STEVIL wrote: »

Broad isdue question for @IndyWendieGo and @BenLocoDete and anyone else not locking themselves behind a self-impised wont accept if no sacrifice limitation...

Since "too easy" keeps coming up, we should i think try to understand our starting points on this, where we are coming from.

If the current payout for injutice activities stay as they are then what success rate for knowledgable players would you find acceptable and reasonable within the context of the game?
99% (some say this is current)
75%
50%
25%
5%
1%
0%



DEFINITIONS
injustice activity - pickpocket, stealing, break enter, murder, trespass.

Success - getting away with loot and gold. Not paying bounty. Not expending consumables such as leniency or escape essenses. Success does not require no bounty, so even though you may be hindered in option for a while with bounty, we will consider that success for this task.

Knowledgable - has prior experience with these, has done homework, scouted and cased the area, appropriated geared, equipoed etc for this task and of same or higher level? Note that it is understtod this is not the same as the average player and is likely that aferage or below average woukd succeed less often than this.

My answer would be that 99% is ok but still leaves injustice subpar compared to alternatives.

I am actually glad you asked.
When I said 99%, it was in a context of successfully fleeing, regardless of heat level.

When you say:

Knowledg(e)able players - has prior experience with these, has done homework, scouted and cased the area, appropriated geared, equipoed etc for this task and of same or higher level

Those players will have a mighty high success rate even if my concept got implemented. Why? Because they won't get a bounty in the first place. And without a bounty, they cannot be interacted with by Enforcer in any way. Even when they do get a bounty, they won't be reluctant to use an Edict - that's what they are there for.
On the other hand, players that play recklessly during the current Justice System have little to no risk involved - and THAT is what I was referring to with the 99% success rate.
What do I base this on? My personal experience along with player input on the forum. 99 out of 100 times I'll escape a guard without breaking a sweat. And that is IF I get caught by a Guard that always patrol the same routes.

And since you keep bringing up profit into this discussion;

1. Saying something is not broken because it does not provide considerable profit is like saying that if someone found out a way to one-shot Molag Kena, that would not be an exploit because it would not grant more profit than killing mudcrabs..
2. YES, a particular abuse of this system WILL "outperform other alternatives", effectively making it an exploit by your own definition.

No, I won't "prove it", because it is against ToS, as a matter of fact, judging by your last few posts you are well aware of it.

And to put a stop to this mudcrab nonsense:
Grinding is not a system. It is just a name for a repeatable activity some players do because it is profitable in some way. And it usually includes 0 fun.
The Justice System on the other hand is something that is designed content. Something that is designed to be fun, and to be in line with the lore, immersion and spirit of a game.

@STEVIL; It's an exploit. If you expect people to jeopardize their accounts on the forum and POSSIBLY the game, to post something explicitly against the ToS, you are mistaken. Unless you're an exploiter wanting it, you'd understand that you can't post exploits on the forum.

Taken from the ToS, please read the bold print in the rules found at this link;

8. RULES OF CONDUCT

Except as prohibited by applicable law and subject to the Statutory Obligations (as defined in Section 1), ZeniMax has the right, in its sole discretion, to modify, restrict, suspend, or terminate Your access to the Services. As noted above, this could result because (i) Your information is untrue, inaccurate, not complete or incomplete; (ii) Your activities infringe on or are suspected to infringe on another's rights or any intellectual property; (iii) ZeniMax in its sole discretion determined that You or Your Account reflects inappropriate Content; or (iv) You or activities taken under or with Your Account violate these Terms of Service. Other Supplemental Terms pertaining to Your Service and/or Game, such as a Code of Conduct, provide guidance on behavior that ZeniMax deems to be inappropriate and specify restrictions on Your Account, Your use of the Game, or Your participation in the Services.


You agree not to use any Service to:

Take any action or upload, post, transmit, promote, or distribute any illegal Content, including, but not limited to, any UGC or any Game Mods;

Take any action or upload, post, transmit, promote, or distribute any Content that infringes or violates any third party rights;

Engage in, take any action associated with, or participate in any type of child solicitation, grooming behavior, pedophilia, or predatory behavior in any form;

Harass, stalk, threaten, embarrass, spam or do anything else to another user of any Services that is unwanted, such as repeatedly sending unwanted messages or making personal attacks or statements about race, sexual orientation, religion, heritage, etc.;

Take any action or upload, post, transmit, distribute, or communicate Your or any person's real-world personal information;

Impersonate any person or entity, including, but not limited to, ZeniMax, ZeniMax's partners' or affiliates' employees, or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent Your affiliation with a person or entity;

Take any action, organize, transmit any Content, effectuate or participate in any activity, group, or guild that is harmful, tortuous, abusive, hateful (including "hate speech"), racially, ethnically, religiously or otherwise offensive, obscene, threatening, bullying, vulgar, sexually explicit, defamatory, libelous, infringing, invasive of personal privacy or publicity rights, encourages conduct that would violate a law or is, in a reasonable person's view, objectionable and/or deemed to be in the sole discretion of ZeniMax inappropriate;

Promote, upload, transmit, encourage or take part in any activity involving hacking, cracking, phishing, taking advantage of exploits or cheats and/or distribution of counterfeit software and/or Virtual Currency or virtual items. In an effort to continuously improve the Services, You and other players discovering exploits, cheats, cracks or other inconsistencies are required to report them to ZeniMax;

Take any action or upload, post, transmit, promote, or distribute any Content or software code that may contain a Trojan horse, virus, worm, spyware, time bombs, cancelbots, corrupted data, malware, malicious code, or other computer programs that may damage, interfere with, intercept, expropriate or disrupt the Services, including, but not limited to, any Game(s), personal information, or confidential or proprietary information;

Take any action that permits You to collect personally identifiable information, personal information, or aggregated and/or anonymized statistics of others;

Engage in disruptive behavior in chat areas, game areas, forums, or any other area or aspect of the Services. Examples of disruptive behavior include, but are not limited to, conduct which interferes with the normal flow of gameplay or dialogue within a Service, vulgar language, abusiveness, hitting the return key repeatedly or inputting large images so the screen goes by too fast to read, use of excessive shouting [i.e., all text in capitals] in an attempt to disturb other users, "spamming" or flooding [i.e., posting repetitive text], commercial postings, solicitations and advertisements, posting advertising or promotional messaging, chain letters, pyramid schemes, or other commercial activities;

Attempt to get a password, Account information, or other private information from anyone else. As a reminder, ZeniMax employees will never ask You to reveal Your password.

Continuing in pestering for him to link it is also against the forum ToS, so please stop asking.

