corrosivechains wrote: »

lol, I like how everytime the justice system is brought up, those who are against it strawman "you just want forced pvp!"

No. PvP would still be your choice, and you now have more choices on whether or not to participate in it. Why are you people who are clearly exploiting a faulty system so against choices? No one would be forcing you to steal and murder city NPC's that'd flag you in the justice system. You'd be conciously making the choice to do so.

Still, it's hilarious that those most guilty of griefing and exploitative playstyles cry the most and loudest about griefing and exploits when people suggest options to combat it.

playing a PVE system, getting appropriate PVE rewards and so forth is not exploitjng. its just playing.

And putting pvp in with a "well if you play this pve content in pve zones or the pve quests for the pve dlcs then its you choosing to pvp" is nonsensical. Just like me being able to go into cyrodil and beat you into VMSA would be silly if i described it as "well you went into cyrodil so it was your choice to be forced into VMSA."

Brandalf wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

corrosivechains wrote: »

lol, I like how everytime the justice system is brought up, those who are against it strawman "you just want forced pvp!"

No. PvP would still be your choice, and you now have more choices on whether or not to participate in it. Why are you people who are clearly exploiting a faulty system so against choices? No one would be forcing you to steal and murder city NPC's that'd flag you in the justice system. You'd be conciously making the choice to do so.

Still, it's hilarious that those most guilty of griefing and exploitative playstyles cry the most and loudest about griefing and exploits when people suggest options to combat it.

playing a PVE system, getting appropriate PVE rewards and so forth is not exploitjng. its just playing.

And putting pvp in with a "well if you play this pve content in pve zones or the pve quests for the pve dlcs then its you choosing to pvp" is nonsensical. Just like me being able to go into cyrodil and beat you into VMSA would be silly if i described it as "well you went into cyrodil so it was your choice to be forced into VMSA."

Why is it such a difficult concept for some of you to understand? It's opt-in. If you're a good assassin or a good thief, then it's not gonna effect you at all. If you make a mistake and get yourself flagged as KOS then you MAY end up having to PVP against another player. It's not a guarantee by any means. Not to mention all you have to do is wait until your heat dies down, pay your bounty or use an edict to instantly remove a portion of your heat/bounty(or all of it in many cases). I've yet to see any legitimate concerns or reasons not to implement something like this, at least none that can't be easily addressed. Actually, I take that back, the performance concerns are somewhat valid, but pretty weak considering it wouldn't really have any more of an impact than dueling. Other than that it all essentially comes down to "I Don't wanna". It comes off as selfish and shows very little thought or care towards world-building, atmosphere or immersion.

I'm sure there are some valid concerns that don't have any easy fixes....but I haven't seen one posted in this thread yet.

well id be honestly interested to see and read a thread for this concept, with detailed outlines and plans and addressing most if not all concerns.
like quest related bounties, new players, and accidental thefts and attacks, especially on console.

NocturnalGuideMe wrote: »

Brandalf wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

corrosivechains wrote: »

lol, I like how everytime the justice system is brought up, those who are against it strawman "you just want forced pvp!"

No. PvP would still be your choice, and you now have more choices on whether or not to participate in it. Why are you people who are clearly exploiting a faulty system so against choices? No one would be forcing you to steal and murder city NPC's that'd flag you in the justice system. You'd be conciously making the choice to do so.

Still, it's hilarious that those most guilty of griefing and exploitative playstyles cry the most and loudest about griefing and exploits when people suggest options to combat it.

playing a PVE system, getting appropriate PVE rewards and so forth is not exploitjng. its just playing.

And putting pvp in with a "well if you play this pve content in pve zones or the pve quests for the pve dlcs then its you choosing to pvp" is nonsensical. Just like me being able to go into cyrodil and beat you into VMSA would be silly if i described it as "well you went into cyrodil so it was your choice to be forced into VMSA."

Why is it such a difficult concept for some of you to understand? It's opt-in. If you're a good assassin or a good thief, then it's not gonna effect you at all. If you make a mistake and get yourself flagged as KOS then you MAY end up having to PVP against another player. It's not a guarantee by any means. Not to mention all you have to do is wait until your heat dies down, pay your bounty or use an edict to instantly remove a portion of your heat/bounty(or all of it in many cases). I've yet to see any legitimate concerns or reasons not to implement something like this, at least none that can't be easily addressed. Actually, I take that back, the performance concerns are somewhat valid, but pretty weak considering it wouldn't really have any more of an impact than dueling. Other than that it all essentially comes down to "I Don't wanna". It comes off as selfish and shows very little thought or care towards world-building, atmosphere or immersion.

I'm sure there are some valid concerns that don't have any easy fixes....but I haven't seen one posted in this thread yet.

well id be honestly interested to see and read a thread for this concept, with detailed outlines and plans and addressing most if not all concerns.
like quest related bounties, new players, and accidental thefts and attacks, especially on console.

