Maintenance for the week of May 4:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – May 4
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – May 4
Request (Necromancer abilities in cities)
-
Ackwalan✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭MLGProPlayer wrote: »
I don't care if they got rid of it, but it's a completely different issue.
Vampirism is a key combat mechanic. Casting necro abilities in towns has nothing to do with anything. It's just a lore mechanic. It doesn't affect necromancer's effectiveness in actual content.
I have no idea why OP even spams abilities in towns. It's not a hard habit to break.
try dueling on a necro anywhere
Perhaps dueling should be a criminal act.8 -
Heady✭✭✭✭MLGProPlayer wrote: »
I don't care if they got rid of it, but it's a completely different issue.
Vampirism is a key combat mechanic. Casting necro abilities in towns has nothing to do with anything. It's just a lore mechanic. It doesn't affect necromancer's effectiveness in actual content.
I have no idea why OP even spams abilities in towns. It's not a hard habit to break.
try dueling on a necro anywhere
Perhaps dueling should be a criminal act.
old mate probably wouldn't oppose that tbh0 -
TheShadowScout✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
If you do not say (or type) what you mean, how can you ever mean what you say???Obviously I meant innocent people in town you dingus
And you might consider not calling people names, it reflects badly on your ability to provide sound arguments.
At least within town limits, sure!Perhaps dueling should be a criminal act.
Hey, it would be a classic! Try to duel in town, have the cardinals guard come and...
...no, wait! Different universe and all that!
Still, duelling having to happen in other places -outside- town would be a classic, right?Edited by TheShadowScout on August 5, 2019 12:51AM0 -
Opalblade✭✭✭I haven't had any issues with this, and I've been maining necro since necros became playable. How does this have anything to do with casting buffs when the only criminal buff a necro has is an ultimate? If that's what you're using I can't blame the guards for attacking you. I wouldn't trust a guy who just stands around town turning into a giant skeleton thing either lol.0 -
Sharee✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭MLGProPlayer wrote: »
I don't care if they got rid of it, but it's a completely different issue.
Vampirism is crucial in an endgame min-max build. Casting necro abilities in towns has nothing to do with anything.
Sorry but it is exactly the same issue. In both cases, player A requests a quality of life improvement that does not affect player B in any way, yet player B refuses the improvement to player A with the reasoning "you made your choice, you have to suffer".
I emphasize that it is the player that is supposed to suffer here, not his character. (by looking like crap, or by inadvertently getting a bounty for buffing). Like it was a crime to choose a class, or a skill line.
The whole reason why we have the "prevent attacking innocents" option is so that players do not get a bounty for inadvertently attacking a NPC. There's zero reason why it shouldn't also cover bounty gained by inadvertently casting a spirit mender.
1 -
Devanear✭✭✭✭MLGProPlayer wrote: »
I don't care if they got rid of it, but it's a completely different issue.
Vampirism is crucial in an endgame min-max build. Casting necro abilities in towns has nothing to do with anything.
Sorry but it is exactly the same issue. In both cases, player A requests a quality of life improvement that does not affect player B in any way, yet player B refuses the improvement to player A with the reasoning "you made your choice, you have to suffer".
I emphasize that it is the player that is supposed to suffer here, not his character. (by looking like crap, or by inadvertently getting a bounty for buffing). Like it was a crime to choose a class, or a skill line.
The whole reason why we have the "prevent attacking innocents" option is so that players do not get a bounty for inadvertently attacking a NPC. There's zero reason why it shouldn't also cover bounty gained by inadvertently casting a spirit mender.
But you did make a choice and you knew full well the consequences. Take away the consequences and the choices become meaningless. You are basically asking for special treatment, why should other players agree to that?6 -
Sharee✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭MLGProPlayer wrote: »
I don't care if they got rid of it, but it's a completely different issue.
Vampirism is crucial in an endgame min-max build. Casting necro abilities in towns has nothing to do with anything.
Sorry but it is exactly the same issue. In both cases, player A requests a quality of life improvement that does not affect player B in any way, yet player B refuses the improvement to player A with the reasoning "you made your choice, you have to suffer".
