The issues related to logging in to the European PC/Mac megaserver have been resolved at this time. If you continue to experience difficulties at login, please restart your client. Thank you for your patience!
Justice PvP Dreams
-
STEVIL✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭@STEVIL:
I'm all for PvE consequences instead of PvP, but there need to be consequences for criminal activity and yes, that includes extorting merchants in the wilderness and even criminal deeds in quests.
Anybody with a bounty of level of notorious or fugitive should be barred from NPC interaction inside cities for as long as their bounty levels remains that high (they'd still have the Outlaw's Refuge NPCs available to them of course).
Also the fact there have been two DLCs dedicated to crime bears little meaning to the discussion. You can easily complete both DLCs without racking up a huge bounty or any bounty at all. Want to kill someone or steal something? Be smart about it and wait for an opportunity to do it.
And no, that players don't want consequences isn't just my conclusion... I was literally told by players that the bounty was bad enough as is and they don't want any harsher punishment as that would prevent them from stealing.
Ok, taking your post from bottom up. Makes NO SENSE to say players dont want consequences for thieving/killing-protected-class and support it by saying they are happy with the current consequence system and dont want harsher. If they wsnted no consequences they would push for no bounty - like the majority of kills and looting produces now with the yellow E vs the red E. You and they seem to be disagreeing on the amountnof consequence not whether there should be any but you are portraying them differently.
The fact of the DLCs and other quests supporting this type of activity is DIRECTLY relevent. It shows a definite intent that advancement thru these activities including vigilanteeism in civilized towns is an scceptable means otf progress and achievement. That puts it in the same vein as questing, pvp, grinding, crafting and the other mechanisms for using game time to advance the character. Each of these paths has time, risk, profits etc of differing types. Given that there is no reason why thievery path should have higher risk to reward ratio than the others. Right now, outside of the DLCs you can spend x time and y skill trying to advance by stealing and likely gain a fair amount of loot. However in my experience that path is not significantly more profitable over all for advancement than grinding or questing and none of them are particularly risky. Note that if you screw up and fall to a mob in a delve, they dont take your stuff from that delve like guards who drop you do.
Finally, to your first point, the flat out notorious impediment, should similar penalties exist for questing activities the locals or authorities would object to? We may dicker over severity and the illogic of such universal agreement when most eso towns have internal divisions (really? The merchant griping about argonian dmells is gonna refuse to talk to me because i ripped off that green tail? Really?) but dont we agree whatever impediments there are should apply regardless of questing vs non-questing vs grinding, right?
What should the consequences be for my char making plenty of gold by sitting in a tavern crafting green food and selling to vendor? I can advance my purse pdq by that compared to cautious bounty free thievery, imx.
Maybe some vendors should refuse to deal with me for flooding the market and some npcs not talk bc they didnt like my hagfish?
Edited by STEVIL on June 14, 2016 11:27AMProudly skooma free while talks-when-drunk is in mandatory public housing.
YFMV Your Fun May Vary.
First Law of Nerf-o-Dynamics
"The good way I used to get good kills *with good skill* was good but the way others kill me now is bad."0 -
Jaronking✭✭✭✭✭
✭
It won't until its implemented. If people want something they I'll keep bring it to light until it happens.SlayerTheDragon wrote: »When will this stupid idea ever stop haunting us? Please let it go...0 -
Tandor✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
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.
I for one would be perfectly happy to see severe consequences for my actions, but if they're PvE actions in PvE areas then they need to be PvP consequences. My opposition to the PvP element of the Justice System isn't based on a dislike of consequences for PvE actions, it's based on a rejection of PvP consequences for PvE actions in PvE areas. I don't believe for a moment that I'm the only one who thinks that way, although there may well be people who are perfectly happy with the Justice System as it is and they're perfectly entitled to hold that view.2 -
clayandaudrey_ESO✭✭✭✭✭
✭Hey, another cute thread about something that is never going to happen. You guys get a...
0 -
Divinius✭✭✭✭✭
✭
Nothing I've said is a "blatant lie" and I challenge you to find an example of one place where I lied. But OK, fine, I will directly address your proposal...@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.
It sounds like (and correct me if I'm wrong) you are proposing that these new "Veteran/PvP" versions of the quests would have better rewards then the regular PvE-only versions. Also, there are rewards for the Enforcers as well. This is the first problem. Unless the rewards for the PvP version of the quests are identical to the rewards for the PvE versions, AND the Enforcer get no reward other maybe some very small amount of AP or gold, the system will be horribly abused by people working in pairs to game the system. That's pretty much guaranteed.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).
