The Gold Road Chapter – which includes the Scribing system – and Update 42 is now available to test on the PTS! You can read the latest patch notes here: https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/656454/
A Final Plea for the Full Justice System - Using Dueling
-
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.
Yay dueling = PvP!! After spending a day of "hay hay hay i duel you!" spam I took the action to disable these puerile duel requests.0 -
BoloBoffin✭✭✭✭✭Daemons_Bane wrote: »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?
Different, yes. But both mine and yours fits into the criteria you put forward.I ride in a zerg ball of one.0 -
BoloBoffin✭✭✭✭✭Doctordarkspawn wrote: »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.
My proposal only has people who wish to participate in PvP to do so. People who don't, aren't bothered. I thank you for your concern for my sanity.I ride in a zerg ball of one.0 -
gard✭✭✭✭✭BoloBoffin wrote: »It seems simple now that I've seen it. Make it so people with active bounties can't refuse a duel from a player with an enforcer tabard. The tabard would give the enforcer the ability to see people with bounties (glowing yellow), but if the thief is sneaking, it's subject to detection mechanics. And the enforcer should have a glow and a red hovering eye (similar to NPC lookouts) visible only to thieves with bounties.
If the enforcer spots a thief and gets a duel request off within a certain range (20 meters?), the dual begins with a special Justice flag for the fight area. The thief running from the dual is instant forfeit of all stolen goods to the enforcer. NPC guards can NOT join this dual. If the thief wins, he or she is instantly transported to the nearest refuge. If the enforcer wins, he or she gets the loot and walks away to the enforcer station for the reward.
How about it, ZOS?
You had me until "running from the duel is instant forfeit".
If the thief gets away, he should get away with his plunder.
1 -
BoloBoffin✭✭✭✭✭BoloBoffin wrote: »It seems simple now that I've seen it. Make it so people with active bounties can't refuse a duel from a player with an enforcer tabard. The tabard would give the enforcer the ability to see people with bounties (glowing yellow), but if the thief is sneaking, it's subject to detection mechanics. And the enforcer should have a glow and a red hovering eye (similar to NPC lookouts) visible only to thieves with bounties.
If the enforcer spots a thief and gets a duel request off within a certain range (20 meters?), the dual begins with a special Justice flag for the fight area. The thief running from the dual is instant forfeit of all stolen goods to the enforcer. NPC guards can NOT join this dual. If the thief wins, he or she is instantly transported to the nearest refuge. If the enforcer wins, he or she gets the loot and walks away to the enforcer station for the reward.
How about it, ZOS?
You had me until "running from the duel is instant forfeit".
If the thief gets away, he should get away with his plunder.
I've modified the proposal as I went through the thread, but I feel this is a good tradeoff for another later suggestion: a thief can take the initiative and surprise an enforcer from stealth, no matter their bounty level. Instant fugitive level, instant duel - but on the thief's terms and a win takes them to the refuge. If an enforcer detects a thief with a notorious or fugitive bounty, however, the duel is mandatory. The enforcer can be killed, after all.I ride in a zerg ball of one.0 -
BoloBoffin✭✭✭✭✭You know, there are so many people on the other side of this issue that would make incredible enforcers.
I ride in a zerg ball of one.0 -
Daemons_Bane✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭BoloBoffin wrote: »Daemons_Bane wrote: »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?
Different, yes. But both mine and yours fits into the criteria you put forward.
No.. Do not put me in the same box here.. Those two suggestions are not identical0 -
BoloBoffin✭✭✭✭✭Daemons_Bane wrote: »BoloBoffin wrote: »Daemons_Bane wrote: »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?
Different, yes. But both mine and yours fits into the criteria you put forward.
No.. Do not put me in the same box here.. Those two suggestions are not identical
I didn't say they were identical. I said they fit the criteria you put forward: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.
In that, our systems are alike.I ride in a zerg ball of one.0 -
rotiferuk✭✭✭BoloBoffin wrote: »Doctordarkspawn wrote: »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.
My proposal only has people who wish to participate in PvP to do so. People who don't, aren't bothered. I thank you for your concern for my sanity.
How about all the people who have to witness the PvP? They have not consented to being part of it yet they are involved by just being there. They would have to put up with "enforcers" and "criminal scum" slugging it out in PvE areas.