I emphasize that it is the player that is supposed to suffer here, not his character. (by looking like crap, or by inadvertently getting a bounty for buffing). Like it was a crime to choose a class, or a skill line.
The whole reason why we have the "prevent attacking innocents" option is so that players do not get a bounty for inadvertently attacking a NPC. There's zero reason why it shouldn't also cover bounty gained by inadvertently casting a spirit mender.
But you did make a choice and you knew full well the consequences. Take away the consequences and the choices become meaningless. You are basically asking for special treatment, why should other players agree to that?
A player who mistakenly uses a light attack while targeting a NPC in town gets a bounty. As a safeguard, he can activate the "prevent attacking innocents" option, which will prevent the light attack from firing.
When a necromancer player asks for the same mechanism so he does not get a bounty by mistake, it is not asking for special treatment, it is asking for equal treatment.4 -
Runefang✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭MLGProPlayer wrote: »
I don't care if they got rid of it, but it's a completely different issue.
Vampirism is crucial in an endgame min-max build. Casting necro abilities in towns has nothing to do with anything.
Sorry but it is exactly the same issue. In both cases, player A requests a quality of life improvement that does not affect player B in any way, yet player B refuses the improvement to player A with the reasoning "you made your choice, you have to suffer".
I emphasize that it is the player that is supposed to suffer here, not his character. (by looking like crap, or by inadvertently getting a bounty for buffing). Like it was a crime to choose a class, or a skill line.
The whole reason why we have the "prevent attacking innocents" option is so that players do not get a bounty for inadvertently attacking a NPC. There's zero reason why it shouldn't also cover bounty gained by inadvertently casting a spirit mender.
But you did make a choice and you knew full well the consequences. Take away the consequences and the choices become meaningless. You are basically asking for special treatment, why should other players agree to that?
Because that “special treatment” is extended to all non-Necro players at the moment. No other class has this restriction so it’s unfair.4 -
Devanear✭✭✭✭MLGProPlayer wrote: »
I don't care if they got rid of it, but it's a completely different issue.
Vampirism is crucial in an endgame min-max build. Casting necro abilities in towns has nothing to do with anything.
Sorry but it is exactly the same issue. In both cases, player A requests a quality of life improvement that does not affect player B in any way, yet player B refuses the improvement to player A with the reasoning "you made your choice, you have to suffer".
I emphasize that it is the player that is supposed to suffer here, not his character. (by looking like crap, or by inadvertently getting a bounty for buffing). Like it was a crime to choose a class, or a skill line.
The whole reason why we have the "prevent attacking innocents" option is so that players do not get a bounty for inadvertently attacking a NPC. There's zero reason why it shouldn't also cover bounty gained by inadvertently casting a spirit mender.
But you did make a choice and you knew full well the consequences. Take away the consequences and the choices become meaningless. You are basically asking for special treatment, why should other players agree to that?
A player who mistakenly uses a light attack while targeting a NPC in town gets a bounty. As a safeguard, he can activate the "prevent attacking innocents" option, which will prevent the light attack from firing.
When a necromancer player asks for the same mechanism so he does not get a bounty by mistake, it is not asking for special treatment, it is asking for equal treatment.
The OP is asking for the removal of the bounty, which is special treatment, if you only want the skills not to be castable inside cities, I have no problem with that, but that is not what is being asked in this thread and I fail to see how that applies to Vampirism, which you also brought up.
To be clear, casting criminal abilities should always result in a bounty when witnessed and being a vampire means you are undead, and should look the part. Preventing abilities from being cast should be ok.3 -
Sharee✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭MLGProPlayer wrote: »
I don't care if they got rid of it, but it's a completely different issue.
Vampirism is crucial in an endgame min-max build. Casting necro abilities in towns has nothing to do with anything.
Sorry but it is exactly the same issue. In both cases, player A requests a quality of life improvement that does not affect player B in any way, yet player B refuses the improvement to player A with the reasoning "you made your choice, you have to suffer".
I emphasize that it is the player that is supposed to suffer here, not his character. (by looking like crap, or by inadvertently getting a bounty for buffing). Like it was a crime to choose a class, or a skill line.
