PvP Distant Ganks 2 Week 1 Update

[CMDR Cknarf]

If you have exactly zero chance to survive an attack from another player, your ship is poorly built for survival in open play. That’s a simple fact, as evidenced by the countless complaint threads, and videos of ships being destroyed by little more than a scrape, or a single volley of fire.

And it’s not about being combat obsessed, you don’t have to be a PvP hotshot with maxed out defense stats to have a competently built ship. You just have to build long enough to survive an attack, which is hardly a feat if you can spare a few lightyears of range.

Imagine you’re in a deep hole. You can’t climb out with your bare hands, but luckily for you, you have other options.

A lift labeled Private Group/Solo play

A ladder labeled Engineering

The first offers you a zero-effort solution to your problem. Hit the button, and you’re on your way to safety.

The second takes a bit more time, but is more rewarding once you reach the top. You are now free of the hole, and stronger because of it.

Your third option is to decline both of those, and remain at the bottom of the hole, doing nothing to improve your situation. You can complain all you want, but nothing is going to change for you— unless you step on the lift, or grab hold of the ladder. Thankfully, these options will always be available to you.

You’re only stuck in the hole for as long as you wish to be.

 

[xondk]

.

I don't know, this whole argument always seems like people are upsay at say, that some people drive in a long range vehicle on a road, rather then going in a slower four wheel drive with survival gear.
People use the setups they use, because those setups fit the task they are aiming to go out for. There is no reason why they should do something else simply because others feel they should.

In this case it would be like explorers making fun of people that come to attack them because of their low jump ranges.

It is, silly at best, in my book to keep using this as an excuse.

If people simply want to hunt down and disrupt what other players are doing, because that is what they find to be fun, then admit to that.
Rather then the long line of various excuses with testing things, or doing it for their own sake, or to teach people a lesson about going unarmed, or for that matter that others are doing something wrong in your eyes by having those setups.

 

[CMDR Cknarf]

Just trying to help people have a better experience.

If traveling 20,000ly, just to get blown up and sent home is your thing, then by all means, go for it.

Just don’t act as if there aren’t ways to avoid it.

 

[Feros-da-Grundig]

I don't know, this whole argument always seems like people are upsay at say, that some people drive in a long range vehicle on a road, rather then going in a slower four wheel drive with survival gear.

Open in ED is not at all like a public road. At any active spot it's more like a monster truck destruction derby (even if people wish it were otherwise). Showing up in a Vespa because it's fuel efficient is unwise.

(I'll note outside hotspots, open is mostly like solo, which is unlike a road at all (where one is likely to encounter people), and instead like some huge incredibly deserted empty stretch of land with some sightseeing points, ghost towns, etc)

If people simply want to hunt down and disrupt what other players are doing, because that is what they find to be fun, then admit to that.

We definitely do it primarily for fun, and a few other supporting reasons. It's a video game, so of course the major motivating factor is fun.

In this case it would be like explorers making fun of people that come to attack them because of their low jump ranges.

Generally the ridicule is not about our builds but instead armchair psychology nonsense.

 

[Morbad]

I don't know, this whole argument always seems like people are upsay at say, that some people drive in a long range vehicle on a road, rather then going in a slower four wheel drive with survival gear.
People use the setups they use, because those setups fit the task they are aiming to go out for. There is no reason why they should do something else simply because others feel they should.

The threats one could reasonably encounter on major public roads, where help is usually not far away, may not mandate an off-road vehicle or survival gear, but omission of such gear/vehicles on a trek through areas with less infrastructure, more wilderness, harsher climates, or unhelpful people, would absolutely not 'fit the task'. A drive from Warsaw to Ulaanbaatar, or Tunis to Cape Town, is going to take different considerations than a drive from New York to San Francisco, or Lisbon to Prague. And on any of these trips, the speed and fuel efficiency of the vehicle is rarely going to be the prime consideration.

Same premises apply to Elite. The right tool for the job is the one that does what it's intended to do, despite the obstacles one encounters.

In this case it would be like explorers making fun of people that come to attack them because of their low jump ranges.

The difference is that low jump range is barely even an inconvenience on DW2. It's mostly through high stellar density parts of the galaxy and proceeds at a positively glacial pace. You could get by with single digit ly jump ranges for the first 90% of the trip.

