STEVIL wrote: »

@NeillMcAttack

i am a PVEers so there is that.

But when you comment about being insulted by the other comments i can say this: its not about whether we like PVE or you like PVP.

Its about, as far as the items being discussed at different times in this thread, consensual PVP vs non-consensual PVP.

I for one have no problem with you playing PVP.

I do have a problem if that desire of yours extends into being able to PVP anybody else even if they dont want it.

See, at that point the world has just become ALL PVP and not as it is now a case where if you want PVE without PVP you can get it.

Right now it supports both the extreme options and the range in between but if the world is changed to allow PVPers to go after folks who dont want it, thru a non-consensual model like the one still currently at the foundation of this thread .

having a game where both are available and you can choose which you do is what we have now. I dont see changing that ESo Zenimax policy and design decison as a good thing.

I dont think any activity at all is helped by adding in non-consensual elements that a noticebaable number of the participants dont want.

YMMV

I am not arguing for the ability to go after people that don't want to be gone after. I'm arguing for a more immersive, exciting, in-depth, and alive, justice system. If you think its about forcing non-pvpers to pvp, you're in luck, because i can assure you it is not.

You act as if not being able to flee guards to save a couple hundred gold is game breaking for you, all the while denying the level of depth and excitement it would add for players like myself. That is truly what it is about. So regardless of what you say to try and dismiss the concept of a justice system to me our difference will come down to this;
You want to deny oceans of depth and totally unique gameplay to the likes of me, and for what? The ability to hit retreating maneuver and walk to the edge of town and earning some petty gold. Oh how exciting!!

STEVIL wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

@NeillMcAttack

i am a PVEers so there is that.

But when you comment about being insulted by the other comments i can say this: its not about whether we like PVE or you like PVP.

Its about, as far as the items being discussed at different times in this thread, consensual PVP vs non-consensual PVP.

I for one have no problem with you playing PVP.

I do have a problem if that desire of yours extends into being able to PVP anybody else even if they dont want it.

See, at that point the world has just become ALL PVP and not as it is now a case where if you want PVE without PVP you can get it.

Right now it supports both the extreme options and the range in between but if the world is changed to allow PVPers to go after folks who dont want it, thru a non-consensual model like the one still currently at the foundation of this thread .

having a game where both are available and you can choose which you do is what we have now. I dont see changing that ESo Zenimax policy and design decison as a good thing.

I dont think any activity at all is helped by adding in non-consensual elements that a noticebaable number of the participants dont want.

YMMV

I am not arguing for the ability to go after people that don't want to be gone after. I'm arguing for a more immersive, exciting, in-depth, and alive, justice system. If you think its about forcing non-pvpers to pvp, you're in luck, because i can assure you it is not.

You act as if not being able to flee guards to save a couple hundred gold is game breaking for you, all the while denying the level of depth and excitement it would add for players like myself. That is truly what it is about. So regardless of what you say to try and dismiss the concept of a justice system to me our difference will come down to this;
You want to deny oceans of depth and totally unique gameplay to the likes of me, and for what? The ability to hit retreating maneuver and walk to the edge of town and earning some petty gold. Oh how exciting!!

Ok you seem to have some misunderstandings.

On this thread and others before it I have stated flat out often and repeatedly I want expanded and enriched justice system content.
I have outlined this including a full justice oriented dlc, repeatable escort and investigation missions, a guild focused on it in conjunction with the mage and fighters guilds and even how that can tie in with one tamriel.

I am not seeking to limit justice content but to expand it.

However, I have one absolute and one practical restrictiin.

The absolute is it cannot add non-consensual pvp or pvp consequences for pve activities in pve areas. Note that in this context enabling interruption is a form of pvp Ala griefing. I am not trying to limit this to just direct pvp combat as a concern but also newly enabled mechanisms for griefing such as being able to teleport guards into situations they normally would not be even near and messing up players there doing other things.

The pragmatic is it cannot take the net gain over time from doing injustice activities after factoring in risk etc below where it is now. That's because now it's already ib the lower half of repeatable activities for gain and it makes no sense to add more content that's less likely to be played by lowering the participation gains.

Those points are key to almost all of my points here.

So I think your perception of what I want to deny is maybe off a bit if you look at my posts. At least based on your current description.

So we agree it lacks any real challenge or excitment! I guess that's a start. So would you agree that currently choosing the flee option adds very little in terms of excitement or any real dynamics?

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

@NeillMcAttack

i am a PVEers so there is that.

But when you comment about being insulted by the other comments i can say this: its not about whether we like PVE or you like PVP.

Its about, as far as the items being discussed at different times in this thread, consensual PVP vs non-consensual PVP.

I for one have no problem with you playing PVP.

I do have a problem if that desire of yours extends into being able to PVP anybody else even if they dont want it.

See, at that point the world has just become ALL PVP and not as it is now a case where if you want PVE without PVP you can get it.

Right now it supports both the extreme options and the range in between but if the world is changed to allow PVPers to go after folks who dont want it, thru a non-consensual model like the one still currently at the foundation of this thread .

having a game where both are available and you can choose which you do is what we have now. I dont see changing that ESo Zenimax policy and design decison as a good thing.

I dont think any activity at all is helped by adding in non-consensual elements that a noticebaable number of the participants dont want.

YMMV

I am not arguing for the ability to go after people that don't want to be gone after. I'm arguing for a more immersive, exciting, in-depth, and alive, justice system. If you think its about forcing non-pvpers to pvp, you're in luck, because i can assure you it is not.

You act as if not being able to flee guards to save a couple hundred gold is game breaking for you, all the while denying the level of depth and excitement it would add for players like myself. That is truly what it is about. So regardless of what you say to try and dismiss the concept of a justice system to me our difference will come down to this;
You want to deny oceans of depth and totally unique gameplay to the likes of me, and for what? The ability to hit retreating maneuver and walk to the edge of town and earning some petty gold. Oh how exciting!!

Ok you seem to have some misunderstandings.

On this thread and others before it I have stated flat out often and repeatedly I want expanded and enriched justice system content.
I have outlined this including a full justice oriented dlc, repeatable escort and investigation missions, a guild focused on it in conjunction with the mage and fighters guilds and even how that can tie in with one tamriel.

I am not seeking to limit justice content but to expand it.

