Please Finish The Justice System

STEVIL

cjthibs wrote: »

This dude would've never made it in UO or SWG.

So?

The dude likely would also not have made it in the 70m ski jump at the olympics.

LaiTash

STEVIL wrote: »

Absolutely but without fresh air (ideas) its still going to smell just as bad and so those wanting to keep it as originally designed before it was intentionally discarded might be well served to give that position a think over.

It never smelt bad and actually a lot of people were waiting for it. I think it was discarded only because zeni management decided that the game should be further evolved as theme park, because that's less risky and most nowdays mmo follow that path.

Daemons_Bane

You guys should get your own thread XD

STEVIL

LaiTash wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

Absolutely but without fresh air (ideas) its still going to smell just as bad and so those wanting to keep it as originally designed before it was intentionally discarded might be well served to give that position a think over.

It never smelt bad and actually a lot of people were waiting for it. I think it was discarded only because zeni management decided that the game should be further evolved as theme park, because that's less risky and most nowdays mmo follow that path.

Well, whatever you might choose to fantasize about the inner goings on of ZOS designers, it should be obvious that wanting them to reconsider it as originally designed is less likely to produce worthwhile results no matter how many times it gets repeated than coming up with new ideas for bringing some of it back in, thats all i am saying.

"as originally designed" is an anchor for a discarded idea unless the goal is to just have a perpetual outrage post theme.

thats why some folks, even me, want to get more content added separate from the "as originally designed" portion to expand the content and even some of those who want the PVP try and infuse new approaches that weren't "as originally designed" into their proposals.

if you want constructive development, progress or even the potential of those, just sticking to "as originally designed" (and discarded) is just not an optimal strategy.

if you want a perpetual thread rage, "as originally designed" is an optimal strategy.

proof is in the pudding.

cjthibs

STEVIL wrote: »

cjthibs wrote: »

This dude would've never made it in UO or SWG.

So?

The dude likely would also not have made it in the 70m ski jump at the olympics.

So? ...it's not your cup of tea.

The proposed system with a bounty threshold allows you to opt-out.
Crime should have consequences, it's only natural, and it would make this game more fun.

LaiTash

STEVIL wrote: »

if you want constructive development, progress or even the potential of those, just sticking to "as originally designed" (and discarded) is just not an optimal strategy.

if you want a perpetual thread rage, "as originally designed" is an optimal strategy.

proof is in the pudding.

By "originally designed" i mean the enforcer part of the system in general, and right now i don't really care for the details (especially since we don't know much about them). Anything could be improved, why not.

Tandor

cjthibs wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

cjthibs wrote: »

This dude would've never made it in UO or SWG.

So?

The dude likely would also not have made it in the 70m ski jump at the olympics.

So? ...it's not your cup of tea.

The proposed system with a bounty threshold allows you to opt-out.
Crime should have consequences, it's only natural, and it would make this game more fun.

A system with a bounty threshold is not offering an opt-out, it is offering you a restricted PvE content.

It is indeed only natural that crime should have consequences, and it is also only natural that PvE crime should have PvE consequences.

LaiTash

Tandor wrote: »

A system with a bounty threshold is not offering an opt-out, it is offering you a restricted PvE content.

Will balancing the current system in terms of risk vs reward - that is cutting the overall profits, no more rare motiffs etc - be a restriction to PvE content? Because it would only be fair. Or maybe increase risks, PvE-style - up to the level it's as hard as if there would be an enforcer system in place? Would that be a restriction or not? If no, how come the enforcer system is a restriction?

Tandor

LaiTash wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

A system with a bounty threshold is not offering an opt-out, it is offering you a restricted PvE content.

Will balancing the current system in terms of risk vs reward - that is cutting the overall profits, no more rare motiffs etc - be a restriction to PvE content? Because it would only be fair. Or maybe increase risks, PvE-style - up to the level it's as hard as if there would be an enforcer system in place? Would that be a restriction or not? If no, how come the enforcer system is a restriction?

I don't have a problem with increasing the PvE difficulty level and PvE penalties for PvE crime, but it is a restriction in the PvE content if you can only go so far with it before you are forced either to leave the PvE content unfinished or accept PvP penalties for your further PvE crime. I'm glad that ZOS decided to leave the Justice System with PvE penalties for PvE crimes, but I'd have no problem with PvPers arguing for some kind of enforcer system in say Imperial City or any new PvP area specifically designed for it, indeed I'd support the argument for it. I just don't want PvP bolted onto PvE content, and nor do ZOS.

