PvP (Open) commanders not welcome on this forum?...

[Asp Explorer]

As the mods have pointed out, the reason for the seeming disparity in fair treatment is likely because PVP posters tend to fight their own forum battles when things get rough, whereas the other side tends to run and hide under the skirts of the local authority, often abusing the reporting system. The mods have suggested that we should take official responses rather than defending ourselves directly. I can confirm that the system works both ways.

Back in the good old days of negative rep - entire brigades of pew-pews would go into a feeding frenzy in an attempt to "send PVE players a lesson"

Oh how I miss them. Cute little things. Think they stormed off in a huff to some other game in the end.

 

[crushdepth]

Okay I've asked this before of others & had no response:

If you want to play with other people, really you need to do it in a way that makes them want to play with you, your way (ie fight back I guess?). They are providing entertainment for you but what entertainment do you provide for them? Are you a begging, comedy pirate? A hardcore, organised PvPer looking for a challenging fight with other, known PvPers?

Why would someone want to play with you?

And have you used the report button on the post that compared you to a ? That seems like the kind of thing that would be frowned upon.

The main problems (IMHO) are i) a lack of things for PVP people to actually do and ii) ways to make them aggregate in particular areas, which is related to i). One solution would be for the powers to undertake military campaigns where players could sign up for *active* military service (now your rank means something) and fight for control of objectives. Signing up would essentially be a voluntary PVP flag that let's you whack (and be whacked by) enemy players without criminal sanction. The campaign objectives would naturally attract PVP players (and probably also gankers) into the area to fight each other, thereby getting them off the case of PVE people that have not signed up for active service.

Hopefully campaign objectives would be something more than an empty bit of space with ships spinning around in it like the current "conflict zones". Add a capital ship or two and some other structures, defined "win" conditions and perhaps time frames for battles and you might have a real PVP conflict zone that are interesting enough to appeal even to the likes of me.

 

[GluttonyFang]

As the mods have pointed out, the reason for the seeming disparity in fair treatment is likely because PVP posters tend to fight their own forum battles when things get rough, whereas the other side tends to run and hide under the skirts of the local authority, often abusing the reporting system. The mods have suggested that we should take official responses rather than defending ourselves directly. I can confirm that the system works both ways.

Except that those fights usually start with passive aggression, and in many cases passive aggression from one side is "all-green," and when the other side does it the slightest it's "OMG INFRACTION TIME."

I've seen some fair judgment calls being made by some moderators, which is why I still have faith in some of the moderators despite that I criticize them. But these fair calls are far too much in the minority for what is already a minority population on this forum.

- - - Updated - - -

Back in the good old days of negative rep - entire brigades of pew-pews would go into a feeding frenzy in an attempt to "send PVE players a lesson"

Oh how I miss them. Cute little things. Think they stormed off in a huff to some other game in the end.

Negative rep in general is just a bad idea, we all know it'll get abused from dissenting opinions and not used for actually reporting appropriateness of a post.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Negative rep in general is just a bad idea, we all know it'll get abused from dissenting opinions and not used for actually reporting appropriateness of a post.

I respectfully disagree. It was a very useful tool to identify players, and more importantly groups of players, who had no interest in the actual discussion - but a great deal of interest in the PVP forum warfare meta. Some of that got very, very interesting indeed

 

[GluttonyFang]

I respectfully disagree. It was a very useful tool to identify players, and more importantly groups of players, who had no interest in the actual discussion - but a great deal of interest in the PVP forum warfare meta. Some of that got very, very interesting indeed

I don't know, I think we've seen the effect of it from observing Reddit already. Especially in controversial posts and areas, posts aren't being down-voted for being inappropriate, but rather that the view isn't popular. It would have a bad application on this forum in particular.

 

[Asp Explorer]

I don't know, I think we've seen the effect of it from observing Reddit already. Especially in controversial posts and areas, posts aren't being down-voted for being inappropriate, but rather that the view isn't popular. It would have a bad application on this forum in particular.

Applying that same logic to this very forum, would it not be fair to say that the reception of PVP isn't exactly inappropriate, but rather that the view isn't popular?

 

[Martian Successor]

I love PvP. Elite needs more of it.

SHHHhhh! Quick, get into the basement and stay quiet. I'll distract them and try to smuggle you in but no promises. Here, put these PvE clothes on. Quickly now!

*Ahem*

"Nothing to see here folks. Just me and my PvE buddy here... enjoying doing PvE stuff... yes indeed...... How bout that PvE eh?"

