This is a game that lets me kill entire towns full of zombie infested citizens and no other player has to see it, so that they can also come along and kill the town full of zombie infested citizens (or be morally 'right' and heal the entire town). It is technology called phased instancing that works very well and there is no reason that they cannot use it to allow people to go on murdering sprees for killing the town and suffering the PVE consequences or PVP consequences for the playstyle they chose. The entire quest system in this game for the first 50 levels is instanced to you and you alone.

They can absolutely write the criminal system in a PVE manner that your actions are never seen by any other PC, so you are the one that is misinformed. Stealing is already this way, those containers in town are instanced solely to me, me stealing does not impact your game at all as you can come right behind me and steal those same containers, so why do you insist I need to be punished by PVP for doing it?

It is not opt-in by choosing not to play as a thief or murder, when every past TES game has promoted this as a gameplay feature. The only opt-in is giving people a choice of having NPC or PC guards in their game based on their choices for PVE or PVP play, and not telling PVE players they will be subject to PVP punishment when their PVE play did not impact any other player at all. Since my behavior did not affect other players, I should be given the choice to be able to run from NPC guards for stealing a simple sweet roll and even trying to kill them as I get away, and getting a huge NPC bounty imposed on me because of it.

In skyrim if I stole a sweet roll from a NPC house, odds where high if they did not like me they would send mercenary thugs after me repeatedly forcing me to kill the thugs, and even go kill the one that took out the contract often putting me in the position of now having a high bounty in town because I became a murderer. So yes I do know Skyrim very well, my thieves always managed to get themselves into more trouble than they intended to, simply because I knew as a player that made the game much more fun. It is not upto you to say that means PVP punishment for doing that is more fun.

If you see yourself as a griefer in this poll that is your problem, it very clearly says a no vote is a vote for PVP consequences only (i.e. leave the system as currently shown at Quakecon with no choice for PVE/PVP guards) it says absolutely nothing about griefing which is a problem in both PVP and PVE systems that other players can annoy other players.

Yes they can write a purely PVE criminal system that has nothing to do with PVP, one that allows players to kill every merchant and banker and quest giver and prevent other players from playing the game, but there is absolutely nothing in the poll that says voting for PVE consequences enables any of that. That is just stupidly bad design decisions on the part of programmers, when they have phased instancing that will not impose others gameplay behavior on others regardless of them being PVE griefers.

For example, the devs have already changed the game to share dungeon chests because of PVE griefers avoiding the mobs and headed straight for the chests rewards. Of course they could have avoided that issue entirely in the first place if they had made the choice to instance reward chests like many MMO do because to do otherwise invites griefing. But there is nothing exlusive about griefers that means PVP only, and this poll both the yes and now votes are allowing PVP, it is only about should there be a choice to not have PVP consequences in my game.

I think player guards should gain an arrest passive that works like a synergy. bringing up the option for criminals to choose their fate, just like an NPC guard. An optional jail system would be needed, if it's a guard player you think you can escape or kill use run option or obviously pay off your bounty as a gold sink. Guards should be able to gain some sort of currency for catching criminals, maybe a daily like Cyrodiil. Put a time limit on the option menu, if they take too long to choose they will be automatic KOS or sent to jail.

The jail system can work similar to the Wayshrine system. Your bounty will start ticking down awhile you are in jail, 1 min = 300g?? Should also have it so you can only be KOS after you resist arrest from either a player or guard. If you manage to escape a timer for KOS will tick down, making it so you would have to be arrested again. Would also be a must for sneak to work on all friendly players outside of your group, making you invisible to everyone not nearby. Could have jail time work like researching, time will still tick down while logged out. This will help players with a massive bounty pay it off, and give incentive for criminals to continue to be criminals. Could also gain a skill from TG or champion tree to allow players to break out after they have lowered their bounty. Bounties are specific to regions, if you mess up in Grautwood your fine in Auridon, or maybe limit it to cities/towns?

The issue stands of low level player guards arresting high level players. Maybe have lower guards scale up to the player they arrest or level 50, so they have some sort of fighting chance, have it be a buff that lasts 5 mins outside of the city and doesn't tick down while in the city.