From a player or the devs? Because from what I've gathered the devs have pretty much said it's dead in the water. If a player took the time to think these things out and make an extensive post it would probably be more effort than it's worth. Because you'd have people instantly write it off because "they don't wanna." or some such nonsense. Reading the forums over time has convinced me most people have no interest in looking at the bigger picture when it comes to proposed additions, changes, etc. They only care how it would effect them and not the game as a whole. Apparently it's really difficult for people to be objective and see the overall impact rather than what's right in front of their faces, which I guess shouldn't surprise me. It's rather disappointing though.

Brandalf wrote: »

NocturnalGuideMe wrote: »

Brandalf wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

corrosivechains wrote: »

lol, I like how everytime the justice system is brought up, those who are against it strawman "you just want forced pvp!"

No. PvP would still be your choice, and you now have more choices on whether or not to participate in it. Why are you people who are clearly exploiting a faulty system so against choices? No one would be forcing you to steal and murder city NPC's that'd flag you in the justice system. You'd be conciously making the choice to do so.

Still, it's hilarious that those most guilty of griefing and exploitative playstyles cry the most and loudest about griefing and exploits when people suggest options to combat it.

playing a PVE system, getting appropriate PVE rewards and so forth is not exploitjng. its just playing.

And putting pvp in with a "well if you play this pve content in pve zones or the pve quests for the pve dlcs then its you choosing to pvp" is nonsensical. Just like me being able to go into cyrodil and beat you into VMSA would be silly if i described it as "well you went into cyrodil so it was your choice to be forced into VMSA."

Why is it such a difficult concept for some of you to understand? It's opt-in. If you're a good assassin or a good thief, then it's not gonna effect you at all. If you make a mistake and get yourself flagged as KOS then you MAY end up having to PVP against another player. It's not a guarantee by any means. Not to mention all you have to do is wait until your heat dies down, pay your bounty or use an edict to instantly remove a portion of your heat/bounty(or all of it in many cases). I've yet to see any legitimate concerns or reasons not to implement something like this, at least none that can't be easily addressed. Actually, I take that back, the performance concerns are somewhat valid, but pretty weak considering it wouldn't really have any more of an impact than dueling. Other than that it all essentially comes down to "I Don't wanna". It comes off as selfish and shows very little thought or care towards world-building, atmosphere or immersion.

I'm sure there are some valid concerns that don't have any easy fixes....but I haven't seen one posted in this thread yet.

well id be honestly interested to see and read a thread for this concept, with detailed outlines and plans and addressing most if not all concerns.
like quest related bounties, new players, and accidental thefts and attacks, especially on console.

From a player or the devs? Because from what I've gathered the devs have pretty much said it's dead in the water. If a player took the time to think these things out and make an extensive post it would probably be more effort than it's worth. Because you'd have people instantly write it off because "they don't wanna." or some such nonsense. Reading the forums over time has convinced me most people have no interest in looking at the bigger picture when it comes to proposed additions, changes, etc. They only care how it would effect them and not the game as a whole. Apparently it's really difficult for people to be objective and see the overall impact rather than what's right in front of their faces, which I guess shouldn't surprise me. It's rather disappointing though.

That is disappointing. one of my favorite things about these forums, besides the excellent help ive recieved from seasoned veteran players, is reading the dreamings and ramblings of dedicated gamers. Too bad theres no direct way to proposition the Devs, that might spur more organized, thoughtful ventures from the populace.

but I digress.

Brandalf wrote: »

Reading the forums over time has convinced me most people have no interest in looking at the bigger picture when it comes to proposed additions, changes, etc. They only care how it would effect them and not the game as a whole. Apparently it's really difficult for people to be objective and see the overall impact rather than what's right in front of their faces,

My point exactly.

Brandalf wrote: »

STEVIL wrote: »

corrosivechains wrote: »

lol, I like how everytime the justice system is brought up, those who are against it strawman "you just want forced pvp!"

No. PvP would still be your choice, and you now have more choices on whether or not to participate in it. Why are you people who are clearly exploiting a faulty system so against choices? No one would be forcing you to steal and murder city NPC's that'd flag you in the justice system. You'd be conciously making the choice to do so.

Still, it's hilarious that those most guilty of griefing and exploitative playstyles cry the most and loudest about griefing and exploits when people suggest options to combat it.

playing a PVE system, getting appropriate PVE rewards and so forth is not exploitjng. its just playing.

And putting pvp in with a "well if you play this pve content in pve zones or the pve quests for the pve dlcs then its you choosing to pvp" is nonsensical. Just like me being able to go into cyrodil and beat you into VMSA would be silly if i described it as "well you went into cyrodil so it was your choice to be forced into VMSA."

