Divinius wrote: »

BenLocoDete wrote: »

Divinius wrote: »

BenLocoDete wrote: »

I for one am even pro to player pickpocketing - make it that you lost a few gold and ingredients to that criminal you just noticed slipping around you. It was just a few coins, but what if an algorythm made it that the lucky pickpocket got your most valuable ingredient? Are you going to leave the game and stop playing?

Would I leave the game if they implemented player pick-pocketing? Are you kidding? If they ever implemented that, I would be long gone before the update even went live.

I've been absent from this thread for days now due to RL obligations, but glad to see a few people stepping in to take on the task of trying to explain why any PvP in the Justice system that doesn't have a full opt-out is a bad idea. And just for the record, though it was a while ago that I was asked:

Yes, I would indeed instantly quit playing if they ever added PvP to the Justice system -- unless it had a full opt-out switch that would allow me to do everything I can now (including fleeing from guards) without ever being able to get flagged for PvP.

There is nothing you can say or nothing you can do to effectively prove that you are being sincerely true and definitive about this, but I thank you anyway and invite you to the conversation, if you don't mind, what are your biggest concerns regarding PvP under the conditions we have tried to limit on its existence or if you'd like to mention the negative experiences you had with PvP in general?

I assure you, I am being 100% sincere.

Do PvP players really have absolutely no concept of how anyone could possibly not love PvP? If this is the case, it would certainly explain why it's so impossibly hard to get them to understand why we don't want to be involved in it.

I can try to explain in detail, but I've done so a number of times on theses forums (and probably even in this thread), and it's never seemed to help or even be understood, so frankly, I'm not sure I'm willing to waste my time yet again.

Still, can't convince me, maybe in a few years with PvP stabilished for some time then you can send me a letter from Mars assuring me that there is no Internet connection on that planet and that you most certainly don't play ESO and that you might(just might) have left due to PvP, still it is completely uncertain and Mars might even have Internet...

I don't like PvP myself actually, for several reasons, one being that I don't support the crucial difference between playing against a P and an E. Having the same builds and sets compatible and competitive in both grounds should be a priority in the game.

Right now you can start a character straight at 3 or if it is your first character, you'll hit 4 soon after the wailing prison, so you are very weak but still can ravage most enemies if not even end questline bosses so anything there is mostly figurative and almost symbolic. A player wouldn't be this easy.

In this current scenario(first character), if you play a thief or a murderer, you should definitely be cautious, but not too much.

In any way, there are aspects of a freshly starting character that resembles, in a POV, a veteran starting, that is the bank and the previous player knowledge of overall gameplay. You can gear your character as if you just started a god, thus not every new character is a "novice", that given, I believe, a freshly started character can destroy a lvl 9~15 even 19 enforcer given proper gear and combat tactics.

From a Roleplaying approach, you could say your character was a famed criminal whose sudden bad luck got him captured and delivered to Mannimarco but remembers how to yield and thrust a dagger.

Relying on criminality is the easiest or more common way to gear up and boot your character and this is wrong in my opinion. It is very easy to hunt down a few packs of wolves and sell their hides, even mudcrabs, and that should get you enough to eat and drink, and questing will get you geared. This is the proper way to start a character, relying on thievery should put you in the same boat about the same time but must offer more risks as well(rarify the occurrence).

I've never killed anyone in PvP, in fact, I'm looking to be killed(my level 9 imperial thief is extremely greedy and never got caught, this is absurd - kinda lost interest), AND watch cruel criminals that take advantage on a farmer and sheeps to get what they "deserve". In the war, resources are important and you can't just throw them away like this. Nor shipwreck survivor who knows how to sail a fleet or marine agents that are still breathing. This should be a major crime within the factions due to the war.

The trivialization in crime is what feeds the PvP justice system on me, and just like vampires, I'd like it to be rarer, and kept to nighttime.

Tandor wrote: »

BenLocoDete wrote: »

Divinius wrote: »

BenLocoDete wrote: »

Divinius wrote: »

BenLocoDete wrote: »

I for one am even pro to player pickpocketing - make it that you lost a few gold and ingredients to that criminal you just noticed slipping around you. It was just a few coins, but what if an algorythm made it that the lucky pickpocket got your most valuable ingredient? Are you going to leave the game and stop playing?

Would I leave the game if they implemented player pick-pocketing? Are you kidding? If they ever implemented that, I would be long gone before the update even went live.

I've been absent from this thread for days now due to RL obligations, but glad to see a few people stepping in to take on the task of trying to explain why any PvP in the Justice system that doesn't have a full opt-out is a bad idea. And just for the record, though it was a while ago that I was asked:

Yes, I would indeed instantly quit playing if they ever added PvP to the Justice system -- unless it had a full opt-out switch that would allow me to do everything I can now (including fleeing from guards) without ever being able to get flagged for PvP.

