jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

Zenimax has already stated there will be no PVP outside of cyrodill. So thats a dead issue.

They also stated that Imperial City would be launched soon after the game launched, then we get it as the 1st DLC instead almost a year later.

Things can and do change.

I was all for it.
Would have been much better than dealing with guards that I can only die to.
Could have set it to a bounty limit or a serious crime.
You killed a human npc? Bam bounty board.
Vet 16 vs level 10 should never have been brought up. Obviously there would have been a level range tied to whatever bounty the person was at. And if the thief got away from the bounty hunter they could have had an extra reward. If the thief killed the hunter an even bigger one.

Hell if they died to a bounty hunter they don't lose any of their money. The hunter just gets a reward.

Nothing about that would have forced anyone into pvp.

Justice will be very awesome imo, ive played alot oldskool MMO's where u had a kinda justice system also, ur character had a certain rank, from Cruesome to Knightly for example, and neutral. but it would build up, so if u were neutral - agresive, then u can get attacked by ppl who werent in a negative rank, but ppl in a negative rank couldnt attack others ecept if they changed a option to allow their character to "Free pvp" so they can fight anything, but with the penalty they can get attacked by everyone on sight.

and the more u kill after u put on "Free pvp" the more negative ur rank becomes, and the more ppl will be atracked once they see the red mark behind ur name saying" cruesome" or something or "criminal" in EsO case.

but to build a positive rank, u had to chase negative rankers, or by doing regular PvE and killing like 1000 mobs will grant a certain XP amount to rank up into higher positive ranks.

i got this experience from the very very very old mmo called "Metin2" maybe some ppl know the game and will aggree with me.

here i got a video of what i mean in Metin2, this guy follows friendly's, then turns on "free pvp" and kils everything xD, iknow he is a very strong player here, and i dont mean to make it a gank-fest, but just to show the rank system.
its a crappy old video, but i want to show u what i mean
as you can see, his name becomes orange when pvp is active in his option and he has red "Gemeen" in front of his name, meaning cruesome/false or whatever, and others have blue "Ridderlijk" wich means knightly for example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq8swF7_-BM

captainwolfos wrote: »

If they were to incorporate PVP in this manner, there must be a way to opt out.

When playing SWTOR I got duel requests so frequently, even after toggling auto-decline, that I literally had to resort to blocking anyone who even mentioned dueling to get them to leave me alone. Blocking people wouldn't even work here because of the block limit. Even here on the forums there's a block limit what the hell.

I don't want ESO turning into that.

On the whole, I'm probably biased because I prefer solo or (at a push) co-operative play to murder time fun time play, so take that for the hate speech that it is.

i agreee with the duelling stuff, but u can avoid ppl in EsO, u have to walk up to a person and hold F for interact, same like trade request, so it wont be anoyyin at all i think, but i agree those duel things are anoyying in alot of games.

Dubhliam wrote: »

srfrogg23 wrote: »

Kendaric wrote: »

jamesharv2005ub17_ESO wrote: »

Kendaric wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

Kendaric wrote: »

Sevalaricgirl wrote: »

ZOS has done the right thing. PvP does not belong in PvE areas. PvP in the justice system means that those who don't want to PvP won't be able to participate in the justice system. We're talking about ZOS. There is no way they can separate a PvP justice system and a PvE justice system.

The current justice system doesn't really punish you for breaking the law. That's why the PvP part of it is needed.

Even if ZOS were to change their stance and include the PvP part of the justice system,you wouldn't be denied taking part in the justice system. What you would be denied is 1) outright murdering NPCs, 2) blatant thievery and 3) obvious breaking and entering. You'd just have to be more careful with how you go about criminal activity to avoid getting caught and face the consequences.

But, let's face it...you just want to avoid the consequences.

And yes, I'm a pure PvE player who doesn't want to PvP at all.

No-one wants to avoid the consequences, but some of us want PvE consequences for PvE crimes in PvE areas. Telling those who don't want to participate in PvP that they can avoid doing so by excluding themselves from some of the PvE content is not a credible solution to the problem that always occurs when the two playstyles come into conflict with each other.