The whole reason why we have the "prevent attacking innocents" option is so that players do not get a bounty for inadvertently attacking a NPC. There's zero reason why it shouldn't also cover bounty gained by inadvertently casting a spirit mender.
But you did make a choice and you knew full well the consequences. Take away the consequences and the choices become meaningless. You are basically asking for special treatment, why should other players agree to that?
A player who mistakenly uses a light attack while targeting a NPC in town gets a bounty. As a safeguard, he can activate the "prevent attacking innocents" option, which will prevent the light attack from firing.
When a necromancer player asks for the same mechanism so he does not get a bounty by mistake, it is not asking for special treatment, it is asking for equal treatment.
The OP is asking for the removal of the bounty, which is special treatment, if you only want the skills not to be castable inside cities, I have no problem with that, but that is not what is being asked in this thread and I fail to see how that applies to Vampirism, which you also brought up.
To be clear, i only want players to be protected from mistakenly getting a bounty. I do not want them to be able to cast illegal spells on purpose without consequences. In fact, i would like this to be extended to vampires stage 4, transformed werewolves, and sorcerers with daedric pets as well.being a vampire means you are undead, and should look the part.
Really.
3 -
Devanear✭✭✭✭MLGProPlayer wrote: »
I don't care if they got rid of it, but it's a completely different issue.
Vampirism is crucial in an endgame min-max build. Casting necro abilities in towns has nothing to do with anything.
Sorry but it is exactly the same issue. In both cases, player A requests a quality of life improvement that does not affect player B in any way, yet player B refuses the improvement to player A with the reasoning "you made your choice, you have to suffer".
I emphasize that it is the player that is supposed to suffer here, not his character. (by looking like crap, or by inadvertently getting a bounty for buffing). Like it was a crime to choose a class, or a skill line.
The whole reason why we have the "prevent attacking innocents" option is so that players do not get a bounty for inadvertently attacking a NPC. There's zero reason why it shouldn't also cover bounty gained by inadvertently casting a spirit mender.
But you did make a choice and you knew full well the consequences. Take away the consequences and the choices become meaningless. You are basically asking for special treatment, why should other players agree to that?
Because that “special treatment” is extended to all non-Necro players at the moment. No other class has this restriction so it’s unfair.
When you create your characters you have two options, a class with no criminal acts and a class with criminal acts. You choose the second but now are trying to get rid of the consequences of your choice.MLGProPlayer wrote: »
I don't care if they got rid of it, but it's a completely different issue.
Vampirism is crucial in an endgame min-max build. Casting necro abilities in towns has nothing to do with anything.
Sorry but it is exactly the same issue. In both cases, player A requests a quality of life improvement that does not affect player B in any way, yet player B refuses the improvement to player A with the reasoning "you made your choice, you have to suffer".
I emphasize that it is the player that is supposed to suffer here, not his character. (by looking like crap, or by inadvertently getting a bounty for buffing). Like it was a crime to choose a class, or a skill line.
The whole reason why we have the "prevent attacking innocents" option is so that players do not get a bounty for inadvertently attacking a NPC. There's zero reason why it shouldn't also cover bounty gained by inadvertently casting a spirit mender.
But you did make a choice and you knew full well the consequences. Take away the consequences and the choices become meaningless. You are basically asking for special treatment, why should other players agree to that?
A player who mistakenly uses a light attack while targeting a NPC in town gets a bounty. As a safeguard, he can activate the "prevent attacking innocents" option, which will prevent the light attack from firing.
When a necromancer player asks for the same mechanism so he does not get a bounty by mistake, it is not asking for special treatment, it is asking for equal treatment.
The OP is asking for the removal of the bounty, which is special treatment, if you only want the skills not to be castable inside cities, I have no problem with that, but that is not what is being asked in this thread and I fail to see how that applies to Vampirism, which you also brought up.
To be clear, i only want players to be protected from mistakenly getting a bounty. I do not want them to be able to cast illegal spells on purpose without consequences. In fact, i would like this to be extended to vampires stage 4, transformed werewolves, and sorcerers with daedric pets as well.being a vampire means you are undead, and should look the part.
Really.