And that's ignoring the more base complaint that would immediately arise, that you are providing better rewards for PvP players than PvE players. That's not going to fly well.
And as for this section:
If this is only applicable within the Vet/PvP quest you are describing above, then fine, whatever. That idea has its own flaws, so this is a moot point.
- 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
But if you mean this is how it would work anywhere in the game, then absolutely NOT. That is pretty much the epitome of exactly what PvE players do NOT want. I'm all for the system having harsher consequences for crime, but as others have said, PvE content needs PvE consequences. PvP is a whole different world, and shouldn't be mixed with PvE.
Now, since I've already been moderated once in this thread, I'll try to play along with the supposed intent of the topic.
What would I do to improve the existing justice system? As I said, I'm 100% all for greatly increasing the consequences for having a bounty and getting caught. There's lots of ways to do this:
1) Make NPC guards much harder to escape, so you are basically forced to fight them, but also make them killable. However, killing one would greatly increase your bounty, and will cause the next guard(s) you fight to gain a buff that would make him 5 times harder to kill. If you manage to kill another one, the 3rd guard gets a buff that makes him impossible to kill, like they are now. This gives players a limited means to escape, but at a high cost, and it's not sustainable. The guard buffs would remain at whatever level you got them to, until your bounty is completely cleared.
2) I've also heard ideas about how killing a guard would make other guards in the area gain a much higher aggro range. This would good because it makes being a higher-bounty criminal significantly harder, especially if paired with the first idea of making them much harder to escape.
3) Make bounty decay slower. I agree with the decay idea, but it's rather fast, IMO, and it's only getting easier to dump it with the TG and DB passive buffs.
4) Increase consequences for having a bounty, and make more things give bounties. It's always bothered me how that "Crime Pays" achievement doesn't give you a bounty. It really should. Also, having anything above a very small bounty should quickly make all merchants, and even some quest NPCs, stop interacting with you entirely. Main quest and storyline quest NPCs would probably need to be exempt from this, but I see no reason why certain repeatable daily quests NPCs shouldn't start to ignore you.
5) To compensate for these changes, fix the issues in the game that make it easy for people to accidentally commit crimes. I'm not talking about accidentally getting caught. There's a huge difference between accidentally getting caught for an intentionally committed crime, and actually committing the crime by accident. Attackable "innocent" NPCs stuck in the middle of packs of enemy mobs, and stupid owned bottles on tables in front of shop-keepers, I'm looking at you...
6) Do not ever implement PvP enforcers, in any way.
{edited for typos}Edited by Divinius on June 14, 2016 3:56PM1 -
Tandor✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
Nothing I've said is a "blatant lie" and I challenge you to find an example of one place where I lied. But OK, fine, I will directly address your proposal...@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.
It sounds like (and correct me if I'm wrong) you are proposing that these new "Veteran/PvP" versions of the quests would have better rewards then the regular PvE-only versions. Also, there are rewards for the Enforcers as well. This is the first problem. Unless the rewards for the PvP version of the quests are identical to the rewards for the PvE versions, AND the Enforcer get no reward other maybe some very small amount of AP or gold, the system will be horribly abused by people working in pairs to game the system. That's pretty much guaranteed.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).
And that's ignoring the more base complaint that would immediately arise, that you are providing better rewards for PvP players than PvE players. That's not going to fly well.
And as for this section:
If this is only applicable within the Vet/PvP quest you are describing above, then fine, whatever. That idea has its own flaws, so this is a moot point.
- 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
But if you mean this is how it would work anywhere in the game, then absolutely NOT. That is pretty much the epitome of exactly what PvE players do NOT want. I'm all for the system having harsher consequences for crime, but as others have said, PvE content needs PvE consequences. PvP is a whole different world, and shouldn't be mixed with PvE.
Now, since I've already been moderated once in this thread, I'll try to play along with the supposed intent of the topic.
What would I do to improve the existing justice system? As I said, I'm 100% all for greatly increasing the consequences for having a bounty and getting caught. There's lots of ways to do this:
1) Make NPC guards much harder to escape, so you are basically forced to fight them, but also make them killable. However, killing one would greatly increase your bounty, and will cause the next guard(s) you fight to gain a buff that would make him 5 times harder to kill. If you manage to kill another one, the 3rd guard gets a buff that makes him impossible to kill, like they are now. This gives players a limited means to escape, but at a high cost, and it's not sustainable. The guard buffs would remain at whatever level you got them to, until your bounty is completely cleared.