However, I have one absolute and one practical restrictiin.

The absolute is it cannot add non-consensual pvp or pvp consequences for pve activities in pve areas. Note that in this context enabling interruption is a form of pvp Ala griefing. I am not trying to limit this to just direct pvp combat as a concern but also newly enabled mechanisms for griefing such as being able to teleport guards into situations they normally would not be even near and messing up players there doing other things.

The pragmatic is it cannot take the net gain over time from doing injustice activities after factoring in risk etc below where it is now. That's because now it's already ib the lower half of repeatable activities for gain and it makes no sense to add more content that's less likely to be played by lowering the participation gains.

Those points are key to almost all of my points here.

So I think your perception of what I want to deny is maybe off a bit if you look at my posts. At least based on your current description.

So we agree it lacks any real challenge or excitment! I guess that's a start. So would you agree that currently choosing the flee option adds very little in terms of excitement or any real dynamics?

On challenge I have said for a player who knows what they are doing, takes basic reasonable efforts etc the "challenge" for injustice activities is just as easy as the non-competitive alternatives for player repeats such as grinding, delving, farming etc. The vast majority of the content falls into a level of easy if prepared and injustice activities are no exception.

So to me pointing out injustice is too easy and defining that as a problem in its own right is poor logic. Injustice is on par with the other activities but frankly in the lower half imx as far as rewards for time spent.

This is primarily due to its unique features. It is the only one where routinely you need or benefit from sneak, peek, maneuver. These take a LOT longer that gap close spam jabs does. With the values of thieves loot as they are compared to what you get from clearing a beach of mud crabs in half the time... add in needing to fence them, not just sell to every merchant, add in chance of losing them if somehow u get caught and you wind up with no more difficult but not quite as profitable.

So, raising the difficulty of injustice whill leaving everything else as easy and more profitable means not getting more interesting play for injustice activities but less play for it at all.

So that's easy. It's on par easy-wise. No less no more for those prepared.

As for exciting, again about the same as the repeatable main non-competitive content delving, grinding, farming etc. Injustice does have different and unique challenges. Can't just gap close jab thru guard, bounty has lingering repercusions, can lose stolen goods etc. So it offers different challenges than the other which almost all need the same mow it down solution. But it's not any more exciting the 120th time u to rob the safe box in malbor tor for its repeatable than it is to run the Wrothgar kennel for the 12th time, just different.

So the challenge being different adds a little but after a while, it'd no more exciting or boring than its competition for your eso non-comp play.

For the flee option itself, it adds the chase and evade aspect. The others really lack that at all, so that's a definite plus -a different type of challenge jabs won't solve. Would not want to see it replaced with yet another "just kill it" replacement. There are plenty of activities with "more jabs" as the solution. Having one where a speed invisible potion is the better optiin to yet another spell power chug is nice imo.

Now to explain my terms

When I say Justice, I mostly mean law and order activities. I want more content for that -dlc, skill, etc as noted before.

When I refer to injustice activities I mean cplayers spending time pickpockets, looting the owned stuff and killing.

Been trying to be more specific.

Now to maybe move a little ahead on the path I suspect you are paving...


Do I think it's a good idea to just make it more challenging for injustice activities? No.

If you want it played, as opposed to see its play reduced, it needs to be comparable to its competitors for player time.

That doesn't mean I don't want more content for it or am opposed to adding TOUGH injustice content like sacraments and heists seek to be but may fall short. Nothing wrong wiTh adoing and injustice equivalent to vmol or vmsa.

But just raising the bar significantly on the injustice activitis difficulty as a whole (as some have expressed) is a path to its extinction not it'd enliving. The players for the most part will play the other stuff.

Apologies for typos. This is on phone while waiting for xray and I'm half blind. May clean it up later.

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

@NeillMcAttack

i am a PVEers so there is that.

But when you comment about being insulted by the other comments i can say this: its not about whether we like PVE or you like PVP.

Its about, as far as the items being discussed at different times in this thread, consensual PVP vs non-consensual PVP.

I for one have no problem with you playing PVP.

I do have a problem if that desire of yours extends into being able to PVP anybody else even if they dont want it.

See, at that point the world has just become ALL PVP and not as it is now a case where if you want PVE without PVP you can get it.

Right now it supports both the extreme options and the range in between but if the world is changed to allow PVPers to go after folks who dont want it, thru a non-consensual model like the one still currently at the foundation of this thread .

having a game where both are available and you can choose which you do is what we have now. I dont see changing that ESo Zenimax policy and design decison as a good thing.

I dont think any activity at all is helped by adding in non-consensual elements that a noticebaable number of the participants dont want.

YMMV

I am not arguing for the ability to go after people that don't want to be gone after. I'm arguing for a more immersive, exciting, in-depth, and alive, justice system. If you think its about forcing non-pvpers to pvp, you're in luck, because i can assure you it is not.

You act as if not being able to flee guards to save a couple hundred gold is game breaking for you, all the while denying the level of depth and excitement it would add for players like myself. That is truly what it is about. So regardless of what you say to try and dismiss the concept of a justice system to me our difference will come down to this;
You want to deny oceans of depth and totally unique gameplay to the likes of me, and for what? The ability to hit retreating maneuver and walk to the edge of town and earning some petty gold. Oh how exciting!!

Ok you seem to have some misunderstandings.

On this thread and others before it I have stated flat out often and repeatedly I want expanded and enriched justice system content.
I have outlined this including a full justice oriented dlc, repeatable escort and investigation missions, a guild focused on it in conjunction with the mage and fighters guilds and even how that can tie in with one tamriel.

I am not seeking to limit justice content but to expand it.

However, I have one absolute and one practical restrictiin.

The absolute is it cannot add non-consensual pvp or pvp consequences for pve activities in pve areas. Note that in this context enabling interruption is a form of pvp Ala griefing. I am not trying to limit this to just direct pvp combat as a concern but also newly enabled mechanisms for griefing such as being able to teleport guards into situations they normally would not be even near and messing up players there doing other things.

The pragmatic is it cannot take the net gain over time from doing injustice activities after factoring in risk etc below where it is now. That's because now it's already ib the lower half of repeatable activities for gain and it makes no sense to add more content that's less likely to be played by lowering the participation gains.

Those points are key to almost all of my points here.

