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.

you do realize Zos has already acknowledged this right? and that this was going to be a Thing until they realized it's Largely just asked for by a Population who gets their jimmies off by Griefing Questers and Pve'rs in general, the same ppl asking for this are the WoW players Raiding Starter cities to Kill newbs for some enjoyment because they can't seem to win in the Arenas. I bet they'd be Willing to let it happen in Cyradiil/IC but then You'd say there's no point, it's already PVP so then you're literally just asking to kill Players that don't Neccesarily want to Deal with a Tilted Pvper who's Come to exact revenge in whatever way they deem necessary.

ZOS really needs to just get dueling and such implemented into the game ASAP, so hopefully PvPers will stop trying to add this to the justice system.

[Edit to remove insulting content]
{re-edited so the comment makes more sense, but still remains civil}

Divinius wrote: »

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 hwo 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.

I love your absolutes. You so confidently say ALL PvE players will do this and ALL PvP players will do that. Guess what? You're wrong. I would love to have PvP turned on while leveling my legerdemain because leveling this with just npc guards is so mindnumbing it makes me want to slam my head into my desk. Same goes with the thieves guild and dark brotherhood. I haven't done them yet because they are boring. I think these quest lines would be so much fun if there was even a chance at getting caught. Even if I get seen by an npc guard I can just cc them and easily run away. It is so stupid. There is no punishment for being a bad criminal and no reward for being a skilled one.

Who cares if not everyone flags themselves for PvP? If you don't want to, why do you care if others do? And don't say they should allocate their resources to something more worthwhile. We should all know that ZOS will never listen to players on where they will use their resources and it will always be to work on changing something that nobody was complaining about and wasn't broken. It is just a selfish expression and equates to nothing more than "no, they should work on stuff I like!" or the famous "they should fix their game first." I've never seen a bug free MMO, but I have seen MMO's that die from lack of content. If they spend all their time fixing bugs, they will never add new content and congratulations on the bug free game that nobody is playing anymore!

Divinius wrote: »

ZOS really needs to just get dueling and such implemented into the game ASAP, and hopefully they'll stop trying to screw with the justice system.

I don't know if you pay attention to sports @Divinius , but nearly all popular sports around the world are PvP.

[Edit to alter quoted content that was removed]

Wollust wrote: »

Divinius wrote: »

ZOS really needs to just get dueling and such implemented into the game ASAP, and hopefully they'll stop trying to screw with the justice system.

Because the justice system as it is now is such a satisfying thing right? So much depth into it. So well thought out and implemented. Seems like so much fun with boring unkillable guards which you can run away from easily if you have more than 3 brain cells.

Btw, why so toxic against the PvP crowd? I thought PvPers are supposed to be the toxic ones?

[Edit to alter quoted content that was removed]

I apologize for my comment. The toxicity isn't directed toward all PvP players, just the ones that seem to want to force their play-style on everyone.

ColoursYouHave wrote: »

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.

All of the opt-in options were based on a forced opt-in once a player's bounty reached a certain level. It's never been conceded by significant numbers of those campaigning for PvP in PvE areas that there should be an unrestricted ability to opt out of the PvP element.

It's all very well real PvPers claiming that only some PvPers are griefers, but so far as PvEers are concerned that's all it takes for their enjoyment to be ruined, and whilst that's not a problem in PvP areas it most definitely is when considering the introduction of PvP to PvE areas.

Tandor wrote: »

Typhoios wrote: »

Khenarthi wrote: »

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

We know ZOS has made their decision. That doesn't mean we can't talk and dream about what the justice system could have been, or let ZOS know that there are still those of us out there that would like dynamic content like this in the game. Why do all of you who don't want it feel the need to tell us what we already know and add nothing to the conversation? Sure, it might be beating a dead horse, but you don't have to read these threads.

For the same reason as you, I imagine ! You want something, you say so. I don't want it, I say so. Two points of view lead to a discussion, and this is a discussion forum after all.

I was refering to comments like "ZOS said no, so drop it" and "stop beating a dead horse" how does "stop talking about this" lead to a discussion?

Typhoios wrote: »

Khenarthi wrote: »

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

We know ZOS has made their decision. That doesn't mean we can't talk and dream about what the justice system could have been, or let ZOS know that there are still those of us out there that would like dynamic content like this in the game. Why do all of you who don't want it feel the need to tell us what we already know and add nothing to the conversation? Sure, it might be beating a dead horse, but you don't have to read these threads.

because not everyone is Hiding in their "safe space" that's why man. don't feel person

Dubhliam wrote: »

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).

---

- players are never flagged for PvP, no matter how high the bounty they have
- Enforcers can only "apprehend" a player with a bounty, triggering the "pay bounty dialogue"
- then AND ONLY THEN- if a player fails to respond in 15 seconds or chooses the "flee" option is that player flagged for PvP

---

@Divinius and @Tandor :
You both fiercly advocate that every PvPer wants a way to force PvP to PvErs and say there has never been a suggestion that would be safe.
Yet you both completely ignore my suggestions made in this very thread where you are most active in defending the current Justice system.

