QOL for thieves and other types of criminals i guess

Kwoung

hafgood wrote: »

Oh and I'm still lost as to how this improves my gameplay?

It's doesn't... not one proponent in favor of it has said anything that can't be summed up as "Legalized Griefing".

VaranisArano

Kwoung wrote: »

hafgood wrote: »

Oh and I'm still lost as to how this improves my gameplay?

It's doesn't... not one proponent in favor of it has said anything that can't be summed up as "Legalized Griefing".

I don't think "Legalized Griefing" is a bad thing when everyone participating can opt-in.

After all, that's how certain PVP-hating players would described Cyrodiil and Imperial City, when dying to an enemy player gets called griefing.

But they can opt-in and do, by queuing up for those zones.

And so in the same way, I think that letting Enforcers and Criminals opt-in to initiate duels with each other for extra rewards could be fun for the type of players who like that gameplay. When everyone gets to opt-in, it's not really griefing when you die to enemy players.

But unlike what the OP is suggesting, an Opt-in is a choice players can make to switch on/off this form of gameplay (preferably on a cooldown to prevent abuse.) It's not a direct result of gameplay as in, "Oh, I see you made a series of mistakes that brought you above the minimum bounty. I, the amazing Enforcer, am about to introduce you to the error of your thieving ways!"

Kwoung

VaranisArano wrote: »

Kwoung wrote: »

hafgood wrote: »

Oh and I'm still lost as to how this improves my gameplay?

It's doesn't... not one proponent in favor of it has said anything that can't be summed up as "Legalized Griefing".

I don't think "Legalized Griefing" is a bad thing when everyone participating can opt-in.

After all, that's how certain PVP-hating players would described Cyrodiil and Imperial City, when dying to an enemy player gets called griefing.

But they can opt-in and do, by queuing up for those zones.

And so in the same way, I think that letting Enforcers and Criminals opt-in to initiate duels with each other for extra rewards could be fun for the type of players who like that gameplay. When everyone gets to opt-in, it's not really griefing when you die to enemy players.

But unlike what the OP is suggesting, an Opt-in is a choice players can make to switch on/off this form of gameplay (preferably on a cooldown to prevent abuse.) It's not a direct result of gameplay as in, "Oh, I see you made a series of mistakes that brought you above the minimum bounty. I, the amazing Enforcer, am about to introduce you to the error of your thieving ways!"

Oh, I get all that. My comment was more based on not one of them agreeing it should be a two way street, even though it has been suggested numerous times. They simply want to be able to grief others with no risk to themselves whenever "they" want, and quite honestly, as a justice player I shouldn't have to opt-out of being griefed, I should be able to opt-in to hunting enforcers for fun and profit.

VaranisArano

Kwoung wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Kwoung wrote: »

hafgood wrote: »

Oh and I'm still lost as to how this improves my gameplay?

It's doesn't... not one proponent in favor of it has said anything that can't be summed up as "Legalized Griefing".

I don't think "Legalized Griefing" is a bad thing when everyone participating can opt-in.

After all, that's how certain PVP-hating players would described Cyrodiil and Imperial City, when dying to an enemy player gets called griefing.

But they can opt-in and do, by queuing up for those zones.

And so in the same way, I think that letting Enforcers and Criminals opt-in to initiate duels with each other for extra rewards could be fun for the type of players who like that gameplay. When everyone gets to opt-in, it's not really griefing when you die to enemy players.

But unlike what the OP is suggesting, an Opt-in is a choice players can make to switch on/off this form of gameplay (preferably on a cooldown to prevent abuse.) It's not a direct result of gameplay as in, "Oh, I see you made a series of mistakes that brought you above the minimum bounty. I, the amazing Enforcer, am about to introduce you to the error of your thieving ways!"

Oh, I get all that. My comment was more based on not one of them agreeing it should be a two way street, even though it has been suggested numerous times. They simply want to be able to grief others with no risk to themselves whenever "they" want, and quite honestly, as a justice player I shouldn't have to opt-out of being griefed, I should be able to opt-in to hunting enforcers for fun and profit.

Yeah, I can see this being a lot of fun for the people who would want to opt-in to be an Enforcer or a Criminal, providing both roles can initiate combat.

