Please Finish The Justice System

STEVIL · October 2016

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

This argument has been made before, on the other threads that led to the system advertized in every post @Dubhliam now makes.

unfortunately it just fails as an argument to support the need for PVP Justice because it is so broadly applicable a concept that if you buy it as valid for "lets add a pvp element" you end up with a whole different game, not just a more fun jusitce system.

See, the first thing is, within the perspective in the game world, there are a lot of things more "wrong" or "as wrong" as dead civilians:

Green pact folks seemed to have very harsh punishments for picking flowers - so all you reagent harvesters around my dunmer or other race green pact sympatiizer - my seeing you harvest that columbine "affects their game world in a negative way." just as much. so im am now opposed to allowing you to harvest nodes like that flagrantly in front of me without me being able to interfere with a PVP option. Why should they get to violate my character;'s beliefs for such an easy no-risk gain and inflict that on my fun?
For the vamp hunters out there, I play a vampire, so all you undead slaughtering folks, seeing you mow down my kinsman in droves , well that does "affects their game world in a negative way." just as much.[/b] so im am now opposed to allowing you to harvest nodes like that flagrantly in front of me without me being able to interfere with a PVP option. Why should they get to violate my character;'s beliefs for such an easy no-risk gain and inflict that on my fun?
Hey, i play a nord there is this vampire area in the south central area... there is a dispute there where some vampire is sending so-called heroes to kill-off hunters Seeing these hunters (who are not hostile to the PC)mowed down by PC lunatics on the orders of a vampire lords "affects their game world in a negative way." just as much.[/b] so im am now opposed to allowing you to flagrantly mow down these guys on the order of your new vampire buddy.

basically there are countless examples of things in the game world that one player in PVE is allowed to do that would just as sensibly fall under this "affects their game world in a negative way." justification for adding PVP intervention. Not only are there lost of examples in quests but also lots of non-quest casual repeatable content.

So it boils down to this - either you accept that in a PVE only portion of a game players can do things other players find disturbing without enabling the other players direct interference (and so the "affects their game world in a negative way." just as much.[/b] fails to be justificantion for pvp consequence forced in) OR you basically are opening the whole world to PVP because that justification applies very well no BS within the game world to many many activities.

Now, of course, if there were ALSO a reason provided that made the case for killing civilians or stealing millet more egregious that slaying hunters in the woods on a vampire lords orders, or harvesting all that columbine in front of a follower of the green pact or working to get my fellow argonians thrown out into the cold... then that might make a difference.

However, typically the counter arguments are some flavor of one or two things:
a - We only want to talk justice not anything else so stop using this "affects their game world in a negative way." just as much.[/b] argument for anything but justice.
b - it only applies to justice because they have explicitly said justice wont have pvp, so that makes it a valid argument for justice but not for the other content they havent said anything about.

Ok Ok so for "a" i just observe i cant hear that without hearing a "until later" left out.

So for "b" which is sometimes oddly worded as "they told us they would do it before they told us they wouldn't" or something similar... i just say that all that content they havent considered and rejected pvp "justice" seem better candidate for consideration than the one (theft civie murder) they have explicitly said they wont do.

AmberLaTerra · October 2016

Dubhliam wrote: »

AmberLaTerra wrote: »

Dubhliam wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

The thing is, which I guess some people forget to consider, that PvE and PvP players are of different mindsets.. They usually don't enjoy the same things.. And since both of them have paid, they need to be equally respected.. That's why, imo, that we can't trap PvE players in a system if they do not like it.. That's why I'm against using bounties as an opt in, and keeping them there for 20 hours.. I'm not saying they should be able to leave just by clicking a box, as that would create trolls and griefers too.. The way I see it, there is 2 ways out.. Either clicking a box which starts a timer, or by clearing the bounty by dieing.. Simple as that

Timed opt- outs are also not grief proof.

The only way I see the opt - switch could work is in a confined space where Enforcers don't have access.
Hence Fences.

Heck, it might even work with low cooldowns on opt - switching.
But one day is a compromise.
I think opted in players should get better rewards to match the higher risk, and I can see many players agreeing with that.

The reason those higher rewards should be locked behind a "cooldown" is because with a full opt-out and no cooldowns, players would still be able to reap the rewards by being opted in for a short time, and then simply opt out and resume their careless NPC slaying sprees.
It is a genuine concern for many players.

Killing sprees will still occur, since there will be opted out players.
But at least let's try to constrict the killing sprees to the opted out population.

Giving opted in players better rewards is just an excuse to give enforcers more reward. If people who want PVP justice really just want it for the PVP aspect and not as a get rich quick or easy way then it should have the same rewards.

That is one of the points where all the arguments those who want PVP Justice fall apart. You want to either force it on all PVE players, or if there is an opt out get better rewards to you can make more money killing PVE players who chose to opt in.