You are suggesting a griefing system.Edited by rotiferuk on October 10, 2016 7:19PMEU Server.0 -
Daemons_Bane✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭BoloBoffin wrote: »Daemons_Bane wrote: »BoloBoffin wrote: »Daemons_Bane wrote: »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?
Different, yes. But both mine and yours fits into the criteria you put forward.
No.. Do not put me in the same box here.. Those two suggestions are not identical
I didn't say they were identical. I said they fit the criteria you put forward: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.
In that, our systems are alike.
It's very convenient for you that you don't quote how they work The one I mentioned works purely on volunteers, while the one you want, works on forcing people into PvP 0 -
BoloBoffin✭✭✭✭✭BoloBoffin wrote: »Doctordarkspawn wrote: »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.
My proposal only has people who wish to participate in PvP to do so. People who don't, aren't bothered. I thank you for your concern for my sanity.
How about all the people who have to witness the PvP? They have not consented to being part of it yet they are involved by just being there. They would have to put up with enforcers and "criminal scum" (@TM) slugging it out in PvE areas.
Well, you have to watch duels now. This would just be another one. As long as duels are around, this could be.I ride in a zerg ball of one.0 -
BoloBoffin✭✭✭✭✭Daemons_Bane wrote: »BoloBoffin wrote: »Daemons_Bane wrote: »BoloBoffin wrote: »Daemons_Bane wrote: »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?
Different, yes. But both mine and yours fits into the criteria you put forward.
No.. Do not put me in the same box here.. Those two suggestions are not identical
I didn't say they were identical. I said they fit the criteria you put forward: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.
In that, our systems are alike.
It's very convenient for you that you don't quote how they work The one I mentioned works purely on volunteers, while the one you want, works on forcing people into PvP
At the point I advocated for a passive skill to opt into battles, you lost that argument.
I ride in a zerg ball of one.0 -
Daemons_Bane✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭BoloBoffin wrote: »Daemons_Bane wrote: »BoloBoffin wrote: »Daemons_Bane wrote: »BoloBoffin wrote: »Daemons_Bane wrote: »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?
Different, yes. But both mine and yours fits into the criteria you put forward.
No.. Do not put me in the same box here.. Those two suggestions are not identical
I didn't say they were identical. I said they fit the criteria you put forward: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.
In that, our systems are alike.
It's very convenient for you that you don't quote how they work The one I mentioned works purely on volunteers, while the one you want, works on forcing people into PvP
At the point I advocated for a passive skill to opt into battles, you lost that argument.
I objected to that one, since I could then cost people several thousand gold to get out of your system.. That could, again, target the lower level players with low gold reserves.. Besides that, I don't think people in general would be happy to know that they had to pay that much gold to get out of the system.. I even offered up a system that will get you the exact end result you say that you wish for, and guaranteeing you that the people entering the system was willing to fight for it..
Edit.. Since people love to use Cyrodill as an example in this system.. You don't pay to get out of Cyrodill, so why should you pay here?Edited by Daemons_Bane on October 10, 2016 7:29PM0 -
BoloBoffin✭✭✭✭✭Daemons_Bane wrote: »BoloBoffin wrote: »Daemons_Bane wrote: »BoloBoffin wrote: »Daemons_Bane wrote: »BoloBoffin wrote: »Daemons_Bane wrote: »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?
Different, yes. But both mine and yours fits into the criteria you put forward.
No.. Do not put me in the same box here.. Those two suggestions are not identical
I didn't say they were identical. I said they fit the criteria you put forward: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.
In that, our systems are alike.
It's very convenient for you that you don't quote how they work The one I mentioned works purely on volunteers, while the one you want, works on forcing people into PvP
At the point I advocated for a passive skill to opt into battles, you lost that argument.
I objected to that one, since I could then cost people several thousand gold to get out of your system.. That could, again, target the lower level players with low gold reserves.. Besides that, I don't think people in general would be happy to know that they had to pay that much gold to get out of the system.. I even offered up a system that will get you the exact end result you say that you wish for, and guaranteeing you that the people entering the system was willing to fight for it..
Edit.. Since people love to use Cyrodill as an example in this system.. You don't pay to get out of Cyrodill, so why should you pay here?