An NPC? Well, can't say I'm convinced. NPCs often follow special rules that don't apply to players. We are talking about player rules here.
Although I'm not very familiar with his story, I googled it and it seems he doesn't feed on blood like a normal vampire, at least he doesn't kill his meal providers. That difference might be the reason his looks are different.1 -
Sharee✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭An NPC? Well, can't say I'm convinced. NPCs often follow special rules that don't apply to players. We are talking about player rules here.
Although I'm not very familiar with his story, I googled it and it seems he doesn't feed on blood like a normal vampire, at least he doesn't kill his meal providers. That difference might be the reason his looks are different.
Now you're just grasping at straws.
We're talking about lore. Lore does not differentiate between "NPC's" and "Players". And if lore-wise, a vampire can conceal his features to appear a normal human, the argument "you are vampire, you should look that part" is void.5 -
TheShadowScout✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
Faulty argument.The whole reason why we have the "prevent attacking innocents" option is so that players do not get a bounty for inadvertently attacking a NPC. There's zero reason why it shouldn't also cover bounty gained by inadvertently casting a spirit mender.
The "Prevent attacking innocents" does -not- let you opt out of the bounty system, it just prevents you from doing that one bounty-worthy action.
I would have no issue if there also was an "prevent criminal acts" option... that made it IMPOSSIBLE to cast any "criminal act" spells no matter how many times someone fidget-clicked their button. But... the same effect can be achieved by not slotting them, so... there you go.
I don't like it tho when people feel so entitled that they think THEY should be able to comitt the crime, and not do the time. Or bounty, as the case may be. No matter if stealing, attacking innocents or casting forbidden magicks.
Not so.When a necromancer player asks for the same mechanism so he does not get a bounty by mistake, it is not asking for special treatment, it is asking for equal treatment.
They are not asking for the action becoming impossible for -them-; they are asking to do the action and not get a bounty!
And they can have the exact same effect like those who have "prevent attacking innocents" activbe by... not friggin slotting the bloody "criminal act" skills!
There you go.
Equality achieved!
Yeah, and there -really- should be a toggleable "Masquerade" skill to lower vampiric appearance by one stage, and hide it completely at stage 1! Since as we all know, this is not lord Ravenwatchs true appearance, but merely an disguise... BUT! One that bloody well ought to be available for any PC vampire as well. But while I said my piece on that before, that is a different discussion, to be had elsewhere...
He -only- looks like that on the first encounter, when he is still passing for "mortal" when mingling with the other nobles. As soon as you go visit him at home...Although I'm not very familiar with his story, I googled it and it seems he doesn't feed on blood like a normal vampire, at least he doesn't kill his meal providers. That difference might be the reason his looks are different.
...the masquerade ends and he assumes his usual vampy looks which he keeps up for the rest of the questings.3 -
Sharee✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭TheShadowScout wrote: »
Not so.When a necromancer player asks for the same mechanism so he does not get a bounty by mistake, it is not asking for special treatment, it is asking for equal treatment.
They are not asking for the action becoming impossible for -them-; they are asking to do the action and not get a bounty!
Not me.TheShadowScout wrote: »And they can have the exact same effect like those who have "prevent attacking innocents" activbe by... not friggin slotting the bloody "criminal act" skills!
There you go.
Equality achieved!
That is not equality. That is like refusing players the "prevent attacking innocents" setting because they can achieve the same thing by "not friggin equipping a weapon".0 -
Minyassa✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭Let me ask all of you who are against the idea this, how does this negatively effect you in any way ??
It gets rid of the potential to have illegal necro skills discourage people from dueling in towns. Having people move dueling outside of towns is a greatly desired thing and for those of us who want that, this is our only shot. I'm hoping they'll make other things illegal as well, like using ww or vampire skills.2 -
JamuThatsWho✭✭✭✭✭
✭Let's have a look at which Necromancer abilities are Criminal Acts, shall we?
1. Blastbones
- Requires a target to cast, so highly unlikely that you would accidentally bomb an innocent NPC in town with this (seeing as you despise the justice system so much, one would assume that you have the "prevent attacking innocents" option turned on, yes?)
