@Riejael

you quoted my passage from a post that was not quoting ot citing you and that was two posts after a post from someone else specifically talking about immersion and then...and then went off with...

"Nowhere did I ever indicate anything I've said was for immersion. If a guard doesn't care about a transformed werewolf or a stage iv vampire, neither should a player. Don't be facetious. I haven't attacked you, I've engaged you fairly, and haven't entirely disagreed with you".

So, why post into a response that was dealing directly with our interchange a section of another post that wasn't directed to you and respond as if it was directed at you?

Seems off to do so while at the same time crying foul and talking about how fair you have been.

Two posts above my immersion cloaks post was: "It really does break immersion and some people just do not get that, I am just sitting there turning in a quest and bam someone just walks up and starts attacking everyone.:"

Three above was this: "Because if you go around ruining the game for other people by killing NPCs and breaking their immersion then you deserve to be punished by getting killed, honestly the only people who would try to defend this justice system as it is now are the same people who are going around killing NPCs and not giving a damn what their bounty is, maybe they are just afraid they wouldn't beable to do it without a care since others players aren't as stupid as the NPC guards are."

My "immersion cloak" post you partially quoted did not refer to you, did it? Even once? At all?

But you took part of that and tossed it into a post where you did inlcude direct exchanges from me and you and then played the fairly card with "Nowhere did I ever indicate anything I've said was for immersion. If a guard doesn't care about a transformed werewolf or a stage iv vampire, neither should a player. Don't be facetious. I haven't attacked you, I've engaged you fairly"

CosmicSoul wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

CosmicSoul wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

CosmicSoul wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

I love the PVPers in immersion cloaks.

How about the immersion of seeing vampires walking around unattackable? Shouldn't a char devoted to killing undead get to pvp them in auridon?

What about my vamp in east March seeing murderous thugs killing my vamp telatives? Shouldn't I be allowed to pvp them?

What about my law and order character seeing a pc choose to execute someone in custody instead of turning them over to authorities? Why not let me pvp them.

The "I get to pvp folks playing content a way I don't like" immersion fails to apply if you accept that what other pcs do in pve is not yours to judge and it turns the game world into open pvp if you don't accept it because in this game world that is so rich and varied there are many many "offenses" one can take within "immersive" reason.

All those points are simply reaching and just shows how much you want your one sided justice system, no one said they wanted those things to stay the same, we are simply discussing one thing at a time here so your point is completely void.

I do want the current injustice system, one sided as you say, or as I say - pve. It's somewhat unique content and on par with the other casual play options.

I also want a robust pve justice system, with a full dlc level justice pve addition with main quests, delves, dens/world bosses, skill line, etc etc for players taking the role of Enforcers going after NPC criminals and organizations. I want two sets of dailies - one escorting convoys across tamriel and one hunting down criminals in towns. All pve.

I don't want but don't care if a pvp-only justice was added at the same time or later. I suggested a guild based cops-robbers group play model using dueling.

All this you could have known had you bothered.

That brings us to a key point: None of what I want requires taking anything away, stopping any current play, but adds to and expands what is there.

It's a different outlook from taking pve content others run and turning it to pvp whether they like it or not.

And you tred again familiar well worn rhetorical paths... your specific immersive issue deserves pvp addition but every other is to be deemed completely void.

But the "Immersion demands pvp vs pve but only for one cause" position lacks any credible foundation in this very rich game.

Speaking of one-sided... in your self-proclaimed "creative" just let players attack those killing npcs for 5min or so, I notice no option to attack those do-gooder enforcers. Why not let pcs kill other pcs who might be in position to witness the crime? Your courageous PVPers wanting to jump pve players also need first strike?

If you want the current system changed then why not tell us your suggestion you had before? And I did not try that, there you go assuming again about someone you do not know. And I never suggested anything against it and your still avoiding the fact that all these other points you keep trying to bring up are void since they have nothing to do with the topic and justice system itself, we are simply talking about the one sidedness to the system here, and yes there could be something for do gooders, but then again your the one attacking an npc within that city or in that area, therefor the do gooders are already there protecting the innocent.