Which I responded to by saying a toggle was as simple as a pardon edict away. You don't even have to go to the refuge to exercise that toggle. Get accosted, use your clemency, use a pardon or two to clear your bounty, and stroll away. Walk into a city, see the floating red eyes, hit stealth, use a pardon or two to get to disreputable, walk away. There's your toggle.I ride in a zerg ball of one.0 -
Daemons_Bane✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭And if you have not yet leveled those skill lines? If you do not own the DLC? Then what do you do?0 -
BoloBoffin✭✭✭✭✭Daemons_Bane wrote: »And if you have not yet leveled those skill lines? If you do not own the DLC? Then what do you do?
What do you do now?I ride in a zerg ball of one.0 -
rotiferuk✭✭✭BoloBoffin wrote: »BoloBoffin wrote: »Doctordarkspawn wrote: »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.
My proposal only has people who wish to participate in PvP to do so. People who don't, aren't bothered. I thank you for your concern for my sanity.
How about all the people who have to witness the PvP? They have not consented to being part of it yet they are involved by just being there. They would have to put up with enforcers and "criminal scum" (@TM) slugging it out in PvE areas.
Well, you have to watch duels now. This would just be another one. As long as duels are around, this could be.
Yes, I, along with countless others are forced to watch the willy wavers...sorry "duellers" in PvE areas. If I get bothered enough I will start reporting them for griefing. If enough people did this things would soon change.
As for your suggestion, it's not about duelling is it? Your system is about pack(s) of "enforcers" hunting individuals.EU Server.1 -
Gidorick✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭Korah_Eaglecry wrote: »What part of No Forcing Players to do anything dont you or any of your pro PvP Justice System advocates understand?
I mean, Hello...Mcfly!
What wrong @Korah_Eaglecry , Chicken?
What ESO really needs is an Auction Horse.
That's right... Horse.
Click HERE to discuss.
Want more crazy ideas? Check out my Concept Repository!0 -
Daemons_Bane✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭BoloBoffin wrote: »Daemons_Bane wrote: »And if you have not yet leveled those skill lines? If you do not own the DLC? Then what do you do?
What do you do now?
What I do is not the issue.. The issue is what you do if you do not have access to the solutions you suggest0 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭BoloBoffin wrote: »It seems simple now that I've seen it.
ZOS adds a new PVP options in the open world - dueling.
they go to pains to give you an auto-opt-out-decline so someone can turn it off completely if PVP isn't their thing.
they even then give you a decline option if opted-in for any specific challenge, so if maybe you are ok with dueling but not right now or not against that guy you can also say no.
and this leads some to go and think how great it would be if only they remove the specific pvp accept double confirm thingy so people can get forced in thru PVE play - play-in without options.
Simple is not the word i would use for it.
In another thread though i pointed out that if a group of like minded folks wanted to they could play "justice themed pvp play" using dueling as it is now. For a guild, establish city-time, wager stolen loot on duels etc...
Proudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
YFMV Your Fun May Vary.
First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
"The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."0 -
BigBragg✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭I love pvp in all games, but for the life of me cannot understand why some people are so dogged about the Justice System.0 -
Ceridwynne✭✭✭Are you wanting to PVP or play a hero?
There is a place where you can pvp all day if you want, where people are okay with getting into fights and whatnot.
If you want to be a hero, why not ask for a dlc that is similiar to thieves guild, where you join a type of law enforcement agency to bring down a large criminal ring that is taking advantage of the war. It could send you all over the map to take out the lesser crime bosses and to pick up clues to the location and identity of the leader. There could be dailies that send you around to take out bandit groups/find a npc thief or to stop the assassination of a random npc.
It's just a suggestion.0 -
BoloBoffin✭✭✭✭✭Ceridwynne wrote: »Are you wanting to PVP or play a hero?
There is a place where you can pvp all day if you want, where people are okay with getting into fights and whatnot.
If you want to be a hero, why not ask for a dlc that is similiar to thieves guild, where you join a type of law enforcement agency to bring down a large criminal ring that is taking advantage of the war. It could send you all over the map to take out the lesser crime bosses and to pick up clues to the location and identity of the leader. There could be dailies that send you around to take out bandit groups/find a npc thief or to stop the assassination of a random npc.
It's just a suggestion.
Thank you for your suggestion.I ride in a zerg ball of one.0 -
BoloBoffin✭✭✭✭✭BoloBoffin wrote: »It seems simple now that I've seen it.