@STEVIL; None of your recent posts address any fix to anything, in fact, it's sweeping some of these exploits under the rug. Sorry, but no. I'm not with you on that.

IndyWendieGo wrote: »

@STEVIL; It's an exploit. If you expect people to jeopardize their accounts on the forum and POSSIBLY the game, to post something explicitly against the ToS, you are mistaken. Unless you're an exploiter wanting it, you'd understand that you can't post exploits on the forum.

Taken from the ToS, please read the bold print in the rules found at this link;

8. RULES OF CONDUCT

Except as prohibited by applicable law and subject to the Statutory Obligations (as defined in Section 1), ZeniMax has the right, in its sole discretion, to modify, restrict, suspend, or terminate Your access to the Services. As noted above, this could result because (i) Your information is untrue, inaccurate, not complete or incomplete; (ii) Your activities infringe on or are suspected to infringe on another's rights or any intellectual property; (iii) ZeniMax in its sole discretion determined that You or Your Account reflects inappropriate Content; or (iv) You or activities taken under or with Your Account violate these Terms of Service. Other Supplemental Terms pertaining to Your Service and/or Game, such as a Code of Conduct, provide guidance on behavior that ZeniMax deems to be inappropriate and specify restrictions on Your Account, Your use of the Game, or Your participation in the Services.


You agree not to use any Service to:

Take any action or upload, post, transmit, promote, or distribute any illegal Content, including, but not limited to, any UGC or any Game Mods;

Take any action or upload, post, transmit, promote, or distribute any Content that infringes or violates any third party rights;

Engage in, take any action associated with, or participate in any type of child solicitation, grooming behavior, pedophilia, or predatory behavior in any form;

Harass, stalk, threaten, embarrass, spam or do anything else to another user of any Services that is unwanted, such as repeatedly sending unwanted messages or making personal attacks or statements about race, sexual orientation, religion, heritage, etc.;

Take any action or upload, post, transmit, distribute, or communicate Your or any person's real-world personal information;

Impersonate any person or entity, including, but not limited to, ZeniMax, ZeniMax's partners' or affiliates' employees, or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent Your affiliation with a person or entity;

Take any action, organize, transmit any Content, effectuate or participate in any activity, group, or guild that is harmful, tortuous, abusive, hateful (including "hate speech"), racially, ethnically, religiously or otherwise offensive, obscene, threatening, bullying, vulgar, sexually explicit, defamatory, libelous, infringing, invasive of personal privacy or publicity rights, encourages conduct that would violate a law or is, in a reasonable person's view, objectionable and/or deemed to be in the sole discretion of ZeniMax inappropriate;

Promote, upload, transmit, encourage or take part in any activity involving hacking, cracking, phishing, taking advantage of exploits or cheats and/or distribution of counterfeit software and/or Virtual Currency or virtual items. In an effort to continuously improve the Services, You and other players discovering exploits, cheats, cracks or other inconsistencies are required to report them to ZeniMax;

Take any action or upload, post, transmit, promote, or distribute any Content or software code that may contain a Trojan horse, virus, worm, spyware, time bombs, cancelbots, corrupted data, malware, malicious code, or other computer programs that may damage, interfere with, intercept, expropriate or disrupt the Services, including, but not limited to, any Game(s), personal information, or confidential or proprietary information;

Take any action that permits You to collect personally identifiable information, personal information, or aggregated and/or anonymized statistics of others;

Engage in disruptive behavior in chat areas, game areas, forums, or any other area or aspect of the Services. Examples of disruptive behavior include, but are not limited to, conduct which interferes with the normal flow of gameplay or dialogue within a Service, vulgar language, abusiveness, hitting the return key repeatedly or inputting large images so the screen goes by too fast to read, use of excessive shouting [i.e., all text in capitals] in an attempt to disturb other users, "spamming" or flooding [i.e., posting repetitive text], commercial postings, solicitations and advertisements, posting advertising or promotional messaging, chain letters, pyramid schemes, or other commercial activities;

Attempt to get a password, Account information, or other private information from anyone else. As a reminder, ZeniMax employees will never ask You to reveal Your password.

Continuing in pestering for him to link it is also against the forum ToS, so please stop asking.

Actually, its much less about pestering for proof than pointing out claiming it to support the need for change in a discussion where it is not something they will provide is ineffective at best and unseemly.

If his claim cannot be challenged here and cannot be supported here why is it OK to use it as a basis for supporting the discussion of change.

isn't it fairer not to say "stop asking for proof" but to say "dont bring into discussion here those things you wont be able to support without breaking rules"?

he just literally said this was an exploit by my definition - to support his position but the push is for me to stop asking for proof?

Man, definitely a good home field advantage you want to have there when the claims of problems dont have to be supported and challenges to them are pushed to be stopped instead of answered.

Almost as much a home field advantage as a PVP jumping a PVE engaing in PVE would enjoy. Not that that is you however, but yeah maybe him.

remember
"Yes, the builds for PvP and for PvE are different.
But the system I am proposing is not here to promote competitive duels. I know how this sounds..."
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/3169666/#Comment_3169666

STEVIL wrote: »

IndyWendieGo wrote: »

@STEVIL; It's an exploit. If you expect people to jeopardize their accounts on the forum and POSSIBLY the game, to post something explicitly against the ToS, you are mistaken. Unless you're an exploiter wanting it, you'd understand that you can't post exploits on the forum.

Taken from the ToS, please read the bold print in the rules found at this link;

8. RULES OF CONDUCT

Except as prohibited by applicable law and subject to the Statutory Obligations (as defined in Section 1), ZeniMax has the right, in its sole discretion, to modify, restrict, suspend, or terminate Your access to the Services. As noted above, this could result because (i) Your information is untrue, inaccurate, not complete or incomplete; (ii) Your activities infringe on or are suspected to infringe on another's rights or any intellectual property; (iii) ZeniMax in its sole discretion determined that You or Your Account reflects inappropriate Content; or (iv) You or activities taken under or with Your Account violate these Terms of Service. Other Supplemental Terms pertaining to Your Service and/or Game, such as a Code of Conduct, provide guidance on behavior that ZeniMax deems to be inappropriate and specify restrictions on Your Account, Your use of the Game, or Your participation in the Services.


