PVP!!!
This nails it on the head!
Dead spot on.
Very illuminating.
Very telling.
.
Again since you people seem to be ignoring it. The only people who would be put in this position, are the people who signed up to be guards, or those who let their bounties get silly large. So those who want to use the pvp part of the system. The people who don't want pvp consequences for pve still wouldn't have them. But keep being afraid of stuff that won't affect you I guess.
Very illuminating.
Very telling.
Last time i checked getting any bounty even a high bounty was a PVE action. It is running PVE content.
This is simply put PVP players wanting to take over some PVP content to turn it into a PVP enabling action.
The mental gymnastics needed to in one sentence describe pve choices enabling pvp vulnerability and then in the very nect sentence say there wouldnt be pvp consequences for pve is frankly amazing.
Accepting a duel enables pvp in while running in pve areas. Traveling to Cyrodiil enables pvp.
I can see why giving players a choice would be scary to some, because decisions are hard. Perhaps a few more mental gymnastics by some isnt such a bad thing.
Last time i checked getting any bounty even a high bounty was a PVE action. It is running PVE content.
This is simply put PVP players wanting to take over some PVP content to turn it into a PVP enabling action.
The mental gymnastics needed to in one sentence describe pve choices enabling pvp vulnerability and then in the very nect sentence say there wouldnt be pvp consequences for pve is frankly amazing.
What's the point in making a MMO if all inter-player interactions are limited to PvP paddock, trading, and a few dungeons you occasionaly run with a random group? It's actually a single-player game without all the advantages of single-player games.
Thats quite a straw man you hsve there.
There are plenty of folks who group with guildies and friends, not just random groups.
There are plrnty of folks who group for trials.
There arr plenty who interact for rp.
A game doesnt have to be pointless as an mmo if it doednt allow pvp assault on pve players.
The apparent need of some pvp players to get pve players as targets is telling.
I mean, pvp players can go into cyro to get fights against people wsnting pvp, people ecpecting pvp and people geared for pvp any day every day.
In OneT they can even get the same with dueling most anywhere.
There are lotsa consensual pvp opportunities.
But i guess for some that just isnt the same as getting a non-consensual pvp fight against someone performing pve, geared for pve and who maybe more commonly plays pve, is it?
Guess if that pve player didn't want non-consensual pvp they shouldnt have dressed so provo... errr...racked up that bounty.
Illuminating, how some think pve actions justify pvp attacks.
It is funny that you assume everyone wants to gank people who cant play. Im not sure why you are so afraid.
For many it is simply something fun. I try to steal. You try to stop me.
First bold - yes both those choices which aren't pve actions enable pvp. What is being suggested here and then in following sentences denied is making a PVE action enable pvp.
Second bold - i repeatedly say some and you turn it into me saying everyone for your straw reply? Very telling. very illuminating
You know fear is a path to the dark side right?
Again Im not sure what is so scary for you. So if you choose to let your bounty get so high someone might try to stop you. It is a choice. And here ill throw this in since the fear is strong with you, once your bounty hit that point you have an option pop up. Either you would be flagged pvp until your bounty went down or the guards would be unkillable again. Because obviously if you had player guards real guards would have to be killable.
And before you go on about pve action blah blah blah. A pop up menu and pressing E is all i have to do to get into cyrodiil. So the same restriction would apply.
Now you can let go your fear.
Different preferences are not fear. just different preferences.
i have no issues whatsoever with the current unkillable guards.
i would have a problem with throwing a dialog i have to respond to when i get hit with a risky instance of bounty. Seems designed to just slow down my response and maneuvers long enough for something bad to happen.
I imagine PVPers having a PVE DECLINE dialog eating up their key-clicks at the start of a pvp fight wouldn't be on the "YAY LETS DO THAT list.
Thats not fear either - its just wanting to play what you want to play and not be forced out of it into something you dont because some other players feels entitled to make you.
Again, a cute way to make PVE play more difficult unless they take the PVP... like i said... keeps getting thrown into that "but its optional" etc.
gathering a high bounty is a PVE action is playing PVE content and should not engender a need for PVP decline or vulnerability to non-concensual PVP play.
