Players Need More Control Over Justice System Choices

Imryll · March 2015

Govalon wrote: »

Welcome to Elder Scrolls. This is exactly how it is supposed to work if the intention is to make thieving-system like in single player games.

In that case they left out the reload option. ;-)

That said, the justice system has been less intrusive than I feared, at least since I found the option not accidentally to attack innocents.

starkerealm · March 2015

ZOS_MandiParker wrote: »

Further, having a “No Theft” toggle would remove interactivity in the world and it would eliminate one of the few non-combat risks that people might encounter. Sometimes even the most careful player will run into a hostile monster by accident (and sometimes they get killed by this), but we do not allow players to toggle off hostility. That would be quite odd, right?

I'm sorry, are you literally claiming that having a player's character choose to pick up and pocket an item against the wishes of that player is an intended element of difficulty?

Or, put another way, are you quite literally claiming that the poor design choices in effect here are only to screw over players?

fromtesonlineb16_ESO · March 2015

starkerealm wrote: »

ZOS_MandiParker wrote: »

Further, having a “No Theft” toggle would remove interactivity in the world and it would eliminate one of the few non-combat risks that people might encounter. Sometimes even the most careful player will run into a hostile monster by accident (and sometimes they get killed by this), but we do not allow players to toggle off hostility. That would be quite odd, right?

I'm sorry, are you literally claiming that having a player's character choose to pick up and pocket an item against the wishes of that player is an intended element of difficulty?

Or, put another way, are you quite literally claiming that the poor design choices in effect here are only to screw over players?

This.

starkerealm · March 2015

Bloodfang wrote: »

It's obvious we need a Prison System.

That would effectively end the game for some players.

We're already seeing cases in zone where a newbie will accidentally pick up something they shouldn't, get attacked by a guard, fight back (raising their bounty in the process) and, after being snuffed two or three times, come onto zone asking how are they supposed to get 3k to pay off their bounty or how to avoid dying to the guards.

A prison system would effectively eliminate their character from the game. Unless you mean the prison sentence would be served instantly, and chew on their skill progression (without the ability to actually lose levels), in which case that would be a good way for new players to get a fresh start, if they racked up a bounty that was well beyond what they could hope to generate in game at their level.

starkerealm · March 2015

Kragorn wrote: »

ZOS_MandiParker wrote: »

that’s how it is in the Elder Scrolls series.

Sorry, you really can't seriously be saying that if it's in TES it must be in ESO.

On that basis there's a SWATHE of stuff far more important to many players than Justice which you've not implemented and repeatedly say you have no plans for .. Spellcrafting, Housing, Unarmed Fighting, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Simply justifying Justice's existence in the way you are is at best disingenuous .. and comparing disabling accidental stealing with being able to disable mob aggro really is scraping the barrel for a justification for not doing it.

Reloading from a prior save to revert from unintended actions, perhaps?

Avrith · March 2015

The potential for abuse of an "opt-out" toggle is most likely at the heart of developer concerns to be honest. It's one thing to give a player the option to turn on/off their ability to target "neutral" NPCs, but it's another altogether to be able to bypass, at will, an entire element of the game. I can understand the concern, but I can't say that it carries a lot of weight as it is an easily handled design hurdle.

If you choose to opt-out of the ability to steal anything you should be able to. However, should you change your mind there should be a 24 hour cool-down before you can change your option again. This prevents abuse of the toggle to "cherry pick" your participation in the justice system. Let me clarify by providing an example of what I mean:

Player A opts-out of "Justice" and thus cannot steal anything. However, they peek into a desk one day and notice, much to their shocked joy, an Imperial Motif book. They quickly toggle the "justice" opt-out back to allow them to loot the Motif. Now, with their ill-gotten gain safely in their bags they once again opt-out of the justice system.

That is abusing the system and is exactly what a significant portion of the player population would do if they could.

