Bryanonymous wrote: »

KoshkaMurka wrote: »

Bryanonymous wrote: »

KoshkaMurka wrote: »

Bryanonymous wrote: »

KoshkaMurka wrote: »

Bryanonymous wrote: »

KoshkaMurka wrote: »

Bryanonymous wrote: »

So then make the bounties at least double that. There's this assumption that owing gold would somehow be irrelevant, however it would get pretty annoying if your character was always an outlaw.

Well, the guards cant take the gold from your bank if they kill you, can they?
It might work if they could...
Otherwise people would just put all their money in their banks.

You keep asking the same question. Crime... Bounty... Guards attack you until clear... That's the point. Characters continue to be attacked. Until you pay, you are always wanted, and you must always defend yourself. If someone chooses to continue this, so what? Let them stay an outlaw. You act as though is is essential for players to always be forced to clear their bounty. Let them stay criminals and be forced to defend themselves against boss level guards.

Thats because you didnt answer what would make the guards a threat in that case.
Mobs are attacking us everywhere and its not like they are very dangerous. Worldbosses are being zerged easily.
The thing is, in your scenario being a criminal wont be a "risk vs reward" thing, it would be just a "win-win" gold farming thing and there wont be any incentive to play a "lawful" character.
And yeah, like in real life, killing everyone on sight should be punished.

What makes a Dolmen a threat?

Umm... Nothing?
Or bad rng on bosses? XD

P.S.
Actually when there's multiple players fighting at the dolmen youre lucky if you can land a hit on all mobs. Theyre certainly not a threat.

So Dolmen monsters should be invincible?

No, they're just regular mobs. Wouldnt mind if they would be a bit stronger though.
And your argument is absurd. Killing monsters is not the same as killing citizens, and it never was, in any TES game.

But wait a second, if the monsters are not a threat, why have them at all? By your own logic, the entire game is pointless merely because the player can win. And only certain defeat is enough incentive to deter from crime. What if the Dark Brotherhood started paying you to murder guards? Would it make sense if it was an objective? Your logic is simply terrible.

Umm I didnt say anything like this.
My arguments are:
1) Crime should have consequences. Just like in real life, and in previous TES titles.
2) There should be some kind of risk/reward balance in justice system.
3) Guards, even though they are unkillable, are fairly easy to avoid. But at least they prevent farming gold on npcs (I linked a video showing how its done)
4) Killable guards will be, well, just killed and people will just exploit justice system with no penalty whatsoever. Fighting mobs is not a penalty, 90% of the game consists of this. Killing mobs in cities wont make the game more difficult: even if the guards will be strong, there's always a lot of players to help you out.
5) This will just eliminate any risks. Now, if youre too cocky, you can get killed by a guard and they will take your gold/stolen items. There is an incentive to not rack up much bounty as it will make questing/crafting/any other activities in cities much more difficult. With killable guards it will be like: ah, a guard? Np, we'll just kill him and all the npcs, and will get some gold as a bonus.
6) Being a criminal in TES always had some downsides. A perspective to play in a world with empty cities with no npcs except respawning guards, not being able to cure diseases in temples (in Oblivion), getting stuck in quests (Morrowind), problems with selling items (since merchants are killable too). In ESO, where npcs quickly respawn, those problems do not exist, and the only disadvantage of being a criminal is a chance of getting killed by guard. If the guards would be killable, people would just kill them. These days characters can be so OP it wont be an issue, especially considering that there can be many people fighting the same guard
7) Spawning more and more guards as players are killing them will cause hideous lags. Some players will certainly do this just for the sake of trolling. And dont forget that guards and npcs, unlike player characters, have collisions and can block the way for players... So trolls will be able to block the way to bank or crafting station with a pack of guards.

Bryanonymous wrote: »

What's the risk for attacking a Dolmen?

Are you even reading my posts? I doubt that at this point, sorry.
Your analogy is just absurd. Hostile guards are designed as a penalty for players (for being bad thieves or assassins, or for being mass murderers). Dolmen is just a common ingame event.

KoshkaMurka wrote: »

Bryanonymous wrote: »

What's the risk for attacking a Dolmen?

