Previous references and appointments What about this:

• No tabard, no bounty visible to enforcers, no fight outside Cyrodiil,
• No additional changes to the three first levels of heat but the heat will progress through heat level 4(possibly 5 - sorry, lots of GTA references these days)
• Heat level 4 now includes a PvP instance that allows players without any bounty on their heads and that have previously started the enforcer quest to actively participate alongside guards in the pursuit of criminals,
• This system is only available in the imperial province, as with the three banners war, nearby locations are in great turmoil, and this made things much worse in those cities, therefore, Kvatch, Anvil and potentially new areas made available inside of Cyrodiil will feature internal struggles between the players in more accordance to what is happening in the province.

If this is still too much, I'd suggest one additional restriction:

• The city of Bravil, once a great Ayleid port, now is barely making out of the war due to its proximity to the military struggle. Poverty and crime have made this town a perfect hub for war-wounded and defectors looking for little joy the local skooma traffic can offer. Hostility and the lack of proper ways to fight the growing criminality forced the authorities to rely on additional help from a mercenary group self-called "The enforcers" with ties in Blackwood, who offered help for a not so small fee.

The above system would be implemented solely in Bravil and possibly Leyawiin and nearby Elsweyr and Black Marsh cities(given the feedback is positive) once we get to see them.

AmberLaTerra wrote: »

Give me an example of a no opt out system that has no way to grief in it.

You cannot do so, there is no way to prevent griefing in one form or another and that is why this will never happen. You are just too stubborn to see the truth of the matter.

Would you like to take some time to read through this concept on the first page and point out some potential griefing situations?
After all, this is the one of the reasons I made this thread.

Dubhliam wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

Jaronking wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

petraeus1 wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

Dubhliam wrote: »

This is one of the things @STEVIL addressed also, and it made me add this idea into the concept:

• All the locked houses are now marked as Trespassing areas.

While this allows the Outlaws to be safe from persecution while inside houses, they will at least get a bounty if seen inside that house by an NPC.

just to be clear, you have now taken away or at least altered (in the name of serving the PVP wanting PVE targets crowd) at least one quest i know of within the normal series of quests that are either part of the main quest line or peripheral to it. this quest requires entry into three houses with the picked lock doors.

So, yet more PVE stuff sacrificed to appease this hunt for targets by PVPers.

Guess getting the PVE justice system hijacked for PVP isn't enough. Now you want the PVE quests too?

Sigh...

One could argue it was the other way around, since from the announcement of Justice back in 2014 it seemed very clear that PvP was part of the intrinsic design. That it didn't come with the first part of the Justice patch in 2015 (described as such: first half), doesn't mean that part of it disappeared.

Either way, it's no use to start fighting over PvE vs. PvP. Justice has a lot of potential for players of both preferences. Shouldn't we be endeavour to find a way both can enjoy the system without ruining the experience for the other? No need to claim Justice for PvE, as if any implementation of Justice PvP would certainly destroy all the PvE fun the system has to offer. There have been plenty of suggestions made in this thread and others to make sure these two content types don't bite each other.

People in favour of Justice PvP (myself included) don't have the intention of ruining people's fun, who are enjoying Justice as it is now. We want to enjoy it more ourselves, we had some great concepts from ZOS and we're trying to figure out how it can be done so everyone can be happy about it. At least grant us that bit of fun, to theorycraft, even if it is 'beating a dead horse'. That's not a crime. If it was, we'd arrest ourselves I assure you

So support the principle of an absolute and unconditional opt-out mechanism for those people. There's no reason why there shouldn't be such an opt-out in the game settings rather than tying an opt-out into a player's PvE choices - other than the obvious one which is that PvPers don't want to lose their soft targets among the PvEers and be forced into fighting other PvPers. I'm sure that for most PvPers that isn't the case, which is why I simply don't understand the failure to include an absolute and unconditional opt-out mechanism in all the proposals that get put forward on the addition of PvP to PvE content in PvE areas.