KariTR wrote: »

Attacked by an NPC guard or attacked by a player-character guard. Why do some people have such a problem with the latter? I really don't get it.

Which is exactly why it should not be up to you to make the choice for other players that for whatever reason have decided they do not want to play PVP, it should only be their own choice. Many an MMO has recognized this and have always made PVP invisible to those who want no part of it. Even the spritual succesor to Ultima Online (Shroud of the Avatar) has made the choice that players will get to flag themselves as PVE only so that they never see any PVP in their game, and they are also using a megaserver phased instancing technology. They was testing their PVP systems in last weekends alpha so if you are itching for duels or arena PVP with other players flagged as PVP you should go try it for next months alpha test. Like ESO it uses a restricted hand of abilities, with the difference that you can optionally have it change dynamically (giving it the dynamic randomness of a Magic the Gathering card game if you choose).

Since they do not get to engage in world PVP , PVP guilds spend all their time on forum PVP instead. Many games started adding game login polls for truly gaging player opinion because they know this sort of thing goes on in forums. The only difference between the polls is adding the 'other explain' option and 'remove PVP guards entirely' option, both are just low split votes categories. Otherwise it is the same poll of do you want to have Quakecon only as shown with PVP guards, or do you want players to have the choice to choose PVE guards for themselves.

yarnevk wrote: »

This is a game that lets me kill entire towns full of zombie infested citizens and no other player has to see it, so that they can also come along and kill the town full of zombie infested citizens (or be morally 'right' and heal the entire town). It is technology called phased instancing that works very well and there is no reason that they cannot use it to allow people to go on murdering sprees for killing the town and suffering the PVE consequences or PVP consequences for the playstyle they chose. The entire quest system in this game for the first 50 levels is instanced to you and you alone.

They can absolutely write the criminal system in a PVE manner that your actions are never seen by any other PC, so you are the one that is misinformed. Stealing is already this way, those containers in town are instanced solely to me, me stealing does not impact your game at all as you can come right behind me and steal those same containers, so why do you insist I need to be punished by PVP for doing it?

It is not opt-in by choosing not to play as a thief or murder, when every past TES game has promoted this as a gameplay feature. The only opt-in is giving people a choice of having NPC or PC guards in their game based on their choices for PVE or PVP play, and not telling PVE players they will be subject to PVP punishment when their PVE play did not impact any other player at all. Since my behavior did not affect other players, I should be given the choice to be able to run from NPC guards for stealing a simple sweet roll and even trying to kill them as I get away, and getting a huge NPC bounty imposed on me because of it.

In skyrim if I stole a sweet roll from a NPC house, odds where high if they did not like me they would send mercenary thugs after me repeatedly forcing me to kill the thugs, and even go kill the one that took out the contract often putting me in the position of now having a high bounty in town because I became a murderer. So yes I do know Skyrim very well, my thieves always managed to get themselves into more trouble than they intended to, simply because I knew as a player that made the game much more fun. It is not upto you to say that means PVP punishment for doing that is more fun.

If you see yourself as a griefer in this poll that is your problem, it very clearly says a no vote is a vote for PVP consequences only (i.e. leave the system as currently shown at Quakecon with no choice for PVE/PVP guards) it says absolutely nothing about griefing which is a problem in both PVP and PVE systems that other players can annoy other players.

Yes they can write a purely PVE criminal system that has nothing to do with PVP, one that allows players to kill every merchant and banker and quest giver and prevent other players from playing the game, but there is absolutely nothing in the poll that says voting for PVE consequences enables any of that. That is just stupidly bad design decisions on the part of programmers, when they have phased instancing that will not impose others gameplay behavior on others regardless of them being PVE griefers.

For example, the devs have already changed the game to share dungeon chests because of PVE griefers avoiding the mobs and headed straight for the chests rewards. Of course they could have avoided that issue entirely in the first place if they had made the choice to instance reward chests like many MMO do because to do otherwise invites griefing. But there is nothing exlusive about griefers that means PVP only, and this poll both the yes and now votes are allowing PVP, it is only about should there be a choice to not have PVP consequences in my game.

