The PvP Justice System Concept, now with opt-out

Taleof2Cities · July 2016

Good arguments both ways, but:

1. I just don't see a lot of PvE players "opting in" to a PvP-oriented justice system. PvE players are deathly afraid of completing Cyrodiil content (including quests, delve achievements, and skyshards) ... why would that change with the justice system?

2. ZOS has already acknowledged the concept has been scrapped from further development.

Tan9oSuccka · July 2016

This thread is still going, wow.

The current state of PVP is quite sad. I can only imagine what a train wreck it would be if they tried implementing any of the proposed ideas.

Samuel_Bantien · July 2016

@Niatissa
Just because you say my argument is invalid does not mean you're right nor does it mean my argument is actually invalid.
Yes, the PvE zones have always been PvE, but the original concept for Outlaws vs Enforcers changed that (watch QuakeCon2014 when the Justice System was also announced along with Outlaws vs Enforcers). Originally PvE zones would be changed into PvE/ Optional PvP zones in a later Justice System update.

As I recall PvP players opposed having any type of PvE in the Imperial City, everyone though the Imperial City would bring Arenas into ESO, but then... The Imperial City came to PTS and we found the exact opposite of everything. It was infact PvE content disguised as PvP content (in which I said this exact same line when it came into PTS: also look at White Gold Tower and Imperial City Prison). Enough with the history lesson. Now you also complained about wanting more PvE content and look at the next update: Shadows of the Hist - 2 New PvE Dungeons.

I still do not understand your concept of the Optional PvP in the Justice System affecting you if, again, you can completely opt out of it. Now if you can explain why you don't want a completely Optional PvP concept without insulting anyone i'm sure people would be willing to listen to you.

Now as I said about your quote:

Niastissa wrote: »

The justice system is mingled with the thiefs guild and dark brotherhood. What is proposed still requires PVP to do PVE content. Not interested.

I'm not even interested in saturating the developers time with this feature that most people will leave disabled. I'd rather them fix the issues on the consoles, audio on the Mac and get more PVE content out.

Niastissa wrote: »

I'm not interested in it being completely redone in PVP. I like it as it is so NO.

I'm still dumbfounded where the first came from and now where did the second one come from? No one has said anything like this. This is pointless bickering at this point because you refuse to read anything that anyone has said.

Divinius · July 2016

OK, so I finally had the time to read through the new Opt-Out plan that @Dubhliam has been working on.

There's a lot to sift through, but let me see if I understand the idea:

So to opt-in to the PvP system, a player has to chose the option at a fence, and only when they have no current bounty. That's good, since it severely limits how and when a person can toggle the setting.

With it toggled "off" there's absolutely no way for a person to get flagged for PvP, no matter what they do. Correct?

There are some additional Justice elements incorporated, like the dogs and such, but as long as they are pure PvE elements, that's fine -- welcome even.

And if a person chooses to NOT be an Outlaw (leaves the option toggled "off") there are no restrictions to what he is allowed to do, compared to what can be done now? Can still choose to flee from guards, or fight them (and their dogs now), everything that can be done now could still be done under the new system (even if it's a bit more challenging) without any PvP?

Niastissa · July 2016

Samuel_Bantien wrote: »

@Niatissa
Just because you say my argument is invalid does not mean you're right nor does it mean my argument is actually invalid.
Yes, the PvE zones have always been PvE, but the original concept for Outlaws vs Enforcers changed that (watch QuakeCon2014 when the Justice System was also announced along with Outlaws vs Enforcers). Originally PvE zones would be changed into PvE/ Optional PvP zones in a later Justice System update.

As I recall PvP players opposed having any type of PvE in the Imperial City, everyone though the Imperial City would bring Arenas into ESO, but then... The Imperial City came to PTS and we found the exact opposite of everything. It was infact PvE content disguised as PvP content (in which I said this exact same line when it came into PTS: also look at White Gold Tower and Imperial City Prison). Enough with the history lesson. Now you also complained about wanting more PvE content and look at the next update: Shadows of the Hist - 2 New PvE Dungeons.

I still do not understand your concept of the Optional PvP in the Justice System affecting you if, again, you can completely opt out of it. Now if you can explain why you don't want a completely Optional PvP concept without insulting anyone i'm sure people would be willing to listen to you.

Now as I said about your quote:

Niastissa wrote: »

The justice system is mingled with the thiefs guild and dark brotherhood. What is proposed still requires PVP to do PVE content. Not interested.

I'm not even interested in saturating the developers time with this feature that most people will leave disabled. I'd rather them fix the issues on the consoles, audio on the Mac and get more PVE content out.

Niastissa wrote: »

I'm not interested in it being completely redone in PVP. I like it as it is so NO.

I'm still dumbfounded where the first came from and now where did the second one come from? No one has said anything like this. This is pointless bickering at this point because you refuse to read anything that anyone has said.

I highlighted the most relevant parts.

So we can agree that the PVE regions are not for PVP and the PVP regions should not be for PVE. That sounds great to me.

Dubhliam · July 2016

Divinius wrote: »

OK, so I finally had the time to read through the new Opt-Out plan that @Dubhliam has been working on.

There's a lot to sift through, but let me see if I understand the idea:

So to opt-in to the PvP system, a player has to chose the option at a fence, and only when they have no current bounty. That's good, since it severely limits how and when a person can toggle the setting.