Are you even reading my posts? I doubt that at this point, sorry.
Your analogy is just absurd. Hostile guards are designed as a penalty for players (for being bad thieves or assassins, or for being mass murderers). Dolmen is just a common ingame event.

But you said that you need some risk, so why do dolmens even exist at all? Your logic is so bad, you can't even give a solid answer and all you can fall back to is that they are different. They are not different. Why do dolmens exist at all if there is no risk? Why do group dungeons exist? Why do quests exist? What is the risk in those?

Yes, but they should respawn almost immediately. It'd make it more reasonable to stop and fight, then escape, than the current system where you beat on an unkillable guard until it pauses for a little rest.

AdamBourke wrote: »

I think that we should be able to kill guards.

I don't think it should be easy. I don't think it should be too hard either They should be tough enemies, but not as tough as bosses. The blade of woe SHOULD work on guards.

On a guards death, another guard should spawn immediately, but at a guard house or something, and walk towards the patrol position of the dead guard.

This means that a sneak option is to take out the guard to get to where you want to go, but it won't ruin the game for others because the guard will be replaced as soon as the new one arrives.

Except then players could form a group, or several groups, and have a lot of fun continuing to spawn more and more guards until the servers cried out in agony. New players, or bored players, would also join in when they see the fun.

Don't think that would happen? Oh, it would. You see, there are some players whose definition of "winning" is to ruin the gaming of others. You can't create any kind of disincentive for these players. They don't care about XP, or loot, or their RP, or game-based rewards. They only care about ruining your day.

And that is why we can't have Justice PVP, or other nice things.

Bryanonymous wrote: »

Now NPC's can die and respawn. Not sure how that has any relevance as the consequences would be identical.

Single player... MMO... makes no difference. You're arguing with very irrelevant substance.

Except it makes all the difference in the world.

In a single player game, you can only waste your time or screw up your game. You can also just revert to a previous save.

In an MMO, you can screw it up for many others or ruin their play time. They can't just go back to a previous save.

When other people are around, you do have to account for those other people. Just because this game plays like a single-player game doesn't mean it is one.

Bryanonymous wrote: »

petraeus1 wrote: »

Bryanonymous wrote: »

KoshkaMurka wrote: »

Bryanonymous wrote: »

What's the risk for attacking a Dolmen?

Are you even reading my posts? I doubt that at this point, sorry.
Your analogy is just absurd. Hostile guards are designed as a penalty for players (for being bad thieves or assassins, or for being mass murderers). Dolmen is just a common ingame event.

But you said that you need some risk, so why do dolmens even exist at all? Your logic is so bad, you can't even give a solid answer and all you can fall back to is that they are different. They are not different. Why do dolmens exist at all if there is no risk? Why do group dungeons exist? Why do quests exist? What is the risk in those?

Insulting all your conversation partners won't make them see things your way.

Guards are in place to balance the entire justice system, in particular the way thieving works. There is a lot of gold to be made in crime for little effort without guards.

When guards become killable, there will be farm trains within the week. This is an MMO, reality won't be as romantic as you portray it. Groups of 20 people will run around town killing guards and get their fence quota filled in 15 minutes and never pay their bounty. Inflation incoming.

The gameplay will add nothing. It will be just fighting another boss, for which there are many alternatives, yet this time in urban setting, disrupting the criminal system as it is now and all the other functions towns serve in this game (as hubs for trade and crafting).

I could see something like this in a new PvP Zone where Justice PvP is enabled, but not across Tamriel.

Debunking bad logic is not an insult. The insult was the waste of time it took of mine. This guys logic is terrible, and yet he keeps replying with more terrible nonsense about the necessity for risk, however where is that necessity in the rest of the game then? It's a terrible argument, and I'm sorry if pointing out the truth was offensive. If he just admits his opinion is not a necessary fact, but just a simple preference, then it would be over, but the replies continued coming with more vague and illogical statement about why they have to be invincible for risk, even though that logic fails when you apply it to the rest of the game. Just face the reality, it's a phony consequence for a lazy system that could not implement actual combat for technical performance reason, and it will be over at that.