Also why do you keep calling them do gooders? It sounds a little like your trying to be insulting, this is just a game after all, its a bit silly to have some bias against what you call do gooders.

Not sure if your non-specificity is intentional tactic or just accidental.

its makes it tough to reply accurately.

First bold: And you did not try that... what is that? hard to tell what part of the reply you are referring to so hey cannot easily respond.

Second bold, top be clear, yes MY CHARACTER is attacking NPCs.

In case you dont know, PVE is about attacking NPCs. practically every quest in the game that is PVE is involving attacking NPCs. Sometimes they are giants, sometimes they are dominion, sometimes they are undead, sometimes they are merchants, sometimes they are sacrifices. The game system is built around that and outside of cyrodil there are never ever any PC on PC attacks allowed for killing NPCs. Whether you like the NPCs i kill or not. whether you think the killing is justified or not, whether you think its good or evil - you dont get to attack my PC with your PC over it.

You seem to have an idea that because i attack an NPC I deserve to be attacked by PVPers. But in this game with multiple DLCs and many many quests with shades of gray good and bad make your choice options and none of them opening you up for PVP attacks - that conclusion seems out of place and lacking foundation.

PVP is not about good vs evil, right vs wrong, justice vs injustice - its simply player-vs-player. Whatever roleplaying you want to wrap it in thats between you and the other players who want to play that game with you.

I am done trying to help you understand it is pointless with you, I am aware of the questing, and I am simply talking about murder sprees, anyways not need to continue with this further agree to disagree.

You can claim to just be talking about murder sprees and not quests or anything else but allowing folks to attack other pcs for attacking npcs runs headlong into quests and current pve play options.

Its easy to just say imagine a system where it all works out... its harder to actually work thru one - as you would know had you taken a little time to explore the topic by looking at the prior discussions.

We dont have to agree to disagree - it can just happen on its own.

STEVIL wrote: »

CosmicSoul wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

CosmicSoul wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

CosmicSoul wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

I love the PVPers in immersion cloaks.

How about the immersion of seeing vampires walking around unattackable? Shouldn't a char devoted to killing undead get to pvp them in auridon?

What about my vamp in east March seeing murderous thugs killing my vamp telatives? Shouldn't I be allowed to pvp them?

What about my law and order character seeing a pc choose to execute someone in custody instead of turning them over to authorities? Why not let me pvp them.

The "I get to pvp folks playing content a way I don't like" immersion fails to apply if you accept that what other pcs do in pve is not yours to judge and it turns the game world into open pvp if you don't accept it because in this game world that is so rich and varied there are many many "offenses" one can take within "immersive" reason.

All those points are simply reaching and just shows how much you want your one sided justice system, no one said they wanted those things to stay the same, we are simply discussing one thing at a time here so your point is completely void.

I do want the current injustice system, one sided as you say, or as I say - pve. It's somewhat unique content and on par with the other casual play options.

I also want a robust pve justice system, with a full dlc level justice pve addition with main quests, delves, dens/world bosses, skill line, etc etc for players taking the role of Enforcers going after NPC criminals and organizations. I want two sets of dailies - one escorting convoys across tamriel and one hunting down criminals in towns. All pve.

I don't want but don't care if a pvp-only justice was added at the same time or later. I suggested a guild based cops-robbers group play model using dueling.

All this you could have known had you bothered.

That brings us to a key point: None of what I want requires taking anything away, stopping any current play, but adds to and expands what is there.

It's a different outlook from taking pve content others run and turning it to pvp whether they like it or not.

And you tred again familiar well worn rhetorical paths... your specific immersive issue deserves pvp addition but every other is to be deemed completely void.

But the "Immersion demands pvp vs pve but only for one cause" position lacks any credible foundation in this very rich game.

Speaking of one-sided... in your self-proclaimed "creative" just let players attack those killing npcs for 5min or so, I notice no option to attack those do-gooder enforcers. Why not let pcs kill other pcs who might be in position to witness the crime? Your courageous PVPers wanting to jump pve players also need first strike?

