No, nope, never. Blocking how it currently works is only way to make open mode or even some PG's somewhat pleasant to play.
If you find yourself in players blocklist you probably are doing something they consider as unwanted behauviour.
Elite Dangerous Blocking System: A Call for Change
- Thread starter CMDR DT
- Start date
-
- Tags
- blocking progression
If you find yourself in players blocklist you probably are doing something they consider as unwanted behauviour.
But what if they're just getting the module that they had to use to bribe people to powerplay?
I do module grind in Solo, sorry for those really interested in PP...But what if they're just getting the module that they had to use to bribe people to powerplay?
That is victim blaming. Now one could say you shouldn't have been flying, there or you should have had are more dressed up ship... But at the end the person commiting the crime is the one committing the crime.
At the end that doesn't solve the problem of the original OP, because all that will happen is the offender will get blocked. That's not anti-social behavior. Rarely does the griefing happen in true pirate or bounty hunter fashion, where you are requested to drop cargo... Or scanned to see if you have outstanding warrants.
I think it funny that with so many folks that like pvp you'd think CQC would be full. It's a great system. It's all even, has different objectives. Solo, teams.... Really should be used more. But that's not what happens.
I've thought of this issue more. I really think power play should be the venue for this. What is perfect it already has a "cool down" period where when you quit your faction you are still able to be attacked.
All they have to do is code in that weapons do 99% less damage to those that are not pledged in power play.
Ah yes, that old emotionally-charged and completely disproportionate chestnut.
Guess what? It's a game, where logging on you've agreed to abide the ToS/EULA. So we're all operating off the same sheet here, it's not like I've randomly punched someone on the street... we've entered the ring, gloves on, knowing that we're about to get hit in particular ways according to that EULA. Like I said, if your opponent steps outside those bounds, complain away, that's fair.
If it's not clear that by entering Open, you enter a world where another player might kill you, then I question why you're using that mode... it's like participating in a basketball match and wondering why you aren't baking cakes.
But make no mistake, there are no "victims" in the social context when game activities are kept within the rules. We're talking about a game with mechanics that allow you to commit in-game crimes against other players. Of course there will be "victims" in the game context, that is literally what the game is set up to facilitate, but complaining about that is
If I'm "victim blaming", then here's a list of my "victims" grievances with me (i.e, accusations of griefing I've faced and the associated activity).
- Trading
- Trading weapons
- Trading slaves
- Trading biowaste
- Trading drugs
- Trading to the wrong faction
- Trading anything on the black market
- Trading Thargoid Items
- Trading Guardian Items
- UA bombing
- Killing civilian NPCs
- Killing security NPCs
- Killing pirate NPCs
- Fighting for the "wrong" side in a CZ
- Fighting in a CZ
- Using shard cannons against Thargoids
- Causing Lockdown/Civil Unrest/Bust/Famine/Outbreak/Boom/Expansion/Retreat
- Dropping a target faction's influence
- Raising a target faction's influence
- Not supporting the instigating faction in a CG
- Expanding a faction
- Retreating a faction
- Tagging all items in a system
- Not tagging all items in a system
- Only tagging high value items
- Killing players
- Being killed (lol, that was a fun one)
- Reporting bugs
- Creating grelics
- Trading anything alien in Colonia
... I think there's more, but hopefully my point is made.
So with that laundry list, if you're going to insist it's "victim blaming" (and therefore behaviour out of line with player expectations) for me to ignore any emotional impact my actions could have, heck, I might as well just not play the game. It doesn't matter what I do, I'm creating "victims"[1]. Unless, as I said, the emotional response to the game is beyond my control, and therefore not my responsibility, nor am I compelled by the EULA/ToS to care.
I get it... games are literally designed to create emotional investment from players... so things like dying are meant to come with an emotional sense of loss. When I see months of progress wiped off my BGS activities by players, whether just casually taking advantage of a set of BGS states or directly attacking the faction I support, I feel anger, frustration, the works. The game is meant to make me feel like that. So I totally understand; when a player gets killed by another player (or even by an NPC[2]) they get angry /upset at the agent of that.
But never do I move to "They're griefing me/they're the problem". I used to many years ago in different games, and then I woke up to the fact I was the problem, creating the only victim group here: The people being bullied by others into following rules they haven't agreed to.
If people aren't clear about what they've signed up to, I suggest they read the EULA and maybe get a better understanding of what the game is about.
