PvP Why PvP is not popular in Elite Dangerous?

[lenna]

No they are not. They want ganking otherwise explain why Eravate is a pvp zone and safe spaces exist only on the landing pads.

Eravate is not explicitly a PvP zone nor an Anarchy system, but it is a Power Play system so some latitude may be granted.

If you sign up for a Power Play faction, then you should reasonably expect to be targeted by rival Power Play opponents whether PC or NPC.

It is hardly surprising that some in Open may consider it an "unofficial" PvP zone given it's proximity to the starting system and the Power Play implications. However, the game mechanics in general do not support your conclusions - the Crime and Punishment/Consequences changes for example. The fact that Eravate is also currently controlled by a player faction may also lead to complications since I am pretty sure handing in bounties will help them maintain control and PvP could be used as a means to do that.

Also, we were not actually talking about ganking per se, but griefing and largely unconstrained PvP in general.

If anything is likely to put anyone off PvP in ED, it is ganking and griefing behaviours specifically. So if any of the avid PvPers are still confused about why PvP is unpopular in ED, they probably need to examine their own behaviours and the behaviours of their fellow avid PvPers.

 

[Stigbob]

No they are not. They want ganking otherwise explain why Eravate is a pvp zone and safe spaces exist only on the landing pads.

You can gank in Eravate, or anywhere else. That doesn't mean you should or that anyone actually wants you to do it.

If FDEV want anything it's that all player types PVP'ers, PVE'ers and PK'ers pretending to be PVP'ers just get on with the game in their own way without demanding everyone else change to suit them, and without constant moaning that everyone else is doing it wrong.

Choice is good, do whatever you want.

However if you make ish choices expect people to opt out of playing with you, this incidentally is exactly why PVP is so unpopular.

 

[Truesilver]

If you are referring to clause 7.3.1 then I suggest you read it again...

The implications of this are quite clear: (a) text/voice are not the only things subject to review upon complaint, (b) behaviour and conduct are considered separate from "communications", and (c) direct or indirect harassment or bullying of any form (inc. true griefing) is expressly prohibited.

To claim this clause only refers to "communication" is false and to claim PvP interactions are not covered by the clause is misleading.

No, the above is pure forum-user wishful thinking and bears no relation to the words themselves. In English, the meaning of words is largely dependent upon their sequencing.

In sequence:

7.3 Communication and interaction with other users
7.3.1 The Game and/or Online Features may allow communications between users by means including but not limited to text and voice. When using such features you must use common sense and good manners, your behaviour, conduct and communications must be considerate to other users and you must not be directly or indirectly offensive, threatening, harassing or bullying to others or violate any applicable laws including but not limited to anti-discrimination legislation based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

Both the heading of 7.3 and the opening clause, "may allow communications between users" amount to predicates. Via sequencing, the rest of 7.3.1 amounts only to sub-facets of communications between users. The reference to "behaviour" is relevant only within the predicated context of a communication between users. The use of the term "interaction" in the heading could have been followed by a ban on types of behaviour ... but wasn't. The only behaviour covered is within use of communication features.

In other words, 7.3.1 does not support the argument that the EULA contains a prohibition on poor behaviour, per se. Poor behaviour may only breach the EULA in the context of communication between users.

Put another way, if you sit at Sag A using your coloured jet trails to spell out rude gestures to explorers, you could get in trouble for breach of 7.3.1.

If on the other hand, you sit at Sag A silently greeting 1,000 explorers with 6 x PA's, you won't breach either the letter or the spirit of 7.3.1.

I must repeat that these continued assertions that killing another player or players, without abuse, may amount to a breach of the EULA is wrong. It really is just wishful thinking.

 

[Riverside]

You can gank in Eravate, or anywhere else. That doesn't mean you should or that anyone actually wants you to do it.

If FDEV want anything it's that all player types PVP'ers, PVE'ers and PK'ers pretending to be PVP'ers just get on with the game in their own way without demanding everyone else change to suit them, and without constant moaning that everyone else is doing it wrong.