If you want the current system changed then why not tell us your suggestion you had before? And I did not try that, there you go assuming again about someone you do not know. And I never suggested anything against it and your still avoiding the fact that all these other points you keep trying to bring up are void since they have nothing to do with the topic and justice system itself, we are simply talking about the one sidedness to the system here, and yes there could be something for do gooders, but then again your the one attacking an npc within that city or in that area, therefor the do gooders are already there protecting the innocent.


Also why do you keep calling them do gooders? It sounds a little like your trying to be insulting, this is just a game after all, its a bit silly to have some bias against what you call do gooders.

Not sure if your non-specificity is intentional tactic or just accidental.

its makes it tough to reply accurately.

First bold: And you did not try that... what is that? hard to tell what part of the reply you are referring to so hey cannot easily respond.

Second bold, top be clear, yes MY CHARACTER is attacking NPCs.

In case you dont know, PVE is about attacking NPCs. practically every quest in the game that is PVE is involving attacking NPCs. Sometimes they are giants, sometimes they are dominion, sometimes they are undead, sometimes they are merchants, sometimes they are sacrifices. The game system is built around that and outside of cyrodil there are never ever any PC on PC attacks allowed for killing NPCs. Whether you like the NPCs i kill or not. whether you think the killing is justified or not, whether you think its good or evil - you dont get to attack my PC with your PC over it.

You seem to have an idea that because i attack an NPC I deserve to be attacked by PVPers. But in this game with multiple DLCs and many many quests with shades of gray good and bad make your choice options and none of them opening you up for PVP attacks - that conclusion seems out of place and lacking foundation.

PVP is not about good vs evil, right vs wrong, justice vs injustice - its simply player-vs-player. Whatever roleplaying you want to wrap it in thats between you and the other players who want to play that game with you.

I am done trying to help you understand it is pointless with you, I am aware of the questing, and I am simply talking about murder sprees, anyways not need to continue with this further agree to disagree.

You can claim to just be talking about murder sprees and not quests or anything else but allowing folks to attack other pcs for attacking npcs runs headlong into quests and current pve play options.

Its easy to just say imagine a system where it all works out... its harder to actually work thru one - as you would know had you taken a little time to explore the topic by looking at the prior discussions.

We dont have to agree to disagree - it can just happen on its own.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, clearly you always need some kind of last word in this thread lol.

This is so crazy, now people talk about immersion. What's immersive about a story where you are the "chosen one", but there are hundreds more that do the same quest? Where enemies respawn after a few seconds. Invincible guards, unattackable merchants and quest givers? (You can't even do a "murder spree" in this game) And vigilante justice is immersive then? The guards should arrest you too for interfering with their business.
And if you just want an option where nobody is forced to participate, just challenge the criminal to a duel, they can accept or decline and you have your fight or not. That is already in the game.

Would like the idea, some bit of world PVP but yeah this might turn into a gankfest for those who need to kill an NPC for a quest.

STEVIL wrote: »

But if by "add another level of risk on top of" you mean deciding that at a certain combo of heat/bounty etc the pvp kicks in whether you want it or not (non-consensual in spite of some folks inability to accept that term) you are heading towards a brick wall that already has lotsa dints and stains.

I disagree. World of Warcraft has a much stricter system that is simpler. Simply attacking certain NPCs flags you for five minutes. I'm going for something a bit more dynamic. And being as it worked in WoW for the last 12 years, I doubt it would hit a 'brick wall' here.

Well, players who don't want to see PVP at all, whether they are in it or not. Those people who hate seeing duels for example.. I can't please them. I don't have any intent to please them. Their desires are just a bit selfish and petty IMO.

I'll be posting some details later today.

Riejael wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

But if by "add another level of risk on top of" you mean deciding that at a certain combo of heat/bounty etc the pvp kicks in whether you want it or not (non-consensual in spite of some folks inability to accept that term) you are heading towards a brick wall that already has lotsa dints and stains.