I'd be more than happy if we had PvE consequences, but we don't. The bounty decays so fast it's hardly worth having it in the first place.
The justice system needs a revamp, there needs to an incentive not to commit crimes and it needs to punishing enough for people to want to avoid that.
Justice PvP would have done that, but I am happy with anything that adds a real consequence to becoming a criminal.

Why would they want to stop people from enjoying their TG and Legenrdermain (prob spelled wrong) passive skills? This isnt the real world. There are different rules. The justice system is just fine. There is no need for players to enforce anything. Its a valid way of making money in the game. Two entire skill lines. But you want them to make it so anytime anyone tries to use said passive skills you can gank them.

No, what I want are actions to have consequences. As it stands, being a criminal is rewarding while being a law-abiding citizen is not, because there is an utter lack of consequences.
I don't like the thought of being forced into PvP, but as long as ZOS gives us no real PvE consequences I see PvP as the only other possible route.
If ZOS can come up with purely PvE consequences instead, all the better.

Are other players really going to "punish" your crimes in the game by killing you for getting caught while stealing some Grain from a crate?

It's not going to be "consequences", it's going to be "Hey! Level 30 with a Bounty! Time to use my 501 CP-Point VR 16 to stomp on them and laugh! LOLOLOL! Git Gud Scrub!"

People keep saying exactly this to show how problematic the Justice system would be.
How much bounty does stealing a grain give you?
Do guards attack you on sight if you have such a low bounty?
Then why the heck would you think other players could attack that same person?

And this i all ASSUMING that there would be no opt-in.
Which, of course, there would be.

It is player interaction that prolongs the longevity of the game.
Imagine the size of the population if all players had for the whole year is Craglorn.

PvE content is good, but it becomes obsolete for a very quick time after the update apart from dungeons and trials.

If ZOS continues with this PvE content only policy, they'll need to dish out new content before I can say DLC and still won't see much growth in population size.

It is easy to abandon a game, and not that easy to get new players.

What PvE only content policy? You've had Imperial City, and you're getting small scale PvP with arenas and dueling. Moreover, most of the class and race balancing changes are derived from PvP requests. All that's quite apart from the changes made to Cyrodiil PvP over the last couple of years and which will doubtless continue.

I'm a PvPer so I don't have any problem with PvP being a part of the justice system. However I think mandatory PvP will remove a lot of content for those who only like to PvE. But the thieves guild and dark brotherhood are also removing a lot of content for those who intend to Role Play a "good character". So we do need a Justice system of some kind with an equal amount of achievements.

So here is one way to do that without mandatory PvP.

Make an exclusive guard guild that allows it's players to see when a city is significantly robbed. Passives should include greater quest gold reward and cheaper vendor buy and sell prices as well as a greater chance at receiving filled soul gems. The guard will have one skill that will allow him to track down which houses have been robbed within a certain duration. When he casts it the house will glow red. The guard then enters the house and speaks to a resident who gives him a quest to track down the thief. When he takes the quest he gets two quests, one to find the local den and one to find the robbers name. The first quest will require the guard to search the house for clues and by assembling clues through a minigame the guard will determine the name of the robber. Once the name has been determined the robber will receive a sub bounty which increases his repair costs and vender costs until he clears it but does not cause any guard flagging. The difficulty of the minigame will be determined by how long the thief remained in the house. When a guard convicts a robber he in turn gets gold, and receives a vender cost buff, as well as a gold loot buff above the passive for an hour.

The larger quest will require that the guard find out who robbed 10 houses which will lead to evidence of a thieves den in the area. This quest has a time limit and once 5 houses have been searched the thieves guild will be notified that a guard is in search of a thieves den. If the guard reaches 10 houses he can enter the den and kill(arrest) every npc there and they will not respawn for 3 hours. For every arrested den the entire thieves guild fences suffer a 5% tax on merchandise. Now if the thieves guild wants to defend their den they can go to that cities den and start a quest to defend the den which will flag them for PvP while in that den. Once the first guard enters the den will be vulnerable for 10min. If the thieves win they get a stacking 5% better fence return for 3 hours. If the guards win they each get a significant flat gold reward as well as an item chance that can include high value consumables. Either victor also gets a 3% discount on guild marketplace items. The cost to cover this is taken from the game, not the seller.