Why is it such a difficult concept for some of you to understand? It's opt-in. If you're a good assassin or a good thief, then it's not gonna effect you at all. If you make a mistake and get yourself flagged as KOS then you MAY end up having to PVP against another player. It's not a guarantee by any means. Not to mention all you have to do is wait until your heat dies down, pay your bounty or use an edict to instantly remove a portion of your heat/bounty(or all of it in many cases) and *poof* you're safe from player guards once again. I've yet to see any legitimate concerns or reasons not to implement something like this, at least none that can't be easily addressed. Actually, I take that back, the performance concerns are somewhat valid, but pretty weak considering it wouldn't really have any more of an impact than dueling. Other than that it all essentially comes down to "I Don't wanna". It comes off as selfish and shows very little thought or care towards world-building, atmosphere or immersion.

I'm sure there are some valid concerns that don't have any easy fixes....but I haven't seen one posted in this thread yet.

See seriously you have to know its not that we dont understand it, its that we disagree with it - it being calling the "dont get caught or dont play" an "opt-in."

taking existing PVE play that some folks have paid money for and turning it into a "if you do it you are open to pvp if..." is not "opt-in" its "PVP takeover" or at best its "PVP play-in."

if tomorrow losing a fight in Cryodil meant you could be forced into VMSA for a period of time until you beat it or could be forced into VMOl group finder until you beat it i bet most PVP players would not consider those "opt-in" but more like "invasions" and we would see plenty of "if i wanted VMOL or VMSA i would go do them why i being dragged out of pvp, wearing pvp gear and thrown into PVE just because i lose a fight?"

its a fairly simple idea actually which even you have to understand - people like different things. Even if they suck at them - they like different things.

Dragging someone who "fails" at the content they prefer to play in into content they dont prefer to play in is not opt-in its hostage taking. Even if that "fail" has a higher than "one oops" threshold.

Same old song - just different day.

Brandalf wrote: »

Glurin wrote: »

Why is it such a difficult concept for YOU to understand? THAT IS NOT OPT-IN!!!!! You are taking away PvE content and forcing it into PvP.

It's not forcing anything and it's not taking anything away from you. Now if people were proposing toggling PVP on at all times and letting players attack each other at any time, for no reason. Then yes. I'd agree with you. But the proposed implementation is not that, it simply isn't. It's an organic way to handle opt-in PVP. I can't help that you refuse to think about it in an objective manner. Which you've already acknowledged as true by saying:

Glurin wrote: »

The only solution I will accept is not implementing it at all

. You're not objective and your feedback is useless in this discussion because of that.

The reason I said that is because I have already thought about it quite extensively, as this subject has already been brokered many times before, and have thus already reached my conclusion on the subject. It is a bad idea at it's core. I don't care what kind of window dressings you put on it, a bad idea will still be a bad idea.

@STEVIL This is a response I can respect, and think promotes good discussion. You bring up some valid points which I'll respond to in kind.

STEVIL wrote: »

taking existing PVE play that some folks have paid money for and turning it into a "if you do it you are open to pvp if..." is not "opt-in" its "PVP takeover" or at best its "PVP play-in."

The thing is that we were always told that the guard system was coming at a later date, ever since 2014 and the teasing of the justice system. So really it would be making good on promises they already made to the playerbase. So from my perspective it would simply be completing the content and systems. The way I see it ZOS sold incomplete content on the promise it would be finished at a later date, similar to an early access title.

STEVIL wrote: »

if tomorrow losing a fight in Cryodil meant you could be forced into VMSA for a period of time until you beat it or could be forced into VMOl group finder until you beat it i bet most PVP players would not consider those "opt-in" but more like "invasions" and we would see plenty of "if i wanted VMOL or VMSA i would go do them why i being dragged out of pvp, wearing pvp gear and thrown into PVE just because i lose a fight?"

This is a fair enough comparison, not like the other example of vMA someone else used. However even this example still isn't 1-to-1. With the proposed player guard systems there are many ways to completely avoid the PVP aspect outside of not making a mistake. You'd be able to sneak and avoid players. You'd be able to go to a refuge and pay off your bounty. You'd be able to use an edict to instantly remove the possibility of PVP. There are already several safeguards in place to deal with it. In your comparison there is no equivalent to these things. If you could use an item, or pay gold or somehow try to avoid that consequence completely, would it really be a problem? I honestly don't think so. Also let's be realistic, using the most difficult PVE solo content as an example is a bit hyperbolic in it's own right, since maybe having to PVP someone who may or may not have any skill in PVP doesn't even remotely translate to being forced to do the most difficult solo PVE content.

Outside of simply mechanics there is no reason or context for what you're saying to happen. There is ample reason, context and purpose for it happening in the case of player guards. The primary reason I want to see it happen it because of those things. I think it would be an extremely strong addition to immersion, world-building and atmosphere.