Once again you are adding a condition to the PVE player, get less reward or face PVP which again equates back to your idea before you added an opt out of pay bounty and all loot over to guard or face PVP. You do not want justice PVP @Dubhliam, you just want a way to extort PVE players under the guise of Justice PVP.

I may not agree with @LaiTash and how he wants to go about Justice PVP, but at least I he/she wants it for PVP not just to extort PVE players.

So you would argue that normal dungeons should also drop Monster masks, just like veteran dungeons?
And how is it fair for veteran trials to drop legendary jewelry?

GIB normal modes everything veteran modes have! NAO!!!

Do people in normal dungeons risk PVP? No. Do people in non vet trials run into bosses surronded by PVPers who can attack them? No.

Using vet dungeons and trials as examples of different drops is nothing more then a red herring, they are both forms of pure PVE content what give different rewards for different trials.

If you suddenly added PVP defenders to the bosses in normal trials and dungeons that would not mean they should have higher rewards, it would just mean no one would bother with them because PVE players are there to play PVE.

So why should the pure PVE player suffer lesser rewards then someone like myself who is PvX? Why just because they want no parts of PVP should the be penalized for it?

How about we put the same penalty back on pure PVP players and remove the cyrodiil vendor. A pure PVPer want a helm the have to do the dungeon.... well just look at all the rage the BOP dungeon drops are causing with the PVP community now about actually having to do content for gear.

Why should one side get to have their cake and eat it too, and the other side get screwed. Personally I am against the BoP myself as it hurts my income, but more so because it removes a large part of "Play how you want" from the PVPers options.

Adding better loots to PVP justice would be no different in forcing PVE's to play PVP justice to get their fair loot and not play how they want.

I do not see why every time this topic comes up the PVP side is against an opt out, or wants to make that opt out so unappealing none will use it so they have everything to gain and the PVE people everything to lose.

As for the risk vs reward? where is the risk for the enforcer when most of these ideas have it set up in such a way that the enforcer is in the position of a ganker getting to strike the moment the thief makes a mistake and is seen without giving the thief even time to turn around and fight back.

Also where are the limitations on the combat to prevent 6 enforcers from piling one thief once again ensuring they have 0 risk but get all the reward.

It seems to me that is all the higher reward idea is about. It is to give the low risk enforcers even more reward while forcing PVE players to go high risk and funnel that reward to the enforcers.

LaiTash · October 2016

AmberLaTerra wrote: »

So why should the pure PVE player suffer lesser rewards then someone like myself who is PvX? Why just because they want no parts of PVP should the be penalized for it?

How happen the rewards you're currently perfectly OK with suddenly become worse just because someone signed up for PvP justice and earned something better for outsmarting or outskilling the human enforcers? Do you REALLY want the same reward for just outsmarting scripted guards?

If you suddenly added PVP defenders to the bosses in normal trials and dungeons that would not mean they should have higher rewards, it would just mean no one would bother with them because PVE players are there to play PVE.

Actually there are people who would like it. Not all have to be PvE or PvP only, there are also all-rounders you know.

As for the risk vs reward? where is the risk for the enforcer when most of these ideas have it set up in such a way that the enforcer is in the position of a ganker getting to strike the moment the thief makes a mistake and is seen without giving the thief even time to turn around and fight back.

We're talking about better rewards for thieves, not enforcers. Because, you know, there's currently no rewards for enforcers in place... because there are no enforcers, remember?

STEVIL · October 2016

Dubhliam wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

... (though I am not sure its as cut and dried as he describes here - since IIRC if you got heat sufficient to get kill on sight while opt-in i dont think you got dialogs but that particualr bit i am unclear of.)
...

Dubhliam wrote: »

Heat Levels
The highest heat level- Wanted can be only triggered by Outlaw Criminals, by choosing the "Flee dialogue" when accosted by a Guard or Enforcer. This does not apply in Outlaw Prison, which is the only Trespassing area accessible by Enforcers - where Outlaws are constantly marked as Wanted.

Players with the Wanted heat are marked for PvP, making them attackable by Guards and Enforcers.

The kill-on-sight heat level cannot be accumulated by regular methods.
Only the Flee dialogue triggers kill-on-sight.

Also, I am currently revisiting the concept to revert all changes that impact opt-out gameplay.
Not that it will do any good, since you people will always point fingers about how unfair it is that PvP Justice grants better rewards.

Once again... you would not complain that normal trials should grant legendary drop, would you?
OFC not...
Right...

First, point - great. i am glad to see after not accepting those arguments against the reduction of PVE justice viability wedded to the PVP incursion/addition for two long threads and now another one you have finally come to see its impact. So very glad to see you come around.

i am glad to see that, especially since one part you and i did agree on was the benefit to be gained by haiving more justice content.