You are not even trying to reply to my arguments, yet you call my logic "bad". Seems legit.
I wont reply to your posts anymore unless you provide any counter-arguments, other than trying to insult me.

petraeus1 wrote: »

Bryanonymous wrote: »

petraeus1 wrote: »

Bryanonymous wrote: »

KoshkaMurka wrote: »

Bryanonymous wrote: »

What's the risk for attacking a Dolmen?

Are you even reading my posts? I doubt that at this point, sorry.
Your analogy is just absurd. Hostile guards are designed as a penalty for players (for being bad thieves or assassins, or for being mass murderers). Dolmen is just a common ingame event.

But you said that you need some risk, so why do dolmens even exist at all? Your logic is so bad, you can't even give a solid answer and all you can fall back to is that they are different. They are not different. Why do dolmens exist at all if there is no risk? Why do group dungeons exist? Why do quests exist? What is the risk in those?

Insulting all your conversation partners won't make them see things your way.

Guards are in place to balance the entire justice system, in particular the way thieving works. There is a lot of gold to be made in crime for little effort without guards.

When guards become killable, there will be farm trains within the week. This is an MMO, reality won't be as romantic as you portray it. Groups of 20 people will run around town killing guards and get their fence quota filled in 15 minutes and never pay their bounty. Inflation incoming.

The gameplay will add nothing. It will be just fighting another boss, for which there are many alternatives, yet this time in urban setting, disrupting the criminal system as it is now and all the other functions towns serve in this game (as hubs for trade and crafting).

I could see something like this in a new PvP Zone where Justice PvP is enabled, but not across Tamriel.

Debunking bad logic is not an insult. The insult was the waste of time it took of mine. This guys logic is terrible, and yet he keeps replying with more terrible nonsense about the necessity for risk, however where is that necessity in the rest of the game then? It's a terrible argument, and I'm sorry if pointing out the truth was offensive. If he just admits his opinion is not a necessary fact, but just a simple preference, then it would be over, but the replies continued coming with more vague and illogical statement about why they have to be invincible for risk, even though that logic fails when you apply it to the rest of the game. Just face the reality, it's a phony consequence for a lazy system that could not I plane t actual combat for technical performance reason, and it will be over at that.

What do you want from us? Only state facts? The sky is blue and cogito ergo sum? You don't limit yourself to facts. The only fact you keep coming up with is the unsubstantiated 'memory leak' - yours is the burden to proof this is the cause behind all this, since you introduced it.

You asked for opinions, you got many. They are necessarily subjective, that does not mean they are unreasonable. Many have very reasonable fears about how killable guards would influence the game, and they have eloquently portrayed those fears. I for one understood perfectly well what KoshkaMurka was trying to say. These opinions portray preferences, which sometimes are opposite to your own professed preference of killable player guards, as shown by your opening posts.

That they are opposite preferences does not mean they are meaningless or can be dismissed as irrelevant. In doing so you have been quite rude, and have already lead to some saying you're only here to argue. That can't be why you opened this poll, surely.

You're really jumping into someone else's illogical conversation and acting as though I was talking directly to you. I debunked a bunch of terrible fallacy arguments, and then you accused me of insulting someone. I never told you I expect your opinion to change. You're just making up random assumptions.

vonScuzzman wrote: »

Bryanonymous wrote: »

If he just admits his opinion is not a necessary fact, but just a simple preference, then it would be over

I love how he starts a thread based on his own opinion; but discounts everyone's response because it is their opinion.

That simply makes no sense. That's not what is happening here, and you just made up some random nonsense to jump on board the derail topic attempt.

Should we? No.

Do we wish? Yes!

Bryanonymous wrote: »

vonScuzzman wrote: »

Bryanonymous wrote: »

If he just admits his opinion is not a necessary fact, but just a simple preference, then it would be over

I love how he starts a thread based on his own opinion; but discounts everyone's response because it is their opinion.

That simply makes no sense. That's not what is happening here, and you just made up some random nonsense to jump on board the derail topic attempt.