If they add that players would have it PVP justice actives until they have a player come after them and then they would change their setting to have PVP justice turned off so they can't be stopped.Which would cashed griefing and removed the risk pro justice players are asking for.A opt out system wouldn't work because its going to be abused.Only way it wouldn't be abused of if they make it of you every turn it on you can't turn it off.A opt out toggle won't work.

An opt-in/out button that was auto-set to "out" by default and which could only be toggled once per day with a 30 minute delay should work.

Fortunately it's an academic question as there's no way that ZOS are going to revise their thinking on this, and certainly not when those proposing the addition of PvP to PvE content are stupid enough to announce that their intention to grief is at the heart of it.

This is actually not a bad idea.

A few concerns:
What happens to those players that opt out at a certain point in the day, then go on a rampage just before the opt out kicks in? For example if that player managed to be caught, chose to flee (marking him for PvP), then evading the Enforcers until he becomes opt out?
Do you think that when opting out, Enforces could not accost you?

EDIT: If you think that I have announced that griefing is my intention, it is not my intelligence that should be insulted.

I'd suggest that if the enforcers hadn't caught him in 30 minutes then they'd have nothing to complain about. However, it would make sense for the opt-out toggle to be disabled while a player had a bounty.

Tandor wrote: »

Dubhliam wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

Jaronking wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

petraeus1 wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

Dubhliam wrote: »

This is one of the things @STEVIL addressed also, and it made me add this idea into the concept:

• All the locked houses are now marked as Trespassing areas.

While this allows the Outlaws to be safe from persecution while inside houses, they will at least get a bounty if seen inside that house by an NPC.

just to be clear, you have now taken away or at least altered (in the name of serving the PVP wanting PVE targets crowd) at least one quest i know of within the normal series of quests that are either part of the main quest line or peripheral to it. this quest requires entry into three houses with the picked lock doors.

So, yet more PVE stuff sacrificed to appease this hunt for targets by PVPers.

Guess getting the PVE justice system hijacked for PVP isn't enough. Now you want the PVE quests too?

Sigh...

One could argue it was the other way around, since from the announcement of Justice back in 2014 it seemed very clear that PvP was part of the intrinsic design. That it didn't come with the first part of the Justice patch in 2015 (described as such: first half), doesn't mean that part of it disappeared.

Either way, it's no use to start fighting over PvE vs. PvP. Justice has a lot of potential for players of both preferences. Shouldn't we be endeavour to find a way both can enjoy the system without ruining the experience for the other? No need to claim Justice for PvE, as if any implementation of Justice PvP would certainly destroy all the PvE fun the system has to offer. There have been plenty of suggestions made in this thread and others to make sure these two content types don't bite each other.

People in favour of Justice PvP (myself included) don't have the intention of ruining people's fun, who are enjoying Justice as it is now. We want to enjoy it more ourselves, we had some great concepts from ZOS and we're trying to figure out how it can be done so everyone can be happy about it. At least grant us that bit of fun, to theorycraft, even if it is 'beating a dead horse'. That's not a crime. If it was, we'd arrest ourselves I assure you

So support the principle of an absolute and unconditional opt-out mechanism for those people. There's no reason why there shouldn't be such an opt-out in the game settings rather than tying an opt-out into a player's PvE choices - other than the obvious one which is that PvPers don't want to lose their soft targets among the PvEers and be forced into fighting other PvPers. I'm sure that for most PvPers that isn't the case, which is why I simply don't understand the failure to include an absolute and unconditional opt-out mechanism in all the proposals that get put forward on the addition of PvP to PvE content in PvE areas.

If they add that players would have it PVP justice actives until they have a player come after them and then they would change their setting to have PVP justice turned off so they can't be stopped.Which would cashed griefing and removed the risk pro justice players are asking for.A opt out system wouldn't work because its going to be abused.Only way it wouldn't be abused of if they make it of you every turn it on you can't turn it off.A opt out toggle won't work.

An opt-in/out button that was auto-set to "out" by default and which could only be toggled once per day with a 30 minute delay should work.

