Went into this thread expecting some ridiculous, badly thought out idea that spiraled off into nothing.

Am pleasantly surprised. +1. About time the initiator has to risk something proportionate to their reward.

God forbids, another way to prevent PvP encounters in a PvP area.

I understand that getting farmed from people who just show up and gank you is not ideal, but discouraging engaging in fights is not really ideal imho.

I like this system, but I'd spice things up a bit.
You can loot as much as double the telvar you carry and the killed person has a 3rd option for the respawn: Avenge.
You respawn immediately to kill your opponent. If you succeed you'll earn back your telvar + 50% of your murderer, or you'll lose them all.

Get some spice in there!!

Thanks for the supporting votes.

To those who just posted that it removes PvP, is carebear-stuff or whatever: Please read the post, not only the title. It may actually increase the incentive to PvP.

To give some background: I really like questing in Imperial City, including and especially because of the higher risk through player. Having played on a PvP server in another game for years, that's something I miss in ESO. I really enjoyed questing in a hostile owned village in Cyrodil for the event. When you de-stealth right next a quest giver, that really gets you the attention of anybody in the vicinity. Getting in and out is more of an adventure as the quest itself could ever be.

The event that made me post this idea was this: I recently attacked another player in IC. It wasn't much of a fight, as the other player apparently wasn't prepared for any sort of fight. I got a minor payout (~ 1,000 Tel Var), but honestly felt bad, as I thought it wasn't a fair fight and I didn't even risk anything - I'd just recently arrived for some questing and carried little if any Tel Var stones myself. The other player, however, seemed to have little if any experience on how to play in a PvP zone. I couldn't bring myself to attack anybody else that day, as I didn't want to ruin somebody's day.

Personally, I don't have much of a problem with loosing my stuff to a better player or even just for afk'ing in a stupid place. That comes with the territory. But I think some fairness in the risk/reward department. That'll be a benefit to the farmers and even help the guilt-ridden part-time highwaymen like me. And the true R0xx0rs can prove their courage by actually putting their money where their mouth is.

But, of course, one can also skip all these difficult thoughts and just cry out it's the death of PvP as we know it.

Taloros wrote: »

KRBMMO wrote:

Leave at least one zone where death has consequences.

I'm not suggesting to remove Tel Var gain. Death will still have consequences - but limited to the amount your attacker "wagered".

I think it would still be as exciting, but for both sides. What fun is there in attacking others if you don't risk anything yourself?

Alucardo wrote: »

That was after a 1v3 where I managed to kill 3 people wearing imperial physique during an IC event. If the OPs "risk vs reward" mechanic was in play I would have made 100 tel var from the first kill (which is what I had on me).
How is it fair that someone outnumbering me, carrying 10k+ stones only loses 100 upon death. Sounds flawed to me.

Honest congratulations on the win - that shows considerable skill. But that aside: What was your risk in that situation? Why should you be able to win more (Tel Var) than you risked loosing? It seems you gained 40k Tel Var from your opponents, which is quite a windfall for you, and I see why you felt lucky about that. But it seems to me that you in fact avoided risk, not took it. You even ported out, avoiding the risk of them re-taking their stones. ;-)

You get a lot of benefit running Imperial Physique - there should be a risk with such an OP set. What you are advocating will increase griefing of new or solo players, not reduce it. A person running around with 10k Tel Var and Imperial Physique would face little risk camping an enemy's doors on a low pop server - because most people coming out would have zero Tel Var.

I don't think you've thought this through actually.

It's very simple not to lose a lot of Tel Var in IC - just dump your Tel Var into the bank whenever you reach your risk tolerance. You even get returning spells so if you are carrying 20k Tel Var and hear or see some signs that concerns you, pop your ward and return to base.

pieratsos wrote: »

Alucardo wrote: »

KRBMMO wrote: »

Leave at least one zone where death has consequences.

tbh this is what makes IC interesting and gets the adrenaline pumping. Imagine how I felt trying to port back to base quickly after this heist



That was after a 1v3 where I managed to kill 3 people wearing imperial physique during an IC event. If the OPs "risk vs reward" mechanic was in play I would have made 100 tel var from the first kill (which is what I had on me).
How is it fair that someone outnumbering me, carrying 10k+ stones only loses 100 upon death. Sounds flawed to me.

But you are the one who chose to carry 100 stones with you. Not them.