And once again the key deception is duplicated...
You tie the entry into cyrodil which is entirely player prompted, doesn't come up in play on its own and doesn't spawn out of a PVE content action with the automatic pop-up in play when certain PVE content conditions are met as if one is consensual and the other is as well.
this has nothing to do with fear, but choice, but the fear thing i guess is more useful baiting for some who dont want the consensual thing to be kept in focus?
Ah i assumed it was fear since you went on a long rant about how people just wanted to kill people who couldnt fight back. It seems you are ok pointing out when people dont share your view point. But are not afraid to make up silly stuff when others dont share yours. atleast we have that in common.
Im not sure how choosing the nonpvp option would make the game harder, it is the way it is now. And actually once i thought about it, the guards would have to stay unkillable until you flagged pvp, to keep all the pvers honest. If they could kill the guards their is no justice system at all.
Ok so again you seem to be skewing two different things together.
if you look back you will find that i frequently, often and actually tried to keep my comments on people wanting to kill unprepared at the "some people" level of characterization. i made it clear over and over it was some poeple, not all people, not everyone etc.
You however, kept talking about MY fear, putting that on me.
Now, maybe for some, the difference between discussing what some people may want and specifically ascribing something to a specific person is not significant, just like to some the difference between consenting to pvp and playing pve content are not significantly different as far as enabling PVP attacks, but to others those two are quite different.
just like some might not see the difference between playing pve content and having a pvp denail pop-up jumping in at critical moments makes a difference either.
just like some people may not see a difference between different preferences and fear.
At least, when it suits their purpose.
Let me ask you something. Would you have a problem with if it was set up, so people could talk to the assassin or thieves guild leader and flag themselves pvp. Someone wanting to be a guard/bounty hunter would sign up where ever a mob was added. They would be flagged until they talked to that mob again.
No pve content leading to pvp and people have to make the choice knowing full well going in what that choice is.
I have zero problem with players choosing to engage in pvp. with duels in u12 they can wrap it in justice flavor if they want.
The devil is usually however in the details.
Consider that zos added a limit to duels in an area to prevent overconcentration of pvp in a given pve spot causing problems but what you just described eould allow 50 thieves and 50 enforcers to lsunch massive pvp in pve zones cities maybe even delves, dungeons, banks who knows. I have to imagine if 22 folks involved in duels is a risk of problem unlimited justice pvp would be too.
But while you are asking the clean question without specifics, an opt-in, so far in the discussions a clean opt-in without also screwing the opt-out has never seemed to get the same enthusiasm as the proposals which serve up pve targets to pvpers.
Proudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
YFMV Your Fun May Vary.
First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
"The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."1 -
jcasini222ub17_ESO✭✭✭✭This thread made me chuckle. I remember mastering 14 professions to unlock the ability to be a Jedi in a long distant game.
I remember facing off against bounty hunters tracking me to distant planets, way out in the wild and facing off. It was awesome. (We didn't usually fight in cities, wasn't smart to be a Jedi in a city unless you were rolling deep)
So I actually have done more PvE then I ever would want just to have a chance at amazing PvP moments.
I feel like when first announced the justice system would be similar to bounty hunting in SWG from the enforcement perspective. That didn't happen, a shame.
No question some of my best gaming memories are from that system from hunting as a bh to surviving as a Jedi. For that experience you had to do a stupid amount of PvE for PvP and I do it again in a heartbeat. Shame ESO never tapped at sandbox potential an elder scrolls game can embody.2 -
vyndral13preub18_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »LegendaryArcher wrote: »My post might make some of you facepalm, but can anyone explain to me what exactly this griefing would look like?
Let's take the most simple system: Upstanding, Disreputable, Notorious, Fugitive as they are now and a 5th "rank" where PvP comes into play. Doesn't matter if that player is free to kill for everyone or one must take a special quest to have this player assigned as target, where is the griefing potential?
The justice system is about being careful and not getting caught. I have gotten all my Justice achievements very long time ago and have never been running around even close to Fugitive. If you go on a rampage in the city, why not have the risk of being taken down by someone smarter than the *** guard AI?