2. Skeletal Mage/Archer
- Doesn't require a target to cast, but is a DPS skill, not a buff (unless you count the 100 recovery you get for having a summon active as a "buff")
3. Spirit Mender
- Again, no target required, but isn't a buff skill either, rather a heal.
4. Bone Goliath Transformation
- It's an ultimate ability. Why would you even cast it in town?
5. Frozen/Pestilent Colossus
- See above
So, there you have them. 3/15 abilities (5/18 if you include the ultimates) are marked as Criminal Acts, none of which are "buffs" as you described them. It's not that difficult to avoid casting them.
I somewhat understand the spamming of abilities when one is waiting for something, but if you're that bored when in a queue, why not use the time to do something else? Is it so impossible to, I don't know, watch a Youtube video while you wait? Listen to music? Read a book? While you're waiting in that queue, you literally don't have to do anything else in-game - so why should you? Do something else in the meantime while you wait. It's not like you absolutely have to "cast your buffs" while waiting around in a queue, no-one is forcing you to spam those buttons, you're doing it yourself instead of making use of the time for something more meaningful.
This is an issue only for the minority of players. If you can't adapt to such a simple change as not casting 1 or 2 abilities when in a town, then you're probably in for a bad time, my friend.
All of this.
/thread@JamuThatsWho - PC EU - CP2100
Main:
Vasiir-jo - Khajiit Magicka Necromancer, AD
Alts:Sul-Mael Hlarothran - Dunmer Magicka Sorcerer, EP
Ushaar-Ixaht - Argonian Magicka Nightblade, DC
Rorbakh gro-Khraag - Orc Stamina Templar, AD
Anduuroon - Altmer Magicka Warden, EP
Travanius Braelia - Imperial Stamina Dragonknight, DC
Daeralon - Bosmer Stamina Arcanist, AD2 -
Naftal✭✭✭✭✭MLGProPlayer wrote: »
I don't care if they got rid of it, but it's a completely different issue.
Vampirism is crucial in an endgame min-max build. Casting necro abilities in towns has nothing to do with anything.
Sorry but it is exactly the same issue. In both cases, player A requests a quality of life improvement that does not affect player B in any way, yet player B refuses the improvement to player A with the reasoning "you made your choice, you have to suffer".
I emphasize that it is the player that is supposed to suffer here, not his character. (by looking like crap, or by inadvertently getting a bounty for buffing). Like it was a crime to choose a class, or a skill line.
The whole reason why we have the "prevent attacking innocents" option is so that players do not get a bounty for inadvertently attacking a NPC. There's zero reason why it shouldn't also cover bounty gained by inadvertently casting a spirit mender.
But you did make a choice and you knew full well the consequences. Take away the consequences and the choices become meaningless. You are basically asking for special treatment, why should other players agree to that?
A player who mistakenly uses a light attack while targeting a NPC in town gets a bounty. As a safeguard, he can activate the "prevent attacking innocents" option, which will prevent the light attack from firing.
When a necromancer player asks for the same mechanism so he does not get a bounty by mistake, it is not asking for special treatment, it is asking for equal treatment.
Ok so if you have that option on, necromancer shouldn't be able to cast the abilities that are criminal acts. Would be really annoying though.0 -
Sharee✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭MLGProPlayer wrote: »
I don't care if they got rid of it, but it's a completely different issue.
Vampirism is crucial in an endgame min-max build. Casting necro abilities in towns has nothing to do with anything.
Sorry but it is exactly the same issue. In both cases, player A requests a quality of life improvement that does not affect player B in any way, yet player B refuses the improvement to player A with the reasoning "you made your choice, you have to suffer".
I emphasize that it is the player that is supposed to suffer here, not his character. (by looking like crap, or by inadvertently getting a bounty for buffing). Like it was a crime to choose a class, or a skill line.
The whole reason why we have the "prevent attacking innocents" option is so that players do not get a bounty for inadvertently attacking a NPC. There's zero reason why it shouldn't also cover bounty gained by inadvertently casting a spirit mender.
But you did make a choice and you knew full well the consequences. Take away the consequences and the choices become meaningless. You are basically asking for special treatment, why should other players agree to that?