There is nothing you can say or nothing you can do to effectively prove that you are being sincerely true and definitive about this, but I thank you anyway and invite you to the conversation, if you don't mind, what are your biggest concerns regarding PvP under the conditions we have tried to limit on its existence or if you'd like to mention the negative experiences you had with PvP in general?

I assure you, I am being 100% sincere.

Do PvP players really have absolutely no concept of how anyone could possibly not love PvP? If this is the case, it would certainly explain why it's so impossibly hard to get them to understand why we don't want to be involved in it.

I can try to explain in detail, but I've done so a number of times on theses forums (and probably even in this thread), and it's never seemed to help or even be understood, so frankly, I'm not sure I'm willing to waste my time yet again.

Still, can't convince me, maybe in a few years with PvP stabilished for some time then you can send me a letter from Mars assuring me that there is no Internet connection on that planet and that you most certainly don't play ESO and that you might(just might) have left due to PvP, still it is completely uncertain and Mars might even have Internet...

There are plenty who would move on if their PvE was compromised by PvP, myself included. I've done PvP in a number of MUDs and MMOs (not unsuccessfully, and quite enjoyably at the time) so am not against it by any means but I have found these days that PvE is much more satisfying such that I no longer have the slightest interest in PvP for myself while quite understanding why it appeals to others.

Whilst I am therefore more than happy for these games to have PvP in them it needs to be kept separate from the PvE content for me to want to play them. I probably have active accounts in the best part of a dozen MMOs these days, most of which I still play from time to time, and not a single one of them has developers who would dream of adding PvP to PvE content in a forced and unavoidable way. There are too many choices of games these days for anyone to need to stick with a game that doesn't allow them to adopt their preferred playstyle without at least an effective way of avoiding someone else's playstyle being imposed on them, and that doesn't mean cutting short their options in one playstyle in order to avoid the imposition of another playstyle, it means literally being able to avoid that other playstyle altogether - while happily accepting the existence and further development of that other playstyle for those who choose to adopt it. Some players like both playstyles of course, and as at present in ESO both should be freely available to them.

I'm sure there are people that would leave and people that would join as this is going on regardless of PvP justice system. It just seems that ESO once had a plan for PvP but they simply dropped everything for reasons yet to be determined since stating that "the problems can outweigh the fun" is generally vague and quite subjective but I understand PR is a mess.

A bit off topic

BenLocoDete wrote: »

Tandor wrote: »

BenLocoDete wrote: »

Divinius wrote: »

BenLocoDete wrote: »

Divinius wrote: »

BenLocoDete wrote: »

I for one am even pro to player pickpocketing - make it that you lost a few gold and ingredients to that criminal you just noticed slipping around you. It was just a few coins, but what if an algorythm made it that the lucky pickpocket got your most valuable ingredient? Are you going to leave the game and stop playing?

Would I leave the game if they implemented player pick-pocketing? Are you kidding? If they ever implemented that, I would be long gone before the update even went live.

I've been absent from this thread for days now due to RL obligations, but glad to see a few people stepping in to take on the task of trying to explain why any PvP in the Justice system that doesn't have a full opt-out is a bad idea. And just for the record, though it was a while ago that I was asked:

Yes, I would indeed instantly quit playing if they ever added PvP to the Justice system -- unless it had a full opt-out switch that would allow me to do everything I can now (including fleeing from guards) without ever being able to get flagged for PvP.

There is nothing you can say or nothing you can do to effectively prove that you are being sincerely true and definitive about this, but I thank you anyway and invite you to the conversation, if you don't mind, what are your biggest concerns regarding PvP under the conditions we have tried to limit on its existence or if you'd like to mention the negative experiences you had with PvP in general?

I assure you, I am being 100% sincere.

Do PvP players really have absolutely no concept of how anyone could possibly not love PvP? If this is the case, it would certainly explain why it's so impossibly hard to get them to understand why we don't want to be involved in it.

I can try to explain in detail, but I've done so a number of times on theses forums (and probably even in this thread), and it's never seemed to help or even be understood, so frankly, I'm not sure I'm willing to waste my time yet again.

Still, can't convince me, maybe in a few years with PvP stabilished for some time then you can send me a letter from Mars assuring me that there is no Internet connection on that planet and that you most certainly don't play ESO and that you might(just might) have left due to PvP, still it is completely uncertain and Mars might even have Internet...

There are plenty who would move on if their PvE was compromised by PvP, myself included. I've done PvP in a number of MUDs and MMOs (not unsuccessfully, and quite enjoyably at the time) so am not against it by any means but I have found these days that PvE is much more satisfying such that I no longer have the slightest interest in PvP for myself while quite understanding why it appeals to others.