STEVIL

Tandor wrote: »

cjthibs wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

cjthibs wrote: »

This dude would've never made it in UO or SWG.

So?

The dude likely would also not have made it in the 70m ski jump at the olympics.

So? ...it's not your cup of tea.

The proposed system with a bounty threshold allows you to opt-out.
Crime should have consequences, it's only natural, and it would make this game more fun.

A system with a bounty threshold is not offering an opt-out, it is offering you a restricted PvE content.

It is indeed only natural that crime should have consequences, and it is also only natural that PvE crime should have PvE consequences.

Exactly!

SupremeTravie

It's sad to see that they won't be acting on this side of the Justice System because personally I think it would be a lot of fun as a PvPer but the precious PvE community can't be harmed while the PvPers get the *** end of the stick. I think it would bring a new aspect to the game. The PvE'rs want to be left alone ? Create a flag system or something. Anyways hopefully they do satisfy the itch with the dueling/arenas/battlegrounds. It would have brought a lot of fun and new things to the areas.

STEVIL

LaiTash wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

A system with a bounty threshold is not offering an opt-out, it is offering you a restricted PvE content.

Will balancing the current system in terms of risk vs reward - that is cutting the overall profits, no more rare motiffs etc - be a restriction to PvE content? Because it would only be fair. Or maybe increase risks, PvE-style - up to the level it's as hard as if there would be an enforcer system in place? Would that be a restriction or not? If no, how come the enforcer system is a restriction?

"because its only fair" implies and demands comparison.

When you take casual repeatable PVE injustice activities including civilian kills, stealing etc its about as risky as other casual repeatable content including delving, grinding, all of of the side questing and the zone quests

That is to say - someone who knows what they are doing, is properly equipped and skill-assigned - will rarely if ever suffer any significant consequences.

In each of these cases, spending time at the content gains you stuff (gold, drops, mats, experience) with the divisions between them varying but really the overall "value" of them being within the same ballpark

You mention cutting rare motiffs from injustice content?

Really?

i can run delves in Gold Coast and Hews banes in like 10m each at most and their bosses drop a purple motif at least once in three more or less. Cant remember the last time i had a character die in those delves, period, and i get 7-10 purple motifs to sell a week off them.

Last time i did a serious comparison of delving, grinding, questing and injustice for "time spent and rewards gained" delving was #1, grinding #2 and injustice was tied with skill-quests basically and slightly better than the non-skill side questing (or between skill quest and side quest depending on how you value +1 skill.)

Why should injustice be cut out from the motifs - although i cant remember the last time i saw a motif from that effort.

Why should casual injustice play be raised to some level of difficulty outside of the norm for other casual repeatable content someone can choose to go for? how is that fair?

The notion that somehow injustice casual play is "too easy for its gains" does not hold up when you compare it to time vs gains of the other just as easy content and their gains.

THAT SAID:

I have no problem with adding more injustice content along the lines of the timed heists and the sacraments where you choose to go after more difficult content and gain more rewards - just like you can take on dungeons or world bosses or do trials or arenas.

But a wholesale takeover effort to raise the difficulty of all the injustice content - not fair - and would likely result in reducing the participation in the content.

its basically sounding like "we didnt get pvp so lets screw the ones playing the rest."

Again, for emphasis:
Add more new higher difficulty PVE injustice with commensurate rewards - Sure, great, wonderful! (i am wholly supportive of adding much more Justice content too.)
Takeaway the current level of injustice content or drastically reduce its rewards - No Way, No how. It being currently easier than it would be if PVP is irrelevant to the discussion. What is relevant is it being as easy as its "competiton" for casual playtime and having similar payoffs - as it is now.

LaiTash

Tandor wrote: »

I don't have a problem with increasing the PvE difficulty level and PvE penalties for PvE crime, but it is a restriction in the PvE content if you can only go so far with it before you are forced either to leave the PvE content unfinished or accept PvP penalties for your further PvE crime. I'm glad that ZOS decided to leave the Justice System with PvE penalties for PvE crimes

Why do you think PvP is worse then PvP if difficulties are the same? I don't get it. Because you are "not geared" for pvp? Well if you plan properly you won't even need to fight anyone, just hide and run, you know, like proper criminals do (yes, they don't just pay a modest fee and hand all the goods they have stolen and did not sell yet over to a police officer, they run and hide or end up in jail).

but I'd have no problem with PvPers arguing for some kind of enforcer system in say Imperial City or any new PvP area specifically designed for it, indeed I'd support the argument for it.