ZOS adds a new PVP options in the open world - dueling.
they go to pains to give you an auto-opt-out-decline so someone can turn it off completely if PVP isn't their thing.
they even then give you a decline option if opted-in for any specific challenge, so if maybe you are ok with dueling but not right now or not against that guy you can also say no.
and this leads some to go and think how great it would be if only they remove the specific pvp accept double confirm thingy so people can get forced in thru PVE play - play-in without options.
Simple is not the word i would use for it.
In another thread though i pointed out that if a group of like minded folks wanted to they could play "justice themed pvp play" using dueling as it is now. For a guild, establish city-time, wager stolen loot on duels etc...
The insistence on some to continue to describe this proposal as being forced to do anything (despite the many opt outs I've included) is getting boring. But thank you for the 16th iteration on this theme.I ride in a zerg ball of one.0 -
BoloBoffin✭✭✭✭✭Daemons_Bane wrote: »BoloBoffin wrote: »Daemons_Bane wrote: »And if you have not yet leveled those skill lines? If you do not own the DLC? Then what do you do?
What do you do now?
What I do is not the issue.. The issue is what you do if you do not have access to the solutions you suggest
I used the term "you" just as you used it: as a general term for the player.
What does the player who is leveling Legerdemain but does not have the TG dlc do now?I ride in a zerg ball of one.0 -
Artis✭✭✭✭✭
✭So you propose a system that forces players to parttake in PVP even if they simply want to level their TG or Legendremein or make gold. This system make those players risk everything they farmed. They can either fight (and lose everything if they lose) or run away (and lose everything), at the same time, the players that force them to pvp do not risk anything. They can initiate a duel or not - it's up to them, they aren't risking to lose any of their gear or gold?
Did I understand it correctly?2 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭BoloBoffin wrote: »BoloBoffin wrote: »It seems simple now that I've seen it.
ZOS adds a new PVP options in the open world - dueling.
they go to pains to give you an auto-opt-out-decline so someone can turn it off completely if PVP isn't their thing.
they even then give you a decline option if opted-in for any specific challenge, so if maybe you are ok with dueling but not right now or not against that guy you can also say no.
and this leads some to go and think how great it would be if only they remove the specific pvp accept double confirm thingy so people can get forced in thru PVE play - play-in without options.
Simple is not the word i would use for it.
In another thread though i pointed out that if a group of like minded folks wanted to they could play "justice themed pvp play" using dueling as it is now. For a guild, establish city-time, wager stolen loot on duels etc...
The insistence on some to continue to describe this proposal as being forced to do anything (despite the many opt outs I've included) is getting boring. But thank you for the 16th iteration on this theme.
As someone reading the response can see, i referenced being forced in thru pve play-in, like say the numerous ways you hsve described it even on this page with describing it as a toggle out if the crook spends pardon edicts. At a few points you do reference some oddball passive opt-in but that is usually followed by another pve play-in reference.
Look, i would suggest you go search several of the earlier threads and read up.
There is a ton of discussion about these concepts
Opt-in vs play-in
Bounty play-in as pve content takeover
Extortion to promote pvp buy-in... give up bounty if you decline.
Even a previous full dueling pvp justice cooperative game laid out
Etc etc etc
Until you get caught up on those issues and realize this has been hashed thru there isnt much benefit in posting.
Enjoy.Proudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
YFMV Your Fun May Vary.
First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
"The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."1 -
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭Bouldercleave wrote: »
Exactly, thats why the no reward dueling system they have now is not getting any players partic... oh wait... seems to me i see duelers practically in every city now...
Are you sure people who want to pvp and want to enjoy dueling style play wont do it unless there are rewards?
But regardless, in another thread on this subject i proposed an outline for a guild run or just group of friends dueling justice system.
key was that a given time and place would be set, like a large city for a couple hours, there would be agreed upon thieves and enforcers numbers.
thieves would agree if enforcer got them duel challenged, enforcer duels by choice.
enforcer gets paid off the value of stolen goods if he wins duel but thief keeps any loot he gets away with oiutside of that etc etc etc.
Could work in reverse if thief won duel. so on and so on.
Key was if everyone agreed upon the rules of play not mandatory messing with others who wanted no part of it was required.
but again, its seems like for all the rhetoric, it seems to have not enough if pvp players play it and find find ways to fight other willing pvp players - really.
Proudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
YFMV Your Fun May Vary.
First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
"The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."0