With it toggled "off" there's absolutely no way for a person to get flagged for PvP, no matter what they do. Correct?

There are some additional Justice elements incorporated, like the dogs and such, but as long as they are pure PvE elements, that's fine -- welcome even.

And if a person chooses to NOT be an Outlaw (leaves the option toggled "off") there are no restrictions to what he is allowed to do, compared to what can be done now? Can still choose to flee from guards, or fight them (and their dogs now), everything that can be done now could still be done under the new system (even if it's a bit more challenging) without any PvP?

Yes.
While I have not explicitly stated you would have to have your bounty cleared before changing the opt status, I think it is a good idea, and I will change the text to mirror it, thanks for the suggestion.

Criminals can toggle the Outlaw status by interacting with a Fence. This toggle is available to players without an active bounty and can happen once every 20 hours. Outlaws are "opted-in" for PvP Justice. Pirharri the Smuggler assistant cannot be used to toggle this status.

Everything else you said is correct.
The only content that you would not be able to participate in is the new content, proposed in this thread - Outlaw Prison, Veteran Heists and Sacraments; since those can ultimately lead you to PvP penalties.

EDIT: Opted out players would still fight immortal guards, only the dogs would be killable. So the Flee process shuld be: try to survive until the Guard resets, then fight the mortal dog. Or one could try to kill the dog first, then escape the Guard, but it all depends on how well equipped the player is. Note: static Guards should never be accompanied by dogs, only patrolling ones, and even then, not every patrolling Guard would have one.

Niastissa · July 2016

Samuel_Bantien wrote: »

Say what you mean if that is not what you meant. I merely chose not to address the rest of the post for the sake of brevity.

The rest of the PVP players not asking for PVE was about how it was really a PVE zone. Which in fact that is a half truth. It was bait to lure PVE players into a PVP conflict. In fact in order to do well in the PVE you have to be configured differently then if you where there to kill PVE players.

I hate that the Imperial City is a griefer's haven.

I argue against these proposals because I don't want to see more of the same especially retroactively taking PVE content and seeng it become more of the same Imperial City grief fest.

[edited to remove quote]

Kalifas · July 2016

Kalifas wrote:

The only thing worse than a grandiose idea, is a grandiose idea that turns into a mediocre implementation.
I have never in my history of mmo gaming read a majority wish for PvP and PvE to exist in one world. Unless the game was created towards PvP centric first. Here it PvE oriented with an option to PvP in a consensual area. The one area they mixed it up in Imperial City has drawn major flack from PvErs.
Not knocking your hope and beliefs. Just saying it won't work in this game.

Tipsy wrote:

Do you have so little faith in the way they implement things,when you know how far the game has come?
Balance is always an ongoing process.An mmo changes over the years & I believe with the way it is going with One Tamriel where all players of any alliance play together ,its for the better.
"It just won't work" is easy to say,but try to look at the bigger picture.

It's not about my faith. My faith is in ZoS overall since I am playing this mmo over others and it provides a PvE centric progression, which Is what I came to the game for and play offline Elder Scrolls for.

Balance is always an ongoing process. However, it is much more prevalent in this mmo because most mmos don't have an ongoing perpetual leveling system or locked tight racial passives or allow you to wear any kind of armor or weapon on one class. It doesn't help that PvE and PvP builds in this game instigate nerfs or boons to other sides of the game.

Different gamers game for different reasons:

X player plays game to relax alone.
Y player plays game to play in communion with others.
Z player plays game to challenge the open world environment.
A player plays game to overcome dungeons
B player plays game to defeat world bosses
C player plays game for the immersion
D player plays game for the questing
E player plays game for the loot
F player plays game for the shinies
G player plays game for the fun
H player plays game for the PvE
I player plays game for the PvP
J player plays game to fight other players
L player plays game to strictly craft
M player plays game to steal and fence
N player plays game to experience new DLC

I could go on and on for reasons.My point is different people like participating in activities they like and ignoring some activities they don't like. When a company starts mixing up all the different activities into one gameplay package that extends beyond the reasons they play for or are required to have other areas of the game affect their area of the game. That player may grow discontent and either leave the game or be a sour puss negative nancy towards the game and others.

It is no different than if ZoS required occasional 12 man trials in PvP to access new PvP zones. If you enjoy PvP and don't like 12 man trials, there is discontent. Or if crafting was required to access any and all new gear in PvP, If you enjoy PvP but don't like crafting, there is discontent.

If you notice in real world sports, no likes losing.Losing to an AI opponent can be whatever but some people get frustrated, especially when it is lag or game performance fault. But you will notice that when it a real person vs person, things get more charged because the human can add negative colors to the outcome of what happened.

Maybe a person likes committing crimes and being a pain in the PvE world because they can get away with that stuff in a virtual space. If player police becomes a thing, and that person doesn't want to die over and over because he sucks at player vs player. Guess what? He either can't play how he likes in his PvE world and accept it or leave the game.

PvE Megaserver
PvE and PvP Megaserver
PvP Megaserver

Then you can have the game the way you like it and others can have the game they way they like it.