Another PvP paddock? No thanks.

I just don't want PvP bolted onto PvE content, and nor do ZOS.

I'm probably getting too old to understand why this even matters and why would anyone want to separate the community into PvP vs PvE camps.

STEVIL

Tandor wrote: »

LaiTash wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

A system with a bounty threshold is not offering an opt-out, it is offering you a restricted PvE content.

Will balancing the current system in terms of risk vs reward - that is cutting the overall profits, no more rare motiffs etc - be a restriction to PvE content? Because it would only be fair. Or maybe increase risks, PvE-style - up to the level it's as hard as if there would be an enforcer system in place? Would that be a restriction or not? If no, how come the enforcer system is a restriction?

I don't have a problem with increasing the PvE difficulty level and PvE penalties for PvE crime, but it is a restriction in the PvE content if you can only go so far with it before you are forced either to leave the PvE content unfinished or accept PvP penalties for your further PvE crime. I'm glad that ZOS decided to leave the Justice System with PvE penalties for PvE crimes, but I'd have no problem with PvPers arguing for some kind of enforcer system in say Imperial City or any new PvP area specifically designed for it, indeed I'd support the argument for it. I just don't want PvP bolted onto PvE content, and nor do ZOS.

Agree.

one of my suggestions was to allow "stealing" in cyrodil - have crates and barrel and lockboxes in those home centers where you train, buy stuff, do the golden vendor, pick up missions etc be areas where you can steal from your own alliance with bounty, with enforcers etc.

basically:
steal from enemy - hey this is war.
steal from your alliance - this is treason lets hunt you down.

net result: PVP justice!

if the goal is to have injustice play vs play cat-and-mouse gameplay - this can give it fairly easily... no real risk to the game as a whole.

but if the goal is injustice as a vehicle for PVP vs PVE, not so much.

Doctordarkspawn

Give up on the PVP justice system.

It's not happening and it should not happen

Zamrod_beta

STEVIL wrote: »

besides, even if i accept that "getting caught" in injustice activities is somehow failing - "failing" at PVE should not open oneself up to PVP... that doesn't make the PVE more fun more interesting more enjoyable.

or do you think that if we added to Maelstrom Arena that "on a death you get sucked out of MSA, VMSA, HMVSMA and into a PVP conflict with one or more folks geared for PVP" it wouldn't be seen as a takeover of PVE content especially if when you lost the PVP you also lost the loot gained from the arena stages.

yeah... bet that would raise the participation rates of the high end arenas and dungeeons and trials - "death = fail = PVP or lose stuff".

I'm really not sure what the difference is between the following situations:

1) I steal something but I get caught. A guard chases me and kills me. I lose all of my stolen items.

2) I steal something but I get caught. A player chases me and kills me. I lose all of my stolen items.

Why is the fact that one is PvP and the other one isn't such a big deal?

As for the Maelstrom Arena thing, if there was a story reason for why I was fighting a PvP match and I knew it happened on a loss, why not? I question the idea that I'd have to lose all my stuff when I lose the PvP match.

In theory with the Justice System there would be a chance to evade the person so you weren't necessarily going to lose your items just because you were spotted. You might be able to run to a sanctuary before a Bounty Hunter caught up with you. There might be no Bounty Hunters immediately around, allowing you to calmly walk to a sanctuary. Plus, you might just be able to hide from them assuming the system didn't tell them exactly where you were.

I really don't understand the idea of PvP and PvE content needing to be 100% separate all the time. They should only be mixed together when it would make sense and it should be made fun but I don't understand the religious objection to it that just says "It should never be done! Just because!"

Epona222

Zeni said ages ago that they will not be implementing the justice system as per the original concept, get over it.

JKorr

LaiTash wrote: »

I'm probably getting too old to understand why this even matters and why would anyone want to separate the community into PvP vs PvE camps.

Because some of the pve players have run into total ***/griefer/troll/psychopathic pvp players, and don't really want players like that to disrupt our gaming.