So I think your perception of what I want to deny is maybe off a bit if you look at my posts. At least based on your current description.

So we agree it lacks any real challenge or excitment! I guess that's a start. So would you agree that currently choosing the flee option adds very little in terms of excitement or any real dynamics?

On challenge I have said for a player who knows what they are doing, takes basic reasonable efforts etc the "challenge" for injustice activities is just as easy as the non-competitive alternatives for player repeats such as grinding, delving, farming etc. The vast majority of the content falls into a level of easy if prepared and injustice activities are no exception.

So to me pointing out injustice is too easy and defining that as a problem in its own right is poor logic. Injustice is on par with the other activities but frankly in the lower half imx as far as rewards for time spent.

This is primarily due to its unique features. It is the only one where routinely you need or benefit from sneak, peek, maneuver. These take a LOT longer that gap close spam jabs does. With the values of thieves loot as they are compared to what you get from clearing a beach of mud crabs in half the time... add in needing to fence them, not just sell to every merchant, add in chance of losing them if somehow u get caught and you wind up with no more difficult but not quite as profitable.

So, raising the difficulty of injustice whill leaving everything else as easy and more profitable means not getting more interesting play for injustice activities but less play for it at all.

So that's easy. It's on par easy-wise. No less no more for those prepared.

As for exciting, again about the same as the repeatable main non-competitive content delving, grinding, farming etc. Injustice does have different and unique challenges. Can't just gap close jab thru guard, bounty has lingering repercusions, can lose stolen goods etc. So it offers different challenges than the other which almost all need the same mow it down solution. But it's not any more exciting the 120th time u to rob the safe box in malbor tor for its repeatable than it is to run the Wrothgar kennel for the 12th time, just different.

So the challenge being different adds a little but after a while, it'd no more exciting or boring than its competition for your eso non-comp play.

For the flee option itself, it adds the chase and evade aspect. The others really lack that at all, so that's a definite plus -a different type of challenge jabs won't solve. Would not want to see it replaced with yet another "just kill it" replacement. There are plenty of activities with "more jabs" as the solution. Having one where a speed invisible potion is the better optiin to yet another spell power chug is nice imo.

Now to explain my terms

When I say Justice, I mostly mean law and order activities. I want more content for that -dlc, skill, etc as noted before.

When I refer to injustice activities I mean cplayers spending time pickpockets, looting the owned stuff and killing.

Been trying to be more specific.

Now to maybe move a little ahead on the path I suspect you are paving...


Do I think it's a good idea to just make it more challenging for injustice activities? No.

If you want it played, as opposed to see its play reduced, it needs to be comparable to its competitors for player time.

That doesn't mean I don't want more content for it or am opposed to adding TOUGH injustice content like sacraments and heists seek to be but may fall short. Nothing wrong wiTh adoing and injustice equivalent to vmol or vmsa.

But just raising the bar significantly on the injustice activitis difficulty as a whole (as some have expressed) is a path to its extinction not it'd enliving. The players for the most part will play the other stuff.

Apologies for typos. This is on phone while waiting for xray and I'm half blind. May clean it up later.

Interesting, fairly detailed post. But all it does is define the question i asked you and makes comparisons to aspects of the game we aren't actually discussing. I mean, comparing thieving and fleeing to "jabbing" your way through dungeons etc. and even then your main conclusion, which i have emboldened just kind of strengthens my case for justice PvP as your previous argument against was that it would mean "tamriel becomes all PvP", but now you claim nobody would play it!?

K, firstly, I have no idea how you can compare fleeing guards to repeatable dungeons, which, even if you are running as the same exact role, with the same exact people, talking about the same exact things, it is still more fun. But i guess that is just an opinion.
Secondly, you seem to have this, and I have seen this attitude towards gaming before, it's a sense that in order for something to be worth doing, or lets say 'fun', that it has to be rewarding in some virtually rewarding way. Now this is where i have had to end discussions with players before because its obvious that we game for different reasons. You see, you feel that people play things to get rewarded with something... anything really, but i disagree. Just a sense of accomplishment or excitement is actually enough for people I believe, hence why PvP is so popular, because it certainly isn't the most rewarding loot-wise.

You see, for me, gameplay is far more enticing than loot. And for you to assume that because killing mudcrabs yields more virtual income, people wouldn't bother with it, makes me certain that we are wasting our time trying to convince each other otherwise.

Now there is definitely misunderstanding.

You asked how i felt about fleeimg guards, a pve activity. I had been clesr i thought -no pvp for pve activities. So you cant expect to ask me about pve, get pve answers and then twist that to somehow compare to pvp specific answers. Or shouldnt, unless conflation is the goal.

So to the points you meshed... i was pretty clear, non-consensual pvp thru justice or other as consequences for pve actions makes tamriel all pvp, imo. That doesnt mran anything about how many pve players hang around.

On the other hand, if pve injustice suddenly becomes less competitive that the other repeatable activities its play goes wsy down. Like it or not, many player do look at gains. When deciding between content they enjoy, the one with more gains tends to get more play. Its by no means as universal as you might see it but its there. One reason is, i believe, that while "fun" is highly subjective the in game benefits of loot are more objective. So whether this group finds questing more fun, another finds delving, another finds fun in the markteering etc... they will tend within those to pick the ones within them that produce more results. So they arent choosing loot over fun but fun with more loot.

You referenced it as in the perspective of one persons preferences chosing fun vs loot. Mmo design plat etc is about populations and how they divide. There are fun and loot options aplenty... its about which fun and loot. Under reward one area, population shifts away to other fun.

My objective with justice would be to keep it on par and add more. Give it as much justice content and new challenges as db and tg did for injustice.

Finally, you know and i know discounting pvp loot is a little inaccurate, right? First pvp put you into play with what, two separate pvp only currencies -telvar and ap. Those have no equivalence in pve at al. Those allow access to loot not available in standard pve. Sets avaible in pvp have been mainstay top BIS forever and ones that can be sold net tons of loot in trade. So, sorry but pvp is not the loot poor step-cousin of pve by a long shot. Start talking about yanking the gear and other pvp rewards that are exceptional and see how people react.

Btw the games i choose to play competitively dont have any rewards other than accomplishment. But mmo do not usually find that model successful in general.