Fortunately it's an academic question as there's no way that ZOS are going to revise their thinking on this, and certainly not when those proposing the addition of PvP to PvE content are stupid enough to announce that their intention to grief is at the heart of it.

This is actually not a bad idea.

A few concerns:
What happens to those players that opt out at a certain point in the day, then go on a rampage just before the opt out kicks in? For example if that player managed to be caught, chose to flee (marking him for PvP), then evading the Enforcers until he becomes opt out?
Do you think that when opting out, Enforces could not accost you?

EDIT: If you think that I have announced that griefing is my intention, it is not my intelligence that should be insulted.

I'd suggest that if the enforcers hadn't caught him in 30 minutes then they'd have nothing to complain about. However, it would make sense for the opt-out toggle to be disabled while a player had a bounty.

Definitely this. That's what I had in mind with cooldowns as well as definitely keeping them locked out of using the option when the player has a bounty. The only other issue I see are the guards and their borky AI. A passing question though, would a day be enough for a toggle? It could also have an incentive for a currency sink, like swapping campaigns in Cyrodiil. Those are a few passing ideas.

That dead horse just cant get any peace can he?

A BIG NO to this.
I would also cancel my sub and leave the game if any system like described here was implemented.

I play both PvE and PvP. I like to choose when I do either of those.
I do not want PvE in my PvP and I do not want PvP in my PvE.
This system would make 2 PvE DLCs unplayable.

I participate in the current justice system every time I play and I dont forsee not participating in it as it is any time soon.

It wont happen anyway, ever. ZoS made the right decision.

OP you are looking for another game. What you want isnt here. If you want open world PVP go play something like Black Desert.

There was a DC comics game (forget the name atm) that had open world PvP everywhere. The high levels did nothing buy greif and gank the lowbies just starting out the game. Many left in frustration and the game died.

STEVIL wrote: »

Dubhliam wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

Jaronking wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

petraeus1 wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

Dubhliam wrote: »

This is one of the things @STEVIL addressed also, and it made me add this idea into the concept:

• All the locked houses are now marked as Trespassing areas.

While this allows the Outlaws to be safe from persecution while inside houses, they will at least get a bounty if seen inside that house by an NPC.

just to be clear, you have now taken away or at least altered (in the name of serving the PVP wanting PVE targets crowd) at least one quest i know of within the normal series of quests that are either part of the main quest line or peripheral to it. this quest requires entry into three houses with the picked lock doors.

So, yet more PVE stuff sacrificed to appease this hunt for targets by PVPers.

Guess getting the PVE justice system hijacked for PVP isn't enough. Now you want the PVE quests too?

Sigh...

One could argue it was the other way around, since from the announcement of Justice back in 2014 it seemed very clear that PvP was part of the intrinsic design. That it didn't come with the first part of the Justice patch in 2015 (described as such: first half), doesn't mean that part of it disappeared.

Either way, it's no use to start fighting over PvE vs. PvP. Justice has a lot of potential for players of both preferences. Shouldn't we be endeavour to find a way both can enjoy the system without ruining the experience for the other? No need to claim Justice for PvE, as if any implementation of Justice PvP would certainly destroy all the PvE fun the system has to offer. There have been plenty of suggestions made in this thread and others to make sure these two content types don't bite each other.

People in favour of Justice PvP (myself included) don't have the intention of ruining people's fun, who are enjoying Justice as it is now. We want to enjoy it more ourselves, we had some great concepts from ZOS and we're trying to figure out how it can be done so everyone can be happy about it. At least grant us that bit of fun, to theorycraft, even if it is 'beating a dead horse'. That's not a crime. If it was, we'd arrest ourselves I assure you

So support the principle of an absolute and unconditional opt-out mechanism for those people. There's no reason why there shouldn't be such an opt-out in the game settings rather than tying an opt-out into a player's PvE choices - other than the obvious one which is that PvPers don't want to lose their soft targets among the PvEers and be forced into fighting other PvPers. I'm sure that for most PvPers that isn't the case, which is why I simply don't understand the failure to include an absolute and unconditional opt-out mechanism in all the proposals that get put forward on the addition of PvP to PvE content in PvE areas.