I'm not looking forward to having dueling allowed. Not because I have a problem with dueling. I tried it out on the pts. It isn't bad, and with the right people, it could even be fun. What I am not looking forward to are the players who will intentionally duel in the middle of town, or right outside buildings, or *in* buildings to intentionally disrupt other players who want to go to the bank, the crafting stations, or the guild traders. There are players who are planning on it. I'm praying to the Divines that the devs will not allow dueling in towns or within several hundred yards of crafting stations or wayshrines, and *never* inside buildings. I'm not the only one; that was a common comment in the official thread about dueling in the pts forum.

BenLocoDete

Khenarthi wrote: »

bellanca6561n wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

@bellanca6561n

"But flagging murders as killable by other players will let the players decide if they are amused"

yes. it would.

But if i am playing a vampire and you go around killing npc vampires shouldn't i also get to decide that i am not amused by you killing my kin and challenge you?

if i am playing a green pact and see you startiong fires in forests burning tents...

If i play a characater that sees you killing dominion ships in your territory and killing dominion soldiers...

if i am an etc etc etc etc etc etc etc even when or especially when there are quests involved - you know like many Db or TG quests do.

Why decide that one and only one PC-vs-NPC activity deserves the "i am not amused so BAMF PVP" option in a world that is NOT ours and does not share our moralities in many of their cultures?

And also, all the other stuff said above about why it is bad.

The GAME establishes killing civilians and robbery as valid PC activities, valid content to pursue, and basically a valid in-game activity for PVE. it is not currently out of whack balance wise with other repeatable "acquisition" content like grinding, delving, questing etc as far as GAINS over TIME - it even skews a little low.

i do like however the comment about how dueling isnt an answer because they can decline... which is telling about how letting the other players have a choiceto choose not to fight other players is a problem.

Pardon the lag...I'd given up and only saw this string of responses this evening.

You make some excellent points which is why, in the end, I conceded that this game is ill suited for digital community features....what is often called "a living world" where an online community mimics aspects of a physical one.

You do eliminate player choice on the one hand to enable player impact and influence on the other. And that influence can become tyrannical as it often does with human societies.

The alternative is players having no impact on the game at all really. And that seems to work. It's why they call these theme park games. They're multiplayer but not too multiplayer. You have persistent player groups but are allowed so many that calling a guild a guild in this game is like calling a traffic jam a block party.

I understand this. I began developing online games before they were allowed on the Internet and understand that we could do things then you cannot do now because the audience then was small. It was also a very different audience. The average age of online game players before Ultima Online was 37.

What got me worked up was simply the sound of someone fighting for air through their own blood and body fluids. I'm certainly not alone in having heard that sound many times...for real. It was meant to provoke a response. But I could not respond.

Could I at least provide treatment for these victims....take the kill away from a murderer if I cannot kill the murderer? Not even if I'm right there when they're attacked?

Can I not stop an attack in progress at least?

I didn't mean, to use the old expression, to beat a dead horse to death. This is not exactly a warm forum and I'm seldom inclined to come here. But just standing there when this happens and others beg for their lives. How is that a game?

I just don't get it.

(...)

It's an Elder Scrolls game: player freedom should come first, remember that for many of us this is the first/only online experience.

And for some it will be also the last! LOL

LaiTash

JKorr wrote: »

Because some of the pve players have run into total ***/griefer/troll/psychopathic pvp players, and don't really want players like that to disrupt our gaming.

I know what you mean, but this goes too far. Removing a very limited and restricted overland pvp element from a game just because unrestricted FFA pvp leads to problems is just weird.

[Edit to correct quote]

STEVIL

Zamrod_beta wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

besides, even if i accept that "getting caught" in injustice activities is somehow failing - "failing" at PVE should not open oneself up to PVP... that doesn't make the PVE more fun more interesting more enjoyable.

or do you think that if we added to Maelstrom Arena that "on a death you get sucked out of MSA, VMSA, HMVSMA and into a PVP conflict with one or more folks geared for PVP" it wouldn't be seen as a takeover of PVE content especially if when you lost the PVP you also lost the loot gained from the arena stages.

yeah... bet that would raise the participation rates of the high end arenas and dungeeons and trials - "death = fail = PVP or lose stuff".

I'm really not sure what the difference is between the following situations:

1) I steal something but I get caught. A guard chases me and kills me. I lose all of my stolen items.

2) I steal something but I get caught. A player chases me and kills me. I lose all of my stolen items.

Why is the fact that one is PvP and the other one isn't such a big deal?

As for the Maelstrom Arena thing, if there was a story reason for why I was fighting a PvP match and I knew it happened on a loss, why not? I question the idea that I'd have to lose all my stuff when I lose the PvP match.

