BenLocoDete wrote: »

IndyWendieGo wrote: »

Previous Quotes

Divinius wrote: »

stevenbennett_ESO wrote: »

I'm one of those people who would absolutely hate to have the PvP Justice system implemented. I wouldn't quit ESO, but I'd be highly frustrated that a segment of the game I'm finding highly enjoyable right now thanks to the recent DLCs would be seriously nerfed by my need to avoid the PvP griefers who would be lurking around in towns to kill anyone who happens to trigger the PvP flag. I don't do PvP -- I'm absolutely terrible at it, and would stand no chance. (And I "Flee" all the time -- it's a matter of honor that I should never pay a bounty to a Guard...)

What you're suggesting ONLY has benefit to the PvP players -- it has NO benefit to PvE players AT ALL. It's just a meaningless hurdle for PvE players, and not a very fun one. ("If I flee from the guards, maybe I can get away," a potentially exciting chase scene, becomes a boring "If I flee from the guards, I'll just be ganked by a dozen annoying PvPers, so why do I even bother playing?")

If you *really* want to have PvP Justice, the only real way to do it is to have a completely separate and isolated instance of the servers for people who want to do PvP Justice. If you want to do PvP Justice, you'd have to be in that instance. Heck - you could then have PvP anywhere in Tamriel, and those of us who don't want to deal with the PvP stuff don't have to see it or know it's happening. SWTOR recently changed how they handle PvP to follow this scheme - every server there now has PvP and PvE instances, and you select which one you want. It's made PvE in that game a LOT more fun, because we no longer have to worry about the annoying PvPers bothering us anymore.

Which is, IMHO, the most likely reason PvP players are into this idea -- the idea of being able to gank PvE players must make them feel like a kid in a candy store. I wonder how many PvPers would still be as strongly supportive of a PvP Justice system if they knew NONE the PvE players wouldn't be involved... And I wonder how many of the people who support PvP Justice identify as PvE players -- I'm guessing it's a tiny percentage if any all all.

I wish I could give you both an Agree and an Awesome...

Used one of mine. They pretty much nailed it. Not to mention the fact that choosing flee for an accidental bounty, and then being flagged for PvP when you're no where near ready to PvP is just completely ridiculous. The reasons why I think it's ridiculous are blatantly obvious in this thread.

By the Aedra you instantly respawn what's the matter? And it would actually be funny like accidentally stealing a cuirass from the market, and suddenly 15 instant gap closers and ambushes obliterating your character from life. You won't accidentally steal ever again, will you?

Just kidding, but yes instant atomic wars in the market are somewhat expected, the good thing would be having some allies fighting alongside you, why everyone committing crimes feel like they will be ganked alone? Outlaws are the majority of players, I doubt anyone would enforce anything without having to suddenly pick a fight with a whole gang. Just imagine a market revolt where one enforcer approaches a young burglar, and then everybody around with some bounty on their head jumps in to resist the law, some guards join the fight and in the midst of hell broke loose an opportunist empties the caches silently.

All of this sounds incredibly funny to me.

Even if you had people fighting along side you, accidentally stealing and then getting PvP'ed out of nowhere when you're not even out of green gear is absolutely disastrous. Funny, but disastrous. I shouldn't have to have a group to buy things from a certain guild trader in Craglorn because they put bags and other miscellaneous clutter around that I accidentally steal because they're too close to the vendor. That's a whole lotta nope right there.

Dubhliam wrote: »

Becoming an Enforcer

• Requires access to the Dark Brotherhood DLC.
• During the Partners in Crime quest, if the player returns the Giovessen Skull when caught by Chief inspector Rhanbiq, the inspector approaches the player and offers the player to join the Iron Wheel or get thrown in jail. If the player chooses to join, he or she obtains the "Answering the Call" quest.
• During the Voices in the Dark quest, the player now gets an option to report Amelie Crowe to a nearby Guard instead of killing an innocent. Doing so, the player obtains the "Answering the call" quest.
• The quest "Answering the Call" can also be obtained by interacting with Guards or in the Collectibles Menu - DLC tab - Dark Brotherhood.
• Obtaining the quest "Answering the Call" automatically abandons the "Partners in Crime" and "Voices in the Dark" quests.
• Players that have the "Answering the Call" quest active, or are members of the Iron Wheel cannot start the "Partners in Crime" and "Voices in the Dark" quests.
• Members of the Thieves Guild and/or Dark Brotherhood cannot receive the "Answering the Call" quest. To be able to receive the quest, the player is given an option to abandon those guilds. There is an equivalent, reversed process for Enforcers that want to become members of the Thieves Guild or Dark Brotherhood. Skill line levels and skill points do not reset when abandoning a guild.

Your thought process is insane (in a good way). What I will ask though is what if you want to be an enforcer and infiltrate the thieves or DB? What if you had to be on the inside to gather information?

Dubhliam wrote: »

Divinius wrote: »

Dubhliam wrote: »

Divinius wrote: »

Adding PvP is not the only way to improve the justice system.

It's true.
It's not the only way.
But I don't see a version of the PvE Justice System that would highly improve on what we have currently.

Also, looking from a perspective that this is a highly sought after improvement, how would you justify spending valuable resources and not delivering something players demand in high numbers.

I would support spending resources on improving the Justice system in ways that don't involve any PvP at all, but would never support spending resources on trying to shoehorn PvP into the system. I would justify this the same way I've justified it in many of the other threads on this topic. I'll explain it again here, in hopes that maybe some day people like you will eventually start to understand...

There are people that like PvP and people that don't. I'll even concede that the people that like it are probably the majority.

Most of the people that don't like it, REALLY don't like it, and want no part of it at all. They may be a minority, but they are not an insignificant number.

The people that like PvP have places they can go to do it, and the people that don't can stay out of those places.

As soon as you add PvP to some place in the game that doesn't currently have it (by ANY means) you start to cut off that section of the game from the people that don't like PvP. In this case, that place is virtually everywhere. Limited to certain circumstances, but still, almost everywhere.

