Dueling should not kill

code65536

Current system: Fight to 0 health, loser dies then resurrects for free, goes through the whole ghost form thing, etc.

What is being proposed: Fight to 0 health, loser doesn't die and just, well, loses.

Essentially, it's the same thing, with some "cosmetic" differences in how defeat is communicated: either via death-and-resurrection, or just end of combat without the death-and-resurrection sequence. And I suspect that most people wouldn't care one way or the other, since, again, they're the same thing with cosmetic differences.

And truth be told, I'm one of those who don't care one way or the other. That having been said, I can understand why someone would prefer the second method for immersion purposes. And as I mentioned earlier, the game already does something similar when procing Phoenix and Eternal Yokeda. So there's a fair chance that it can be done without too much difficulty, and if that's the case, why not change it?

Recremen

code65536 wrote: »

Current system: Fight to 0 health, loser dies then resurrects for free, goes through the whole ghost form thing, etc.

What is being proposed: Fight to 0 health, loser doesn't die and just, well, loses.

Essentially, it's the same thing, with some "cosmetic" differences in how defeat is communicated: either via death-and-resurrection, or just end of combat without the death-and-resurrection sequence. And I suspect that most people wouldn't care one way or the other, since, again, they're the same thing with cosmetic differences.

And truth be told, I'm one of those who don't care one way or the other. That having been said, I can understand why someone would prefer the second method for immersion purposes. And as I mentioned earlier, the game already does something similar when procing Phoenix and Eternal Yokeda. So there's a fair chance that it can be done without too much difficulty, and if that's the case, why not change it?

Yeah, this is precisely the point. It's a pleasant cosmetic difference that would let you get back into the fight faster than the current system. Dunno why people are so adamantly against the idea, other than perhaps preferring forum fights to legitimate in-game fights.

guul

No. Because my characters want to kill their siblings and friends.

STEVIL

Recremen wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Brrrofski wrote: »

There's no punishment for dying so what does it matter?

Lots of tiny problems with it that add up. The process of actually getting your body back instead of being in ghost form takes too long, for one. Then there's the kind of immersion-breaking aspect of turning every combat or sparring match between friends and relatives into a bloody murder. I know dying makes sense if it were a duel in the more traditional sense, but even that gets broken easily when your foe rezzes right in front of you. I know we're all The Vestige here, but it's a bit much. Then there's the teabag culture. I saw enough of it on the PTS to know how it will wind up. On PC NA the AD zones have been, overall, incredibly peaceful and friendly, I would prefer not to give any place for salty losers to get their toxic hooks into zone chat. I feel that a system more similar to other games, where you get left at 1 HP, would go a long way toward helping deescalate any such situations.

Ok so first, every duel simply DOES NOT end in death.At any time either character can leave the zone and forfeit.

You character dies in a duel if they keep fighting and do not forfeit or win.

There is NOTHING preventing two dueling character from having a "surrender" sign which if given means "stop hitting me and i will forfeit by walking out".

NOTHING.

NOTHING AT ALL.

PERIOD.

You die in a duel if you kerp fighting, do not win and do not forfeit.

So lets look at the position.

@Recremen said but parens are my additions.

Dueling is really cool, but it seems a bit excessive to die as a result (just because you do not win, do not forfeit and keep fightinguntil dead.)

Then there's the kind of immersion-breaking aspect of turning every combat or sparring match between friends and relatives into a bloody murder. (Even if the participants refuse to forfeit and keep fighting)

Those arent positions that make sense to me.


Do they to you?

Interesting criticisms, I will try to address them all.

1. The zone of a duel is extremely large, so forfeiting by leaving the zone of combat is not as feasible as you are making it sound. I don't know if you haven't PvP'd, but the game is very bursty, even with battle spirit applied. You could be on your way to forfeit, take two steps, and suddenly die to a good combo. Your opponent is unlikely to give you enough time between attacks to finish your walk of shame to the edge of the dueling zone. If they were giving you that much time, it's not exactly going to be fun and engaging combat. They'd be holding back significantly.
2. Having a surender signal is not adequate for preventing death. As previously stated, the game is extremely bursty. You can go from full health to none is seconds. If your opponent doesn't want to kill you, but gets a lucky crit and knocks you out anyway, no surrender signal is going to matter.
3. Given that forfeiture takes a long time (during which you are still vulnerable) and that dying is easy, I'm not really sure why you keep repeating the "do not win, do not forfeit, and keep fighting until dead" line. I mean, you are dueling, exactly what kind of stop condition are you expecting? If you win, then the other person somehow had time to run out of the dueling zone, or you killed them, neither of which is really what was feasible or desired. And if you fought until you died, then you obviously missed your opportunity to give this elusive surrender signal, either because you were burst down too fast or you miscalculated how much the next attack was going to do.

You might need to spend a little more time in Cyro to fully appreciate why your proposed solutions would be ineffective. You are trying to make it sound like someone is charging headlong off a cliff of their own making, and not really appreciating how easily someone can get a few lucky hits. The only thing not making sense around here is how you're watering down the complexity and unpredictability of combat.

Wait wait wait...

Let me get this straight.

After chosing to frame it in a pretty picture of fighting " friends and relatives" your argument is the enemy wont give you chance to surrrnder, will slaughter you as you run for your life, etc?

Seems to me you are realky trying to hide a "fight with bloodthirsty maniac who wsnts me dead" inside "sparring with people i love me" to grt a HAND OF ZOS SAVES ME when your dueling enemy fires off an "execute" when you are low health.

If you and your dueling enemy want non-lethal dueling you can work out do's and dont's to make it possible.
If your dueling enemy wsntd you dead its not fair to invoke a HAND OF ZOS mechanic to stop him.

You seem intent on misinterpreting what I'm saying, as that's not even close to what I'm arguing. At the end of the day, other MMOs do nonlethal dueling, I don't see why ESO should break that expectation. We already have a great lethal PvP zone, you should try it some time. You might see why your arguments sound so ridiculous.

Here is the point.

You keep bringing up fight over in cyro. Who cares?

Instead of Cyro, why not talk dueling? You are NOT required to duel the same way you do in Cyro.

You know dueling, where the OP (that was you, right) chose to support the argument by bringing in more than once the ides of friends and relatives and non-lethal duels and even with immersion.

F&R should not be relying on the HAND OF ZOS to keep them from killing their opponents. F &R should not be relying on some mystical divine intervention to allow them to conduct a duel where they dont wsnt to kill the enemy the ssme way they do a intentionally lethal one.