If they add that players would have it PVP justice actives until they have a player come after them and then they would change their setting to have PVP justice turned off so they can't be stopped.Which would cashed griefing and removed the risk pro justice players are asking for.A opt out system wouldn't work because its going to be abused.Only way it wouldn't be abused of if they make it of you every turn it on you can't turn it off.A opt out toggle won't work.

An opt-in/out button that was auto-set to "out" by default and which could only be toggled once per day with a 30 minute delay should work.

Fortunately it's an academic question as there's no way that ZOS are going to revise their thinking on this, and certainly not when those proposing the addition of PvP to PvE content are stupid enough to announce that their intention to grief is at the heart of it.

This is actually not a bad idea.

A few concerns:
What happens to those players that opt out at a certain point in the day, then go on a rampage just before the opt out kicks in? For example if that player managed to be caught, chose to flee (marking him for PvP), then evading the Enforcers until he becomes opt out?
Do you think that when opting out, Enforcers could not accost you?

EDIT: If you think that I have announced that griefing is my intention, it is not my intelligence that should be insulted.

Slightly different take...

opt-in/out under controls set to out by default.
change . 10s counter before it is final
May change it any number of times a day, same 10s counter.
CANNOT CHANGE it if you have any bounty/heat.
Booty gathered while IN gets "hot" telvar and AP added as possibles (the PVP rewards) similar to PVP normal but regular rewards are as normal PVE only.
"Hot telvar" is lost just like any unlaundered goods.
Enforcer doesn't get the telvar or maybe they do, i dont care. Whichever works.
But by making the key to be if you have bounty you cant change it... seems to prevent killing spree for higher rewards then out.

Obviously absolutely (or not) griefproof, depending on how you define grief.

Actually, leaving the Justice System out of Cyrodiil and Imperial City is my intent.
IMO, there shouldn't be internal Alliance fighting going on in areas where you should be teaming up with your Alliance members for the common goal of defeating the other Alliances.
Not to mention those areas hardly provide any Justice content.

@Tandor 's suggestion is the most promising so far, but I have some concerns:
I agree the opt change should not be instantaneous, that would be catastrophically griefable.
Obviously, a player could not change the opt-out if he/she has a bounty, but what happens in the time during the transition? When the player opted out, and is waiting for the opt to kick in?
Should criminal activites like stealing or killing be disabled during that time?
Also, my previous concern: can Enforcers still accost players that have opted out? If so, what happens when the player chooses Flee?
Do opt-out players fight immortal Guards, or are all Guards always mortal/immortal?

I'm confused! Are the city guards griefing PvE'rs when they kill them whilst invincible? Am I griefing players when I kill them in Cyrodiil? When I continuosly kill NPC's in town while other players witness it and can't do anything about it, is that griefing?

If this was implemented, and I came up with an awesome, boarderline, un-apprehend able, outlaw build. Would that be griefing?? You see, it appears to me that people will refuse to see any positives, with regards perhaps outlaw and enforcer builds, gear sets unique to the roles, crafting stations only accessible to the most cunning of outlaws and proudest of enforcers. But no, even though the PvP side of things can only be activated by failing, making it a very small part of the whole system when talking about skilled thieves and murderers, some of us are just too strung up on the possibility that they, or someone else, 'might' get offended!! What kind of world are we living in??

Tan9oSuccka wrote: »

Dubhliam wrote: »

AmberLaTerra wrote: »

Give me an example of a no opt out system that has no way to grief in it.

You cannot do so, there is no way to prevent griefing in one form or another and that is why this will never happen. You are just too stubborn to see the truth of the matter.

Would you like to take some time to read through this concept on the first page and point out some potential griefing situations?
After all, this is the one of the reasons I made this thread.

This one is the most concerning in your all encompassing post:

"Players can no longer be seen by other players while in stealth unless those players are grouped together. Does not apply in Cyrodiil or Imperial City."