Hostile ships, in Open, at way stations along a publicly declared, guided tour, that is seeing significant traffic, far from any legal jurisdiction, is eminently foreseeable. The decision to cripple the defensive and escape capabilities of one's ship in order to shave off 5-10% of the total number of jumps on a tour of such a pace is highly unsound, especially for the less experienced.

It is, silly at best, in my book to keep using this as an excuse.

If people simply want to hunt down and disrupt what other players are doing, because that is what they find to be fun, then admit to that.
Rather then the long line of various excuses with testing things, or doing it for their own sake, or to teach people a lesson about going unarmed, or for that matter that others are doing something wrong in your eyes by having those setups.

No one needs an excuse to do what they do and the ultimate arbiter of whose loadout was superior is how successful that loadout was in achieving the task at hand. Most of the ships lost on DW2 could have used some improvements.

I could live with that interpretation if I only could get where the fun in this sort of activity would be.

There is no accounting for taste and not sharing in it doesn't mean it's not legitimate.

Of course, subjective opinions of legitimacy are entirely irrelevant if someone else's tastes become an obstacle. At that point it's not the why that matters, just the how.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Thanks for the clarification.

Here's another one

This is what these fellers will do all day long:

Here's a brief promo vid for the DG expedition:

They try to provoke responses. They will troll until they get them. Once they get them, they play the anti-PvP victim card, and act all: woe is us.

 

[xondk]

Open in ED is not at all like a public road. At any active spot it's more like a monster truck destruction derby (even if people wish it were otherwise). Showing up in a Vespa because it's fuel efficient is unwise.

(I'll note outside hotspots, open is mostly like solo, which is unlike a road at all (where one is likely to encounter people), and instead like some huge incredibly deserted empty stretch of land with some sightseeing points, ghost towns, etc)

Open is 'public' everything, road, desert, offroad, water terrain, that at least is how i view open. It contains everything, and is why I use that comparison.

And those that plan to take the road to a destination, are not planning for offroad, or for water, or for anything else that they normally would not encounter, they plan and make their setup for the 99.9% of the things that happen.

We definitely do it primarily for fun, and a few other supporting reasons. It's a video game, so of course the major motivating factor is fun.

Looking over the many threads on this topic, many seem to use the other excuses mentioned, obviously I can make no statement about everyone, but it is in no way an uncommon claim from my view.

Generally the ridicule is not about our builds but instead armchair psychology nonsense.

Well continuing my comparison from previous, that is because a lot do not understand the various excuses used, when essentially what is happening, is a survival fitted heavy offroader with weapons does its best to catch up and then drive into someone driving on the road, that does not seem to be the place where such an outfit would be needed, of course that offroader with weapons can harm the unarmored long range vehicle?

The threats one could reasonably encounter on major public roads, where help is usually not far away, may not mandate an off-road vehicle or survival gear, but omission of such gear/vehicles on a trek through areas with less infrastructure, more wilderness, harsher climates, or unhelpful people, would absolutely not 'fit the task'. A drive from Warsaw to Ulaanbaatar, or Tunis to Cape Town, is going to take different considerations than a drive from New York to San Francisco, or Lisbon to Prague. And on any of these trips, the speed and fuel efficiency of the vehicle is rarely going to be the prime consideration.

Same premises apply to Elite. The right tool for the job is the one that does what it's intended to do, despite the obstacles one encounters.

Yes, but as mentioned above, you plan for the 99.9% of things that happen. The enormous amount of time, getting attacked by a player is not an issue for explorers, so why would they outfit for the chance that someone attacks them?
Especially when likely ANY outfit they can make that doesn't hurt their main goal, to explore, is not going to be able to stand up to someone entering in a combat fit.
Yes, they could explore in a combat fit, but why should they do that?

The difference is that low jump range is barely even an inconvenience on DW2. It's mostly through high stellar density parts of the galaxy and proceeds at a positively glacial pace. You could get by with single digit ly jump ranges for the first 90% of the trip.

That is not my point.
My point is of course someone combat fit can take out an explorer, that really is a no brainer, but why would the combat fit person ever expect an explorer be able to stand up to them? I wouldn't ever expect them to personally.
Just like I wouldn't expect someone that is hunting down others to not arrive ready for combat?