I can't see it being much fun for Criminals if they can't initiate duels. Even if you want to PVP, its boring to wait around and hope the other guy takes the bait.

I can't see it being fun at all for the people who wouldn't want to opt-in to either role to begin with. Best to let it be an optional addition to gameplay.

Kwoung

VaranisArano wrote: »

Kwoung wrote: »

VaranisArano wrote: »

Kwoung wrote: »

hafgood wrote: »

Oh and I'm still lost as to how this improves my gameplay?

It's doesn't... not one proponent in favor of it has said anything that can't be summed up as "Legalized Griefing".

I don't think "Legalized Griefing" is a bad thing when everyone participating can opt-in.

After all, that's how certain PVP-hating players would described Cyrodiil and Imperial City, when dying to an enemy player gets called griefing.

But they can opt-in and do, by queuing up for those zones.

And so in the same way, I think that letting Enforcers and Criminals opt-in to initiate duels with each other for extra rewards could be fun for the type of players who like that gameplay. When everyone gets to opt-in, it's not really griefing when you die to enemy players.

But unlike what the OP is suggesting, an Opt-in is a choice players can make to switch on/off this form of gameplay (preferably on a cooldown to prevent abuse.) It's not a direct result of gameplay as in, "Oh, I see you made a series of mistakes that brought you above the minimum bounty. I, the amazing Enforcer, am about to introduce you to the error of your thieving ways!"

Oh, I get all that. My comment was more based on not one of them agreeing it should be a two way street, even though it has been suggested numerous times. They simply want to be able to grief others with no risk to themselves whenever "they" want, and quite honestly, as a justice player I shouldn't have to opt-out of being griefed, I should be able to opt-in to hunting enforcers for fun and profit.

Yeah, I can see this being a lot of fun for the people who would want to opt-in to be an Enforcer or a Criminal, providing both roles can initiate combat.

I can't see it being much fun for Criminals if they can't initiate duels. Even if you want to PVP, its boring to wait around and hope the other guy takes the bait.

I can't see it being fun at all for the people who wouldn't want to opt-in to either role to begin with. Best to let it be an optional addition to gameplay.

I would go as far to say, once opted in, there should be no duel request as well. A simple strike from the shadows should be allowed... we are afterall talking about thieves and murders right?

Oh, and to be clear, the enforcers can have the same mechanic, if I get spotted, feel free to "enforce" if I have enabled that option. There would obviously need to be some sort of indicator allowing these players to spot each other, so someone can't just randomly spin around and flatten you with no warning. Enforcers would definitely need to have a noticeable mark/tag on them to alert to their presence, pretty much like the guard tag does on an NPC.

SilverBride

I'm a thief and assassin, not a PvPer. I don't think forcing players who don't PvP into duels is fair. However they could still have bounty hunters.

This is my suggestion:

Bounty hunters could apprehend the criminal, but the higher the criminal's skill the harder they would be to successfully apprehend. But the bounty hunter could also raise their own skill making them more effective. These skills would be passives and bounty hunters would be able to target the criminal the same way the criminal targets their victims.

Once apprehended the criminal would be turned over to the guards and the bounty would be paid. Gold would be paid by the guard, the amount depending on how high the bounty is, plus the bounty hunter would receive the items that were stolen or looted from the criminal's victims.

Also, the bounty hunter would have to be within a certain range of the criminal, depending on their and the criminal's skills, to apprehend them. And there would be a cooldown on how soon they could apprehend the same criminal again. And the bounty hunter would have to be flagged somehow so the criminal knows not to perform their acts in front of them, but this would also be dependent on the skills of both players.

I think a system like this would greatly reduce the chance of it being used for griefing.

Edited to add details.

Sparxlost

My suggestion would have any gold come out of the pockets of the player who lost the interaction

Your suggestion is a method to generate and farm gold that no one really earned

MissHeartseekerx

Sparxlost wrote: »

i didnt take the time to read all of that but you could always keep your bounty low How is that for optional?????