People will grief with something like that in place. Again, look at Cyrodiil. People get extreme jollies with ganking. Someone gets flagged, and is jumped by twenty people from stealth by the wayshrine. Quality, skillful game play right there.

Tan9oSuccka wrote: »

Dubhliam wrote: »

AmberLaTerra wrote: »

Give me an example of a no opt out system that has no way to grief in it.

You cannot do so, there is no way to prevent griefing in one form or another and that is why this will never happen. You are just too stubborn to see the truth of the matter.

Would you like to take some time to read through this concept on the first page and point out some potential griefing situations?
After all, this is the one of the reasons I made this thread.

This one is the most concerning in your all encompassing post:

"Players can no longer be seen by other players while in stealth unless those players are grouped together. Does not apply in Cyrodiil or Imperial City."

People will grief with something like that in place. Again, look at Cyrodiil. People get extreme jollies with ganking. Someone gets flagged, and is jumped by twenty people from stealth by the wayshrine. Quality, skillful game play right there.

I cannot tell players how to play, but your example is like saying:
A Daggerfall Covenant (Outlaw) player enters Cyrodiil (willingly chooses to get flagged for PvP), goes to the Aldmeri Dominon Gate of Mnem (a wayshrine) and there are 20 ADs (Enforcers) in hide that just wait for someone like him to come by so that they can gank him.

Possible? Yes!
Likely? Not in the slightest!

I appreciate your concern, but being able to not be seen by other people has nothing to do with griefing, in fact it prevents it.
If other people would be able to see you sneaking around, they could easily follow you around in hopes that you make a mistake so that they could accost you.
Or maybe some other player that is not an Enforcer sees you sneaking somewhere after escaping an Enforcer, and goes: "There he is! Right there, by the blacksmith!"

Not being visible in sneak can only benefit Outlaws.

clayandaudrey_ESO wrote: »

Here's my TL;DR

It's is never coming so drop it.

Yes. Rationalality and logic would have told him not to post such a big waste of text, although I'm sure devs for other games out there would appreciate the enthusiasm.

STEVIL wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

I'm confused! Are the city guards griefing PvE'rs when they kill them whilst invincible? Am I griefing players when I kill them in Cyrodiil? When I continuosly kill NPC's in town while other players witness it and can't do anything about it, is that griefing?

If this was implemented, and I came up with an awesome, boarderline, un-apprehend able, outlaw build. Would that be griefing?? You see, it appears to me that people will refuse to see any positives, with regards perhaps outlaw and enforcer builds, gear sets unique to the roles, crafting stations only accessible to the most cunning of outlaws and proudest of enforcers. But no, even though the PvP side of things can only be activated by failing, making it a very small part of the whole system when talking about skilled thieves and murderers, some of us are just too strung up on the possibility that they, or someone else, 'might' get offended!! What kind of world are we living in??

RE the bold stuff: i bet it depends on whatever definition there is of griefing being used when asked the question. the folks so far who asked offered to find a grief vs grief-proof didn't provide definitions when asked, so, no telling.

BUT by my understanding of the somewhat mainstream definitions, NPCs do not grief... since griefing is usually directed at player actions. So no NPC can grief. NPCs are simply part of the "challenge" aspect of the task in this case. like locks to pick, they slow down your progression and gain depending on how you deal with them.

As for Killing in Cyrodil, no idea without prior agreement on definition and description of circumstances. Obviously, griefing CAn occur in PVP areas. But without specifics, your question is unanswerable.

As for you killing NPCs and other PCs not intervening, again, too little info. Some here have obswerved that their enjoyment is harmed by other PCs killing NPCs and them not being able to act on it. Now to me, thats just an MMO thing, a shared world thing. I cannot control other players characters actions so, as long as they aren't hitting my goals, impeding my progress in whatever i am doing, then mostly, who cares. So, as a for instance, if you are deliberately killing quest-key NPCs in PVE areas and you are doing it with the intent to interrupt and blockade folks trying to run those quests - that might well be griefing in some people's eyes..

As for what kind of world - one where PVP and PVE are separate and where PVE actions cannot open your character to PVP challenges.