---

yarnevk said: "...when every past TES game has promoted this as a gameplay feature."

THIS is an MMO set in the future with familiar elements of the ES settings.
As we have seen globally since launch, THIS is NOT a single player ES console offline game, nor is there some arbitrary ruleset which commands complete adherence to these former ES single player games made years ago.

(*) I'm SO looking forward to more details being cleared up by ZOS so we MMO players, both PvP and PvE can get facts to back up our zealous disagreement!

This poll is flawed in that there's no option for a mix of PVP and PVE elements in the justice system. All you're doing is weakening your position by creating such a rigged poll. It's pretty laughable, all considered. Your attempts to avoid valid points that counter yours and botched efforts like this aren't doing anything to help your cause.

At best, you should just stop posting and hoping someone who is better able to articulate your thoughts comes along to campaign for your PVE only variant of the justice system; a variant that is unlikely to happen.

babylon wrote: »

Halorin wrote: »

babylon wrote: »

magnusnet wrote: »

babylon wrote: »

magnusnet wrote: »

babylon wrote: »

yarnevk wrote: »

Because as a PVP player it will be the only way to flag yourself saying I am looking for some PVP, look player guards I just stole a sweetroll and have a bounty catch me if you can. If PVP in town outside cyrodil is so darn attractive that PVP players are calling for an even wider open world PVP, there should be no shortage of players willing to flag themselves as consensual PVP criminals...But PVPers need to understand that having PC guards will not be seen as enjoyable to many PVErs and thus they will have to satisfy themselves only with PVP criminals that find PVP enjoyable. Why would you want to ruin someones game by forcing them into a playstyle that is not enjoyable for them?

Exactly - it seems to me that gaining a bounty is a reward to pvp players, and a punishment to pve players.

Why is ZOS making a system that punishes the majority of its player base and rewards a minority, effectively feeding the majority to the minority pvp players as content?

The system needs to be revamped with pve as an option.

You have no statistics nor a clue about what the majority wants, you should stop speaking for them.

People are just asking for a pve option, why are you so against giving people options, unless you want pve players fed to you as suggested above.

http://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/discussion/122965/an-actual-poll-about-the-justice-system#latest <== looks like you do represent a minority.

No that guy just got his entire guild to vote in there - within two minutes of the post going up, the poll had been voted on. LOLbiaspoll.

Are you even real? This poll is infinitely more biased than the other one. The other allowed for representation of people who liked what's currently known, for people who wanted no PVP at all, and people had an opinion that didn't fit set options so they could explain it.

This poll has two options, one where someone completely agrees with the OP, or where they apparently have only one viewpoint on the justice system.

You guys are making frauds of yourselves. It's funny, and sad.

Let's see, the one poll which went up and within minutes had about 50 YES votes and which goes against every other single poll in the forum on world pvp, vs this poll which was up for a very long time and runs parallel to every other poll on world pvp.

Wonder which poll was rigged again? Not this one.

This poll has no representation of mixing PVE and PVP elements into the justice system, which is what the system is strongly suggested to be. So this poll makes no sense because it gives no representation of people who want a mix.

This conspiracy you have about some guild voting in the poll is both hilarious and contradictory.

You've presented absolutely no proof that some guild all voted at once to express their opinion. But even if that was the case, each person in that guild has a right to voice their opinion and show it via a poll. That poll gave an option for people that wanted to have a PVE option, and those votes are clearly in the minority.

How do you feel you can try to make it seem like group representation is a bad thing when you've tried to use 'we' as some means to add leverage to your own argument?

babylon wrote: »

We are asking for a pve option, and if the devs are listening, they'll find a way to make it happen.

If not, they won't be giving us what we want and this entire system will go to waste and also cause loads of exploit issues and headaches for ZOS.

This is a quote from you in this thread. Why didn't all of these people you represent come in to vote for that poll then? Why aren't they here?

You're tossing out some conspiracy theory as to why you got seriously outvoted in the other poll, and making a hypocrite of yourself by suggesting that group representation in cases where there is demonstrable proof (poll voting) is bad but it's good when it's just you claiming to speak for more than just yourself when in truth those numbers don't pan out.