Choice is good, do whatever you want.

However if you make ish choices expect people to opt out of playing with you, this incidentally is exactly why PVP is so unpopular.

This is an important point. That something is allowed does not meant it is desired or encouraged. Sealclubbing (ganking easy targets) is one of the main motivations behind the new notoriety mechanism, to make it harder to get away with.

I think to say FDev 'want' Ganking suggests it is encouraged, and I don't think it is. FDev just want players to have fun playing their game, and interesting and varied interaction is part of that fun. But pick on someone your own size eh?

 

[Stigbob]

No, the above is pure forum-user wishful thinking and bears no relation to the words themselves. In English, the meaning of words is largely dependent upon their sequencing.

In sequence:

7.3 Communication and interaction with other users
7.3.1 The Game and/or Online Features may allow communications between users by means including but not limited to text and voice. When using such features you must use common sense and good manners, your behaviour, conduct and communications must be considerate to other users and you must not be directly or indirectly offensive, threatening, harassing or bullying to others or violate any applicable laws including but not limited to anti-discrimination legislation based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

Both the heading of 7.3 and the opening clause, "may allow communications between users" amount to predicates. Via sequencing, the rest of 7.3.1 amounts only to sub-facets of communications between users. The reference to "behaviour" is relevant only within the predicated context of a communication between users. The use of the term "interaction" in the heading could have been followed by a ban on types of behaviour ... but wasn't. The only behaviour covered is within use of communication features.

In other words, 7.3.1 does not support the argument that the EULA contains a prohibition on poor behaviour, per se. Poor behaviour may only breach the EULA in the context of communication between users.

Put another way, if you sit at Sag A using your coloured jet trails to spell out rude words to explorers, you could get in trouble for breach of 7.3.1.

If on the other hand, you sit at Sag A silently greeting 1,000 explorers with 6 x PA's, you won't breach either the letter or the spirit of 7.3.1.

I must repeat that these continued assertions that killing another player or players, without abuse, may amount to a breach of the EULA is wrong. It really is just wishful thinking.

I honestly think rule lawyering over what is and isn't allowed is a waste of effort, especially in a thread about why people dislike PVP.

 

[Truesilver]

I honestly think rule lawyering over what is and isn't allowed is a waste of effort, especially in a thread about why people dislike PVP.

In principle I agree, but given that in this case both Frontier's actions and their words are the same, I'm not going to stand by while it is both expressly and wrongly stated in the PvP forum that killing other Cmdrs, in and of itself, may result in action against a user's account. It's untrue.

 

[frostypaw]

Where did anyone get the idea Eravate was specifically a PvP zone?!?!?

If on the other hand, you sit at Sag A silently greeting 1,000 explorers with 6 x PA's, you won't breach either the letter or the spirit of 7.3.1.

Nobody's suggesting that, you're arguing with strawmen rather than listening to the point Rslg is making.

I honestly think rule lawyering over what is and isn't allowed is a waste of effort, especially in a thread about why people dislike PVP.

It's rather driving home why PvP isn't popular - people want to have fun with each other not end up with people doing this to justify their behaviour.

Your behaviour shouldn't really need justifying. We should all be having fun together.

 

[Stigbob]

In principle I agree, but given that in this case both Frontier's actions and their words are the same, I'm not going to stand by while it is both expressly and wrongly stated in the PvP forum that killing other Cmdrs, in and of itself, may result in action against a user's account. It's untrue.

I agree with you killing is valid and allowed, rlsg is wrong (admittedly I haven't read the TOS or EULA and I won't be). But they are no more wrong than Algomatic is to try and suck salt out of everybody all the time.

If you look at it from the perspective of a new player who gets ganked in Eravate then starts a thread in the forum asking for advice.