Tipsy wrote: »

Dubhliam wrote: »

And let me be perfectly clear:
A rework of the Justice System in which an opt-out will leave players playing the exact same Justice system that is currently live will never get incorporated into my concept.

So here's a wild suggestion: instead of simply giving your opinions as to why you would not want to see option 1, why don't you become more constructive in terms of creating a workable option 2?

So I guess that would mean you wouldn't find a new pvp level to the justice system enough as it "shields" players with lower justice level from pvp?So would you regard that as an opt-out?
I think finding an agreable solution starts with mutual understanding where both parties are free to participate,but not forced.
With a separated justice system for each alliance & the players of all Alliances playing together soon in One Tamriel,
I believe a union of the game aspects pve & pvp could make the game even more exciting(with bounty hunting players of opposing alliance who are wanted in your own) , allowing an opportunity to play and compete with friends that play on opposing alliances..
But that would mean conditions have to be met participating in pvp ,it be a choice or consequence because of your misdeeds.But not an obligation for everyone.
And if you say "no opt-out" you limit the chances of getting to the mutual acceptance that would allow pve areas to become playground for those who want to pvp or have a friendly duel with opposing alliance members.
Its like when all the botters during release abused delve-boss looting & in doing so ruined it for other players.And farmers ,since thats no longer possible because of them.
I'm just trying to say here that abusive nature of one person can ruin it for everyone.
A few pages back STEVIL was constantly talking about PVP-ransom-PVE(and if you force those who absolutely don't want it ,its kinda true..I don't want to force them as such but want them to make it possible to pvp in pve areas)
You'd actually also prevent PVPers to have fun,so STEVIL, you could say there would be a PVP-ransom-PVP too
Since they cant have what they want because some pvpers want to shove it down everyone's throat.
Separating game aspects is never good(it needs to be a union).So those who dislike pvp never set foot in cyrodiil now either(which I dislike too;wasted content for either pve/pvp-only side)
I believe both aspects of the game could come together and would actually improve One Tamriel,
only with understanding & compromise & under certain conditions this would be possible.

entitlement is also an issue here
"I'm a PVEer and shall not tolerate any pvp in my game" "you can't have it your way,I want it my way"
"Stay in your cyrodiil if you want to pvp and allow me to play "MY" game" it never ends.
So again,understanding,compromise & conditions that need to be met

Hey @Tipsy , first of all, I'd like to apologize for not commenting on your suggestion earlier. There were multiple posts that I was answering at the same time, and I kind a forgot to answer yours, but that doesn't mean I haven't thought about it.

I agree with most of what you are saying, and as much as I would like to see the revamp be "all under the same roof", it seems even if PvP fights could not be triggered without consent, people still highly dislike ANY player interaction.
Honestly, if the sole complaint in this thread was: "But I want my PvE flee", I would not even bother thinking up an opt-out system.
However, there is an aspect that people do not consent to: other players hunting Outlaws with bounties and forcing the "pay bounty dialogue". Which in effect makes this system not a complete opt-out system.
I guess this is reason enough to make for a complete opt-out option viable, but a major overhaul of the bounty and guard system should take place.

To finally add some feedback on your suggestion:
I like the idea from the lore and immersion standpoint, but I have some questions:

• Does "Alliance specific bounties" mean that f.e. if someone gets seen committing a crime in Grahtwood, only AD Enforcers would be able to accost that player?
• What happens when players accumulates a bounty in neutral zones like Coldharbor, Craglorn or any current and future DLC zone?

You see, there are some issues that need addressing before this becomes viable.
From the system standpoint is has less appeal, since you would be limiting the amount of players that can accost a certain alliance bounty to approximately 33% of all Enforcers, while crimes in DLC zones would be open to 100% of Enforcers.
Making DLC zones (those include TG and DB) less appealing for crime activities, which I don't think will pass with ZOS.

Unless I got it wrong, in which case I'd like some clarification as to how it would work.

Lastly, this kind of restriction would be a good way to improve on my initial concept, but since I have already set my mind to constrict the system with two options: opt-in and opt-out, I don't think further restrictions are necessary.
Especially since it goes against the nature of what they are trying to achieve with One Tamriel - get all players to play together.

Tipsy wrote: »

entitlement is also an issue here
"I'm a PVEer and shall not tolerate any pvp in my game" "you can't have it your way,I want it my way"
"Stay in your cyrodiil if you want to pvp and allow me to play "MY" game" it never ends.
So again,understanding,compromise & conditions that need to be met

Sorry Tipsy, its not entitlement to choose the game you want to play.

I, for one, am not saying i dont want any pvp in my game. i am fine with there being pvp in eso.

i am saying i dont want pvp done to me without my consent.

I am saying i dont want pvp done to me for playing pve content.

Thats not entitlement. I am making not one demand on anyone else.

To me it is more entitlement for someone to say "i want others who dont want pvp to be sucked into pvp against their will by pve actions"

To me it is more entitlement for someone to say "i want to be able to pvp people even if they never take a pvp action themselves as a response to their pve play."

or more explicitly it is to me more a case of entitlement to say or insist "if i dont like what other players are doing in PVE, i should be able to use pvp to stop them"

That last one you may recognize as being the essense of the argument that because you find it troubling to see other players playing injustice activites in your faction, it bothers you and you feel complicit and so you should be allowed a pvp way to stop it.

As for your other point, one you keep raising just to be sure we are on the same page:

if by "add new justice level" you mean keep all the existing levels of bounty/heat exclusively PVE and you add a higher thershold which then will automatically throw you into PVP, I would not be ok with that. It is currently possible to reach any level of bounty and heat and stay PVE. That kind of an approach would take PVE actions at some level now and turn them into PVP mandatory, which gets back to the takeover part of pvp-ransom-takeover.

If instead you mean something like adding a new OPTION which can allow a player with heat/bounty to choose a PVP resolution, that is not so bad as long as it doesnt promote harrassment, griefing etc. I have myself been back and forth on PVE flee with PVP flee as options depending on the specifics and particulars but a simple clean option has not usually been presented (as noted in the part you quoted for some allowing folks to just choose no isn't acceptable.")

But people differ and have differing opinions so... agreement is not always possible.