As for your "you people" comment about PVP rewards and such and now your trials throw-in drive-by... i have consistently said content should have a risk-reward-time value comparable to its alternatives. many times that argument has been dismissed by those wanting PVP justice often wide snide comments about "but fun is more important" etc... as if making content equally beneficial so some people's "fun" isn't effectively punished is somehow anti-fun - but the simple fact is when dealing with populations and participation on the larger scale disparities in time-reward-risk lead to massive swings.

So, no, i dont object to trials dropping legendary rewards in vet mode vs normal mode. never have, never will.

i DO have some serious misgivings about any content having exclusive rewards that can only be gained thru that content. i would rather have all types of goods available thru all types of play, but some might take longer or cost more to get to it (low risk, low difficulty) than others (high risk, high difficulty) but just because you dont pvp or dont run trials in vet mode or dont run group play those mean you cant get at X items at all??? no i have serious issues with that... BUT... I know ESO has that model. it cuts into PVP, it cuts into GROUP, it cuts into dungeons and trials etc. They went with PLAYABLE benefits for each that are different. I would have gone with less stringent system and added a "non-tactical" personal benefit for each - like maybe giving a personal merchant for beating trials on vet mode, or a repair man beating group content or some sort of thing.

But they went that way and i dont like it but i accept it - as long as risk-reward-time for simjilar types of content maintains.

So, if a PVP justice adds actual risk or makes it take longer to gain X loot then imo it should have higher rewards IF AND WHEN those hit.

it shouldn't provide extra rewards just because there might be some times in some places extra risks because there are places where it wont and players will find those.
it shouldn't provide extra gains if an enforcer and a crook collude together to play it thru "opted-in" and do what it takes to maximize their net gains.
it shouldn't provide extra gains if an outlaw zerg effectively removes that risk or time.

they considered these exploits with dueling... and so they mae dueling completely non-productive non-risk, totally consensual and put a limit on the density of dueling by limiting the number of dueling cpmetitors in a given area.

i dont see a reason any of the concerns about dueling dont also apply to PVP justice.

Consider the impact of having a outlaw zerg running thru greenshade with killable guards and pvp enforcers who frankly are not gonna stop them?

Did you proposal for the two types of systems include higher rewards for opted-in? Did it separate opted-in safe boxes from opted-out safeboxes?

if not, would a zerg of outlaws be effectively able to shut down other justice play by not having to face unkillable guards, be able to overwhelm any small group of enforcers and just consume all the valuable stealables for higher rewards or even just for the fun of it?

Right now the limiting factor preventing it is unkillable guards, which YES can be avoided and escaped from but not while continuing to run around the major cities freely. the cute viseos of "beat guards easy with vampire mist" and so on often if not always show the character just running and hiding often at the periphery of a city where the detection radius and lack of other guards allow for easy maneuvering (or put another way smart selection.) they dont show quick and easy constant looting while guards are hunting you... but killable guards and zergs without a limit... that does.... especially if rewards kick up.

All that says to me the key needs to be that any rewards of a PVP justice above and beyond PVE justice ("because of risk") have to have them tied to the actual occurance of the risk, otherwise its just handing a lot of incentive for generally undesirable gamer habits.

of course, i like unkillable guards because where they are in play, they require different solutions than burn down the other guy which is an answer almost everywhere else. (And my answer to those areas where there are NO GUARDS but killable civies and stealable goods... there should be guards there. )

STEVIL · October 2016

on risk-reward for pve justice vs pvp justice in the context of cop vs vcrook.

FIRST

In PVE justice if i am killed by a NPC unkillable guard, i lose my stolen goods, my bounty gold AND my armor is hit eith the death tax repairs from any PVE kill.

In PVP justice, the same happens but no death tax since PVP fights dont cause armor loss. (unless the proposed systems explicitly change that.)

those claiming PVP justice has more risk... might want to look at that.

SECOND

Players opting-in as crooks have a higher chance of fail etc... might be spotted or just grabbed depending on which system proposad... but this is wholly dependant on their actually being threats... and that can be exploited by collusive enforcers or zerging outlaws etc. So gain-time risk doesn;t hold up in that case.

THIRD

It seems PVP Enforcers have no risk unless it is added to them. In my Consensual Justice Play model, the crooks gained XP for their skill lines when when they stole confiscated goods from cops or killed cops for their confiscated good or for reputation the cop has acquired "to bring him down a peg."
Cops gained Xp by turning in confiscated good but gained reputation making them idenfitable and more desirable targets for thieves. it was the analog to thief bounty. Like thieves have limits on fencing - restricting their gains per day from injustice, guards had limits on turning in confiscated good, restricting their gains per day.

in this way, the "rewards" had nothing to do with "more stuff" but rather additional benefits stemming from the specific interplay between cop and robber and also basically keying on the core principle... the crook puts the ga,me in motion by taking stuff and the disposition of that hot stuff hot potato is the key for both side... can the thief get it fenced or laundered before the cop stops him... can the cop get it turned in to authorities before thieves steal it back. Can the thief maneuver around with bounty and can the cop get around and do stuff with his reputation.

