Poll regarding group policy.

[Mobius]

ok Commanders time for a group policy change.
the group has grown far beyond my expectations and some ground rules need to be amended.

as a whole the group is working just fine and everyone is playing by the no PvP rule,
but as more of us join the more we expose ourselves to interpretations of our current policy,

do we have a zero tolerance on all PvP actions and lock down all PvP encounters, or do we try and make our group acceptable to those who like a little PvP as long as its within the spirit of the game as a whole.

personally I feel that if we allow a higher level of player interaction the more we recruit into our group.
but as this group is your group I feel that it has moved beyond my personal opinions as to what the group should be.

I will make a policy change after the 22nd November when Gamma goes live.

please think about each question as it will dictate the group as a whole.

poll results:

Can players on opposing factions attack each other in warzones/yes53=12%
Can players on opposing factions attack each other in warzones/no33=8%
Can players accept missions to attack another player/Yes22=5%
Can players accept missions to attack another player/No64=15%
Can players attack another player with a bounty over 100,000 credits/Yes22=5%
Can players attack another player with a bounty over 100,000 credits/No66=15%
Can players interdict another player/Yes7=2%
Can Players Interdict another player/No78=18%
Final Question: should this group take on the policy of absolute zero negative interaction with another player/yes27=6%
Final Question: should this group take on the policy of absolute zero negative interaction with another player/No54=13%

[AndyB]

if its something a group member wants to do it is easy enough to either switch to the open mode of play, or start a sub group to enable play by a more flexible rule set.

[GlobusDiablo]

I found myself voting yes to all of them except one, as they are all built in game mechanisms.

I voted no to getting interdicted as that should only be allowed if you are a mission objective or you have a bounty of over 100.000. And also no to the last question of course.

I think that if you don't want any kind of human threat, you should play solo play.

[Mobius]

im guessing that as a whole the group regardless of votes will still play by a no PvP policy,
but by having some ground rules regarding PvP it will still be a safer environment to play in compared to the All group.

[GlobusDiablo]

im guessing that as a whole the group regardless of votes will still play by a no PvP policy,
but by having some ground rules regarding PvP it will still be a safer environment to play in compared to the All group.

Fine by me. I won't be flying in any conflict zones or getting a bounty over 100.000 anyway. And I've never attacked a commander, and have no intention to anytime in the foreseeable future.

But I'm fine with what ever the majority decides.

[Mobius]

well with the current bugs regarding missions disappearing, I picked up a mission and instantly got a 40,000 fine then i got scanned by the feds and got a 70,000 credit fine for carrying illegal goods. that turned into an expensive trip. but that was all in fines but i had a bounty on me of only a few thousand credits.

i feel that it would take a lot to have over 100,000 credit bounty, and any player having a bounty not a fine over 100,000 credits probably would be up for a pvp encounter as they would have been playing a combat heavy game style.
this would also stop players that have been PvPing from the All group having a easy ride within our group.

but I must warn players voting for this that if you do decide to take on a player if it is voted yes for attacking a player with a bounty that you always get a screen shot, this would stop any issues regarding bounty PvP if any disputes arise.

I will go with the majority regarding votes but if it appears a close call we may need to keep it a no regarding various PvP encounters,

[Aeryn]

The name of the group says it all - PvE.

[BloodravenD]

I joined the group because it's PvE oriented, meaning to me that anything hostile towards another player is considered pvp for me. I'm fine interacting with players, like grouping and working together in a co-op experience, but that's all.

[ZATZAi]

I've been in other PvE groups from other games before. They're a great way to meet a bunch of fun folks who enjoy the game in a more laid back way. There is definitely something to playing in a PvP sandbox, it gets your blood pumping when you see another player approaching you and you don't know what's gonna happen. That said one does not always want such an experience so we have Solo and later Offline for that. But it's nice to still interact with others, to not feel alone in the universe/game.

This is what PvE groups are great for.

But with all that said, PvE can grow boring over time. Computers can only offer so much of a challenge, or so much variety. Even if the computer were ruthless and always able to beet us, it can never be as dynamic and unpredictable as a person. This is and the rush that comes with competition is the appeal of PvP.

It's why many other PvE groups have a time and a place for PvP. Usually a PvP wing, a place on the forum where those who have "graduated" to PvP from PvE can talk shop and get together to compete. This is easier in Arena style games rather than Sandbox games because the PvP areas are clearly designated as PvP battles that you que up for and then engage in. Everyone is clearly on one side or another and you can start bashing in some heads.

I think allowing PvP in Conflict Zones is the best way to allow that outlet in this group. Indeed this has been the rule so far, and there is not mistaking when joining a conflict what you are doing. You don't accidentally appear in one. You have to deliberately seek it out, fly to it, drop in, and choose your side before you can even start. This is a very deliberate act and I think it allows us to have a PvP outlet that is safe and controlled.

I'm currently only engaged in PvE as I learn more about the game, but I do want to get involved in PvP at some point. That doesn't mean I want to start shooting other members of this group while flying around, but it would be nice to have a place to go while still being involved in this group. I'd prefer not to have to join another group just so I can engage in PvP, I like being able to communicate with others on the Teamspeak and the forums about what we're all doing. If this group adopts a zero-tolerance policy then I will essentially have to live a double life and I don't know how viable that will be for me.

I can only speak for myself but I hope we can continue to have a separate PvP outlet that's still a part of the group.

[Rune]

I'm generally fine with combat zones and specific game generated missions being the allowed pvp exceptions.

Did a trade run with some battle weapons, the independent system I went to showed there was a healthy import going in on the Galaxy map, and they were not listed as a prohibited item on the system map. Got interdicted by the local security and ended up with a bounty of over 500,000CR. It's too easy to end up with a big bounty when trading more illicit goods despite checking whether the route will be OK.

As I've said in other posts I can't think of any reasons to interdict other players that are not aggravating and irritating.