Please explain the griefing to me.
None of the bounty hunters would hang out around the refuge doors to take a shot at a target trying to get into the sanctuary, would they? Because once they get to the refuge they can get rid of their bounty..... No one would hang out around wayshrines to take a shot at someone with a bounty porting in, would they? No one would camp quest locations to take a shot at a target, would they? Nah, none of them would ever think about doing something like that....
And? If you made it so people couldn't be attacked before the bounty was high enough, those people would actually have to try to get it into a place where they could be attacked. I mean I'm A horrible thief/assassin and I've only ever had a bounty of 10k once and I let it happen. Also don't forget the pack of thieves who might sign up to protect their own. Killing these ganking guards.
So so what if the scenario you are afraid of happens? The people you are trying to protect would have signed up.
RE bold
yes thats it - exactly dead spot on...
for those who simply Dont want PVP consequences for PVE play the answer for them is to form up gangs to sit around and wait for opportunities to protect themselves through the awesome joy that is PVP!!!
This nails it on the head!
Dead spot on.
Very illuminating.
Very telling.
.
Again since you people seem to be ignoring it. The only people who would be put in this position, are the people who signed up to be guards, or those who let their bounties get silly large. So those who want to use the pvp part of the system. The people who don't want pvp consequences for pve still wouldn't have them. But keep being afraid of stuff that won't affect you I guess.
Very illuminating.
Very telling.
Last time i checked getting any bounty even a high bounty was a PVE action. It is running PVE content.
This is simply put PVP players wanting to take over some PVP content to turn it into a PVP enabling action.
The mental gymnastics needed to in one sentence describe pve choices enabling pvp vulnerability and then in the very nect sentence say there wouldnt be pvp consequences for pve is frankly amazing.
Accepting a duel enables pvp in while running in pve areas. Traveling to Cyrodiil enables pvp.
I can see why giving players a choice would be scary to some, because decisions are hard. Perhaps a few more mental gymnastics by some isnt such a bad thing.
Last time i checked getting any bounty even a high bounty was a PVE action. It is running PVE content.
This is simply put PVP players wanting to take over some PVP content to turn it into a PVP enabling action.
The mental gymnastics needed to in one sentence describe pve choices enabling pvp vulnerability and then in the very nect sentence say there wouldnt be pvp consequences for pve is frankly amazing.
What's the point in making a MMO if all inter-player interactions are limited to PvP paddock, trading, and a few dungeons you occasionaly run with a random group? It's actually a single-player game without all the advantages of single-player games.
Thats quite a straw man you hsve there.
There are plenty of folks who group with guildies and friends, not just random groups.
There are plrnty of folks who group for trials.
There arr plenty who interact for rp.
A game doesnt have to be pointless as an mmo if it doednt allow pvp assault on pve players.
The apparent need of some pvp players to get pve players as targets is telling.
I mean, pvp players can go into cyro to get fights against people wsnting pvp, people ecpecting pvp and people geared for pvp any day every day.
In OneT they can even get the same with dueling most anywhere.
There are lotsa consensual pvp opportunities.
But i guess for some that just isnt the same as getting a non-consensual pvp fight against someone performing pve, geared for pve and who maybe more commonly plays pve, is it?
Guess if that pve player didn't want non-consensual pvp they shouldnt have dressed so provo... errr...racked up that bounty.
Illuminating, how some think pve actions justify pvp attacks.
It is funny that you assume everyone wants to gank people who cant play. Im not sure why you are so afraid.
For many it is simply something fun. I try to steal. You try to stop me.
First bold - yes both those choices which aren't pve actions enable pvp. What is being suggested here and then in following sentences denied is making a PVE action enable pvp.
Second bold - i repeatedly say some and you turn it into me saying everyone for your straw reply? Very telling. very illuminating
You know fear is a path to the dark side right?
Again Im not sure what is so scary for you. So if you choose to let your bounty get so high someone might try to stop you. It is a choice. And here ill throw this in since the fear is strong with you, once your bounty hit that point you have an option pop up. Either you would be flagged pvp until your bounty went down or the guards would be unkillable again. Because obviously if you had player guards real guards would have to be killable.