Not by any means claiming its all imaginative or all mine as it incorporates ideas from the original proposal and lots of others... not claiming it is fully fleshed out cuz for instance the bounty needs to be more involved since a murder can result in "no stolen goods and only bounty" so for that case it needs codified the interaction between how we reward that for either side.

Tandor · October 2016

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

There's no doubt that we need more content for the PvP crowd The question just keeps being how to do it right

You say that, but every time they get more content they criticise it, they really are never happy (the same can be said of competitive PvEers too). However, I agree that they should get more content and this week it's dueling and next year (probably early on) it's battlegrounds/arenas. As for the dueling, I can't wait for all the QQ posts to appear from the vanquished. "Nerf this, buff that". I just hope the mods enforce dueling feedback posts being put on the PvP Combat and Skill forum.

There are plenty of reasons to improve the PvE Justice System, and plenty of PvE ways of doing just that. There's no automatic reason why those improvements must be PvP-based, or why any PvP enhancements should be other than entirely optional.

STEVIL · October 2016

Tandor wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

There's no doubt that we need more content for the PvP crowd The question just keeps being how to do it right

You say that, but every time they get more content they criticise it, they really are never happy (the same can be said of competitive PvEers too). However, I agree that they should get more content and this week it's dueling and next year (probably early on) it's battlegrounds/arenas. As for the dueling, I can't wait for all the QQ posts to appear from the vanquished. "Nerf this, buff that". I just hope the mods enforce dueling feedback posts being put on the PvP Combat and Skill forum.

There are plenty of reasons to improve the PvE Justice System, and plenty of PvE ways of doing just that. There's no automatic reason why those improvements must be PvP-based, or why any PvP enhancements should be other than entirely optional.

Agree...

and yeah i have seen dueling posts thru the PTS and even here from some PVPers who dismiss it as well as ones who want ZOS to codify in all their pet favorte restrictions for their style or whatever.

I like that Zos took a "you choose" approach where they setup the basic dueling mechanism with reasonable restrictions (including the limit of number in an area!!!!) and no consequences - forcing a player who wants more... zero out ults (cuz my ult is cheap, call it a draw if it goes longer than x (cuz i play a tanky build), etc etc. - to be worked out by the players themselves. Avoids adding too many extra oddities that will favor one thing over another.*

* cue the "but not having them favors this one over that one" flood.

LaiTash · October 2016

FIRST

In PVE justice if i am killed by a NPC unkillable guard, i lose my stolen goods, my bounty gold AND my armor is hit eith the death tax repairs from any PVE kill.

In PVP justice, the same happens but no death tax since PVP fights dont cause armor loss. (unless the proposed systems explicitly change that.)

those claiming PVP justice has more risk... might want to look at that.

Of course it should be changed, otherwise what's fun in it? There are reasons why you don't loose armor in cyro, but here it'll be alright.

SECOND

Players opting-in as crooks have a higher chance of fail etc... might be spotted or just grabbed depending on which system proposad... but this is wholly dependant on their actually being threats... and that can be exploited by collusive enforcers or zerging outlaws etc. So gain-time risk doesn;t hold up in that case.

Even dealing with enforcers or grouping with other outlaws requires more then just sneaking past the guards. That's actually how a good mmo should work - people cooperate in a way not explicitly designed by th

STEVIL · October 2016

LaiTash wrote: »

FIRST

In PVE justice if i am killed by a NPC unkillable guard, i lose my stolen goods, my bounty gold AND my armor is hit eith the death tax repairs from any PVE kill.

In PVP justice, the same happens but no death tax since PVP fights dont cause armor loss. (unless the proposed systems explicitly change that.)

those claiming PVP justice has more risk... might want to look at that.

Of course it should be changed, otherwise what's fun in it? There are reasons why you don't loose armor in cyro, but here it'll be alright.

SECOND

Players opting-in as crooks have a higher chance of fail etc... might be spotted or just grabbed depending on which system proposad... but this is wholly dependant on their actually being threats... and that can be exploited by collusive enforcers or zerging outlaws etc. So gain-time risk doesn;t hold up in that case.

Even dealing with enforcers or grouping with other outlaws requires more then just sneaking past the guards. That's actually how a good mmo should work - people cooperate in a way not explicitly designed by th

Unless of course the mmo wants to appeal to folks for whom snesking around avoiding guards is more enjoyabke thsn group play or colluding to find "not explicitly designed" opportunities (euphemism)

Divinius · October 2016

Oh hey, another 20-page thread about adding PvP to the Justice system.

So to anyone that's read the whole thing: Same stuff as always? Anything new since the last several threads?

Daemons_Bane · October 2016

Pretty much the same as usual

LaiTash · October 2016

STEVIL wrote: »

Unless of course the mmo wants to appeal to folks for whom snesking around avoiding guards is more enjoyabke thsn group play or colluding to find "not explicitly designed" opportunities (euphemism)

There's a whole bunch of single player rpgs for these folks.

bellanca6561n · October 2016

Divinius wrote: »

Oh hey, another 20-page thread about adding PvP to the Justice system.