Whilst I am therefore more than happy for these games to have PvP in them it needs to be kept separate from the PvE content for me to want to play them. I probably have active accounts in the best part of a dozen MMOs these days, most of which I still play from time to time, and not a single one of them has developers who would dream of adding PvP to PvE content in a forced and unavoidable way. There are too many choices of games these days for anyone to need to stick with a game that doesn't allow them to adopt their preferred playstyle without at least an effective way of avoiding someone else's playstyle being imposed on them, and that doesn't mean cutting short their options in one playstyle in order to avoid the imposition of another playstyle, it means literally being able to avoid that other playstyle altogether - while happily accepting the existence and further development of that other playstyle for those who choose to adopt it. Some players like both playstyles of course, and as at present in ESO both should be freely available to them.

I'm sure there are people that would leave and people that would join as this is going on regardless of PvP justice system. It just seems that ESO once had a plan for PvP but they simply dropped everything for reasons yet to be determined since stating that "the problems can outweigh the fun" is generally vague and quite subjective but I understand PR is a mess.

A bit off topic

At this moment I lack the slightest idea of how much % of current players do regularly or exclusively PvP, but I suspect it stands as a very small portion based on almost 3 out of 4 DLCs dedicated to PvE.

ZOS could have made ESO more PvP centered but at some point, they decided that they wouldn't. Maybe player demographics I don't know, could be hardware issues too, so right now it stands as a bad choice for the team to have created Cyrodiil the way they did(unless there is something else coming that could prove me wrong), simply because it is a lag bomb countdown, and kinda of a waste of a huge area, and so far the info we have on One Tamriel shows it haven't touched the PvP aspect at all... what puts ESO PvP 2 years back in comparison to current content. But @ZOS_RichLambert considers himself a very competitive person and seems to PvP so there might be something in there as to what Cyrodiil will become or ESO might offer regarding the PvP stance.

At this moment I wouldn't be very surprised if they indeed came up with an end to the war, and reorganize PvP in arenas and challenges on planes of Oblivion, where people would grind for artifacts. Like instead of becoming the emperor, you'd join a small scale war to become the champion of that prince, and be granted thus its daedric artifact for a said time, a week, a month, whatever time that campaign lasts. I remember this was another hope I had from the time before the launch, so it probably won't happen as my luck in ESO seems to run around dark red.

With regard to your spoiler comments, as I understand the announcements made thus far, ZOS plans for PvP include small-scale PvP including arenas and duelling. I imagine they think that will (a) meet a clear request from PvPers and (b) reduce the numbers in Cyrodiil so that performance is improved there. I doubt they would end the war and change the nature of Cyrodiil completely. Like you, I imagine the number of regular or exclusive PvPers is quite small. I'm sure it's demographics that mainly drive ZOS's development program based on data logs, but the highly critical reception accorded to Imperial City may also have played a part (and would certainly have influenced their decision to keep PvE and PvP separate in future).

BenLocoDete wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

but instead the goal is to gain rules change leverage with interruptions of pve sctivities, takeover others and evdntual pay-up-or-pvp mandates.

And what is the matter, the guards already do that and I don't see anyone in their sane minds complaining that guards should leave them alone. It may be because guards are Es and not Ps, but, how do you know they don't have souls? They might even collect far more data from you than the Ps who just want to be part of a feature the game offers, not "ruin your displeasing crime".

STEVIL wrote: »

Pvp players deciding which pve actions "deserve" pvp consequences is fox in henhouse logic. That probably why they insist on the pve "opt-out" being linked to pve players giving up current options or paying ransom.

And so is you deciding that PvP should stay outside your game.

STEVIL wrote: »

But we dont get to say "my preference is this and you have to go that way too."

1

C'mom you're just playing the counterpart here, everything that you say can be used against you on the same way, and in the end, PvE rules over 90% of the game already.

PvP justice system can be made worldly available under certain conditions that will serve to limit its abuse, but it can't be a complete opt-out because it breaks the system, even Cyrodiil is plenty of Es for you to get some as it would be completely unacceptable for most areas to be empty.

First bold:
The difference is some people will acknowledge that the setup etc for PVE and PVP are so significantly different and the setup for countering guards and surviving PVP are so different that these are by no means compatable options. The difference is the guards are a PVE result from a PVE action, while the Enforcer is a PVP result from a PVE action. The difference is some enjoy PVE, some enjoy PVP and some dont like one or the other and neither should have it forced upon them. Not sure why it seems that is so hard for some in the PVP-ransom-takeover crowd to get.

As for guards and souls, I will leave the discussion of the souls of NPC digital content to the ever-wise PVP-ransom-takeover crowd since it seems thats something they are concerned with. I really doubt anything i could say on that subject could prove productive to them.