Niastissa · July 2016

Dubhliam wrote: »

Divinius wrote: »

OK, so I finally had the time to read through the new Opt-Out plan that @Dubhliam has been working on.

There's a lot to sift through, but let me see if I understand the idea:

So to opt-in to the PvP system, a player has to chose the option at a fence, and only when they have no current bounty. That's good, since it severely limits how and when a person can toggle the setting.

With it toggled "off" there's absolutely no way for a person to get flagged for PvP, no matter what they do. Correct?

There are some additional Justice elements incorporated, like the dogs and such, but as long as they are pure PvE elements, that's fine -- welcome even.

And if a person chooses to NOT be an Outlaw (leaves the option toggled "off") there are no restrictions to what he is allowed to do, compared to what can be done now? Can still choose to flee from guards, or fight them (and their dogs now), everything that can be done now could still be done under the new system (even if it's a bit more challenging) without any PvP?

Yes.
While I have not explicitly stated you would have to have your bounty cleared before changing the opt status, I think it is a good idea, and I will change the text to mirror it, thanks for the suggestion.
Criminals can toggle the Outlaw status by interacting with a Fence. This toggle is available to players without an active bounty and can happen once every 20 hours. Outlaws are "opted-in" for PvP Justice. Pirharri the Smuggler assistant cannot be used to toggle this status.

Everything else you said is correct.
The only content that you would not be able to participate in is the new content, proposed in this thread - Outlaw Prison, Veteran Heists and Sacraments; since those can ultimately lead you to PvP penalties.

EDIT: Opted out players would still fight immortal guards, only the dogs would be killable. So the Flee process shuld be: try to survive until the Guard resets, then fight the mortal dog. Or one could try to kill the dog first, then escape the Guard, but it all depends on how well equipped the player is. Note: static Guards should never be accompanied by dogs, only patrolling ones, and even then, not every patrolling Guard would have one.

Ah you see there it is. The take over where the PVE justice system is taken over by PVP and new features to it become PVP only and as time goes on in order to get meaningful rewards people will have to do PVP in the open world.

This is the wedge I'm talking about.

[edited for bait]

Niastissa · July 2016

Dubhliam wrote: »

I_killed_Vivec wrote: »

A couple of questions...

PvP justice depends on the idea of "goodies" and "baddies" - the goodies are enforcers, the baddies are thieves/murderers.

In Cyrodiil we already have a similar idea of "baddies" - gankers (mainly waiting for unsuspecting PvEers). How come all those crying out for an enforcing role aren't being the "goodies" in Cyrodiil - clearing out the gankers?

Could it be that most PvPers aren't that interested in going one-on-one against a ganker?

Secondly...

How many PvPers would take an active role in PvP Justice? How many would be enforcers? Tamriel is a big place, I can see enforcers hanging out in the major towns waiting to jump on criminals... while the criminals are running round the countryside, going on gleeful robbing sprees!

And if enforcers and criminals do reach a critical mass in Tamriel, then Cyrodiil is going to be empty!

Or maybe not... it might be full of PvEers looking for a bit of piece and quiet

As someone in this thread already noticed, the "baddies" as you call them in Cyrodiil (gankers) are in the low 0.1 percentile.
But that is not even relevant since ganking (term that is used for attacking unsuspecting targets) is not possible in my proposed concept. It never was, even more so with the addition of a complete opt-out.

I am genuinely amazed at how many people come here claiming some system (that was initially planned as PvPvE) should only be reserved for players that don't want anything to do with PvP.
It is an MMO for god's sake!
Instead of limiting player interaction, there should be more content for all playstyles, while having in mind not to seriously impact on other people's playstyle.

If you think town camping and "jumping" on players would be rampant, you obviously have not read the concept yet.
I am sick of reminding people to go read it, but it sickens me even more that people come here and comment on something they have absolutely no clue about.

All the arguments I'm hearing here fall down to: "I'll be having none of this! This is MY toy, and I'm not sharing!

Here are some questions for every player that participates in this thread:
How many of your playtime do you spend actively doing criminal activities?

Do you own TG and DB DLCs?

Have you finished those storylines?

Have you maxed out TG, DB and Legerdemain skill lines?

How many skill points do you have invested in TG, DB and Legerdemain passives, and which ones?

Which Justice achievements have you unlocked?

If you haven't unlocked certain Justice achievements, what is your progression towards completing them?

Do you think Guards are currently balanced?

I am just trying to put some perspective on who I am conversing with.

Being a MMO doesn't mean it is PVPVE. Really stop and think about it it's a player against a player playing against the environment. It has gank baked into the name you used.

Tipsy · July 2016

Dubhliam wrote: »

, I have now re-read your answer, and I see AD bounties can be collected anywhere, but only by AD Enforcers. This would, in effect, mean that a player can have at least three separate bounties on his head at any time.
This still leaves one question that I have an issue with:
If that is true, then my question is: what happens to those alliance specific bounties when I go to Craglorn? Who can collect it? And which bounty gets increased when I get a bounty in Craglorn?

There are multiple suggestions I'd like to make for this since I wouldn't know which one would be best.

1-The most logical would be another neutral organization like the fighter guild doing the contracts for murderers
perhaps for the dark brotherhood will get pvp option added too where enforces become targets.