So to anyone that's read the whole thing: Same stuff as always? Anything new since the last several threads?

You could read it....or skim it and find out that way.

I have certainly enjoyed this discussion because it proves a vanishing truth I've long believed: you can't learn anything by talking with people who agree with you.

That fact hasn't vanished. Facts, as John Adams once said, are persistent things. How widely they're embraced, however....oh hell I'm getting off the point....again *sigh*

Meanwhile, of course, this system remains not just the game's sore thumb, but its severed limb....dropped on top of the cake....at the wedding reception.

Only action left to my characters is to make murders uncomfortable. They stomp them with their horses. Follow them everywhere. Give chase when they try to mount and run. Have gotten two kills this way, oddly enough, in Daggerfall when they'd flee off one of the high walls.

Is that PvP?

Mostly they just find a wayshrine and leave the area. Perhaps that's what they were doing when they suicided.

However I do have a constructive proposal. Let's give the Pocket Mammoth some special abilities....here's one with my Imperial, Erana. His name is Rommel.

No, no, I'm not suggesting making pets tactical as they are in Ultima Online. No "All Kill" commands...noooo. Rather, I'd like to be able to target a player and have my wee mammoth smack, smack, smack it with his trunk, pausing only to issue long, angry elephant trumpet sounds.

Osteos · October 2016

AmberLaTerra wrote: »

Osteos wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@AmberLaTerra way to completely misread everything I said.

Actually read what you quoted. My reasons for not liking a full opt in method is that I feel everyone's play experience is equally important. People wanted to know why some want a bounty opt in, this is my reason. I has nothing to do with wanting to kill noobs.

I can accept the full box check option because I can compromise, but I still think it leaves some issues.

cjthibs · October 2016

Osteos wrote: »

AmberLaTerra wrote: »

Osteos wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@AmberLaTerra way to completely misread everything I said.

Actually read what you quoted. My reasons for not liking a full opt in method is that I feel everyone's play experience is equally important. People wanted to know why some want a bounty opt in, this is my reason. I has nothing to do with wanting to kill noobs.

I can accept the full box check option because I can compromise, but I still think it leaves some issues.

Hey hey, none of this compromise talk...remember if you want this you must be a psychopathic degenerate who just wants to kill noobs all day and drink their salty tears. Immersion, bah, play experience, bah. DETH 2 NOOBZ!!1!

/snark

In all seriousness though, there are any number of ways to make this an enjoyable experience that adds depth to the game world. A realistic reaction to witnessing a crime is a simple one that many of us do want. On the other hand, there are many who do not want any change that would jeopardize their get-rich-quick schemes because for them the game is all about numbers, not immersion.

STEVIL · October 2016

LaiTash wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

Unless of course the mmo wants to appeal to folks for whom snesking around avoiding guards is more enjoyabke thsn group play or colluding to find "not explicitly designed" opportunities (euphemism)

There's a whole bunch of single player rpgs for these folks.

and fortunately some MMOs too, like this one.

Gottsa love the play my way or go to another game buy-in tho.

group play isn't my thing for a variety of reasons, but i dont tell those who want to have it to go find another game... I am glad this game has stuff for them too.

LaiTash · October 2016

group play isn't my thing for a variety of reasons, but i dont tell those who want to have it to go find another game...

No you tell them they can't have nice things because you want a perfectly predictable game.

cjthibs · October 2016

STEVIL wrote: »

LaiTash wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

Unless of course the mmo wants to appeal to folks for whom snesking around avoiding guards is more enjoyabke thsn group play or colluding to find "not explicitly designed" opportunities (euphemism)

There's a whole bunch of single player rpgs for these folks.

and fortunately some MMOs too, like this one.

Gottsa love the play my way or go to another game buy-in tho.

group play isn't my thing for a variety of reasons, but i dont tell those who want to have it to go find another game... I am glad this game has stuff for them too.

You're not interested in group play...
So why are you advocating one way or another on the direction of activities in a Massively Multiplayer game?

You realize that is a bit selfish, don't you?

STEVIL · October 2016

bellanca6561n wrote: »

Divinius wrote: »

Oh hey, another 20-page thread about adding PvP to the Justice system.

So to anyone that's read the whole thing: Same stuff as always? Anything new since the last several threads?

You could read it....or skim it and find out that way.

I have certainly enjoyed this discussion because it proves a vanishing truth I've long believed: you can't learn anything by talking with people who agree with you.

That fact hasn't vanished. Facts, as John Adams once said, are persistent things. How widely they're embraced, however....oh hell I'm getting off the point....again *sigh*

Meanwhile, of course, this system remains not just the game's sore thumb, but its severed limb....dropped on top of the cake....at the wedding reception.