Second Bold
Yes, i decide i want to play the game without PVP. Guess what, you dont get to make me do differently IN THIS GAME. In some other games, if i choose to come and play at all, i have to accept PVP. i dont play those games... again choosng not to play PVP.

But there is a difference between deciding what i will do and deciding you have to as well. One is just what i am doing. I dont get to interfere with you doing what you want. Thats easy. The other option, allowing PVP-ransom-takeover of PVE events allows others, perhaps you, to decide for me i am into PVP scenarios.

If you want to PVP, there are zones in the game for that. if i want to PVE there are areas in the game for that. We can both do what we want in regards to which we use... but neither of us gets to force the other into those.

I see the tendency to equate "i get to choose what i do and you cannot force me into this" as somehow morally equivalent to "i am not allowed to force you into PVP so that is like you enforcing PVE on me" which is just not the same.

Denying you the ability to force-ransom others into your preference is not the same as you forcing and ransoming others into your preference.

thats just a fallacious comparison.

Final bold

No sorry again, it seems the notion of comparing "you cannot force others into PVP" and "you wont allow me to force others into PVP" as somehow opposites of the same coin is a major tool in the playbook for the PVP-ransom-crowd but for most folks, it just serves to illustrate the difference between the objectives. WHich i think helps many and ZOS understand why this isn't a path to go down.

So, thanks for that. Every time it is repeated in support of PVP-ransom-takeover, reasonable people have another chance to go "oh wow."

@STEVIL

That is not choice,if there would be a choice.the treason you commit by slitting fellow alliance npc's throats would banish you from the alliance eventually.
Then you'd have something to choose between;serving the alliance or your criminal carreer.
If you want real choice they should allow you to be the anti hero,indeed,but with lasting consequiences(The DB DLC kind of allows you to be the bad guy but in a senseless manner and without lasting consequences)..still, this senseless killing introduces player conflict with the heroes and imo its lame to not allow those to react accordingly.
The heroes almost become complicit because they watch and do nothing about the injustice.

The senseless killing introduced a multiplayer interactive conflict;Those that want to serve and bring the alliance together & those that want to do all the senseless killing in their own alliance.
So there is conflict,yet actually they left the interactive part out of it you see.Ofcourse if they introduce conflicting elements to the general story of the campaign like that,
any player that is playing that multiplayer game too, has the right to react to anything that is conflicting with the main story of the campaign and show them what their character stands for.

Tipsy wrote: »

@STEVIL

That is not choice,if there would be a choice.the treason you commit by slitting fellow alliance npc's throats would banish you from the alliance eventually.
Then you'd have something to choose between;serving the alliance or your criminal carreer.
If you want real choice they should allow you to be the anti hero,indeed,but with lasting consequiences(The DB DLC kind of allows you to be the bad guy but in a senseless manner and without lasting consequences)..still, this senseless killing introduces player conflict with the heroes and imo its lame to not allow those to react accordingly.
The heroes almost become complicit because they watch and do nothing about the injustice.

The senseless killing introduced a multiplayer interactive conflict;Those that want to serve and bring the alliance together & those that want to do all the senseless killing in their own alliance.
So there is conflict,yet actually they left the interactive part out of it you see.Ofcourse if they introduce conflicting elements to the general story of the campaign like that,
any player that is playing that multiplayer game too, has the right to react to anything that is conflicting with the main story of the campaign and show them what their character stands for.

What you just described is only applicable in a fully open-wold PvP style of game. That is not what this game is.

And even if the PvP justice system as proposed in this thread was implemented, it would still not be what you want. You'd have lots of people that you could see committing tons of crimes, that you could do nothing about unless they got themselves caught by a guard AND chose to try to flee.

You need to accept that what you want is not something that can be accomplished outside of having a full PvP system in the open world, which is something that this game will never have. There are other games out there that do. I suggest you try one of those.

Jaronking wrote: »

Also not trying be Rude but am sorry @STEVIL but your coming off as kinda crazy now with the PVp ransom thing and what stopping people from killing me for grinding.It really makes no sense at all other than you bring stuff up that no one every mentioned as a issue but the constant stealing and murdering that has no way of being punished for it because of the incompetent of the guards.The only thing this change will do is make you all play better and think before you act but none of you guys want that you just want your easy gold and have fun ruining the game for others,but that doesn't matter because only you matter in this game.That's the recurring issue I see not that players can stop you you just want to keep your easy farm and not have anything stop you.

Truthful I know none of you will leave the game if its added because as most people who say if they add something to the game day they will leave and never do.You all will stay and keep playing because as most of you said you barely do any of the justice system anyway its a small part of the game for you.Which you can just ignore and do something else.So your just here because you don't like it or just don't want to have to use your head.So instead of just saying no think about how this can improve the game for everyone not just thinking that omg PVP kill it even if it doesn't affect you at all.