A player who mistakenly uses a light attack while targeting a NPC in town gets a bounty. As a safeguard, he can activate the "prevent attacking innocents" option, which will prevent the light attack from firing.
When a necromancer player asks for the same mechanism so he does not get a bounty by mistake, it is not asking for special treatment, it is asking for equal treatment.
Ok so if you have that option on, necromancer shouldn't be able to cast the abilities that are criminal acts. Would be really annoying though.
Not really. Annoying is getting a bounty because you pushed a button by mistake. If you actually *want* to push that button, you can simply disable the safety option.0 -
Naftal✭✭✭✭✭MLGProPlayer wrote: »
I don't care if they got rid of it, but it's a completely different issue.
Vampirism is crucial in an endgame min-max build. Casting necro abilities in towns has nothing to do with anything.
Sorry but it is exactly the same issue. In both cases, player A requests a quality of life improvement that does not affect player B in any way, yet player B refuses the improvement to player A with the reasoning "you made your choice, you have to suffer".
I emphasize that it is the player that is supposed to suffer here, not his character. (by looking like crap, or by inadvertently getting a bounty for buffing). Like it was a crime to choose a class, or a skill line.
The whole reason why we have the "prevent attacking innocents" option is so that players do not get a bounty for inadvertently attacking a NPC. There's zero reason why it shouldn't also cover bounty gained by inadvertently casting a spirit mender.
But you did make a choice and you knew full well the consequences. Take away the consequences and the choices become meaningless. You are basically asking for special treatment, why should other players agree to that?
A player who mistakenly uses a light attack while targeting a NPC in town gets a bounty. As a safeguard, he can activate the "prevent attacking innocents" option, which will prevent the light attack from firing.
When a necromancer player asks for the same mechanism so he does not get a bounty by mistake, it is not asking for special treatment, it is asking for equal treatment.
Ok so if you have that option on, necromancer shouldn't be able to cast the abilities that are criminal acts. Would be really annoying though.
Not really. Annoying is getting a bounty because you pushed a button by mistake. If you actually *want* to push that button, you can simply disable the safety option.
Annoying to disable it every time I leave town.0 -
Uryel✭✭✭✭✭
✭I'm going to stop reading the replies cause it seems like a few people here are forum warrior white knights replying with paragraphs of nonsense, thanks for everyone who agreed and gave supporting information (and cool pictures) take care everyone!
Translation : I don't care about discussion, I just want to be right and will ignore everyone who isn't on my side because they obviously are so wrong.
...
Mate, it says "criminal act", what did you expect ? If anything, changing to werewolf form should be a criminal act too. Or using any vampire skill. Also, if buffs lasted a few hours, like in some other games, I'd understand why you want to cast them prior to entering the dungeons, but in here... What's the point ? Gotta roll with the punches, if it's a criminal act, don't cast it where it can be witnessed, simple enough.4 -
Devanear✭✭✭✭An NPC? Well, can't say I'm convinced. NPCs often follow special rules that don't apply to players. We are talking about player rules here.
Although I'm not very familiar with his story, I googled it and it seems he doesn't feed on blood like a normal vampire, at least he doesn't kill his meal providers. That difference might be the reason his looks are different.
Now you're just grasping at straws.
We're talking about lore. Lore does not differentiate between "NPC's" and "Players". And if lore-wise, a vampire can conceal his features to appear a normal human, the argument "you are vampire, you should look that part" is void.
Not at all, NPCs often have skills that are not available to players. The first that comes to mind is teleporting. How many NPCs can just teleport to a specific location of their choosing for a quest and yet players can only teleport to specific designated locations? It's the same thing. Just because the lore says something is possible doesn't mean it's something that is available to players, or that should be.1 -
Sharee✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭An NPC? Well, can't say I'm convinced. NPCs often follow special rules that don't apply to players. We are talking about player rules here.
Although I'm not very familiar with his story, I googled it and it seems he doesn't feed on blood like a normal vampire, at least he doesn't kill his meal providers. That difference might be the reason his looks are different.
Now you're just grasping at straws.
