A Final Plea for the Full Justice System - Using Dueling

helediron · October 2016

Bouldercleave wrote: »

BrianDavion wrote: »

Bouldercleave wrote: »

helediron wrote: »

OP, what prevents you doing it right now? You have justice system and duels. Make two guilds, tabards mark players to either side, agree rules and go.

What prevents it is that there is nothing in it for him to take from the other player. No one would buy into it with ZERO reward.

they would if it was all about fun and immersion as opposed to just looting some poor guys corpse.

Gankers could care less about immersion - their only fun would be for the kill and the loot.

So, put that into rules. Kill and loot inside the Cop or Robber guild. Use e.g. guild store to place bets - one lock pick 10k price, and loser must buy it or get kicked.

Bryanonymous · October 2016

'Forcing' PvP into the PvE game... How about no. Just no. The end. Go bring justice to Cyrodil. There are plenty of invincible guards who keep the rest of us in line already. What you describe sounds more like a disire to *** other players off so you can have a cheap laugh. It's not going to happen. Get over it.

BoloBoffin · October 2016

Bryanonymous wrote: »

'Forcing' PvP into the PvE game... How about no. Just no. The end. Go bring justice to Cyrodil. There are plenty of invincible guards who keep the rest of us in line already. What you describe sounds more like a disire to *** other players off so you can have a cheap laugh. It's not going to happen. Get over it.

Dude, PvP is in PvE now! Duels are PvP. This puts the Justice system completely within the world of duels. If you don't have a notorious bounty or an enforcer tabard, you can't be involved. My proposal says enforcers can't bother anyone who just has stolen goods. They can't bother someone who's merely disreputable. Only notorious or fugitive bounties obligate the thief to deal with a challenge, whereas non-dueling enforcers can be blindsided by thieves at any time with the possibility of a free trip to the closest refuge as their reward.

Even the gold trophy sites, campable as they may be, can still be successfully nagivated. As long as the thief doesn't rack up the necessary bounty from NPCs, the enforcer can do nothing. Hey, looks like I didn't say this before, but only NPCs can give a player bounty, not enforcers. I thought that would be obvious, but it wasn't. As long as the thief can stay on the good side of the NPCs, the enforcers are helpless.

Ok, now continue the assaults on my motivations since you folks have no other argument.

Daemons_Bane · October 2016

Your problem is that you think that getting a bounty is the same as volunteering.. Those are two different things

Agobi · October 2016

This may or may not have been stated somewhere before,not sure.....but how about no,not happening?

FLuFFyxMuFFiN · October 2016

People already have a hatred toward dueling in cities. PvP justice system would only add to that. Sure the PvP justice system sounded good on paper when it was first announced but in reality it would not be good if implemented into the game.

BoloBoffin · October 2016

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Your problem is that you think that getting a bounty is the same as volunteering.. Those are two different things

Under this proposal, carrying a bounty notorious or higher would be volunteering. Yes.

Daemons_Bane · October 2016

BoloBoffin wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Your problem is that you think that getting a bounty is the same as volunteering.. Those are two different things

Under this proposal, carrying a bounty notorious or higher would be volunteering. Yes.

In your mind, and some others'.. But to the majority of the PvE crowd, it's forcing.. That's why it won't work.. You are trying to dictate/alter how they can play their PvE game

BoloBoffin · October 2016

FLuFFyxMuFFiN wrote: »

People already have a hatred toward dueling in cities. PvP justice system would only add to that. Sure the PvP justice system sounded good on paper when it was first announced but in reality it would not be good if implemented into the game.

I deny that it would add to the hatred. Outsiders just see another dual among many. Thieves would be accosted under the same circumstances they are now by NPC guards. Enforcers have more mobility to locate thieves, but they can be killed and doing so gets the thief to safety immediately. Or the thief can gain his or her freedom immediately under the same conditions as with an NPC guard.

The only objection I will never be able to answer is obstinacy. To be honest, that's all I'm getting from most of you.

Daemons_Bane · October 2016

BoloBoffin wrote: »

The only objection I will never be able to answer is obstinacy. To be honest, that's all I'm getting from most of you.

But don't you think that you're a little obstinant too? Just a little bit

Bouldercleave · October 2016

You presented an overly complex to program system that can be easily exploited by the lowest dredges of our community, yet when the community as a whole is against the idea - we are the obstinate ones?

It's not a bad idea, it's just one that no one wants to see implemented - just like the crown crates.

BoloBoffin · October 2016

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

BoloBoffin wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Your problem is that you think that getting a bounty is the same as volunteering.. Those are two different things

Under this proposal, carrying a bounty notorious or higher would be volunteering. Yes.

In your mind, and some others'.. But to the majority of the PvE crowd, it's forcing.. That's why it won't work.. You are trying to dictate/alter how they can play their PvE game

This is no different from managing your vampirism levels which "dictate" you have more damage from fire. Every quest I can think of in the Thieves Guild can be accomplished with a managed bounty level to avoid player interaction. And chat harassment would be dealt with by ZOS rules like any other harassment.