Lastly the PVE flee would be the most exploitable things in the game and you know it that's why you keep asking for it.Why would you every choice the PVP and deal with your actions let's keep the 200k of stolen goods on me and just get away or kill the guard.Which the guards would have to be if you had Players who can stop you.

Am out

RE Bold #1 The relevance to this thread fir PVP vs grinding etc was brought in when the justification for PVP-Justice transitioned to a role-play off of not wanting to see your alliance killed, not wanting to stand by while murders occurred - when all those RP aspects came into play.

Thats because IF THAT IS A VALID JUSTIFICATION it also applies to all the other "within game RP" types of crimes. So the valid question is after we enable because of RP justice-pvp how far do we keep going or more over, how far do the proponents want to keep going.

Why does it make sense to say "robbing from AD merchants should enable PVP repercussions" but not say the same thing applies when that robbing is part of a quest?

But the real key to the relevance comes in when you see the response(s) were YES LETS ADD THAT.

RE Second Bold

Really? This notion that you not being happy with what other people do is somehow equating to them having fun ruining the game for you is just absolutely out there.

lets try this again...

My actions are my own. Your actions are your own.
it is not ME ruining your game if what i am doing separate from you and not involving you at all bothers you. that is you ruining your game for yourself by refusing to acknowledge in this game you dont have the power to enforce your desirs on others, any more than i do.

As for easy farm... Yes. Playing the stealing/murder system within the game results in an easy farm generating net profits in terms of the various resources within the game.
just like grinding lions and tigers and bears and mudcrabs does.
Just like questing does.
Just like delving does.

Not one of those is hard at all for anyone who spent some time and practice and gear to suit the task.
All produce a basic level of "time spent doing this produces gains."
All of these have basically "systems" in place for them.
All of these are a legit part of the game.
None of them currently have a PVP-opposition to them, though it seems in some cases there are those who want it added.

But in spite of the PVP-ransom crowds love for applying the terms exploit or abuse to these activities when it involves the justice system, the justice side (stealing/murder etc) actually pays out less "reward for time" than the others. Its not even close.

So if your justification for PVP-takeover-ransom is how much reward vs risk the stealing stuff yields over time.... if that is what bothers you... you are starting at the wrong place. Really should start at grinding first IMX... though maybe delving for cases where expensive motifs drop.

the scale and difficulty and rewards for time for stealing/murder is on par or below that of the other farming... so it is baffling to cite that as the basis for any of the PVP stuff or even the opposition to it.

if i took every moment of non-quest-related sneak-steal-murder i have done with my characters and put it to mudcrab farming, i would have a lot more resources on my character now than i do.

I know, inserting facts like that into this is nuts... but hey you already started out calling me crazy so, no bother. others on this thread and others have pointed out the same - the loot payout isn't out of whack with other farming.


the simple key fact is this - while anyone can get annoyed at anyone else's action in this game THAT DO NOT AFFECT THEM DIRECTLY, that does not allow any sort of PVP open world repercussions.

PVE actions do not and should not enable PVP repercussions.


As for PVE FLEE being exploited, its not an exploit to have PVE results from PVE actions, well, unless I suppose one thinks PVE itself is an exploit that can be fixed by non-consensual PVP.

So, if thats crazy then hey guess i am just another crazy PVE player who doesn't want to be exposed to PVP-ransom-takeovers of pve content or see PVP-consequences for PVE activities.

YMMV and thats why there is cyrodil where you can go up against PVP players who want to PVP.

crazy talk, yeah, i knowe... actually doing vpv against people who want it and are prepared for it.

Lunacy...

yup.

STEVIL wrote: »

BenLocoDete wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

but instead the goal is to gain rules change leverage with interruptions of pve sctivities, takeover others and evdntual pay-up-or-pvp mandates.

And what is the matter, the guards already do that and I don't see anyone in their sane minds complaining that guards should leave them alone. It may be because guards are Es and not Ps, but, how do you know they don't have souls? They might even collect far more data from you than the Ps who just want to be part of a feature the game offers, not "ruin your displeasing crime".

STEVIL wrote: »

Pvp players deciding which pve actions "deserve" pvp consequences is fox in henhouse logic. That probably why they insist on the pve "opt-out" being linked to pve players giving up current options or paying ransom.

And so is you deciding that PvP should stay outside your game.

STEVIL wrote: »

But we dont get to say "my preference is this and you have to go that way too."

1

C'mom you're just playing the counterpart here, everything that you say can be used against you on the same way, and in the end, PvE rules over 90% of the game already.

PvP justice system can be made worldly available under certain conditions that will serve to limit its abuse, but it can't be a complete opt-out because it breaks the system, even Cyrodiil is plenty of Es for you to get some as it would be completely unacceptable for most areas to be empty.