2-The bordering alliance :so for craglorn it would be Daggerfall,for the soon to release DLC Vvaderfell would be seen as bordering to EP so EP enforcers would collect it

3 A new faction within that new region where players can either become allied or enemy with ,depending on their reputation and deeds.

Dubhliam wrote: »

what happens when a player has AD and DC alliance bounties on his head, and a DC and and AD Enforcers engage him at the same time? The AD Enforcer might have accosted him right before the DC one, and the Outlaw decides to Flee, triggering PvP and raising the AD bounty and heat to Wanted (PvP), does that mean that the DC Enforcer can now also kill on sight, without the DC bounty actually increasing?
As I mentioned before, if getting a bounty inside a neutral zone would mean that bounty can be collected by ALL Enforcers, instead of just one alliance, then it puts all neutral zones (including DLCs) at a disadvantage.

An interesting question ,most welcomed.
Logically opposing alliance npc agents would attack each other.Perhaps some players would even enjoy the chaos they'd cause.
Then maybe fugitives who are tagged by enforcers have more chance to get away(or it even reduces the duration of the tag when they manage to pit two opposing groups of agents against each other)
Maybe contracts of the fighters guild(enforcers chasing down murderers) and dark brotherhood (pvp option where assassins can accept contracts against enforcers)
In this case suggestion 1 would be best? or maybe a combination of 1 & 2 ?

@STEVIL

If a PVP flee is optional,then its the player's choice .As it is the choice of the player who enlisted himself "bounty hunter"
So it is consensual:both parties agree to indulge in pvp activities.
I made a suggestion earlier to make the new pvp justice level fully consensual
And it got burried in the many mosterposts here.(not only yours although they are extremely long and i don't have that much time)
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/3190209/#Comment_3190209
I don't like going back and forth with things we've said many times on the past pages.
You know I don't agree that it would be a takeover or ransom.There are solutions.
But you keep to the talking points which I disagree with.
So if you're not going to suggest something to help find solutions we'll best leave it at that

Niastissa · July 2016

Tipsy wrote: »

Dubhliam wrote: »

, I have now re-read your answer, and I see AD bounties can be collected anywhere, but only by AD Enforcers. This would, in effect, mean that a player can have at least three separate bounties on his head at any time.
This still leaves one question that I have an issue with:
If that is true, then my question is: what happens to those alliance specific bounties when I go to Craglorn? Who can collect it? And which bounty gets increased when I get a bounty in Craglorn?

There are multiple suggestions I'd like to make for this since I wouldn't know which one would be best.

1-The most logical would be another neutral organization like the fighter guild doing the contracts for murderers
perhaps for the dark brotherhood will get pvp option added too where enforces become targets.

2-The bordering alliance :so for craglorn it would be Daggerfall,for the soon to release DLC Vvaderfell would be seen as bordering to EP so EP enforcers would collect it

3 A new faction within that new region where players can either become allied or enemy with ,depending on their reputation and deeds.

Dubhliam wrote: »

what happens when a player has AD and DC alliance bounties on his head, and a DC and and AD Enforcers engage him at the same time? The AD Enforcer might have accosted him right before the DC one, and the Outlaw decides to Flee, triggering PvP and raising the AD bounty and heat to Wanted (PvP), does that mean that the DC Enforcer can now also kill on sight, without the DC bounty actually increasing?
As I mentioned before, if getting a bounty inside a neutral zone would mean that bounty can be collected by ALL Enforcers, instead of just one alliance, then it puts all neutral zones (including DLCs) at a disadvantage.

An interesting question ,most welcomed.
Logically opposing npc forcers would attack each other.Perhaps some players would even enjoy the chaos they'd cause.
Then maybe fugitives who are tagged by enforcers have more chance to get away(or it even reduces the duration of the tag when they manage to pit two opposing groups of agents against each other)
Maybe contracts of the fighters guild(enforcers chasing down murderers) and dark brotherhood (pvp option where assassins can accept contracts against enforcers)
In this case suggestion 1 would be best? or maybe a combination of 1 & 2 ?

@STEVIL

If a PVP flee is optional,then its the player's choice .As it is the choice of the player who enlisted himself "bounty hunter"
So it is consensual:both parties agree to indulge in pvp activities.
I made a suggestion earlier to make the new pvp justice level fully consensual
And it got burried in the many mosterposts here.(not only yours although they are extremely long and i don't have that much time)
https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/comment/3190209/#Comment_3190209
I don't like going back and forth with things we've said many times on the past pages.
You know I don't agree that it would be a takeover or ransom.There are solutions.
But you keep to the talking points which I disagree with.
So if you're not going to suggest something to help find solutions we'll best leave it at that

The fact that the PVE Justice system becomes PVP is not consensual. I don't want it converted to PVP. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Your entire argument falls apart because everyone is not onboard with the conversion of the Justice system to PVP.

STEVIL · July 2016

Niastissa wrote: »

Dubhliam wrote: »

I_killed_Vivec wrote: »

A couple of questions...

PvP justice depends on the idea of "goodies" and "baddies" - the goodies are enforcers, the baddies are thieves/murderers.

In Cyrodiil we already have a similar idea of "baddies" - gankers (mainly waiting for unsuspecting PvEers). How come all those crying out for an enforcing role aren't being the "goodies" in Cyrodiil - clearing out the gankers?