Hostile ships, in Open, at way stations along a publicly declared, guided tour, that is seeing significant traffic, far from any legal jurisdiction, is eminently foreseeable. The decision to cripple the defensive and escape capabilities of one's ship in order to shave off 5-10% of the total number of jumps on a tour of such a pace is highly unsound, especially for the less experienced.

Is it forseeable? sure definitely, but in a real situation those points would be defended and such actions would be discouraged, but this is RL and Elite is a game. You want to require there to be dedicated defenders to defend the exploration, that hang around 24/7 just to catch the attackers whenever they might show up?
That would be an insanely boring role to play, because most of it would be waiting, why should anyone be forced to do that?

No one needs an excuse to do what they do and the ultimate arbiter of whose loadout was superior is how successful that loadout was in achieving the task at hand. Most of the ships lost on DW2 could have used some improvements.

I agree, people do not need the excuses, but they there are plenty of them that use it as reason for attacking targets that have no chance.

But no, nothing is proven with the explorer getting blown up. The attacker in a combat fit, isn't superior, or at best they are only superior in combat, they cannot explore like explorers can.
I simply do not see taking out easy obvious targets as proving anyone is superior. They are having fun doing it, sure, they enjoy doing it, sure. But superior? no.

There is no accounting for taste and not sharing in it doesn't mean it's not legitimate.

Of course, subjective opinions of legitimacy are entirely irrelevant if someone else's tastes become an obstacle. At that point it's not the why that matters, just the how.

I never once stated it wasn't legitimate, it is something the game allows you to do. From my view it simply doesn't provide anything productive to the game.
It is what people find fun doing, and that in itself is fine.

But that is about it, it doesn't provide anything else then fun for the killer.
The outcome is predictable, and why should one player group get to dictate what another does? which is why you end up seeing posts about not enough people to hunt in open, because people do not want to be subject to the whim of some random person.

And those attacking no doubt have things they do not want to do as well, imagine if they were forced to do those things by another group and had no chance of resisting that without disrupting the gameplay they do like?

 

[Goose4291]

They try to provoke responses. They will troll until they get them. Once they get them, they play the anti-PvP victim card, and act all: woe is us.

And oddly you're always amongst the first to respond.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

And oddly you're always amongst the first to respond.

Thanks for not trying to deny it.

I will happily respond to provocations. Difference is, I can take what I dish out.

 

[Goose4291]

Thanks for not trying to deny it.

I will happily respond to provocations. Difference is, I can take what I dish out.

Sure you can Ziggy. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Sure you can Ziggy. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Thanks Goosey.

Back to the point of a section of this forum who will provoke to get responses and go: "look how mean the anti-PvP crowd is" when they get them.

 

[Morbad]

Yes, but as mentioned above, you plan for the 99.9% of things that happen. The enormous amount of time, getting attacked by a player is not an issue for explorers, so why would they outfit for the chance that someone attacks them?

DW2 isn't pure, or even primarily, exploration. It's a pre-scheduled guided tour and social get-together, with a public itinerary.

This mandates very different considerations.

Especially when likely ANY outfit they can make that doesn't hurt their main goal, to explore, is not going to be able to stand up to someone entering in a combat fit.

Reaching systems few other vessels can reach or minimizing the number of systems one needs to pass through to reach a waypoint is hardly the be all and end all of exploration.

Very, very little exploration ability is lost by making sure your ship can boost then adding a few E rated shield boosters and an MRP. If anything the increased safety margin is an asset to exploration, even in the absence of hostile ships. In the presence of such ships, survival and successful exploration become synonymous.

Yes, they could explore in a combat fit, but why should they do that?

I took a combat fit vessel so I wouldn't always be the one running.

Surviving an attack, ship and data intact, requires far less than that.

But no, nothing is proven with the explorer getting blown up. The attacker in a combat fit, isn't superior, or at best they are only superior in combat, they cannot explore like explorers can.

The ship I took explores just fine and has less than half the jump range of most DG vessels, let alone their prey.

 

[Goose4291]

Thanks Goosey.

Back to the point of a section of this forum who will provoke to get responses and go: "look how mean the anti-PvP crowd is" when they get them.

The thing is you're again glazing over how the PvE anti-change brigade act whenever someone outside it voices an opinion that doesn't conform 100% to their views.

We saw it with the genuine pirates in the early days. GRIEFERS! GANKERS! REAL LIFE TERRORISTS! Was the cry.