First bold:
The difference is some people will acknowledge that the setup etc for PVE and PVP are so significantly different and the setup for countering guards and surviving PVP are so different that these are by no means compatable options. The difference is the guards are a PVE result from a PVE action, while the Enforcer is a PVP result from a PVE action. The difference is some enjoy PVE, some enjoy PVP and some dont like one or the other and neither should have it forced upon them. Not sure why it seems that is so hard for some in the PVP-ransom-takeover crowd to get.[/spoiler]

Definitely agree on that although accepting it as a final stand is questionable, I for one have hope or better, would be pleasantly surprised, if they moved with One Tamriel to a more comparable efficacy, as I've stated in a previous post, that making sets, builds and abilities equally competitive on both grounds is something worth a development priority, not only but because changing those every time you want to go in or out Cyrodiil is a huge nuisance. As the point of again, segregating PvP and PvE, despite being different things, they are both aspect of the massively multiplayer online game potential, populated by thousands of people and a multitude of attitudes and actions and expectations. Despite your rejection of the PvP attitude(and you sure love to PvP on forums), the ways a player can annoy others in a game is not limited to PvP, thus a big part of the motivations that brings me here. There are several attitudes that wouldn't be a matter of an act against the ToS, but still annoy me just as probably you are annoyed by PvP with whatever bad they can cause(like kill, dance on top of your body and spam in the chat - Sucker!!). What a big deal. Still, it doesn't touch the unbalance currently happening in the game between PvE and PvP available content which I find a severe occurrence.

STEVIL wrote: »

As for guards and souls, I will leave the discussion of the souls of NPC digital content to the ever-wise PVP-ransom-takeover crowd since it seems thats something they are concerned with. I really doubt anything i could say on that subject could prove productive to them.

Whatever, you don't make much more sense anyway trying to entirely label PvP and PvE attitude as a fox and sheep case.

STEVIL wrote: »

Second Bold
Yes, i decide i want to play the game without PVP. Guess what, you dont get to make me do differently IN THIS GAME. In some other games, if i choose to come and play at all, i have to accept PVP. i dont play those games... again choosng not to play PVP.

But there is a difference between deciding what i will do and deciding you have to as well. One is just what i am doing. I dont get to interfere with you doing what you want. Thats easy. The other option, allowing PVP-ransom-takeover of PVE events allows others, perhaps you, to decide for me i am into PVP scenarios.

Oh yes you do, you choosing to turn auto-loot on and go on a murder spree affects my gameplay entirely, affects the fun of it, the interaction I lose with NPCs that just got murdered, and the cohesive immersion the game intended to offer inside an "alive, breathing world" because it triggers other aspects of the game that are well known to be problematic, as the short pathing of E guards, their immortality as being a mechanism to constrain crime, the hugely annoying piles of cloned dead NPCs and one alive standing on top of them, pointless murder sprees to simply troll everybody around them, etc. This affects entirely my gameplay and my gaming and so far it is just as important as your context of being annoyed by a mixed PvP and PvE scenario.

I've waited for the Dark Brotherhood since the beginning of the game and unfortunately, despite the cool Blade of Woe kill-cams, I hate the way overall crime and murder is offered and it got to a point where I wish we could revert the game back to before current JS, since the full Justice System, its indispensable counterpart was removed and thus leaving ESO - Tamriel Unpunished.

STEVIL wrote: »

If you want to PVP, there are zones in the game for that. if i want to PVE there are areas in the game for that. We can both do what we want in regards to which we use... but neither of us gets to force the other into those.

Yeah if I want to PvP there is ONE province completely empty and lag plagued and if you want PvE there are NINE beautifully populated with plenty of dungeons how fair is that?!

STEVIL wrote: »

I see the tendency to equate "i get to choose what i do and you cannot force me into this" as somehow morally equivalent to "i am not allowed to force you into PVP so that is like you enforcing PVE on me" which is just not the same.

Denying you the ability to force-ransom others into your preference is not the same as you forcing and ransoming others into your preference.

thats just a fallacious comparison.

It is not only the same but also one step lower the power struggle where the product(the current game implementation) positively affects you and thus provides no incentive to criticize the justification.

I understand the targeted player would be the right next step, and I'll talk more about this on the next post.

Your continuous argument is retroactively fed by your "force-ransom" example and you should address that to @Dubhliam as he is the one offering the PvP/PvE flee option. I wouldn't go as far as present two options as it breaks the system altogether. Having severity of crime and impact among nearby players for me is enough criteria.

You emphasize a lot the distinction of being pursued by a player, instead of a programmed entity and this is something that intrigues me. I love to play the NPC, walk around, do emotes and idle and many times I've seen players running at me to talk as if I was an NPC but then realize I'm not and run away. Not like, in fear, they are running all the time anyway.