You agree not to use any Service to:

Take any action or upload, post, transmit, promote, or distribute any illegal Content, including, but not limited to, any UGC or any Game Mods;

Take any action or upload, post, transmit, promote, or distribute any Content that infringes or violates any third party rights;

Engage in, take any action associated with, or participate in any type of child solicitation, grooming behavior, pedophilia, or predatory behavior in any form;

Harass, stalk, threaten, embarrass, spam or do anything else to another user of any Services that is unwanted, such as repeatedly sending unwanted messages or making personal attacks or statements about race, sexual orientation, religion, heritage, etc.;

Take any action or upload, post, transmit, distribute, or communicate Your or any person's real-world personal information;

Impersonate any person or entity, including, but not limited to, ZeniMax, ZeniMax's partners' or affiliates' employees, or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent Your affiliation with a person or entity;

Take any action, organize, transmit any Content, effectuate or participate in any activity, group, or guild that is harmful, tortuous, abusive, hateful (including "hate speech"), racially, ethnically, religiously or otherwise offensive, obscene, threatening, bullying, vulgar, sexually explicit, defamatory, libelous, infringing, invasive of personal privacy or publicity rights, encourages conduct that would violate a law or is, in a reasonable person's view, objectionable and/or deemed to be in the sole discretion of ZeniMax inappropriate;

Promote, upload, transmit, encourage or take part in any activity involving hacking, cracking, phishing, taking advantage of exploits or cheats and/or distribution of counterfeit software and/or Virtual Currency or virtual items. In an effort to continuously improve the Services, You and other players discovering exploits, cheats, cracks or other inconsistencies are required to report them to ZeniMax;

Take any action or upload, post, transmit, promote, or distribute any Content or software code that may contain a Trojan horse, virus, worm, spyware, time bombs, cancelbots, corrupted data, malware, malicious code, or other computer programs that may damage, interfere with, intercept, expropriate or disrupt the Services, including, but not limited to, any Game(s), personal information, or confidential or proprietary information;

Take any action that permits You to collect personally identifiable information, personal information, or aggregated and/or anonymized statistics of others;

Engage in disruptive behavior in chat areas, game areas, forums, or any other area or aspect of the Services. Examples of disruptive behavior include, but are not limited to, conduct which interferes with the normal flow of gameplay or dialogue within a Service, vulgar language, abusiveness, hitting the return key repeatedly or inputting large images so the screen goes by too fast to read, use of excessive shouting [i.e., all text in capitals] in an attempt to disturb other users, "spamming" or flooding [i.e., posting repetitive text], commercial postings, solicitations and advertisements, posting advertising or promotional messaging, chain letters, pyramid schemes, or other commercial activities;

Attempt to get a password, Account information, or other private information from anyone else. As a reminder, ZeniMax employees will never ask You to reveal Your password.

Continuing in pestering for him to link it is also against the forum ToS, so please stop asking.

Actually, its much less about pestering for proof than pointing out claiming it to support the need for change in a discussion where it is not something they will provide is ineffective at best and unseemly.

If his claim cannot be challenged here and cannot be supported here why is it OK to use it as a basis for supporting the discussion of change.

isn't it fairer not to say "stop asking for proof" but to say "dont bring into discussion here those things you wont be able to support without breaking rules"?

he just literally said this was an exploit by my definition - to support his position but the push is for me to stop asking for proof?

Man, definitely a good home field advantage you want to have there when the claims of problems dont have to be supported and challenges to them are pushed to be stopped instead of answered.

Almost as much a home field advantage as a PVP jumping a PVE engaing in PVE would enjoy. Not that that is you however, but yeah maybe him.

Yeah, we both simply just told you that he's not gonna post it. It doesn't make the exploit any less legitimate. If you don't like that forum rule, I don't know what to tell you. Pestering him about it isn't going to change it and it's uncomfortable on how demanding you are for him to reveal the exploit. We don't have to abide by the burden of proof in regards to an exploit. Because it's against forum conduct. If you want to not believe it's there, that's up to you to decide. Regardless going on about it is again derailing the thread. =/

@STEVIL , if you are that interested in the exploit, you have Youtube, it's really not that difficult to find.

As for "deciphering my vocabulary", I have nothing to say to the person that pushed words like "ransom, takeover, mudcrab and boogeyman" into this discussion.
Seriously, type Ctrl+F:ransom in the last few pages of this thread and count. It's hilarious.

Don't expect much answers from me from now on, the arguing with you does not benefit this discussion in any way, in fact, your long (multi)posts only derail what used to resemble a constructive discussion.
I would kindly ask you to refrain from posting here since you obviously have nothing constructive to say, thank you.

To everybody else, I have a concept from an idea made by @IndyWendieGo that could potentially improve on the PvE aspect of the Justice System, which in turn leaves room for an opt-out option, as suggested by @Tandor .
The idea is this:

• There are a few Guards patrolling with Hounds. Usually every other Guard has one.
• Hounds can "sniff out" Notorious players from greater distances (they have a larger detection radius than Guards).
• They also chase players without resetting, but are killable.

Then, an additional system is in place in form of a timer:

• When a player becomes Fugitive, unless that Heat is gained by entering into a fight with a Guard, he gains a timer.
• Every crime committed while Fugitive reduces the timer.
• Once the timer reaches 0, two Hounds and a Guard are spawned at his location and engage him in combat.

There are a few details and issues that still need addressing, but this IMO is a healthy basis for a PvP-free part of the Justice System. The Guards would have to still remain immortal in that case, and I would have to figure another way for opted in players to be able to kill Guards.
I would like to gain some feedback on it before making further adjustments and incorporating it into the concept.

Dubhliam wrote: »

@STEVIL , if you are that interested in the exploit, you have Youtube, it's really not that difficult to find.

As for "deciphering my vocabulary", I have nothing to say to the person that pushed words like "ransom, takeover, mudcrab and boogeyman" into this discussion.
Seriously, type Ctrl+F:ransom in the last few pages of this thread and count. I't hilarious.

Don't expect much answers from me from now on, the arguing with you does not benefit this discussion in any way, in fact, your long (multi)posts only derail what used to resemble a constructive discussion.
I would kindly ask you to refrain from posting here since you obviously have nothing constructive to say, thank you.

To everybody else, I have a concept from an idea made by @IndyWendieGo that could potentially improve on the PvE aspect of the Justice System, which in turn leaves room for an opt-out option, as suggested by @Tandor .
The idea is this:

• There are a few Guards patrolling with Hounds. Usually every other Guard has one.
• Hounds can "sniff out" Notorious players from greater distances (they have a larger detection radius than Guards).
• They also chase players without resetting, but are killable.

Then, an additional system is in place in form of a timer:

• When a player becomes Fugitive, unless that Heat is gained by entering into a fight with a Guard, he gains a timer.
• Every crime committed while Fugitive reduces the timer.
• Once the timer reaches 0, two Hounds and a Guard are spawned at his location and engage him in combat.

There are a few details and issues that still need addressing, but this IMO is a healthy basis for a PvP-free part of the Justice System. The Guards would have to still remain immortal in that case, and I would have to figure another way for opted in players to be able to kill Guards.
I would like to gain some feedback on it before making further adjustments and incorporating it into the concept.