Again, when PvE BGS Faction War types like I used to be espoused views regarding modes it was 'You're all griefer shills trying to force us to be your victims."

When powerplayers like Rubbernuke came enmasse to the forums for the OOPP discussion it was 'bah! These are made up arguments by wannabe real life murderers.'

I could go on. I could highlight the cringe that was the denial regarding botting, or the train wreck that was the Dogma campaign.

Instead I'll close with this. I work in a close confined environment with 40-50+ other individuals for four months at a time where you have to get on regardless of background, politics or even religious differences. The fact I feel more kinship with the likes of the SDC group type playerbase should speak volumes about the 'friendly' face of the PvE community.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

See? The PvE community. Guilt by association.

 

[Wargfoot]

They try to provoke responses. They will troll until they get them. Once they get them, they play the anti-PvP victim card, and act all: woe is us.

Oh sure, I'm aware of the disposition of many of these people.
As a general rule you have to divide up life between what you can control and what you cannot control.

There simply is no way to prevent someone from being a bad sport in a PvP game.
Cannot stop 'em from peacocking on the forums, posting offensive videos, or running around acting like nitwits.

What a person can control is whether or not he buys a PvP game, logs into a PvP server, and runs around in a PvP hotspot.
I don't have sympathy for those that keep trying to control the behavior of other players when simply clicking 'Group Play' fixes the problem.

 

[Feros-da-Grundig]

they plan and make their setup for the 99.9% of the things that happen.

Ganking along DW2 is either a common (and loudly decried) phenomenon, or a 0.1% sort of thing. It can't be both. The ~3000 rebuys claimed by DG2 and frequent complaints on this board indicate to me that it is the former, and that a wise player will plan accordingly.

Yes, but as mentioned above, you plan for the 99.9% of things that happen. The enormous amount of time, getting attacked by a player is not an issue for explorers, so why would they outfit for the chance that someone attacks them?

Because if they are weakly outfit and go into open at a DW2 waypoint or similar area they will likely be destroyed. Not 0.1% chance destroyed. I don't have a percentage but it's non negligible. I wouldn't be surprised if it was above 50% (open only - including solo/PG DW2 explorers it is a tiny %).

Otherwise agreed for solo/PG and off the beaten path locations.

why would the combat fit person ever expect an explorer be able to stand up to them? I wouldn't ever expect them to personally.

I don't. Only one of my last twenty kills on DG2 was challenging, and that was a pleasant surprise. To get it I ended up having to eat 50 million in rebuy+bounty from a station and lost my SLF NPC, but it was fun. The overwhelming majority (~93% since Jan 31st) of my encounters in DG2 have resulted in deaths or c-logs for the other pilot. (Note I am on console, so every encounter was 1v1, aside from a 1v2 where I was the "1").

One point of yours seems to be that gankers don't want challenging PvP. But wanting challenging PvP and killing explorers are not exclusive. Many of us want both.

You want to require there to be dedicated defenders to defend the exploration, that hang around 24/7 just to catch the attackers whenever they might show up?
That would be an insanely boring role to play, because most of it would be waiting, why should anyone be forced to do that?

Not at all, escorting is borderline impossible due to the game mechanics and unrewarding to boot. The more sensible defense is for open mode explorers to be prepared on their own.

But no, nothing is proven with the explorer getting blown up. The attacker in a combat fit, isn't superior, or at best they are only superior in combat, they cannot explore like explorers can.

As long as I'm willing to put in some extra jumps, I absolutely can do any exploring an explorer can, barring systems that cannot be reached with ~42ly jump range.

I simply do not see taking out easy obvious targets as proving anyone is superior. They are having fun doing it, sure, they enjoy doing it, sure. But superior? no.

Certainly superior at blowing stuff up. Not necessarily as a player, since that is subjective.

But that is about it, it doesn't provide anything else then fun for the killer.
The outcome is predictable, and why should one player group get to dictate what another does?

Compared to the rest of the game, this is quite unpredictable. There are elements of ED that are opaque until studied, but the game is mostly predictable. Even if only one of twenty PvP encounters I've had lately was unpredictable, this is a significant increase over the zero of twenty PvE encounters that are unpredictable.

Plenty of BGS work, PP activity, etc. is as one sided as PvP. Personally I feel PP results in arguably harsher toxicity than ganking.