We're talking about lore. Lore does not differentiate between "NPC's" and "Players". And if lore-wise, a vampire can conceal his features to appear a normal human, the argument "you are vampire, you should look that part" is void.
Not at all, NPCs often have skills that are not available to players.
Not long ago, the ability to conjure skeletons from the ground was not available to players.
Players can and will get more abilities as the game expands. And there is no lore reason why they should not be able to conceal vampiric appearance.Edited by Sharee on August 5, 2019 12:46PM2 -
Sharee✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭MLGProPlayer wrote: »
I don't care if they got rid of it, but it's a completely different issue.
Vampirism is crucial in an endgame min-max build. Casting necro abilities in towns has nothing to do with anything.
Sorry but it is exactly the same issue. In both cases, player A requests a quality of life improvement that does not affect player B in any way, yet player B refuses the improvement to player A with the reasoning "you made your choice, you have to suffer".
I emphasize that it is the player that is supposed to suffer here, not his character. (by looking like crap, or by inadvertently getting a bounty for buffing). Like it was a crime to choose a class, or a skill line.
The whole reason why we have the "prevent attacking innocents" option is so that players do not get a bounty for inadvertently attacking a NPC. There's zero reason why it shouldn't also cover bounty gained by inadvertently casting a spirit mender.
But you did make a choice and you knew full well the consequences. Take away the consequences and the choices become meaningless. You are basically asking for special treatment, why should other players agree to that?
A player who mistakenly uses a light attack while targeting a NPC in town gets a bounty. As a safeguard, he can activate the "prevent attacking innocents" option, which will prevent the light attack from firing.
When a necromancer player asks for the same mechanism so he does not get a bounty by mistake, it is not asking for special treatment, it is asking for equal treatment.
Ok so if you have that option on, necromancer shouldn't be able to cast the abilities that are criminal acts. Would be really annoying though.
Not really. Annoying is getting a bounty because you pushed a button by mistake. If you actually *want* to push that button, you can simply disable the safety option.
Annoying to disable it every time I leave town.
Why would you do that? It only works in towns...0 -
TheShadowScout✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
Didn't say you. Said "they" as in "generally the OP and those who might agree in detail".TheShadowScout wrote: »
Not so.When a necromancer player asks for the same mechanism so he does not get a bounty by mistake, it is not asking for special treatment, it is asking for equal treatment.
They are not asking for the action becoming impossible for -them-; they are asking to do the action and not get a bounty!
Not me.
...have you ever tried that and then punched someone?TheShadowScout wrote: »And they can have the exact same effect like those who have "prevent attacking innocents" activbe by... not friggin slotting the bloody "criminal act" skills!
There you go.
Equality achieved!
That is not equality. That is like refusing players the "prevent attacking innocents" setting because they can achieve the same thing by "not friggin equipping a weapon".
But as I said. I would not disagree if they had a "prevent criminal acts" setting that prevented them from using the skills altogether, -just- like the prevent attacking innocents prevents you from attacking innocents altogether.
But NOT a "let me use the skill (or attack innocents for that matter) and just opt out of getting a bounty for it..."
THAT is the idea I oppose!
...
And as I already stated, the best way to deal with this issue is how I do it on my necros - just make sure I won't cast those skills by accident in town. Not slotting them, or having them on the back bar and switching, or whatever.
But its exactly the same argument people have made before for accidentally stealing something, or fidget-casting heals in town and then unwittingly becoming accomplice to some mass murderer or whatnot.
And I reckon, the best those bounty-baits will get from ZOS is to get "Pardons" sold in the crown store.3 -
FlyTy✭✭TheShadowScout wrote: »
If you do not say (or type) what you mean, how can you ever mean what you say???Obviously I meant innocent people in town you dingus
And you might consider not calling people names, it reflects badly on your ability to provide sound arguments.
At least within town limits, sure!Perhaps dueling should be a criminal act.
Hey, it would be a classic! Try to duel in town, have the cardinals guard come and...
...no, wait! Different universe and all that!