They chose to risk their Tel Var by wearing Imperial Physique, which is the only real balance factor associated with IP. By the logic being asked, if Alucardo had died, they'd have taken the 100 Tel Var he had with no way to recover then, even if he did happen upon them again and killed them. That sounds just as unfair as ganking for half your Tel Var.

Imagine a zerg of IP wearers in IC (pretty common during IC events) just griefing other players, constantly killing them with no chance of being stopped because they only lose a handful of Tel Var at a time if they die and don't have to worry about losing their set buff unless someone with equal amounts of Tel Var kills them, which is a much bigger risk since then you just get mobbed by the rest and are now even harder to lose their buff.

So long as IP is a set, the 50/50 rule needs to remain in place.

pieratsos wrote: »

KRBMMO wrote: »

Narthalion wrote: »

Morgul667 wrote: »

No thanks

Let us enjoy our one area where there is actually some risk / reward system

Which the OP's idea rebalances but preserves. It's still risk/reward. Not sure what's giving you the impression that it isn't.

Somebody wearing Imperial Physique gets 6k bonuses to stats and takes on a solo player just coming out of his base. He is carrying zero tel var. He runs zero risk engaging that player under the proposal.

The OP's proposal would encourage griefing by small groups carrying large amounts of Telvar and Imperial Physiqu because it would reduce their risk with players who are new and have zero telvar or just small amounts of tel var. Basically greifing noobs would carry zero risk, even if the noob is a better player because he hasn't purchased imperial physique and doesnt have the same stats.

At that point IC would consist of players wearing Imperial Physique avoiding each other and just targeting anybody not wearing the set because they know that is a zero risk combat.

So in the current iteration someone with imperial physique isnt trying to avoid other people with imperial physique even tho they can take only half of their stones but with the new system which would make it possible to take everything they have, they would start avoiding them and try to fight other people with no stones for basically no reason? That really doesnt make much sense.

Don't look for any sense mate

The discussion about the Imperial Physique set and grouping sis, in my humble opinion, besides the point. The balance of single sets is a separate matter.
Grouping... well, if there will be hordes of PvP-centered players that happen to find their joy in ganking noobies stuck in loading screens.... that's not a problem the proposal creates or intensifies. That can be done now, and can also be countered by ganging up, stealth or just waiting until the campers have gone. Same as without the proposed change.

KRBMMO wrote: »

A person running around with 10k Tel Var and Imperial Physique would face little risk camping an enemy's doors on a low pop server - because most people coming out would have zero Tel Var.

Just for clarification: There will no be no "low pop servers" with the next patch - only two instances of the instance on both megaservers.

labambao wrote: »

Today I farmed 600k stones in nocp campaign. Few guys tryed to kill me, lose 2 times and goes away. But I store my stones every second circle finished. So what the point of your ***-a-doudle-doo here?

The point is, those "few guys" should have been risking something as well, not just you. But you're a tough guy who thinks OP is just "another goldseller cry that he get ganked and lose his money."

You were dismissive, while at the same time appearing not to understand the OP's suggestion. Figured you for another entitled ganker threatened by even the suggestion that there be some risk to hunting other players. If you're not, great.

If you've got a real criticism to offer about OP's idea, let's hear it. What you said in your first post sounded like all bravado and no argument.

I only wish there would be more than one campaign is all. I feel like 1 is a bit limiting? Or isn't it?

Narthalion wrote: »

Alucardo wrote: »

That was after a 1v3 where I managed to kill 3 people wearing imperial physique during an IC event. If the OPs "risk vs reward" mechanic was in play I would have made 100 tel var from the first kill (which is what I had on me).
How is it fair that someone outnumbering me, carrying 10k+ stones only loses 100 upon death. Sounds flawed to me.

It's fair because you risked nothing.

You joined a high stakes poker game, didn't ante up, didn't wager anything more than a trip to a spawn point, and went home with the pot. How exactly is THAT fair?

Jeezye wrote: »

Yeah and how in the world are players with no TV supposed to collect their stones if killing an enemy player will not grant them any?? Simply farm PvE until they reach a TV threshold that makes it worth killing players?

doesnt sound right to me

Uh...the same way the people you're hunting got them? Sounds very right to me. If you can rob me of the proceeds of an hour of farming, I should likewise be rewarded if I win. But I won't, because you're not risking anything. THAT doesn't sound right to me.