Responses from PVP'ers (and PK'ers) will be (in general) :
It's your own fault
Git gud
Nice meltdown
Play something else
I love salt
Self justification/rule lawyering
I had to gank you FDEV made me do it
(none of the above are positive or helpful)

Replies from non-PVP'ers will be :
Join Mobius
Switch to solo
(both positive and helpful, but reduce PVP players)

Advice from middle of the road players will be :
Change mode whenever you like
Avoid busy area's like CG's in open
Block anyone you don't want to play with
Advice on escaping via high wake
(positive and helpful, but opt out of PVP at times)

None of which is conducive to making PVP any more popular, I'd say it has exactly the opposite effect.

 

[frostypaw]

None of which is conducive to making PVP any more popular, I'd say it has exactly the opposite effect.

I feel it would be remiss of us to forget the whole "if you're going to play in open git gud and git RNGineered" enforced grind to be able to compete with the ultra-grinder PvPers (for whom engineering was just another competition to win) which then requires reducing the game to bare mechanics and spreadsheets to smash through it as quickly as possible so you have a hope of fighting back, with a side dish of directing your saltiness about this at the devs like it's their fault.

Just makes it look more miserable and unappealing, and entirely self inflicted at that.

 

[lenna]

I agree with you killing is valid and allowed, rlsg is wrong (admittedly I haven't read the TOS or EULA and I won't be)

I suggest you do read both - I am not saying killing other players is either invalid or not allowed - I am saying that engaging in certain patterns of behaviour that may involve just killing other players is (text/voice communication is not a required component). There is no hard and fast ruling that defines those behaviours unambiguously, but if you use common sense you should not find yourself guilty of engaging in such behaviours.

As the EULA states, we should all be using common sense - something that some PvPers seem to lack.

That aside, the overriding point I was making is griefing and ganking behaviours which are perpetrated by some do not help with the popularity of PvP in general.

 

[Truesilver]

As at this point in time we're all in a reasonably good Saturday morning mood and thankfully not in the middle of an argument, I'm going to take the opportunity to unsubscribe from this thread.

On reflection I prefer to contribute to the forum in relation to combat and engineering mechanics.

See you all in those threads,

o7

Truesilver

 

[ALGOMATIC]

Eravate is not explicitly a PvP zone nor an Anarchy system, but it is a Power Play system so some latitude may be granted.

If you sign up for a Power Play faction, then you should reasonably expect to be targeted by rival Power Play opponents whether PC or NPC.

It is hardly surprising that some in Open may consider it an "unofficial" PvP zone given it's proximity to the starting system and the Power Play implications. However, the game mechanics in general do not support your conclusions - the Crime and Punishment/Consequences changes for example. The fact that Eravate is also currently controlled by a player faction may also lead to complications since I am pretty sure handing in bounties will help them maintain control and PvP could be used as a means to do that.

Also, we were not actually talking about ganking per se, but griefing and largely unconstrained PvP in general.

If anything is likely to put anyone off PvP in ED, it is ganking and griefing behaviours specifically. So if any of the avid PvPers are still confused about why PvP is unpopular in ED, they probably need to examine their own behaviours and the behaviours of their fellow avid PvPers.

What I meant by PvP zone is that FDEV allows for seal clubbing helpless new cmdrs. Its a PvP zone like any CG in a sense that you know it will be populated with other players.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

I suggest you do read both - I am not saying killing other players is either invalid or not allowed - I am saying that engaging in certain patterns of behaviour that may involve just killing other players is (text/voice communication is not a required component). There is no hard and fast ruling that defines those behaviours unambiguously, but if you use common sense you should not find yourself guilty of engaging in such behaviours.

As the EULA states, we should all be using common sense - something that some PvPers seem to lack.

That aside, the overriding point I was making is griefing and ganking behaviours which are perpetrated by some do not help with the popularity of PvP in general.

The fact that me and my group is still here with the only communication from fdev is about # of PKs prooves that you are wrong in your assumptions.
You can conduct in absolutely any behaviour pattern as long as you are staying within the game rules and not resort to RL actions whether via comms or by other means.