But for me it is rather clear:

Adding non-consensual PVP into the current injustice activities wont increase the players playing the injustice activities.
it wont increase the number of players choosing to spend time there in that activity.
That seems obvious.
Those who dont like PVP will simply move on to one of the other activities in the game they find fun (or leave the game if it is setup so much that accidental events can force it on them.) there are other things people enjoy playing too that are as much or more profitable so thats a no brainer.
Those who like PVP vs PVP better than PVE play, i cannot see why those folks would choose to sit around in PVE zones hoping someone in PVE play happens to make a mistake and get sucked into PVP status? Maybe some would, drawn by the lure of easier pvp victories with "less competitive duels" but it really makes no sense other than for griefing that someone who really enjoys pvp vs pvp would take the route of waiting for injustice to spawn a single pve target instead of going to the pvp zones where there are other pvpers waiting to happen.
So it seems to me the people who would be left or who would come running for this and stick with it are not going to match up at all numbers wise against the ones who arent there now or would leave.

Net result: less participation in the injustice activites play. Not "more fun" not "more exciting" but not played... at least not nearly as much.

These are of course just estimations, your estimations would vary.

@Tipsy
So @STEVIL ,it would be consensual PVP between wanted players and bounty hunters)

Please if you would be so kind, while you address the hunted not being able to draw in others, how again in whatever your current preferred collection of rules to be did the wanted consent to pvp in the first place? Was it by conducting pve action or by choosing a specific pvp opt-in flag or what?

STEVIL wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

@NeillMcAttack

i am a PVEers so there is that.

But when you comment about being insulted by the other comments i can say this: its not about whether we like PVE or you like PVP.

Its about, as far as the items being discussed at different times in this thread, consensual PVP vs non-consensual PVP.

I for one have no problem with you playing PVP.

I do have a problem if that desire of yours extends into being able to PVP anybody else even if they dont want it.

See, at that point the world has just become ALL PVP and not as it is now a case where if you want PVE without PVP you can get it.

Right now it supports both the extreme options and the range in between but if the world is changed to allow PVPers to go after folks who dont want it, thru a non-consensual model like the one still currently at the foundation of this thread .

having a game where both are available and you can choose which you do is what we have now. I dont see changing that ESo Zenimax policy and design decison as a good thing.

I dont think any activity at all is helped by adding in non-consensual elements that a noticebaable number of the participants dont want.

YMMV

I am not arguing for the ability to go after people that don't want to be gone after. I'm arguing for a more immersive, exciting, in-depth, and alive, justice system. If you think its about forcing non-pvpers to pvp, you're in luck, because i can assure you it is not.

You act as if not being able to flee guards to save a couple hundred gold is game breaking for you, all the while denying the level of depth and excitement it would add for players like myself. That is truly what it is about. So regardless of what you say to try and dismiss the concept of a justice system to me our difference will come down to this;
You want to deny oceans of depth and totally unique gameplay to the likes of me, and for what? The ability to hit retreating maneuver and walk to the edge of town and earning some petty gold. Oh how exciting!!

Ok you seem to have some misunderstandings.

On this thread and others before it I have stated flat out often and repeatedly I want expanded and enriched justice system content.
I have outlined this including a full justice oriented dlc, repeatable escort and investigation missions, a guild focused on it in conjunction with the mage and fighters guilds and even how that can tie in with one tamriel.

I am not seeking to limit justice content but to expand it.

However, I have one absolute and one practical restrictiin.

The absolute is it cannot add non-consensual pvp or pvp consequences for pve activities in pve areas. Note that in this context enabling interruption is a form of pvp Ala griefing. I am not trying to limit this to just direct pvp combat as a concern but also newly enabled mechanisms for griefing such as being able to teleport guards into situations they normally would not be even near and messing up players there doing other things.

The pragmatic is it cannot take the net gain over time from doing injustice activities after factoring in risk etc below where it is now. That's because now it's already ib the lower half of repeatable activities for gain and it makes no sense to add more content that's less likely to be played by lowering the participation gains.

Those points are key to almost all of my points here.

So I think your perception of what I want to deny is maybe off a bit if you look at my posts. At least based on your current description.

So we agree it lacks any real challenge or excitment! I guess that's a start. So would you agree that currently choosing the flee option adds very little in terms of excitement or any real dynamics?

On challenge I have said for a player who knows what they are doing, takes basic reasonable efforts etc the "challenge" for injustice activities is just as easy as the non-competitive alternatives for player repeats such as grinding, delving, farming etc. The vast majority of the content falls into a level of easy if prepared and injustice activities are no exception.

So to me pointing out injustice is too easy and defining that as a problem in its own right is poor logic. Injustice is on par with the other activities but frankly in the lower half imx as far as rewards for time spent.

This is primarily due to its unique features. It is the only one where routinely you need or benefit from sneak, peek, maneuver. These take a LOT longer that gap close spam jabs does. With the values of thieves loot as they are compared to what you get from clearing a beach of mud crabs in half the time... add in needing to fence them, not just sell to every merchant, add in chance of losing them if somehow u get caught and you wind up with no more difficult but not quite as profitable.

So, raising the difficulty of injustice whill leaving everything else as easy and more profitable means not getting more interesting play for injustice activities but less play for it at all.

So that's easy. It's on par easy-wise. No less no more for those prepared.

As for exciting, again about the same as the repeatable main non-competitive content delving, grinding, farming etc. Injustice does have different and unique challenges. Can't just gap close jab thru guard, bounty has lingering repercusions, can lose stolen goods etc. So it offers different challenges than the other which almost all need the same mow it down solution. But it's not any more exciting the 120th time u to rob the safe box in malbor tor for its repeatable than it is to run the Wrothgar kennel for the 12th time, just different.

So the challenge being different adds a little but after a while, it'd no more exciting or boring than its competition for your eso non-comp play.

For the flee option itself, it adds the chase and evade aspect. The others really lack that at all, so that's a definite plus -a different type of challenge jabs won't solve. Would not want to see it replaced with yet another "just kill it" replacement. There are plenty of activities with "more jabs" as the solution. Having one where a speed invisible potion is the better optiin to yet another spell power chug is nice imo.

Now to explain my terms

When I say Justice, I mostly mean law and order activities. I want more content for that -dlc, skill, etc as noted before.

When I refer to injustice activities I mean cplayers spending time pickpockets, looting the owned stuff and killing.