Sorry @Dubhliam but you dont get to limit your thread to those who agree with you or only post things you like.
Whether or not you answer direct questions or not is entirely up to you but not whether people give them in response to your claims about them and what they know or dont know.

As for your proposal here, you asked for feedback and so you get it. See, i answer things.

As with all changes the net impact must maintain balance between the various systems and activities presented in ESO. if you make something significantly less beneficial than other things (net after risk and loss and gains all pile in together) you will make it pointless and mostly not done. You will not in fact be "improving" something but de facto "removing" something. Now some on this thread have observed that is a goal, to make injustice activitites rare. But others are putting forth ideas seemingly based on making the system "more enjoyable" "more exciting" and "more dynamic." So, with that in mind:

Edit here to separate the intro from the listings for clarity

FIRST POINT the first major concern i have is while you mention several different things that make injustice more difficult you make no corresponding mention of increases in payout. The net overall impact of raising difficulty and thus raising failure rate and not raising payout is a reduction in the appeal and use of the activites, not more. So, unless you also pair risk and reward rates, you are likely failing at the goal of making injustice activities more appealing.

Second point: the above goes double for quest-based guard instances. there is NO MENTION in your proposal that addresses the impact this would have on the already developed set piece quest challenges which involve guards. if it is your intention to make those quests more difficult than other quests, thats something that might ought to be examined explicitly. if its your intention to exclude those from this proposal that should be addressed as well. but the larger detection radius thing will throw a real skew to the TG quests where those "puzzle" scenarios of getting past security are already carefully mapped out and where a sudden increase in detection radius (even if limited to notorious) can skew the success rates.

Third point: Does fighting killable hounds generate more bounty or are these "law dogs" fine to kill with no repercussions?

Fourth: i assume that while fighting these killable law dogs, the character can still be engaged by other guards and such, so the real risk is that they tie you down for more immortal guards to join in the fray. So, rather than adding "killable" adversaries for those who want something to fight you are moreover adding more ways to essentially get more immortal guards into the mix. if not, if the guard somehow for some reason decide "the dogs are enough, its break time" that should be stated explicitly. this is especially true if the law dogs chase and chase without reset.

Fifth: Can the dogs swim? Will they pursue swimming PCs?

Sixth: Adding a spawning next to you guard and hound for crimes after a set amount of time as fugitive is seemingly wayl over the top. You do not even say the timer goes away once they lose fugitive status, so in effect you are guaranteed a guard and law dog visit to your location if you ever go fugitive except by guard attacks - with additional crimes bringing the pain faster. So, most cases of fugitive in your proposal result in automatic guard and dog... just a matter of when, not if. Combine that with law dogs slowing you down with a fight and more guards possibly getting involved, you seem to be working more towards making fugitive "not an option" as far as viable gameplay when compared to the alternatives, not just making it more exciting. How many players do you think would choose to play the "auto-guards and dogs" game? Again, if the goal is "more exciting" or "more enjoyable" this fails to meet that goal by a wide margin. if the goal is "stop people from playing this" it hits much much closer to that mark. that much seems obvious. As presented this part is just... illuminating. However, some mention of how long the auto-guard timer starts at and how much each crime speeds up the countdown... would help illustrate how severely it is going to impact. not sure why that was left out.
(You might consider allowing for killing the timer if the fugitive status goes away before the guard and law dog spawn especially if you own stock in leniencies and pardons or want to see lotsa bounties paid to fences - but net result you are still slamming the appeal and even viability of injustice activities at the fugitve level and likely ending them or drastically reducing them since, by that point, the "rewards" are already in the inventory.)

Seventh: if somehow a fugitive escapes the -edit to-insert sapwned- SPAWNED guards and dogs, does the timer reset or is he now not facing the never ending respawn timer? if its never ending (unless i have to guess he gets killed loses stuff and bounty but that is not clear.) Also, if he is not given new timers after beating guards and dogs that spawned can he now go on a spree and not face them again?

Eighth: If the guards dosg spot a criminal and give pursuit, does the guard who is with the dogs just ignore that? Does he stand there wondering why his dogs suddenly bolted? Does he go home for a smoke break? If so, are those "better Ai" to you? if not, if he launches into hot pursuit too, then you have just increased not just the law dogs that can be killed detections but de facto the unkillable guard too. net result, even more unkillable guard action than now... which seems contrary to those who dont want unkillable involvement. Is pushing more unkillable guard encoutners onto PCs whose players dont want it and would prefer fighting adversaries a goal here or an unintended not thought thru consequence?

Ninth: By committing a crime for timer reduction do you mean commiting a crime or getting caught doing so? You dont mention it or define it as "gaining more bounty" which keys it to being caught doing more, but to comitting. So it would seem that you want it to be that if i kill someone in their home and then i start looting the chest and dresser and picking uo the drinks and food and grabbing the pork... WHAMMO those after-the-kill activities in a locked house teleport guard and law dogs into the room and game over. I cannot see how that serves a goal of making injustice activities more exciting or more dynamic... it just makes it not worth pursuing at all. is that the goal?

Finally, I like this IDEA.

I think the implementation as described here is way over the top balance wise. i think it has the serious ptoential to just eliminate most of the injutice activites from even being played and effectively remove that content from any significant use... but thats just because it doesn't take that into mind, apparently.

But the ideas seem fine - if implemented with overall not reducing the appeal but even increasing the appeal of injustice activity participation in mind.

i actually like the idea of having guards with law dogs or maybe better yet - give guards the ability to spawn law dogs. "Smithers, release the hounds".

But it needs to be implemented with the overall net value of injustice activites kept intact or improved or else you will simply be designing a very pretty very snazzy new thing that wont get used anymore once folks realize "crime doesn't pay" in this game. i mean, the goal here isn't to spend a lot of time creating this new stuff so that it makes the new stuff not worth playing, right? isn't the goal here to make injustice activites more exciting and more dynamic and expand their content and appeal while closing exploits?

You dont ewant to spend time building something that will only make itself extinct. right?

So, i would suggest considering adding parts of the system but not all of it anc certainly not the magic spawning "pick up one more piece of pork and blammo game over" timer-crime part as stated.