Given that, here's why all those "polls" that have been done for whether the PvP justice should be implemented are worthless:

1) The polled sampled of the players is heavily biased, since it's only forum-goers. People that use game forums in general tend to be the more hard-core players, and hard-core players tend to enjoy PvP. Casuals are less likely to use the forums, and therefore less likely to be here to vote in polls. Casuals are more likely to be the people that hate PvP and steer clear of it at all costs. These are all just percentage-based tendencies, not "rules", and I'm aware that there are plenty of exceptions.

2) Even if you completely ignore (or just don't believe) everything in point 1, and assume that the poll results actually are totally accurate, there's another reason they don't matter. Let's say a poll shows 80% in favor, and 20% opposed. Most of those opposed fall into the "very opposed" category. Many of them would actually quit the game, solely due to that decision. Very few (if any) of the people in favor of the system are going to actually quit the game solely based on the decision to not implement PvP justice.

Based on point 2, actually driving away 20% of your players is far worse than just disappointing 80% of them, who aren't going to leave the game solely because PvP justice never happened.

Once again, you can NOT add a PvP consequences to PvE systems that are already in the game, without driving PvE-only players away from that content. ZOS knows this, and made the correct decision.

First of all, people could still participate in the Justice System, and all it has to offer currently without ever actually fighting another player.
All they have to do is not choose the "Flee" option.
Playing this way would ensure they never PvP, yet it would add some dimension to thieving and killing because getting a bounty means you would have to avoid real players, with minds of their own, not some NPC with a standard route you can avoid.

The two bolded statements highlight the disconnect that is rampant here.

You cannot HONESTLY claim to be allowing folks to keep all of something and at the same time condition it on GIVING UP PART OF THAT something.

Its basically saying "come on, hand over your wallet and we will let you keep everything else" and then acting flumoxed at why folks see this as a bad thing.

In the attempt to deny the results of the change being proposed, the pro-PVP_FEED_ON_PVE under the guise of justice support is just as persistent as they are baffling.

No PVP consequence for PVE choices... sorry.

CromulentForumID wrote: »

Dubhliam wrote: »

Actually, you don't. You have not read my detailed concept, if you had, you would have noticed there are a lot of rules into place to prevent exactly that what you are describing.

What you are opposing is your own vision of how you think it would be implemented.

For your information, to clarify (so you don't have to read):
Players have a way to prevent accidental PvP tagging: "prevent attacking innocents". It is already partially implemented in the game - you cannot cast Rapid Manouvers while near an NPC if you have that option on. The same would apply with all buffs and heals. Those that don't have that option turned on are in risk of "accidentally" helping a criminal, which is a felony. It would not instantly make you flagged for PvP, but you would get a bounty.

I am not sure it is all there, to tell you the truth. You have a lot there, but it certainly is not everything. There are still questions to be answered. You are pretty quick to assume you have it all covered and everyone who objects is just missing the point.

The example of Rapid Maneuvers (RM). The power is prevented from being used when you press the button. It does not cast.

Are you suggesting that all powers that can affect another player are disabled when an NPC is within your target range, just like RM? When does that get shut off? How does the game know you are now in an area where the powers should be allowed? Do I need to toggle it when I am questing or in a dungeon so I know my powers will work if NPCs are around? What if I specifically like the option on so I can never accidentally kill an NPC while tossing powers around in combat? Do I have to now choose and play completely differently than I do now to accommodate this area of the Justice System?

Do you mean the power is disabled when within the target range of someone flagged for PVP? What if I want to help a team member? How do I get flagged so my powers affect them without also committing a crime and waiting for a guard to come by? Toggle off the option? Am I automatically flagged if I team with someone? If I have to toggle, chances are it'll be too late to help, especially if I need to navigate console menus to change the option.

Do you mean that the option to not attack innocents will be an additional power check for when the power is executed? So, now, ESO needs to reprogram all powers that affect other players to also check your option, then how the other player is flagged?

It's quite possible that you did answer some of the questions I posed. If you did, I am sorry for missing them. It's easy to miss some things within long, multiple posts. My questions are also not an exhaustive list. I do not think it's important to my point in the end, though. I am mainly arguing against your somewhat dismissive tone to those who object and your seeming belief that you've covered it all. You didn't.

It's extremely possible that ESO would miss something during their implementation. Depending on what they missed, it could certainly cost them players. On consoles patching those holes could take a long time, or at least cost a lot as they need to pay for more frequent patch certifications. Given all of the challenges and the potential costs, I just cannot see how it would be worth it for them to pursue this system.

This is the whole point on my thread, to find loopholes and exploits in this concept. It is the penultimate sentence in the first post labeled as Introduction. Makes me wonder if you also read the posts.
My tone was dismissive to @Tan9oSuccka because he clearly did not read the concept, before posting issues that were already addressed.

To answer your concerns:
The "prevent attacking innocents" option is already implemented in such a way to prevent casting a skill if casting it would affect NPCs. My suggestion would only make it apply to players also. As my suggestion says, if you have read it, it would be you would still be able to cast skills on other players if they are in your group. You need to be in a group to do to dungeons, no?
If you want to help out a flagged player, you can do so if you have the option turned off, or you need to be in a group with him to be able to cast spells on him. Remember that buffing or healing Fugitives is a Minor crime, you will be getting a bounty for it.
You are simply not allowed to help out a Fugitive with no repercussions, that would leave room for exploits.
It's all there in the second post, take some time to read through it.

EDIT: I have now changed the following line based on your input:

• The "prevent attacking innocents" option also prevents players from healing or buffing other players engaged in Justice Combat that are not in the same group. Does not apply in Cyrodiil or Imperial City, or when becoming a Fugitive.