Some want that to change. Others Dont.

I am for one all for expanding content related to justie - suggested a DLC based around law and order, criminals and enforcers, guild based on protecting travellers and merchants and caravans with dailies escorts and quest lines. If PVP want a PVP area justice to, sure, why not? if its in a war zone could be "espionage" style stuff.

That all is totally separate from wedding such interesting a diverse content and storylines to PVP GETS TP ATTACK PVE PLAYERS WOO HOO GANK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, broader audience, how about this... if you want all that rich other stuff like sets for enforcers and so on... great but stop trying to shoe horn in PVP GETS PVE VICTIMS as part of the stew?

it makes it look like PVP GETS PVE VICTIMS is the goal and the rest of it all is just the beard, the pretty petals and enticing fragrance around the Flytrap jaws.

I know from seeing threads about justice and law related content coming forward (after both TG and DB) that there seems to be an audience for those kinds of stories and missions and roles and content... as long as you don't poison the tea with the arsenic of PVP GETS PVE victims.

@STEVIL , you keep sorting the playerbase into two baskets with nothing in between. As if the only two fruit in the world were apples and oranges.

Your PVP GETS PVE victims is a generalization.
When you say "PVE victims" you assume those players would be grieved. As if they are being forced into something that disturbs them.
Marking yourself for PvP is a choice. Yes, you would no longer able to Flee as you can now, but that is exactly the thing that needs to be addressed currently:

• Immortal Guards provide no option to fight back to those that want to.
• Those that don't want to can evade paying a bounty for an unlimited time.

You go to great lengths just to leave the "Flee option". Just one option, a simple change that fixes everything that is wrong with the current system.
While in this concept, players would have many options to choose from.
Options. Not forced.

Dubhliam wrote: »

<snip> Marking yourself for PvP is a choice. Yes, you would no longer able to Flee as you can now, but that is exactly the thing that needs to be addressed currently <snip>

Not much of a choice then, is it?

There are plenty of ways of addressing the PvE content without adding PvP penalties to PvE choices and actions. Regardless of any merits to your proposal, which isn't entirely bad, your steadfast refusal to accept a complete opt-out mechanism for any PvP element guarantees that ZOS won't revisit their decision on mixing PvP with PvE content. It just underlines the grief agenda that lies behind every attempt by PvPers to engage with unwilling PvE participants in PvE areas.

Dubhliam wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

I'm confused! Are the city guards griefing PvE'rs when they kill them whilst invincible? Am I griefing players when I kill them in Cyrodiil? When I continuosly kill NPC's in town while other players witness it and can't do anything about it, is that griefing?

If this was implemented, and I came up with an awesome, boarderline, un-apprehend able, outlaw build. Would that be griefing?? You see, it appears to me that people will refuse to see any positives, with regards perhaps outlaw and enforcer builds, gear sets unique to the roles, crafting stations only accessible to the most cunning of outlaws and proudest of enforcers. But no, even though the PvP side of things can only be activated by failing, making it a very small part of the whole system when talking about skilled thieves and murderers, some of us are just too strung up on the possibility that they, or someone else, 'might' get offended!! What kind of world are we living in??

RE the bold stuff: i bet it depends on whatever definition there is of griefing being used when asked the question. the folks so far who asked offered to find a grief vs grief-proof didn't provide definitions when asked, so, no telling.

BUT by my understanding of the somewhat mainstream definitions, NPCs do not grief... since griefing is usually directed at player actions. So no NPC can grief. NPCs are simply part of the "challenge" aspect of the task in this case. like locks to pick, they slow down your progression and gain depending on how you deal with them.

As for Killing in Cyrodil, no idea without prior agreement on definition and description of circumstances. Obviously, griefing CAn occur in PVP areas. But without specifics, your question is unanswerable.