Professional fighter put on exhibitions. They dont go all out full bore in those, just like fighters treat choices in non-lethal duels differently.

Right now, if players want non-lethal duels they can fight that way. They can choose to not do those lethal things, just like you know in flag football folks dont crush their loved ones.

ZOS was pretty clear that thry ecpected dueling to be a case where decisions over proper snd improper were handled by the players not ZOS.

If you cannot get your opposition to agree, maybe that friend or relative doesnt like you that much.

Recremen

STEVIL wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Brrrofski wrote: »

There's no punishment for dying so what does it matter?

Lots of tiny problems with it that add up. The process of actually getting your body back instead of being in ghost form takes too long, for one. Then there's the kind of immersion-breaking aspect of turning every combat or sparring match between friends and relatives into a bloody murder. I know dying makes sense if it were a duel in the more traditional sense, but even that gets broken easily when your foe rezzes right in front of you. I know we're all The Vestige here, but it's a bit much. Then there's the teabag culture. I saw enough of it on the PTS to know how it will wind up. On PC NA the AD zones have been, overall, incredibly peaceful and friendly, I would prefer not to give any place for salty losers to get their toxic hooks into zone chat. I feel that a system more similar to other games, where you get left at 1 HP, would go a long way toward helping deescalate any such situations.

Ok so first, every duel simply DOES NOT end in death.At any time either character can leave the zone and forfeit.

You character dies in a duel if they keep fighting and do not forfeit or win.

There is NOTHING preventing two dueling character from having a "surrender" sign which if given means "stop hitting me and i will forfeit by walking out".

NOTHING.

NOTHING AT ALL.

PERIOD.

You die in a duel if you kerp fighting, do not win and do not forfeit.

So lets look at the position.

@Recremen said but parens are my additions.

Dueling is really cool, but it seems a bit excessive to die as a result (just because you do not win, do not forfeit and keep fightinguntil dead.)

Then there's the kind of immersion-breaking aspect of turning every combat or sparring match between friends and relatives into a bloody murder. (Even if the participants refuse to forfeit and keep fighting)

Those arent positions that make sense to me.


Do they to you?

Interesting criticisms, I will try to address them all.

1. The zone of a duel is extremely large, so forfeiting by leaving the zone of combat is not as feasible as you are making it sound. I don't know if you haven't PvP'd, but the game is very bursty, even with battle spirit applied. You could be on your way to forfeit, take two steps, and suddenly die to a good combo. Your opponent is unlikely to give you enough time between attacks to finish your walk of shame to the edge of the dueling zone. If they were giving you that much time, it's not exactly going to be fun and engaging combat. They'd be holding back significantly.
2. Having a surender signal is not adequate for preventing death. As previously stated, the game is extremely bursty. You can go from full health to none is seconds. If your opponent doesn't want to kill you, but gets a lucky crit and knocks you out anyway, no surrender signal is going to matter.
3. Given that forfeiture takes a long time (during which you are still vulnerable) and that dying is easy, I'm not really sure why you keep repeating the "do not win, do not forfeit, and keep fighting until dead" line. I mean, you are dueling, exactly what kind of stop condition are you expecting? If you win, then the other person somehow had time to run out of the dueling zone, or you killed them, neither of which is really what was feasible or desired. And if you fought until you died, then you obviously missed your opportunity to give this elusive surrender signal, either because you were burst down too fast or you miscalculated how much the next attack was going to do.

You might need to spend a little more time in Cyro to fully appreciate why your proposed solutions would be ineffective. You are trying to make it sound like someone is charging headlong off a cliff of their own making, and not really appreciating how easily someone can get a few lucky hits. The only thing not making sense around here is how you're watering down the complexity and unpredictability of combat.

Wait wait wait...

Let me get this straight.

After chosing to frame it in a pretty picture of fighting " friends and relatives" your argument is the enemy wont give you chance to surrrnder, will slaughter you as you run for your life, etc?

Seems to me you are realky trying to hide a "fight with bloodthirsty maniac who wsnts me dead" inside "sparring with people i love me" to grt a HAND OF ZOS SAVES ME when your dueling enemy fires off an "execute" when you are low health.

If you and your dueling enemy want non-lethal dueling you can work out do's and dont's to make it possible.
If your dueling enemy wsntd you dead its not fair to invoke a HAND OF ZOS mechanic to stop him.

You seem intent on misinterpreting what I'm saying, as that's not even close to what I'm arguing. At the end of the day, other MMOs do nonlethal dueling, I don't see why ESO should break that expectation. We already have a great lethal PvP zone, you should try it some time. You might see why your arguments sound so ridiculous.

Here is the point.

You keep bringing up fight over in cyro. Who cares?

Instead of Cyro, why not talk dueling? You are NOT required to duel the same way you do in Cyro.

You know dueling, where the OP (that was you, right) chose to support the argument by bringing in more than once the ides of friends and relatives and non-lethal duels and even with immersion.

F&R should not be relying on the HAND OF ZOS to keep them from killing their opponents. F &R should not be relying on some mystical divine intervention to allow them to conduct a duel where they dont wsnt to kill the enemy the ssme way they do a intentionally lethal one.

Professional fighter put on exhibitions. They dont go all out full bore in those, just like fighters treat choices in non-lethal duels differently.

Right now, if players want non-lethal duels they can fight that way. They can choose to not do those lethal things, just like you know in flag football folks dont crush their loved ones.

ZOS was pretty clear that thry ecpected dueling to be a case where decisions over proper snd improper were handled by the players not ZOS.

If you cannot get your opposition to agree, maybe that friend or relative doesnt like you that much.

I keep bringing up fighting in Cyro because you don't seem to actually understand that what you are suggesting is either not possible or not actually fun. If you're having a fun fight then you're risking bursting the opponent down, and if you're being careful not to hit too hard/too often then you're not having a fun fight. There's no reason not to have the fight end without death, other than some extra dev time. Considering that it will get you back in the fight faster than waiting for the long res time, though, it's a superior option from every angle.

DaveMoeDee

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

...

Can't argue with a toggle in the dueling settings that allows both players to choose a "non-death" option that doesn't break immersion quite so much.

...

So dying when you run out of health break immersion more than invincibility? That doesn't make much sense to me.

Immersion would be to stop attacking your sparring partner before they run out of health. Immersion would be not working with real weapons when sparring.

Darlon

Threads like this is why we never can have something nice...

People have been asking for dueling for so long, now that we get it, the crying begins again...... if possible they want a dueling interface with all kind of options that would make it more complicated then a Boeing 747 ***... seriously...