I did a DB quest last night. I suck at DB quests. My bounty racked up to over a thousand, because I suck (and I think my first time trying out Thieves Guild quests, my bounty hit well over 5k, because again, I'm bad). I didn't have a choice to keep my bounty low, because I'm still trying to learn how the stealth works in ESO compared to Oblivion/Skyrim. If PVP was forced on me for simply being bad at content I paid for, I would want a refund. It would fundamentally change how it works - I can escape a guard chasing me through town easily and get myself into a thieves den, but other players? No shot.

A player-driven justice system definitely interests me from an RP perspective, but it's gotta be COMPLETELY optional - as in, enable it in settings.

francesinhalover

Sparxlost wrote: »

Imagine if they totally beefed up the justice system in eso and as well as having an outlaws refuge in towns like if they added a few more hidden criminal utopia type towns to some zones.

Then they could make it so that whenever you entered a regular town if your bounty was high enough then upstanding players would be able to force you into a duel to claim as much of the bounty as you were carrying. In addition to this they could open up thieving quests at this point which would encourage you to keep thieving regular towns.
Thief towns would basically be regular towns like the size of Skywatch or others like that but hidden with a delve-type entrance. These kinds of "havens" there could be quests, shops, and crafting areas etc. and would be host to tons of lovely characters.
Stealing would be difficult and totally not worth it unless for a quest within the town as people who live there are aware of themselves and others. These places would also be guarded to protect residents and merchants from murderers and thieves-in-action, but there would be no bounty to gain from escaping these actions. Anyone could visit the towns, and maybe there would be incentive for upstanding players to like an auction house or something.
Wouldnt this make regular outlaws refuge areas obsolete? no because you would definitely still need somewhere to pay off bounties in case you wanted to be an upstanding citizen again.
How would i stop people from trying to duel me? Keep in mind that players wouldnt be able to see how much of a bounty you have so as long as you arent being shady in places you shouldnt be then things should be alright. though i get that there could be people who would go around initiating dual with anyone they can for quick cash i would suggest frequent stashing of gold or just hoarding treasure in your inventory instead... i imagine being a criminal is a high risk profession. maybe the thieves havens could outlaw violence altogether and disable dueling and bounty collecting altogether within. this way you would only be able to kill and rob npcs to get into trouble as the place is supposed to be safe. if you want your share of blood then maybe quests from residents can sate your hunger like go steal this item from this person or go find some stealthy way to assassinate or sabotage someone.

IDK i was thinking about how fun it is to play a slightly immoral character and really got into that sort of mindset.

Oh hell no, imperial city is already *bad word* no need for the rest of the game to also be for anyone doing db , thieves quests.

SilverBride

Sparxlost wrote: »

My suggestion would have any gold come out of the pockets of the player who lost the interaction

Your suggestion is a method to generate and farm gold that no one really earned

And when you kill a mob that drops gold how was that earned? How is killing a mob any different than catching a criminal? You perform a job and you get paid for it.

Farming other players for gold that comes out of another player's pockets is not a good idea. I'd never participate if that was how it's done.

Amottica

Sylvermynx wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

I think the main issue, and one that @VaranisArano brought up, is the greifing. Let us be real. Such a design is rife for groups or players to go after anyone with a bounty. That would drive players to abandon this aspect of the game or log out and swap to another character until the bounty wears off. Even AGS changed to an opt-in open-world PvP because they could not find a meaningful way to stop the greifing.

It is just too problematic which is probably why Zenimax abandoned a similar idea. For many of us, if we wanted to play an open-world PvP game we would probably be paying an open-world PvP game.

Eh, even in WoW and RIFT (opt in open world pvp) griefing still happened. A LOT. I don't know how it is now in those games (dropped WoW in early 2013, RIFT in early 2016, never been back to either one) so it could be different there now. I'd really hate to see that sort of thing here....

Yes, I have seen griefing in games that had an opt-in I do not think we have to worry about this here as Zenimax already considered completing the justice system so players could collect rewards for killing players with bounties. They abandoned the idea.

Sylvermynx

Amottica wrote: »

Sylvermynx wrote: »

Amottica wrote: »

I think the main issue, and one that @VaranisArano brought up, is the greifing. Let us be real. Such a design is rife for groups or players to go after anyone with a bounty. That would drive players to abandon this aspect of the game or log out and swap to another character until the bounty wears off. Even AGS changed to an opt-in open-world PvP because they could not find a meaningful way to stop the greifing.