I added the sentence:

• The "Prevent auto-looting stolen items" now also applies to items on display.

to the General part of the concept. It is something I have been counting on, I just must have forgotten to put it in.
This addresses @IndyWendieGo 's concern about "accidentally stealing" items.

meri20098 wrote: »

Dubhliam wrote: »

Becoming an Enforcer

• Requires access to the Dark Brotherhood DLC.
• During the Partners in Crime quest, if the player returns the Giovessen Skull when caught by Chief inspector Rhanbiq, the inspector approaches the player and offers the player to join the Iron Wheel or get thrown in jail. If the player chooses to join, he or she obtains the "Answering the Call" quest.
• During the Voices in the Dark quest, the player now gets an option to report Amelie Crowe to a nearby Guard instead of killing an innocent. Doing so, the player obtains the "Answering the call" quest.
• The quest "Answering the Call" can also be obtained by interacting with Guards or in the Collectibles Menu - DLC tab - Dark Brotherhood.
• Obtaining the quest "Answering the Call" automatically abandons the "Partners in Crime" and "Voices in the Dark" quests.
• Players that have the "Answering the Call" quest active, or are members of the Iron Wheel cannot start the "Partners in Crime" and "Voices in the Dark" quests.
• Members of the Thieves Guild and/or Dark Brotherhood cannot receive the "Answering the Call" quest. To be able to receive the quest, the player is given an option to abandon those guilds. There is an equivalent, reversed process for Enforcers that want to become members of the Thieves Guild or Dark Brotherhood. Skill line levels and skill points do not reset when abandoning a guild.

Your thought process is insane (in a good way). What I will ask though is what if you want to be an enforcer and infiltrate the thieves or DB? What if you had to be on the inside to gather information?

This is already addressed in the General part of the concept.

• Enforcers cannot turn off the "prevent attacking innocents option" and cannot loot stolen goods, pickpocket, and enter any Trespassing area, as well as Outlaw refuges, the Thieves Den or Dark Brotherhood Sanctuary.

This is to prevent potential griefing by gaining intel on players that visit those places frequently and then following them around in hopes they make a mistake.
I have now also edited the General part to include the sentence:

• Only Enforcers may enter the Iron Wheel Headquarters.

notimetocare wrote: »

Dubhliam wrote: »

Divinius wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

Divinius wrote: »

Dubhliam wrote: »

Once again, the people opposed to PvP Justice have no idea what they are opposing.

And once again, people in favor of adding PvP to the justice system can't seem to understand why the people who oppose it, do.

There should NEVER be PvP repercussions to PvE actions. Period. End of story. I don't care how many hoops players need to jump though to finally activate the PvP aspect, if it is activated via PvE actions (including fleeing from a guard) it's unacceptable.

So you are happy with the current justice system? You don't feel it's bland or boring and has a very short shelf life?

So sick of hearing this as the immediate response...

I will be the first to admit that the current justice system is bland and boring. And as I've said many times before, there are many things that could be done to improve the system, without adding any PvP aspect.

Adding PvP is not the only way to improve the justice system.

It's true.
It's not the only way.
But I don't see a version of the PvE Justice System that would highly improve on what we have currently.

Also, looking from a perspective that this is a highly sought after improvement, how would you justify spending valuable resources and not delivering something players demand in high numbers.

Tan9oSuccka wrote: »

Dubhliam wrote: »

Tan9oSuccka wrote: »

Dubhliam wrote: »

Clerics1985 wrote: »

just put a Diablo 2 "hostile" button and Let the world go to town. don't wanna fight? cool don't "hostile" you see someone whoopin up on a NPC that you deem Unnecessary?does he have hostility clicked? click the hostile button and Go to town. At least then we would have a real way to guage just how many PVER's Wouldn't/won't participate.

There have been many suggestions with the "opt in" solutions in the past, and I have considered it.

The main reason I have decided not to include a complete "opt out" system is because I think the Justice system is not exciting enough in itself as it is right now.
This concept is not here only to promote PvP fights, this is mainly to improve on an incomplete and dull Justice System we currently have.

And many will agree that the current Justice System is in dire need of improvements.

I can only imagine what a disaster this would be. No opt-out option? All these threads have a common theme: I want to kill unsuspecting, unequiped PVE players for thrills.

Towns would be littered with PVP'ers looking to gank. Try going to Cropsford in Cyrodiil questing. Shoot a revealing flare in the area of the quest givers. I did that once, and uncovered 12 banana's just sitting crouched.

Fun, right? No thanks.

Please read the full suggestion.
A criminal with a bounty getting caught, then willingly choosing the "Flee" option is hardly unsuspecting, is he?
FUGITIVE

• The highest heat level- Fugitive can now be only triggered by the "Flee dialogue" when accosted by a guard or Enforcer while being Disreputable or Notorious. This does not apply in Trespassing areas.
  ...
• Players with the Fugitive heat are marked for PvP, making them attackable by Guards and Enforcers.
  ...

Once again, the people opposed to PvP Justice have no idea what they are opposing.

I know exactly what I'm opposing. While I appreciate the time it took to outline your plan, it would be a disaster.

What happens to heal powers like breath of life? Does it heal the "Enforcer" or "Criminal"? If the criminal, do you get a bounty? What about groups? If my buddy clicks on a stolen item from a weapon rack on accident, I'm supposed to let some PVP vigilante schlub kill him?

There are just too many things to account for. ZOS scrapped this idea for good reason. Players would exploit/grief to no end with it.

Actually, you don't. You have not read my detailed concept, if you had, you would have noticed there are a lot of rules into place to prevent exactly that what you are describing.

What you are opposing is your own vision of how you think it would be implemented.

For your information, to clarify (so you don't have to read):
Players have a way to prevent accidental PvP tagging: "prevent attacking innocents". It is already partially implemented in the game - you cannot cast Rapid Manouvers while near an NPC if you have that option on. The same would apply with all buffs and heals. Those that don't have that option turned on are in risk of "accidentally" helping a criminal, which is a felony. It would not instantly make you flagged for PvP, but you would get a bounty.
Another thing, that "friend that accidentally clicks on a stolen item from a weapon rack" could not be attacked. Only after getting caught by a Guard or Enforcer and choosing the "Flee" option would he be viable for PvP. And if he would rather fight than pay 55 gold worth of bounty, that is his choice.