I disagree with the OP and that there's any problem with the block system, as I disagree with the OPs fundamental premise. There is not a strong emphasis on player interaction... were I to reword it, there's no emphasis on direct player interaction. Much of the things that impact players are indirect PvE actions. Traded today? You affected other players. Claimed some pirate bounties? You've changed the world for other players. Failed a mission? Same again.
There's some players who can't rein in their emotions to separate it from the otherwise mundane actions of another player simply getting on with the game. Fortunately, FD caters for that.
- Private Groups: So you can play with a trusted group.
- Solo: So you can just live in your own little bubble with pixels
- Block: Because some actions can bridge even the Solo gap, you can just remove problematic players
All the other network/IP blocking stuff that some people do feels a little "not in the spirit of the ToS", but in a P2P setup, there's not much FD can do about it either. But nonetheless, the options are there.
Now, going back to my first response to one of your comments... while I did mean that as a generally pointed response to "Yet another suggestion to make Crime and Punishment just '... and Punishment'", there was a hint of truth to it.
You want an environment where player-against-player crimes are punished severely because of (some perception that) people who do PvP are "bad". (Un)fortunately, FD created a system where they didn't want to heavily distinguish player and non-player crimes. They've drifted a little with PF bounties and such, but nonetheless, the two are fairly interconnected... and therefore any severe punishment for PvP crime will equally apply to PvE crime, which is bad news.
There's a gap here in the sense of Open PvE... a way to play with pubbies on the understanding you'll all "play nice", because Solo is just NPCs, and PG is when you can convince your mates that ED is worth coming back to, at a time that works for you. Open PvE where there's no (damaging) player-interactions would address a lot of issues... it would also create new ones, but I'm not going to get stuck in the art of the possible right now.
As someone who enjoys crime due to the fact it's more technically involved (even to just a small degree; avoiding a scan when smuggling is still better than autodock + AFK standard training). Towards that end, I want crime to be more challenging, and more punishing when you get it wrong. But to do that, it also needs to be more rewarding... which right now, it absolutely isn't. That's where the conversation needs to start.
There's a huge difference between fixed PvP team deathmatch battles with no impact beyond that activity, and open-world sandbox PvP going on a hunt for for player-traders who will undoubtedly be carrying more valuable cargo than any NPC trader normally would, or fighting other players in CZs to help progress that faction.
The beauty of PvP in an open world sandbox is that there are no (fixed) objectives.
Powerplay doesn't know what it wants to be. I don't know how long you've been playing, but Powerplay was supposed to be "endgame" content for people supporting factions through BGS related activities, with factions rising and falling from Power status on a continuous basis. For whatever reason[3], FD didn't do that, and instead just made a standalone system with only very loose ties to the BGS and static power identities.
So it's basis was actually PvE, but to more formalise the indirect group-vs-group aspect. The BGS community were the most excited, and simultaneously left the most wanting by Powerplay.
tl;dr Yes, there's a gap for something like Open PvE... and the results of crime could be more punishing, but need better rewards. But if we're going to hold players accountable for emotional responses from others as a result of otherwise "within the ToS/EULA" actions, ho boy have I got bad news for the entire playerbase
[1] I'm more than happy to regale you with tales on the specifics of those "victims". I assure you, they're all ridiculous, and I love spinning war stories.
[2] If you have a look at a lot of "suggestions", they're quite often people blaming the game for a death or other loss that was incurred by some mechanic.
[3] I have my suspicions, but they get very OT.
Last edited:
"I disagree with the OP and that there's any problem with the block system, as I disagree with the OPs fundamental premise. There is not a strong emphasis on player interaction... were I to reword it, there's no emphasis on direct player interaction. Much of the things that impact players are indirect PvE actions. Traded today? You affected other players. Claimed some pirate bounties? You've changed the world for other players. Failed a mission? Same again."
Then we are in agreement. Block system is fine.
"There's a huge difference between fixed PvP team deathmatch battles with no impact beyond that activity, and open-world sandbox PvP going on a hunt for for player-traders who will undoubtedly be carrying more valuable cargo than any NPC trader normally would, or fighting other players in CZs to help progress that faction."
I don't disagree. I certainly wish the smuggling mechanics would be revamped to make more sense and be more profitable.
But I feel that you don't need the "PVP" aspect to do that.