*get ready to run, I don't think this is working...*

 

[GluttonyFang]

Applying that same logic to this very forum, would it not be fair to say that the reception of PVP isn't exactly inappropriate, but rather that the view isn't popular?

I would say that it's more fair to say that it's a combination of both that are present from my observation. And if I'm being honest, the latter outweighs the former. But then the former lacks sufficient management, therefore leading to a ripple effect that amplifies its impression.

- - - Updated - - -

SHHHhhh! Quick, get into the basement and stay quiet. I'll distract them and try to smuggle you in but no promises. Here, put these PvE clothes on. Quickly now!

*Ahem*

"Nothing to see here folks. Just me and my PvE buddy here... enjoying doing PvE stuff... yes indeed...... How bout that PvE eh?"

*get ready to run, I don't think this is working...*

God, I feel like I'm fighting for gay rights all over again... Been there, done that...

 

[Asp Explorer]

I hope you are not suggesting that PVPers are a repressed minority that need someone to fight for their rights for them?

 

[Riverside]

The main problems (IMHO) are i) a lack of things for PVP people to actually do and ii) ways to make them aggregate in particular areas, which is related to i). One solution would be for the powers to undertake military campaigns where players could sign up for *active* military service (now your rank means something) and fight for control of objectives. Signing up would essentially be a voluntary PVP flag that let's you whack (and be whacked by) enemy players without criminal sanction. The campaign objectives would naturally attract PVP players (and probably also gankers) into the area to fight each other, thereby getting them off the case of PVE people that have not signed up for active service.

Hopefully campaign objectives would be something more than an empty bit of space with ships spinning around in it like the current "conflict zones". Add a capital ship or two and some other structures, defined "win" conditions and perhaps time frames for battles and you might have a real PVP conflict zone that are interesting enough to appeal even to the likes of me.

You do make a good point but I'm torn on the PvP flag concept. I'm usually the gankers content, and PKers are mine. I play in open, avoiding them or talking my way out of situations. Often I'm unarmed (although not so much with the custom NPCs), I might be the distraction at a CG, or simply wary of every Cmdr until I've IFFed them.

I don't want to be shot at, in fact most of the time the hypothetical ganker will never see me but a PvP flag suggest I'm up for a fight (which I'm not really interested in, although I can see the appeal & have done some), and to flag myself as PvE removes the element of danger that Open adds.

What I'm really interested to find out is what gameplay PKers (Verax describes himself as this, several others do too) think they bring to those they encounter. Why do they think someone would want to stay in Open rather than set that PvE flag & leave the PKer with no one to play with. Do they want people to leave Open? Are they trying to highlight some perceived deficiency in the game mechanics?

- - - Updated - - -

I hope you are not suggesting that PVPers are a repressed minority that need someone to fight for their rights for them?

Hey I PvE in open, there's no smaller minority than us

Even I don't fight for me

 

[GluttonyFang]

I hope you are not suggesting that PVPers are a repressed minority that need someone to fight for their rights for them?

PvPers are a repressed minority here, there is no doubt.

I certainly hope they don't need someone to fight for their rights.

I'm here to voice my opinion in a considerate manner as long as others are being considerate as well. It just happens to be that I like piracy in this game, player piracy in particular, so that tossed me into the PvP camp apparently.

I just want to play a game where my target won't disappear on me and that dangerous bounty hunters come after me. Sometimes I will get some sweet loot, sometimes I'll get chased away.

Authorities would be on my tail, and I'd have a reputation of not being the most ruthless pirate lord, just that one sly dog that keeps getting away with things (sometimes small and sometimes a lot) and knows how to pick his battles.

But that dream is still a dream, so I guess I'll keep barking/howling for now.

The comedy post I replied to just reminded me of the days that I actively fought for civil rights.

Edit:

Okay I'm too tired @_@

Spoiler

 

[5thNovember]

Adding my voice to those who state the anti PvP rhetoric here is very disappointing and off-putting. I've also observed some heavily biased action from Mods on here, and that added to the rhetoric makes this place poison for those of us who aren't adverse to PvP. Generally speaking I stay out of discussions on the topic for that exact reason. I've said it before and I'll say it again - this is the worst gaming community I have ever seen.

 

[Asp Explorer]

PVP-Pro-Bro - "Help! Help! I'm being repressed! Come see the violence inherent in the system!"