Please read, it's all there.

I do however encourage such critical thinking, this is the reason I made the thread - so other players could find possible exploits and we could improve on the concept together.

Supposedly in high demand and sought after. I 100% admit if they ever add PvP justice I will grief until kingdom come.

This is what I am genuinely interested in: HOW?

I've been meaning to address some earlier posts but kind of... forgot

Divinius wrote: »

Dubhliam wrote: »

First of all, people could still participate in the Justice System, and all it has to offer currently without ever actually fighting another player.
All they have to do is not choose the "Flee" option.
Playing this way would ensure they never PvP, yet it would add some dimension to thieving and killing because getting a bounty means you would have to avoid real players, with minds of their own, not some NPC with a standard route you can avoid.

No, they can't.

Here's just ONE example of many I could come up with. There's an achievement for escaping the guards 100 times. I've gotten this achievement. Under your system, I would have to risk getting PvP ganked 100 times in order to get this PvE achievement. No thank you.

Basically, you are using the same argument I keep seeing in all these threads for the lack of a real "opt-out" from the PvP justice. "Just don't steal things." "Just don't get caught." "Just don't flee guards." None of that works, because in all cases, you are now limiting what the player can do if they want to avoid the PvP that they've been able to avoid all along.

You think the current system is too easy? Fine. I don't care if you make the NPC guards 10 times stronger, and put dozens more of them around. I don't care if you make having a high bounty lock you out of a bunch of other things. I'd even support advances in the system like NPC-run prisons and other cool features. All of that is PvE consequences for PvE actions.

Honestly, I wouldn't even care if they implemented everything you suggested, as long as there is a REAL opt-out option that would allow me to never have to worry about any PvP aspect. So long as there's a game setting that would allow me to do everything I can now, and not ever get myself flagged for PvP, you can have your PvP Justice system. I just want to be able to choose to pretend it doesn't exist.

If the "Cut-and-run" achievement is best out of "many you could come up with" arguments people could not participate in the Justice System, well... I'm out of ideas how to reply to that.
I guess @ZOS_RichLambert should come out with another statement saying: "We won't be adding the previously discussed PvP Justice System because people would not be able to unlock a certain achievement without getting flagged for PvP."

There is a whole section of achievements that are obtainable only in PvP, yet I don't see people quitting the game over that fact.

@BenLocoDete , I agree ZOS is probably not capable of implementing such a large scale system anymore (although it used to be), but I can always dream.
The idea is to provide them with as much fictional exploits as possible, so that if they ever decide to take this on, they would have a healthy start to build on.

BenLocoDete wrote: »

IndyWendieGo wrote: »

Previous Quotes

Divinius wrote: »

stevenbennett_ESO wrote: »

I'm one of those people who would absolutely hate to have the PvP Justice system implemented. I wouldn't quit ESO, but I'd be highly frustrated that a segment of the game I'm finding highly enjoyable right now thanks to the recent DLCs would be seriously nerfed by my need to avoid the PvP griefers who would be lurking around in towns to kill anyone who happens to trigger the PvP flag. I don't do PvP -- I'm absolutely terrible at it, and would stand no chance. (And I "Flee" all the time -- it's a matter of honor that I should never pay a bounty to a Guard...)

What you're suggesting ONLY has benefit to the PvP players -- it has NO benefit to PvE players AT ALL. It's just a meaningless hurdle for PvE players, and not a very fun one. ("If I flee from the guards, maybe I can get away," a potentially exciting chase scene, becomes a boring "If I flee from the guards, I'll just be ganked by a dozen annoying PvPers, so why do I even bother playing?")

If you *really* want to have PvP Justice, the only real way to do it is to have a completely separate and isolated instance of the servers for people who want to do PvP Justice. If you want to do PvP Justice, you'd have to be in that instance. Heck - you could then have PvP anywhere in Tamriel, and those of us who don't want to deal with the PvP stuff don't have to see it or know it's happening. SWTOR recently changed how they handle PvP to follow this scheme - every server there now has PvP and PvE instances, and you select which one you want. It's made PvE in that game a LOT more fun, because we no longer have to worry about the annoying PvPers bothering us anymore.

Which is, IMHO, the most likely reason PvP players are into this idea -- the idea of being able to gank PvE players must make them feel like a kid in a candy store. I wonder how many PvPers would still be as strongly supportive of a PvP Justice system if they knew NONE the PvE players wouldn't be involved... And I wonder how many of the people who support PvP Justice identify as PvE players -- I'm guessing it's a tiny percentage if any all all.

I wish I could give you both an Agree and an Awesome...

Used one of mine. They pretty much nailed it. Not to mention the fact that choosing flee for an accidental bounty, and then being flagged for PvP when you're no where near ready to PvP is just completely ridiculous. The reasons why I think it's ridiculous are blatantly obvious in this thread.

By the Aedra you instantly respawn what's the matter? And it would actually be funny like accidentally stealing a cuirass from the market, and suddenly 15 instant gap closers and ambushes obliterating your character from life. You won't accidentally steal ever again, will you?

Just kidding, but yes instant atomic wars in the market are somewhat expected, the good thing would be having some allies fighting alongside you, why everyone committing crimes feel like they will be ganked alone? Outlaws are the majority of players, I doubt anyone would enforce anything without having to suddenly pick a fight with a whole gang. Just imagine a market revolt where one enforcer approaches a young burglar, and then everybody around with some bounty on their head jumps in to resist the law, some guards join the fight and in the midst of hell broke loose an opportunist empties the caches silently.

All of this sounds incredibly funny to me.