And before you go on about pve action blah blah blah. A pop up menu and pressing E is all i have to do to get into cyrodiil. So the same restriction would apply.
Now you can let go your fear.
Different preferences are not fear. just different preferences.
i have no issues whatsoever with the current unkillable guards.
i would have a problem with throwing a dialog i have to respond to when i get hit with a risky instance of bounty. Seems designed to just slow down my response and maneuvers long enough for something bad to happen.
I imagine PVPers having a PVE DECLINE dialog eating up their key-clicks at the start of a pvp fight wouldn't be on the "YAY LETS DO THAT list.
Thats not fear either - its just wanting to play what you want to play and not be forced out of it into something you dont because some other players feels entitled to make you.
Again, a cute way to make PVE play more difficult unless they take the PVP... like i said... keeps getting thrown into that "but its optional" etc.
gathering a high bounty is a PVE action is playing PVE content and should not engender a need for PVP decline or vulnerability to non-concensual PVP play.
And once again the key deception is duplicated...
You tie the entry into cyrodil which is entirely player prompted, doesn't come up in play on its own and doesn't spawn out of a PVE content action with the automatic pop-up in play when certain PVE content conditions are met as if one is consensual and the other is as well.
this has nothing to do with fear, but choice, but the fear thing i guess is more useful baiting for some who dont want the consensual thing to be kept in focus?
Ah i assumed it was fear since you went on a long rant about how people just wanted to kill people who couldnt fight back. It seems you are ok pointing out when people dont share your view point. But are not afraid to make up silly stuff when others dont share yours. atleast we have that in common.
Im not sure how choosing the nonpvp option would make the game harder, it is the way it is now. And actually once i thought about it, the guards would have to stay unkillable until you flagged pvp, to keep all the pvers honest. If they could kill the guards their is no justice system at all.
Ok so again you seem to be skewing two different things together.
if you look back you will find that i frequently, often and actually tried to keep my comments on people wanting to kill unprepared at the "some people" level of characterization. i made it clear over and over it was some poeple, not all people, not everyone etc.
You however, kept talking about MY fear, putting that on me.
Now, maybe for some, the difference between discussing what some people may want and specifically ascribing something to a specific person is not significant, just like to some the difference between consenting to pvp and playing pve content are not significantly different as far as enabling PVP attacks, but to others those two are quite different.
just like some might not see the difference between playing pve content and having a pvp denail pop-up jumping in at critical moments makes a difference either.
just like some people may not see a difference between different preferences and fear.
At least, when it suits their purpose.
Let me ask you something. Would you have a problem with if it was set up, so people could talk to the assassin or thieves guild leader and flag themselves pvp. Someone wanting to be a guard/bounty hunter would sign up where ever a mob was added. They would be flagged until they talked to that mob again.
No pve content leading to pvp and people have to make the choice knowing full well going in what that choice is.
I have zero problem with players choosing to engage in pvp. with duels in u12 they can wrap it in justice flavor if they want.
The devil is usually however in the details.
Consider that zos added a limit to duels in an area to prevent overconcentration of pvp in a given pve spot causing problems but what you just described eould allow 50 thieves and 50 enforcers to lsunch massive pvp in pve zones cities maybe even delves, dungeons, banks who knows. I have to imagine if 22 folks involved in duels is a risk of problem unlimited justice pvp would be too.
But while you are asking the clean question without specifics, an opt-in, so far in the discussions a clean opt-in without also screwing the opt-out has never seemed to get the same enthusiasm as the proposals which serve up pve targets to pvpers.
So is that a yes or a no for you? Surely you can see why I ask? Everytime something is mentioned you fold yourself around why it would be a bad idea. For example never once in this conversation have you mention performance problems. But when asked directly about if you would support a solution that bypasses the issue you Seem to have had before,here comes more excuse. And you wont even answer, giving a vague, the pvp crowd probably doesnt want it.