Could it be that most PvPers aren't that interested in going one-on-one against a ganker?

Secondly...

How many PvPers would take an active role in PvP Justice? How many would be enforcers? Tamriel is a big place, I can see enforcers hanging out in the major towns waiting to jump on criminals... while the criminals are running round the countryside, going on gleeful robbing sprees!

And if enforcers and criminals do reach a critical mass in Tamriel, then Cyrodiil is going to be empty!

Or maybe not... it might be full of PvEers looking for a bit of piece and quiet

As someone in this thread already noticed, the "baddies" as you call them in Cyrodiil (gankers) are in the low 0.1 percentile.
But that is not even relevant since ganking (term that is used for attacking unsuspecting targets) is not possible in my proposed concept. It never was, even more so with the addition of a complete opt-out.

I am genuinely amazed at how many people come here claiming some system (that was initially planned as PvPvE) should only be reserved for players that don't want anything to do with PvP.
It is an MMO for god's sake!
Instead of limiting player interaction, there should be more content for all playstyles, while having in mind not to seriously impact on other people's playstyle.

If you think town camping and "jumping" on players would be rampant, you obviously have not read the concept yet.
I am sick of reminding people to go read it, but it sickens me even more that people come here and comment on something they have absolutely no clue about.

All the arguments I'm hearing here fall down to: "I'll be having none of this! This is MY toy, and I'm not sharing!

Here are some questions for every player that participates in this thread:
How many of your playtime do you spend actively doing criminal activities?

Do you own TG and DB DLCs?

Have you finished those storylines?

Have you maxed out TG, DB and Legerdemain skill lines?

How many skill points do you have invested in TG, DB and Legerdemain passives, and which ones?

Which Justice achievements have you unlocked?

If you haven't unlocked certain Justice achievements, what is your progression towards completing them?

Do you think Guards are currently balanced?

I am just trying to put some perspective on who I am conversing with.

Being a MMO doesn't mean it is PVPVE. Really stop and think about it it's a player against a player playing against the environment. It has gank baked into the name you used.

Dont forget the enforcer also gets the first shot cuz the enforcer cant get attacked unless attacking. Thats not a guarantee one gets 8n pvp zones. So that might well attract certain types of pvpers.

Niastissa · July 2016

Tipsy wrote: »

Niastissa wrote: »

I don't care to consider it for a moment. I'm not willing to let PVP players have their foot in the door so they can wedge it wide open down the road.

not willing to consider & don't care?Means done discussing this subject.
Where did I erver say it would be fully converted to PVP..The addition of a new level with pvp option ,is that converted to pvp?
But yea,just so you know.We are certainly done

Darn straight I'm not willing to consider PVP in PVE zones.

If it is in the PVE zones any new features should be PVE. So it's usurping in one form or another no matter how you sugarcoat it.

Niastissa · July 2016

STEVIL wrote: »

Niastissa wrote: »

Dubhliam wrote: »

I_killed_Vivec wrote: »

A couple of questions...

PvP justice depends on the idea of "goodies" and "baddies" - the goodies are enforcers, the baddies are thieves/murderers.

In Cyrodiil we already have a similar idea of "baddies" - gankers (mainly waiting for unsuspecting PvEers). How come all those crying out for an enforcing role aren't being the "goodies" in Cyrodiil - clearing out the gankers?

Could it be that most PvPers aren't that interested in going one-on-one against a ganker?

Secondly...

How many PvPers would take an active role in PvP Justice? How many would be enforcers? Tamriel is a big place, I can see enforcers hanging out in the major towns waiting to jump on criminals... while the criminals are running round the countryside, going on gleeful robbing sprees!

And if enforcers and criminals do reach a critical mass in Tamriel, then Cyrodiil is going to be empty!

Or maybe not... it might be full of PvEers looking for a bit of piece and quiet

As someone in this thread already noticed, the "baddies" as you call them in Cyrodiil (gankers) are in the low 0.1 percentile.
But that is not even relevant since ganking (term that is used for attacking unsuspecting targets) is not possible in my proposed concept. It never was, even more so with the addition of a complete opt-out.

I am genuinely amazed at how many people come here claiming some system (that was initially planned as PvPvE) should only be reserved for players that don't want anything to do with PvP.
It is an MMO for god's sake!
Instead of limiting player interaction, there should be more content for all playstyles, while having in mind not to seriously impact on other people's playstyle.

If you think town camping and "jumping" on players would be rampant, you obviously have not read the concept yet.
I am sick of reminding people to go read it, but it sickens me even more that people come here and comment on something they have absolutely no clue about.

All the arguments I'm hearing here fall down to: "I'll be having none of this! This is MY toy, and I'm not sharing!

Here are some questions for every player that participates in this thread:
How many of your playtime do you spend actively doing criminal activities?

Do you own TG and DB DLCs?

Have you finished those storylines?

Have you maxed out TG, DB and Legerdemain skill lines?

How many skill points do you have invested in TG, DB and Legerdemain passives, and which ones?

Which Justice achievements have you unlocked?

If you haven't unlocked certain Justice achievements, what is your progression towards completing them?

Do you think Guards are currently balanced?

I am just trying to put some perspective on who I am conversing with.