Only action left to my characters is to make murders uncomfortable. They stomp them with their horses. Follow them everywhere. Give chase when they try to mount and run. Have gotten two kills this way, oddly enough, in Daggerfall when they'd flee off one of the high walls.

Is that PvP?

Mostly they just find a wayshrine and leave the area. Perhaps that's what they were doing when they suicided.

However I do have a constructive proposal. Let's give the Pocket Mammoth some special abilities....here's one with my Imperial, Erana. His name is Rommel.

No, no, I'm not suggesting making pets tactical as they are in Ultima Online. No "All Kill" commands...noooo. Rather, I'd like to be able to target a player and have my wee mammoth smack, smack, smack it with his trunk, pausing only to issue long, angry elephant trumpet sounds.

First bold - or to other folks its a fine system, fun to play offering different challenges than the bulk of the content, that has a lot of potential for expansion.

Secnnd bold - no i dont think thats called PVP. I think intentionally doing things to annoy other players and drive them out of an area in PVE content is called something else... and it does indeed seems popular and even acceptable behavior in some circles. not so much in others. That was very informative, so thanks.

STEVIL · October 2016

cjthibs wrote: »

Osteos wrote: »

AmberLaTerra wrote: »

Osteos wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@AmberLaTerra way to completely misread everything I said.

Actually read what you quoted. My reasons for not liking a full opt in method is that I feel everyone's play experience is equally important. People wanted to know why some want a bounty opt in, this is my reason. I has nothing to do with wanting to kill noobs.

I can accept the full box check option because I can compromise, but I still think it leaves some issues.

Hey hey, none of this compromise talk...remember if you want this you must be a psychopathic degenerate who just wants to kill noobs all day and drink their salty tears. Immersion, bah, play experience, bah. DETH 2 NOOBZ!!1!

/snark

In all seriousness though, there are any number of ways to make this an enjoyable experience that adds depth to the game world. A realistic reaction to witnessing a crime is a simple one that many of us do want. On the other hand, there are many who do not want any change that would jeopardize their get-rich-quick schemes because for them the game is all about numbers, not immersion.

equally tho, a realistic reaction to seeing people comitting a crime is what some others would want to... and also there would be some who would object to that getting in the way of their greedy gold mongering play or other goal oriented play.

Numerous examples:
green pacter seeing greedy "numbers" buy harvesting live plants, like columbine and namir rot and such over and over and over just so they can go sell them. yet that green pact guy has to just sit back and endure the crime because even though he never ever harvesta a flower or uses potions made from harvested flowers, he cannot challenge them to a proper death match.
vampire hunter has to just sit by and watch a vampire sympathizers over and over come by and slaughter hunters - even doing so at the insistance of their vampire overloard master sucking up to guy. cant even move in and heal the poor hunters as they get slaughtered.
Aldmeri has to sit by and watch lunatics attack an AD landing group and cant help out in the defense.

How much of this game would be just so much better if we took the same approach being preferred here everytime someone defines "a reasonable reaction" as being able to interfere with others directly possibly even pvp in a pve zone?

of course, they will say my three examples are different.

yes they are.

my three examples have the added benefit of never having be looked at for possible pvp interplay and then flatly rejected for pvp interplay by the designers.

For some it seems the inability to intentionally and directly interfere with other players is just not acceptable...for some they even go ahead and work to find ways to do it... as recent posts admitted.

sirston · October 2016

Im surprised this hasn't made it way in the game. I want to know the stats of how many tamriel citizens were murdered and the stats of animal slaughtering.

STEVIL · October 2016

sirston wrote: »

Im surprised this hasn't made it way in the game. I want to know the stats of how many tamriel citizens were murdered and the stats of animal slaughtering.

Dont forget flower butchering... those green pacter's take it seriously.

And of course, Vamps are people too.

Tandor · October 2016

cjthibs wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

LaiTash wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

Unless of course the mmo wants to appeal to folks for whom snesking around avoiding guards is more enjoyabke thsn group play or colluding to find "not explicitly designed" opportunities (euphemism)

There's a whole bunch of single player rpgs for these folks.

and fortunately some MMOs too, like this one.

Gottsa love the play my way or go to another game buy-in tho.

group play isn't my thing for a variety of reasons, but i dont tell those who want to have it to go find another game... I am glad this game has stuff for them too.

You're not interested in group play...
So why are you advocating one way or another on the direction of activities in a Massively Multiplayer game?

You realize that is a bit selfish, don't you?

Oh dear, that old chestnut!

What on earth does the fact that a game has a lot of players in it at the same time do with grouping with just a few of them for combat? You do know that there are other ways of interacting with other players, right?

Tandor · October 2016

Osteos wrote: »

AmberLaTerra wrote: »

Osteos wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@AmberLaTerra way to completely misread everything I said.

Actually read what you quoted. My reasons for not liking a full opt in method is that I feel everyone's play experience is equally important. People wanted to know why some want a bounty opt in, this is my reason. I has nothing to do with wanting to kill noobs.