Anyways... I don't do PvP often and when it does occur on me it's at CGz... I've also been interdicted. I've been destroyed and I've gotten let go. Interdictions don't bother me. Like you say... That's the game. But to me camping a station is just not fun and griefing. Now maybe if they were getting shot at by the station itself.... Because you know they requested these supplies... Then I'd be ok with it, but it to me as it stands it make no sense.
Yeah, it's a game, but I only have a limited time to play it, and if I'm trying to get a specific thing done, I don't want to deal with folks whose super tricked out caddy is being tested on unequal opponents.
So the block function is incredibly convenient when I still want to interact with players, just not those that aren't doing the function I am.
Then we are in agreement. Block system is fine.
"There's a huge difference between fixed PvP team deathmatch battles with no impact beyond that activity, and open-world sandbox PvP going on a hunt for for player-traders who will undoubtedly be carrying more valuable cargo than any NPC trader normally would, or fighting other players in CZs to help progress that faction."
I don't disagree. I certainly wish the smuggling mechanics would be revamped to make more sense and be more profitable.
But I feel that you don't need the "PVP" aspect to do that.
Anyways... I don't do PvP often and when it does occur on me it's at CGz... I've also been interdicted. I've been destroyed and I've gotten let go. Interdictions don't bother me. Like you say... That's the game. But to me camping a station is just not fun and griefing. Now maybe if they were getting shot at by the station itself.... Because you know they requested these supplies... Then I'd be ok with it, but it to me as it stands it make no sense.
Yeah, it's a game, but I only have a limited time to play it, and if I'm trying to get a specific thing done, I don't want to deal with folks whose super tricked out caddy is being tested on unequal opponents.
So the block function is incredibly convenient when I still want to interact with players, just not those that aren't doing the function I am.
Last edited:
On that, yes.
"All" they have to do.
So CZs. Bounty hunting. BGS wars. Territorial faction play like KoS lists. "I'm trying to keep this system anarchy and I just found the dude that's been cashing 100m in bounties every day right there hunting with a KWS in the nav beacon". All of the wide spectrum of possible interactions that can come of playing in this galaxy have to go out of the window because of the things that happen in one system, that you can already render yourself impervious by selecting solo or private from the main menu.
When I first started I took the reddit's word for open being a gankfest and flew in mobius. I figured flying with a group of PvEers would be a nice way to get the game experience I was after. At no point did I ever dream of taking open away from the PvPers.
Simple solutions to complex problems, oh yes that always works well! In the meantime we already have a system that works perfectly well.........
I've tried to come up with things in the past, some kind of system for allowing completely intended engagements (like piracy) to happen while trying to prevent the majority of contextless ganking, and it's surprisingly difficult.
The best thing that I could come up with was allowing weapons to damage but not destroy provided certain conditions were met, ie. an attacker could trash a target's modules but not trigger a powerplant explosion or take their hull below the point where they could reboot/repair without exploding. This would neuter entirely random ganking in open space while still allowing piracy and the like to take place.
The conditions being things like "must have hardpoints stowed", "must be clean", "must not be powerplay enemies", "must not have fired on another player in this instance", "must not be in a haz-res or anarchy system", etc.
The PvEers didn't like it because they could still see ways that people could get killed, and shot it down.
Nothing short of being completely immune to enemy fire will satisfy them, so if they're not willing to compromise I don't see why anyone else should either.
One of the problem with these threads is that the posters are suggesting changes to a system that didn't just pop into existence one day and that's that. The current crime and punishment and blocking system is the result of many years of trying different things to please players and failing repeatedly because, as we all know, you can never please everyone and this is the result, a system that pleases no-one, but actually works to achieve it's objective.
Any new changes would end up having to through years of testing and changes as problems are found and sorted out, patches and updates, and eventually we would probably end up with something very similar to what we have now. The current system isn't something that was just decided on randomly, it's the result of people playing the game for many years and encountering problems that need fixing.
Yeah, that's something that no amount of playing around with stuff will fix, no matter what you do someone will be unhappy and very vocal about it!
Any new changes would end up having to through years of testing and changes as problems are found and sorted out, patches and updates, and eventually we would probably end up with something very similar to what we have now. The current system isn't something that was just decided on randomly, it's the result of people playing the game for many years and encountering problems that need fixing.
Yeah, that's something that no amount of playing around with stuff will fix, no matter what you do someone will be unhappy and very vocal about it!