EXAMPLES:

Have guards be able to spawn killable law dogs which will pursue and be able to be fought. however, this loose the hounds does cause the guard to think "they got this" and have him stay in his area in case this is a ruse to draw him away for a bigger crime. Not 1005 of the time, surely but lets say definitely always when they get bl;ocked by terrain, when they get consecutive misses on abilities (that los thingy) and other appropriate cases. BUT KEY POINT - Dead law dogs should drop valuables that raise the potential gain if you can beat the increased challenge. (this way you can up the gains commensurately with the challenge.)

if you are killed by law dogs, not guards, the law dogs dont take bounty coins out of your purse or pick through your gear to decide which items were stolen and which ones legit they way omniscient guards do who can identify a treasure map gotten from a trove that was gathered a month ago in another friggin' faction and tell it from the one you found yesterday. Liek getting killed by guard, you have "paid for your crimes is law dogs kill you, but unlike guards they dont get to loot your corpse, being, you know, dogs. Again this serves to raise rweard or at least lessen penalty to compensate for the increased risk.

I think either of these can be worked into adding a law dog element into the game and serve to help move towards making the injustice activities more entertaining, more exciting, more appealing and generally increase its draw by beingmore interesting rather basically just killing it by making it tougher or in some cases next to impossible and thus - not played by the majority who are smart enough to figure that out..

But, no no no to maybe perpetual spawning if you grab that last piece of pork orm if never going away timer runs out into locked rooms guards and dogs.

@STEVIL , no you do not "answer things". You put words in other people's mouths, you indicate what my "hidden" intentions are, you categorize people into certain profiles, then generalize every profile, then paint a certain profile VERY negative, saying they have hidden agendas, only play the game to grief others etc.
Your highly negative and sarcastic comments do not contribute to your publicity or this discussion.

After 10 pages of actively posting in this thread, and warning me that I should not tell people to go read the concept, you still show that you haven't read it.
To answer your first, and second concern: READ MY CONCEPT. Payout has been raised, and it was not added recently, that was included in my original concept.

Also, to add to the second point, Hounds should not be added into instances, only in open world.

Three: I did not know a question can count as a "point". Yes, killing Hounds should provide some bounty.

Fourth: Why do you suddenly assume Guards would not reset? It is self explanatory, it should not be explicitly stated, in fact if the Guards would not reset, THAT would be explicitly stated.

Fifth: Hounds should not be able to swim. If this tactic shows as highly abusable, then something should be done to counter it.

Six: Yes, ofc timer resets when the Fugitive status is depleted. I don't know why you would assume otherwise. This is exactly the point of this whole change: Outlaws should prioritize the removal of their bounties.

Seven: The timer should be recurring. As I said, Outlaws should prioritize the removal of bounties.

Eight: The Guards that accompany the Hound (or the other way around) also engage into pursuit. Yes, it does effectively make Notorious heat more punishing than Disreputable. That was the whole point - to differentiate the two heat levels that are currently identical in effect. The higher detection radius is ONLY applicable for Notorious or higher heat. Since Notorious is not a "kill on sight" heat, it would be illogical if Hounds would engage an Outlaw in combat before s/he had the chance to pay the bounty.

Nine: Again, use logic. It means whenever your bounty gets increased.

Ten: Spawned guards and hounds would have ZERO detection radius.

If anyone else made this post you made, it would actually resemble a constructive discussion and much wanted feedback.
Instead you have tainted your post with words like:

some on this thread have observed that is a goal, to make injustice activitites rare (that was you)
others are putting forth ideas seemingly based on
if it is your intention to make those quests more difficult
if its your intention to exclude those
you seem to be working more towards making fugitive "not an option"
if the goal is "stop people from playing this"
Is pushing [...] a goal here or an unintended not thought thru consequence?
So it would seem that you want
is that the goal?

If you stop insinuating I have some hidden agendas, I wouldn't have to be on the defensive when replying to your posts, and we could actually have some constructive discussion about issues that might come with my proposed changes.
Remember; this whole Hound concept is being added so that people can have an opt-out option, with no player interaction.

After 10 pages, and arguments going back and forth for weeks now, so many people still don't get it.

This is as simple as I can make it:

I. DO. NOT. WANT. TO. PVP.

And there are MANY players that feel the same as I do.

Right now, players like me can easily avoid ALL PvP by simply staying out of Cyrodiil.

As soon as PvP is added to the Justice system, IN ANY FORM AT ALL, without a complete and total opt out switch, players like me now need to AVOID DOING SOMETHING IN PVE to avoid PvP.

Sure, in this case, what we have to avoid is limited to getting caught by a NPC guard and choosing the flee option. That's still a 100% PvE scenario, which can flag us for PvP.

That is the very base of what's unacceptable to many PvE players like myself, and by forcing this system on us, you will alienate and drive away those players. ZOS simply can't afford to drive away a significant number of players, and they know this, which is why the chose to scrap PvP justice. Honestly, that should be the end of the discussion.

(I know it won't be, but it should.)

Dubhliam wrote: »

@STEVIL , no you do not "answer things". You put words in other people's mouths, you indicate what my "hidden" intentions are, you categorize people into certain profiles, then generalize every profile, then paint a certain profile VERY negative, saying they have hidden agendas, only play the game to grief others etc.
Your highly negative and sarcastic comments do not contribute to your publicity or this discussion.

After 10 pages of actively posting in this thread, and warning me that I should not tell people to go read the concept, you still show that you haven't read it.
To answer your first, and second concern: READ MY CONCEPT. Payout has been raised, and it was not added recently, that was included in my original concept.

Also, to add to the second point, Hounds should not be added into instances, only in open world.

Three: I did not know a question can count as a "point". Yes, killing Hounds should provide some bounty.

Fourth: Why do you suddenly assume Guards would not reset? It is self explanatory, it should not be explicitly stated, in fact if the Guards would not reset, THAT would be explicitly stated.

Fifth: Hounds should not be able to swim. If this tactic shows as highly abusable, then something should be done to counter it.

Six: Yes, ofc timer resets when the Fugitive status is depleted. I don't know who in his sane mind would assume otherwise. This is exactly the point of this whole change: Outlaws should prioritize the removal of their bounties.

Seven: The timer should be recurring. As I said, Outlaws should prioritize the removal of bounties.

Eight: The Guards that accompany the Hound (or the other way around) also engage into pursuit. Yes, it does effectively make Notorious heat more punishing than Disreputable. That was the whole point - to differentiate the two heat levels that are currently identical in effect. The higher detection radius is ONLY applicable for Notorious or higher heat. Since Notorious is not a "kill on sight" heat, it would be illogical if Hounds would engage an Outlaw in combat before s/he had the change to pay the bounty.

Nine: Again, use logic. It means whenever your bounty gets increased.

Ten: Spawned guards and hounds would have ZERO detection radius.

