A commander in a Conflict zone

[Flip]

I am afraid it is much more complicated than that.
The problem of going to a conflict zone in open play is not that you are meeting other players on the opposite faction. It is meeting other players on your own faction killing you.

Oh, I didn't see it that way. That makes perfect sense!

[Turjan]

Like I said in my introduction post, my personal stance is that I will NEVER fire on another Commander, no matter what the circumstances.

If I were to justify that stance in game terms, I'd say that being a member of the Elite Federation of Pilots seems to be a bit like being a Freemason - i.e. it's a semi-secret society that puts the interests of its own members above everyone else. It's game-lore logical, and gives players the status of being unusually gifted individuals who are drawn together because of their uncommon piloting abilities.

As such, I'd consider it extremely rude to shoot at a fellow Commander. Not impossible you'll note, just...rude. I say 'rude' because we never actually kill each other in E-D (thanks to the ever-indestructible escape pod mechanic) but we are inconveniencing each other. If we destroy a Commander's ship, we are forcing them to lose time, money, and in the case of a conflict zone, bounty vouchers/reputation.

Wolf made the point that an NPC Wingmen might throw a wobbler about a Commander not lifting a finger to save the NPC's mates if it meant engaging another Commander - I'd say that the factions already know that the Elite Federation of Pilots is a self-serving organisation, but they tolerate that because they also know having just one Commander in their corner can turn the tide of an entire battle. We are not normal people in their eyes, we are Champions, so it's not unreasonable to expect them to treat us differently really. They may not like us for not fighting each other, but the benefits they gain from us choosing to fight for them at all outweigh that dislike.

But!!

Yes, there's always a 'but'

I can fully sympathise with those here who want some good-natured jousting without all the griefy hassle of open play, and it would be unfair to deny them the only friendly PvP arena we have available to us.

However, there is a way we can still have our cake AND eat it!

HERE'S MY PROPOSAL:

It occurs to me there IS a way we can 'flag' ourselves as PvP consensual in a conflict zone - it just takes a bit of protocol...
It's highly unlikely that a player will be able to one-shot another player in a conflict zone, so let's use that to our advantage. CMDR One sees CMDR Two on the opposite faction and wants to know if CMDR Two is up for a joust.

He could comms or text message but that's a right fiddle, so instead CMDR One takes a single shot at CMDR Two

CMDR Two sees the shot, and now also sees CMDR One on his radar as attacking him. He now has two choices :-
1. He leaves his hardpoints open, indicating that he's up for a scrap, or...
2. He retracts his hardpoints to say "no thanks, I'm not up for a fight".

CMDR One watches his display - if he sees CMDR Two go from being a TRIANGLE to being a SQUARE, he knows that CMDR Two doesn't want to engage in combat.


I know it's not an optimal solution, but it would at least allow for conflict zones to retain their PvP status for those who wish to have a consensual duel.

[Zarkon]

I had a fella in the FDS that was on my team when I joined. I went to the other side of the battle field so I wouldn't steal any of his kills. He proceeded to follow me around, stealing my kills, trying to get a rise out of me. When I didn't bite, he jumped out. came back in, picked the other team and started shooting me in the back while I was attacking another target. Then there were the turncoats on my own team who attacked me. This has happened more than once, hence the reason I joined this group.

If the group decides that players on opposite sides of a mission can attack each other, I will either leave the area, or, if we are in the same type ship, only battle if we both agree to it first.

[Neillm]

I've said elsewhere that allowing PvP in the conflict zones effectively shuts off the zones from players who don't like to engage another player under any circumstances. However, I do see both sides of the issue with, as Wolf says, Open Play conflict zones being a whole different ball game with team killers, a-holes, etc.

I agree that some sort of protocol could be established to indicate you are up for a fight. Targeting someone, pressing quick chat and sending, "Peace" (as someone suggested when this I ssue came up before) if they've agressed you or in response to a challenge or "'av it???" if you want to fight...before you open fire.