Being a MMO doesn't mean it is PVPVE. Really stop and think about it it's a player against a player playing against the environment. It has gank baked into the name you used.

Dont forget the enforcer also gets the first shot cuz the enforcer cant get attacked unless attacking. Thats not a guarantee one gets 8n pvp zones. So that might well attract certain types of pvpers.

Exactly, the worst kind of PVP players that prey on people that are not ready for them.

STEVIL · July 2016

@Tipsy
If a PVP flee is optional,then its the player's choice .As it is the choice of the player who enlisted himself "bounty hunter"

So, one player consents when having the option to accept various penalties imposed OR take the pvp.
The other consents when they decide on its own to go into the enforcer mode with NO PENALTIES for saying no.

I guess if the mugger says your money or your life and you hand over your wallet, thst too is a consensual exchange?

I am glad to see the latest proposal after 13 pages finally includes APPARENTLY an absolute opt out which enables players to continue as they are now. I am somewhat takeb abackthat proponents comments keep referring to the OP almostvas if this isnt a change gained after the long disagreements and discussion.

Finally, it SEEMS like the spawnable guards just lost some of the restrictions previously discussed. That is unfortunate and seems to be a move back towards enabling more player interference with other players in pve.

Divinius · July 2016

Niastissa wrote: »

Dubhliam wrote: »

Divinius wrote: »

OK, so I finally had the time to read through the new Opt-Out plan that @Dubhliam has been working on.

There's a lot to sift through, but let me see if I understand the idea:

So to opt-in to the PvP system, a player has to chose the option at a fence, and only when they have no current bounty. That's good, since it severely limits how and when a person can toggle the setting.

With it toggled "off" there's absolutely no way for a person to get flagged for PvP, no matter what they do. Correct?

There are some additional Justice elements incorporated, like the dogs and such, but as long as they are pure PvE elements, that's fine -- welcome even.

And if a person chooses to NOT be an Outlaw (leaves the option toggled "off") there are no restrictions to what he is allowed to do, compared to what can be done now? Can still choose to flee from guards, or fight them (and their dogs now), everything that can be done now could still be done under the new system (even if it's a bit more challenging) without any PvP?

Yes.
While I have not explicitly stated you would have to have your bounty cleared before changing the opt status, I think it is a good idea, and I will change the text to mirror it, thanks for the suggestion.
Criminals can toggle the Outlaw status by interacting with a Fence. This toggle is available to players without an active bounty and can happen once every 20 hours. Outlaws are "opted-in" for PvP Justice. Pirharri the Smuggler assistant cannot be used to toggle this status.

Everything else you said is correct.
The only content that you would not be able to participate in is the new content, proposed in this thread - Outlaw Prison, Veteran Heists and Sacraments; since those can ultimately lead you to PvP penalties.

EDIT: Opted out players would still fight immortal guards, only the dogs would be killable. So the Flee process shuld be: try to survive until the Guard resets, then fight the mortal dog. Or one could try to kill the dog first, then escape the Guard, but it all depends on how well equipped the player is. Note: static Guards should never be accompanied by dogs, only patrolling ones, and even then, not every patrolling Guard would have one.

Ah you see there it is. The take over where the PVE justice system is taken over by PVP and new features to it become PVP only and as time goes on in order to get meaningful rewards people will have to do PVP in the open world.

This is the wedge I'm talking about. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

Honestly, I'm ok with NEW content being for PvP players. They got the whole IC DLC, and I was ok with that. I didn't buy it, and never go there, but that's fine. It's the same to me as if it was never added.

@Dubhliam I would like to applaud you for considering and implementing a system that doesn't take anything away from PvE players that don't want to PvP, adds additional (new) content for those that do want PvP, and even adds some new mechanics to PvE justice.

There might still be ways of abusing the system (in unintended ways) for players to harass others, and those would obviously need to be worked out. But that's not directly related to PvP, and is something to be addressed in even the purest PvE activity.

Niastissa · July 2016

Divinius wrote: »

Niastissa wrote: »

Dubhliam wrote: »

Divinius wrote: »

OK, so I finally had the time to read through the new Opt-Out plan that @Dubhliam has been working on.

There's a lot to sift through, but let me see if I understand the idea:

So to opt-in to the PvP system, a player has to chose the option at a fence, and only when they have no current bounty. That's good, since it severely limits how and when a person can toggle the setting.

With it toggled "off" there's absolutely no way for a person to get flagged for PvP, no matter what they do. Correct?

There are some additional Justice elements incorporated, like the dogs and such, but as long as they are pure PvE elements, that's fine -- welcome even.

And if a person chooses to NOT be an Outlaw (leaves the option toggled "off") there are no restrictions to what he is allowed to do, compared to what can be done now? Can still choose to flee from guards, or fight them (and their dogs now), everything that can be done now could still be done under the new system (even if it's a bit more challenging) without any PvP?

Yes.
While I have not explicitly stated you would have to have your bounty cleared before changing the opt status, I think it is a good idea, and I will change the text to mirror it, thanks for the suggestion.
Criminals can toggle the Outlaw status by interacting with a Fence. This toggle is available to players without an active bounty and can happen once every 20 hours. Outlaws are "opted-in" for PvP Justice. Pirharri the Smuggler assistant cannot be used to toggle this status.