I think a PVE ONLY dlc focused on law enforcement has grest potential. It should not ACTUALLY get in the way of the day to day functioning of the Thief dens etc, but there is a wealth of new and repeatsb content there.

Caravan escort missions would seem to offer an amazing amount of easily coding for repeatable and variable content.
Half dozen caravan companies.
Code for "follow road between two locations" in any zone. Say three per zone.
Scaled local adversaries say half dozen
Maybe three circumstances to complicate like logs blocking rosd, bridge down, lotsa traps or follow raiders to base if you lose.

6x47x6x3 on a random loop... that is forever fun.

STEVIL wrote: »

Caravan escort missions would seem to offer an amazing amount of easily coding for repeatable and variable content.

I would find the caravan escort pretty fun if there were certain high reward routes that left you open to pvp. Basically once you begin the quest you are flagged for PvP. You would still have non pvp routes but they wouldn't be as rewarding.

lordrichter wrote: »

A PVE series of tasks unlocks a mixed PVE/PVP option where opponents can opt-in as PVP opponents. What is the upside for defending the Den vs just ignoring it?

I created my own thread to flesh out the example I gave because it just started flowing after I made that comment. That thread is now spliced into this one and you can find the answer to your question in comment 672 right above your post.

Tandor wrote: »

Jaronking wrote: »

Personally I will others selfish because even with the countless ways to make this work like making this a toggle which will allow you to continue playing the game as it currently is but you still voted against a idea to make the game more enjoyable for others because you don't like it.

The problem is that PvPers weren't calling for a total opt-out toggle, they wanted to apply restrictions to that meaning that if you hit a certain bounty level you'd be automatically toggled back in, and if you didn't like that you could choose not to do the PvE content in the first place. That was a completely unacceptable proposition, but that's quite apart from the other objections to the PvP element of the Justice System that were being advanced, such as the desire to not have development resources diverted away from other more pressing issues, the desire not to have cities lagged out by PvP fights, and the desire not to start on the slippery slope of open world PvP, to name but three.

Thank you, however, for helping to prolong this thread as it illustrates very well why the two playstyles don't mix well together, and is a continuing reminder to ZOS that they took the right decision to keep the playstyles separate in future.

[edited for quote]

I believe Lefty mentions many times in his video that there should be an opt in opt out feature. Maybe others in the thread made it sound like there shouldn't be.

That said my feelings on this is if you choose to steal then you have already opt'd in to the system. There should be a degree of bounty before players are able to receive a bounty request to seek out a player for their crimes, similar to how the guards won't attack you on sight until your bounty reaches a set level.

For those extreme "care bears" that don't want any pvp then ZOS could implement an option in the settings to completely turn off the system and let it revert back to what we have now in the game. With the phasing in the game they could just be sent to a different phase or something.

Either way, hopefully @ZOS is paying attention to how popular this topic remains to be.

Armitas wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

Caravan escort missions would seem to offer an amazing amount of easily coding for repeatable and variable content.

I would find the caravan escort pretty fun if there were certain high reward routes that left you open to pvp. Basically once you begin the quest you are flagged for PvP. You would still have non pvp routes but they wouldn't be as rewarding.

I would be all for high risk options as long as they did not involve pvp. I think the appeal of dailies would go up if the "vet level" concept used in trials and dungeons were applicable to dailies of all sorts.

I personally dont buy into pvp deserving more rewards. Pvper ganking PVEer doesnt seem to deserve more credit. But then i am for maintaining PVP in only PVP zones.

Tandor wrote: »

NobleNerd wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

Jaronking wrote: »

Personally I will others selfish because even with the countless ways to make this work like making this a toggle which will allow you to continue playing the game as it currently is but you still voted against a idea to make the game more enjoyable for others because you don't like it.