As for you killing NPCs and other PCs not intervening, again, too little info. Some here have obswerved that their enjoyment is harmed by other PCs killing NPCs and them not being able to act on it. Now to me, thats just an MMO thing, a shared world thing. I cannot control other players characters actions so, as long as they aren't hitting my goals, impeding my progress in whatever i am doing, then mostly, who cares. So, as a for instance, if you are deliberately killing quest-key NPCs in PVE areas and you are doing it with the intent to interrupt and blockade folks trying to run those quests - that might well be griefing in some people's eyes..

As for what kind of world - one where PVP and PVE are separate and where PVE actions cannot open your character to PVP challenges.

Some want that to change. Others Dont.

I am for one all for expanding content related to justie - suggested a DLC based around law and order, criminals and enforcers, guild based on protecting travellers and merchants and caravans with dailies escorts and quest lines. If PVP want a PVP area justice to, sure, why not? if its in a war zone could be "espionage" style stuff.

That all is totally separate from wedding such interesting a diverse content and storylines to PVP GETS TP ATTACK PVE PLAYERS WOO HOO GANK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, broader audience, how about this... if you want all that rich other stuff like sets for enforcers and so on... great but stop trying to shoe horn in PVP GETS PVE VICTIMS as part of the stew?

it makes it look like PVP GETS PVE VICTIMS is the goal and the rest of it all is just the beard, the pretty petals and enticing fragrance around the Flytrap jaws.

I know from seeing threads about justice and law related content coming forward (after both TG and DB) that there seems to be an audience for those kinds of stories and missions and roles and content... as long as you don't poison the tea with the arsenic of PVP GETS PVE victims.

@STEVIL , you keep sorting the playerbase into two baskets with nothing in between. As if the only two fruit in the world were apples and oranges.

Your PVP GETS PVE victims is a generalization.
When you say "PVE victims" you assume those players would be grieved. As if they are being forced into something that disturbs them.
Marking yourself for PvP is a choice. Yes, you would no longer able to Flee as you can now, but that is exactly the thing that needs to be addressed currently:

• Immortal Guards provide no option to fight back to those that want to.
• Those that don't want to can evade paying a bounty for an unlimited time.

You go to great lengths just to leave the "Flee option". Just one option, a simple change that fixes everything that is wrong with the current system.
While in this concept, players would have many options to choose from.
Options. Not forced.

Actually, I dont think i am dividing into absolutes with nothing in between... you seem to eb willing to throw that in though.

However, if you ask most PVP experienced players and if you look at almost any "build threads" on this forum you will come to one simple conclusion: THEY ARE SEPARATE. To answer the questions of what gear you should have equipped, what skills you should have slotted and even what morphs you should take the answers usually depend on "is this for PVE or PVP?"

People heading into PVP zones, know it. It isn't just a click or an accident. So they can answer all those questions for PVP before trotting out into harm's way.
People pursuing PVE goals in PVE zones can likewise answer those questions for PVE and so on.

When I say "getting PVE targets" and "getting PVE victims" i am specifically talking about PVP players jumping targets performing PVE activites in PVE zones who are more likely to not be equipped in PVP gear and setup for PVP.

Now, i KNOW you already were aware of these differences and I am sure those wanting the edge of getting PVP fights against PVE -setups characters are really hoping this wont be pointed out... but hey.there it is.

or, are you saying you disagree with all those other folks and dont think there is a didfference between PVP-setup characters jumping characters setup for PVE? Are you saying that there isn't any significant different in "optimal" or "decent" setup between a PVE-build and a PVP-build? or is that just something you want to keep ignoring, pretending isn't there, etc to sell your plan?

Also, you again try to paint opposition as overjoyed with current system with you "flee one change fixes everything" BS... guess its easier when you just ignore numerous statements from me about that. i think there is a lot that can be added to the current PVE-Justice system and plenty of rich development for it.

I just do NOT see PVP-takeover-PVE-CONTENT as a "solution" that "fixes" more than it "breaks".

Also, i wholeheartily dismiss the argument that it needs to happen because some players are unhappy seeing other players do PVE crime and get away with it. If we start down the road of "other players action bother me even when they dont affect me" we have gone off a cliff because some players might get unhappy seeing animals slaughtered (grinding) or Bosmers killed (quests) or any number of things.

