Tandor wrote: »

ColoursYouHave wrote: »

All they needed was to make an "opt-in" option. By default, Justice System PVP is disabled, meaning if you steal something you still can't be attacked by other players. However, somebody could go into the settings and "opt-in", meaning other players could attack them if they had a bounty. This way, people who want to steal in peace can do so, and people who want to participate in Justice System PVP can choose to do so, and both groups of people are happy. But as we all know, ZOS hates giving players options, and would rather go for the "all-or-nothing" approach, so this isn't something we will ever see happen. As much as I want Justice System PVP, this really is getting to the point of beating a dead horse. Some players want it, others don't, and ZOS isn't willing to take the time to come up with something that works for both sides (even though the solution is fairly simple and has been suggested multiple times). Maybe if the game is still alive and well a couple years down the road they'd reconsider taking a look, but in the foreseeable future this simply isn't going to happen.

It wasn't ZOS who disliked the "opt-in" option, it was the PvPers. They were never happy to accept a total opt-out of PvP for PvErs committing PvE crimes in PvE areas, they wanted an automatic opt-in at a certain bounty level, thereby limiting the extent to which PvEers could participate in the PvE content.

In any event, I agree with you that the PvP element of the Justice System isn't going to happen and those still pursuing it are indeed beating the proverbial equine corpse. I don't think they will look at it again because they're introducing other forms of small-scale PvP in PvP areas including dueling instead.

I have no idea where you're getting this. There may have been some "PVPers" out there who just wanted to grief and pick on low level players, but many PVPers I spoke to would have absolutely loved this option. The only group of people who didn't like this were griefers, not real PVPers. There was a lengthy thread after they announced they were scraping the PVP portion of the Justice System where many PVPers agreed they would be 100% happy with some sort of opt-in system.

Edit: And from what I'd seen on some other threads, it was more PVE players than anybody arguing against some sort of opt-in, despite the fact that it would mean gameplay wouldn't change for them at all whatsoever.

Xylphan wrote: »

Dubhliam wrote: »

I already gave some of my suggestion on how it could be implemented in my thread that got closed.

One particular idea that is not intuitive to other players:
Veteran (PvP) heists/sacraments.
Just like regular heists/sacraments but available only for lvl 50+ players (you could even make those instances disable all CP passives).
The progress is the same, it would be a purely PvE content until one of the following occurs:
-you get spotted by a guard
-you put the place on high alert (5+ normal NPC sightings)
Law Enforcers can queue for that activity and are notified when an Outlaw is spotted in a heist or sacrament - giving them the option to enter that instance.
The Enforcer's goal inside that instance is to catch the Outlaw before the time limit expires.

The Outlaw's reward for successfully completing a "veteran heist/sacrament" is a high chance of getting gold gear (including Bahraha's and Syvarra's Jewelry).
The Enforcer's reward for catching an Outlaw can then easily be mirrored to reflect the reward of an Outlaw. I was thinking they would also gain (good) rewards from dailies (catch one Outlaw in a heist/sacrament).

Cool, except I can think of multiple ways to exploit that system without even trying.

Any PvP system that gives rewards can and will be gamed/exploited. In this case, vigilantism would rapidly give rise to what would amount to organized crime with players paying "protection" so they don't get constantly harassed by powerful guilds. In fact, there is historical precedent of exactly this happening in the real world when things like fire and police were handled by "for profit" organizations ("Nice house you have there, be a damn shame if anything were to happen to it").

The road to hell...er...Coldharbour is paved with good intentions. The PvP justice system stemmed from good intentions, but the strongest advocates care as much about justice as Malog Bal cares about putting you in warm comfy bed.

Could you elaborate please? It is an instanced location where neither the Outlaw nor the Enforcer choose who they get as an opponent.

No. They made the best choice in scrapping this idea.

It would be a disaster.

Dubhliam wrote: »

Xylphan wrote: »

Dubhliam wrote: »

I already gave some of my suggestion on how it could be implemented in my thread that got closed.

One particular idea that is not intuitive to other players:
Veteran (PvP) heists/sacraments.
Just like regular heists/sacraments but available only for lvl 50+ players (you could even make those instances disable all CP passives).
The progress is the same, it would be a purely PvE content until one of the following occurs:
-you get spotted by a guard
-you put the place on high alert (5+ normal NPC sightings)
Law Enforcers can queue for that activity and are notified when an Outlaw is spotted in a heist or sacrament - giving them the option to enter that instance.
The Enforcer's goal inside that instance is to catch the Outlaw before the time limit expires.