If anyone else made this post you made, it would actually resemble a constructive discussion and much wanted feedback.
Instead you have tainted your post with word like:

some on this thread have observed that is a goal, to make injustice activitites rare (that was you)
others are putting forth ideas seemingly based on
if it is your intention to make those quests more difficult
if its your intention to exclude those
you seem to be working more towards making fugitive "not an option"
if the goal is "stop people from playing this"
Is pushing [...] a goal here or an unintended not thought thru consequence?
So it would seem that you want
is that the goal?

If you stop insinuating I have some hidden agendas, I wouldn't have to be on the defensive when replying to your posts, and we could actually have some constructive discussion about issues that might come with my proposed changes.
Remember; this whole Hound concept is being added so that people can have an opt-out option, with no player interaction.

First bold v- yes i do answer things. Look at the post i just made. the idea that your not liking some of the answers or even some of the style - well - that doesn't make it not an answer.

You EXPLICITLY asked for feedback.
I explicitly gave you a ten point/question/clarification etc set of feedback as an answer.
You then respond by saying no you do not "answer things".

That in and of itself says plenty.

First point second bold: Since this has not been married to your system yet, since it as of this second is its own thing, since IT HAS NOT YET also been endorsed to your system (ie it married with all the other pieces of your system) WHY DO YOU ASSUME WE SHOULD ALL ASSUME EVERYTHING OR ANYTHING IN YOUR SYSTEM APPLIES BY DEFAULT? That is not how one does rules proposals - assume this and that are married but others are not. To be VERY CLEAR HERE, you seemed to imply this proposal would NOT be married to everything in your proposal, right, since this is intened as not including your PVP stuff. Right? So, some part of your proposal apparently in your mind apply and others do not. why get so sure and certain everybody knows all those filters going on back there? Why get so push backy when someone doesn't assume the same unstated "pick this dont pick that" thats sitting in the back of your mind? glad my not giving any answers obviously had nothing to do with getting this clarified or at least addressed or considered at all.

Second point third bold: glad my not giving any answers obviously had nothing to do with getting this clarified or at least addressed or considered at all.

Third point fourth bold: glad my not giving any answers obviously had nothing to do with getting this clarified or at least addressed or considered at all.


Forth point fifth bold I said nothing about reset. I observed and expounded a bit on how the hounds "fight" would actually serve to make the character more vulnerable or more exposed to be spotted by guards. that being in a slugfest would create more opportunities for guards to come around and spot the fugitive and engage. So really, the hounds, while touted as " a fight option for those who want to fight" is really cxreating a great potential for MORE UNKILLABLE GUARD involvement for those who dont want it, not less. You have observed i believe more than once that one thing you wanted to address was the fact that some people did not like the unkillable guards and wanted to have something to fight and this "hound" thing while being kinda superficially looking like it might do that seems to instead promote more unkillable guard issues. That is UNLESS you set guards to behave differently than they do now in some way you have not yet described. glad my not giving any answers obviously had nothing to do with getting this clarified or at least addressed or considered at all.

fifth point sixth bold glad my not giving any answers obviously had nothing to do with getting this clarified or at least addressed or considered at all.

sixth ppint seventh bold if you check with any even semi-pro or even heavy amateur game designer you will likely find that tossing around comments about "sane" assumptions is a really poor decision. First, not everyone may share your internal knowledge of the goal - which here seems to be to promote more use of leniencies, payouts to fences and even using the
just-log-out-and-alt bounty purge method. See, i had thought that one of your gaols was to encourage players to try and AVOID GETTING BOUNTIES at higher levels in the first place, thru more subtle and skilled play, that kind of thing. Do you have any idea where i might have gotten that notion in my head? Do you have any idea where others might have gotten that idea in their head? If so, then the idea that we would now assume the goal is to promote the use of bounty clearing options is just not a reasonable thing for you to assume every "sane" person would conclude as the point.

The key is this:
if the goal is to reduce the frequency of occurrence of the higher bounty levels being gained and promote better play avoiding bounties (can find lotsa refs to this pretty easily in this thread) - the timer go away when you purge the bounty doesn't help that goal and the timer running to end even if you purge bounty does.
if the new goal is to encourage the use of bounty purging elements like leniencies, fence payoffs, just-log-alt etc then the timer going away if the fugitive is dropped - then and only then does it make sense.

But maybe some people even as "sane" as you might not be clear which of these two were the goal.

and so they might just maybe ask or give feedback to get it clarified.

glad my not giving any answers obviously had nothing to do with getting this clarified or at least addressed or considered at all.

point seven bold eight See six on how other mays have not been clear as to the new goal. glad my not giving any answers obviously had nothing to do with getting this clarified or at least addressed or considered at all.

Eight point ninth bold Since it applies to notorious or higher heat its entirely logical hounds could be engaging before you get a dialog. if you are at kill on sight, you dont get a dialog. But regardless the point was again to clarify a piece that affect how much this is a new "fight your way" option as opposed to really more of a new "more unkillable guards moments" thing. As it is written now, if this is later packaged and sold as "for those who want a fight instead of unkillable guards, her is a new thing" then it is really very deceptive. glad my not giving any answers obviously had nothing to do with getting this clarified or at least addressed or considered at all.

Ninth point and tenth bold - commiting a crime and gaining bounty for a crime are two very very different things. This has been brought up in this thread multiple times - as i think you may be able to sanely recall much has been made about pcs committing murder and not being spotted by npcs for bounty but close enough that it bothers other pcs looking for not being complicit etc etc etc. So, a good rule to follow is when presenting rules, dont use a term understoodf to mean one thing when describing another thing. glad my not giving any answers obviously had nothing to do with getting this clarified or at least addressed or considered at all.

tenth point, final bold that is very different behavior than it is now so maybe it should have been explicitly stated - at least given your answer to previous points. given your previous comments on the benefits of player interventions it is very good to have this clarified so we know you dont intend this system to enable that, even just by hound spawn proxy and are willing to ADD TO THE RULE to clarify that. glad my not giving any answers obviously had nothing to do with getting this clarified or at least addressed or considered at all.

Finally, questions, statements or observations (not just insinuations) about the goals of the proposal, what it is intended to achieve especially when compared and contrasted to what it seems to be enabling and comparisons and contrasts of those with the designer/proponents previously stated objectives and preferences - don't seem out of whack in the feedback and design discussions for new systems.

You may not like it being brought up, you may not like the results of it being pointed out (proposal at that time allows playrers to spawn guards where they didn't exist and possibly interfere with other player activities vs desinger-proponent is in favor of direct player interference for pve activities of this type just for example) but its fair consideration and a reasonable part of a discussion.

At least, it seems that way to me but as you may have insinuated above i may not fit your definition of sane? After all as you explicitly stated up there in point six maybe, about how nodoby sane would make the timer assumption even a question, well i wasn't clear that the old goals werent the current or new goals so i maybe like others aren't sane?