I disagree. World of Warcraft has a much stricter system that is simpler. Simply attacking certain NPCs flags you for five minutes. I'm going for something a bit more dynamic. And being as it worked in WoW for the last 12 years, I doubt it would hit a 'brick wall' here.

Well, players who don't want to see PVP at all, whether they are in it or not. Those people who hate seeing duels for example.. I can't please them. I don't have any intent to please them. Their desires are just a bit selfish and petty IMO.

I'll be posting some details later today.

I don't care about seeing pvp in pve areas. Really. Whatever reason people have for wanting to fight is their issue. However, it isn't the "seeing" that causes me and possibly other players to have problems with it. Ever try to craft gear with the pvp anywhere duelers are parked so the duel circle goes over the crafting stations? Also so nice to try to use a wayshrine that is included in the dueling circle, with meteors and caltrops appearing everywhere. Don't forget attempting to use the bank when WE IS DUELING players decide to do that in the bank. Oh yes, the people who are in pve areas are totally selfish for not wanting to have to deal with pvp. Let me guess; the WE WANNA DUEL WHERE EVER WE PLEASE CAUSE WE CAN players are totally selfless, out for the good of all players everywhere and not petty at all. [I'm sure the discussion I saw in chat between people organizing duels in the bank in Rawl'kha were just helping the devs test lag and totally not trying to grief pve players at all.]

Sure you can please everyone that isn't a self-centered selfish git. Ask for a special area to go duel. Make it a separate place, call on Boethiah to teleport the people who want to duel to his/her Proving Ground. All those who want to duel will able to do that to their heart's content, and never have to hear a word from the people who don't want to pvp/duel. The people who don't want to have to deal with dueling/pvp in pve areas won't have to deal with it at all, and won't bother to say a word.

stevenbennett_ESO wrote: »

Sigh... This keeps coming up again and again. Actually, until recently, I was okay with the idea that this could be done IF AND ONLY IF it was a 100% active Opt-In system -- the player committing the crimes must have a flag they deliberately set which allows them to be the target of PvP - otherwise they cannot be involved in PvP, period. That said, since dueling was implemented, I'm now no longer in favor of ANY activity which adds more PvP to PvE areas -- dueling is hugely disruptive enough as it is.

That said, IF your actual stated goal is to have more consequences for crimes, I'll make a counter offer -- a player concerned with justice can talk to a guard and join the "Town Watch" which allows them to become a *witness* to a crime, causing the player who did it to earn heat and bounty as if an NPC had see it. Of course, if they're in that state, the player ought to be flagged clearly as a member of the Town Watch, and the Hidden indicator should reflect their presence as well. Also, I think there ought to be consequences if they're a Thieves Guild or Dark Brotherhood member.

There won't be any PvP involved, but you can protect those helpless NPCs by organizing Town Watch patrols for their safety.

If that's not appealing to you, then I have to assume you're really just hoping for Open World PvP and using "justice" as a thin excuse to justify it, to which I say, loudly, No Thank You.

Good idea. I have the feeling it will go over like a solid lead Hindenburg. "Justice" doesn't really appear to be what is wanted by some of the most vocal advocates for player participation in a "justice" system.

stevenbennett_ESO wrote: »

Sigh... This keeps coming up again and again. Actually, until recently, I was okay with the idea that this could be done IF AND ONLY IF it was a 100% active Opt-In system -- the player committing the crimes must have a flag they deliberately set which allows them to be the target of PvP - otherwise they cannot be involved in PvP, period. That said, since dueling was implemented, I'm now no longer in favor of ANY activity which adds more PvP to PvE areas -- dueling is hugely disruptive enough as it is.

That said, IF your actual stated goal is to have more consequences for crimes, I'll make a counter offer -- a player concerned with justice can talk to a guard and join the "Town Watch" which allows them to become a *witness* to a crime, causing the player who did it to earn heat and bounty as if an NPC had see it. Of course, if they're in that state, the player ought to be flagged clearly as a member of the Town Watch, and the Hidden indicator should reflect their presence as well. Also, I think there ought to be consequences if they're a Thieves Guild or Dark Brotherhood member.