That's a hard no from me. If you are on my block list it's because you are either a sociopathic ganker who only kills to cause rebuys or just a general chode in chat. I'm fine with actual reasons to PVP someone like a Faction War, Piracy, or just even having a disagreement in chat and it gets to the "lets take this outside" phase. However if you just kill people to cause them to lose money for your own entertainment, enjoy being on everyone's block list where you can go gank AI for absolutely no reason. Also most of these gankers use interdiction cheats so even if you follow the escape vector perfectly you never see any progress being made.
It wouldn't be that much of an issue but System Security is an absolute joke and does nothing to the individual just mass murdering someone in a High Sec system or if we had some sort of way to actually stealth like how EVE has cloaking. We need much stronger and aggressive system authority like in EVE where you knew you screwed up when you tried to do crime inside of the bubble. These types of players can go play Arena if they want to just blow each other up for absolutely no reason.
It wouldn't be that much of an issue but System Security is an absolute joke and does nothing to the individual just mass murdering someone in a High Sec system or if we had some sort of way to actually stealth like how EVE has cloaking. We need much stronger and aggressive system authority like in EVE where you knew you screwed up when you tried to do crime inside of the bubble. These types of players can go play Arena if they want to just blow each other up for absolutely no reason.
Last edited:
I would be interested in hearing more, as I was under the impression that P2P interdictions were rigged in the interdicting player's favour anyway, and it was really difficult to escape.
Steve
Last edited:
I don't see why it would be rigged either way, as far as I can tell it's always come down to who can stay on point of the escape vector better, but it seems to me that any time I'm ever interdicted by a player there is no "fight" or "struggle" it's just the red bar screaming to the top regardless if I'm flying damn near perfect which makes me believe they are locked onto the center of the escape vector somehow and never leaving it even though it will twist and turn and literally throw you off of it at random times while you pitch to recover.
I think that the issue is there are many MMO games that manage PVP and PVE partitioning MUCH better, and that there are multi-decade game examples of those mechanics.
The frustration is that FDEV seems to lack the capacity or interest to address the issue.
Players that come to this game from those other game experiences begin the progression ladder by visiting Deciat. They instantly see the broken mechanics and come to the forum over and over and over and over to vent their frustrations.
FDEV is planning a major feature upgrade - what do you want to bet it is about getting engineering mats, or some UI change instead of the very real problem with PVP and PVE partitioning?
If there was an ARX pool on it I'd bet the farm.
This all stems from the assumption that PvP/PvE partitioning is desirable. I don't personally think it is, and the very deliberate lack of such partitioning (which is itself a metagamist context defiance) is one of the things that originally attracted me to this game.
Maybe FDev's stance has changed enough that they think block is no longer sufficient, but I'm doubtful. I don't think they ever perceived this PvE/PvP thing as a problem; originally for the same reasons that I still don't, and later on because they had made their band-aid hack almost bulletproof.
I came to this game because it reminded me heavily of EVE but I got to actually fly my ship and there is far less spreadsheets (I believe) to go over. I have the feeling that FDev expected player formed factions to be responsible for policing the systems at times, getting involved in more faction wars and fighting with other players in an opposing faction. Power Play stuff, which I have yet to dip my toes into, and Piracy. All of it was probably expected to just be player run at some point to some degree. The biggest problem is the playerbase is much smaller than what it used to be and everyone is so spread thin, especially now with the Thargoid attacks. I feel they messed up by dividing the community in the beginning by seperating Online and Offline/Private but still keeping your progress the same between worlds.
As for right now, it's a problem due to the lack of players to help keep most things in check (like rampant piracy/zero profit ganking in high sec), more interactive encounters, and the like, but the blocking system helps keep most of the 'unwanted' types of people out of the world forcing them into their own 'private' game in a sense similar to the bad sport lobbies of GTA 5. I don't care if you kill me, but at least have a good reason other than "This is a PVP game" to back up your actions when I'm not carrying any cargo and you never bothered to scan me in the first place.
Edit: To add on, FDev should improve System Security by making them more of a threat, especially in High Security Systems. There is no reason why someone in a fully upgraded ship should be able to just sit parked in super cruise killing every player they see without having 20 ships up their keel.
Last edited:
Apples and oranges comparison here because the MMOs you are referring to use a client/ server model, not a peer to peer model.
The mechanics of PVP PVE separation are not about client type, they are about where PVP is permitted. The default state is PVE, and the PVP occurs in specified zones or with flagging states. Has nothing to do with client type.