At least just come right out and say, you know I dont like the idea of pvp in my pve areas and there is nothing you can do that will change that. You dont have to go on and on with the excuses.1 -
LaiTash✭✭✭I disagree that you need to have pvp elements in pve content
"pvp elements in pve content" isn't a problem. If it turns out to be a problem, it's comes from a bad design, not the idea itself. Avoiding potential problems by throwing out a good idea instead of improving mechanics is acceptable for low-cost korean mmo, not something that once supposed to become "a WoW killer".
I honestly don't know why people tend to label themselves "pvp-" or "pve-" player. How would occasional PvP stop you from enjoying the game?pvp vs pve playersNew justice quest themed dlc, daily worldwide justice quests including escort missions from mages guild, hunt down worldwide missions from fighters guild, "world boss" style missions rousting a couple new strongholds, new passive lawman skill line, etc. Nothing pvp needed to expand the existing content.
Yeah. And it will all be dull and repetitive (just like the current justice system) because scripted AI can never surprise you after you've done that daily once or maybe twice.
I guess most people who wanted this left the game shortly after closing PvE content because the same dailies over and over or dumb PvP in Cyrodiil paddok just for the sake of it is not their idea of fun. They came to see the organic Elder Scrolls MMO where having to deal with other players would open new possibilities, not bad single player Elder Scolls on one side and bad Elder Scrolls MOBA on another.Could lotsa things be rewritten to make it happen this way or that way? Sure. But whether or not enough people want it or if it ends up just driving folks awsy from content is another issue entirely.Edited by LaiTash on September 25, 2016 10:38PM0 -
luen79rwb17_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭I believe it could be done with almost not too many problems once One Tamriel launches: everyone will be scaled to the same level and dueling is possible.
Make it so that Enforcers engage on a duel with thieves once they catch them (like guardians) once a thief accepts a duel begins and guardians should not interfere. If a thief or an enforcer leaves the dueling area there should be a sort of punishment. Thieves should drop a % of their stolen good which could be retrievable by enforcers. Enforcers should drop something like "honor points" or any other sort of rank which could be useful to enforcer passives in a way.
Yes I can see this could be done with One Tamriel.PC/DC/NAserver
V16 sorc - V16 temp - V16 dk - V1 nb - V1 temp - V1 dk0 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »vyndral13preub18_ESO wrote: »LegendaryArcher wrote: »My post might make some of you facepalm, but can anyone explain to me what exactly this griefing would look like?
Let's take the most simple system: Upstanding, Disreputable, Notorious, Fugitive as they are now and a 5th "rank" where PvP comes into play. Doesn't matter if that player is free to kill for everyone or one must take a special quest to have this player assigned as target, where is the griefing potential?
The justice system is about being careful and not getting caught. I have gotten all my Justice achievements very long time ago and have never been running around even close to Fugitive. If you go on a rampage in the city, why not have the risk of being taken down by someone smarter than the *** guard AI?
Please explain the griefing to me.
None of the bounty hunters would hang out around the refuge doors to take a shot at a target trying to get into the sanctuary, would they? Because once they get to the refuge they can get rid of their bounty..... No one would hang out around wayshrines to take a shot at someone with a bounty porting in, would they? No one would camp quest locations to take a shot at a target, would they? Nah, none of them would ever think about doing something like that....
And? If you made it so people couldn't be attacked before the bounty was high enough, those people would actually have to try to get it into a place where they could be attacked. I mean I'm A horrible thief/assassin and I've only ever had a bounty of 10k once and I let it happen. Also don't forget the pack of thieves who might sign up to protect their own. Killing these ganking guards.
So so what if the scenario you are afraid of happens? The people you are trying to protect would have signed up.
RE bold
yes thats it - exactly dead spot on...
for those who simply Dont want PVP consequences for PVE play the answer for them is to form up gangs to sit around and wait for opportunities to protect themselves through the awesome joy that is PVP!!!
This nails it on the head!
Dead spot on.
Very illuminating.
Very telling.
.
Again since you people seem to be ignoring it. The only people who would be put in this position, are the people who signed up to be guards, or those who let their bounties get silly large. So those who want to use the pvp part of the system. The people who don't want pvp consequences for pve still wouldn't have them. But keep being afraid of stuff that won't affect you I guess.
Very illuminating.
Very telling.