Everything else you said is correct.
The only content that you would not be able to participate in is the new content, proposed in this thread - Outlaw Prison, Veteran Heists and Sacraments; since those can ultimately lead you to PvP penalties.

EDIT: Opted out players would still fight immortal guards, only the dogs would be killable. So the Flee process shuld be: try to survive until the Guard resets, then fight the mortal dog. Or one could try to kill the dog first, then escape the Guard, but it all depends on how well equipped the player is. Note: static Guards should never be accompanied by dogs, only patrolling ones, and even then, not every patrolling Guard would have one.

Ah you see there it is. The take over where the PVE justice system is taken over by PVP and new features to it become PVP only and as time goes on in order to get meaningful rewards people will have to do PVP in the open world.

This is the wedge I'm talking about. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

Honestly, I'm ok with NEW content being for PvP players. They got the whole IC DLC, and I was ok with that. I didn't buy it, and never go there, but that's fine. It's the same to me as if it was never added.

@Dubhliam I would like to applaud you for considering and implementing a system that doesn't take anything away from PvE players that don't want to PvP, adds additional (new) content for those that do want PvP, and even adds some new mechanics to PvE justice.

There might still be ways of abusing the system (in unintended ways) for players to harass others, and those would obviously need to be worked out. But that's not directly related to PvP, and is something to be addressed in even the purest PvE activity.

No I'm not ok with new DLC in current PVE areas adding in PVP aspects. I'm fine with pure PVP being released in it's own area. If that new area got it's own PVP justice system or other mechanics for the PVP only zones that spiced things up that didn't mix with the PVE justice system that would work too. As long as the PVE aspect of it is 100% unaffected I'm cool with it. Just don't force it on me to keep going on PVE stuff. I might even hop in at some point and check it out.

Tipsy · July 2016

STEVIL wrote: »

@Tipsy
If a PVP flee is optional,then its the player's choice .As it is the choice of the player who enlisted himself "bounty hunter"
So, one player consents when having the option to accept various penalties imposed OR take the pvp.
The other consents when they decide on its own to go into the enforcer mode with NO PENALTIES for saying no.

So you'd want the pve player that does not choose to enlist as enforcer/bounty hunter to become complicit when they see a crime happen but do nothing about it?
In that case the enforcer would have a penalty for "saying no"
I can already hear the others scream "so you want punish us twice if we do not want to take part in pvp"

Tipsy · July 2016

if they don't want to its simple :pick the non pvp mode where a bounty hunter can only tag you.
So infact the bounty hunter just tips the npc enforcers if a player decides to pick the non-pvp option.
"Resist all" would be the more exciting and rewarding option(and pvp option)
for either the fugitive that is able to go unnoticed long enough or the bounty hunter catching the fugitive player.

Its weird that this upsets you because its an option,a choice.
Not mandatory to participate in PVP

Own · July 2016

let pvp'ers enforce the laws of tamriel

Niastissa · July 2016

Tipsy wrote: »

if they don't want to its simple :pick the non pvp mode where a bounty hunter can only tag you.
So infact the bounty hunter just tips the npc enforcers if a player decides to pick the non-pvp option.
"Resist all" would be the more exciting and rewarding option(and pvp option)
for either the fugitive that is able to go unnoticed long enough or the bounty hunter catching the fugitive player.

Its weird that this upsets you because its an option,a choice.
Not mandatory to participate in PVP

No because you are still forcing PVP to get the good rewards in what is right now a PVE aspect of the game. How is it so hard to grasp the concept of the Justice System, Dark Brotherhood and Thief's Guild are all PVE aspects of the game? Withholding the good rewards until a player "voluntarily" submits to PVP is not a voluntary system.

Tipsy · July 2016

"withholding the good rewards till player submits to pvp"? totally overreacting and getting it out of context again ..
I was purely talking about the reward for the choice non-pvp or resist all(pvp option) Because earlier you denied there is a choice.
Seen that players take more risk choosing the "resist all " they deserve greater reward than when they choose to "surrender if caught",don't you think...
Greater risk,greater reward.But nothing unbalancing as you make it sound.
you could get as much reward elsewhere in the game with time and dedication.So the argument is pretty void .
Is it so hard to grasp that eso has to evolve and offer something to all kinds of players to enjoy in any region of Tamriel?One Tamriel has the potential to make it happen.
Justice system,dark brotherhood and thief guild are all aspects of the game.
Which doesnt take away that they could improve/expand and enrich those aspects with competitive elements/pvp option for those who'd like to participate.

ScottK1994 · July 2016

Shouldn't it be Opt In?

Tandor · July 2016

Dubhliam wrote: »

Divinius wrote: »

OK, so I finally had the time to read through the new Opt-Out plan that @Dubhliam has been working on.

There's a lot to sift through, but let me see if I understand the idea:

So to opt-in to the PvP system, a player has to chose the option at a fence, and only when they have no current bounty. That's good, since it severely limits how and when a person can toggle the setting.

With it toggled "off" there's absolutely no way for a person to get flagged for PvP, no matter what they do. Correct?

There are some additional Justice elements incorporated, like the dogs and such, but as long as they are pure PvE elements, that's fine -- welcome even.