I can accept the full box check option because I can compromise, but I still think it leaves some issues.

That seems a tad contradictory to me. If everyone's play experience is equally important, why not allow everyone to play the way that best suits them? Want to PvP? You got it! Want to PvE? You got it! Want to mix some PvP into your PvE? You got it! Want to keep PvP out of your PvE? You got it! Seems pretty straightforward to me.

cjthibs · October 2016

Tandor wrote: »

cjthibs wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

LaiTash wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

Unless of course the mmo wants to appeal to folks for whom snesking around avoiding guards is more enjoyabke thsn group play or colluding to find "not explicitly designed" opportunities (euphemism)

There's a whole bunch of single player rpgs for these folks.

and fortunately some MMOs too, like this one.

Gottsa love the play my way or go to another game buy-in tho.

group play isn't my thing for a variety of reasons, but i dont tell those who want to have it to go find another game... I am glad this game has stuff for them too.

You're not interested in group play...
So why are you advocating one way or another on the direction of activities in a Massively Multiplayer game?

You realize that is a bit selfish, don't you?

Oh dear, that old chestnut!

What on earth does the fact that a game has a lot of players in it at the same time do with grouping with just a few of them for combat? You do know that there are other ways of interacting with other players, right?

Because the point of a multiplayer game is to provide multiplayer interaction.
Some people play it solo, sure, and that's fine, but the focus of the game should be on multiplayer interaction...otherwise it becomes a single-player game. ...which defeats the purpose of an MMO.

Everyone is entitled to play their own way, but not at the expense of the game providing multiplayer interaction.
There are game tailored to the solo player...in fact, there are FAR more single-player games than MMO's.

And yes, I stand by that remark. If you wish to turn a massively-multiplayer game into a single-player game, you are being selfish.

sirston · October 2016

STEVIL wrote: »

sirston wrote: »

Im surprised this hasn't made it way in the game. I want to know the stats of how many tamriel citizens were murdered and the stats of animal slaughtering.

Dont forget flower butchering... those green pacter's take it seriously.

And of course, Vamps are people too.

Oh man total forgot about Vamps, and the total worth of all item stolen.

Tandor · October 2016

cjthibs wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

cjthibs wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

LaiTash wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

Unless of course the mmo wants to appeal to folks for whom snesking around avoiding guards is more enjoyabke thsn group play or colluding to find "not explicitly designed" opportunities (euphemism)

There's a whole bunch of single player rpgs for these folks.

and fortunately some MMOs too, like this one.

Gottsa love the play my way or go to another game buy-in tho.

group play isn't my thing for a variety of reasons, but i dont tell those who want to have it to go find another game... I am glad this game has stuff for them too.

You're not interested in group play...
So why are you advocating one way or another on the direction of activities in a Massively Multiplayer game?

You realize that is a bit selfish, don't you?

Oh dear, that old chestnut!

What on earth does the fact that a game has a lot of players in it at the same time do with grouping with just a few of them for combat? You do know that there are other ways of interacting with other players, right?

Because the point of a multiplayer game is to provide multiplayer interaction.
Some people play it solo, sure, and that's fine, but the focus of the game should be on multiplayer interaction...otherwise it becomes a single-player game. ...which defeats the purpose of an MMO.

Everyone is entitled to play their own way, but not at the expense of the game providing multiplayer interaction.
There are game tailored to the solo player...in fact, there are FAR more single-player games than MMO's.

And yes, I stand by that remark. If you wish to turn a massively-multiplayer game into a single-player game, you are being selfish.

But what is it that links multiplayer interaction with just grouping for combat? You can be in a guild, you can trade, you can chat on the public chat channels, you can play cooperatively in PvP or in delves and dolmens together with overland boss mobs etc, you can fish alongside another player, you can drive-by heal a struggling combatant or join in the fight, you can do so many things that involve multiplayer interaction without having to go off to a corner of the world with 3 or 4 other players and rush through content with them while ignoring everyone else on the server. Of course it's important that a MMO makes full provision for those who wish to group, but it isn't the case that those who prefer not to group are not interacting with other players in one way or another. And - in order to bring us back on topic - it is also not the case that those who don't wish to have the penalties for their PvE crimes administered by other players are adopting that position because they selfishly don't want to interact with other players in a multiplayer environment!

STEVIL · October 2016

sirston wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

sirston wrote: »

Im surprised this hasn't made it way in the game. I want to know the stats of how many tamriel citizens were murdered and the stats of animal slaughtering.

Dont forget flower butchering... those green pacter's take it seriously.

And of course, Vamps are people too.

Oh man total forgot about Vamps, and the total worth of all item stolen.

We should have seen it coming...
The signs have been there.