So, my design suggestion would be this:

Provide the option to flag as: "Upstanding Citizen", "Neutral" or "Outlaw/Vigilante".
- Upstanding Citizens: This option prevents all stealing, attacking neutral NPCs, and entering of Outlaw Dens. It will also prevent all abilities/mechanics initiated by an Upstanding Citizen from targeting/affecting any other player that is not also set to an Upstanding Citizen state. This means no healing, buffing, or even grouping between the three citizen types.
- Neutral citizens: This state is effectively what the game is at now. It's purely "player beware" when it comes to participation in the Justice system.
- Outlaw/Vigilante: This option is for players who want to fully immerse themselves in the Justice system as either a criminal or Vigilante/Bounty Hunter. In other words, this is the full-PvP option.
Set a 24 hour "cool-down" on the ability to change between participation states.
Provide the sub-option for Neutral citizens to prevent attacking neutral NPCs (just like we have right now).
Provide the sub-option for Neutral citizens to prevent abilities/mechanics from affecting any citizen (Neutral or Outlaw) that have an active bounty. This option would exist to prevent those awkward "oh crap" mistake moments where your friend accidentally stole an apple right as you cast a heal. ...though why this would be happening is anyone's guess, it's better to plan ahead.
Increase bounty costs for those flagged as Outlaw/Vigilante, but also increase the monetary rewards for fencing items. This provides a much more realistic "risk vs reward" scenario. Likewise, for Vigilante/Bounty Hunter characters the risks of accidentally injuring/killing neutral NPCs during their pursuit of justice can carry larger risks in the form of their own [increased] bounty, but larger bounty rewards as well.
Provide a "return" mechanism on stolen items. Any item accidentally stolen can be "returned" at no penalty. Right-click on the item and select "Return Stolen Property" within 2 minutes of the theft and X feet of the site of the theft. If you are caught by the guard immediately after the theft (within the 2 minute return window and within X feet of the theft location) the guard will give you the option to simply Return the item with no bounty/cost associated.
Lastly, and most controversially, remove the ability to "clean" items with a fence for later selling/use/banking. This prevents people from abusing the mechanics and getting around them with alts/friends/guilds. Instead, implement a Black Market store option for guilds.
- All guild merchants in Outlaw Dens would be converted to Black Market Traders.
- All Black Market Traders would only accept "stolen" goods for sell and would have a higher listing price.
- Only players flagged as "Outlaw/Vigilante" may use a Black Market Trader.
- All items would have a minimum bid value based on the item's quality and type (i.e. normal quality would be lower minimum bid value than rare, but a rare motif might have a higher minimum than a rare recipe).
- In order to incentivize the use of these traders by guilds/players provide XP gain in the Legerdemain skill line (and only the skill, not general level or champ xp) for every sale.
- Once an item has been purchased from the Black Market it is no longer flagged as "stolen" and may be traded/resold/banked as normal.

Just my thoughts. Hopefully they'll spark an idea or two with the developers that will help get everyone what they want out of the Justice system.

starkerealm · March 2015

Avrith wrote: »

The potential for abuse of an "opt-out" toggle is most likely at the heart of developer concerns to be honest. It's one thing to give a player the option to turn on/off their ability to target "neutral" NPCs, but it's another altogether to be able to bypass, at will, an entire element of the game. I can understand the concern, but I can't say that it carries a lot of weight as it is an easily handled design hurdle.

I'm glad you think that, because no one is asking for that. The only people suggesting an op out toggle are users who want to say that this is unfeasible. What's being suggested over and over is that taking owned items should be something that can be locked out, exactly the same way the targeting "innocents" lockout applies. One that, if turned on, doesn't even see an interact prompt when hovering over owned items.

And then someone comes along, props up their straw man and says, "lolz you just want to farm motifs again." No, I don't. That's not what this discussion has been about.

Avrith · March 2015

starkerealm wrote: »

Avrith wrote: »

The potential for abuse of an "opt-out" toggle is most likely at the heart of developer concerns to be honest. It's one thing to give a player the option to turn on/off their ability to target "neutral" NPCs, but it's another altogether to be able to bypass, at will, an entire element of the game. I can understand the concern, but I can't say that it carries a lot of weight as it is an easily handled design hurdle.

I'm glad you think that, because no one is asking for that. The only people suggesting an op out toggle are users who want to say that this is unfeasible. What's being suggested over and over is that taking owned items should be something that can be locked out, exactly the same way the targeting "innocents" lockout applies. One that, if turned on, doesn't even see an interact prompt when hovering over owned items.