Take note that players cannot attack an Enforcer before getting attacked by him first. Any smart Enforcer would realize a situation where he is outnumbered, and he would only attack one Outlaw at a time.
Other Outlaws can however help out the Fugitive being attacked by healing him and buffing him. Those are however felonies, and other Enforcers with points in the Criminal Awareness passive would be notified and that are would soon be flooded by Enforcers.
Outlaws should, IMO, always be discouraged to fight Enforcers.

@ADarklore , what do you base your claim "While some PvE players may want it, the overwhelming majority of PvE players DO NOT." on? I at least have polls with 450 positive votes to back my claims.
You speak in other people's names when you say "...would alienate the majority of players and ZOS would lose a ton of money from players leaving..."
When you say you would leave if the PvP Justice System got implemented, I have to ask: did you read the concept in this thread?
If you have, what are your biggest concerns that would make you quit the game over it?

I can say in all honesty that the moment non-consensual open world PvP was introduced into ESO as an integral part of the PvE content I would be gone from the game. It might seem a small change to some but it would be taking the game in a direction I have no interest in traveling. And yes, the proposal here is for non-consensual PvP within the PvE content as it places restrictions on my PvE actions in PvE areas.

I'm all in favour of the game having a variety of PvP content in PvP areas including PvP enhancements to the Justice System. Suggest the creation of new PvP areas designed around the addition of PvP to the Justice System in those areas by all means. Propose a PvP component to the Justice System throughout the open world with an absolute and unconditional opt-out mechanism for those who don't wish to PvP, and subject to that component being excluded from central hub locations where there are already performance issues without player combat I'd be a tad more sympathetic to the idea.

However, all most of the proponents of adding PvP to the Justice System are really interested in is exporting PvP to PvE areas and forcing it one way or another onto those unwilling PvP participants as an unwanted consequence for their PvE actions in those PvE areas. There can be no other reason to oppose including an absolute and unconditional opt-out mechanism for the PvP part.

Surely there are better ways for PvPers to get their jollies. Wouldn't most of them prefer to fight players who want to fight back? Why don't they focus on helping to shape the small-scale PvP content that has been accepted by ZOS instead of constantly going on about open world PvP content that has been very firmly rejected by ZOS? However, if they are going to continue coming up with these sorts of proposals - the discussion of which is a constant reminder to ZOS of the wisdom of their decision based on the divisiveness such proposals always generate - they should at least have the wit to recognise that the first step in any attempt to get ZOS to revise their decision is to reduce that divisiveness by incorporating an absolute and unconditional opt-out mechanism as a core element of their proposals.

It's very unlikely that these sorts of proposals will ever see the light of day in any event, but without the acceptance of an absolute and unconditional opt-out mechanism they are guaranteed never to even get off the ground. There's just no way that ZOS are going to dump PvP onto unwilling PvErs and stand by while some of them leave the game. ZOS will work at improving the PvE and the PvP, but they'll keep them separate for the good of the game all the time there is a sense of divisiveness between the two parts of the community. If you're serious about enhancing the Justice System through some form of PvP addition then work with the PvEers on the way to do it, and for them the inclusion of an absolute and unconditional opt-out mechanism is the only point from which any progress could be made. There are other valid concerns over things like performance and exploitation but it's the failure of supporters of PvP in the Justice System to accept the principle of an absolute and unconditional opt-out mechanism that has driven every single thread on this subject.

BenLocoDete wrote: »

Previous quote from @Tandor

Tandor wrote: »

I can say in all honesty that the moment non-consensual open world PvP was introduced into ESO as an integral part of the PvE content I would be gone from the game. It might seem a small change to some but it would be taking the game in a direction I have no interest in traveling. And yes, the proposal here is for non-consensual PvP within the PvE content as it places restrictions on my PvE actions in PvE areas.

I'm all in favour of the game having a variety of PvP content in PvP areas including PvP enhancements to the Justice System. Suggest the creation of new PvP areas designed around the addition of PvP to the Justice System in those areas by all means. Propose a PvP component to the Justice System throughout the open world with an absolute and unconditional opt-out mechanism for those who don't wish to PvP, and subject to that component being excluded from central hub locations where there are already performance issues without player combat I'd be a tad more sympathetic to the idea.

However, all most of the proponents of adding PvP to the Justice System are really interested in is exporting PvP to PvE areas and forcing it one way or another onto those unwilling PvP participants as an unwanted consequence for their PvE actions in those PvE areas. There can be no other reason to oppose including an absolute and unconditional opt-out mechanism for the PvP part.

Surely there are better ways for PvPers to get their jollies. Wouldn't most of them prefer to fight players who want to fight back? Why don't they focus on helping to shape the small-scale PvP content that has been accepted by ZOS instead of constantly going on about open world PvP content that has been very firmly rejected by ZOS? However, if they are going to continue coming up with these sorts of proposals - the discussion of which is a constant reminder to ZOS of the wisdom of their decision based on the divisiveness such proposals always generate - they should at least have the wit to recognise that the first step in any attempt to get ZOS to revise their decision is to reduce that divisiveness by incorporating an absolute and unconditional opt-out mechanism as a core element of their proposals.

It's very unlikely that these sorts of proposals will ever see the light of day in any event, but without the acceptance of an absolute and unconditional opt-out mechanism they are guaranteed never to even get off the ground. There's just no way that ZOS are going to dump PvP onto unwilling PvErs and stand by while some of them leave the game. ZOS will work at improving the PvE and the PvP, but they'll keep them separate for the good of the game all the time there is a sense of divisiveness between the two parts of the community. If you're serious about enhancing the Justice System through some form of PvP addition then work with the PvEers on the way to do it, and for them the inclusion of an absolute and unconditional opt-out mechanism is the only point from which any progress could be made. There are other valid concerns over things like performance and exploitation but it's the failure of supporters of PvP in the Justice System to accept the principle of an absolute and unconditional opt-out mechanism that has driven every single thread on this subject.