The problem is that PvPers weren't calling for a total opt-out toggle, they wanted to apply restrictions to that meaning that if you hit a certain bounty level you'd be automatically toggled back in, and if you didn't like that you could choose not to do the PvE content in the first place. That was a completely unacceptable proposition, but that's quite apart from the other objections to the PvP element of the Justice System that were being advanced, such as the desire to not have development resources diverted away from other more pressing issues, the desire not to have cities lagged out by PvP fights, and the desire not to start on the slippery slope of open world PvP, to name but three.

Thank you, however, for helping to prolong this thread as it illustrates very well why the two playstyles don't mix well together, and is a continuing reminder to ZOS that they took the right decision to keep the playstyles separate in future.

[edited for quote]

I believe Lefty mentions many times in his video that there should be an opt in opt out feature. Maybe others in the thread made it sound like there shouldn't be.

That said my feelings on this is if you choose to steal then you have already opt'd in to the system. There should be a degree of bounty before players are able to receive a bounty request to seek out a player for their crimes, similar to how the guards won't attack you on sight until your bounty reaches a set level.

For those extreme "care bears" that don't want any pvp then ZOS could implement an option in the settings to completely turn off the system and let it revert back to what we have now in the game. With the phasing in the game they could just be sent to a different phase or something.

Either way, hopefully @ZOS is paying attention to how popular this topic remains to be.

Thanks, you have confirmed my point. PvPers don't want non-PvPers to be able to opt out completely from PvP penalties for PvE crimes in PvE areas, they want a bounty threshold set over which any PvE criminal is immediately opted in to PvP, and if they don't like it the non-PvPers can choose not to do the PvE content.

I see you completely missed the last part of my comment. Selective reading for the win.

I also like how they say this topic of open pvp player killing is popular. 99% of the responses have been negative and less than one tenth of one percent of the forum even bothered to read it.

NobleNerd wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

NobleNerd wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

Jaronking wrote: »

Personally I will others selfish because even with the countless ways to make this work like making this a toggle which will allow you to continue playing the game as it currently is but you still voted against a idea to make the game more enjoyable for others because you don't like it.

The problem is that PvPers weren't calling for a total opt-out toggle, they wanted to apply restrictions to that meaning that if you hit a certain bounty level you'd be automatically toggled back in, and if you didn't like that you could choose not to do the PvE content in the first place. That was a completely unacceptable proposition, but that's quite apart from the other objections to the PvP element of the Justice System that were being advanced, such as the desire to not have development resources diverted away from other more pressing issues, the desire not to have cities lagged out by PvP fights, and the desire not to start on the slippery slope of open world PvP, to name but three.

Thank you, however, for helping to prolong this thread as it illustrates very well why the two playstyles don't mix well together, and is a continuing reminder to ZOS that they took the right decision to keep the playstyles separate in future.

[edited for quote]

I believe Lefty mentions many times in his video that there should be an opt in opt out feature. Maybe others in the thread made it sound like there shouldn't be.

That said my feelings on this is if you choose to steal then you have already opt'd in to the system. There should be a degree of bounty before players are able to receive a bounty request to seek out a player for their crimes, similar to how the guards won't attack you on sight until your bounty reaches a set level.

For those extreme "care bears" that don't want any pvp then ZOS could implement an option in the settings to completely turn off the system and let it revert back to what we have now in the game. With the phasing in the game they could just be sent to a different phase or something.

Either way, hopefully @ZOS is paying attention to how popular this topic remains to be.

Thanks, you have confirmed my point. PvPers don't want non-PvPers to be able to opt out completely from PvP penalties for PvE crimes in PvE areas, they want a bounty threshold set over which any PvE criminal is immediately opted in to PvP, and if they don't like it the non-PvPers can choose not to do the PvE content.

I see you completely missed the last part of my comment. Selective reading for the win.

Not at all, you responded with your opinion which confirmed my earlier comment. The fact that you then tossed out the usual "carebear" insult at those who don't want to be drawn into any form of PvP in PvE areas doesn't alter your opinion in the matter as being that if someone has stolen something then they have opted in. Tossing a throwaway concession in their direction while insulting them doesn't change that.