Been trying to be more specific.

Now to maybe move a little ahead on the path I suspect you are paving...


Do I think it's a good idea to just make it more challenging for injustice activities? No.

If you want it played, as opposed to see its play reduced, it needs to be comparable to its competitors for player time.

That doesn't mean I don't want more content for it or am opposed to adding TOUGH injustice content like sacraments and heists seek to be but may fall short. Nothing wrong wiTh adoing and injustice equivalent to vmol or vmsa.

But just raising the bar significantly on the injustice activitis difficulty as a whole (as some have expressed) is a path to its extinction not it'd enliving. The players for the most part will play the other stuff.

Apologies for typos. This is on phone while waiting for xray and I'm half blind. May clean it up later.

Interesting, fairly detailed post. But all it does is define the question i asked you and makes comparisons to aspects of the game we aren't actually discussing. I mean, comparing thieving and fleeing to "jabbing" your way through dungeons etc. and even then your main conclusion, which i have emboldened just kind of strengthens my case for justice PvP as your previous argument against was that it would mean "tamriel becomes all PvP", but now you claim nobody would play it!?

K, firstly, I have no idea how you can compare fleeing guards to repeatable dungeons, which, even if you are running as the same exact role, with the same exact people, talking about the same exact things, it is still more fun. But i guess that is just an opinion.
Secondly, you seem to have this, and I have seen this attitude towards gaming before, it's a sense that in order for something to be worth doing, or lets say 'fun', that it has to be rewarding in some virtually rewarding way. Now this is where i have had to end discussions with players before because its obvious that we game for different reasons. You see, you feel that people play things to get rewarded with something... anything really, but i disagree. Just a sense of accomplishment or excitement is actually enough for people I believe, hence why PvP is so popular, because it certainly isn't the most rewarding loot-wise.

You see, for me, gameplay is far more enticing than loot. And for you to assume that because killing mudcrabs yields more virtual income, people wouldn't bother with it, makes me certain that we are wasting our time trying to convince each other otherwise.

Now there is definitely misunderstanding.

You asked how i felt about fleeimg guards, a pve activity. I had been clesr i thought -no pvp for pve activities. So you cant expect to ask me about pve, get pve answers and then twist that to somehow compare to pvp specific answers. Or shouldnt, unless conflation is the goal.

So to the points you meshed... i was pretty clear, non-consensual pvp thru justice or other as consequences for pve actions makes tamriel all pvp, imo. That doesnt mran anything about how many pve players hang around.

On the other hand, if pve injustice suddenly becomes less competitive that the other repeatable activities its play goes wsy down. Like it or not, many player do look at gains. When deciding between content they enjoy, the one with more gains tends to get more play. Its by no means as universal as you might see it but its there. One reason is, i believe, that while "fun" is highly subjective the in game benefits of loot are more objective. So whether this group finds questing more fun, another finds delving, another finds fun in the markteering etc... they will tend within those to pick the ones within them that produce more results. So they arent choosing loot over fun but fun with more loot.

You referenced it as in the perspective of one persons preferences chosing fun vs loot. Mmo design plat etc is about populations and how they divide. There are fun and loot options aplenty... its about which fun and loot. Under reward one area, population shifts away to other fun.

My objective with justice would be to keep it on par and add more. Give it as much justice content and new challenges as db and tg did for injustice.

Finally, you know and i know discounting pvp loot is a little inaccurate, right? First pvp put you into play with what, two separate pvp only currencies -telvar and ap. Those have no equivalence in pve at al. Those allow access to loot not available in standard pve. Sets avaible in pvp have been mainstay top BIS forever and ones that can be sold net tons of loot in trade. So, sorry but pvp is not the loot poor step-cousin of pve by a long shot. Start talking about yanking the gear and other pvp rewards that are exceptional and see how people react.

Btw the games i choose to play competitively dont have any rewards other than accomplishment. But mmo do not usually find that model successful in general.

I don't agree with your sentiments here. Because you seem to have completely disregarded the fact that;
1. Players can in fact prefer exciting gameplay over what rewards are recieved in different areas of the game, and,
2. That any achievement/title/costume, anything really that adds to the sense of accomplishment of being a master thief or enforcer would be reward enough for those of that particular taste.

And, PvP gear, mainstay BiS! You surely don't believe this?! Up until DB most was V14. But better than Maelstrom, master weapons, Crafted and trial drops. Please.

You are really just arguing semantics because this post is arguing points that are not only untrue, but completely elude any of the points I am trying to make whilst continually pushing your own visions of justice improvements which I am not interested in.

STEVIL wrote: »

Tipsy wrote: »

entitlement is also an issue here
"I'm a PVEer and shall not tolerate any pvp in my game" "you can't have it your way,I want it my way"
"Stay in your cyrodiil if you want to pvp and allow me to play "MY" game" it never ends.
So again,understanding,compromise & conditions that need to be met

Sorry Tipsy, its not entitlement to choose the game you want to play.

I, for one, am not saying i dont want any pvp in my game. i am fine with there being pvp in eso.

i am saying i dont want pvp done to me without my consent.

I am saying i dont want pvp done to me for playing pve content.

Thats not entitlement. I am making not one demand on anyone else.

To me it is more entitlement for someone to say "i want others who dont want pvp to be sucked into pvp against their will by pve actions"

To me it is more entitlement for someone to say "i want to be able to pvp people even if they never take a pvp action themselves as a response to their pve play."

or more explicitly it is to me more a case of entitlement to say or insist "if i dont like what other players are doing in PVE, i should be able to use pvp to stop them"

That last one you may recognize as being the essense of the argument that because you find it troubling to see other players playing injustice activites in your faction, it bothers you and you feel complicit and so you should be allowed a pvp way to stop it.

As for your other point, one you keep raising just to be sure we are on the same page:

if by "add new justice level" you mean keep all the existing levels of bounty/heat exclusively PVE and you add a higher thershold which then will automatically throw you into PVP, I would not be ok with that. It is currently possible to reach any level of bounty and heat and stay PVE. That kind of an approach would take PVE actions at some level now and turn them into PVP mandatory, which gets back to the takeover part of pvp-ransom-takeover.