There won't be any PvP involved, but you can protect those helpless NPCs by organizing Town Watch patrols for their safety.

If that's not appealing to you, then I have to assume you're really just hoping for Open World PvP and using "justice" as a thin excuse to justify it, to which I say, loudly, No Thank You.

this enables the basic breaking of two DLCs.

i pay for a thieving quest.
i get assigned quests.
i go on quests that involve stealing or killing certain npcs or certain items in pre-set places with guards and such on rotations to make it tough...
only to find a half dozen guys PCs now tagged as watch sitting in the "kill zones" formerly put there to enable a successful quest completion.
I ask for a refund paid by the coder who enabled PC spotters.

Alright here's the system I'm able to come up with, with the data available. Numbers can be tweaked if needed, but they'll work for the sake of argument.

First thing's first. We need a PVP hook in the system that allows for a player to be attackable, and able to attack back ONLY those who attack them. We don't need players to rack up bounties to attack people, it has to be regular people INITIATING the conflict. Not the other way around.

Crime system would otherwise work how it does. You commit a crime, no NPC witness (PCs don't count), no bounty, no heat. Continue as normal. The difference is when you accrue bounty and heat. This would work normally until you reach 5,000 bounty AND have a heat level of fugitive (when guards kill you on sight, not merely accost you).

When this happens, players may engage you as well. If they engage you, you may fight back. But only on those who engage you first. I'm thinking that any other criminals who have the same criteria would be able to aid fellow criminals as well. Making attacking a criminal somewhat of a risky thing.

Guards would be slayable. They would have around 120-150k HP and have states like a normal 'elite' named boss of a quest type. Killing guards racks up alot more bounty than normal innocents. Though to balance this a bit, remote regions that have less players could possibly see guards scale up a tad. That way people can't go too crazy in remote areas.

If you reach an area that crimes do not accrue bounty (such as outlaw's refuge and other similar sanctuaries) you CANNOT be attacked. And your 'flag' falls off regardless of your heat/bounty level. That is unless you exit and immediate commit another witnessed crime.

The incentive for players to attack and take down a dastardly criminal is the bounty is split between the players who take them down. If the criminal has 6000 bounty and three take them down, each is awarded 2000 gold. If the criminal only had 3000 gold, each is awarded 1000 instead and the bounty is cleared to 3000 (and heat reduced to disreputable). Flag removed.

Bounty is NOT increased from killing players who try to kill the criminal. Its a risk entirely on the player who decides to jump in. To reiterate however, players cannot be witnesses. Only NPCs like normal.

What does this do?

1. Players who currently keep their bounties low will NOT be affected. They'll simply steal, kill, and pillage like normal.
2. Newer players figuring out the system will no longer be met with super strong guards. Better chance of escape.
3. Players who want a bit of an excitement can push their bounty up and see what happens.
4. With weaker guards, players can continue to accrue bounties and heat to levels they wouldn't have thought of doing before. With the risk of players getting greedy and taking them on.

Some of you may have qualms about number 4. But understand this is a level of play NOT currently available. It would take active effort on your part to reach this point. If you play as conservatively as you do now, you won't have to contend with other players. Some of you have been worried about a feature that should be opting in. That's your Opt-in feature. Pushing the limits beyond what you think about doing now.

Some of you are going to think this system is too light. That no one would ever get flagged. You might be right. But at the end of the day, its not meant to punish players. I said that right from the get go that any system implemented would NOT be a punishment. We're playing a game, it should be fun. There should be risk if we choose to take it. But at the end of the day, it should be a choice. And I had NO intention of changing the game as it is now. Only adding a layer on top.

Riejael wrote: »

Alright here's the system I'm able to come up with, with the data available. Numbers can be tweaked if needed, but they'll work for the sake of argument.

First thing's first. We need a PVP hook in the system that allows for a player to be attackable, and able to attack back ONLY those who attack them. We don't need players to rack up bounties to attack people, it has to be regular people INITIATING the conflict. Not the other way around.