See you don't even need to fight back, just tell yourself it is an invincible programmed guard(even the best-geared character won't stand farther than that). I'm forced to tell myself all the time that those murders are just hallucinations since the incoherence of 30 seconds later the NPC getting back to the same place makes the flaw clear, plus a dead body just like him lying on the floor. It sucks!

And we should also not support the argument that labels PvEers as weak and pathetic people who easily fall under the guise of cruel PvPers, who are the worst kind of people residing on MMOs. I doubt anybody in ZOS is naïve this much to consider that putting children in one room and *** in the other will offer a completely secure environment so please, It is unacceptable that people keep offering a so biased opinion. If you are not mature enough to deal with people and the nuisance they can be under certain scenarios you probably shouldn't be playing an MMO at all as the interaction goes far beyond those presents in the terms of conduct and overall behavior the moderation will choose to police.

As for

Divinius wrote: »

(...)YOU should not be responsible for policing the actions of other players.(...)

I completely disagree as we are even invited to do this by reporting other players actions that might fall under questionable Terms of Service or Code of Conduct acts. Saying "YOU should not be responsible for policing the actions of other players" is something circumstantial and if the Justice System were implemented as originally advertised, you would totally be able to, and currently is policeable, you just cannot "punish" the player(although it should, crime should be reprehensible in any circumstance) but can offer a bad feedback about their attitude via /boo or criticize the attitude on /z chat as I've seen both happen more than once.

Most of the time you address me as a PvPer and your fun-abductor and ignores completely my suggestion to phase PvP justice system alongside RP phasing to ally two neglected and demographically relevant populations with requests being years-old ones. If you want to completely obliterate yourself from PvP fine, I'd hate to force you into that, just don't put me in the same boat of the ones you hate deep within your heart as I don't have much love for them either, although it is kind of immersive >:D. Again, any stigmatization with PvP should be completely left outside the game as we even already have mixed scenarios so the game is not 1sto1s and 2sto2s so anything can happen, there is not any well-stablished wall.

STEVIL wrote: »

Final bold

No sorry again, it seems the notion of comparing "you cannot force others into PVP" and "you wont allow me to force others into PVP" as somehow opposites of the same coin is a major tool in the playbook for the PVP-ransom-crowd but for most folks, it just serves to illustrate the difference between the objectives. WHich i think helps many and ZOS understand why this isn't a path to go down.

So, thanks for that. Every time it is repeated in support of PVP-ransom-takeover, reasonable people have another chance to go "oh wow."

And every time such passionate and "socially concerned" reasonings like this come up, it feels clearer that the notion of "your right ends where mine starts" leaves so many holes and just as much walls as to what is social interaction and what can we consider "mine" and "yours" experience. For you, a violation such as being forced into PvP is something morally justified, but when I'm annoyed by hundreds of NPCs murdered, being them crippled people, sheeps, farmers, dock workers and about anybody you can take a few coins out, you label it as being just BS, derived from someone that goes anywhere to force others to PvP.

I've posted several times, I couldn't care less about PvP, but I do care about immersion and ESO offering a truly sandbox experience, not a hamster wheel for people committed to having the items they spent hundreds of hours grinding turned into ashes in the next update. This is something I stand against and this policy is a huge disrespect for the community as you put players as idiots while you give them, every month, a little something to keep them running. I repudiate this kind of behavior and policy from companies at any time and any game.

You seem to care about "people" leaving the game upon changes made, I fear about having ESO dying for not trying to offer something different than the next MMO, and the next MMO you know and I know will offer a sandbox experience for us to immerse ourselves and truly experience another world that lives, breathes and is not simply populated by PvP in one room, PvE in the other, but social interaction that makes sense and are organically integrated. And by looking at other MMOs we know they are stuck with the core decisions they made as these decisions get buried by new technology and innovative concepts of interaction inside the community.

PVE population will linger anyway with the next TES and Bethesda can't hold that forever, so please let us discuss concepts and ideas for social interaction and not how to turn ESO into a single-player game.

Tipsy wrote: »

BenLocoDete wrote: »

PVE population will linger anyway with the next TES and Bethesda can't hold that forever, so please let us discuss concepts and ideas for social interaction and not how to turn ESO into a single-player game.

yea,in a single player your actions are your own STEVIL.
But in a multiplayer you affect the experience of others with your actions.on purpose or not..

But not in a way that attracts PvP consequences for PvE actions in PvE areas. No matter how you try to dress it up, you're simply wanting to force PvP onto PvEers and trying to justify it because what they choose to do in the PvE content conflicts with what you choose to do in the PvP content. That would be perfectly fine in an open PvP game where all actions had PvP consequences regardless of whether those actions were PvP or PvE, but it is completely unacceptable in a consensual PvP game where players can choose whether to engage in PvP actions and consequences in PvP areas or limit themselves to PvE actions and consequences in PvE areas.