Last time i checked getting any bounty even a high bounty was a PVE action. It is running PVE content.
This is simply put PVP players wanting to take over some PVP content to turn it into a PVP enabling action.
The mental gymnastics needed to in one sentence describe pve choices enabling pvp vulnerability and then in the very nect sentence say there wouldnt be pvp consequences for pve is frankly amazing.
Accepting a duel enables pvp in while running in pve areas. Traveling to Cyrodiil enables pvp.
I can see why giving players a choice would be scary to some, because decisions are hard. Perhaps a few more mental gymnastics by some isnt such a bad thing.
Last time i checked getting any bounty even a high bounty was a PVE action. It is running PVE content.
This is simply put PVP players wanting to take over some PVP content to turn it into a PVP enabling action.
The mental gymnastics needed to in one sentence describe pve choices enabling pvp vulnerability and then in the very nect sentence say there wouldnt be pvp consequences for pve is frankly amazing.
What's the point in making a MMO if all inter-player interactions are limited to PvP paddock, trading, and a few dungeons you occasionaly run with a random group? It's actually a single-player game without all the advantages of single-player games.
Thats quite a straw man you hsve there.
There are plenty of folks who group with guildies and friends, not just random groups.
There are plrnty of folks who group for trials.
There arr plenty who interact for rp.
A game doesnt have to be pointless as an mmo if it doednt allow pvp assault on pve players.
The apparent need of some pvp players to get pve players as targets is telling.
I mean, pvp players can go into cyro to get fights against people wsnting pvp, people ecpecting pvp and people geared for pvp any day every day.
In OneT they can even get the same with dueling most anywhere.
There are lotsa consensual pvp opportunities.
But i guess for some that just isnt the same as getting a non-consensual pvp fight against someone performing pve, geared for pve and who maybe more commonly plays pve, is it?
Guess if that pve player didn't want non-consensual pvp they shouldnt have dressed so provo... errr...racked up that bounty.
Illuminating, how some think pve actions justify pvp attacks.
It is funny that you assume everyone wants to gank people who cant play. Im not sure why you are so afraid.
For many it is simply something fun. I try to steal. You try to stop me.
First bold - yes both those choices which aren't pve actions enable pvp. What is being suggested here and then in following sentences denied is making a PVE action enable pvp.
Second bold - i repeatedly say some and you turn it into me saying everyone for your straw reply? Very telling. very illuminating
You know fear is a path to the dark side right?
Again Im not sure what is so scary for you. So if you choose to let your bounty get so high someone might try to stop you. It is a choice. And here ill throw this in since the fear is strong with you, once your bounty hit that point you have an option pop up. Either you would be flagged pvp until your bounty went down or the guards would be unkillable again. Because obviously if you had player guards real guards would have to be killable.
And before you go on about pve action blah blah blah. A pop up menu and pressing E is all i have to do to get into cyrodiil. So the same restriction would apply.
Now you can let go your fear.
Different preferences are not fear. just different preferences.
i have no issues whatsoever with the current unkillable guards.
i would have a problem with throwing a dialog i have to respond to when i get hit with a risky instance of bounty. Seems designed to just slow down my response and maneuvers long enough for something bad to happen.
I imagine PVPers having a PVE DECLINE dialog eating up their key-clicks at the start of a pvp fight wouldn't be on the "YAY LETS DO THAT list.
Thats not fear either - its just wanting to play what you want to play and not be forced out of it into something you dont because some other players feels entitled to make you.
Again, a cute way to make PVE play more difficult unless they take the PVP... like i said... keeps getting thrown into that "but its optional" etc.
gathering a high bounty is a PVE action is playing PVE content and should not engender a need for PVP decline or vulnerability to non-concensual PVP play.
And once again the key deception is duplicated...
You tie the entry into cyrodil which is entirely player prompted, doesn't come up in play on its own and doesn't spawn out of a PVE content action with the automatic pop-up in play when certain PVE content conditions are met as if one is consensual and the other is as well.
this has nothing to do with fear, but choice, but the fear thing i guess is more useful baiting for some who dont want the consensual thing to be kept in focus?