This is a way to allow people who want PvP to have it while allowing people who want only PvE to keep it that way.

Bouldercleave · October 2016

BoloBoffin wrote: »

And chat harassment would be dealt with by ZOS rules like any other harassment.

In other words, not at all.

Daemons_Bane · October 2016

BoloBoffin wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

BoloBoffin wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Your problem is that you think that getting a bounty is the same as volunteering.. Those are two different things

Under this proposal, carrying a bounty notorious or higher would be volunteering. Yes.

In your mind, and some others'.. But to the majority of the PvE crowd, it's forcing.. That's why it won't work.. You are trying to dictate/alter how they can play their PvE game

This is no different from managing your vampirism levels which "dictate" you have more damage from fire. Every quest I can think of in the Thieves Guild can be accomplished with a managed bounty level to avoid player interaction. And chat harassment would be dealt with by ZOS rules like any other harassment.

This is a way to allow people who want PvP to have it while allowing people who want only PvE to keep it that way.

Not a bad comparison, but there is a crucial difference

Vampirism is purely PvE, and won't get you killed by a random player..
For the bold part.. I like the idea, but not the implementation you suggest

Let me ask, would it not be better with a system where, instead of being bounty bound, a player would sign up for the PvP action? That would still accomplish your goal, without making victims of people who just want to do their PvE in peace

BoloBoffin · October 2016

Bouldercleave wrote: »

You presented an overly complex to program system that can be easily exploited by the lowest dredges of our community, yet when the community as a whole is against the idea - we are the obstinate ones?

It's not a bad idea, it's just one that no one wants to see implemented - just like the crown crates.

And yet here come the crown crates.

This would be no more "overly complex to program" than the current duel system. And I've adjusted the proposal when I saw actual arguments about exploitation, so, no, I'm not the obstinate one here.

Bouldercleave · October 2016

I've tried to be nice about it, but that time has passed.

Bottom line - no one likes your idea and there are now 3 pages of why no one likes the idea. Time to think of something better.

BoloBoffin · October 2016

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

BoloBoffin wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

BoloBoffin wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Your problem is that you think that getting a bounty is the same as volunteering.. Those are two different things

Under this proposal, carrying a bounty notorious or higher would be volunteering. Yes.

In your mind, and some others'.. But to the majority of the PvE crowd, it's forcing.. That's why it won't work.. You are trying to dictate/alter how they can play their PvE game

This is no different from managing your vampirism levels which "dictate" you have more damage from fire. Every quest I can think of in the Thieves Guild can be accomplished with a managed bounty level to avoid player interaction. And chat harassment would be dealt with by ZOS rules like any other harassment.

This is a way to allow people who want PvP to have it while allowing people who want only PvE to keep it that way.

Not a bad comparison, but there is a crucial difference Vampirism is purely PvE, and won't get you killed by a random player..
For the bold part.. I like the idea, but not the implementation you suggest Let me ask, would it not be better with a system where, instead of being bounty bound, a player would sign up for the PvP action? That would still accomplish your goal, without making victims of people who just want to do their PvE in peace

Absolutely. Make it a passive in the Enforcer skill line. There would probably be other passives a thief might make use of, or maybe we could have turncoat characters.

Daemons_Bane · October 2016

How would you make it work as a passive?

BoloBoffin · October 2016

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

How would you make it work as a passive?

Add a passive to Legerdemain when the Enforcer DLC comes out. All my names sound cheesy, but it should be something like All On The Line. It opts you into duels in the Justice system under the circumstances I laid out. It would be like Veteran dungeons and I'm sure there would be players who would love the added challenge. Throw in a rare drop of an Iron Wheel motif chapter for the winner maybe. The more I think about it, the more it feels like thieves would have the upper hand.

Daemons_Bane · October 2016

Not totally against, but let me ask some more.. As a passive, would you then have to unlearn your skills to turn it off again?

BoloBoffin · October 2016

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Not totally against, but let me ask some more.. As a passive, would you then have to unlearn your skills to turn it off again?

Yes, as a passive skill that would be the case. It would not be a choice entered into lightly.

There should be a way to make it count as a morph, though, and all of the current Legerdemain skills are accumulative. Perhaps it should be a morphable skill for the Thieves Guild DLC like morphing the Blade of Woe granted at the end of the first quest. Or maybe the addition of the Legerdemain skill line on first lock pick grants a new passive automatically (no skill point spent) that could be morphed.

Ankael07 · October 2016

If anything allianceception makes the game more immersive

Daemons_Bane · October 2016

BoloBoffin wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Not totally against, but let me ask some more.. As a passive, would you then have to unlearn your skills to turn it off again?

Yes, as a passive skill that would be the case. It would not be a choice entered into lightly.