And then someone comes along, props up their straw man and says, "lolz you just want to farm motifs again." No, I don't. That's not what this discussion has been about.

If you can toggle off the ability to take an owned item, and you can toggle off the ability to attack neutral NPCs you are effectively negating any unlawful activity your character could partake in (at this time). Thus, you are in fact effectively toggling off the entire Justice system for that character as it exists currently. That would be fine, but being able to toggle back and forth at-will would not be due to the abuse I described in my post.

The "straw man" argument regarding motifs is a weak one, but only due to the specific example. People would like to be able to obtain much sought-after items with impunity again, but most people are reasonable enough to not have that as a primary motivator for Justice changes. However, use the example from my prior post and swap "Imperial Motif" with a rare recipe the player had been hunting, or even an item with a trait they really needed.

The abuse doesn't come from a specific item, but the nature of the "on again/off again" participation in the system people would fall into. It's easy to say "this character doesn't steal", but will that hold up when that item you really want shows up in a desk or that provisioning ingredient you're missing is sitting on a counter right there? Most likely not because this is just a game and if you can effectively bypass Justice by a) hiding and b) toggling on/off your ability to steal.. well most people will grab what they need/want if there's no risk or consequence.

People say they don't want to be able to accidentally steal and I can completely understand and agree with that. I can even understand and support that people change their mind. So, give the ability to be safe and the ability to be risky, but ensure that the player has to live with the choice and not just use it to bypass game mechanics.

starkerealm · March 2015

Avrith wrote: »

The "straw man" argument regarding motifs is a weak one, but only due to the specific example.

Okay, I'm sorry, but I think I need to explain to you what a straw man fallacy is. This is where you invent an argument for the opposing side that you can easily refute, rather than addressing any of their points.

Except, oh my, lookie here.

Avrith wrote: »

Player A opts-out of "Justice" and thus cannot steal anything. However, they peek into a desk one day and notice, much to their shocked joy, an Imperial Motif book. They quickly toggle the "justice" opt-out back to allow them to loot the Motif. Now, with their ill-gotten gain safely in their bags they once again opt-out of the justice system.

Why, it's an argument you actually made.

Even more comically, this behavior is something you can currently engage in. Because unless you have phenomenally poor impulse control, finding an Imperial motif is a pretty decent sign to: STOP WHAT YOU'RE DOING RIGHT NOW AND RUN TO THE UNDERGROUND (if you have no bounty) or check your guild rosters or contacts list for someone in Cold Harbour and port to them (if you do have a bounty).

What's being talked about is locking out your ability to interact with any object, including peaking into containers for a thrill. If you want to do that, nothing in the current system prohibits it. If you just don't want to grab an axe that's literally hanging between you and a vendor, then you're out of luck.

Majic · March 2015

House Of Straw

Avrith wrote: »

People say they don't want to be able to accidentally steal and I can completely understand and agree with that. I can even understand and support that people change their mind. So, give the ability to be safe and the ability to be risky, but ensure that the player has to live with the choice and not just use it to bypass game mechanics.

I'm glad we agree, because that is exactly what I and every other player who has asked for it is asking for -- unless I missed a post somewhere, and I've been following the thread closely.

Which is why the argument against it is a straw man: no one is arguing for it.

The "Prevent Attacking Innocents" gameplay option is already in the game and, aside from its own treacherous bug*, does what a "Prevent Stealing" toggle would do: prevent players from accidentally doing something they don't want to do in the course of playing the game the way they want to.

A "Prevent Stealing" toggle would not remove bounties players have already accrued, nor allow them to commit crimes without receiving a bounty. It would simply make it easier to play the game without inadvertently stealing something.

It is not an unreasonable thing to want, which is why arguing against it is so unreasonable.