Recremen

Darlon wrote: »

Threads like this is why we never can have something nice...

People have been asking for dueling for so long, now that we get it, the crying begins again...... if possible they want a dueling interface with all kind of options that would make it more complicated then a Boeing 747 ***... seriously...

Dunno who's crying, sounds more like you're complaining about people sharing idea features. I mean, I guess that's your right, but it doesn't really add anything to the conversation. I already made it clear that dueling is a wonderful feature, I just think it has a small amount of room to improve!

STEVIL

Recremen wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Brrrofski wrote: »

There's no punishment for dying so what does it matter?

Lots of tiny problems with it that add up. The process of actually getting your body back instead of being in ghost form takes too long, for one. Then there's the kind of immersion-breaking aspect of turning every combat or sparring match between friends and relatives into a bloody murder. I know dying makes sense if it were a duel in the more traditional sense, but even that gets broken easily when your foe rezzes right in front of you. I know we're all The Vestige here, but it's a bit much. Then there's the teabag culture. I saw enough of it on the PTS to know how it will wind up. On PC NA the AD zones have been, overall, incredibly peaceful and friendly, I would prefer not to give any place for salty losers to get their toxic hooks into zone chat. I feel that a system more similar to other games, where you get left at 1 HP, would go a long way toward helping deescalate any such situations.

Ok so first, every duel simply DOES NOT end in death.At any time either character can leave the zone and forfeit.

You character dies in a duel if they keep fighting and do not forfeit or win.

There is NOTHING preventing two dueling character from having a "surrender" sign which if given means "stop hitting me and i will forfeit by walking out".

NOTHING.

NOTHING AT ALL.

PERIOD.

You die in a duel if you kerp fighting, do not win and do not forfeit.

So lets look at the position.

@Recremen said but parens are my additions.

Dueling is really cool, but it seems a bit excessive to die as a result (just because you do not win, do not forfeit and keep fightinguntil dead.)

Then there's the kind of immersion-breaking aspect of turning every combat or sparring match between friends and relatives into a bloody murder. (Even if the participants refuse to forfeit and keep fighting)

Those arent positions that make sense to me.


Do they to you?

Interesting criticisms, I will try to address them all.

1. The zone of a duel is extremely large, so forfeiting by leaving the zone of combat is not as feasible as you are making it sound. I don't know if you haven't PvP'd, but the game is very bursty, even with battle spirit applied. You could be on your way to forfeit, take two steps, and suddenly die to a good combo. Your opponent is unlikely to give you enough time between attacks to finish your walk of shame to the edge of the dueling zone. If they were giving you that much time, it's not exactly going to be fun and engaging combat. They'd be holding back significantly.
2. Having a surender signal is not adequate for preventing death. As previously stated, the game is extremely bursty. You can go from full health to none is seconds. If your opponent doesn't want to kill you, but gets a lucky crit and knocks you out anyway, no surrender signal is going to matter.
3. Given that forfeiture takes a long time (during which you are still vulnerable) and that dying is easy, I'm not really sure why you keep repeating the "do not win, do not forfeit, and keep fighting until dead" line. I mean, you are dueling, exactly what kind of stop condition are you expecting? If you win, then the other person somehow had time to run out of the dueling zone, or you killed them, neither of which is really what was feasible or desired. And if you fought until you died, then you obviously missed your opportunity to give this elusive surrender signal, either because you were burst down too fast or you miscalculated how much the next attack was going to do.

You might need to spend a little more time in Cyro to fully appreciate why your proposed solutions would be ineffective. You are trying to make it sound like someone is charging headlong off a cliff of their own making, and not really appreciating how easily someone can get a few lucky hits. The only thing not making sense around here is how you're watering down the complexity and unpredictability of combat.

Wait wait wait...

Let me get this straight.

After chosing to frame it in a pretty picture of fighting " friends and relatives" your argument is the enemy wont give you chance to surrrnder, will slaughter you as you run for your life, etc?

Seems to me you are realky trying to hide a "fight with bloodthirsty maniac who wsnts me dead" inside "sparring with people i love me" to grt a HAND OF ZOS SAVES ME when your dueling enemy fires off an "execute" when you are low health.

If you and your dueling enemy want non-lethal dueling you can work out do's and dont's to make it possible.
If your dueling enemy wsntd you dead its not fair to invoke a HAND OF ZOS mechanic to stop him.

You seem intent on misinterpreting what I'm saying, as that's not even close to what I'm arguing. At the end of the day, other MMOs do nonlethal dueling, I don't see why ESO should break that expectation. We already have a great lethal PvP zone, you should try it some time. You might see why your arguments sound so ridiculous.

Here is the point.

You keep bringing up fight over in cyro. Who cares?

Instead of Cyro, why not talk dueling? You are NOT required to duel the same way you do in Cyro.

You know dueling, where the OP (that was you, right) chose to support the argument by bringing in more than once the ides of friends and relatives and non-lethal duels and even with immersion.

F&R should not be relying on the HAND OF ZOS to keep them from killing their opponents. F &R should not be relying on some mystical divine intervention to allow them to conduct a duel where they dont wsnt to kill the enemy the ssme way they do a intentionally lethal one.

Professional fighter put on exhibitions. They dont go all out full bore in those, just like fighters treat choices in non-lethal duels differently.

Right now, if players want non-lethal duels they can fight that way. They can choose to not do those lethal things, just like you know in flag football folks dont crush their loved ones.

ZOS was pretty clear that thry ecpected dueling to be a case where decisions over proper snd improper were handled by the players not ZOS.

If you cannot get your opposition to agree, maybe that friend or relative doesnt like you that much.

I keep bringing up fighting in Cyro because you don't seem to actually understand that what you are suggesting is either not possible or not actually fun. If you're having a fun fight then you're risking bursting the opponent down, and if you're being careful not to hit too hard/too often then you're not having a fun fight. There's no reason not to have the fight end without death, other than some extra dev time. Considering that it will get you back in the fight faster than waiting for the long res time, though, it's a superior option from every angle.

Not possible?

"So hey we want a friendly duel so...
lets say no ult, no execute.
lets say dodge/roll back twice in a row is surrender so stop shooting and let them walk out of the border to forfeit.
lets say at 33% health or less you lose.
all good?"

now IF ONE OR BOTH ***WANT*** the full out cyrodil death match they can obviously do it. but if they ***WANT*** a non-lethal fight, then they can agree to that too and then maybe one or more cheats... just like it really would happen. You know, that IMMERSION FRIENDS RELATIVES thing you brought in from the get go. No HAND OF ZOS to enforce their agree ment.

of course, even if they try a "friendly duel, one could still get unlucky and die. JUST LIKE IT REALLY WOULD HAPPEN. You know, that IMMERSION FRIENDS RELATIVES thing you brought in from the get go. no HAND OF ZOS to enforce no chance of an accident.

its starting to sound like you really didn't mean a word of that immersion stuff, didn't mean a word of that friendly duel stuff and just want a game option and thru that stuff in to help your case sound less "gameman-ish"!