The Outlaw's reward for successfully completing a "veteran heist/sacrament" is a high chance of getting gold gear (including Bahraha's and Syvarra's Jewelry).
The Enforcer's reward for catching an Outlaw can then easily be mirrored to reflect the reward of an Outlaw. I was thinking they would also gain (good) rewards from dailies (catch one Outlaw in a heist/sacrament).

Cool, except I can think of multiple ways to exploit that system without even trying.

Any PvP system that gives rewards can and will be gamed/exploited. In this case, vigilantism would rapidly give rise to what would amount to organized crime with players paying "protection" so they don't get constantly harassed by powerful guilds. In fact, there is historical precedent of exactly this happening in the real world when things like fire and police were handled by "for profit" organizations ("Nice house you have there, be a damn shame if anything were to happen to it").

The road to hell...er...Coldharbour is paved with good intentions. The PvP justice system stemmed from good intentions, but the strongest advocates care as much about justice as Malog Bal cares about putting you in warm comfy bed.

Could you elaborate please? It is an instanced location where neither the Outlaw nor the Enforcer choose who they get as an opponent.

But they come from a pool of online players who are participating, correct? To game the system, all one needs to do is get a large enough group together so that statistically they're likely to be paired together. Worse, the people gaming the system WANT to get caught as opposed to everyone else who is trying to avoid it. That tilts the odds even more in their favor.

If they get matched against a "team mate", they roll over and play dead and split the reward. If they don't, they fight it out. Worst case is they lose, which just means they need to go get a big bounty again which takes hardly any time at all. If they win, then they just go and get caught again. Rinse and repeat

If the rewards are lucrative enough, multiple guilds would likely conspire together to milk the system. Similar intra/inter-guild shenanigans happens in Cyrodil.

Hence one of the fundamental problems with trying to develop the system. If there are no rewards, few will want to participate. Make the rewards too lucrative and people will actively find ways to manipulate the system.

Narnor wrote: »

First of all. Ita not "beating a dead horse" its writing about a greatly anticipated part of the game that alot of players have been looking forward to.

Secondly, i fully appreciate a discussion of dueling and/or arena. You can have opinions on 2 slightly different subjekts no?

Thirdly. This is an "how have you envisioned it/dreamed of it" thread. Not a "zomg i need dis right nows or me unsubsribes!". I didnt know it was "cruel" to discuss civily ones hopes and dreams of a part of a game that was anounced by the company who made said game.

When were you last looking forward to it? This idea was put to bed months back.

arkansas_ESO wrote: »

Divinius wrote: »

Typhoios wrote: »

It really comes down to PvP creating dynamic content that can be played for years and PvE creating static content that is completed maybe a few times until players need new content, leaving the old content a ghost town.

PvP does indeed create dynamic content. I'll grant totally that. Unfortunately, it's dynamic content that a significant portion of the playerbase will want to avoid at all costs.

Really though, what's with this whole "the majority of the playerbase doesn't want PVP" thing?" I've never met a person in my entire time playing ESO (been here since launch) who has straight up refused to even consider the possibility of going into a PVP zone. What's with the huge aversion to PVP? It's not like you die IRL if you get killed in Cyrodiil.

Well, you have now. Most of my characters don't even have a campaign set, as I generally refuse to enter any area that has to do with PvP.
Justice PvP would have been the exception for me and only because I feel there's not enough punishment for criminal activity otherwise.

arkansas_ESO wrote: »

Divinius wrote: »

Typhoios wrote: »

It really comes down to PvP creating dynamic content that can be played for years and PvE creating static content that is completed maybe a few times until players need new content, leaving the old content a ghost town.

PvP does indeed create dynamic content. I'll grant totally that. Unfortunately, it's dynamic content that a significant portion of the playerbase will want to avoid at all costs.

Really though, what's with this whole "the majority of the playerbase doesn't want PVP" thing?" I've never met a person in my entire time playing ESO (been here since launch) who has straight up refused to even consider the possibility of going into a PVP zone. What's with the huge aversion to PVP? It's not like you die IRL if you get killed in Cyrodiil.

I'll be the first one then!

Narnor wrote: »

First of all. Ita not "beating a dead horse" its writing about a greatly anticipated part of the game that alot of players have been looking forward to.

Secondly, i fully appreciate a discussion of dueling and/or arena. You can have opinions on 2 slightly different subjekts no?