No, that is exactly what is happening here. You give your Opinion in a thread post, you post no actual facts to support it, and then you ask everyone else to give facts to support their opinions. Just because it is your idea or your opinion does not make it a fact.

Your entire string of responses "simply make no sense" and "you just made up some random nonsense" (dolmans) to derail the topic.

vonScuzzman wrote: »

Bryanonymous wrote: »

vonScuzzman wrote: »

Bryanonymous wrote: »

If he just admits his opinion is not a necessary fact, but just a simple preference, then it would be over

I love how he starts a thread based on his own opinion; but discounts everyone's response because it is their opinion.

That simply makes no sense. That's not what is happening here, and you just made up some random nonsense to jump on board the derail topic attempt.

No, that is exactly what is happening here. You give your Opinion in a thread post, you post no actual facts to support it, and then you ask everyone else to give facts to support their opinions. Just because it is your idea or your opinion does not make it a fact.

Your entire string of responses "simply make no sense" and "you just made up some random nonsense" (dolmans) to derail the topic.

When did I ask for facts? All I've done was argue against bad logic. Please stop creating fallacies about me. You are not contributing to this discussion at all.

Bryanonymous wrote: »

Perhaps because that statement was regarding the statement which I had quoted, where the argument was made that because this is an MMO, guards are some how different than the single player guards. Even though you could get a bounty in previous games and kill the guards, because this is online, it is somehow changing the consequence. This argument makes zero sense, because what really was the consequence in single player? And if consequence is so important, what is the consequence in the rest of this game for doing anything at all? Perhaps you should read what I am replying to before assuming I am generalizing every aspect of the game as a whole.

OK, I will play your game. Here is the quote you included with your reply.

You:
2)Immersion.
Yes, people bought a TES game, not a GTA game. [/quote]

Every TES before this had mortal guards. Smh...

Giles:
So in the end, the biggest lol ever. Seriously. You don't went Discussion. You just want all to fall in line with you.

K.

Other player:
Every TES game had consequenses of killing everyone. Sure, you could do that... But all npcs except guards didnt respawn so it was effectivey the best way to screw up your game.
Also all previous TES games were single player, so no matter what you did in your own game, it could not affect other player's performance and immersion.

You:
Now NPC's can die and respawn. Not sure how that has any relevance as the consequences would be identical.

Single player... MMO... makes no difference. You're arguing with very irrelevant substance.



Well, that is a lot. But I wanted to make sure you couldn't accuse me of cutting out the important parts that made you correct. I also had some trouble with the pasting, so I had to abandon quotes for my notations. Sorry.

Anyway, the key part is: It could not affect other players' performance and immersion. Then you go on to say: Single Player, MMO, makes no difference.

Except it does. You seem to want to talk about the "consequences" for the individual player killing guards and engaging in crime. I guess in that sense, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference, because your world is only one player large. What are the consequences - to me!?!

Everyone else who is discussing this topic is talking about how killable guards and escalating threats affects the game of all of those other people you are sharing the game world with. You know - how does your proposal affect everyone else who is not you?

I think you need to pack up your tent and go home on this one. The reason we have our current justice system limitations is because of how differences in the system could affect all of those other players out there, not just the one person fighting guards. This is because it is an MMO, not a single player game. So yes, that distinction matters a lot, and any references to how guards interact with you in Skyrim or Morrowind just do not apply to this game.

And please, before you accuse me of not replying to what you are really saying, you need to learn a little bit about how online discussions like this work. We reply to specific posts. You can't take things you said to other posters on a different part of the thread and just dismiss people as not reading. People reply to specific posts, not on a running commentary. it's just how this works.

Also, to be honest, just because you say you debunked something...that doesn't make it true. People can disagree that you did in fact do that. The words you type have to actually do the thing you are claiming.

Ethromelb14_ESO wrote: »

So I can't play as the brave bandit that can beat the odds in battle, because the developers say I'm suppose to run like a coward from anyone representing justice, and there is no hope of me defeating them. This implies that a player is really only allowed to be upright and just. Yet we can don the appearance of a Dremora, some of the most fierce-like warrior creatures?

I want to play a brave paladin hunting down serial killers (and dremoras) then. Would be awesome.