In theory with the Justice System there would be a chance to evade the person so you weren't necessarily going to lose your items just because you were spotted. You might be able to run to a sanctuary before a Bounty Hunter caught up with you. There might be no Bounty Hunters immediately around, allowing you to calmly walk to a sanctuary. Plus, you might just be able to hide from them assuming the system didn't tell them exactly where you were.

I really don't understand the idea of PvP and PvE content needing to be 100% separate all the time. They should only be mixed together when it would make sense and it should be made fun but I don't understand the religious objection to it that just says "It should never be done! Just because!"

Well, to answer the bold, for many players, maybe not you, PVP and PVE are very different things one of which they enjoy more than the other and content that fuses the two usually tends to drive off a significant portion of the audience. thats why IC was such a non-success at least in part. Also, as you can see on the forums in many many places and on most any informed set of posts - the gear, skill setups etc for PVE is different from PVP. if one is conducting PVE content and doing some casual stealing and gets thrown into PVP combat then it will be a less than enjoyable event for them, likely for both if the enforcer actually wants a competitive fight. (Though most of the PVP justice proposals i have seen dont want making the fight competitive a design goal.)

But basically, if you really dont understand or have a clue why PVP vs PVE matters to a significant portion of players, its likely no set of reasons i can provide or anyone can provide can explain it to you. The "divide" between PVP and PVE did not start with ESO discarding their attempt at PVP justice, it has been around for ages and if you haven't gotten a handle on why it exists, why its a difference for some by now... I cant expect a few sentences here would change that.

Tandor

LaiTash wrote: »

JKorr wrote: »

Because some of the pve players have run into total ***/griefer/troll/psychopathic pvp players, and don't really want players like that to disrupt our gaming.

I know what you mean, but this goes too far. Removing a very limited and restricted overland pvp element from a game just because unrestricted FFA pvp leads to problems is just weird.

It hasn't been removed from the game, the developers simply decided it wasn't worth adding it to the game because of the problem of exploiting.

Tandor

LaiTash wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

I don't have a problem with increasing the PvE difficulty level and PvE penalties for PvE crime, but it is a restriction in the PvE content if you can only go so far with it before you are forced either to leave the PvE content unfinished or accept PvP penalties for your further PvE crime. I'm glad that ZOS decided to leave the Justice System with PvE penalties for PvE crimes

Why do you think PvP is worse then PvP if difficulties are the same? I don't get it. Because you are "not geared" for pvp? Well if you plan properly you won't even need to fight anyone, just hide and run, you know, like proper criminals do (yes, they don't just pay a modest fee and hand all the goods they have stolen and did not sell yet over to a police officer, they run and hide or end up in jail).

but I'd have no problem with PvPers arguing for some kind of enforcer system in say Imperial City or any new PvP area specifically designed for it, indeed I'd support the argument for it.

Another PvP paddock? No thanks.

I just don't want PvP bolted onto PvE content, and nor do ZOS.

I'm probably getting too old to understand why this even matters and why would anyone want to separate the community into PvP vs PvE camps.

I'm assuming you mean PvP and PvE. It isn't a case of one being better or worse than another, it's simply a case of them being very different playstyles. There are plenty of people who have zero interest in PvP for various perfectly legitimate reasons, and it always causes problems when the two playstyles are mixed in the same content or area.

If you want open world PvP as an integral part of the PvE content then you're effectively asking for FFA PvP and that won't happen here. There are plenty of games that do offer it, however, and as I've said before on this board you'll spot them very easily - they're the ones with the empty servers.

You are, however, about to get dueling, which is very close to the kind of enforcer PvP that you are asking for except that it is one on one and consensual - is that a problem?

STEVIL

Tandor wrote: »

LaiTash wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

I don't have a problem with increasing the PvE difficulty level and PvE penalties for PvE crime, but it is a restriction in the PvE content if you can only go so far with it before you are forced either to leave the PvE content unfinished or accept PvP penalties for your further PvE crime. I'm glad that ZOS decided to leave the Justice System with PvE penalties for PvE crimes

Why do you think PvP is worse then PvP if difficulties are the same? I don't get it. Because you are "not geared" for pvp? Well if you plan properly you won't even need to fight anyone, just hide and run, you know, like proper criminals do (yes, they don't just pay a modest fee and hand all the goods they have stolen and did not sell yet over to a police officer, they run and hide or end up in jail).

but I'd have no problem with PvPers arguing for some kind of enforcer system in say Imperial City or any new PvP area specifically designed for it, indeed I'd support the argument for it.