And those attacking no doubt have things they do not want to do as well, imagine if they were forced to do those things by another group and had no chance of resisting that without disrupting the gameplay they do like?

I am forced to do plenty of gameplay I don't want to do. Mat grind being the most obvious example. It's unfortunate, and not due to another player, but it certainly disrupts the gameplay I do like. It's unpleasant but I deal with it to get to the gameplay I like. I don't feel there is some fundamental difference between unpleasant gameplay caused by design versus caused by other players. If anything, the former "should" be more aggravating IMO.

It's much much easier for explorers to avoid the gameplay they don't like than for me to avoid mat grinding.

 

[Goose4291]

Oh sure, I'm aware of the disposition of many of these people.
As a general rule you have to divide up life between what you can control and what you cannot control.

There simply is no way to prevent someone from being a bad sport in a PvP game.
Cannot stop 'em from peacocking on the forums, posting offensive videos, or running around acting like nitwits.

What a person can control is whether or not he buys a PvP game, logs into a PvP server, and runs around in a PvP hotspot.
I don't have sympathy for those that keep trying to control the behavior of other players when simply clicking 'Group Play' fixes the problem.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Oh sure, I'm aware of the disposition of many of these people.
As a general rule you have to divide up life between what you can control and what you cannot control.

There simply is no way to prevent someone from being a bad sport in a PvP game.
Cannot stop 'em from peacocking on the forums, posting offensive videos, or running around acting like nitwits.

What a person can control is whether or not he buys a PvP game, logs into a PvP server, and runs around in a PvP hotspot.
I don't have sympathy for those that keep trying to control the behavior of other players when simply clicking 'Group Play' fixes the problem.

That's all true.

But that doesn't mean people can blame a large group of people for the actions of a few. That is wrong in case players who are sports and play PvP should be held responsible for the less savoury griefer crowd peacocking. And it's wrong when an entire PvE community is held responsible for the reactions of a few.

 

[xondk]

DW2 isn't pure, or even primarily, exploration. It's a pre-scheduled guided tour and social get-together, with a public itinerary.

This mandates very different considerations.

Yes, but again, it is not a tour aimed towards combat, so the same principle applies, though yes, since it is a tour the chance of getting attacked is significantly increased.

Reaching systems few other vessels can reach or minimizing the number of systems one needs to pass through to reach a waypoint is hardly the be all and end all of exploration.

Very, very little exploration ability is lost by making sure your ship can boost then adding a few E rated shield boosters and an MRP. If anything the increased safety margin is an asset to exploration, even in the absence of hostile ships. In the presence of such ships, survival and successful exploration become synonymous.

Sure, you can take a decent combat vessel exploring, I've done that several times, but that assumes you are alright and have the time for the amount of jumps slower jumping can take. Not everyone has the time for that, maxing jump range reduces amount of jumps, if or if people have the time for many jumps is not something I or I think anyone but they themselves can judge.

And again, will that make a big difference against a fully engineered combat ship?

I took a combat fit vessel so I wouldn't always be the one running.

Surviving an attack, ship and data intact, requires far less than that.

Cool, but again, that doesn't count for everyone, I do not know why others play with the fits they do, my point is merely, that they shouldn't be forced to play a fit they do not want to, they should play a game for what they find as fun, because it is just that a game. And not at the whim of someone else, no one, in my experience like being subjected to something like that. It is just easier for PvP'ers to generally brush it off, because there is very little, given the none permadeath nature, that they risk or lose with their preferred gameplay style, compared to other general none combat game play styles.

The ship I took explores just fine and has less than half the jump range of most DG vessels, let alone their prey.

I'm not saying you cannot explore with a lower range ship, it will just take more time and certain areas will be out of your range, why should explorers be forced to do that?

Ganking along DW2 is either a common (and loudly decried) phenomenon, or a 0.1% sort of thing. It can't be both. The ~3000 rebuys claimed by DG2 and frequent complaints on this board indicate to me that it is the former, and that a wise player will plan accordingly.

Ganking against explorers is the low chance, this is obviously higher because it is announced, gankers know where to go.

Because if they are weakly outfit and go into open at a DW2 waypoint or similar area they will likely be destroyed. Not 0.1% chance destroyed. I don't have a percentage but it's non negligible. I wouldn't be surprised if it was above 50% (open only - including solo/PG DW2 explorers it is a tiny %).