If the players themselves dont want to hold back a bit to avoid killing their dueling relative/friend, why should they get divine intervention to keep it from happening in the name of immersion?

Ivan04

Basically, there is no death in the game period (cause everyone "resurrects" all the time), so implementing something pretty heavy with a lot of bugging potential - not gonna happen just for the sake of immersion of a couple guys. This game is very much social, so nothing stops you from dueling with a friend while on teamspeak where you can roleplay to the fullest and beg your friend for mercy, kneeling before him

Dojohoda

Just want to point out to those that suggest that one could effect a surrender:

This is true and note that... There are new achievements associated with dueling and one would have to complete the duel as they are designed if one is trying to complete the achievement.

OK, carry on.

Alucardo

In my last MMO, if you lost a duel you'd drop to your knees, then get up a few seconds later. It does look a bit strange with people running around as ghosts for 5 minutes.
While it's not a mandatory, or even important change, it's definitely one worth considering.

Recremen

STEVIL wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Brrrofski wrote: »

There's no punishment for dying so what does it matter?

Lots of tiny problems with it that add up. The process of actually getting your body back instead of being in ghost form takes too long, for one. Then there's the kind of immersion-breaking aspect of turning every combat or sparring match between friends and relatives into a bloody murder. I know dying makes sense if it were a duel in the more traditional sense, but even that gets broken easily when your foe rezzes right in front of you. I know we're all The Vestige here, but it's a bit much. Then there's the teabag culture. I saw enough of it on the PTS to know how it will wind up. On PC NA the AD zones have been, overall, incredibly peaceful and friendly, I would prefer not to give any place for salty losers to get their toxic hooks into zone chat. I feel that a system more similar to other games, where you get left at 1 HP, would go a long way toward helping deescalate any such situations.

Ok so first, every duel simply DOES NOT end in death.At any time either character can leave the zone and forfeit.

You character dies in a duel if they keep fighting and do not forfeit or win.

There is NOTHING preventing two dueling character from having a "surrender" sign which if given means "stop hitting me and i will forfeit by walking out".

NOTHING.

NOTHING AT ALL.

PERIOD.

You die in a duel if you kerp fighting, do not win and do not forfeit.

So lets look at the position.

@Recremen said but parens are my additions.

Dueling is really cool, but it seems a bit excessive to die as a result (just because you do not win, do not forfeit and keep fightinguntil dead.)

Then there's the kind of immersion-breaking aspect of turning every combat or sparring match between friends and relatives into a bloody murder. (Even if the participants refuse to forfeit and keep fighting)

Those arent positions that make sense to me.


Do they to you?

Interesting criticisms, I will try to address them all.

1. The zone of a duel is extremely large, so forfeiting by leaving the zone of combat is not as feasible as you are making it sound. I don't know if you haven't PvP'd, but the game is very bursty, even with battle spirit applied. You could be on your way to forfeit, take two steps, and suddenly die to a good combo. Your opponent is unlikely to give you enough time between attacks to finish your walk of shame to the edge of the dueling zone. If they were giving you that much time, it's not exactly going to be fun and engaging combat. They'd be holding back significantly.
2. Having a surender signal is not adequate for preventing death. As previously stated, the game is extremely bursty. You can go from full health to none is seconds. If your opponent doesn't want to kill you, but gets a lucky crit and knocks you out anyway, no surrender signal is going to matter.
3. Given that forfeiture takes a long time (during which you are still vulnerable) and that dying is easy, I'm not really sure why you keep repeating the "do not win, do not forfeit, and keep fighting until dead" line. I mean, you are dueling, exactly what kind of stop condition are you expecting? If you win, then the other person somehow had time to run out of the dueling zone, or you killed them, neither of which is really what was feasible or desired. And if you fought until you died, then you obviously missed your opportunity to give this elusive surrender signal, either because you were burst down too fast or you miscalculated how much the next attack was going to do.

You might need to spend a little more time in Cyro to fully appreciate why your proposed solutions would be ineffective. You are trying to make it sound like someone is charging headlong off a cliff of their own making, and not really appreciating how easily someone can get a few lucky hits. The only thing not making sense around here is how you're watering down the complexity and unpredictability of combat.

Wait wait wait...

Let me get this straight.

After chosing to frame it in a pretty picture of fighting " friends and relatives" your argument is the enemy wont give you chance to surrrnder, will slaughter you as you run for your life, etc?

Seems to me you are realky trying to hide a "fight with bloodthirsty maniac who wsnts me dead" inside "sparring with people i love me" to grt a HAND OF ZOS SAVES ME when your dueling enemy fires off an "execute" when you are low health.

If you and your dueling enemy want non-lethal dueling you can work out do's and dont's to make it possible.
If your dueling enemy wsntd you dead its not fair to invoke a HAND OF ZOS mechanic to stop him.

You seem intent on misinterpreting what I'm saying, as that's not even close to what I'm arguing. At the end of the day, other MMOs do nonlethal dueling, I don't see why ESO should break that expectation. We already have a great lethal PvP zone, you should try it some time. You might see why your arguments sound so ridiculous.

Here is the point.

You keep bringing up fight over in cyro. Who cares?

Instead of Cyro, why not talk dueling? You are NOT required to duel the same way you do in Cyro.

You know dueling, where the OP (that was you, right) chose to support the argument by bringing in more than once the ides of friends and relatives and non-lethal duels and even with immersion.

F&R should not be relying on the HAND OF ZOS to keep them from killing their opponents. F &R should not be relying on some mystical divine intervention to allow them to conduct a duel where they dont wsnt to kill the enemy the ssme way they do a intentionally lethal one.

Professional fighter put on exhibitions. They dont go all out full bore in those, just like fighters treat choices in non-lethal duels differently.

Right now, if players want non-lethal duels they can fight that way. They can choose to not do those lethal things, just like you know in flag football folks dont crush their loved ones.

ZOS was pretty clear that thry ecpected dueling to be a case where decisions over proper snd improper were handled by the players not ZOS.

If you cannot get your opposition to agree, maybe that friend or relative doesnt like you that much.