KRBMMO wrote: »

No.
This is the only PVE zone with any kind of edge to it. Regular zones are boring and not challenging. There are over 25 Zones to be safe and guaranteed that you can avoid death - and if you die there is no penalty at all.

Leave at least one zone where death has consequences.

Yeah, and if you try to gank someone and lose, shouldn't YOUR death have consequences? If you went out with no stones, losing cost you nothing.


I think OP's idea is excellent and I'm kind of amazed at how condescending the naysayers are in this thread. Or just flat out don't seem to get what's being proposed.

Limiting your winnings by how much you've wagered is the opposite of turning IC into a "carebear" zone. As it is now, nearly all the risk is carried by people farming mobs for stones. In OP's system, failure would now cost you as well. Risk is evened out between players, not removed.

Sounds to me like you tough talkers are fine with risk, but only when it's someone else taking a risk. Ask you to put some chips on the table and suddenly it's not so fun anymore?

SO to be clear, you are fine with the person attacked losing 100% of their stones if the other person has the same or more stones right? So the possibility to lost 100% of your stones would be added?

I dislike the idea but I want to know that first before I argue with it.

Narthalion wrote: »

labambao wrote: »

Today I farmed 600k stones in nocp campaign. Few guys tryed to kill me, lose 2 times and goes away. But I store my stones every second circle finished. So what the point of your ***-a-doudle-doo here?

The point is, those "few guys" should have been risking something as well, not just you. But you're a tough guy who thinks OP is just "another goldseller cry that he get ganked and lose his money."

You were dismissive, while at the same time appearing not to understand the OP's suggestion. Figured you for another entitled ganker threatened by even the suggestion that there be some risk to hunting other players. If you're not, great.

If you've got a real criticism to offer about OP's idea, let's hear it. What you said in your first post sounded like all bravado and no argument.

TL:DR What OP say make them add hard dynamic calculations for stones loot system, it's a problem to realize good.
So % drop of your holding stones if you die is the best system. They can increase or decrease it, but not rework.

labambao wrote: »

Okay pal, let me explain how it works with examples.
You playing with friend in cyro. Check the IC. It's all coloured in enemy alliance. You think: HM, SOMEONE FARM IT< LETS CHECK CAN WE GET FREE TV STONES!
You go in. You dont know How much of them there, dont know what will your surrounding.
You get no stones and go up. Roaming a bit and see how 4 guys, 3 of them in Imperial physique farming bosses. You start the fight, kill 2 of 3 IP men and 1 pug. Others make 10 streaks and use vanish pot. You get the stones and wait till that ad\ep\dc come back to fight you. But what a surprise, they dont come. They just okay, lets fin that. They dont bring you more stones. Or they can come back with 0 stones. But its not as good, because if they lose while wearing IP sets they have any chance without it. Fight over.
If it would be like op say you get just zero stones for your fight. Or they just get a zero stones on second fight.
Or you can imagine, how it would be work if you are farming and getting outnumbered? Will system count all of stones that your enemy hold to decide how much you lose? And you been hitted by enemy 3 mins ago, but its a single combat, he goes away already, another guys kill you, would system count him as enemy who kills you? Or imagine some 6v6 fight, that lasts 10+ min, many mobs around will die etc. Hard dynamic calculations. It's hard to do, and zos will do not any hard system, it's not how mmo works.

So let's take the end paragraph first. All of those issues - being outnumbered, hit 3 minutes prior, 6v6 fight including mobs - are already issues that ZOS had to deal with to create the existing system. So in this paragraph you're not saying anything about OP's idea at all.

Distilling the rest of what you said, you've got two points:
- winning, even against odds, yields no telvar reward if you just got in and don't have any stones yet
- subsequent fights and "rematches" favor the person or group who won the first round, because you may not have enough stones left to take many of theirs when you do manage to beat them

The first point, I have no sympathy for. The whole point of OP's idea is that you SHOULD put some stones in your bag before you head out to try to gank farmers. Want to kill other people for stones? No problem. But put some chips on the table if you want to win the pot.

Your second point, however, might be a problem for OP's system. So let's look at that.

In the current system, telvar changes hands equally. It favors whoever gets the last kill: someone with 100k stones could kill you 10 times, but if you finally beat him on the next try and port back to base, you get 50k of his stones. Obviously this favors gankers.

In OP's system, you'd have so few stones left after dying 10 times, you'd get very little when you finally won.