Personally, I wouldn't open fire on another player unless it was self defence.

[AndyB]

the first thing i do when i arrive in a conflict zone as a PvE player is check if there is anyone else about, if there is i'll message them to find out the side they are on and then join that faction.

if there are more than one and they are on opposite sides i'll jump out again and go to the other conflict zone, 25k km isn't that far to go to prevent issues. when your in the thick of it its too easy to shoot anything that's red that gets close, even if it is another PC.

[Silverwolf]

It is common in life for rules to have exceptions.

I would be happy that the exception is you can kill an opposing player in a designated battle zone area. Basically in those areas the PvE only is off for opposing players.

Also it would be nice to have some co-op war zones so for those the issue does not arise
http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=43258

[Wolf]

I am glad to see a productive disussion like this. What do you think about having a poll, after we had some more talk about the different points? I would do my best to formulate the different poll points without any bias and would post them here in this thread for review before setting up the actual poll.
So, instead of "Option 1: This is a PvE group, griefers can go <redacted> themselves, Option 2: War is war, play with your dolls if you don't like it!, ..."
the points would read something like this: "Option 1: No PvP at all, Option 2: PvP in conflict zones allowed, ..."

Having said that, I would like to add another thought as regular member of the group:

Before I joined the group I read the description by Mobius, and it clearly stated the very simple set up:
No PvP in general play. In battle zones, where you pick factions or within special missions PvP is allowed. Those are the only instances where it is allowed.
I joined on these conditions, as I feel they are strict enough to protect me from spoil sports, but open enough not to limit our gameplay too much. But who reads the rules before joining something, right?
There was one other point in very short disussion, and that was if a high bounty would be an acceptable reason. I was strongly against that, because you can earn bounties by playing PvE also and any bounty limit would be arbitrary, no matter how high. So you can see, I am an advocate of keeping most of the game PvP free, still allowing every carreer path like pirate or bounty hunter, as long as victims of those are NPCs, and even mercenary, because battle is consensual. I only joined after that was cleared and I was happy with the setting of the group. I would like you to consider this also, before you vote to change rules, which were agreed on before you joined.

[Philip Coutts]

I asked this question when I joined (more about the bounty hunting side of things) and I think everyone was of the opinion that it's just a straight "no". Which I think is the most sensible option. If you start making caveats you end up with overly complicated rules for new members. For me it's not pvp full stop, the end. If a pirate isn't allowed to shoot at a player to persuade him to drop some cargo then a bounty hunter shouldn't be able to shoot at a pirate to gain his bounty.

It does however remove a large chunk of the gameplay, i.e. you are never going to be robbed by a human pirate.

[GlobusDiablo]

I am glad to see a productive disussion like this. What do you think about having a poll, after we had some more talk about the different points? I would do my best to formulate the different poll points without any bias and would post them here in this thread for review before setting up the actual poll.
So, instead of "Option 1: This is a PvE group, griefers can go <redacted> themselves, Option 2: War is war, play with your dolls if you don't like it!, ..."
the points would read something like this: "Option 1: No PvP at all, Option 2: PvP in conflict zones allowed, ..." ..............

I see what your saying. Hm. This is hard!

Maybe a poll would be a good idea, but what if the result goes against the ideas of the founders here. I'm just saying. I wouldn't want to throw a party, and then have the guests tell me how it's going to be... What if I disagree.

I know this may be a bit weird, but I propose that the 2 founders (Mobius and Wolf) grab a pint, and agree on exactly what kind of a party they want to host. It is their party...

I'm here for the good company. Tell me how you want to party. I'm game!

N.B: It's already a big group, and this forum is growing daily. People signing up agreed to a set of rules. Changing them could get awkward.

[Zarkon]

No PvP in general play. In battle zones, where you pick factions or within special missions PvP is allowed. Those are the only instances where it is allowed.

The original concept works for me. If we need a poll, post it and I'll except what ever the group agrees on.