* The treacherous bug in question being, as mentioned in the OP, bounties acquired through untargeted heals on players who have a bounty. Since there's no way to know if players have a bounty, and therefore avoid getting a bounty for healing -- except for not healing other characters -- the only way to definitely avoid receiving a bounty for healing is to avoid healing other players altogether. That is, in fact, what I have chosen to do until it's fixed (goodbye multitarget healing morphs). Unfortunately, this constitutes yet another way in which ESO discourages players from helping each other, and that problem was bad enough before the justice system arrived (I love ESO, but it is hands down the most unfriendly MMO I've ever played. See GW2 for its polar opposite in that regard). It's another bad design choice that also needs fixing, but since we can technically "opt out" by not healing anyone but ourselves, it's still less of a nuisance than interface "gotchas" which affect every player at all times and can't be toggled off at all.

starkerealm · March 2015

Majic wrote: »

The "Prevent Attacking Innocents" gameplay option is already in the game and, aside from its own treacherous bug*...

Yeah. Tragically, that's actually, "working as intended." Which still just baffles the shank out of me.

Majic · March 2015

Voice Of The People

starkerealm wrote: »

Majic wrote: »

The "Prevent Attacking Innocents" gameplay option is already in the game and, aside from its own treacherous bug*...

Yeah. Tragically, that's actually, "working as intended." Which still just baffles the shank out of me.

Given the nature of game controllers, just wait until the console players get a load of these "features". I'm sure ZOS will be hearing back on that.

Which reminds me...

Aside from these delightfully productive debates in the ESO forums, I recommend that any player who doesn't like something about the game's design take advantage of the /feedback feature in-game.

I've already done so for both of these issues, and though they represent only one player's opinion among thousands (and admittedly may not ever be read at all), I imagine that in aggregate, anyway, /feedback metrics can be helpful to ZOS when assessing game design choices.

Knowledge is power, so let's make sure ZOS gains as much knowledge as possible.

starkerealm · March 2015

Vox Populi Vox Cannis

Majic wrote: »

Voice Of The People

starkerealm wrote: »

Majic wrote: »

The "Prevent Attacking Innocents" gameplay option is already in the game and, aside from its own treacherous bug*...

Yeah. Tragically, that's actually, "working as intended." Which still just baffles the shank out of me.

Given the nature of game controllers, just wait until the console players get a load of these "features". I'm sure ZOS will be hearing back on that.

Something about this that I'm still a little unsure of... so it could just be perceptive bias. Is it my imagination or are the interact boxes on world items considerably larger in ESO than in... say, Skyrim? Making it much easier to highlight an axe or sword on the ground.

Majic · March 2015

Life On The Inside

starkerealm wrote: »

Something about this that I'm still a little unsure of... so it could just be perceptive bias. Is it my imagination or are the interact boxes on world items considerably larger in ESO than in... say, Skyrim? Making it much easier to highlight an axe or sword on the ground.

I haven't played Skyrim since before ESO launched, so I really don't remember that aspect of the game. I don't remember it being a problem, though.

I can definitely say I don't remember encountering these sorts of problems with the justice system in Skyrim, which is one of the reasons why they seem so out-of-place in ESO.

As for interaction trigger boxes in ESO, they seem to vary substantially. Some NPCs seem to occlude interaction with objects behind them more broadly than others, though that's just an impression.

Objects definitely vary, with some trigger boxes being much larger than the visual size of the object. Others can be so much smaller than the object that I often find it best to switch to first-person view when thieving, just to be able to grab things like swords, stacks of coins and other objects on tables or in weapon racks.

It Takes A Thief

Which reminds me of something I don't think I've already mentioned. I'm not arguing in favor of a more user-friendly design for the justice system because I want to opt out of it. Quite the opposite.

Since Update 6 went live, I've been so enamored of the justice system that I've actually converted all eight of my characters to dedicated thieves. That includes reconfiguring two light armor wearers and three heavy armor wearers so that all eight of my characters are wearing medium armor now for the Improved Sneaking passives, which make thieving much easier.

So effectively, thanks to the justice system, I have my own personal thieves guild now.

As a now admitted thiefaholic who spends the majority of his ESO game time thieving these days, one thing I can say is when I feel like thieving, I'm definitely going to, but once I hit my fence limit for the day, I don't want to be bothered with extraneous prompts and dodgy interface shenanigans -- especially when I'm just trying to talk to a guild trader or a merchant.