Thirdly. This is an "how have you envisioned it/dreamed of it" thread. Not a "zomg i need dis right nows or me unsubsribes!". I didnt know it was "cruel" to discuss civily ones hopes and dreams of a part of a game that was anounced by the company who made said game.

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/search?Search=justice+system

Beating a dead guar, perhaps?

ColoursYouHave wrote: »

All they needed was to make an "opt-in" option. By default, Justice System PVP is disabled, meaning if you steal something you still can't be attacked by other players. However, somebody could go into the settings and "opt-in", meaning other players could attack them if they had a bounty. This way, people who want to steal in peace can do so, and people who want to participate in Justice System PVP can choose to do so, and both groups of people are happy. But as we all know, ZOS hates giving players options, and would rather go for the "all-or-nothing" approach, so this isn't something we will ever see happen. As much as I want Justice System PVP, this really is getting to the point of beating a dead horse. Some players want it, others don't, and ZOS isn't willing to take the time to come up with something that works for both sides (even though the solution is fairly simple and has been suggested multiple times). Maybe if the game is still alive and well a couple years down the road they'd reconsider taking a look, but in the foreseeable future this simply isn't going to happen.

So, you opt in. I do NOT. You steal an item and get a bounty and the pvpenforcers descend to render justice. I steal the same item, get the same bounty, and only the guard notices as I scamper off to the refuge to take care of my bounty and go on my merry way.

Yeah, that wouldn't look strange or anything. I'm glad they aren't doing it. The current changes are going to be bad enough, actually.

arkansas_ESO wrote: »

Divinius wrote: »

Typhoios wrote: »

It really comes down to PvP creating dynamic content that can be played for years and PvE creating static content that is completed maybe a few times until players need new content, leaving the old content a ghost town.

PvP does indeed create dynamic content. I'll grant totally that. Unfortunately, it's dynamic content that a significant portion of the playerbase will want to avoid at all costs.

Really though, what's with this whole "the majority of the playerbase doesn't want PVP" thing?" I've never met a person in my entire time playing ESO (been here since launch) who has straight up refused to even consider the possibility of going into a PVP zone. What's with the huge aversion to PVP? It's not like you die IRL if you get killed in Cyrodiil.

I never even said "majority"... I said "significant" as in "not insignificant".

I'm not going to claim that the "majority" of players don't want anything to do with PvP, but as the responses in this and other threads has proved, there is a very large (i.e. not insignificant) number of players that want nothing to do with it.

Right now, those players can fully enjoy the game by simple pretending that PvP doesn't exist. If ZOS were to add PvP to area's outside of Cyrodiil (or other specific PvP areas), especially forced PvP added to PvE content, they would drive all those players away.

The last thing ZOS needs is to drive a significant portion of their players away.

Jaronking wrote: »

False back your statement up with numbers because the only thread we had with a poll proved most of the PVER wrong who said this.I believe more then 60% of players who voted asked for this to be implemented. Many PVPers and PVer wanted it added.So it seems more are against you.

Sure, 60% of the players want it. Meaning that 40% of the players DON'T want it. That's not a majority, but it's definitely significant. You really think ZOS wants to tick off 40% of their playerbase??

Basically, it boils down to this: The number of PvE players that would get fed up and leave if this was implemented is likely to greatly outweigh the number of PvP players that are going to quit playing the game because they chose to drop the PvP enforcer idea.

Narnor wrote: »

So. Alot of people (myself included) would love to see some form of PvP part of the justice system implemented. However, alot of issues is raised from this, primarily the problem of "griefing" and the problem that it would be exclusive to high lvl characters, due to non scaling in PvE zones.

This lead to Zenimax officially declared justice PvP development dead, because there is alot of problems making it balanced.

This made me think, how have YOU envisioned the justice system fully fleshed out?
For me, it was some sort of world skill where you "transform" into an Enforcer in a watch tower, with Guard statline and abilities (to combat the potentiel griefing at the cost of customisation) where you replace one of the Guards in an area (you are however free to roam as you please inside the city boundaries)

But it got me thinking, how have you envisioned the justice system? Simple free for all, or a more delicate system? Would love to hear your suggestions (maybe we could get lucky, and one of the ideas could reignite the creativity in the development team ;-) )

I dont envision any PVP "justice" system. primarily bc most of the time i see PVP as "injustice" based anyway.

