That’s how it’s always been Kezrai.
There are definitions outside of eve that define pvp as any competition between players.
Pvp combat was always just one type of pvp. Never an original definition of pvp.
5 Likes
I have always thought of EvE as a strategy game with a heavy PvP element.
2 Likes
This is CCP’s definition. Not ours. We’re telling you what the game designers have told us since the inception of the game.
I mean, it’s on these very forums. Stickied. Endorsed by CCP:
Player versus player is any situation where the actions of one individual can either positively or negatively impact the condition of another player. You’re the one redefining PvP by retroactively appending ‘combat’.
This isn’t some other MMO. You’re in Eve now. It has it’s own culture. Adapt or die.
3 Likes
It’s not even just eve. Trying to google a definition of PvP or Player Vs Player and i cannot find one that specifies fighting.
They all come back with ‘competition between players’.
2 Likes
This whole OP of yours is just arguing semantics - you are needlessly quibbling over what the definition of PvP is - so I will instead highjack this thread some so do some gloating about my comment in that blogpost from… almost five years ago? Wow, how time flies!
In that post, our departed carebear friend Neville Smit also went on the same semantic rant as a follow-up to a previous post where he predicted a game ending gank-pocalypse unless alpha safeties were locked to green. No, according to him even limiting alpha accounts to a single login (which CCP did before release) wouldn’t be enough because unscrupulous gankers would evade the restrictions and shoot all the industrialists and they would quit the game!
Well, as Chicken Little carebear alarmists usually are, he was wrong. You can’t fault them for their instincts of wanting to help all players, but their fears that the game will die if… are just that. No massive wave of ganking took place and basically my prediction was correct - there was a brief spike of CONCORD activity (along with all activity) immediately after the release of alpha clones, before the game returned to normal. The single login alpha clone restriction prevented most of abuse of alpha multiboxing by gankers and miners alike, and the game went on.
In conclusion, the secret sauce of Eve lies in the conflict, the danger, the loss and the sense of meaning that brings about. You may think you are helping new players, or are increasing the appeal of Eve by making it safer, but you are just diluting the very thing that makes Eve so attractive, to both the warriors and industrilists alike.
To celebrate my 2016 prediction, I will quote my lengthy comment on his blog in its entirety below. Thank you all for your patience, and indulgence for my flouting of the forum rules.
I think your fears that other (PvP) players don’t care about the other parts of the game are just that: fears. Only the most knuckle-dragging PvPer would claim that Eve is only about spaceship combat and nothing else matters. Clearly New Eden is a complex and interconnected universe with many important parts that don’t directly relate to the mechanics of spaceship combat.
That said, Eve is a PvP game as you acknowledge. No, there are plenty of non-PvP activities one can participate in, but they all come back to spaceship combat. Almost everything we do ultimate is to build or collect the raw materials of weapons of war to shoot each other, or to build more weapons of war. That competition (and possibility of loss) gives assets and activities meaning in this game even for players that never engage in direct spaceship PvP.
More importantly, the very conceit of the game is that we are all vulnerable to each other. Whether you believe or not that Eve come from “Everyone Vs. Everyone”, it is true that the game has been engineered from the ground up to make everyone vulnerable to attack by everyone else. I can always shoot you and you can always shoot me. CCP describes this in the New Pilot FAQ as “[t]he essential core concept of EVE Online is that it is full time PvP in a sandbox
environment.” This ability to interact, and not just interact when we consent, is what allows us to tell the player-driven stories that the game is famous for.Locking out a certain class of players to attack by another class of players is anathema to the sandbox. Clearly CCP has to keep game play balance front of mind (and balancing such a complex game is not trivial), but it is not at all surprising they are reluctant to intrude on the sanctity of the core design of the game without any evidence there will be a problem of balance.
Personally, I don’t think there will be any significant increase in highsec ganking. Ganking accounts (as well as industry/PI/mining and anything thing else that requires a limited amount of SP) have been effectively free since February - train your ganker and then sell off the monthly SP to pay the PLEX. Actually, they have been free much longer if you count gankers who trained secondary characters on their gank accounts for the Character Bazaar to meet the PLEX cost. Trial accounts have also been around for ages offering anyone (who is willing to break the rules as you accused some “unscrupulous” gankers of in your last post) as many ganking alts as they want. These Alpha accounts offer nothing new to dedicated gankers who are already using SP farming to pay for accounts that can actually run useful T2-flying alts rather than the T1-limited characters that will be available on the free accounts, or these hypothetical “unscrupulous” gankers who can already multibox trial accounts.
My prediction: there will be a small blip in highsec attacks in the weeks after the November release as some veterans experiment with free accounts and quickly learn you can’t kill anything interesting in a T1-fit Catalyst and move on. But the truth is that no-one knows what will happen: not me, not you and not even CCP. I think the best course for CCP is to keep a close eye on the situation and have a plan in place in case I am wrong and there is a huge increase in highsec crime that unbalance the game.
Clearly CCP is reluctant to lock out any potential customers by walling off certain types of game play without a demonstrable reason. There could be many future players out there that might be intrigued by the possibility of playing the game as a criminal and engaging in the intended criminal game play that CCP spent so much time developing and balancing. Such game play is near unique to Eve Online and it would be a shame to lock that out to new players based on nothing but the fears of some of the current players.
8 Likes
It’s always been like this, cause PvE and PvP were just convenient terms to quickly describe whether the opposition comes from another player or an AI. Nothing else.
However, as the above posts illustrate. These discussions are such a comical waste of time, cause peoples definitions are so far apart, no one is arguing the same thing. This is why these forums are mostly garbage. 90% of discussions end up with the same people arguing over definitions.
Because I explained it to you gently and with big pictures just above ^ 
I am guilty yes.
3 Likes
pfff, i feel better now that i know that scamming and corporate theft do no harm to actual people.
1 Like
That’s only part of the definition, not the whole of it; Richard Bartle is the usual authoritative reference on these matters because he literally wrote the book, and he defines it in his work Designing Virtual Worlds as follows.
Player(s) Versus Player(s) (PvP). Players are opposed by other players in a game. In a combat situation, this means PCs can fight each other.
The phrase combat situation is used as an example to illustrate one possible PvP scenario, not all possible permutations of PvP based on the concept of opposition.
Strangely enough, combat, opposition and competition are all synonyms…
4 Likes
op made a wonderful point BUT eve is a pvp game
Unless you’re selling the stuff - then there might be a PVP angle connected.
–Gadget knows that Peer Reviewed Science is very PVP
3 Likes
Speaking of science; I need a corpse… for reasons.
2 Likes
So, if i’ve correctly understood, as you don’t cycle weapons, you can consider bumping as PVE?
1 Like
That’s easy to fix, 2 cans, 250km off the gate and 20km apart, and at least 2 bumpers.
First bumper to get the target through the cans 3 times gets to claim 5% of the haul on top of his cut.
We shall call it Haulerball.
5 Likes
Haulerball? omg that’s sweet… 
You should check this one out then; an Ancient Afghan sport, but in space.
2 Likes
Should I assume the OP, or the writer of the blog post, are smarter than me?
HEY! I KNEW I SAW THIS BEFORE!
DINSDALE COMMENTED ON IT!
meh I’m slightly disappointed that no one has really picked up on my rhetorical bait; I put a fair bit of effort into that.
What rules? o_O