Would you object to a totally optional PvP arena for those who go to the jail and decide to take their chance into the crucible? For instance, you are a criminal, and during an assault to some farmer a guard approaches you:
"Stop right here, sheep bully! You have committed a crime and now must pay for it!"

1. Pay your bounty (x gold) 2. Go to jail 3. Try to flee

Two options here are well known to everyone, but the "Go to jail' will offer an instanced area where you'll be able to:

1. Simply spend your time and lose some progress(depending on your bounty - good if you don't have the money and/or for RP reasons) 2. Fight for freedom in the crucible, a small scaled dungeon where murderers and burglars duel for money, fame and freedom. The winner is put out of prison without any fine(or lost progress) and plus get some rewards from the amusement they offered spilling other players blood.

@BenLocoDete

If #2 read "Got to Jail (PVP)" so it was clear this meant entering PVP and exiting PVE you might have a go here but of course.... making that clear wouldn't sucker in PVE victims for the PVP mill so thats clearly not going to be an option. if it were made clear, the only folks ever taking the 2 would be experienced PVPers ready for whatever 1Vmany kill zone the "enforcers" hanging around the jail had set. Like the laws telling folks how much a pay-per-minute call line, ading "(PVP)" would be a kill message.

@Dubhliam

I have two issues to ask you about:

SCOPE OF THE FIX vs SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM

Some have commented that a reason PVE Justice is "so boring" or "so bad" is that its too easy to avoid getting spotted by "robot guards following preset paths" so you never even get a bounty situation if careful.

I would like for you to be CLEAR on this point for them even if they like your system.

QUESTION: is it true that you do NOT as part of your system propose changing that for PVE as in you would NOT allow "enforcers" run by PCs to spot a crime or in anyway influence the issue of "do you get spotted"?

If you answer is in the affirmative, it seems your approach wont implement "more consequences" for crimes in general but would only address the "RUN FROM GUARDS AFTER GETTING CAUGHT is too easy" crowd... not the broader pro-justice-pvp crowd who responded to the polls you keep citing.

Would you consider that a fair statement?

WHO IS GAINING FROM THIS

An issue brought up is how boring and unenjoyable the current PVE Justice is. That is one of the goals here, right, to increase enjoyment?

Well for whom does this do that?

Consider players fall into many camps but for right now i will focus in on the spectrum around PVE-ONLY-JUSTICE and PVP.

The key element is that right now players have the ability at any moment to choose to spend their time doing PVEOJ or doing PVP vs PVP play in Cyrodil or go do other things.

Some people like PVEOJ and some dont with many levels in between. I would suggest quite a few want it better than now.

Some people like PVP and some dont with many levels in between. I wont comment on what PVPers want.

So right now we have the following elements in play for the basic groups created by those two lines of thought.

S

• OME PLAYERS who like PVEOJ better than PVP: Forcing PVP into PVEOJ then isn't an improvement of their enjoyment. Something they like less than PVEOJ added into it wont make it more fun for them. Especially since something(s) in PVE are being taken away from them - the run from guards chase scenes. THESE FOLKS ACTUALLY LOSE SOMETHING THAT IS A PART OF SOMETHING THEY LIKE so that something they dont like can be added in. Lose for them.
• SOME PLAYERS who like PVP better than PVEOJ: Not sure this makes them happier or makes it more enjoyable for them. Right now, they can just play PVP. Nothing currently in PVP is taken away. They still have all their old PVP stuff and also get now the option to be jumping PVE players so, yeah, if that makes more fun for them, then its a plus for that group. To be clear: if they find PVP jumping PVE players more fun than PVP vs PVP, then its a plus. otherwise, its the same or worse.
• SOME PLAYERS who DISLIKE both but about equally: Well, these people aren't helped at all. two flavors they likely werent playing in at all merged... and now they just continue to ignore them.
• SOME PLAYERS who like both about equally: These folks already enjoy both and participate in both (one assumes.) No reason to think time spent doing a fusion is more enjoyable than time spent doing either. No real sign of a improvement in enjoyment here.

CAPS for emphasis not shouting.

Now, it generally seems the premise to begin with is many or most players aren't happy with the PVEOJ system but if that is true then the only folks it seems who are helped in their enjoyment of the game by this fusion are the folks who would rather PVP vs PVE but most everyone else loses enjoyment or stays neutral.

So, it seems to me the goal of increasing enjoyment your proposal fails in a broader sense.

What would you say to this?

What reason do you have (if any) to believe that folks who dont like PVO will enjoy being PVP jumped in justice ot r that flks who like PVP vs PVP will like the same better when its in a justice system context where they wait around for PVE events to trigger PVP chances? Why would someone who likes PVP vs PVP spend all that time waiting for a PVE mishap when they could just go to Cyrodil and get PVP vs PVP right away? How is that a more fun time?

or will you agree that MOST of the "enjoyment gain" from your proposal will go to players who prefer PVP vs PVE targets over PVP vs PVP targets?

BenLocoDete wrote: »

Previous quote from @Tandor

Tandor wrote: »

I can say in all honesty that the moment non-consensual open world PvP was introduced into ESO as an integral part of the PvE content I would be gone from the game. It might seem a small change to some but it would be taking the game in a direction I have no interest in traveling. And yes, the proposal here is for non-consensual PvP within the PvE content as it places restrictions on my PvE actions in PvE areas.

I'm all in favour of the game having a variety of PvP content in PvP areas including PvP enhancements to the Justice System. Suggest the creation of new PvP areas designed around the addition of PvP to the Justice System in those areas by all means. Propose a PvP component to the Justice System throughout the open world with an absolute and unconditional opt-out mechanism for those who don't wish to PvP, and subject to that component being excluded from central hub locations where there are already performance issues without player combat I'd be a tad more sympathetic to the idea.

However, all most of the proponents of adding PvP to the Justice System are really interested in is exporting PvP to PvE areas and forcing it one way or another onto those unwilling PvP participants as an unwanted consequence for their PvE actions in those PvE areas. There can be no other reason to oppose including an absolute and unconditional opt-out mechanism for the PvP part.