 

[Genar-Hofoen]

The fact that me and my group is still here with the only communication from fdev is about # of PKs prooves that you are wrong in your assumptions.
You can conduct in absolutely any behaviour pattern as long as you are staying within the game rules and not resort to RL actions whether via comms or by other means.

Still, gotta admit, I'm finding your gameplay pretty obnoxious and toxic, frankly speaking. *shrug*

 

[Stigbob]

Still, gotta admit, I'm finding your gameplay pretty obnoxious and toxic, frankly speaking. *shrug*

Yes, and very telling in a thread about "why is PVP so unpopular". It's not the game it's some of the players.

 

[Ethaidan]

In principle I agree, but given that in this case both Frontier's actions and their words are the same, I'm not going to stand by while it is both expressly and wrongly stated in the PvP forum that killing other Cmdrs, in and of itself, may result in action against a user's account. It's untrue.

Me too. But you are wrong. The title is communication AND interaction - the fact that the word communication comes before interaction in the section title in no way subsumes, overrides, or is makes it more important than interaction with regard to what follows in 7.3.1. This is simply not how communication works - see what I did there.

 

[Han_Zen]

Yes, and very telling in a thread about "why is PVP so unpopular". It's not the game it's some of the players.

The forum bickering is more a result of PvP not being popular. As few do it, those that do are considered just an annoyance. If it were popular, it would have had more acceptance as well.

I low popularity has nothing to do with the players (PvPers or PvEers) and everything to do with implementation.

PvP in ED is meta, it's detached and it's slow and boring. It has little foundation in game play or RP.
It also requires wast amounts of PvE to be competitive.

Nothing in the game draws a player with initial PvE interest towards PvP. Players with initial interest in PvP are driven away by the PvE grind.

Symmetric top level PvP requires a set of 'thou shall not' rules to work. It will probably soon also require that you take a day of from work, to complete one fight.

The only thing that really work without breaking the fourth wall, is ganking. PvP kills as a reward for PvE efforts.

Only FD can fix these problems. Complaining about other how other players plays the game isn't useful at all.

 

[CMDR Ofan]

Unpopular? Dunno about that it's probably more popular than mining.

 

[Stigbob]

The forum bickering is more a result of PvP not being popular. As few do it, those that do are considered just an annoyance. If it were popular, it would have had more acceptance as well.

I low popularity has nothing to do with the players (PvPers or PvEers) and everything to do with implementation.

PvP in ED is meta, it's detached and it's slow and boring. It has little foundation in game play or RP.
It also requires wast amounts of PvE to be competitive.

Nothing in the game draws a player with initial PvE interest towards PvP. Players with initial interest in PvP are driven away by the PvE grind.

Symmetric top level PvP requires a set of 'thou shall not' rules to work. It will probably soon also require that you take a day of from work, to complete one fight.

The only thing that really work without breaking the fourth wall, is ganking. PvP kills as a reward for PvE efforts.

Only FD can fix these problems. Complaining about other how other players plays the game isn't useful at all.

I'm not complaining about what anyone else does in the game, I've repeatedly said choice is good and anyone can do whatever they like. Including switch modes and or block players for breaking Wheatons law.

Nothing you've said is a reason to tempt players into PVP or open, and ganking to preserve your forth wall is more likely to reduce open player numbers which according to some "PVP'ers" is dying. Your approach to this is actively damaging for PVP/open.

You need to sell your idea better.

 

[lenna]

Unpopular? Dunno about that it's probably more popular than mining.

I doubt that, mining can be quite relaxing and stress free and you can do it in solo if you want... Given some of the personalities in the community, PvP is nothing but stress and annoyance by comparison.

It need not, and should not, be that way but while some attitudes persist among the Pvping community it is not likely to change.

I am not telling anyone how to behave, but if some wonder why PvP is unpopular then they largely have themselves and/or their cohorts to blame.

Blaming game balance for the perceived unpopularity of PvP is a bit like blaming the guns for gun crime or explosives for terrorist bombings. In-game items are merely tools, how people choose to use the tools is where the main problems occur.