And for me, anyway, that's what this is all about: a better gameplay experience.

As I said before, I have yet to see a sensible argument against a more user-friendly justice system posted to these forums, and so far, that observation stands.

nerevarine1138 · March 2015

I'm not sure when gamers started having problems with learning curves and consequences, but this thread is a really sad illustration of how no one wants to take responsibility for their own actions.

Majic · March 2015

A Sad Illustration

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

I'm not sure when gamers started having problems with learning curves and consequences, but this thread is a really sad illustration of how no one wants to take responsibility for their own actions.

The irony of condescension is that it never actually impresses anyone.

If you don't agree or want to understand what the problem is, that's fine, but posting these sorts of insulting barbs is precisely what ESO could do without, and I hope either you or the forum staff will put an end to it.

You are not convincing anyone with this gratuitous and counterproductive baiting.

WhimsyDragon · March 2015

Hey Majic -- nice sig! :P

nerevarine1138 · March 2015

Majic wrote: »

A Sad Illustration

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

I'm not sure when gamers started having problems with learning curves and consequences, but this thread is a really sad illustration of how no one wants to take responsibility for their own actions.

The irony of condescension is that it never actually impresses anyone.

If you don't agree or want to understand what the problem is, that's fine, but posting these sorts of insulting barbs is precisely what ESO could do without, and I hope either you or the forum staff will put an end to it.

You are not convincing anyone with this gratuitous and counterproductive baiting.

I can post multiple quotes from this thread literally saying that people can't handle not clicking on something, can't handle the minor consequences of not clicking on things, and one where the OP actually stated that they knew that this could be solved by being more careful, but that they didn't want to have to learn how to do that.

So please explain where I'm misstating the argument.

If you "accidentally" steal something, suck it up and pay your miniscule fine.

starkerealm · March 2015

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

I'm not sure when gamers started having problems with learning curves and consequences, but this thread is a really sad illustration of how no one wants to take responsibility for their own actions.

It always strikes me as ironic: You make comments about people taking responsibility for their actions and then try to squirm out of the posts that backhand you for the logical failures in your arguments.

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

I can post multiple quotes from this thread literally saying that people can't handle not clicking on something, can't handle the minor consequences of not clicking on things, and one where the OP actually stated that they knew that this could be solved by being more careful, but that they didn't want to have to learn how to do that.

With that many negations in a single sentence... I'm honestly not sure anyone's sure what you're saying in the end. I know what you're trying to say, but grammar matters.

I mean, I get it, you want development resources applied elsewhere, and are hoping for a game from "ye olde days" when people still understood to pronounce "ye" with a "th" instead of a "y," but, honestly, there's a reason we're not seeing a lot of games in the UO vein these days, and the ones that do take the "all exposed sharp edges" route tend to not have multimillion dollar budgets.

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

So please explain where I'm misstating the argument.

If I was sure which argument you were making? I would.

nerevarine1138 · March 2015

starkerealm wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

I'm not sure when gamers started having problems with learning curves and consequences, but this thread is a really sad illustration of how no one wants to take responsibility for their own actions.

It always strikes me as ironic: You make comments about people taking responsibility for their actions and then try to squirm out of the posts that backhand you for the logical failures in your arguments.

If anyone would like to actually point out a "logical failure" in my arguments, feel free. So far, all I've seen are people saying, "Well, I could just be more careful, but I don't want to have to do that."

starkerealm · March 2015

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

I'm not sure when gamers started having problems with learning curves and consequences, but this thread is a really sad illustration of how no one wants to take responsibility for their own actions.

It always strikes me as ironic: You make comments about people taking responsibility for their actions and then try to squirm out of the posts that backhand you for the logical failures in your arguments.

If anyone would like to actually point out a "logical failure" in my arguments, feel free. So far, all I've seen are people saying, "Well, I could just be more careful, but I don't want to have to do that."

You keep mistaking other people for yourself. It's kinda disturbing actually, when you think about it.

fromtesonlineb16_ESO · March 2015

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

I'm not sure when gamers started having problems with learning curves and consequences, but this thread is a really sad illustration of how no one wants to take responsibility for their own actions.