It is just too problematic which is probably why Zenimax abandoned a similar idea. For many of us, if we wanted to play an open-world PvP game we would probably be paying an open-world PvP game.

Eh, even in WoW and RIFT (opt in open world pvp) griefing still happened. A LOT. I don't know how it is now in those games (dropped WoW in early 2013, RIFT in early 2016, never been back to either one) so it could be different there now. I'd really hate to see that sort of thing here....

Yes, I have seen griefing in games that had an opt-in I do not think we have to worry about this here as Zenimax already considered completing the justice system so players could collect rewards for killing players with bounties. They abandoned the idea.

Yeah, all these "clever" (not) backdoor pvp everywhere ploys.... Pretty sure ZOS is smarter than that.

Narvuntien

Coldharbour's hollow city is a criminal utopia there is no gaurds

Sparxlost

And when you kill a mob that drops gold how was that earned? How is killing a mob any different than catching a criminal? You perform a job and you get paid for it.

Farming other players for gold that comes out of another player's pockets is not a good idea. I'd never participate if that was how it's done. [/quote]

Mobs are there to be farmed is it okay to get buddies on a different faction to help you farm AP in cyrodiil???? is that not an exploit ?? If no one loses anything from losing then farming is an affordable option

alanmatillab16_ESO

Sparxlost wrote: »

Imagine if they totally beefed up the justice system in eso and as well as having an outlaws refuge in towns like if they added a few more hidden criminal utopia type towns to some zones.

Then they could make it so that whenever you entered a regular town if your bounty was high enough then upstanding players would be able to force you into a duel...

I stopped reading there. This suggestion has been made many times before and serves no function other than trying to bring open pvp in by the back door. They considered such a suggestion early in the development of the justice system and soon realised how bad an idea it was and binned it then.

Sparxlost

i get that its not probable and a weird thing to add for whatever reason you could come up with but if it were to be added this would be one of the easiest ways i think

TheImperfect

I don't like the pvp idea. if you can extend it to the PVP zone when you go there or make it an opt in system then maybe, I like the idea of advanced level thief quests.

LalMirchi

This is not a QOL at all and no thank you to vigilantes IMHO

BlueRaven

Sorry, this is just an awful, awful, awful idea.

VaranisArano

Sparxlost wrote: »

Mobs are there to be farmed is it okay to get buddies on a different faction to help you farm AP in cyrodiil???? is that not an exploit ?? If no one loses anything from losing then farming is an affordable option

The problem is that while generating gold for a reward is farmable, losing items to other players is extremely unpopular - see the people who gripe about losing their Tel Var in Imperial City.

It's like solving one problem, only to create another.

If you want the idea of Bounty Hunters to be popular with the majority of players, it's probably for the best that they don't lose much at all in terms of time or gold. If you force a system where they lose gold or time when someone initiates a duel with them, you'll only drive players out of Justice System content - see Imperial City, which is the emptiest zone outside of events.

Of course, I will note that any idea involving PVP is bound to be unpopular with a lot of players, so one of the benefits of having a true Opt-in system is that you can lean into the PVP elements like losing gold when you lose a fight and it will be okay with the players who actually like that type of PVP fighting in Imperial City and who want to Opt-in to this system.

I think you's be able to go closer to your original vision if you let people Opt-in and then design for the people who actually like the idea of mixing PVP in with their criminal enterprises and who are okay with losing time and gold when they lose a fight.

Sparxlost

Your argument is not good because it would already be optional even if there is no on or off button keeping your bounty low would be the on off button so to speak
Losing gold reduces your bounty as well so is not a complete loss

i dont think dooing this my way would hurt the game at all

ArchangelIsraphel

Sparxlost wrote: »

Your argument is not good because it would already be optional even if there is no on or off button keeping your bounty low would be the on off button so to speak
Losing gold reduces your bounty as well so is not a complete loss

i dont think dooing this my way would hurt the game at all

People paid for PVE content when they paid for DB/TG. They do not want to participate in PVP gameplay that completely changes already established PVE content. You are suggesting that people be forced into a system where they either:

1. Be forced to enter into the risk of pvp by playing in content they already paid for.
2. Are forced to "keep their bounty low" in content that was, again PVE only, in order to avoid the risk of PVP
3. Not giving them a choice to keep the PVE content they have already paid for and have been playing for years PVE only because you think that "keeping their bounty low" is an acceptable off switch.