PvEers don't want to be told that if they take a certain PvE action in PvE areas they will incur PvP consequences, any more than PvPers would want to be told that if they took a certain PvP action in Cyrodiil they would incur PvE consequences.

Both playstyles are absolutely fine, and both need full support and ongoing development, but they need to be kept separate and the views of those who play either playstyle (or both) fully respected with no attempt to force one onto the other.

@Tandor

Pve area or Pvp area doesn't matter to me,they are features of the same game.
.Its about ingame confict that is there:the heroes that help to bring the alliance together vs those that kill allied targets within your alliance.
That it is conflicting is a fact.And the problem is that what the killers choose to do in PVE content conflicts what the heroes are destined to do in PVE content,which makes them oppose naturally..
To me it just makes no sense that the game keeps flagging them as friendly ,when they clearly aren't ,that they prove by killing allied targets where you stand.

If you go back and read my suggestions it becomes clear that I do not want to force pvp on people
Since I want players to go through the pve justice levels first before reaching the new level where they are flagged for pvp.

Tipsy wrote: »

@STEVIL
I don't see how anyone who suggest the inclusion of pvp is automatically trying to find justification "to take it out on someone else"?Its nothing personal..
Its just that a "friendly" tag on a mob (or player,all the same to me) would need to make sense in the game.There is nothing more to it for me.
The hero characters are in natural conflict with the killers who make you watch an allied target being killed in your alliance
For those who do their best to aid the alliance ,roleplay the hero,the killing of allied targets within their alliance is bothersome and even a form of griefing as it can disrupt their serious gameplay while roleplaying.
What I see as significant is that a friendly or hostile target makes sense,I don't care if its an npc or another player:for one that show to be hostile towards the alliance a friendly tag is misplaced.

That's still no justification for someone else's actions in PvE to lead you to take PvP action against that person. Most of us can distinguish between what happens in relation to alliances in PvE and what happens in relation to them in PvP. Cadwell's muddies the waters a little, and One Tamriel will do so even more to the point where there won't really be any effective distinction between the alliances outside of Cyrodiil and Imperial City given that everyone will be moving freely throughout all the alliance areas from character creation onwards. In any event, none of this is related in any way to the Justice System.

Tipsy wrote: »

@STEVIL
I don't see how anyone who suggest the inclusion of pvp is automatically trying to find justification "to take it out on someone else"?Its nothing personal..
Its just that a "friendly" tag on a mob (or player,all the same to me) would need to make sense in the game.There is nothing more to it for me.
The hero characters are in natural conflict with the killers who make you watch an allied target being killed in your alliance
For those who do their best to aid the alliance ,roleplay the hero,the killing of allied targets within their alliance is bothersome and even a form of griefing as it can disrupt their serious gameplay while roleplaying.
What I see as significant is that a friendly or hostile target makes sense,I don't care if its an npc or another player:for one that show to be hostile towards the alliance a friendly tag is misplaced.

So... you seem to be arguing the idea that a PvE action (killing NPCs) has a role playing reason to need a mechanism for players to induce a PvP element to address it.

I therefore assume you'd also be thrilled with the idea of any Imperial race character having an ability in the Imperial City to cast an area effect on the zergs running around the city such that they can no longer do ANY PvP until they complete an assigned PvE quest, like trying to help the poor imperials to help save their city from the invaders, instead of the silly fight over which alliance gets to control the city? I find that PvP conflict intolerable behavior in the face of the invasion and destruction happening in the city -- the three alliances ought to be banding together to save the city first, and they can decide who rules it once it's restored to normality.

That probably sounds as utterly ridiculous to you. Congratulations, you now understand how ridiculous your own excuse to inflict PvP on the PvE players sounds to us.

stevenbennett_ESO wrote: »

Tipsy wrote: »

@STEVIL

So... you seem to be arguing the idea that a PvE action (killing NPCs) has a role playing reason to need a mechanism for players to induce a PvP element to address it.

I therefore assume you'd also be thrilled with the idea of any Imperial race character having an ability in the Imperial City to cast an area effect on the zergs running around the city

Well,there certainly is something good in that idea
But i'd link it to catapults & warmachines at strategic points who's aoe is multiplied by the density of the zerg

@Tandor
Agree with Benlocodete there:there is no justification because you don't want it
While ingame,there is justification because the heroes and the killers naturally oppose each other & the friendly tag is thus misplaced

Infact my proposal for a new justice level on top of the already existing PVe justice levels stll keeps pve and pvp separated.
Its just that some want to avoid justice if it entails pvp(while at that point you absolutely deserve it since you went through all the pve justice levels)

+1 to OP great concept