2) I've also heard ideas about how killing a guard would make other guards in the area gain a much higher aggro range. This would good because it makes being a higher-bounty criminal significantly harder, especially if paired with the first idea of making them much harder to escape.
3) Make bounty decay slower. I agree with the decay idea, but it's rather fast, IMO, and it's only getting easier to dump it with the TG and DB passive buffs.
4) Increase consequences for having a bounty, and make more things give bounties. It's always bothered me how that "Crime Pays" achievement doesn't give you a bounty. It really should. Also, having anything above a very small bounty should quickly make all merchants, and even some quest NPCs, stop interacting with you entirely. Main quest and storyline quest NPCs would probably need to be exempt from this, but I see no reason why certain repeatable daily quests NPCs shouldn't start to ignore you.
5) To compensate for these changes, fix the issues in the game that make it easy for people to accidentally commit crimes. I'm not talking about accidentally getting caught. There's a huge difference between accidentally getting caught for an intentionally committed crime, and actually committing the crime by accident. Attackable "innocent" NPCs stuck in the middle of packs of enemy mobs, and stupid owned bottles on tables in front of shop-keepers, I'm looking at you...
6) Do not ever implement PvP enforcers, in any way.
{edited for typos}
I'd be in agreement with pretty much all of that. The only concern I'd have with killable guards is that they would have to be cumulatively buffed in such a way that it is impossible for raiding parties to storm through cities killing all the guards and other NPCs through sheer weight of numbers and thoroughly ruining the atmosphere and performance for everyone else. That's always been the main concern with having guards made killable and is, I assume, what you have in mind.1 -
Divinius✭✭✭✭✭
✭I'd be in agreement with pretty much all of that. The only concern I'd have with killable guards is that they would have to be cumulatively buffed in such a way that it is impossible for raiding parties to storm through cities killing all the guards and other NPCs through sheer weight of numbers and thoroughly ruining the atmosphere and performance for everyone else. That's always been the main concern with having guards made killable and is, I assume, what you have in mind.
Making guards killable is, admittedly, a touchy thing. I do ultimately believe that they should be, because it seems like making them completely unkillable is just the quick and easy (read: lazy) way to prevent the types of things you are describing. With some intelligent coding, I think you could achieve the same level of control, while still allowing a single guard to be killable.
There's probably more that would need to be done beyond the ideas presented above for it to work well.
Guards would need about a 15-second respawn timer. Enough time for a single person to get away, but fast enough that a player (or players) couldn't wreak havoc for very long before being overwhelmed.
Any player contributing to an attack on a guard would be tagged as having killed it, should the guard be killed. That might help with the "groups" of players you are referring to, as they would very quickly get to the "stage 3" unkillable guards.
Also, since the buff would be given to the guard, any person who's already killed two guards (or contributed to killing two) would now make any new guard he touched unkillable by anyone (at least until it went passive). I think that would very quickly make guards able to quell any large uprising, as it would basically turn them into what they are now.
There may be other ideas, but I'm convinced that with the right amount of thought, guards could be made killable (at least initially) and still be able to prevent crime at least as effectively (and hopefully even more so) as they do now.0 -
Dubhliam✭✭✭✭✭
✭@Tandor & @Divinius
I am glad you guys are finally being constructive and are contributing to this discussion.
Seriously, I applaud you.
Just to touch on your comment about people working in pairs to game the system (heists/sacraments):
It is very hard to work in pairs when neither the Outlaw nor the Enforcer choose their opponent. When an Outlaw gets noticed in his instance, it is the GAME that assigns an Enforcer to that instance from a pool of players that applied for that activity.
To prevent even more potential abuse, those veteran versions of heists/sacraments should not be re-obtainable if you abandon the quest. At least for that day.0 -
Tandor✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭@Tandor & @Divinius
I am glad you guys are finally being constructive and are contributing to this discussion.
Seriously, I applaud you.
Just to touch on your comment about people working in pairs to game the system (heists/sacraments):
It is very hard to work in pairs when neither the Outlaw nor the Enforcer choose their opponent. When an Outlaw gets noticed in his instance, it is the GAME that assigns an Enforcer to that instance from a pool of players that applied for that activity.
To prevent even more potential abuse, those veteran versions of heists/sacraments should not be re-obtainable if you abandon the quest. At least for that day.
We've been contributing constructively all along, you just didn't agree with our point of view.