Turn of the century really, the kids of the 90s became the gamers of the 2000s and survey after survey shows on average they spend 10 hours on a game before moving on and are often the epitome of the "I want it and I want it NOW" segment.

starkerealm · March 2015

fromtesonlineb16_ESO wrote: »

nerevarine1138 wrote: »

I'm not sure when gamers started having problems with learning curves and consequences, but this thread is a really sad illustration of how no one wants to take responsibility for their own actions.

Turn of the century really, the kids of the 90s became the gamers of the 2000s and survey after survey shows on average they spend 10 hours on a game before moving on and are often the epitome of the "I want it and I want it NOW" segment.

Yeah, it has absolutly nothing to do with the gamers that were kids in the 90s, had tons of time to spend on games over the summer, but have grown into adults, with children of their own, full time jobs, and can't afford to throw 80 hours a week into video games... they don't exist. Right?

Ley · March 2015

Somehow, I've managed to get around in game without accidentally attacking anyone or stealing anything; it's amazing I know. I think the system is fine and have a hard time understanding why some players have such a difficult time with it. It's completely optional and takes a minimal effort to veer away from, for those who aren't interested. People who petition to have the justice system removed because they can't pay attention to the actions they commit in game, are being petty and selfish.

rayeab16_ESO · March 2015

actualy, i like what Avrith sugested the best of all (barring having 4 megaservers lol) as it gives nearly everyone what they want.
i think the players who like to sneaky-steal-stab-stab-STAB! would be happier being able to have more money for their nicked stuff, i think those who want to opt out would be happy simply being 'upstanding citizen number 2523' and those who are on the fence would take 'neutral citizen' happily.

but no matter what toggle, i allways said it should have a 24hour cooldown for any changes. on any characters.
(though as an 'upstanding citizen' i shouldnt be peaking into peoples owned containers ect, that should be turned off for me. it would be the 'neutral citizen' who was peaking lol)
so if mister neutral citizen peeks into a desk and finds the imperial motif book there, and goes 'whoopee *changes t sneaky thief setting and goes yoink!* all mine' he has to wait 24hours befor he can turn it off again. and he cant do it on any other character on that server/account so as to make him at least have to be carefull.

not everyone here wants to not be held accountable for their actions. some of us just realy realy dont want the option to steal, now its part of the setup. when it wasnt against the law to do so it was fine butnow it IS against the law (in the game) we dont want it part of our abilites, and want to guard against even the possability of it.

but a lot of players dont want us to be able to opt out. because we will make such nice tasty tears when the pvp segment goes live and they can troll us into oblivion with all the tricks and glitches they will work out

wraith808 · March 2015

Majic wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze how strenuously some people will argue against making improvements to the game.

I know why that's the case, but still, it never ceases to amaze me.

It's not about arguing against improvements. There are limited development resources, and suggesting an add-on as a possible option until such a time that they have less to worry about at the time, and de-prioritizing something that already has a few options to get around just makes sense.

I won't go into the options- as they've been beaten into the ground, from changes in settings, add-ons, and changes in habits. But they are there, and they do work- even for things that are sitting out in the open and doors/lockboxes.

It never ceases to amaze me how you can give someone a way to get around a problem, and because it doesn't come in the form that they want it to, they dismiss it out of hand.

Ley · March 2015

wraith808 wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze me how you can give someone a way to get around a problem, and because it doesn't come in the form that they want it to, they dismiss it out of hand.

I see a lot of that here.

Fleshreaper · March 2015

Tyr wrote: »

What are you talking about. Housing was only an expansion in Skyrim, Spellcrafting was being worked on as was only recently delayed in favor of DLC zones first, and unarmed fighting is already possible to a limited extent, but will be augmented with the Spellcrafting system.
Justice is central to all TES games and opting out of it is not something you should expect to be a priority for the reasons outlined already by Mindiparker.