Otherwise agreed for solo/PG and off the beaten path locations.

Yes, and here's the issue and why I see there being people upset by it. Those destroying them, gain nothing from doing it other then personal enjoyment knowing they may have caused the explorer to lose a lot of exploration and have returned them home.

This causes many to not be in open, which causes PvP'ers to complain that open has no people, and wanting incentives to people so there are more people in open.
All because some people enjoy going after targets that generally as a concept have no chance, nor should they be expected to have a chance, even if they had a proper setup, they might not be combat pilots at all and freeze up or similar, it seems odd to expect them to fit into a role for another players enjoyment?

I don't. Only one of my last twenty kills on DG2 was challenging, and that was a pleasant surprise. To get it I ended up having to eat 50 million in rebuy+bounty from a station and lost my SLF NPC, but it was fun. The overwhelming majority (~93% since Jan 31st) of my encounters in DG2 have resulted in deaths or c-logs for the other pilot. (Note I am on console, so every encounter was 1v1, aside from a 1v2 where I was the "1").

One point of yours seems to be that gankers don't want challenging PvP. But wanting challenging PvP and killing explorers are not exclusive. Many of us want both.

The general concept of a gank, would seem to indicate that, what some people want is another thing, but if challenge is wanted then why go after explorers? sure you might find people that can fight back, but likely the majority won't be able to

Not at all, escorting is borderline impossible due to the game mechanics and unrewarding to boot. The more sensible defense is open explorers be prepared on their own.

Potentially compromising their game play, increasing their required play time due to lower jump range, or maybe they simply aren't combat talented, I do not know, I cannot say, and it seems a bit much to say that others can 'just' prepare.

As long as I'm willing to put in some extra jumps, I absolutely can do any exploring an explorer can, barring systems that cannot be reached with ~42ly jump range.

Certainly superior at blowing stuff up. Not necessarily as a player, since that is subjective.

Yeah, and if an explorer does the same with fit, they need extra jumps as well, extra time, time they may not have, time they may not want to spend, it entirely depends on the person.

And yes, I should hope a combat fitted ship can blow up a none combat fitted ship, but that doesn't really say much, it is pure mechanics at best.

Compared to the rest of the game, this is quite unpredictable. There are elements of ED that are opaque until studied, but the game is mostly predictable. Even if only one of twenty PvP encounters I've had lately was unpredictable, this is a significant increase of the zero of twenty PvE encounters that are unpredictable.

Plenty of BGS work, PP activity, etc. is as one sided as PvP. Personally I feel PP results in even more toxicity than ganking.

I enjoy PvP, because of that as well, the skill and requirements it takes, but that is also why this whole thing with attacking targets like this is lost on me.
It seems to do absolutely nothing.

I am forced to do plenty of gameplay I don't want to do. Mat grind being the most obvious example. It's unfortunate, and not due to another player, but it certainly disrupts the gameplay I do like. It's unpleasant but I deal with it to get to the gameplay I like. I don't feel there is some fundamental difference between unpleasant gameplay caused by design than by other players. If anything, the former "should" be more aggravating IMO.

It's much much easier for explorers to avoid the gameplay they don't like.

The former, gameplay design of the game, is equal for everyone.

The later is entirely up to random people online that you have no control over, a substantial difference in my book.

As for explorers avoiding game play they do not like, they still need to mat grind and similar, probably not as much for ammo and other PvP related things, no, but that is your choice, it is how the game is designed. It is no other players fault on how the game is, so why should they be punished for that?

 

[xondk]

That's all true.

But that doesn't mean people can blame a large group of people for the actions of a few. That is wrong in case players who are sports and play PvP should be held responsible for the less savoury griefer crowd peacocking. And it's wrong when an entire PvE community is held responsible for the reactions of a few.

PvP cannot compare to PvE in that, if you ask me.
PvP requires other players to be PvP, it requires someone to attack and someone to defend from. Add that the amount of people participate in griefing and call themselves PvP'ers is something you cannot really know or judge properly because they can effectively claim anything online.
In my book for PvP to work, people need to have a nature of good sport about it, otherwise PvP can end up killing itself, and given the amount of complaint threads with low open population, that could on the surface seem to be what is happening?

PvE does ultimately not require any other players, and as such is based around game mechanics, which you cannot really blame those players for.