Elite: Dangerous PvE - Mobius

Hello Commanders,

I would like to propose this litle poll to get a feeling for the overall view on interdiction.
The wording is chosen very plain for this purpose. This is by no means a poll about group rules.
Please select the most accurate option in your opinion:

Is interdiction of a player a PvP or PvE action?

You can change your vote anytime until the poll is closed.
Of course you can elaborate in your replies.

It's a PvE group, with PvE play. No interdictions. Do that stuff in dedicated groups, or open play.

Sometimes it costs money to repair, not much but still. I have my millions, but for the paupers in this group ...

As I said it already, I see interdiction as an act of aggression, not to mention that even with the best intentions it can cause damage, at the moment.

Voted that interdiction is PvP and I joined this group for PvE.

I can see the edges getting blurred where it comes to assassination missions that involve hunting down a player commander though. I don't know what the consensus is on this. Apologies if it's another conversation.

I know everyone wants this group to be the best it can be so I'm sure a friendly word in game to those who are unaware of this view should be enough

I don't like PvP as it wastes time. I'd rather be trading, or exploring, or mining (yes really). I also don't like having other players try to control the way I play.

Interdiction would waste time as well. It would also mean other players trying to control the way I play.

That's why I voted interdiction as being PvP. They may not be exactly the same thing, but they would both be an irritating diversion from the serious fun I hope to have. Please keep it out of this group.

Cheers, Phos.

I think that as this poll is based on a recent discussion regarding interaction with another player, we should make the groups policy to have no form of PvP and make it pure PvE,
that would mean no pvp combat zones or missions or any interacting with another players ship in any negative way.

Mobius wrote:I think that as this poll is based on a recent discussion regarding interaction with another player, we should make the groups policy to have no form of PvP and make it pure PvE,
that would mean no pvp combat zones or missions or any interacting with another players ship in any negative way.

Wait so no more conflict zones?

Mobius wrote:I think that as this poll is based on a recent discussion regarding interaction with another player, we should make the groups policy to have no form of PvP and make it pure PvE,
that would mean no pvp combat zones or missions or any interacting with another players ship in any negative way.

I am not sure if we have to go so far as to changing the rules just yet.

I, for one, would very much like to keep the conflict zone exception, because I don't want to go to conflict zones in open play just to get shot in the back by some no-good teamkiller or no-faction sniper. Fighting in a conflict zone includes choosing a faction, and by that I declare my intent to fight the opposing faction and my acceptance to be faught by the opposing faction. I think players who do not like this arrangement are players who don't go to conflict zones inside the group anyway.

I could let go of the missions against players without a problem on the other hand. Even if FD tries to implement them somehow, I don't think they can make them work. Just imagine you find out there is a contract out on you. What would the majority of all players do in this case? And I am not talking about the very dedicated longtime fans of Elite or hardcore consistency advocates, I am talking about the other 95%

For me interdiction is a deliberate hostile act as it always seems to cause damage to a ship. I've voted no to interdiction on other players. My view is if that is what you want to do, even as an experiment go and do it in open. Personally I'd leave warzones as they are, i.e. pick a side and anyone on the opposite side is fair game.