Then no.. Srry.. In the spirit of this game, I think it would be a mistake

There was a, imo, better suggestion some time ago.. Make it a toggle, for instance from someone in the safehouse.. Then you can log on, decide that you could do for a little action and then toggle it on.. Then, if you don't feel like participating anymore, you can get back to the safehouse and toggle it off.. I think that can work for both sides.. If you can catch the thief, you get to kill him.. If you don't, he goes free.. In any case, he has to get back to the safehouse first.. No toggling at random.. That would ensure that the system is only used by people that really do want that extra challenge

BoloBoffin · October 2016

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

BoloBoffin wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

Not totally against, but let me ask some more.. As a passive, would you then have to unlearn your skills to turn it off again?

Yes, as a passive skill that would be the case. It would not be a choice entered into lightly.

Then no.. Srry.. In the spirit of this game, I think it would be a mistake There was a, imo, better suggestion some time ago.. Make it a toggle, for instance from someone in the safehouse.. Then you can log on, decide that you could do for a little action and then toggle it on.. Then, if you don't feel like participating anymore, you can get back to the safehouse and toggle it off.. I think that can work for both sides.. If you can catch the thief, you get to kill him.. If you don't, he goes free.. In any case, he has to get back to the safehouse first.. No toggling at random.. That would ensure that the system is only used by people that really do want that extra challenge

And again, your bounty is completely at your control at all times. That's all the toggle anyone should need.

Daemons_Bane · October 2016

And here is when YOU are the obstinant one

You really can't see that this is an issue

We propose to you, and all others, a system where you get to fight to your heart's content.. But only against people who wish to do so.. A system that protects those who do not like to participate in PvP.. But you seem obsessed to have a go at these players

BoloBoffin · October 2016

Bouldercleave wrote: »

I've tried to be nice about it, but that time has passed.

Bottom line - no one likes your idea and there are now 3 pages of why no one likes the idea. Time to think of something better.

Thank you for your concern.

BoloBoffin · October 2016

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

And here is when YOU are the obstinant one You really can't see that this is an issue

We propose to you, and all others, a system where you get to fight to your heart's content.. But only against people who wish to do so.. A system that protects those who do not like to participate in PvP.. But you seem obsessed to have a go at these players

And I have proposed just such a system and continue to be amenable to suggestions. And in the end, my motivations and character continue to be questioned by people who would never approve of the system. So, yeah, I'm not the obstinate one.

Bouldercleave · October 2016

BoloBoffin wrote: »

Bouldercleave wrote: »

I've tried to be nice about it, but that time has passed.

Bottom line - no one likes your idea and there are now 3 pages of why no one likes the idea. Time to think of something better.

Thank you for your concern.

You are very welcome. I'm a giver

Daemons_Bane · October 2016

BoloBoffin wrote: »

Daemons_Bane wrote: »

And here is when YOU are the obstinant one You really can't see that this is an issue

We propose to you, and all others, a system where you get to fight to your heart's content.. But only against people who wish to do so.. A system that protects those who do not like to participate in PvP.. But you seem obsessed to have a go at these players

And I have proposed just such a system and continue to be amenable to suggestions. And in the end, my motivations and character continue to be questioned by people who would never approve of the system. So, yeah, I'm not the obstinate one.

You really don't see where your system and the one I just described are different?

Doctordarkspawn · October 2016

BoloBoffin wrote: »

Bryanonymous wrote: »

'Forcing' PvP into the PvE game... How about no. Just no. The end. Go bring justice to Cyrodil. There are plenty of invincible guards who keep the rest of us in line already. What you describe sounds more like a disire to *** other players off so you can have a cheap laugh. It's not going to happen. Get over it.

Dude, PvP is in PvE now! Duels are PvP. This puts the Justice system completely within the world of duels. If you don't have a notorious bounty or an enforcer tabard, you can't be involved. My proposal says enforcers can't bother anyone who just has stolen goods. They can't bother someone who's merely disreputable. Only notorious or fugitive bounties obligate the thief to deal with a challenge, whereas non-dueling enforcers can be blindsided by thieves at any time with the possibility of a free trip to the closest refuge as their reward.

Even the gold trophy sites, campable as they may be, can still be successfully nagivated. As long as the thief doesn't rack up the necessary bounty from NPCs, the enforcer can do nothing. Hey, looks like I didn't say this before, but only NPCs can give a player bounty, not enforcers. I thought that would be obvious, but it wasn't. As long as the thief can stay on the good side of the NPCs, the enforcers are helpless.

Ok, now continue the assaults on my motivations since you folks have no other argument.

So we need to shove PVP into every single aspect of this game? Why?

At the end of the day the reason they canned this was the fact that Zeni didn't think the PVE folk would even play it at that point, and they were entirely correct. I wont, if this goes through. Because I dont play this game for PVP, I play it for PVE. And every person who says that to you, should be self explainitory. The fact that you cant comprehend what they mean or why their saying it, says that you are the -last- person, that should be giving the devs ideas.

Thousands have brought up the justice system, the response has been outstandingly against it. I suggest you look up the definition of insanity. Then check yourself into a clinic.