In Mobius Group What Is Considered PvP?

[Avago-Earo]

(Mods: No objections to moving this if it seems fit, still getting used to Forums)

As a result of reading through and contributing to discussions on this Forum, particularly the topic of player to player Interdictions and not wanting too veer of course on those threads, have started a thread here for all things PvP to be discussed in the hope that Group Members and Forum Users have a place to bring issues up. This may be particularly useful to newcomers or people new to on line PC gaming who don't quite understand the Do's and Don'ts of this group. I'm new to online gaming myself and forums and don't want to clutter up topic specific threads. I hope this thread can offer clarity to what is acceptable player to player behaviour in Elite: Dangerous for our group.

[Philip Coutts]

Interdiction has made this quite a complicated topic but for me we need to be very clear. I think the only place where PvP could be deemed acceptable is a warzone. Otherwise it is just going to create issues and dubiety.

If we allow missions to be accepted that involve, stopping or indeed destroying players where do you stop? What's to stop me destroying players and saying "it's a mission!" or worse raising missions to destroy other players myself! For me it leads to confusion and is open to abuse.

I think we need to keep it simple and say no PvP other than in a warzone. If you want to play PvP you go and play in open or another group. You can always come back and play in this group once you are done.

[Mr_Average]

In Mobius Group What Is Considered PvP?

Anything done outside of being in the Mobius private group - excluding solo.

Or so I would have thought.

[Avago-Earo]

It seems most group players feel that player interdiction is a no no in this group. Conflict zones are another thing. Personally, at the moment, I don't agree with making an exception for PvP in conflict zones but maybe I haven't thought this through enough and it would be interesting to hear the views of people who do think it's ok and for what reason.

[Flip]

It seems most group players feel that player interdiction is a no no in this group. Conflict zones are another thing. Personally, at the moment, I don't agree with making an exception for PvP in conflict zones but maybe I haven't thought this through enough and it would be interesting to hear the views of people who do think it's ok and for what reason.

For me it's OK because if you're in a conflict zone and you chose your side, you indicate that you're willing to have a fight. No one can force you.

Now why would you want to have a fight in a PvE group rather than in the Open? Because here you can be reasonably certain that you won't be shot at or rammed before you chose a faction, that no one in your faction will shoot you in the back (so to speak), etc. The kind of stuff you can expect in open play.

[Shelleen]

As far as I'm concerned any interaction that involves a player shooting at another player is pvp even
in conflict zones.

My current stats read 806 NPC kills, 0 Player kills. Not only that but I've never shot at another player
even in open play although I was destroyed by another player which is why I ended up in this group.

I thought the whole point of this group was to enjoy the Elite experience without having to be constantly
on your guard regarding other players. Seems I might have got this wrong.

There is absolutely no need to shoot a fellow Cmdr, none at all. If you've chosen different sides in a warzone
then what's the problem with taking out NPC enemies without shooting your fellow man or woman? What does
anyone gain? What's the point? You'll likely ruin someone elses game experience and for what?

If two or more of the group want to shoot at each other and it's consensual between both parties then I don't
have a problem with that. Whatever floats your boat.

This has to be resolved one way or the other before the game launches. I play to relax and career around the
galaxy in my usual drunken state, I like to see other human players occasionally and I like to be certain that I'm
not going to have to defend myself against some sort of attack by another group Cmdr. I'm not asking for the
group to conform to my way of thinking, all I'm asking for is that the rules of the group be made cast iron so
there's no ambiguity. Everyone then knows exactly what is allowed and what they can expect from the game.

[Avago-Earo]

I was thinking that in conflict zones any hollow squares or triangles on the scanner should be left alone. Elite Federation Pilots don't touch each other, something along those lines. This group is described as PvE and it seems this is the only way for it to live up to it's name. This is just my opinion though but it seems to keep things simple but maybe I'm over simplifying.

[Shelleen]

I was thinking that in conflict zones any hollow squares or triangles on the scanner should be left alone. Elite Federation Pilots don't touch each other, something along those lines. This group is described as PvE and it seems this is the only way for it to live up to it's name. This is just my opinion though but it seems to keep things simple but maybe I'm over simplifying.

No, simplicity is what is needed. Everything needs to be clear and simple, that way there is no misunderstandings between the group.

As far as I can see the options boil down to three things:

1. Player v Player is allowed if it's mission based.
2. Player v Player is allowed if it's in a conflict/warzone etc.
3. Player v Player is not allowed under any circumstances.

(1 and 2 can be combined).

I'm obviously in favour of number 3 but what I need to know before game launch is what is the accepted Group policy.

That will make a difference as to how I play the game. If the Group opts for 1 or 2 or 1 & 2 then I'm outta here and will play solo either online or offline but I want to know by Gamma/launch which option(s) it's going to be.

There are times when I'm that pissed that I think I can go in the open group and hold my own but I've never felt that I can be in this Group and shoot players, no matter how wasted I am. It doesn't occur to me that this is anything other than a peaceful, social haven away from the psycho-dicks that inhabit online gaming. I'd like to keep those thoughts.

[Flip]

There is absolutely no need to shoot a fellow Cmdr, none at all. If you've chosen different sides in a warzone
then what's the problem with taking out NPC enemies without shooting your fellow man or woman? What does
anyone gain? What's the point? You'll likely ruin someone elses game experience and for what?

I would expect it to be much more fun to fight a smart human than a dumb AI. That's the point. Also you don't have to give the final blow. You can stop the fight when your opponent has a few percent of hull left and let him/her go. Put differently you fight for the fight, not for the kill. That's what sport is about.

[Shelleen]

There is absolutely no need to shoot a fellow Cmdr, none at all. If you've chosen different sides in a warzone
then what's the problem with taking out NPC enemies without shooting your fellow man or woman? What does
anyone gain? What's the point? You'll likely ruin someone elses game experience and for what?

I would expect it to be much more fun to fight a smart human than a dumb AI. That's the point. Also you don't have to give the final blow. You can stop the fight when your opponent has a few percent of hull left and let him/her go. Put differently you fight for the fight, not for the kill. That's what sport is about.

Ok, you want to fight another human player go in the open group, it really is that simple.

I don't want to fight another human player at all, I don't find it 'fun'.

Honestly I think I'll just go into solo, it's how I've played every game since 1980. I don't require other human players to be part of my game world although this Group seemed like a nice way of relaxing, getting wasted and having a form of social interaction. I guess not.

As the late, great Douglas Adams put it; 'So long and thanks for all the fish.'