Sometime players cooperate to play the game, not to fight.
Because the only real challenge in current sim EC is the enemy fighter plane. Assault missions can be complicated and interesting without enemy fighter planes.
This is your personal position. Many players want to play game as active participants, not as prey.
Not all players can create missions. Also, there is a necessity to open and develop new vehicles.
So, players are looking for opportunities in the very game.
I’ts true all you say, but still the best game mode … prefer that over Labels + AIM Assist with Mouse, etc
I don’t know why people so adamantly refuse to see the difference.
I’ve been thinking about this for a while, but isn’t the term “PvE” too abstract and misleading? I think the original meaning of this word is just to refer to game tasks other than PvP, but it can also refer to match fixing or people who force it, as in this case, and it can also refer to Zombies themselves, which are often used together with match fixing.
People interpret this word differently, and the moment they misunderstand that they are being criticized when they are not, the discussion becomes confused.
I have actually seen many similar phenomena, and in my country’s Warthunder community, the word “bomukasu(ボムカス)” is frequently used regardless of game mode.
This is a slang term combining the Japanese pronunciation of bomb, “bomu(ボム)” , and “kasu(カス)” meaning trash , and has spread as a derogatory term for bomber players.
Leaving aside the question of whether it is right to use this term itself, some people use it to refer to Zombers and bomber players who play the game as they please, while extreme air-to-air combat supremacists use it to mock bomber players themselves.
For this reason, even if you use this term in the former sense, someone who misunderstands the meaning will say, “What’s wrong with flying a bomber!”, and a fruitless argument will continue endlessly.
Of course, the penetration of words is cultural, so I understand that it is a very difficult problem to solve even if some people are careful about their word choice, but can’t we try to share the definition and position of the word in these kinds of discussions, even if only little by little?
If I were to say something about this,
Otherwise, I think the discussion will continue to go astray every time a topic like this arises.
If people ask for PvE in the game chat, is not misleading, they are asking people on enemy team not to shoot them.
If they misunderstand it’s because they don’t play SB.
Bombing and doing tasks while avoiding enemy players is PvPvE
I am only talking about the discussions in this forum. If you actually look at the exchanges before my reply, you will see that the phenomenon I mentioned is already occurring.
Also, as you pointed out, I share your understanding of the situation when PvE is said in in-game chat.
As I said, the slang episode is not an incident specific to SB, as I said “regardless of game mode,” and I simply wanted to give an example of the concerns I raised in my previous reply.
As for the term PvPvE, I thought it was a good one because it corresponds to the first of the three points I presented at the end and can narrow down the meaning.
Yes, often people that doesn’t play SB comes to this forum to discuss things, and they don’t even realize they are in tyhe SB subforum, so many misunderstandings …
Sometimes you see people complain about a plane BR, when the BR in SB is different, or they don’t realize that in SB there are nor labels, etc etc.
Well, I agree that the term is not optimal, but it is generally understood. Also other terms are used wrong, if you look at it in detail. AI vehicles for example are not really AI, they’re just scripted non player vehicles.
Generally however the community uses PvP and PvE - and some also PvPvE - with a common understanding of the term.
The common understanding however is not so common when it comes to what is allowed and what not, but also this is actually very clear - or at least very simple:
Engaging non-player vehicles and targets while trying to avoid enemy contact to protect oneself is perfectly ok.
Claiming a room/match is PvE and forming a truce between opposing forces to not engage each other is not ok.
Enforcing a room/match is PvE by harassing players who ignore this “truce” verbally or with gameplay actions is absolutely not ok.
Yes, I agree with all three, but may I ask a few more questions?
First, when I encounter behavior that falls under 2 and 3, I report it, but is this appropriate?
If the answer is yes, then in the case of 2, there is no specific context, and in many cases there is implicit collusion by simply saying “PvE”. Even in such cases, do the administrators treat it as a clear violation?
The reason I would like to ask this is because I am worried that by continuing to report incidents that the administrators deem legal, I may be punished for making a false report.
Another thing I would like to ask is about how you respond if you discover a community that is colluding using social media or voice chat tools outside of your service.
Especially on the SA server, farming is taking place without a single traitor even though more than 20 players are participating in the match. This is despite the fact that no one is saying anything in the game chat.
Even considering that they have a tacit understanding, it is an unnatural level of cooperation for people who just happen to gather together.
I have personally been investigating this, and have not yet found anything, but I am pretty sure that there is a community somewhere on the Internet that is advertising itself, gathering people, and colluding with others to carry out this act.
If you witness such a situation, is there anything you can do to help us?
Yes, it’s appropriate to report it.
Mabye give a bit more than just “PvE”, maybe “trying to enforce PvE” or so. However, that’s secondary. Primary is the automatically generated chatlog itself which contains all the proof we need to decide whether indeed a rule has been broken.
In my experience roughly 95% of all erports we get are invalid. That doesn’t mean that the reporter then gets punished instead.
Where we draw the line is if it’s really report spam, meaning that the same observation is reported several times, or non-issues are reported repeatedly. There are players who will send a handful of reports every time they think they see a cheater, but with zero basis for it, or even may get verbally abusive themselves in the reports.
Nothing wrong with sending one report per observed suspicion. No need or use to send more than one.
You can ask yourself: “Does the chat I’read in the chat window show a forbidden behaviour or content?” If Yes, report, if no, there’s nothing we can do about it anyway. If not sure, still report, we will sort it out…
We can’t act on external channels of course, but extreme and/or organised cases should still be reported in-game, if there’s any proof something can be done.
Note that the more severe and frequent a player or a group of player acts against the TOS, the more he will get reported, and thus the higher probability of course that they will “wash into our nets”.
I understand it well now.
I will share this valuable information with my colleagues.
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
I don’t report anything, if Gaijin wanted, just by passing a script over the chat logs, they could find all people in 2 and 3 categories, but those people buy premiums, and they don’t wanna do anything, even if it’s against the ToS
No. Won’t work. Too much is contextual. Like this you may catch the obvious swearwords, that’s about it.
Like maybe 50%, but they prefer not to catch it ?
Doesn’t fit my experience…
Many people join the math and say “Pve” or “Pve?”.
Others give their airfield positions.
I could do an script that would detect many cases in 30 mins