If instead you mean something like adding a new OPTION which can allow a player with heat/bounty to choose a PVP resolution, that is not so bad as long as it doesnt promote harrassment, griefing etc. I have myself been back and forth on PVE flee with PVP flee as options depending on the specifics and particulars but a simple clean option has not usually been presented (as noted in the part you quoted for some allowing folks to just choose no isn't acceptable.")

But people differ and have differing opinions so... agreement is not always possible.

But for me it is rather clear:

Adding non-consensual PVP into the current injustice activities wont increase the players playing the injustice activities.
it wont increase the number of players choosing to spend time there in that activity.
That seems obvious.
Those who dont like PVP will simply move on to one of the other activities in the game they find fun (or leave the game if it is setup so much that accidental events can force it on them.) there are other things people enjoy playing too that are as much or more profitable so thats a no brainer.
Those who like PVP vs PVP better than PVE play, i cannot see why those folks would choose to sit around in PVE zones hoping someone in PVE play happens to make a mistake and get sucked into PVP status? Maybe some would, drawn by the lure of easier pvp victories with "less competitive duels" but it really makes no sense other than for griefing that someone who really enjoys pvp vs pvp would take the route of waiting for injustice to spawn a single pve target instead of going to the pvp zones where there are other pvpers waiting to happen.
So it seems to me the people who would be left or who would come running for this and stick with it are not going to match up at all numbers wise against the ones who arent there now or would leave.

Net result: less participation in the injustice activites play. Not "more fun" not "more exciting" but not played... at least not nearly as much.

These are of course just estimations, your estimations would vary.

Also, relative to this comment and going back to some of my first points in our discussion. What about players that enjoy all aspects of the game??

I sit around PvE zones all the time, I search chests, safeboxes, cabinets and if i find something worthy I will even take a trip to the outlaw refuge and launder it along with the goods that have piled up from the random troves I have come across.

Often times I will even spam my healing ward on players that are fleeing guards because I want them to get away with their loot. *whispers* If you keep spamming it and don't let the heal through the *** guards don't even suspect you.

When One tamriel is released I will no doubt complete various quests across the continent, perhaps while chilling out after a long day of smashing yellows. Why should, what I feel would enhance the justice system many times, not be implemented in this way? And remember, saying that their should not be PvP consequences to PvE actions simply doesn't fly with me because that is your own opinion. I on the other hand don't really differentiate that heavily. I enjoy all of it. Because you and others have made a decision, brought on by whatever, taste, preference, bad experiences, doesn't really matter, the rest of us should have to respect that!!

Niastissa wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

@NeillMcAttack

i am a PVEers so there is that.

But when you comment about being insulted by the other comments i can say this: its not about whether we like PVE or you like PVP.

Its about, as far as the items being discussed at different times in this thread, consensual PVP vs non-consensual PVP.

I for one have no problem with you playing PVP.

I do have a problem if that desire of yours extends into being able to PVP anybody else even if they dont want it.

See, at that point the world has just become ALL PVP and not as it is now a case where if you want PVE without PVP you can get it.

Right now it supports both the extreme options and the range in between but if the world is changed to allow PVPers to go after folks who dont want it, thru a non-consensual model like the one still currently at the foundation of this thread .

having a game where both are available and you can choose which you do is what we have now. I dont see changing that ESo Zenimax policy and design decison as a good thing.

I dont think any activity at all is helped by adding in non-consensual elements that a noticebaable number of the participants dont want.

YMMV

I am not arguing for the ability to go after people that don't want to be gone after. I'm arguing for a more immersive, exciting, in-depth, and alive, justice system. If you think its about forcing non-pvpers to pvp, you're in luck, because i can assure you it is not.

You act as if not being able to flee guards to save a couple hundred gold is game breaking for you, all the while denying the level of depth and excitement it would add for players like myself. That is truly what it is about. So regardless of what you say to try and dismiss the concept of a justice system to me our difference will come down to this;
You want to deny oceans of depth and totally unique gameplay to the likes of me, and for what? The ability to hit retreating maneuver and walk to the edge of town and earning some petty gold. Oh how exciting!!

The Justice system is a PVE mechanic. I don't want to be thrown into PVP because I want to complete PVE based quests.

Perhaps you could try not getting caught? Or does that tip the scales in difficulty for you? Is it really that satisfying outsmarting some of the dumbest AI around? If you hate PvP so much would that not make being a good thief or murderer far more satisfying?

And again, what about players like me that enjoy ALL aspects of this game. The combat, the styles, the builds, the skills, the classes, and all the possible combinations I could use within this system for both sides of the fence.

Thanks for claiming I don't deserve that because you don't want to have to pay for any consequences of your actions in-game.

Tipsy wrote: »

In an online environment you have to understand that your actions do not affect you alone but also the players around you and what they experience
I see reaching the "wanted" justice level that enables pvp like pushing the red button you know you are not allowed to push
but you did anyway(knowing the consequences), giggling at yourself with that self-satisfied smirk,knowing how naughty you've been...
I guess there could be warning message like "you'll be found wanting if you continue to be such a naughty one"
But is that really necessary if you know it?
If you don't want that to happen you just have to practice subtlety or something.
See,extra motivation to practice your deadly arts

So by between consensual players pvp or whatever you mean one of them did pve actions and eventually got thrown into it because that part of the current pve play has been taken over and given to pvp?

IE right now, the player doing that in pve - stays in pve. If you get your way, the player doing that in pve - gets pvp.

Right?

Consensual.

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

Niastissa wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

@NeillMcAttack

i am a PVEers so there is that.

But when you comment about being insulted by the other comments i can say this: its not about whether we like PVE or you like PVP.

Its about, as far as the items being discussed at different times in this thread, consensual PVP vs non-consensual PVP.

I for one have no problem with you playing PVP.

I do have a problem if that desire of yours extends into being able to PVP anybody else even if they dont want it.

See, at that point the world has just become ALL PVP and not as it is now a case where if you want PVE without PVP you can get it.

Right now it supports both the extreme options and the range in between but if the world is changed to allow PVPers to go after folks who dont want it, thru a non-consensual model like the one still currently at the foundation of this thread .

having a game where both are available and you can choose which you do is what we have now. I dont see changing that ESo Zenimax policy and design decison as a good thing.

I dont think any activity at all is helped by adding in non-consensual elements that a noticebaable number of the participants dont want.