Another PvP paddock? No thanks.

I just don't want PvP bolted onto PvE content, and nor do ZOS.

I'm probably getting too old to understand why this even matters and why would anyone want to separate the community into PvP vs PvE camps.

I'm assuming you mean PvP and PvE. It isn't a case of one being better or worse than another, it's simply a case of them being very different playstyles. There are plenty of people who have zero interest in PvP for various perfectly legitimate reasons, and it always causes problems when the two playstyles are mixed in the same content or area.

If you want open world PvP as an integral part of the PvE content then you're effectively asking for FFA PvP and that won't happen here. There are plenty of games that do offer it, however, and as I've said before on this board you'll spot them very easily - they're the ones with the empty servers.

You are, however, about to get dueling, which is very close to the kind of enforcer PvP that you are asking for except that it is one on one and consensual - is that a problem?

Exactly!

LaiTash

Tandor wrote: »

There are plenty of people who have zero interest in PvP for various perfectly legitimate reasons, and it always causes problems when the two playstyles are mixed in the same content or area.

There are plenty of people who have zero interest in the justice system in it's current state (for it's being so easy that it becomes boring), but would gladly participate if there was the enforcers part, and not all of them were planning to be enforcers. Why favor only one of these groups when there is an option for compromise?

If you want open world PvP as an integral part of the PvE content then you're effectively asking for FFA PvP

No i don't. Enforcer system is very limited and regulated, it's nowere near FFA PvP. FFA PvP is something you could see in UO before trammel, or L2, or rust, or darklands. It's a completely different thing.

and that won't happen here. There are plenty of games that do offer it, however, and as I've said before on this board you'll spot them very easily - they're the ones with the empty servers.

Like what? Black desert? Albion online? Eve? Yeah there are few FFA games with empty servers but that's either because they've been here for 10+ years (will ESO live that long?) or because the major companies favor WoW formula (probably falsely assuming it leads to WoW level of success) and smaller ones can't attract as many people. Still i can name a few dozens games with dead servers with no open world PvP, so it proves nothing at all.

You are, however, about to get dueling, which is very close to the kind of enforcer PvP that you are asking for except that it is one on one and consensual - is that a problem?

How it's close to enforcer PvP. I was thinking enforcers were supposed to enforce judgement... not ask for it.

STEVIL

LaiTash wrote: »

How it's close to enforcer PvP. I was thinking enforcers were supposed to enforce judgement... not ask for it.

So to be clear is: that a detail you do care about?

In an earlier post...

LaiTash wrote: »

By "originally designed" i mean the enforcer part of the system in general, and right now i don't really care for the details (especially since we don't know much about them). Anything could be improved, why not.

As i said in other posts above: there aren't "simple" and of course aren't "in general" systems or answers to this issue or really most any issue of significance in the game.

The "details" you dont care about until something specific is mentioned matter a lot.

For you, it seems the ability of the criminal-enforcer to be consensual or not is a detail that matters.
it does for me to.

Details, devils etc etc etc.

but to answer your initial question:

DUELING FOR JUSTICE

Two player both agree beforehand to "duel for justice"
two players agree to use a certain city at a certain time.
one player runs OUTLAW and his goal is to not get spotted by the other player and to steal kill civie do as much injustice as he can within that city/village and that time frame.
one player runs the ENFORCER, his objective is to patrol around, find the player running OUTLAW and challenge him to a duel.
By agreement if the OUTLAW is caught (offered a duel) by the ENFORCER, he must accept the duel. basically they have agreed the ENFORCER has a warrant for the OUTLAW - regardless of actual ESO bounties.
By agreement the OUTLAW cannot choose to pay off bounties acrued during the game time.
Obviously, if the OUTLAW gets spotted/chased by guards and a shout/chase begins or gets actual ESO bounty which limits his movements within the city that will make it more likely the ENFORCER can hear the commotion and find him. If the OUTLAW gets bountied and cannot walk around freely, again, easier to find.
THE PRIZE: If not found, at the end of the time limit, the OUTLAW is paid gold equal to the amount of stolen loot he collected during the play BY THE ENFORCER. If found and dueled and the OUTLAW wins, the outlaw KEEPS THE LOOT BUT DOESN'T GET ANYTHING EXTRA FROM THE enforcer. IF THE ENFORCER wins the OUTLAW must liquidate the goods stolen and pay double the gold to the ENFORCER.