I keep bringing up fighting in Cyro because you don't seem to actually understand that what you are suggesting is either not possible or not actually fun. If you're having a fun fight then you're risking bursting the opponent down, and if you're being careful not to hit too hard/too often then you're not having a fun fight. There's no reason not to have the fight end without death, other than some extra dev time. Considering that it will get you back in the fight faster than waiting for the long res time, though, it's a superior option from every angle.

Not possible?

"So hey we want a friendly duel so...
lets say no ult, no execute.
lets say dodge/roll back twice in a row is surrender so stop shooting and let them walk out of the border to forfeit.
lets say at 33% health or less you lose.
all good?"

now IF ONE OR BOTH ***WANT*** the full out cyrodil death match they can obviously do it. but if they ***WANT*** a non-lethal fight, then they can agree to that too and then maybe one or more cheats... just like it really would happen. You know, that IMMERSION FRIENDS RELATIVES thing you brought in from the get go. No HAND OF ZOS to enforce their agree ment.

of course, even if they try a "friendly duel, one could still get unlucky and die. JUST LIKE IT REALLY WOULD HAPPEN. You know, that IMMERSION FRIENDS RELATIVES thing you brought in from the get go. no HAND OF ZOS to enforce no chance of an accident.

its starting to sound like you really didn't mean a word of that immersion stuff, didn't mean a word of that friendly duel stuff and just want a game option and thru that stuff in to help your case sound less "gameman-ish"!


If the players themselves dont want to hold back a bit to avoid killing their dueling relative/friend, why should they get divine intervention to keep it from happening in the name of immersion?

If adding all those caveats to a fight sounds fun to you, then maybe you shouldn't go to Cyrodiil, it might be a bit too hard for you. You're saying that people should dumb down the entire fighting experience, as if that's the most logical and easiest solution to the issue. And you're bringing up the `*`~~*~`*HAND OF ZOS*`~*~~`*` like it's some big, immersion-breaking thing, when in reality there are hundreds of instances of those kinds of interventions in the game, related to both questing and PvP. There are tons of NPC's who stop at 0 health without dying for plot purposes, and then there are also insta-kill mechanics for whateve Deus-Ex solution they need. Moreover, as I've said probably a dozen times by now, this is not out of line with what you'd expect in an MMO. It is the standard. Your accusations are completely ludicrous. Maybe if you read more into the actual meaning of my replies instead of your own reactionary fantasy world, you'd see that.

Lucius_Aelius

I don't necessarily disagree, but I also don't think it really matters one way or another, it's fine as it is and ZOS' time is best spent on more important things.

STEVIL

Recremen wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

Brrrofski wrote: »

There's no punishment for dying so what does it matter?

Lots of tiny problems with it that add up. The process of actually getting your body back instead of being in ghost form takes too long, for one. Then there's the kind of immersion-breaking aspect of turning every combat or sparring match between friends and relatives into a bloody murder. I know dying makes sense if it were a duel in the more traditional sense, but even that gets broken easily when your foe rezzes right in front of you. I know we're all The Vestige here, but it's a bit much. Then there's the teabag culture. I saw enough of it on the PTS to know how it will wind up. On PC NA the AD zones have been, overall, incredibly peaceful and friendly, I would prefer not to give any place for salty losers to get their toxic hooks into zone chat. I feel that a system more similar to other games, where you get left at 1 HP, would go a long way toward helping deescalate any such situations.

Ok so first, every duel simply DOES NOT end in death.At any time either character can leave the zone and forfeit.

You character dies in a duel if they keep fighting and do not forfeit or win.

There is NOTHING preventing two dueling character from having a "surrender" sign which if given means "stop hitting me and i will forfeit by walking out".

NOTHING.

NOTHING AT ALL.

PERIOD.

You die in a duel if you kerp fighting, do not win and do not forfeit.

So lets look at the position.

@Recremen said but parens are my additions.

Dueling is really cool, but it seems a bit excessive to die as a result (just because you do not win, do not forfeit and keep fightinguntil dead.)

Then there's the kind of immersion-breaking aspect of turning every combat or sparring match between friends and relatives into a bloody murder. (Even if the participants refuse to forfeit and keep fighting)

Those arent positions that make sense to me.


Do they to you?

Interesting criticisms, I will try to address them all.

1. The zone of a duel is extremely large, so forfeiting by leaving the zone of combat is not as feasible as you are making it sound. I don't know if you haven't PvP'd, but the game is very bursty, even with battle spirit applied. You could be on your way to forfeit, take two steps, and suddenly die to a good combo. Your opponent is unlikely to give you enough time between attacks to finish your walk of shame to the edge of the dueling zone. If they were giving you that much time, it's not exactly going to be fun and engaging combat. They'd be holding back significantly.
2. Having a surender signal is not adequate for preventing death. As previously stated, the game is extremely bursty. You can go from full health to none is seconds. If your opponent doesn't want to kill you, but gets a lucky crit and knocks you out anyway, no surrender signal is going to matter.
3. Given that forfeiture takes a long time (during which you are still vulnerable) and that dying is easy, I'm not really sure why you keep repeating the "do not win, do not forfeit, and keep fighting until dead" line. I mean, you are dueling, exactly what kind of stop condition are you expecting? If you win, then the other person somehow had time to run out of the dueling zone, or you killed them, neither of which is really what was feasible or desired. And if you fought until you died, then you obviously missed your opportunity to give this elusive surrender signal, either because you were burst down too fast or you miscalculated how much the next attack was going to do.

You might need to spend a little more time in Cyro to fully appreciate why your proposed solutions would be ineffective. You are trying to make it sound like someone is charging headlong off a cliff of their own making, and not really appreciating how easily someone can get a few lucky hits. The only thing not making sense around here is how you're watering down the complexity and unpredictability of combat.

Wait wait wait...

Let me get this straight.

After chosing to frame it in a pretty picture of fighting " friends and relatives" your argument is the enemy wont give you chance to surrrnder, will slaughter you as you run for your life, etc?

Seems to me you are realky trying to hide a "fight with bloodthirsty maniac who wsnts me dead" inside "sparring with people i love me" to grt a HAND OF ZOS SAVES ME when your dueling enemy fires off an "execute" when you are low health.

If you and your dueling enemy want non-lethal dueling you can work out do's and dont's to make it possible.
If your dueling enemy wsntd you dead its not fair to invoke a HAND OF ZOS mechanic to stop him.