YMMV

I am not arguing for the ability to go after people that don't want to be gone after. I'm arguing for a more immersive, exciting, in-depth, and alive, justice system. If you think its about forcing non-pvpers to pvp, you're in luck, because i can assure you it is not.

You act as if not being able to flee guards to save a couple hundred gold is game breaking for you, all the while denying the level of depth and excitement it would add for players like myself. That is truly what it is about. So regardless of what you say to try and dismiss the concept of a justice system to me our difference will come down to this;
You want to deny oceans of depth and totally unique gameplay to the likes of me, and for what? The ability to hit retreating maneuver and walk to the edge of town and earning some petty gold. Oh how exciting!!

The Justice system is a PVE mechanic. I don't want to be thrown into PVP because I want to complete PVE based quests.

Perhaps you could try not getting caught? Or does that tip the scales in difficulty for you? Is it really that satisfying outsmarting some of the dumbest AI around? If you hate PvP so much would that not make being a good thief or murderer far more satisfying?

And again, what about players like me that enjoy ALL aspects of this game. The combat, the styles, the builds, the skills, the classes, and all the possible combinations I could use within this system for both sides of the fence.

Thanks for claiming I don't deserve that because you don't want to have to pay for any consequences of your actions in-game.

You can have that right now. You can PVP all you want.
You can PVE all you want.
You can builds, market, etc all you want.

You just dont get the "playstyle" that lets you take someone in PVE and pull them into PVP.

I am not saying you cannot have pretty things. No one here is. just that you cant make other people help you get them.

If you look right now, the two solid proposals on the table so to speak from tipsy and from the OP are both versions of take-over or ransom-takeover. The one most recently being discussed as an alternative PVE-only total opt out is repeatedly denied as yet ready to be included as an option.

So this thread, like most threads, is mostly about some form of pvp takeover into the justice system.

As i have said, i want more justice content too. A lot more in fact. Nicer richer more stuff with repeatables etc - on par with db and tg for the justice side. But thats cannot come with a side, or dessert or even entree course of non-consensual pvp or more explicitly pve-jump-into-pvp for the masses.

If the playstyle and immersive fun you want is "to get to pve people doing things i dont like whether they want pvp or not" that degree of actually taking away choice from the other players wont likely be added to this game ever, based on how solid and explicitly ZOS has said that separation is a key principle for the game.

just sayin'

STEVIL wrote: »

Niastissa wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

Niastissa wrote: »

NeillMcAttack wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

@NeillMcAttack

i am a PVEers so there is that.

But when you comment about being insulted by the other comments i can say this: its not about whether we like PVE or you like PVP.

Its about, as far as the items being discussed at different times in this thread, consensual PVP vs non-consensual PVP.

I for one have no problem with you playing PVP.

I do have a problem if that desire of yours extends into being able to PVP anybody else even if they dont want it.

See, at that point the world has just become ALL PVP and not as it is now a case where if you want PVE without PVP you can get it.

Right now it supports both the extreme options and the range in between but if the world is changed to allow PVPers to go after folks who dont want it, thru a non-consensual model like the one still currently at the foundation of this thread .

having a game where both are available and you can choose which you do is what we have now. I dont see changing that ESo Zenimax policy and design decison as a good thing.

I dont think any activity at all is helped by adding in non-consensual elements that a noticebaable number of the participants dont want.

YMMV

I am not arguing for the ability to go after people that don't want to be gone after. I'm arguing for a more immersive, exciting, in-depth, and alive, justice system. If you think its about forcing non-pvpers to pvp, you're in luck, because i can assure you it is not.

You act as if not being able to flee guards to save a couple hundred gold is game breaking for you, all the while denying the level of depth and excitement it would add for players like myself. That is truly what it is about. So regardless of what you say to try and dismiss the concept of a justice system to me our difference will come down to this;
You want to deny oceans of depth and totally unique gameplay to the likes of me, and for what? The ability to hit retreating maneuver and walk to the edge of town and earning some petty gold. Oh how exciting!!

The Justice system is a PVE mechanic. I don't want to be thrown into PVP because I want to complete PVE based quests.

Perhaps you could try not getting caught? Or does that tip the scales in difficulty for you? Is it really that satisfying outsmarting some of the dumbest AI around? If you hate PvP so much would that not make being a good thief or murderer far more satisfying?

And again, what about players like me that enjoy ALL aspects of this game. The combat, the styles, the builds, the skills, the classes, and all the possible combinations I could use within this system for both sides of the fence.

Thanks for claiming I don't deserve that because you don't want to have to pay for any consequences of your actions in-game.

Oh I'm sorry I am so selfish in not wanting to allow you to be able to gank me through the course of playing content meant to be PVE.

Deserve. Kids these days throw this entitled word around for everything. No you don't deserve anything. You work for what you get and it is called earning it. You want to play open world PVP go play a game with a dedicated PVP server like WOW.

But a dedicated pvp server wouldn't spawn pvp-vs-pve types of "less competitive duels" which is touted as basically an acceptable side effect of many of these proposals but not the goal nosirree not at all.

So i am not sure everybody would be satisfied with that option.

But you never know.

That's basically the crux of the problem.

There's PvP players who just like to PvP, and enjoy consensual combat with other PvP players for fun. These are the people that participate in the Alliance War activities in Cyrodiil, and request additions to the game like dueling and arenas. They include the people that would happily jump to a PvP server if it existed.

Then there are the PvPers who enjoy killing people that don't really want to be PvPing, because... reasons? I guess they just enjoy killing players that they know can't fight back very well? These are the players that do things like hang out in the delves in Cyrodiil, and gank people trying to get skyshards. I think it's mostly these types of players that are in favor of adding PvP to the justice system. They just want another outlet to attack players that would really prefer to avoid PvP. These players wouldn't actually want to go to a PvP server where they would be surrounded by other players that actually want to PvP. They would much prefer to stay on a PvE server and petition for systems that would give them more PvE fodder players to gank.

There is one thing...

Iron weel and all the quests that you mention are from the thieves guild dlc not dark brotherhoot.

Back to reading now


Edit 1

What you propose is umbalanced on favor of the enforcers, the cannot attack a guard/ enforcers if not attacked first can result in a lot of people running one-shot builds in order to exploit the sistem.