Nope sorry, you are not correct. Skyrim, Oblivion, and even Morrowind had in game houses that the player purchased and could upgrade. Every major town in Skyrim had a house you could buy and upgrade after you completed the quests in that city. Oblivion was much the same way. Morrowind, only had three houses and the player had to pick one of the three. You picked your house by joining one of the in game Dunmer houses. Telvani (sp?) was the tree house over on the east side. There was one south of Balmorea and one more in the northeastern area. And TES does not equal ESO. In TES you had the option to reload a saved game, in an MMO you can not.

Here is the one thing that I find funny in all of this. In the genre RPG, (Role Playing Game. You are asking player to completely abandon the whole ROLE aspect because of a game mechanic. If the player decides to run a morally high ground player who would never steal. And then put in objects or mechanics that would cause a player to break out of their ROLE and ask them to simple say, oh well!

There have been a few really good ideas. I really don't care about the switch option, as it will not affect me one bit. I like the idea to have to enter stealth in order to be able to steal something. Another idea: if the player does pick up something and someone sees them, the NPC says, "I saw that" or some such thing. Then the player has an option on the picked up item to return it or drop it.

rayeab16_ESO · March 2015

and what about the players who will be joining us on consoles?
they cannot use add on options like we can.
what happens when they, with their clumsy controler based setups start accidentaly picking up stuff and getting horific bounties ect?

some of us dont like using add ons here. we prefer to leave the game as is. now i know a lot of players just cannot live without their add ons, but some of us simply dont use them.
and the console users wont have them ether, you can bet your backside of that.

why is it so hard for people to let a few players have some safety? wont there be enough noobs to gank once the system goes live (pvp segment) for you all to screw up, that you must cry foul on everyone what just wants to go about their PvE (as they were TOLD THEY COULD) without mincing them into a pulp and tebagging them?

the ONLY way those of us that want a 'no accidental stealing' toggle or a 'no law breaking' toggle can avoid this is simply by NOT PLAYING ANYMORE.
its not about being unable to stop yourself from peeking into boxes. i have been doing that since i came back. no boxes in town, no bags no desks, nothing. i dont even take everything i see (unless its a gathering node, because thats important to make sure stuff respawns) so its not even about having the willpower to not steal.
its that the way the world has been designed is its impossable at some times NOT TO STEAL STUFF. you cannot do it unless you stop interacting at all with the game.
even in the starter islands, its there. this setup where by you can steal without knowing it because there is too much interactive stuff to click on when you are moving.

when was the last time anyone of you moved one step at a time, and carefully moved one click at a time, to have to avoid getting into difficulties? its been a long time since anyone here has had to move so slowly and so precisely i bet.
but that is the way you are telling us we now have to go about our daily in game lives.
if you use any kind of speed, you are going to missclick. we cannot spend 3 hours simply doing our cooking, because there are stealable items hanging over the goram cooking pot! or hanging infront of the merchant. ir haging about infront of the trade station we want to use.

we are allready not stealing stuff but choice. we want to have the ability to not steal accidentaly ether.

starkerealm · March 2015

Ley wrote: »

Somehow, I've managed to get around in game without accidentally attacking anyone or stealing anything; it's amazing I know.

Not amazing. Just marginally fortunate.

Ley wrote: »

I think the system is fine and have a hard time understanding why some players have such a difficult time with it.

That's because it hasn't affected you yet. It'll come. Don't worry. I'd say, "on that day, I'd like to be there when it does," but, it'd be a lie. I really don't care that much. My bet would be you forget to turn on the innocent safety for a character and then accidentally slaughter an ally during a quest. But, you know, it could be a misclick too, those happen. But, I'm also not overly interested in being there the day you accidentally post a typo.

Ley wrote: »

It's completely optional and takes a minimal effort to veer away from, for those who aren't interested.

"Completely optional" you say? Yes. Please, tell me how you finished the quests in Koglen Village, or Ebonheart. Tell me about how you identified the thief in Marbruk... without engaging in the justice system that is completely optional. Please tell me how, you moved on to Glenumbra Gold under the "completely optional" system.

Ley wrote: »

People who petition to have the justice system removed because they can't pay attention to the actions they commit in game, are being petty and selfish.

Funny... I've always thought the, "it doesn't affect me personally so it must not be a real problem" crowd were the selfish ones.