You seem intent on misinterpreting what I'm saying, as that's not even close to what I'm arguing. At the end of the day, other MMOs do nonlethal dueling, I don't see why ESO should break that expectation. We already have a great lethal PvP zone, you should try it some time. You might see why your arguments sound so ridiculous.

Here is the point.

You keep bringing up fight over in cyro. Who cares?

Instead of Cyro, why not talk dueling? You are NOT required to duel the same way you do in Cyro.

You know dueling, where the OP (that was you, right) chose to support the argument by bringing in more than once the ides of friends and relatives and non-lethal duels and even with immersion.

F&R should not be relying on the HAND OF ZOS to keep them from killing their opponents. F &R should not be relying on some mystical divine intervention to allow them to conduct a duel where they dont wsnt to kill the enemy the ssme way they do a intentionally lethal one.

Professional fighter put on exhibitions. They dont go all out full bore in those, just like fighters treat choices in non-lethal duels differently.

Right now, if players want non-lethal duels they can fight that way. They can choose to not do those lethal things, just like you know in flag football folks dont crush their loved ones.

ZOS was pretty clear that thry ecpected dueling to be a case where decisions over proper snd improper were handled by the players not ZOS.

If you cannot get your opposition to agree, maybe that friend or relative doesnt like you that much.

I keep bringing up fighting in Cyro because you don't seem to actually understand that what you are suggesting is either not possible or not actually fun. If you're having a fun fight then you're risking bursting the opponent down, and if you're being careful not to hit too hard/too often then you're not having a fun fight. There's no reason not to have the fight end without death, other than some extra dev time. Considering that it will get you back in the fight faster than waiting for the long res time, though, it's a superior option from every angle.

Not possible?

"So hey we want a friendly duel so...
lets say no ult, no execute.
lets say dodge/roll back twice in a row is surrender so stop shooting and let them walk out of the border to forfeit.
lets say at 33% health or less you lose.
all good?"

now IF ONE OR BOTH ***WANT*** the full out cyrodil death match they can obviously do it. but if they ***WANT*** a non-lethal fight, then they can agree to that too and then maybe one or more cheats... just like it really would happen. You know, that IMMERSION FRIENDS RELATIVES thing you brought in from the get go. No HAND OF ZOS to enforce their agree ment.

of course, even if they try a "friendly duel, one could still get unlucky and die. JUST LIKE IT REALLY WOULD HAPPEN. You know, that IMMERSION FRIENDS RELATIVES thing you brought in from the get go. no HAND OF ZOS to enforce no chance of an accident.

its starting to sound like you really didn't mean a word of that immersion stuff, didn't mean a word of that friendly duel stuff and just want a game option and thru that stuff in to help your case sound less "gameman-ish"!


If the players themselves dont want to hold back a bit to avoid killing their dueling relative/friend, why should they get divine intervention to keep it from happening in the name of immersion?

If adding all those caveats to a fight sounds fun to you, then maybe you shouldn't go to Cyrodiil, it might be a bit too hard for you. You're saying that people should dumb down the entire fighting experience, as if that's the most logical and easiest solution to the issue. And you're bringing up the `*`~~*~`*HAND OF ZOS*`~*~~`*` like it's some big, immersion-breaking thing, when in reality there are hundreds of instances of those kinds of interventions in the game, related to both questing and PvP. There are tons of NPC's who stop at 0 health without dying for plot purposes, and then there are also insta-kill mechanics for whateve Deus-Ex solution they need. Moreover, as I've said probably a dozen times by now, this is not out of line with what you'd expect in an MMO. It is the standard. Your accusations are completely ludicrous. Maybe if you read more into the actual meaning of my replies instead of your own reactionary fantasy world, you'd see that.

First, I am not the one wanting a change to dueling because its too lethal. You are. I have so far been quite happy with dueling as it is. Itbplays out fairly well on PTS though there are some bugs it needs to work out. Our primary diff seems to be I am basing my opinion on dueling performance in ESO and you seem more focused on making ESO to be like other games and Cyrodil.

Second, I seem to understand that once ZOS starts down the road of "custom duel settings" to allow a variety of different duels, that wont stop. See, at the panels on dueling and threads here, they got question after question about all sortsa different flavors of dueling people wanted. Seems most everybody had a different ides of what "good dueling rules and regulations" meant. Some want ults zeroed at start, some want timers so fights dont go longer than what they think is fun, some want Cp limit options, etc etc etc and it seems you want foam padded ultimates and HAND OF ZOS instead of having to choose to stay and fight or die yourself. ZOS gave a simple, logical response: The rules of your duel and whatever limits you want to set are yours to work out. They wont be going down the road od putting in gazillions of different settings for this duel or that duel or the other duel etc. If your "ladder group tourney" wants to say "purge ult" before duel stops as a rule for "fairness" you can make it that and do so voluntarily. if you want a time limit, set one and when time expires stop and have someone walk out but record the result on your external tracking as a draw. (I am sure someone will come up with a dueling addon for "cal, this a draw" within a short time of going live.)

it seems to me that their position is wise, not only from developer standard but from a player standard. if there is ONE DUEL codified within the game itself, then it makes starting up a duel pretty quick and easy and frankly, we all know the easiest becomes the most used pretty quickly. If on the other hand there are custom settings, you wind up quickly dividing the dueling population into all sorts of subgroups practicing for this version or that version and even starting up a duel would be more laborious.

Now of course, most likely everyone wanting a custom duel setting is fine with the idea of allowing ONLY MINE and screw the rest but that is a pipe dream.

if it sounds fun to you that at the start of every duel your settings mismatch tells you all the different options you disagree on so you either have to has it out or have defaults kick in and you find maybe a third of the folks only duel if setting X is active and another third wont play unless setting y is disabled - because thats what they find more fun or want to try their new set out in - and for dueling to become more and more different from the Cyrodil you seem so obsessed on - Thats fine but maybe those other games you want to turn ESO into are more suited to your liking.

ME, from my dueling experience on PTS, i like that it matches Cyrodil so there is ONE PVP experience not a gazillion and that the dueling base wont be divided by segregation enabling settings-a-plenty in the core dueling mechanics.

Finally, I dont get your obsession with somehow trying to throw in some cyrodil tough nonsense stuff into the thread as some sort of "mines bigger than yours" rhetoric. Is it your belief that that somehow supports your position or makes it seem more reasonable? Whats next, challenge me to a fight?

Dubhliam

There are sets like Eternal Yokeda or Phoenix that would lose their bonus value if the duels would end at 1 health.

There are no downsides to this system, I don't see a reason to change it.

Recremen

Dubhliam wrote: »

There are sets like Eternal Yokeda or Phoenix that would lose their bonus value if the duels would end at 1 health.