Ah i assumed it was fear since you went on a long rant about how people just wanted to kill people who couldnt fight back. It seems you are ok pointing out when people dont share your view point. But are not afraid to make up silly stuff when others dont share yours. atleast we have that in common.
Im not sure how choosing the nonpvp option would make the game harder, it is the way it is now. And actually once i thought about it, the guards would have to stay unkillable until you flagged pvp, to keep all the pvers honest. If they could kill the guards their is no justice system at all.
Ok so again you seem to be skewing two different things together.
if you look back you will find that i frequently, often and actually tried to keep my comments on people wanting to kill unprepared at the "some people" level of characterization. i made it clear over and over it was some poeple, not all people, not everyone etc.
You however, kept talking about MY fear, putting that on me.
Now, maybe for some, the difference between discussing what some people may want and specifically ascribing something to a specific person is not significant, just like to some the difference between consenting to pvp and playing pve content are not significantly different as far as enabling PVP attacks, but to others those two are quite different.
just like some might not see the difference between playing pve content and having a pvp denail pop-up jumping in at critical moments makes a difference either.
just like some people may not see a difference between different preferences and fear.
At least, when it suits their purpose.
Let me ask you something. Would you have a problem with if it was set up, so people could talk to the assassin or thieves guild leader and flag themselves pvp. Someone wanting to be a guard/bounty hunter would sign up where ever a mob was added. They would be flagged until they talked to that mob again.
No pve content leading to pvp and people have to make the choice knowing full well going in what that choice is.
I have zero problem with players choosing to engage in pvp. with duels in u12 they can wrap it in justice flavor if they want.
The devil is usually however in the details.
Consider that zos added a limit to duels in an area to prevent overconcentration of pvp in a given pve spot causing problems but what you just described eould allow 50 thieves and 50 enforcers to lsunch massive pvp in pve zones cities maybe even delves, dungeons, banks who knows. I have to imagine if 22 folks involved in duels is a risk of problem unlimited justice pvp would be too.
But while you are asking the clean question without specifics, an opt-in, so far in the discussions a clean opt-in without also screwing the opt-out has never seemed to get the same enthusiasm as the proposals which serve up pve targets to pvpers.
So is that a yes or a no for you? Surely you can see why I ask? Everytime something is mentioned you fold yourself around why it would be a bad idea. For example never once in this conversation have you mention performance problems. But when asked directly about if you would support a solution that bypasses the issue you Seem to have had before,here comes more excuse. And you wont even answer, giving a vague, the pvp crowd probably doesnt want it.
At least just come right out and say, you know I dont like the idea of pvp in my pve areas and there is nothing you can do that will change that. You dont have to go on and on with the excuses.
Its not an excuse it's a potential problem. If you read above you will see where when someone said it would be simple I said it wasn't. There are a lot of details to be worked out.
So my answer to your question is it would depend on the specifics of the system being introduced.
If it were just the points you mention with no additional restrictions so it allowed the entire Cyrodiil pop to set upon bleak rock for a shut down starter zone event... no.
If it included reasonable and sufficient safeties akin to how they do dueling, probably.
If it was limited to Cyrodiil by them simply adding justice content there by say allowing you to steal in your alliance held zones and be hunted by others in your alliance, absolutely.
You can pretend it's about a simple yes or no and that any non yes or no is a dodge but fact is its not as simple a matter.
See three different flavors of implementing what you describe and three different answers.
Details matter.
Proudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
YFMV Your Fun May Vary.
First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
"The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."1 -
LaiTash✭✭✭luen79rwb17_ESO wrote: »I believe it could be done with almost not too many problems once One Tamriel launches: everyone will be scaled to the same level and dueling is possible.
Make it so that Enforcers engage on a duel with thieves once they catch them (like guardians) once a thief accepts a duel begins and guardians should not interfere. If a thief or an enforcer leaves the dueling area there should be a sort of punishment. Thieves should drop a % of their stolen good which could be retrievable by enforcers. Enforcers should drop something like "honor points" or any other sort of rank which could be useful to enforcer passives in a way.
Yes I can see this could be done with One Tamriel.
Aaand why would a thief accept a duel?0