Surely there are better ways for PvPers to get their jollies. Wouldn't most of them prefer to fight players who want to fight back? Why don't they focus on helping to shape the small-scale PvP content that has been accepted by ZOS instead of constantly going on about open world PvP content that has been very firmly rejected by ZOS? However, if they are going to continue coming up with these sorts of proposals - the discussion of which is a constant reminder to ZOS of the wisdom of their decision based on the divisiveness such proposals always generate - they should at least have the wit to recognise that the first step in any attempt to get ZOS to revise their decision is to reduce that divisiveness by incorporating an absolute and unconditional opt-out mechanism as a core element of their proposals.

It's very unlikely that these sorts of proposals will ever see the light of day in any event, but without the acceptance of an absolute and unconditional opt-out mechanism they are guaranteed never to even get off the ground. There's just no way that ZOS are going to dump PvP onto unwilling PvErs and stand by while some of them leave the game. ZOS will work at improving the PvE and the PvP, but they'll keep them separate for the good of the game all the time there is a sense of divisiveness between the two parts of the community. If you're serious about enhancing the Justice System through some form of PvP addition then work with the PvEers on the way to do it, and for them the inclusion of an absolute and unconditional opt-out mechanism is the only point from which any progress could be made. There are other valid concerns over things like performance and exploitation but it's the failure of supporters of PvP in the Justice System to accept the principle of an absolute and unconditional opt-out mechanism that has driven every single thread on this subject.

Would you object to a totally optional PvP arena for those who go to the jail and decide to take their chance into the crucible? For instance, you are a criminal, and during an assault to some farmer a guard approaches you:
"Stop right here, sheep bully! You have committed a crime and now must pay for it!"

1. Pay your bounty (x gold) 2. Go to jail 3. Try to flee

Two options here are well known to everyone, but the "Go to jail' will offer an instanced area where you'll be able to:

1. Simply spend your time and lose some progress(depending on your bounty - good if you don't have the money and/or for RP reasons) 2. Fight for freedom in the crucible, a small scaled dungeon where murderers and burglars duel for money, fame and freedom. The winner is put out of prison without any fine(or lost progress) and plus get some rewards from the amusement they offered spilling other players blood.

I'd give a conditional "yes" to that idea, along with my thanks for suggesting it. I think it has considerable potential.

I think there should be a simple "Opt out of the PvP component of the Justice System" box in the game settings, much like there is currently for attacking innocents. In order to protect the unwary, that box should be checked by default and in that case your "Fight for freedom" option wouldn't be presented when you were in jail.

If you unchecked that box, however, then the "Fight for freedom" option would be presented. The reason I say it's a conditional yes is because that should be the only PvP implication of gaining a bounty. That way, those who want to PvP as part of the Justice System could do so in a separate instance with no impact on any non-participants' performance or immersion. What I would obviously oppose is any attempt to add your system to that proposed by the OP so that in addition to a purely optional PvP option in jail PvEers would also be jumped on by Enforcers if they chose the "Flee" option when initially apprehended. However, given the assumption that you don't intend that, then I'd welcome in principle your idea and suggest a couple of points to it:-

First, you mention that the "Fight for freedom" would take the form of a duel. I suggest that should be purely one on one, battle-scaled so the players are of the same level. No point in having it if my level 10 with no CPs finds himself confronting your level 50 with 501 CPs and your mates standing by with their heals and buffs ! Skill-muted observers would be fine, and welcomed by the guards as "Witnesses". If it were a multiple player fight then balancing it would be impossible, and the scope for exploitation all the greater. If a prisoner chose to challenge and no player duellist was available then the game would generate an NPC one for him.

Second, you suggest that the winner leaves the prison with his bounty cleared, the basis obviously being that both duellists are prisoners which means no enforcement system as such, simply two criminals slugging it out. While that is fine, it might be better if the guards told the prisoner that if he chose to, he could gamble his release on a challenge to one of the guards' enforcers, that way players would maintain the original concept of choosing whether to be a criminal or an enforcer - important for role-play purposes.

Naturally, however, if the enforcer were to lose the duel then that would curry disfavour with the guards who would throw him in a cell as punishment, and he would then face the same options - bide his time, or face another enforcer ! If the prisoner lost then he'd face a longer spell in jail with the option to make another challenge. Doubtless there would be assorted achievements attached to both sides of the action, perhaps with implications for other areas of the game - for example, the Dark Brotherhood might take a dim view of one of their assassins not being able to hold his own in the crucible !

Clearly there would need to be safeguards in place to prevent player exploitation.

I can certainly see that the advantage of such a system would not only be the application of the PvP Enforcement System to the Justice System in a genuinely optional way that would not impact in any way on the open world PvE areas, but also that it could form at least one part of the basis on which duelling in arenas was introduced to the game for those who want it.

At the very least it's an idea that merits further consideration, conditional as I said at the outset on being the only PvP aspect of the Justice System and with the option for a genuine opt-out of it in the game settings. Thanks for the wholly constructive suggestion, and I'd be interested in your further thoughts together with those of both @Dubhliam and other PvPers as well as @Divinius and other opponents of PvP in the Justice System.

Love the idea but as said it will never come.. but it sounds like hella fun tho!

So this dead horse whipping is still on page one?

The simple fact is the only PVP players who support PVP justice are the ones who need to zerg or only know how to gank and nothing else in PVP.

The good PVPer's are happy with the PVP they have and are not looking for easy kills because they get their kills just fine in Cyro and Imperial city. It is the bad ones who rarely get kills and end up always killed who want this so they can target un-scaled noobs for easy kills.

Let's face facts 90% of these PVP justice supports want to be able to camp quest area's, or starter cities to kill. They would never go after someone in decent gear at their own level, they would go after the low levels that are new and could not defend themselves.