There are no downsides to this system, I don't see a reason to change it.

Actually those sets already don't work in dueling. The downsides to the current setup are highlighted on the third comment down, it should be easy to find. It's not a major inconvenience, but it's definitely not expected or ideal. They even said at PAX that they were trying to make it so that the loser would take a knee or some other similar feature.

ArtOfShred

Yeah not sure why they took this option. I get tired enough of waiting 10 seconds for my dude to ress normally. Would be much easier to just have players drop to 0 HP and end the duel. There are plenty of mobs that have death immunity even if you chop their entire HP bar off (casters at the IC Bridge entrances in Cyrodiil for example).

Yeah death has no real penalty but that doesn't make it fit thematically. Like, lets have a dueling arena where a bunch of dudes are just constantly dying over and over and coming back. I get it - it's high fantasy. It's a game mechanic. Still feels silly to have people flopping over dead constantly.

code65536

@STEVIL I'm not sure you fully understand what the OP wants (or, at least what I interpret as what he wants). He's not asking for a different ruleset or rule change. He's asking for a cosmetic difference in how reaching 0 health is handled, to satisfy RP consistency. No combat changes. No changes in how the winner is determined. Just changes to the fluff and dressing. It's a modest molehill of a request that doesn't warrant being turned into Everest.

Recremen

code65536 wrote: »

@STEVIL I'm not sure you fully understand what the OP wants (or, at least what I interpret as what he wants). He's not asking for a different ruleset or rule change. He's asking for a cosmetic difference in how reaching 0 health is handled, to satisfy RP consistency. No combat changes. No changes in how the winner is determined. Just changes to the fluff and dressing. It's a modest molehill of a request that doesn't warrant being turned into Everest.

Right? I thought I'd set something on fire the way that some people are acting.

STEVIL

code65536 wrote: »

@STEVIL I'm not sure you fully understand what the OP wants (or, at least what I interpret as what he wants). He's not asking for a different ruleset or rule change. He's asking for a cosmetic difference in how reaching 0 health is handled, to satisfy RP consistency. No combat changes. No changes in how the winner is determined. Just changes to the fluff and dressing. It's a modest molehill of a request that doesn't warrant being turned into Everest.

He is asking for one of two things.

FORCE EVERYONE ELSE to give up duels that kill.

Or

ADD A CUSTOM DUELING OPTION that allows players to set their dueling requirements.

My last post discussed the issues that can arise if they change their mind and start setting up customizing changes.

If you want to discuss it from the perspective of forcing it on everyone we can.

As for how unimportant his suggestion is, the OP seems quite dogged in his attacks on those opposing it. So it seems some think its more important than you do.

Recremen

STEVIL wrote: »

code65536 wrote: »

@STEVIL I'm not sure you fully understand what the OP wants (or, at least what I interpret as what he wants). He's not asking for a different ruleset or rule change. He's asking for a cosmetic difference in how reaching 0 health is handled, to satisfy RP consistency. No combat changes. No changes in how the winner is determined. Just changes to the fluff and dressing. It's a modest molehill of a request that doesn't warrant being turned into Everest.

He is asking for one of two things.

FORCE EVERYONE ELSE to give up duels that kill.

Or

ADD A CUSTOM DUELING OPTION that allows players to set their dueling requirements.

My last post discussed the issues that can arise if they change their mind and start setting up customizing changes.

If you want to discuss it from the perspective of forcing it on everyone we can.

As for how unimportant his suggestion is, the OP seems quite dogged in his attacks on those opposing it. So it seems some think its more important than you do.

Nah honey you came in here acting like the sky was falling, then accused me of lying about wanting it for immersive purposes. My "attacks" have consisted of the thinly-veiled suggestion that you might not be that into PvP, given how completely unfeasible your suggested solutions were.

smacx250

Well, from an RP point of view, if you are dueling your friends and don't want to kill them, then don't! You can always pull the killing blow if that's how you want to duel - the looser by your rules agrees to forfeit. The RP aspect is up to you. If you don't want to kill, don't, and if you do, you can. It doesn't really seem right any other way - the game shouldn't pull your punches for you.

Master_Kas

WillhelmBlack wrote: »

Wat

STEVIL

Recremen wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

code65536 wrote: »

@STEVIL I'm not sure you fully understand what the OP wants (or, at least what I interpret as what he wants). He's not asking for a different ruleset or rule change. He's asking for a cosmetic difference in how reaching 0 health is handled, to satisfy RP consistency. No combat changes. No changes in how the winner is determined. Just changes to the fluff and dressing. It's a modest molehill of a request that doesn't warrant being turned into Everest.

He is asking for one of two things.

FORCE EVERYONE ELSE to give up duels that kill.

Or

ADD A CUSTOM DUELING OPTION that allows players to set their dueling requirements.

My last post discussed the issues that can arise if they change their mind and start setting up customizing changes.

If you want to discuss it from the perspective of forcing it on everyone we can.

As for how unimportant his suggestion is, the OP seems quite dogged in his attacks on those opposing it. So it seems some think its more important than you do.

Nah honey you came in here acting like the sky was falling, then accused me of lying about wanting it for immersive purposes. My "attacks" have consisted of the thinly-veiled suggestion that you might not be that into PvP, given how completely unfeasible your suggested solutions were.

First, i am not, have never been nor ever will be your "honey" so while you obviously want to keep dialing up the condescenion and dismissiveness to those who oppose your idea, its just not helping your case.

Second, never said sky was falling, certainly not at first. At first i came in here pointing out the error in your explantion post about every friendly duel ending in bloody murder - pointing out the immersive rp options for ending a duel without death that exist but that you pretended did not exist when you talked about every duel ending in bloody murder.

Most of my posts have been about that aspect, the disconnect between the rhetoric you use to hang your proposal on - the immersive breaking friendly duel etc.

i did absolutely say it was starting to sound like you did not mean the immersive stuff, because every time the option of actually in character working out the "guidelines" so that the fight IN CHARACTER didn't result in death (as opposed to doing in the friendly duel what you do in the war zone of cyrodil) you dismissed that out of hand and went back to how things work in the war zone of cyrodil. You go from "not possible" and "every fight" to "not fun" and "cyrodil" at the drop of a convenient hat which really does start to look like the immersive isn't that important.

We do not need ZOS to go down the road of enabling all the various "options i want for dueling" as settings or toggles for the reasons i pointed out above. It would be bad for the dueling game, IMO, as it divides the dueling up. Like i said, everyone with their own better idea for what dueling could be "and it can just be an optional setting so..." thinks theirs is the way to go so... ZOS made the right call IMO as far as whether they would go down that long road or just leave it to the players.