First they came for the animals who roared as they were butchered for their hides.
I stood by and did nothing for i was s mapmaker not an animal.
Then they came for the flowers who wept as their beauty was plucked for the gold to feed their avarice.
Yet still i stood by and did nothing for i was a mapmaker and not a flower.
Then they came for the mapmakers to trade to covetous nobles for fame and gold.
And when i looked there was no one left to save me.

Daemons_Bane · October 2016

cjthibs wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

cjthibs wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

LaiTash wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

Unless of course the mmo wants to appeal to folks for whom snesking around avoiding guards is more enjoyabke thsn group play or colluding to find "not explicitly designed" opportunities (euphemism)

There's a whole bunch of single player rpgs for these folks.

and fortunately some MMOs too, like this one.

Gottsa love the play my way or go to another game buy-in tho.

group play isn't my thing for a variety of reasons, but i dont tell those who want to have it to go find another game... I am glad this game has stuff for them too.

You're not interested in group play...
So why are you advocating one way or another on the direction of activities in a Massively Multiplayer game?

You realize that is a bit selfish, don't you?

Oh dear, that old chestnut!

What on earth does the fact that a game has a lot of players in it at the same time do with grouping with just a few of them for combat? You do know that there are other ways of interacting with other players, right?

Because the point of a multiplayer game is to provide multiplayer interaction.

I gotta object to that.. That may be the point of view for SOME players.. That does not mean it's the same for all players..

bellanca6561n · October 2016

STEVIL wrote: »

bellanca6561n wrote: »

Divinius wrote: »

Oh hey, another 20-page thread about adding PvP to the Justice system.

So to anyone that's read the whole thing: Same stuff as always? Anything new since the last several threads?

You could read it....or skim it and find out that way.

I have certainly enjoyed this discussion because it proves a vanishing truth I've long believed: you can't learn anything by talking with people who agree with you.

That fact hasn't vanished. Facts, as John Adams once said, are persistent things. How widely they're embraced, however....oh hell I'm getting off the point....again *sigh*

Meanwhile, of course, this system remains not just the game's sore thumb, but its severed limb....dropped on top of the cake....at the wedding reception.

Only action left to my characters is to make murders uncomfortable. They stomp them with their horses. Follow them everywhere. Give chase when they try to mount and run. Have gotten two kills this way, oddly enough, in Daggerfall when they'd flee off one of the high walls.

Is that PvP?

Mostly they just find a wayshrine and leave the area. Perhaps that's what they were doing when they suicided.

However I do have a constructive proposal. Let's give the Pocket Mammoth some special abilities....here's one with my Imperial, Erana. His name is Rommel.

No, no, I'm not suggesting making pets tactical as they are in Ultima Online. No "All Kill" commands...noooo. Rather, I'd like to be able to target a player and have my wee mammoth smack, smack, smack it with his trunk, pausing only to issue long, angry elephant trumpet sounds.

First bold - or to other folks its a fine system, fun to play offering different challenges than the bulk of the content, that has a lot of potential for expansion.

Secnnd bold - no i dont think thats called PVP. I think intentionally doing things to annoy other players and drive them out of an area in PVE content is called something else... and it does indeed seems popular and even acceptable behavior in some circles. not so much in others. That was very informative, so thanks.

*sighs*

Humor is subjective so let me be plain.

To review, I began this thread because that "GAHHH...UHHCHUK..." sound of sudden violent death IN A TOWN, along with corpses lying about the streets seemed beyond bizarre to me. And the initial reaction was typical for this venue.

These are not bad people. I don't imagine they are. This game sanctioned behavior is not a reflection on them. But this isn't GT-f*cking-A. Run down all the old ladies you want in a single player game. Put all the anti-social player paths you want in all the single player games you care to make. In that setting it's more catharsis than a reflection of who you are.

But in a multiplayer game?

Again, and I know you agree to an extent, it's bad game design. More than that it's terrible multiplayer game design because it's one of many soup sandwich single player options that were simply thrown out there from no discernible Archimedean point other than it references something in an earlier single player game using the same license.

The thieves don't work in groups. There's no big heist. The assassins don't work in groups either...they're just assassins after all. You're not changing an existing leadership order. Thus this sanctioned sanctioning of NPCs isn't just disturbing to those with sound turned on, it's - to me - a missed opportunity.

You see this as an incremental process. My experience tells me it's not.

So I treat it like a multiplayer game. Yes, they-annoy-me-so-I-annoy-them is hardly a satisfying mpgame experience. But it's all I've got here. And if, as you say it's popular, what's wrong with that? They can annoy me but I'm not allowed to annoy them?

You really don't mean that.

If they want people to do nothing, then ditch that sound effect and have the corpses vanish when the NPCs respawn. Or just have the killer hear it and don't show us the dead NPCs. If assassins are pursuing a disconnected game feature then disconnect it from everyone else.

But I cannot accept that this whole high-dollar vast creation, this intricate web of myriad server clusters connecting thousands and thousands of people is merely to enable each player to have their own single player experience with just the illusion that they're existing in a living world.