Not sure about that.

As the song says...

Still crazy after all these years...





.

Oh yeah and lucky 13 and 14.

Point 13 Since you have now clarified or added (not based on any answer to you feedback request from me cuz i dont give answers at all) that the spawned guards and doggs have SERO detect radius (i guess they are blind guards and their seeing eye guard dogs which makes a lot of sense let me tell you for those wanting better immersion) do those blind guards and their seeing eye dogs unspawn after the target either is killed or escapes or linger for a while (how long?) as potential "barriers" blocking movement or potential targets of accidental shots?

Point 14 When a player wanting to interfere with grinding or questing PCs arranges to have the porting guard pop into the middle of exterior areas where these are happening and the guard inevitably becomes either the recipient of incidental aimed fire or just as a major pain in the but for those trying to complete their task that the other person doesn't like them doing - do the spawned guards and law dogs react much the same as they do now - in that they tend to favor their most recent damage for choosing which fugitive/kill on sight to go after? NOYE detecion radius zero doesn't mean they cannot be targetted and respond to with bounty and aggression. You can attack guards from outside their detection radius now and they respond with ill intentions all the time. just trying to figure out if this is a good way to not only grief players using you new blinds guards on a timer spawns proposal but also to shake your pursuers?

STEVIL wrote: »

Dubhliam wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

OP, I fear you may end up with a brain aneurysm. I mean, it's obvious from the shear level of rejection to even your refined concept to allow for zero player interaction that some people would rather just dump all over any concept that might rejuvenate hope for the original Justice system.

Some players minds are already concluded, as evidenced by constant assumptions of an agenda, thus engaging them makes for sour reading on a topic I am greatly interested in. It doesn't matter how many times you give refined concepts on how it is in fact possible to satisfy the majority because, and this is largely opinionated sure, adding a greater amount of depth, excitement, gameplay, and originality to a game like this can only be positive and attract more and more players to try it.

I've been playing console games since I could hold a controller, been playing RPG's since shortly after, and have been enjoying PvP since the Internet, and to me this system of yours would not only be the first of its kind, on console at least, but would, without a shadow of a doubt in my mind, be massively embraced by the vast majority of gamers, PvE and PvP alike.

Just thought you could do with some reassuring.....

@NeillMcAttack , this must be the most awesome post I have read in this thread, thank you so much.

Divinius wrote: »

After 10 pages, and arguments going back and forth for weeks now, so many people still don't get it.

This is as simple as I can make it:

I. DO. NOT. WANT. TO. PVP.

And there are MANY players that feel the same as I do.

Right now, players like me can easily avoid ALL PvP by simply staying out of Cyrodiil.

As soon as PvP is added to the Justice system, IN ANY FORM AT ALL, without a complete and total opt out switch, players like me now need to AVOID DOING SOMETHING IN PVE to avoid PvP.

Sure, in this case, what we have to avoid is limited to getting caught by a NPC guard and choosing the flee option. That's still a 100% PvE scenario, which can flag us for PvP.

That is the very base of what's unacceptable to many PvE players like myself, and by forcing this system on us, you will alienate and drive away those players. ZOS simply can't afford to drive away a significant number of players, and they know this, which is why the chose to scrap PvP justice. Honestly, that should be the end of the discussion.

(I know it won't be, but it should.)

@Divinius , we are in the middle of creating a solid ground for an opt-out solution to the Justice System revamp.

Yes, OPT-OUT! With zero player interaction or PvP penalties.

It's all here on the last page.

@Divinius
Pay no attention to the player interaction (caused by being able to spawn timed guards and law dogs into the middle of other people's ongoing grinds or quest fights) behind the curtain.
These are not the player griefings you are looking for.
Trust the @Dubhliam.

Thank you so much for you sarcastic posts, and the discussion about semantics and such.
I have shown nothing but good will in trying to communicate with you even after you have constantly attacked me and put words in my mouth, and tried to paint my intentions the color you want others to see.

Since you seem to "provide" answers as well as seem to know my intentions perfectly, I leave it to you to put words in my mouth, in other words answer your own questions.

You are doing just fine derailing this thread, I won't assist you any further, don't expect any more answers from me.
Welcome to my block list.

Crom_CCCXVI wrote: »

Glad we don't use polls then.....

can only imagine how much exploiting would go on with this.

Hi, @Crom_CCCXVI , welcome to the discussion.

Could you please quote the part of the concept you think would be exploitable and how please?
If there is any form of grieving in this concept that can be prevented, I would like to know it so I make adjustments accordingly.

Also note that there is another part of the concept currently in the works, which would enable an opt-out option.
These are the rough guidelines:

• There are a few patrolling Guards with Hounds. Usually every other patrolling Guard has one.
• Hounds can "sniff out" players with Notorious bounty or higher from greater distances (they have a larger detection radius than Guards).
• The Guard they are paired with follows the Hound that gets aggroed, and dictates the actions that follow based on Outlaw bounty (kill on sight or pay bounty dialogue).
• They also chase players without resetting, but are killable, unlike Guards.

Then, an additional system is in place in form of a timer:

• When a player becomes Fugitive, unless that Heat is gained by entering into a fight with a Guard, he gains a timer.
• Every crime committed while Fugitive reduces the timer.
• The timer is cancelled when the Fugitive bounty gets depleted, and is paused while inside a Refuge, Thieves Den or Sanctuary.
• Once the timer reaches 0, two Hounds and a Guard are spawned at his location and engage him in combat.
• If the player manages to escape the Guard, and kill the Hounds, the timer restarts.

If this is what you were referring to when you said it is exploitable, it probably is because I still haven't thought out all the details, this is the reason it is currently left out of the concept in the original posts.

Again, i welcome constructive criticism on how it could be exploitable.

Dubhliam wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

Dubhliam wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

OP, I fear you may end up with a brain aneurysm. I mean, it's obvious from the shear level of rejection to even your refined concept to allow for zero player interaction that some people would rather just dump all over any concept that might rejuvenate hope for the original Justice system.

Some players minds are already concluded, as evidenced by constant assumptions of an agenda, thus engaging them makes for sour reading on a topic I am greatly interested in. It doesn't matter how many times you give refined concepts on how it is in fact possible to satisfy the majority because, and this is largely opinionated sure, adding a greater amount of depth, excitement, gameplay, and originality to a game like this can only be positive and attract more and more players to try it.

I've been playing console games since I could hold a controller, been playing RPG's since shortly after, and have been enjoying PvP since the Internet, and to me this system of yours would not only be the first of its kind, on console at least, but would, without a shadow of a doubt in my mind, be massively embraced by the vast majority of gamers, PvE and PvP alike.

