Poll regarding group policy.

[Robert Maynard]

I voted yes to: PvP in conflict zones; accepting named missions; large bounties.

I voted no to: Interdiction and Zero tolerance.

In a conflict zone, the player is affiliated to a faction that is in conflict. If players are on opposing factions then is seems not unreasonable that they can attack each other. The game creating a mission specifically to hunt down a named player is fair game, as is the over 100k Cr. bounty. Each of these interactions has meaning.

Because of these three, the zero tolerance approach would not be applicable, so I voted accordingly.

[Artie]

Last poll question is little bit misleading, as it may summarize previous questions. In any case, I voted yes in it, but it was meant in sense "zero tolerance to negative interaction except 'yes' to questions above" (let's say like ramming, etc.)

[BiggBno]

I voted yes for the war zones, no to the rest. I think the best course is to start a sub group which allows bounty hunting.

This way we can go have some pvp with likeminded folks when we feel for it, but don't want to deal with potential griefers.

[Sniger]

I am a bit torn between my personal feelings and what will possibly be best for the group.

War zones being the key point here: as has been mentioned, joining a warzone is a deliberate multistage action and not something that will happen random/accidently - my personal solution will be to go solo if I want some WZ action, that way I completely eliminate any chance of mishaps/stray shots etc.

as for the other questions except the last one, my answer is a clear NO

the final one ... if warzone PvP is allowed, so be it. but in all other cases I would expect a PvE group to be just that.

In conclusion: I will abstain from questions 1 and 5 and vote NO on questions 2,3 and 4

Be safe out there, Fellow Commanders

[SJT]

My personal choice is PvP in conflict/warzones only. I'm quite happy to engage in PvP in a defined area when I'm expecting it and when I've set aside the time to do so. (No kids etc). I don't see this as a problem as long as it is well advertised to current and future members.

However, I am conscious that the group is being advertised as PvE and I do not want to drive players away because of any decision to allow PvP in any form. A difficult one.

[Deyn]

The biggest problem is the combat zone issue! I do see the validity of the "What if players choose different sides" argument. Still I think it needs careful consideration.
The whole idea of Player vs. Environment is to focus on CO-OP against AI / NPC, as you won't ruin a human players little spare time... others may simply look into playing the occasional "lone wolf" without constant worries about human pack hunters using numbers against him.

In general the bounty system is quite ok, to balance game play, but there is a lot you need to understand first to "behave" correctly, especially for new players.
So if I would see it from a perspective of a newbie, joining this group to have little breathing space to get used to flight mechanics, learn to trade, encounter other players, without need to worry about "human pirates / Psychopaths or Bounty hungry killers" , a no aggressive actions against other players is obviously the way to go.

You can still join with others and go for an attack on a combat zone... and blast the NPCs to hell.

[Gazzareth]

I think other than combat zone there should not be any PvP, if people want that then play in open. When you are playing in this group then you have the expectation that there will be no PvP, so you really won't be watching your back.

G

[Mobius]

so far im happy seeing the results for the poll, as it shows that most prefer the standard pve policy that is already in place, with the results so far it would appear that we wont need to change any ground rules but it will allow us to offer new members a clear understanding of what our group expects.


also going forward when group policy can be implemented as a game feature it will be possible to eject players who violate the pve rule into the open group. when group mechanics are implemented I think us as a group should organise some testing of the group features to ensure that it works fairly.

[dognosh]

I joined Mobius for PvE , I have open play for PvP(which I use), so if your policy changed I will have no use for this group. Any friends I make in here will be in my list and can be found in Open play.

The only PvP I deem allowable is the one I mentioned in your "Group Events" forum here : http://www.elitepve.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=333

[Rune]

so far im happy seeing the results for the poll, as it shows that most prefer the standard pve policy that is already in place, with the results so far it would appear that we wont need to change any ground rules but it will allow us to offer new members a clear understanding of what our group expects.


also going forward when group policy can be implemented as a game feature it will be possible to eject players who violate the pve rule into the open group. when group mechanics are implemented I think us as a group should organise some testing of the group features to ensure that it works fairly.

Sounds good, I'll be happy to help out testing.

Got to say it's nice being on a small forum like this where these sort of topics can be discussed in a sensible manner with no idiotic replies