So there you go. two players by mutual agreement play a cat and mouse cops and robber game within a given city.- the actual justice system plays a role but most of the player-on-player game is handled by the dueling and prior agreement.

Not a big difference between this and much of the enforcer criminal gameplay being sought - well except for that who "we agree beforehand consensual" bit.

Story-wise you can consider the enforcer to be a bounty hunter operating not with the cooperation of the locals.

of course, the another reason the OUTLAW will not want to accrue bounty is that if they are dueled guards can still come after them while in the duel.

and see if they agree before hand, back to consensual agreed gameplay, the enforcer isn't "asking" just triggering a dialog that the OUTLAW has agreed to accept. Not entirely unlike certain PVP justice proposals that allow the "flee/pvp/fight as one otion alongside "pay bounty" even for PVP Justice.

Details, again with the details...

LaiTash

STEVIL wrote: »

DUELING FOR JUSTICE

Two player both agree beforehand to "duel for justice"
two players agree to use a certain city at a certain time.
one player runs OUTLAW and his goal is to not get spotted by the other player and to steal kill civie do as much injustice as he can within that city/village and that time frame.
one player runs the ENFORCER, his objective is to patrol around, find the player running OUTLAW and challenge him to a duel.
By agreement if the OUTLAW is caught (offered a duel) by the ENFORCER, he must accept the duel. basically they have agreed the ENFORCER has a warrant for the OUTLAW - regardless of actual ESO bounties.
By agreement the OUTLAW cannot choose to pay off bounties acrued during the game time.
Obviously, if the OUTLAW gets spotted/chased by guards and a shout/chase begins or gets actual ESO bounty which limits his movements within the city that will make it more likely the ENFORCER can hear the commotion and find him. If the OUTLAW gets bountied and cannot walk around freely, again, easier to find.
THE PRIZE: If not found, at the end of the time limit, the OUTLAW is paid gold equal to the amount of stolen loot he collected during the play BY THE ENFORCER. If found and dueled and the OUTLAW wins, the outlaw KEEPS THE LOOT BUT DOESN'T GET ANYTHING EXTRA FROM THE enforcer. IF THE ENFORCER wins the OUTLAW must liquidate the goods stolen and pay double the gold to the ENFORCER.

Awesome, why do we need zeni at all? Why not extend this to other aspects of the game: let's one player be a DUNGEON BOSS and another is a HERO...

Yes, "the ability of the criminal-enforcer to be consensual or not is a detail that matters". RP community here is not that strong for this to be anywere near realistic. And i don't want to play a thief and spam "hey can anyone play outlaw-and-enforcer with me pls?".

Osteos

STEVIL wrote: »

Zamrod_beta wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

besides, even if i accept that "getting caught" in injustice activities is somehow failing - "failing" at PVE should not open oneself up to PVP... that doesn't make the PVE more fun more interesting more enjoyable.

or do you think that if we added to Maelstrom Arena that "on a death you get sucked out of MSA, VMSA, HMVSMA and into a PVP conflict with one or more folks geared for PVP" it wouldn't be seen as a takeover of PVE content especially if when you lost the PVP you also lost the loot gained from the arena stages.

yeah... bet that would raise the participation rates of the high end arenas and dungeeons and trials - "death = fail = PVP or lose stuff".

I'm really not sure what the difference is between the following situations:

1) I steal something but I get caught. A guard chases me and kills me. I lose all of my stolen items.

2) I steal something but I get caught. A player chases me and kills me. I lose all of my stolen items.

Why is the fact that one is PvP and the other one isn't such a big deal?

As for the Maelstrom Arena thing, if there was a story reason for why I was fighting a PvP match and I knew it happened on a loss, why not? I question the idea that I'd have to lose all my stuff when I lose the PvP match.

In theory with the Justice System there would be a chance to evade the person so you weren't necessarily going to lose your items just because you were spotted. You might be able to run to a sanctuary before a Bounty Hunter caught up with you. There might be no Bounty Hunters immediately around, allowing you to calmly walk to a sanctuary. Plus, you might just be able to hide from them assuming the system didn't tell them exactly where you were.