Just thought you could do with some reassuring.....

@NeillMcAttack , this must be the most awesome post I have read in this thread, thank you so much.

Divinius wrote: »

After 10 pages, and arguments going back and forth for weeks now, so many people still don't get it.

This is as simple as I can make it:

I. DO. NOT. WANT. TO. PVP.

And there are MANY players that feel the same as I do.

Right now, players like me can easily avoid ALL PvP by simply staying out of Cyrodiil.

As soon as PvP is added to the Justice system, IN ANY FORM AT ALL, without a complete and total opt out switch, players like me now need to AVOID DOING SOMETHING IN PVE to avoid PvP.

Sure, in this case, what we have to avoid is limited to getting caught by a NPC guard and choosing the flee option. That's still a 100% PvE scenario, which can flag us for PvP.

That is the very base of what's unacceptable to many PvE players like myself, and by forcing this system on us, you will alienate and drive away those players. ZOS simply can't afford to drive away a significant number of players, and they know this, which is why the chose to scrap PvP justice. Honestly, that should be the end of the discussion.

(I know it won't be, but it should.)

@Divinius , we are in the middle of creating a solid ground for an opt-out solution to the Justice System revamp.

Yes, OPT-OUT! With zero player interaction or PvP penalties.

It's all here on the last page.

@Divinius
Pay no attention to the player interaction (caused by being able to spawn timed guards and law dogs into the middle of other people's ongoing grinds or quest fights) behind the curtain.
These are not the player griefings you are looking for.
Trust the @Dubhliam.

Thank you so much for you sarcastic posts, and the discussion about semantics and such.
I have shown nothing but good will in trying to communicate with you even after you have constantly attacked me and put words in my mouth, and tried to paint my intentions the color you want others to see.

Since you seem to "provide" answers as well as seem to know my intentions perfectly, I leave it to you to put words in my mouth, in other words answer your own questions.

You are doing just fine derailing this thread, I won't assist you any further, don't expect any more answers from me.
Welcome to my block list.

More reasons to not address feedback, specific questions and identified issues?
How shocked yoda is not.

As for this I have shown nothing but good will?

Sure you can try to represent it that way but really was the "sane" comment in response to my specific point an example of I have shown nothing but good will?

Was claiming i dont answer after i posted nine ten and now up to 14 specific points of feedback, some of which you made adjustments over I have shown nothing but good will?

Some may see it that way. other may not. But that has nothing to do with the facts and the issues presented and the flat out frank math of it - I have posted more direct feedback to this thread about your most recent proposal, with specifics, with questions and so on - since you asked for feedback - than anybody else has.

and yet, you accuse me of derailing the thread and claim for yourself I have shown nothing but good will?

Divinius wrote: »

Dubhliam wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

OP, I fear you may end up with a brain aneurysm. I mean, it's obvious from the shear level of rejection to even your refined concept to allow for zero player interaction that some people would rather just dump all over any concept that might rejuvenate hope for the original Justice system.

Some players minds are already concluded, as evidenced by constant assumptions of an agenda, thus engaging them makes for sour reading on a topic I am greatly interested in. It doesn't matter how many times you give refined concepts on how it is in fact possible to satisfy the majority because, and this is largely opinionated sure, adding a greater amount of depth, excitement, gameplay, and originality to a game like this can only be positive and attract more and more players to try it.

I've been playing console games since I could hold a controller, been playing RPG's since shortly after, and have been enjoying PvP since the Internet, and to me this system of yours would not only be the first of its kind, on console at least, but would, without a shadow of a doubt in my mind, be massively embraced by the vast majority of gamers, PvE and PvP alike.

Just thought you could do with some reassuring.....

@NeillMcAttack , this must be the most awesome post I have read in this thread, thank you so much.

Divinius wrote: »

After 10 pages, and arguments going back and forth for weeks now, so many people still don't get it.

This is as simple as I can make it:

I. DO. NOT. WANT. TO. PVP.

And there are MANY players that feel the same as I do.

Right now, players like me can easily avoid ALL PvP by simply staying out of Cyrodiil.

As soon as PvP is added to the Justice system, IN ANY FORM AT ALL, without a complete and total opt out switch, players like me now need to AVOID DOING SOMETHING IN PVE to avoid PvP.

Sure, in this case, what we have to avoid is limited to getting caught by a NPC guard and choosing the flee option. That's still a 100% PvE scenario, which can flag us for PvP.

That is the very base of what's unacceptable to many PvE players like myself, and by forcing this system on us, you will alienate and drive away those players. ZOS simply can't afford to drive away a significant number of players, and they know this, which is why the chose to scrap PvP justice. Honestly, that should be the end of the discussion.

(I know it won't be, but it should.)

@Divinius , we are in the middle of creating a solid ground for an opt-out solution to the Justice System revamp.

Yes, OPT-OUT! With zero player interaction or PvP penalties.

It's all here on the last page.

My post was actually more directed NeillMcAttack's post... you know, the one you said was awesome. But since you agreed with him, I guess it was directed at you too.

As for the events of the last several posts, to be honest, I haven't been keeping up. To use Neil's words, reading this thread has been threatening to give me a brain aneurysm.

If you have finally agreed to put in a full-fledged opt-out for PvE players that don't want to PvP, then that's great. Once you have it fleshed-out, I'll read the whole proposal again, and let you know what I think.

I have absolutely no problem with fully consensual PvP being added anywhere in the game. As long as I can completely turn it off, I'm happy.

Oh, well, okay then.

You say that you don't want to PvP, no matter what. That is fine, but it's not even relevant IMO. Because I can just say that I do, I really really do want Justice PvP. But what have we achieved?! Nothing.

I'm not of the mind that players that have made a conscious choice in limiting what it is they enjoy about games should have any say in being able to limit the game itself or other players enjoyment of it.

You see I have been having these PvP vs PvE debates for a long time in many other games I have played. Now, I'm considered a "PvP'er", simply because I enjoy PvP, but that is never the whole picture. I am actually both. I enjoy all aspects of the game. Yet you are only one of those, you have limited through your own choice what it is you enjoy about your games, that is nobody's problem but your own. I honestly find it insulting for you to claim that we would be negatively affecting your playstyle while at the same time making demands to cater specifically to yours regardless of how it may remove so many layers of depth and immersion to players of my playstyle.

So basically, you will get no sympathy from me. And when you claim that had they implemented the PvP justice system that you would have just left the game, it makes me think, why should I care about what you want. As you would rather limit the experience of others, to sustain the narrow, poorly implemented, non-exciting, empty experience of your own.