Crime system would otherwise work how it does. You commit a crime, no NPC witness (PCs don't count), no bounty, no heat. Continue as normal. The difference is when you accrue bounty and heat. This would work normally until you reach 5,000 bounty AND have a heat level of fugitive (when guards kill you on sight, not merely accost you).

When this happens, players may engage you as well. If they engage you, you may fight back. But only on those who engage you first. I'm thinking that any other criminals who have the same criteria would be able to aid fellow criminals as well. Making attacking a criminal somewhat of a risky thing.

Guards would be slayable. They would have around 120-150k HP and have states like a normal 'elite' named boss of a quest type. Killing guards racks up alot more bounty than normal innocents. Though to balance this a bit, remote regions that have less players could possibly see guards scale up a tad. That way people can't go too crazy in remote areas.

If you reach an area that crimes do not accrue bounty (such as outlaw's refuge and other similar sanctuaries) you CANNOT be attacked. And your 'flag' falls off regardless of your heat/bounty level. That is unless you exit and immediate commit another witnessed crime.

The incentive for players to attack and take down a dastardly criminal is the bounty is split between the players who take them down. If the criminal has 6000 bounty and three take them down, each is awarded 2000 gold. If the criminal only had 3000 gold, each is awarded 1000 instead and the bounty is cleared to 3000 (and heat reduced to disreputable). Flag removed.

Bounty is NOT increased from killing players who try to kill the criminal. Its a risk entirely on the player who decides to jump in. To reiterate however, players cannot be witnesses. Only NPCs like normal.

What does this do?

1. Players who currently keep their bounties low will NOT be affected. They'll simply steal, kill, and pillage like normal.
2. Newer players figuring out the system will no longer be met with super strong guards. Better chance of escape.
3. Players who want a bit of an excitement can push their bounty up and see what happens.
4. With weaker guards, players can continue to accrue bounties and heat to levels they wouldn't have thought of doing before. With the risk of players getting greedy and taking them on.

Some of you may have qualms about number 4. But understand this is a level of play NOT currently available. It would take active effort on your part to reach this point. If you play as conservatively as you do now, you won't have to contend with other players. Some of you have been worried about a feature that should be opting in. That's your Opt-in feature. Pushing the limits beyond what you think about doing now.

Some of you are going to think this system is too light. That no one would ever get flagged. You might be right. But at the end of the day, its not meant to punish players. I said that right from the get go that any system implemented would NOT be a punishment. We're playing a game, it should be fun. There should be risk if we choose to take it. But at the end of the day, it should be a choice. And I had NO intention of changing the game as it is now. Only adding a layer on top.

See this is kind of what I was thinking but I basically gave up and did not want to explain, I did not even think about the concept of hunting down a player that is a really neat concept, I love it, this sounds like it could be allot of fun and not be used in an abusive way, you really improved the hek out of my idea thank you for sharing this.

What I'd like fixed, in an ideal world, are the kill-stealers who see you sneaking behind a victim for pickpocketing or assassination, then maneuver in behind you and kill them. Now I just kill my loose-walleted friends early and move on when I see someone crouch and move towards me. Often the kill-stealers throw a little tantrum but there's nothing they can do about it in PVE.

Kindly go play in PVP if you want to harass other players.

kamimark wrote: »

Having to burn to death all the PVPers if it was open season on players with bounties, would be a giant inconvenience to me.

By the numbers you gave, this wouldn't be an issue. You said you have at most 500, the threshold I put at was 5000.

It seems to be the consensus that 0-500 is the limit to what people are doing. I set the threshold to be quite lenient at 5000. By the communities admission, they don't get to 5000.

The most compelling argument against my proposal is 'principle'. At least they're honest about that. Most discussions of PVE/PVP natures are more guarded.

Lol nah I'd leave Gta gang wars to Gta :S.
Pvp outside cyrodil has to be consensual and not abusive.
We have duelling if you want pvp outside cyrodil.
No one wants some random xyz player sniping you down when you don't care about who's stronger and just want to complete your quests, as you know there is already so much trolling even without free to attack all mode.