On the one hand, that seems fair to me. You lost. A lot. No stones for you. On the other hand, if it was a ganker who killed you 10 times, and you finally kill him back that last time, you're not going to get your stones back. It's not going to be the rewarding victory you might want it to be. But again...you lost a lot. Going 1 out of 11 fights shouldn't mean you go home with half the stones. Be satisfied that you finally got some revenge.

So yeah, I prefer the OP's system. If you end up so deep in the hole that you don't have enough telvar to win that much telvar -- hey, those are the consequences for gambling and losing. The casino doesn't give you half your chips back just because you won that last hand of blackjack.

Your only remaining objection is "omg but Imperial Physique tho" and I don't think OP's idea should be dismissed just because one set might need an adjustment.

Narthalion wrote: »

labambao wrote: »

Okay pal, let me explain how it works with examples.
You playing with friend in cyro. Check the IC. It's all coloured in enemy alliance. You think: HM, SOMEONE FARM IT< LETS CHECK CAN WE GET FREE TV STONES!
You go in. You dont know How much of them there, dont know what will your surrounding.
You get no stones and go up. Roaming a bit and see how 4 guys, 3 of them in Imperial physique farming bosses. You start the fight, kill 2 of 3 IP men and 1 pug. Others make 10 streaks and use vanish pot. You get the stones and wait till that ad\ep\dc come back to fight you. But what a surprise, they dont come. They just okay, lets fin that. They dont bring you more stones. Or they can come back with 0 stones. But its not as good, because if they lose while wearing IP sets they have any chance without it. Fight over.
If it would be like op say you get just zero stones for your fight. Or they just get a zero stones on second fight.
Or you can imagine, how it would be work if you are farming and getting outnumbered? Will system count all of stones that your enemy hold to decide how much you lose? And you been hitted by enemy 3 mins ago, but its a single combat, he goes away already, another guys kill you, would system count him as enemy who kills you? Or imagine some 6v6 fight, that lasts 10+ min, many mobs around will die etc. Hard dynamic calculations. It's hard to do, and zos will do not any hard system, it's not how mmo works.

So let's take the end paragraph first. All of those issues - being outnumbered, hit 3 minutes prior, 6v6 fight including mobs - are already issues that ZOS had to deal with to create the existing system. So in this paragraph you're not saying anything about OP's idea at all.

Distilling the rest of what you said, you've got two points:
- winning, even against odds, yields no telvar reward if you just got in and don't have any stones yet
- subsequent fights and "rematches" favor the person or group who won the first round, because you may not have enough stones left to take many of theirs when you do manage to beat them

The first point, I have no sympathy for. The whole point of OP's idea is that you SHOULD put some stones in your bag before you head out to try to gank farmers. Want to kill other people for stones? No problem. But put some chips on the table if you want to win the pot.

Your second point, however, might be a problem for OP's system. So let's look at that.

In the current system, telvar changes hands equally. It favors whoever gets the last kill: someone with 100k stones could kill you 10 times, but if you finally beat him on the next try and port back to base, you get 50k of his stones. Obviously this favors gankers.

In OP's system, you'd have so few stones left after dying 10 times, you'd get very little when you finally won.

On the one hand, that seems fair to me. You lost. A lot. No stones for you. On the other hand, if it was a ganker who killed you 10 times, and you finally kill him back that last time, you're not going to get your stones back. It's not going to be the rewarding victory you might want it to be. But again...you lost a lot. Going 1 out of 11 fights shouldn't mean you go home with half the stones. Be satisfied that you finally got some revenge.

So yeah, I prefer the OP's system. If you end up so deep in the hole that you don't have enough telvar to win that much telvar -- hey, those are the consequences for gambling and losing. The casino doesn't give you half your chips back just because you won that last hand of blackjack.

Your only remaining objection is "omg but Imperial Physique tho" and I don't think OP's idea should be dismissed just because one set might need an adjustment.

The same could be said of ganking. "Omg Ganker took my Tel Var" is no more valid an argument than "OMG Imperial Physique". They're 2 extremes that directly fight against each other in IC but considering that gankers are also subject to losing the Tel Var they stole should they die under the current system vs OP's suggestion not really affecting IP users much, it feels like the current system is more fair than the suggested one since you can't balance the system with IP in its current state under that system since it just encourages zerging with IP with no counter balance associated; if I had to choose between Gankers or a Zerg of IP wears, I'll take gankers everyday.