****

Switching " going into PVP" from a significant number of clicks and wait etc to get over into a cyrodil instance to "guards dialog" with a "pay bounty or else" takeaway (and again willfully making it look like bounty is the only thing you lose when paying off guards - when you know its the stuff as well)... is the biggest problem with this "fix" for a problem that doesn't really exist.

You dont want to give the PVE players a choice... you want to make it a RANSOM. You REFUSED when i suggested putting FLEE PVE and FLEE PVP side by side.

You want to make it into "ENTER PVP" OR "PAY RANSOM" (or that PVP prison time sink thingy.)

You say "options" but you insist the rules set it up as RANSOM, as PAY TO AVOID.

I got no problem myself (beyond it appealing IMO to very few p-eople) with a system where the changes to the current system now are:
ADD to the dialog for guards a PVP FLEE and PVP Prison but keep the PVE flee. If either PVP choice is clicked a 10s countdown allows a cancel/confirm.

But IIRC and correct me if i am wrong you dont want that because allowing PVE players to just keep playing PVE as it is now and only dealing with guards including flee or not isn't something you are Ok with as far as justice?

Also, even though you bring it back to "choice" and "flee" as the focus again... I want to be clear... under your proposal if my character murders someone and so is in the "guards kill on sight" wouldn't your enforcers PVP guys get to jump in then without me having "chosen" PVP?

****

At the end of the day, there isn't a PROBLEM here needing fixing.
--- Crime isn't "too easy" when comparing gains over time for that activity vs gains for other activites that are as easy or easier such as grinding, questing, delving etc. having spent plenty of time doing those and more... there isn't a snowballs chance in Alikir that stealing is the heads and shoulders OP option that needs fixing.
--- People who dont like seeing others spending time stealing can get in line with those who dont like seeing people grinding or dont like seeing people farming and all the others in the "who cares what you think about what other people are doing in the game that doesn't impact you one bit" banner. You just dont get PVP rules for every PVE action you dont like.

Also at the end of the day, there isn't a "everything it can be" current system and so improvements are possible and even desired by many who are adamantly opposed to adding PVP-takeaways.
--We want a law and order guild and DLC and storylines and skill lines and dailies etc etc etc. That would be great!
--We want different and more serious challenges and some have already came with guards getting to spotlight stealth and invis, with glowing circles of detection, with stronger traps in TG for instance. But lets get more.
--- But none of that says "and PVP fixes it" or "PVP makes it better"

So dont try and keep painting it into "HAPPY WITH SYSTEM- no PVP" and "unhappy with system - Add pvp"

YMMV

Why not just create a PvP Justice System server? If people want to participate in an open world PvP, complete with duels and an active Justice System, they can log in. If they don't, they can choose the PvE server. Problem solved.

BenLocoDete wrote: »

Now, back to

Tan9oSuccka wrote: »

People will grief with something like that in place. Again, look at Cyrodiil. People get extreme jollies with ganking. Someone gets flagged, and is jumped by twenty people from stealth by the wayshrine. Quality, skillful game play right there.

You suggest that this is griefing. Wait, isn't this strategy? None is forced to go to Cyrodiil, and it is a PvP war occupied territory. Despite of that, nightblades, assassins, scouts and agents are known for playing this role. You want nurses in Cyrodiil?

You completely missed his point. He is saying look at Cyrodiil to see the all of the ganking and griefing that takes place - for example camping the quest givers in the towns - and transfer that mindset to PVE areas with a larger, more unprepared and unsuspecting population. He even specifically mentioned "flagging" to show he wasn't talking about normal PVP.

"If you build it, they will gank."

It may not have been the most clearly-worded point, but I can't see how you mistook the intent.

For my own view, I think one of the biggest mistakes they made was allowing anyone to crouch and become invisible to other players, in broad daylight, out in the open. Not only does it strain credibility, but every players has access to all of the bonus damage that comes with it. You have to balance for that damage, which can adversely affect the stats and gameplay for those cases where you need to fight mostly "standing up."