But i could see two options - one for PVE world and one for PVP worlds.

First for PVE have a guild where you can become a legit enforcer and be sent on missions (main quest, side quest, dailies including group content/trials) to go after "criminals" possibly across tamriel. Could be its own DLC style release though not necessarily with new zone, just repurpose old content and add some new instancing, high-end solo, small group larger content.

Second, for PVP, go ahead and institute this as a mission setup for there where theft etc or maybe high end carnage results in system supported bounties on hunting your character down for a while. Could include "tips" for those with the quest for "sightings" of "most wanted." RESTRICTED TO PVP ZONES, of course.

This is the current order we have, and how I feel PvP should work in the Justice System:

• You steal something or kill someone and no one sees you - you get away without a bounty. If PvP was implemented, you would be safe from any type of combat. You would not be "flagged", or whatever. So don't worry so much, people.

• You steal something and someone sees you - you are Disreputable - the lowest level. All guards will generally ignore you unless you approach them. Again, in PvP, you would not be flagged and would be safe from any player combat. So don't worry so much, people.

• You steal over and over with witnesses seeing you (I believe this is poor play and currently has very little consequences.) - you are Notorious - You’ll be chased down by the guards, who enlist other guards to assist in the pursuit. If the PvP aspect was implemented, you may or may not be flagged for your crimes.

• If you steal over and over, or kill an NPC with witnesses seeing you (very poor play, currently very little consequences) - you are a Fugitive - The highest level. Guards will always try to kill you. You need to wait until bounty goes down or you can try to find a way to “clean” your reputation. In a PvP scenario, I think that you should most certainly be flagged.

What is the difference between a guard or a player enforcing the law? At least, with a player, you have the chance to defend yourself and kill your attacker. Why are so many players crying about having PvP for this? The same players who whine over PvP in the Justice System are the same who whine about guards... They are just whining for the sake of whining. Developers, don't listen to them! And please, don't let them get away with these crimes and poor play, scott free! Stick to your guns and do what you set out to do!!!!

Khenarthi wrote: »

Someone's dream is someone else's nightmare. ZOS has made their decision, ok?

They have made many decisions. One decision they made was to implement PvP in the Justice System, and then they made a decision to not implement it. What makes you think they won't make a decision to re-implement it? It could happen.

If you're having nightmares, drink some warm milk.

FIRST POINT:

Honestly, the "voting" threads don't really matter. They were all made by people in favor of the system, and poll options were such that they didn't show the severity of the consequences of the possible outcomes.

It all boils down to what I said earlier. Very few PvP players are going to quit the game solely because this wasn't implemented. Sure, PvP players quit all the time for other reasons, but the number of them where this specific decision was the difference between staying and leaving are very few.

On the other hand, the number of PvE players that hate everything about PvP and would outright quit the second the system was released is virtually guaranteed to be far higher.

So it doesn't really matter that 75% of the players "want" the system. What matters is that those who don't are very adamantly against it, and that implementation of the system is going to actively alienate way more players that not implementing it will. What people "want" is irrelevant. What will actually make them quit is what matters.


SECOND POINT:

I've seen countless arguments for how the system could be implemented such that it would be "optional". Yet I've never seen one that would work (because there isn't one). Here are my two favorites:

"There could be a toggle to completely remove yourself from the PvP portion!"
Ok, fine, but then the only people that would leave the toggle on would be the few players who want to PvP in PvE zones. All PvE players would toggle it off. All PvP players who just want to get PvE content done (like TG and DB quests), and get Legerdemain achievements, would toggle it off. Most of the people who would leave it on would only be doing so to use the system to duel and such. This is just stupid.

"It would only flag you for PvP once your bounty reaches a certain level!"
Really? OK, what would the level be? Because if it's low enough that it can be reached fairly easily (like the point at which you become kill on sight by the guards), then players could quickly get flagged when they don't want to with one accidental kill of an "innocent". And yes, that happens (e.g. pickpocket attempt gone awry). If you set it high enough that people need to actually try to reach it, then you have the same problem as above, where it would only be reached by people that want to abuse the system for reasons completely unrelated to the justice system itself. You also prevent the players that (for some reason) just enjoy playing a character with an ridiculously high bounty for the added challenge. They can't do that anymore without being flagged for PvP.


BOTTOM LINE:

There is no good way to implement the system where it won't be abused, or drive the PvE-only players to quit. ZOS has already officially scrapped the idea. They made the right choice. People really need to let it go.