Either stop spreading blatant lies or start constructively commenting ALL suggestions.

Bro you literally just stated that you are tryin to suggest things that would be Safe, but in your Explanation you pretty much say that All players are Free game if they steal and a "player outlaw" forces a Dialog box on them, in which if they don't respond the outlaw has Free reign to *** and pillage, this is exactly why PVEr's don't want this outside of Cyradil. it has to be toggled if it's going to work, they have to OPT-IN not by their actions, but by their choice in the settings much the same way "attacking innocents" is.

As for the Sacrement/heist thing if it doesn't take the Place of the original heist, then it would be a Option for players seeking that kind of playstyle and that could work.

dwtdwtdwt wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

First bold: Define "no one". Specifically is this just NPCs? Or could a PC count as spotting a crime and thus trigger bounty. if one PC pulls guard over, then vanishes or pays quickly, breaking the guard sequence of movement so it now spots another PC picking a safebox or killing during quest mode triggering bounty should HUNTER PCs benefit from the actions of their compatriot sacrificing some gold from his 11th alt spotter?

What I mean by "no one" is NPCs. Players cannot catch you in the act, obviously. You must have a bounty of, at least "Notorious", for a player to interact with you, in my view.

STEVIL wrote: »

Second Bold: Guards are NPCs with "goals" such as they are within game immersion to maintain order. PCs involved in PVP are out to kill other PCs. We dont let serial killers become marshals for a good reason. As such, expecting PVP hunters to "enforce law" is just bizarre.

What is the difference between NPCs having goals to kill on sight for a fugitive bounty and a player having the same goal of killing a player with a fugitive bounty? Do you prefer the current system, where players can kill NPCs indiscriminately, with very little repercussions? Do you think that players with a million gold bounty should be able to accept quests and use the Guild Stores after killing 100's of NPCs?

I'm not even going to comment on the rest of your post, because it is just a rant.

not commenting onbexamples of diffs between npc guards and pc stalkers, sure, fine but it was a question asked.

As to the cherry picked replies you chose to give.

PC ENFORCERS not spotting crimes is NOT an improvement towards any sort of "more complete" or "more consequentisl system for justice"
Right now in the pve justice system ANYONE able to try and stop you can also SPOT you omitting a crime and trigger bounty. You see an improvement by adding a class of "justice minded" enforcers who cannot spot crimes? How does that make sense if the goal is more complete justice system? It ONLY makes sense if the goal is opening the target pool of PVPers to include PVEers unprepared for PVP.

GUILD STORES AND ASSOCIATED DIVERSION: First, note that there is NO mention in most of these proposals for PVP STALKERS aka PVP ENFORCERS about having bounty impact guild sales. Every outlaw refuge has guild sellers. Most banks already have guards who will jump folks with bounties.
Obviously , unlike guards restricted to in game reasonable behavior, in some/many cases PVP stalkers would setup outside the "secret" refuge entrances.

If your argument was "lets make bounty more impactful for routine transactions" and not "lets enable PVP STALKING of PVEers", why wasnt anything about expanding the existing HIGH BOUNTY THEN NPCS REFUSE TO WORK WITH YOU in your list which included only adding PVP STALKING?

I could absolutely get behind more operational problems for carrying bounties, as long as its not just the sheep's clothing around WORLD WIDE PVP STALKING which seems to be an agenda masquerading as a solution looking for a problem to avoid being obviously just WANT EASIER VICTIMS.

What about idea by @Narnor ?

Narnor wrote: »

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)

This is a very interesting idea that has a lot of potential.

I would have people queue in to be enforcers for cities, to limit the numbers. The enforcer wouldn't see players in stealth until it was broken just like in Cyrodiil or while stealing/doing heists.

STEVIL wrote: »

If your argument was "lets make bounty more impactful for routine transactions" and not "lets enable PVP STALKING of PVEers", why wasnt anything about expanding the existing HIGH BOUNTY THEN NPCS REFUSE TO WORK WITH YOU in your list which included only adding PVP STALKING?

I could absolutely get behind more operational problems for carrying bounties, as long as its not just the sheep's clothing around WORLD WIDE PVP STALKING which seems to be an agenda masquerading as a solution looking for a problem to avoid being obviously just WANT EASIER VICTIMS.

I've tried to suggest a PvE only approach before, @STEVIL, people just don't want to face consequences for their actions.

Kendaric wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

If your argument was "lets make bounty more impactful for routine transactions" and not "lets enable PVP STALKING of PVEers", why wasnt anything about expanding the existing HIGH BOUNTY THEN NPCS REFUSE TO WORK WITH YOU in your list which included only adding PVP STALKING?

I could absolutely get behind more operational problems for carrying bounties, as long as its not just the sheep's clothing around WORLD WIDE PVP STALKING which seems to be an agenda masquerading as a solution looking for a problem to avoid being obviously just WANT EASIER VICTIMS.