I really don't understand the idea of PvP and PvE content needing to be 100% separate all the time. They should only be mixed together when it would make sense and it should be made fun but I don't understand the religious objection to it that just says "It should never be done! Just because!"

Well, to answer the bold, for many players, maybe not you, PVP and PVE are very different things one of which they enjoy more than the other and content that fuses the two usually tends to drive off a significant portion of the audience. thats why IC was such a non-success at least in part. Also, as you can see on the forums in many many places and on most any informed set of posts - the gear, skill setups etc for PVE is different from PVP. if one is conducting PVE content and doing some casual stealing and gets thrown into PVP combat then it will be a less than enjoyable event for them, likely for both if the enforcer actually wants a competitive fight. (Though most of the PVP justice proposals i have seen dont want making the fight competitive a design goal.)

But basically, if you really dont understand or have a clue why PVP vs PVE matters to a significant portion of players, its likely no set of reasons i can provide or anyone can provide can explain it to you. The "divide" between PVP and PVE did not start with ESO discarding their attempt at PVP justice, it has been around for ages and if you haven't gotten a handle on why it exists, why its a difference for some by now... I cant expect a few sentences here would change that.

You didn't answer the bold part at all. Why is it different if a player kills you or a guard kills you?

For example: You kill someone with the blade of woe but weren't careful and get a kill on sight bounty. Off you go to do other things and stuff and get spotted by a guard. Guard gives chase- something happens and you fail to get away resulting in the guard killing you. You respawn at a wayshrine. See it happen everyday in Wayrest. Now if it was a player instead of a guard how is it different?

STEVIL

LaiTash wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

DUELING FOR JUSTICE

Two player both agree beforehand to "duel for justice"
two players agree to use a certain city at a certain time.
one player runs OUTLAW and his goal is to not get spotted by the other player and to steal kill civie do as much injustice as he can within that city/village and that time frame.
one player runs the ENFORCER, his objective is to patrol around, find the player running OUTLAW and challenge him to a duel.
By agreement if the OUTLAW is caught (offered a duel) by the ENFORCER, he must accept the duel. basically they have agreed the ENFORCER has a warrant for the OUTLAW - regardless of actual ESO bounties.
By agreement the OUTLAW cannot choose to pay off bounties acrued during the game time.
Obviously, if the OUTLAW gets spotted/chased by guards and a shout/chase begins or gets actual ESO bounty which limits his movements within the city that will make it more likely the ENFORCER can hear the commotion and find him. If the OUTLAW gets bountied and cannot walk around freely, again, easier to find.
THE PRIZE: If not found, at the end of the time limit, the OUTLAW is paid gold equal to the amount of stolen loot he collected during the play BY THE ENFORCER. If found and dueled and the OUTLAW wins, the outlaw KEEPS THE LOOT BUT DOESN'T GET ANYTHING EXTRA FROM THE enforcer. IF THE ENFORCER wins the OUTLAW must liquidate the goods stolen and pay double the gold to the ENFORCER.

Awesome, why do we need zeni at all? Why not extend this to other aspects of the game: let's one player be a DUNGEON BOSS and another is a HERO...

Yes, "the ability of the criminal-enforcer to be consensual or not is a detail that matters". RP community here is not that strong for this to be anywere near realistic. And i don't want to play a thief and spam "hey can anyone play outlaw-and-enforcer with me pls?".

Man, do we have to think of everything for you?

Start a guild.
Make it for PVP dueling justice players.
Advertise it here or in the guilds section.
See the flood of players joining your guild.
Advertise it in chat.
Codify the rules for play on the guild info.
Setup events with the millions and millions of other players like yourself who have likely been dying for consensual pvp justice themed play who rush to join your guild.
Setup tracking of wins losses whatever you want. Key point is you guts can control that part of the game.

If you wanted consensual pvp based justice play, and if there are the lots of others that want it too, ZOS is handing you the core element - ability to chalkenge and fight other player also interested. You csn do all the rest without taking over anyone else's pvp and best part is you wont have to wait on all those folks at zos to agree eith you or cater to carebears and ruin it for you.

You might even decide to have two guilds, one for cops, one for robbers.

Again, i guess, if you are still at a loss, eith the millions of pvp justice themed plsy enthusiasts you will have,there will be plenty with helpful ideas.

So see not so hard since there are so many of you.

Wolfshead

brandonv516 wrote: »

What does one get for killing all those NPCs? Is there an achievement by chance?

Yes the achievement to go on nuts and kill everything you see.