As I and others have said, you CAN choose to fight your duel with rules designed to minimize the chance of killing your dueling partner. If you dont actually find those kinds of "friendly fights" fun, then one has to wonder why your wrap so much of your proposal up in the "friendly fights" wrapping paper with a side of condescension for those who point out the disconnect.

AmericanSpy

Recremen wrote: »

Lots of tiny problems with it that add up. The process of actually getting your body back instead of being in ghost form takes too long, for one. Then there's the kind of immersion-breaking aspect of turning every combat or sparring match between friends and relatives into a bloody murder. I know dying makes sense if it were a duel in the more traditional sense, but even that gets broken easily when your foe rezzes right in front of you. I know we're all The Vestige here, but it's a bit much. Then there's the teabag culture. I saw enough of it on the PTS to know how it will wind up. On PC NA the AD zones have been, overall, incredibly peaceful and friendly, I would prefer not to give any place for salty losers to get their toxic hooks into zone chat. I feel that a system more similar to other games, where you get left at 1 HP, would go a long way toward helping deescalate any such situations.

If your concerned about the "Lore" issues with this system, don't use it. Or make sure you win all your duels. But I expect if you lose one that u'll immediately log out and delete the character and start over, its only realistic that way...

AmericanSpy

Recremen wrote: »

You seem intent on misinterpreting what I'm saying, as that's not even close to what I'm arguing. At the end of the day, other MMOs do nonlethal dueling, I don't see why ESO should break that expectation. We already have a great lethal PvP zone, you should try it some time. You might see why your arguments sound so ridiculous.

One of ZOS's design ideas to dueling was to incorporate the ability for players to practice the effectiveness of builds for use IN PvP. Idk about you, or anyone else, but if I'm designing a build to use in PvP I want the same mechanics that I will be experiencing. I can tell you first hand that I have lost a fight against a player that I had reduced to ONE health. No its not common, and unlikely, but even in a duel...if I have ONE health left I still haven't lost, and Ill continue to fight until I cannot.

Eiagra

Just glancing at a few things, it seems a combination of things may be helpful.

1.) A Surrender action -- when used, the duel instantly ends with the one who surrendered obviously losing the duel. If potions are disallowed from a duel, it could default to Q, but I could see some accidental button presses there. Perhaps Tab or something instead since there's not much point in target-focusing in a duel.

2.) Duel Option #1 - "Sparring." -- When you perform this type of duel, combat ends at a specific percentage, and uses Phoenix mechanics (if possible) to prevent actual death.

3.) Duel Option #2 - "Dueling." -- Current mechanics (fight to death).

It's for immersion and roleplay mostly, but hey, no reason to cut out an entire quarter of Bartle's Taxonomy because reasons.

Recremen

STEVIL wrote: »

Recremen wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

code65536 wrote: »

@STEVIL I'm not sure you fully understand what the OP wants (or, at least what I interpret as what he wants). He's not asking for a different ruleset or rule change. He's asking for a cosmetic difference in how reaching 0 health is handled, to satisfy RP consistency. No combat changes. No changes in how the winner is determined. Just changes to the fluff and dressing. It's a modest molehill of a request that doesn't warrant being turned into Everest.

He is asking for one of two things.

FORCE EVERYONE ELSE to give up duels that kill.

Or

ADD A CUSTOM DUELING OPTION that allows players to set their dueling requirements.

My last post discussed the issues that can arise if they change their mind and start setting up customizing changes.

If you want to discuss it from the perspective of forcing it on everyone we can.

As for how unimportant his suggestion is, the OP seems quite dogged in his attacks on those opposing it. So it seems some think its more important than you do.

Nah honey you came in here acting like the sky was falling, then accused me of lying about wanting it for immersive purposes. My "attacks" have consisted of the thinly-veiled suggestion that you might not be that into PvP, given how completely unfeasible your suggested solutions were.

First, i am not, have never been nor ever will be your "honey" so while you obviously want to keep dialing up the condescenion and dismissiveness to those who oppose your idea, its just not helping your case.

Second, never said sky was falling, certainly not at first. At first i came in here pointing out the error in your explantion post about every friendly duel ending in bloody murder - pointing out the immersive rp options for ending a duel without death that exist but that you pretended did not exist when you talked about every duel ending in bloody murder.

Most of my posts have been about that aspect, the disconnect between the rhetoric you use to hang your proposal on - the immersive breaking friendly duel etc.

i did absolutely say it was starting to sound like you did not mean the immersive stuff, because every time the option of actually in character working out the "guidelines" so that the fight IN CHARACTER didn't result in death (as opposed to doing in the friendly duel what you do in the war zone of cyrodil) you dismissed that out of hand and went back to how things work in the war zone of cyrodil. You go from "not possible" and "every fight" to "not fun" and "cyrodil" at the drop of a convenient hat which really does start to look like the immersive isn't that important.

We do not need ZOS to go down the road of enabling all the various "options i want for dueling" as settings or toggles for the reasons i pointed out above. It would be bad for the dueling game, IMO, as it divides the dueling up. Like i said, everyone with their own better idea for what dueling could be "and it can just be an optional setting so..." thinks theirs is the way to go so... ZOS made the right call IMO as far as whether they would go down that long road or just leave it to the players.

As I and others have said, you CAN choose to fight your duel with rules designed to minimize the chance of killing your dueling partner. If you dont actually find those kinds of "friendly fights" fun, then one has to wonder why your wrap so much of your proposal up in the "friendly fights" wrapping paper with a side of condescension for those who point out the disconnect.

Sweety you came in this thread typing in all caps about the HAND OF ZOS over a minor request that the devs already said they wanted at PAX. Then you called me a liar. You aren't here to contribute, you're here to cause a scene.

ArtOfShred

I don't understand the suggestion to implement a surrender option, have you seen how incredibly fast time to kill is in this game in most cases? By the time I typed /sur my molecules would be pasted all over the ground.

It's a completely reasonable opinion for the OP to just think people dropping dead in duels constantly is silly looking. It feels silly to me, lets just have a bunch of blue ghosts resurrecting all over the place as they lose duels. I can't particularly explain why it bothers me so much, but it really does. I guess its a combination of feeling somewhat immersion breaking, and just ridiculous on the other hand. We have guards that catch thieves in cities, but a bunch of dudes can just sit around slugfesting it out and painting their blood all over the cobblestones and nobody bats an eye?