Still, duelling having to happen in other places -outside- town would be a classic, right?
dude, it's confirmed.. you don't want it changed because of ERP. I get it. I'm done now please stop giving me notifications, I'm not even arguing with you anymore. You're really not worth it lol Now that i've finished typing this I realize I shouldn't feed you, beI'm going to stop reading the replies cause it seems like a few people here are forum warrior white knights replying with paragraphs of nonsense, thanks for everyone who agreed and gave supporting information (and cool pictures) take care everyone!
Translation : I don't care about discussion, I just want to be right and will ignore everyone who isn't on my side because they obviously are so wrong.
...
Mate, it says "criminal act", what did you expect ? If anything, changing to werewolf form should be a criminal act too. Or using any vampire skill. Also, if buffs lasted a few hours, like in some other games, I'd understand why you want to cast them prior to entering the dungeons, but in here... What's the point ? Gotta roll with the punches, if it's a criminal act, don't cast it where it can be witnessed, simple enough.
mate, translation, I just don't give a *** about what you guys have to say because you don't make any decisions here. I was hoping more people would be on board with this, but apparently I was wrong so I'm over it. Stop reading into this so much, you all have WAY too much time on your hands.0 -
anitajoneb17_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭MLGProPlayer wrote: »Why do you re-cast buffs outside of combat? That makes no sense.
You don't know what a habit is? ..........
Bad habit needs to be changed and can be changed. Spam emotes instead of abilities.
People who cast abilities in towns are an annoyance.
People who duel in towns are an annoyance.
I'm all for stupid annoyances to be removed, punished or banned.
Edited by anitajoneb17_ESO on August 5, 2019 2:09PM4 -
Number_51✭✭✭✭✭TheShadowScout wrote: »
Didn't say you. Said "they" as in "generally the OP and those who might agree in detail".TheShadowScout wrote: »
Not so.When a necromancer player asks for the same mechanism so he does not get a bounty by mistake, it is not asking for special treatment, it is asking for equal treatment.
They are not asking for the action becoming impossible for -them-; they are asking to do the action and not get a bounty!
Not me.
...have you ever tried that and then punched someone?TheShadowScout wrote: »And they can have the exact same effect like those who have "prevent attacking innocents" activbe by... not friggin slotting the bloody "criminal act" skills!
There you go.
Equality achieved!
That is not equality. That is like refusing players the "prevent attacking innocents" setting because they can achieve the same thing by "not friggin equipping a weapon".
But as I said. I would not disagree if they had a "prevent criminal acts" setting that prevented them from using the skills altogether, -just- like the prevent attacking innocents prevents you from attacking innocents altogether.
But NOT a "let me use the skill (or attack innocents for that matter) and just opt out of getting a bounty for it..."
THAT is the idea I oppose!
...
And as I already stated, the best way to deal with this issue is how I do it on my necros - just make sure I won't cast those skills by accident in town. Not slotting them, or having them on the back bar and switching, or whatever.
But its exactly the same argument people have made before for accidentally stealing something, or fidget-casting heals in town and then unwittingly becoming accomplice to some mass murderer or whatnot.
And I reckon, the best those bounty-baits will get from ZOS is to get "Pardons" sold in the crown store.
Couldn't agree more. Playing on console, I can't tell you how many times I've used Pierce Armor on a banker because I put the skill on the same button that's used to dismiss a conversation. If I didn't think it was absolutely hilarious I'd turn on the "prevent attacking innocents" option, and it wouldn't be a problem. So I have no issue with an option that completely prevents the use of a skill that is a criminal act. But there is no way there should be an option to just plain "opt out" of the justice system. They could even add those skills to the same "prevent attacking innocents" with a slight change of wording.1 -
NotaDaedraWorshipper✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
Its the same crowd that insists vampires must not be able to hide the ugly appearance. I'd just walk away if i were you.
Don't make such general assumptions, it's bad form. I'm against this, but I'm definitely for that we should be able to hide vampirism. Not that I see what they have to do with eachother...Edited by NotaDaedraWorshipper on August 5, 2019 3:13PM[Lie] Of course! I don't even worship Daedra!0 -
xenowarrior92eb17_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭I cant believe this is real...its just like asking to murder someone in broad daylight in the middle of the marketplace with everyone there...just have an option that everyone covers their faces with their palms so they dont see what happens
1