If there is a case to be made for a PVE-only variant of the justice system, it shouldn't be made by you.

In a poll where someone had the choice of saying they like the current course of the justice system or if they'd rather be able to flag themselves for PVP if they wanted, 68% of the votes say people are fine with the current course. 14% want a flagging option. There are over 100 votes in that poll.

This poll does not give an option that represents my opinion, that there should be a mix, so I am not going to vote. As other people have said. There's not even an other option.

I'm still waiting for you to respond on how you feel it's okay to speak for a group of people but suggest it's a bad thing that someone else gets group representation in a poll to prove the people back their opinions actually exist.

I've watched you wholesale ignore the majority of the valid points presented to you, so it's clear you just try to skip over things you have no response for.

I hope you prepare for disappointment, and that you accept that you won't always get what you want. Because people seem largely ecstatic for mixed PVE and PVP elements, and the developers are in favor it to prevent exploitation.

Looking forward to seeing you out there, law breaker.

None so blind...

Halorin wrote: »

In a poll where someone had the choice of saying they like the current course of the justice system or if they'd rather be able to flag themselves for PVP if they wanted, 68% of the votes say people are fine with the current course. 14% want a flagging option. There are over 100 votes in that poll.

This poll does not give an option that represents my opinion, that there should be a mix, so I am not going to vote. As other people have said. There's not even an other option.

I'm still waiting for you to respond on how you feel it's okay to speak for a group of people but suggest it's a bad thing that someone else gets group representation in a poll to prove the people back their opinions actually exist.

I've watched you wholesale ignore the majority of the valid points presented to you, so it's clear you just try to skip over things you have no response for.

I hope you prepare for disappointment, and that you accept that you won't always get what you want. Because people seem largely ecstatic for mixed PVE and PVP elements, and the developers are in favor it to prevent exploitation.

Looking forward to seeing you out there, law breaker.

Especially that it will be optional in the sense that since stealing and murdering, will have consequences, people will be weary to do so. And heck, you only get caught if you're not paying attention. How hard is it to not press E on a crate when you're not in HIDDEN state.

We should be glad one isn't flagged for PVP if he gets caught killing by a player even if he's in hidden state.

IMO, I only see good interaction between players and more RP out of the JS

babylon wrote: »

Halorin wrote: »

unless there are serious differences between the rewards, no one is going to take the added risk of being attacked by another player.

Then that's a problem with the pvp community. If people prefer pve then give them pve.

What is being suggested is making a pve option. If people choose to pve then that's what people want. You're pretty much confirming what is happening is forced pvp under this system. Same as the forced grouping in vet zones needed to be reconsidered as a failed concept, so will forced pvp. Might as well start it off as an option rather than trying to force things again - we've seen this simply does not work.

The justice system needs to get back to the emphasis on being good or bad rather than choosing whether or not to pvp. The justice system is really going to be largely going to waste unless pve is an option here.

If people want PVE, there are a plethora of options for that. I'm sure there will be a quest line for the Thieves' guild much like there was for the guilds in the game now that will likely be solo instance PVE thievery to scratch that itch, but almost every instance of dynamic, regenerative content has PVP elements in it. And rightfully so.

Just as no one should have an expectation that the Imperial City should have a PVE-only version, no one should expect that the justice system have a PVE-only version.

The justice system, in its current proposal, is purely about being good or bad. You just are trying to make it about PVP. Your last statement has absolutely no value, because I could just as easily say 'The justice system is really going to be largely going to waste unless PVP is mixed in there'.

The most you can hope for is that there's a threshold your bounty has to cross before you can be flagged as a bounty that can be had by a player guard. And like I've said before, I hope that the rewards there are so miniscule and limited that players are incentivized to go for bigger rewards at the risk of being attacked by other players.

But in an ideal world, if I become a player guard and I see you committing a crime, I should be able to come over and bust your head wide open and haul you off to jail. Because that would be true to the Elder Scrolls franchise of a person affecting the world.

You talk like once you steal, you'll be tagged for PVP forever. What's the difference if get owned by a NPC guard or a player guard? Isn't it the same result?