And if a person chooses to NOT be an Outlaw (leaves the option toggled "off") there are no restrictions to what he is allowed to do, compared to what can be done now? Can still choose to flee from guards, or fight them (and their dogs now), everything that can be done now could still be done under the new system (even if it's a bit more challenging) without any PvP?

Yes.
While I have not explicitly stated you would have to have your bounty cleared before changing the opt status, I think it is a good idea, and I will change the text to mirror it, thanks for the suggestion.
Criminals can toggle the Outlaw status by interacting with a Fence. This toggle is available to players without an active bounty and can happen once every 20 hours. Outlaws are "opted-in" for PvP Justice. Pirharri the Smuggler assistant cannot be used to toggle this status.

Everything else you said is correct.
The only content that you would not be able to participate in is the new content, proposed in this thread - Outlaw Prison, Veteran Heists and Sacraments; since those can ultimately lead you to PvP penalties.

EDIT: Opted out players would still fight immortal guards, only the dogs would be killable. So the Flee process shuld be: try to survive until the Guard resets, then fight the mortal dog. Or one could try to kill the dog first, then escape the Guard, but it all depends on how well equipped the player is. Note: static Guards should never be accompanied by dogs, only patrolling ones, and even then, not every patrolling Guard would have one.

Thank you for finally conceding the need for there to be a complete opt-out mechanism for any PvP element of the Justice System. I have read a good bit of the amended proposal and as some of it is difficult to comprehend fully as I am not familiar with all of the PvP concepts in this game and haven't yet commenced the TG and DB content either, I will accept at face value your assurances to @Divinius above. That is the sole basis on which I comment further.

It is still perfectly valid, of course, to take the view that @Niastissa has adopted to critical reception, namely that one is opposed in principle to any PvP content - however optional - in existing PvE zones. It isn't remotely necessary to read or understand fully the detailed proposal on offer here because adopting that position is a matter of principle so far as introducing PvP to existing PvE zones is concerned irrespective of the merits or otherwise of the proposal. If you take the view that there should be no PvP added to existing PvE zones as a point of principle then you do not need to familiarise yourself with a proposal that does just that in order to know that you are opposed to it on principle and will therefore legitimately argue against it.

I don't personally adopt quite such an extreme position although ZOS have made it clear that they are in favour now of all future PvP and PvE content being kept separate and that is something I do agree with, partly because of my own preferred playstyle and partly because I believe that is the best way to run both playstyles for the overall good of the game. However, while I would instantly leave the game if non-consensual PvP was introduced into existing PvE zones, I would not do so in the event of any such PvP having a complete opt-out as you assure us your proposal now does have.

Whether I took a more measured decision over time to leave would doubtless depend on various points including whether the (assumed fully consensual) PvP element of the Justice System was nonetheless impacting adversely on my enjoyment of the PvE content in the PvE zones - e.g. by gang raids on guards, enforcers cornering outlaws in banks and crafting stations or other crowded places, performance hits, whether the opt-out was water-tight or open to exploit etc., as well as on whether the PvPers (as I suspect) would see the adoption of such a PvP addition to PvE zones as the first step to opening up the whole game world to open PvP - pushing for more and more, as @Niastissa put it.

I commend you and your supporters on the amount of work put into a proposal that on present firmly stated policy is destined never to see the light of day, but notwithstanding the concession on a complete opt-out I am still inclined to oppose the proposal because it goes against stated policy for the game with which I agree, it still leaves open the possibility for PvP activities to seriously impact adversely on enjoyment of PvP activities in existing PvE zones, and its adoption by ZOS would necessitate a major diversion of scarce resources away from far more pressing issues and new content. The first two objections could, of course, be overcome by restricting the PvP elements of the Justice System to existing or new PvP zones.

You have finally, however, removed a major objection to the addition of PvP elements to the Justice System by accepting the need for a complete opt-out mechanism, and it would be churlish not to applaud you for that as no other proponent of PvP in the Justice System has been willing to do so previously. As an enhancement to the present Justice System much of the proposal could, of course, be implemented in a purely PvE way and then it would have much more support from me, and I suspect, others (although for the record I am perfectly happy with the Justice System as it is especially at the present time when there are so many other more pressing issues for ZOS to resolve). Moreover, any final proposal that was either purely PvE in nature or else allowed for the PvP elements to be restricted to existing or new PvP zones would have the added advantage of complying with ZOS's stated policy, and would therefore have a significantly enhanced chance of being adopted!

ahstin2001nub18_ESO · July 2016

honestly, my opinion is either make it a balance of opt-in based on bounty amount or don't bother. if its purely a PVP thing, few will participate; if its fully optional, few will participate- both these options make it a waste of time and effort given the issues currently with the game that take greater priority. a balance of some where in the middle that compliments the PVPer, while taking into consideration of the PVEer, is worth exploring and has something to work with...

to simplify:

pure PVP system= not worth the effort
pure opt-out=not worth the effort
a balanced approach to both = worth exploring (note: i didn't say "doing," there is a difference)

ZOS_CoriJ · July 2016

We have removed posts for disruptive conversation, baiting, and out of hand disagreements that were starting to get personal.

We're happy to hear your opinions on this discussion. However we have already had to remove commentary previously and find that this continues to be a problematic discussion. With this in mind, we feel this topic has already had a very full debate so we have decided to close it.