Brandalf wrote: »

@STEVIL This is a response I can respect, and think promotes good discussion. You bring up some valid points which I'll respond to in kind.

STEVIL wrote: »

taking existing PVE play that some folks have paid money for and turning it into a "if you do it you are open to pvp if..." is not "opt-in" its "PVP takeover" or at best its "PVP play-in."

The thing is that we were always told that the guard system was coming at a later date, ever since 2014 and the teasing of the justice system. So really it would be making good on promises they already made to the playerbase. So from my perspective it would simply be completing the content and systems. The way I see it ZOS sold incomplete content on the promise it would be finished at a later date, similar to an early access title.

STEVIL wrote: »

if tomorrow losing a fight in Cryodil meant you could be forced into VMSA for a period of time until you beat it or could be forced into VMOl group finder until you beat it i bet most PVP players would not consider those "opt-in" but more like "invasions" and we would see plenty of "if i wanted VMOL or VMSA i would go do them why i being dragged out of pvp, wearing pvp gear and thrown into PVE just because i lose a fight?"

This is a fair enough comparison, not like the other example of vMA someone else used. However even this example still isn't 1-to-1. With the proposed player guard systems there are many ways to completely avoid the PVP aspect outside of not making a mistake. You'd be able to sneak and avoid players. You'd be able to go to a refuge and pay off your bounty. You'd be able to use an edict to instantly remove the possibility of PVP. There are already several safeguards in place to deal with it. In your comparison there is no equivalent to these things. If you could use an item, or pay gold or somehow try to avoid that consequence completely, would it really be a problem? I honestly don't think so. Also let's be realistic, using the most difficult PVE solo content as an example is a bit hyperbolic in it's own right, since maybe having to PVP someone who may or may not have any skill in PVP doesn't even remotely translate to being forced to do the most difficult solo PVE content.

Outside of simply mechanics there is no reason or context for what you're saying to happen. There is ample reason, context and purpose for it happening in the case of player guards. The primary reason I want to see it happen it because of those things. I think it would be an extremely strong addition to immersion, world-building and atmosphere.

In PVP if i am losing a fight, i can also run away or sneak away if i can get the stealth on...
and edicts dont instantly occur and cant be used if already into red zone combat. they only help IF you get clear - much like many PVP options. in either PVP or PVE getting out of combat long enough to logout avoids the threat of repercussion for now. More options than that are just gravy not meat and potatoes - though i like gravy.

i realize you and some others may feel PVP adds fun and adds immersion or whatever but you also have to realize the divide between pvp and pve preference is real and quite tangible and what you see as a boon to play for others is game killing not what i want to others and so adding it to or rather forcing it into existing established casual PVE content is not gonna set well with a lot of folks. What it would do is drive away a lot of folks from that PVE content and maybe maybe maybe bring to that content PVP folks looking for PVP fights...

But...

those PVP folks looking for PVP fights can already get that in cyrodil, can already get that in Dueling and can even get together to work out "cops and robbers play" using dueling etc if they want now. more than a few such "models" have been discussed.

but what cannot happen now is being yanked out of PVE into PVP by failing and that is a huge changeover/takeaway from what is in no small part a lot of casual DLC content.

Now let me say... i would have ZERO problem if they added a new type of "sacrament" and "heist" content where players could enter those missions as the cops or the robbers with their own objectives and be a combo of fully adversarial opposing objective PVE/PVP play. let them be repeatables with leaderboards and all that jazz.

Add new justice/Injustice options but dont throw it onto the top of or takeover/takeaway from any of the existing casual pve injustice content.

Same way i proposed and agreed with the idea for a PVE "justice" DLC where you have whole storylines dealing with hunting down NPC criminals and outlaws and protecting NPC caravans from NPC threats and so on. Daily quests to escort caravans and deal with both external and internal threats or to go to a town and "keep the peace" and so on. "Dungeons" which are big evil organization" lairs. Delves which are smaller ones. etc etc - added new content.

i never ever view developer "plans" as promises. i very them as plans. plans change. so no promises were broken to me.

The most likely result of a pvp justice system would be that I would leave cities littered with player corpses in addition to the npc corpses that I already leave behind.

grumlins wrote: »

How exactly is this a problem really? You can't kill quest givers or vendors or guards. There's absolutely no need to complain about this save for the extreme need for attention.

People hate seeing duels, and they hate seeing towns full of corpses. While I personally think that both of those hatreds are quite silly, I'd also like to point out that a pvp justice system will actually increase both of those things. People seem to think pvp justice will fix those "problems", in reality it'll just make them "worse".

Noty.

This DLC has been out for almost a year and still the areas are packed and many people enjoying using their BoW without any pvp. Can you tell me the majority of the player base wants this? What about the minority that is the forum users? Maybe you can vouch for the whole sub minority pvp community? I wouldn't believe any of it. Battlegrounds coming, be happy.