If you want your idea to work, the PVE content that is already established in the game has to stay as it is with no alterations or special conditions where a thief or assassin has to "keep their bounty low" to avoid being subjected to unwanted PVP. They paid for the content as it is, and it needs to stay as it is. If something additional that does NOT effect the base content is added- that's fine, as long as there is an opt-in/opt-out. "Keeping your bounty low" is not an acceptable opt out because it changes the core of what TG/DB already is.

Even if we do have counterfeit pardon edicts we can spam to reduce our bounties, not having that off switch is still unacceptable. Those who want something to be PVE only want to feel safe from PVP- they do not want to sit on an ambiguous line they could accidentally cross at any moment.

It would hurt the game because, as Varanis stated, the imperial city is already much maligned and avoided by those who find the risk of loosing their Tel-Var to another unacceptable. This sort of system, without a off switch, would result in less sales of TG/DB content, less participation in it, and the eventual death of the system overall. Your enforcers would have nothing to enforce because no one would be inclined to play with them.

Please withdraw yourself from the RP aspects of your idea for a moment to consider the actual ramifications of what you are suggesting. I dabble in PVP when the fancy strikes me, but I like having a hard line between PVP and PVE unless I enter specific areas where they are mixed, and I want it to stay that way.

Vulkunne

Sparxlost wrote: »

Imagine if they totally beefed up the justice system in eso and as well as having an outlaws refuge in towns like if they added a few more hidden criminal utopia type towns to some zones.

Then they could make it so that whenever you entered a regular town if your bounty was high enough then upstanding players would be able to force you into a duel to claim as much of the bounty as you were carrying. In addition to this they could open up thieving quests at this point which would encourage you to keep thieving regular towns.
Thief towns would basically be regular towns like the size of Skywatch or others like that but hidden with a delve-type entrance. These kinds of "havens" there could be quests, shops, and crafting areas etc. and would be host to tons of lovely characters.
Stealing would be difficult and totally not worth it unless for a quest within the town as people who live there are aware of themselves and others. These places would also be guarded to protect residents and merchants from murderers and thieves-in-action, but there would be no bounty to gain from escaping these actions. Anyone could visit the towns, and maybe there would be incentive for upstanding players to like an auction house or something.
Wouldnt this make regular outlaws refuge areas obsolete? no because you would definitely still need somewhere to pay off bounties in case you wanted to be an upstanding citizen again.
How would i stop people from trying to duel me? Keep in mind that players wouldnt be able to see how much of a bounty you have so as long as you arent being shady in places you shouldnt be then things should be alright. though i get that there could be people who would go around initiating dual with anyone they can for quick cash i would suggest frequent stashing of gold or just hoarding treasure in your inventory instead... i imagine being a criminal is a high risk profession. maybe the thieves havens could outlaw violence altogether and disable dueling and bounty collecting altogether within. this way you would only be able to kill and rob npcs to get into trouble as the place is supposed to be safe. if you want your share of blood then maybe quests from residents can sate your hunger like go steal this item from this person or go find some stealthy way to assassinate or sabotage someone.

IDK i was thinking about how fun it is to play a slightly immoral character and really got into that sort of mindset.

This very idea was considered by many people back in the day except it wasn't a duel really, just flag the player for PvP at some point, which I support.

Alas, they didn't go too far with the justice system and what you have now is probably all there will ever be, Fun fun idea though.

wolfie1.0.

Sparxlost wrote: »

Your argument is not good because it would already be optional even if there is no on or off button keeping your bounty low would be the on off button so to speak
Losing gold reduces your bounty as well so is not a complete loss

i dont think dooing this my way would hurt the game at all

You won't gain traction here unless you can balance out your idea. As already mentioned There are mechanics in place right now where you could inadvertently or unintentionally get yourself above this threshold.

You indicate that bounty hunters would go out in the wild. No they won't, they will sit right outside each outlaws refuge entrance and camp. That's what I would do, and I probably would park a character at several and just trigger duels with everyone as the time ticks off.