It would destroy thieving as a way for new players to make some money for their horse, first couple bank and bag upgrades and so on, and just lead to those new players quitting in frustration. The only way a MMO survives is by new players coming to the game as older players move on, you cut off that flow of new players by allowing the ones who cannot handle real PVP to constantly grief them you kill the game.

You want PVP go to the PVP zones like I do when I am in the mood for PVP, do not look for ways to slaughter noobs for easy free kills because you cannot handle the real PVPer's.

AmberLaTerra wrote: »

So this dead horse whipping is still on page one?

The simple fact is the only PVP players who support PVP justice are the ones who need to zerg or only know how to gank and nothing else in PVP.

The good PVPer's are happy with the PVP they have and are not looking for easy kills because they get their kills just fine in Cyro and Imperial city. It is the bad ones who rarely get kills and end up always killed who want this so they can target un-scaled noobs for easy kills.

Let's face facts 90% of these PVP justice supports want to be able to camp quest area's, or starter cities to kill. They would never go after someone in decent gear at their own level, they would go after the low levels that are new and could not defend themselves.

It would destroy thieving as a way for new players to make some money for their horse, first couple bank and bag upgrades and so on, and just lead to those new players quitting in frustration. The only way a MMO survives is by new players coming to the game as older players move on, you cut off that flow of new players by allowing the ones who cannot handle real PVP to constantly grief them you kill the game.

You want PVP go to the PVP zones like I do when I am in the mood for PVP, do not look for ways to slaughter noobs for easy free kills because you cannot handle the real PVPer's.

I guess I am not one of the 90% of those then.

Please read the full concept I am suggesting before commenting, thank you.

AmberLaTerra wrote: »

I did read the full concept, there is no opt out, nor protection for the level 3 fresh out of the tutorial who steals something then runs from a guard. You are just making them meat to your grinder which is very unfair.

In everyone one of your answers to those who disagree with your proposals it is about "I" well an MMO is not about what one person wants but about all the players. They cannot cater to what you personally consider fun when a vast majority do not want that.

You want a game that can be tailor suited to what you consider fun and want to play then play a single player game not an MMO. An MMO by it's very nature has to have broad appeal and cannot focus on the wants of only a small group of players as doing so will alienate a much larger group of players.

• The "prevent attacking innocents" option is now turned on by default for new characters. When the "you cannot attack this target..." notification is triggered for the first time, a tutorial is also shown that clearly states attacking innocents is a crime and will grant you a bounty along with instructions where to turn off the prevent attacking innocents option.
• The "Auto loot stolen items" option now also applies to items on display.
• The Flee option clearly indicates you will be flagged for PvP

Also, don't forget there was a poll where 450 forum users (75%) voted they wanted the PvP Justice System.
I talk for myself when suggesting because I don't want to talk on behalf of other people.
Which the anti-part of every discussion of PvP Justice always always do:
"every PvEer", "vast majority", "all PvPers only want to" etc.
Where are the numbers to back your claims?

Dubhliam wrote: »

All the previous threads were heavily debated whether this system would be good or not.
Note that two polls were done, both of which heavily favored the implementation.
@Lefty_Lucy 's thread had an astounding 75% vote for PvP Justice.

The concerns of those that didn't want to see it implemented were mostly about griefing and exploiting. And it was very hard for me to reason with those people.

Now that you are presented with a detailed concept on which you can comment your concerns, all your arguments fall down to:
"Just leave it alone"

So much for arguments.

If you have nothing constructive to add to this discussion, I would kindly ask you to refrain from posting.
One of my threads already got closed in the past because the discussion got heated and it pretty much down boiled to "I said this, you said that".
Instead, you can comb through my concept and look for holes in the system where it can be abused or improved upon.

The poll is skewed no matter if you got 250 votes for it and 2 against it. These forums are not the majority of the playerbase.

It is not a concern but a fact. Any PvP aspect in a PvE combined world has a possibility for griefing and exploiting. The very truth of any PvE player having to opt in or out of any PvP function is griefing.

I'll say it again. PvP and PvE should have it's own separate servers. That way someone who doesn't give a flying squirrel about PvP doesn't have to have their game littered with things that don't pertain to the content they are seeking. And if they do give a flying squirrel, they can travel to a PvP server or roll a new character on a PvP server. There this idea is fantastic and self contained. And anything that gets implemented for PvP isn't hamstrung or limited by PvE rules. And anything that gets implemented for PvE isn't hamstrung or limited by PvP rules.

When PvE events are affected by PvP events, the concept of balance is not possible.

Trust me, it's better separate. Balancing is easier, performance is better, players are happier.

Fantastic idea in a PvP server or PvP only DLC.

On this...
Lastly, I have a couple of questions for all of the players reading this thread:
1. How much of your playtime does the current Justice System take?
2. Do you see yourself actively participating in the Justice System in three months time, if it gets no improvements?

1
10-20% depending on day. Have characters already thru TG and DB lines, others working thru, others waiting. Hit thieves troves every day and cant recall last time at least one character wasnt in possession of hot stuff. Its not a majority of my playtime but then, nothing is because i have lotsa spinning plates each getting their nudges.

2
Yes

Now, unsolicited, let me add my viewpoint.

Folks keep acting like the justice system should be hard because its stealing.

I believe its sll about time, not ssome ad hoc modern day morality beard. Ask the bosmer how wrong stealing is andcwhether killing someone caught trying to steal is.

For me its time. Time and skill applied as you play the game and how you progress.

Spend an hour pve questing, pve grinding, farming/crafting, marketeering or stealing/pickpicketing/mugging. I dont care. All should provide you an enjoyable experience with appropriate rewards. It should be "as hard" to make gains by the thieving side as any of the others if the rewards are comparable.

Right now, i get more rewards for time from mudcrab hsrvesting than thieving by a long shot. Second is likely delving for motifs. Thieving is actually a little more chsllenging than either of thosek, imo.

So after the faux morality ploys, the second least believable critique of justice are the risk/reward pleas when there are msny times more risk/reward skewd than the thieving side.