I've tried to suggest a PvE only approach before, @STEVIL, people just don't want to face consequences for their actions.

First, of course, thats your conclusion just like my conclusion is that the "justice" movement is driven by people who wsnt PVE victims available to PVPers. When your objective is killing other player's characters it makes sense to try to get a larger less prepared target pool. It explains the jump from "bounty carriers can sell ar stores" right past "make sales tougher with bounty" to "turn pvp lose...errr...for justice, yesh, its about justice."

Second, right now the game is INTENTIONALLY AND DELIBERATELY buolt with "crimes" being a nuisance. Two entire DLC focused on main quests of thievery and murder should lay to rest tge notion that this game is intended to make "crime" and "justice" a major aspect. So you have bounties which bleed quickly, even while logged off playing another alt.So any attempt to harshen the justice should come from the POV of not focusing on players not wanting consequences but that the game is built with that lax justice in mind and supported.

Ask yourself this, how about we let VAMPIRE PVPers jump on sight any PVE player with a fighter's guild rating of 5 or more because the undead have marked them as hunters? Dont want to get PVP struck by vamps, dont OPT-IN by profitting off killing undead , daedra and ww.

"But, but, thats silly. The fighters guild has quests and skills and is about that as PVE and that activity shouldnt unlock PVP target status."

Well i am pretty sure that if you add the skill points from leger, thieves and brotherhood skill lines they outnumber the FG line investment.
I also believe if you add all the TG and Brotherhood quests they outnumber the FG quests.
I believe if you add together the Brotherhoid dailies and TG dailies that you can run ad infinitum they outnumber the ZERO FG repeatables.

SO it really seems odd to pick out this strongly supported game element as the way to shoehorn PVPers getting PVEers as targets.

Or are fighter guild members also guilty of not wsnting to face consequence of their actions -as long as we can kerp using "open to pvp attack" synonymously with "face consequences"

Finally, beefing up the PVE problems resulting from bounties is doable but it needs to stay a PVE "solution" and co-exist in the context and understanding of the game support for those activities being PART OF the PVE experience and not "out of bounds." Is it easy to profit from "in game crime" in ESO - YES but not out of whack woth profitting from time spent on other "easy" activities.

Simply put, in this game, by design and intent, what are called "crimes" in the gameworld are not actually treated as crimes against the game, things not to be done, but merely a different flavor of acceptable challenging activities.

The viewpoint that these types of challenges are too easy is one that can be discussed.
Just like the notion that Grhatwood delves are too easy is up for discussion too.

But here, under the sheep's clothing of "crime bad" there is a drive to "solve" the "too easy" with "PVP vulnerability"

There is a quest in Ebonheart Pact main line where the character has the option to help argonians get revenge by murdering former plantation owner. If you dont turn the argonians in you end up fighting the former owner. Many other quests across the main game have similar lawful answer or revenge option.
There are merchants with horses across tamriel where you have intimidate options to take their stuff and an achievment to gain if you do it prolifically.

Where is the hue and cry to unlock pvp statud for those choices for "justice"?

If it looks like a sheep, smells like a sheep, acts like a sheep but it keeps coming back to putting other sheep on a plate, its a friggin wolf.

YMMV

Clerics1985 wrote: »

Typhoios wrote: »

Khenarthi wrote: »

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

We know ZOS has made their decision. That doesn't mean we can't talk and dream about what the justice system could have been, or let ZOS know that there are still those of us out there that would like dynamic content like this in the game. Why do all of you who don't want it feel the need to tell us what we already know and add nothing to the conversation? Sure, it might be beating a dead horse, but you don't have to read these threads.

because not everyone is Hiding in their "safe space" that's why man. don't feel person

Dubhliam wrote: »

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).

---

- players are never flagged for PvP, no matter how high the bounty they have
- Enforcers can only "apprehend" a player with a bounty, triggering the "pay bounty dialogue"
- then AND ONLY THEN- if a player fails to respond in 15 seconds or chooses the "flee" option is that player flagged for PvP

---

@Divinius and @Tandor :
You both fiercly advocate that every PvPer wants a way to force PvP to PvErs and say there has never been a suggestion that would be safe.
Yet you both completely ignore my suggestions made in this very thread where you are most active in defending the current Justice system.

Either stop spreading blatant lies or start constructively commenting ALL suggestions.

Bro you literally just stated that you are tryin to suggest things that would be Safe, but in your Explanation you pretty much say that All players are Free game if they steal and a "player outlaw" forces a Dialog box on them, in which if they don't respond the outlaw has Free reign to *** and pillage, this is exactly why PVEr's don't want this outside of Cyradil. it has to be toggled if it's going to work, they have to OPT-IN not by their actions, but by their choice in the settings much the same way "attacking innocents" is.

As for the Sacrement/heist thing if it doesn't take the Place of the original heist, then it would be a Option for players seeking that kind of playstyle and that could work.

Paying the bounty is a choice, is it not?