Also you need to address what happens if an enforcer gets a bounty? What triggers then? It's entirely possible for this to happen. Do they Suddenly swap sides? That could be awkward.

Also consider how this would work in an mmo. So far you indicated that this would be done 1 v 1. But what happens if there are 50 enforcers who can challenge 1 their 50 times in a row.

Sparxlost

this goes without saying you can be an enforcer AND a criminal as criminals might be able to collect the bounty of other criminals

idk how easy it is to duel someone who is sprinting away from you but it is not worth my time after the first attempt i am not going to give chase but i will allow them a chance to accept justice
keep in mind that if you challenge one person then cant challenge another for awhile imagine how many criminals are going to escape after just challenging the first one you see??
and a bunch of enforcers ganging up to "grief" one criminal would be dumb because you would effectively waste the ability to bring justice on someone who either didnt have gold or didnt stick around to try and fight you....

There is a lot of honor in this and incentive to do it the right way but it is totally optional

pointless discussion i know

hafgood

No, there is no honour in it.

You effectively have Thieves and murderers. Forget the name Bounty Hunter because a bounty hunter doesn't kill his bounty, he subdues him and returns him to the courts.

What you are proposing is murder. Yes I know we can get back up again afterwards but that's besides the point.

And murderers deserve a huge bounty when they kill someone.

And there is no incentive in this, there is nothing that would improve the game. This is a license to grief and nothing else.

And you still have not answered my question - how is this a QOL for a thief or assassin? That's what's you billed it as but have yet to explain how it improves their gameplay??????

Merlin13KAGL

Sparxlost wrote: »

i realize the biggest problem with this is reward farming

say you are a bounty hunter and killed the bounty to obtain however much of the bounty they were carrying up to a max amount of 5k and then got a proof of bounty hunted the reward would have to be something small or basically insignificant to prevent farming

though thieves should be able to take gold from the other player after the duel is won as well i dont want there to be zero reward for the winner just because neither side was carrying any gold on them

So maybe good players will get transmutes or something

and criminals would get rewarded with high quality STOLEN but non laundered treasure which they could put towards their daily earnings???? i get that if you farmed with people every day this might be exploitable

• If the gold reward is generated by the system, it would be farmed/exploited.
• If it was changed to transmutes, either directly, or as a result of zero gold on character, it would definitely be exploited.
• If the gold is to come out of my pocket and into someone else's, I want the opportunity to acquire any inventory item or an equal amount of gold from an enforcer. If it's their only one, it should also be removed from their collections.

Do you see why this might be bit of an issue?

Plus, how would you know someone had a bounty unless you observed the crime? At a minimum, it would have to be a lead/locate type of scenario. The worldwide APB that goes out over small crimes is ridiculous as it is with NPC's. I'm pretty sure no one in Morrowind cares that I accidentally picked up a 150g item in Daggerfall.

Amottica

Sparxlost wrote: »

Your argument is not good because it would already be optional even if there is no on or off button keeping your bounty low would be the on off button so to speak
Losing gold reduces your bounty as well so is not a complete loss

i dont think dooing this my way would hurt the game at all

That’s not really optional. There are aspects of the game, quests, where bounties can happen as part of doing the quest. So it’s not optional for someone who is interested in playing the game.

My argument is sound

Sparxlost

not sure exactly how farmable those quests are for any reason other than levelling the respective guilds skill line but assuming you knew what you were getting into and not being the absolute worst out of pocket person and by that i mean since not being good at it nets you a huge bounty that you obviously have trouble affording hence the reason for this dumb argument, then you would realize that farming this quest back to back frequently might not be the most fun way to play the game

Bounty hunters are not murderers but some criminals are wanted dead or alive for their bounty i think you are talking about modern bounty hunting..

removing player equipped items would be overkill griefing a gold amount is not a big deal but that godroll dungeon set i farmed for weeks before they changed rng??? pf you are crazy transmutes arent exploitable

Sparxlost

Say the bumped the trigger up to 10k for it to be optional you would still have to kill a ton of people and get caught stealing a bunch its would almost be like you were TRYING to look bad i literally just killed every killable NPC in a tavern in glenumbra and barely got over a 5k bounty