You still owe both of us an apology for wrongly accusing us of blatant lies. We've simply argued for a complete opt-out from PvP in any PvP-enhanced Justice System, and have rightly stated that it is something PvPers generally are never willing to endorse, yourself included, and that is a constructive contribution to the discussion. You have referred throughout to your preferred system under which PvErs will be automatically opted-in through their actions, with no opportunity to opt-out through their game settings.1 -
Dubhliam✭✭✭✭✭
✭@Tandor & @Divinius
I am glad you guys are finally being constructive and are contributing to this discussion.
Seriously, I applaud you.
Just to touch on your comment about people working in pairs to game the system (heists/sacraments):
It is very hard to work in pairs when neither the Outlaw nor the Enforcer choose their opponent. When an Outlaw gets noticed in his instance, it is the GAME that assigns an Enforcer to that instance from a pool of players that applied for that activity.
To prevent even more potential abuse, those veteran versions of heists/sacraments should not be re-obtainable if you abandon the quest. At least for that day.
We've been contributing constructively all along, you just didn't agree with our point of view.
You still owe both of us an apology for wrongly accusing us of blatant lies. We've simply argued for a complete opt-out from PvP in any PvP-enhanced Justice System, and have rightly stated that it is something PvPers generally are never willing to endorse, yourself included, and that is a constructive contribution to the discussion. You have referred throughout to your preferred system under which PvErs will be automatically opted-in through their actions, with no opportunity to opt-out through their game settings.
I don't owe an opology to nobody.
If and when you comment on how my suggestions could be exploited and/or griefed in, I might consider an apology. Although it would still be true up to that point where I said you ignored them.
I would actually like to revoke my statement that you were ever constructive. @Divinius was, you just said you agree with him.
And you both agreed on one thing: escaping guards is easy (the penalty part of Justice).
Disabling the "kill on sight mechanic" from the Fugitive bounty serves to prevent griefing.
Yet if you refuse to pay your bounty when caught, it will be harder to escape than it currently is.
There is still a lot of room for not ever participating in PvP if you don't want to.
To counter the higher risk of getting caught, I propose a hard buff of the "Haggling" passive in the TG skill line. 8% for 4 skil points just won't cut it.0 -
Tandor✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭@Tandor & @Divinius
I am glad you guys are finally being constructive and are contributing to this discussion.
Seriously, I applaud you.
Just to touch on your comment about people working in pairs to game the system (heists/sacraments):
It is very hard to work in pairs when neither the Outlaw nor the Enforcer choose their opponent. When an Outlaw gets noticed in his instance, it is the GAME that assigns an Enforcer to that instance from a pool of players that applied for that activity.
To prevent even more potential abuse, those veteran versions of heists/sacraments should not be re-obtainable if you abandon the quest. At least for that day.
We've been contributing constructively all along, you just didn't agree with our point of view.
You still owe both of us an apology for wrongly accusing us of blatant lies. We've simply argued for a complete opt-out from PvP in any PvP-enhanced Justice System, and have rightly stated that it is something PvPers generally are never willing to endorse, yourself included, and that is a constructive contribution to the discussion. You have referred throughout to your preferred system under which PvErs will be automatically opted-in through their actions, with no opportunity to opt-out through their game settings.
I don't owe an opology to nobody.
If and when you comment on how my suggestions could be exploited and/or griefed in, I might consider an apology. Although it would still be true up to that point where I said you ignored them.
I would actually like to revoke my statement that you were ever constructive. @Divinius was, you just said you agree with him.
And you both agreed on one thing: escaping guards is easy (the penalty part of Justice).
Disabling the "kill on sight mechanic" from the Fugitive bounty serves to prevent griefing.
Yet if you refuse to pay your bounty when caught, it will be harder to escape than it currently is.
There is still a lot of room for not ever participating in PvP if you don't want to.
To counter the higher risk of getting caught, I propose a hard buff of the "Haggling" passive in the TG skill line. 8% for 4 skil points just won't cut it.
If you're not prepared to offer an apology for accusing us of spreading blatant lies, perhaps instead you'd like to confirm exactly what the blatant lies are we're supposed to have spread? Or are you going to change your tack on that as well as on my contributions (I actually did more than say I agreed with Divinius, I expanded on his comments)?
0 -
rootimus✭✭✭✭✭I don't owe an opology to nobody.
Taking you at your word, to whom do you owe an opology (sic)?Even on the internet, clear communication is important; it can be the difference between "helping your Uncle Jack off a horse" and "helping your uncle jack off a horse"; the difference between "knowing your s***" and "knowing you're s***".
Greybeards & Gals - Civilised, laid-back, mature gamers. Beards optional. |0