 

[GluttonyFang]

PVP-Pro-Bro - "Help! Help! I'm being repressed! Come see the violence inherent in the system!"

Can't rep yet, QQ...

Okay I'll go to sleep for real now @_@|||

 

[Martian Successor]

The comedy post I replied to just reminded me of the days that I actively fought for civil rights.

The scary part is that I was being a little serious as well. I fully expect someone to quote that poster and reply with a negative comment in the next 3 to 5 pages. Seen it happen quite often so made with the pre-emtive humour.

 

[CMDR M. Lehman]

If you have no alternative to support your own theory/statement, what else can stand but my hypothesis which has been considered with two branching conclusions?

Good heavens, Gluttony. Still attempting to shift the burden of proof away from yourself?

You and I both know that a hypothesis needs more than simple assumption in order for it to be supported. Furthermore, vindication is not a binary dynamic that is awarded by default if no competing ideas are presented. For example, the claim "this water is magical and heals disease because I assume so" remains unsubstantiated even if no one else in the room offers an alternative or a rebuttal.

Though I respect your intellectual honesty in admitting that your claim was, in fact, an assumption, it pains me that I have to explain how these things work to one such as yourself.

First of all, PvP players start with a handicap on this forum, I'm sure I don't have to go into the details of moderation issues.

There isn't as much disagreement as mud slinging, really, mostly one directional mud slinging not to mention.

No matter how good an argument is, there is clear dissent from a managerial perspective, so it's a permanent disadvantage.

Let's compare the two item now:

The former, everyone starts the same, everyone progresses the same.

The latter, everyone starts differently based on whether they are PvP or PvE, Pro-PvP is at a permanent disadvantage (If two posts are equally inappropriate, the PvP user's post will definitely be reported more. If there is name calling, there's a sure chance that the PvP user gets banned/infracted. This isn't some insult at some of the moderators, it's just how humans function. There is no denying that the vocal and more active moderators are Anti-PvP, or at least Pro-PvE).

So no, the two are not the same, and it's silly to compare them.

I'm afraid that I simply can't accept these claims at face value. If the PvE crowd was really so oppressive and supported by the moderators, then one would expect a systematic lessening of pro-PvP posters and discussion as time goes on. Yet here we as a community are, two years into the game, indulging in the same mudslinging (and I'm willing to grant a significant amount of that is present) as when the game was launched. Indeed, we would expect for you and yours to have been muted or banned long ago. But you haven't, even in the face of your supposed PvP disadvantage. Isn't that curious?

Are you certain that you're not attempting to pass off anecdote as evidence of a larger (nonexistent) trend? Because that would indeed be lazy argumentation.

And do spare me the "check your privilege" line. Contrived victimhood doesn't become you.


EDIT: Apologies for the delayed response. The ice storm outside knocked out my internet for awhile.

 

[Globusdiablo]

As the mods have pointed out, the reason for the seeming disparity in fair treatment is likely because PVP posters tend to fight their own forum battles when things get rough, whereas the other side tends to run and hide under the skirts of the local authority, often abusing the reporting system. The mods have suggested that we should take official responses rather than defending ourselves directly. I can confirm that the system works both ways.

In all fairness, I've been reported for being too critical in PvP threads... ... "Badgering the witness your honour!"...

 

[Threeofseven]

I don't think pvp players are unwelcome. Some in the pve group can be very vocal but if you're not a griefer and don't kill transports with your engineered FDL I don't you will be unwelcome. At least I don't feel unwelcome and I'm a pirate.

 

[Asp Explorer]

I don't think pvp players are unwelcome. Some in the pve group can be very vocal but if you're not a griefer and don't kill transports with your engineered FDL I don't you will be unwelcome. At least I don't feel unwelcome and I'm a pirate.

I tried to join a group of PVPers in my Mining Combat Hauler once. They all laughed and said I couldn't play with them because I didn't have a proper PVP ship

Why are they so against PVP Mining Combat Haulers? I think it's the only ship that allows me to truly express myself - and I feel excluded!

 

[Threeofseven]

I tried to join a group of PVPers in my Mining Combat Hauler once. They all laughed and said I couldn't play with them because I didn't have a proper PVP ship

Why are they so against PVP Mining Combat Haulers? I think it's the only ship that allows me to truly express myself - and I feel excluded!

That's their loss. I guess they couldn't handle the awesomeness. My personal pvp ride is a shieldless sidewinder.