Talk:Player VS. Player

Fixed a broken link :) Phaserlight 14:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Renamed "PvP FAQ" to "Flight Assist and Autoaim" since that's all that was really contained under that section Phaserlight 18:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC) -Actually, this page is a bit messy. If anyone has any ideas on how to clean it up and organize it, I think it could probably use some categorization. Phaserlight 18:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Combat Tips

I'd be in favor of getting rid of the combat tips. If the content is good then it can be incorporated into the flow of the page, otherwise it can get its own page if it's somehow worth saving. The spastic colors bother me. I'll try to take a stab at editing the whole thing sometime soon(tm). Pointsman 05:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC) -hmm, this page needs to be almost completely rewritten. Pointsman 05:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree here. The content can be good, still PvP is not an exact science and different people have different views on certain techniques and setups. The article itself should attempt to be objective and state commonly accepted facts only - which makes it necessary to make it clear where the facts stop and individual preference kicks in. That's what the combat tips are for: separating the objective from the subjective. Andy Spades 09:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not a matter of content but of presentation. Things that are debatable can be stated as such much more clearly with language than with colorful boxes that pointless attribute authorship and draw your attention away from what should be the central content of the page. This page is more or less a (needed) combat guide which is inherently more subjective than not. Content should be segregated according to how it can best help new players, not according to its relative degree of truth. Pointsman 17:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

That is exactly the point. Which content can best help new players? That's exactly why things that some players might consider "wrong" or "unhelpful" are seperated. And regarding presentation with text rather than visual effect: When you have an extremely long chunk of text, which this article has, the brain will find it easier to focus on the things you find important if you have certain visual markers seperating them from the rest. So a new player trying to find out about generally accepted PVP wisdom will find it easier to read the text and ignore the boxes. Andy Spades 12:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You can like the discordant array of colors as a way to bring order to the page if you like. That does work for some people. I personally prefer a little bit less contrast. Otherwise my attention gets pulled completely away from what is supposedly the most accepted and true parts of the page, which seems.. ironic.. And I still don't think that as the page is now, the distinction between most of the content inside and outside of boxes is sufficiently meaningful. But, well, the proof is in the pudding. I've drawn up a reorganization plan, and am slowly working on it. I'll stage it to some other page once it's a little bit more coherent and we can see how it looks. I might fold in some of the more self-contained changes before then. Pointsman 01:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Popular PVP ship setups

I suggest clearing the flare rag from the list, or at least moving it into a list called "antique pvp setups". i've never seen anyone use the bomber for anything else than bombing or botting so far, if it ever was, it's not popular anymore.

I've now taken the liberty to simply delete it. --Andy Spades 22:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact that it may have fallen out of favor doesn't mean that it isn't a powerful setup. It's not like they changed the combat mechanics. Not that it really matters. Pointsman 17:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right, but the paragraph is called 'popular PvP setups', not 'powerful' ones. Otherwise you could make an almost endless list of all those powerful setups VO offers. Which is a lot. Andy Spades 12:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

2006

Actually, energy projectiles do have size. That's why the capital gauss cannon got much more dangerous a few patches ago- Incarnate increased the size of its collision mesh... --Roguelazer 11:48, 16 June 2006 (EDT)

That's what I thought. The size of gauss and plas devs are what makes them dangerous as well as their auto targeting. I'll put what I originally had back in.

--Ghost

nah ... That only applies to capship gauss. try this: put neut and gauss into a wraith. Move close to a roid or another ship. position yourself that the screen is divided by the object and space. Strafe up and fire both guns till they miss the object. They should both miss at more or less the same position.