If you dont like someones playstyle and this commander is in the game TOS ans rules you got:
-300k millions star systems
-Solo and private
-Getting a better ship or build
Open play is what it is, this is not a private group.
Lead Designers advice on dealing with griefing (part 2)
- Thread starter Stigbob
- Start date
If you dont like someones playstyle and this commander is in the game TOS ans rules you got:
-300k millions star systems
-Solo and private
-Getting a better ship or build
Open play is what it is, this is not a private group.
Could you PM me a linky for research purposes please.
Back when this is all it did I made quite heavy use of it. As soon as it was demonstrated that the feature was now working as originally intended, I began a purge of my list, first removing all but the most flagrant of cheaters, then removing them as well when it became apparent that blocking them was doing more harm than simply ignoring them.
Even if Frontier refuses to reevaluate player control over instancing, a comm only block feature should be added. I have a list of about a hundred CMDRs I'm perfectly happy to encounter, as long as I don't have to see their crap cluttering up my chat window, or get annoying ringing from voice connection attempts.
Not a stance I could ever agree with in an MMO, especially one that gives players the ability to select an ostensibly 'Open' mode.
Indeed they can and this is the problem at the heart of this issue.
The TOS is irrelevant the block function was specifically designed to deal with griefers in open.
Heres Sandro Sammarco's (ED lead designer) comments on it, as you can see what he suggests wouldn't be possible or applicable to either group or solo.
"Hello Commanders!
In this instance, blocking the Commander might prove quite useful.
When you block somebody, a couple of things should happen.
Firstly, you will receive no communications from them.
Secondly, during any transition where matchmaking is at work (so basically, hyperspace jumps, entering and exiting super cruise) you are much less likely to be matched with the blocked Commander.
Blocking becomes weaker when it comes up against friends (and next year, player wings), because if a blocked Commander is in the same session as a friend (say, because they haven't blocked the Commander, the blocking effect is overruled by the friendship matchmaking.
Outside of this case though, blocking should work fine"
Link as it's too old to be quoted : https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...CK#post1219313
So I'm with Archon and you are with Hudson, I attack you and you block me for that 'cos you say I'm a griefer.
The block tool has a very bad dessing sir. Till people is unnable to see what is PVP, ganking or griefing this tool is a fail.
I only have station griefers/cheats on my blocklist, there's no griefing in what you describe.
PVP, griefing, cheating and ganking are all subjective terms, it's easier just to accept that people can and will make up their own minds and act according to that.
I agree the block function can be abused by some, and probably is, but most people posting here are talking about using it to block known anti social players or players who have done them foul. I did post way back that maybe the OP's comments about going to youtube and sitting in a station and logging in and out was going a bit too far.
But just because a mode is called open and anything can happen the ability to choose who you want to play with should still be an option as you say it's a ostensibly open mode, It can happen, but people should still have the choice of, if it will happen and by whom.
But we have a entire hotel that caters for that topic.
Last edited:
While Solo and PG exist, it's entirely moot anyway. It's kinda like complaining about the rain while drowning in the ocean.
I agree the block function can be abused by some, and probably is, but most people posting here are talking about using it to block known anti social players or players who have done them foul. I did post way back that maybe the OP's comments about going to youtube and sitting in a station and logging in and out was going a bit too far.
But just because a mode is called open and anything can happen the ability to choose who you want to play with should still be an option as you say it's a ostensibly open mode, It can happen, but people should still have the choice of, if it will happen and by whom.
But we have a entire hotel that caters for that topic.
I did suggest doing it in a lazy/easy AFK way and whilst making money from the CG's. But in reflection you are probably right. Still seeing the results in-game I regard it as time well spent anyway, and I put less time into it than cold drive tuning/rail-gun efficiency experiments.
With a minimal number of blocked CMDR's I've effectively removed station griefing from my game and thanks to their friends lists pulling other griefers out of instances with me I got more bang for my block (groan).
Nobody has supplied any reasonable evidence that this is the case. Anyway, it's a smoke screen for the real issue:
Yes, the heart of the issue is that some players think that nobody should be able to fly in Open and hide from others using a block list. I don't believe that everyone who takes this position is a terrible ganker afraid of loosing prey. Principal also comes into play: The idea that there can be no hiding in Open is valid! But a lot of the player base disagree. They find it useful to be able to block players they would rather not play with. The principal of no hiding, is of far less value to them, than the ability to minimise annoyances during their leisure time. Most importantly, Frontier are of the latter opinion too which is why they gave us this tool.
By all means start a campaign to remove the block list. Start a new thread with a poll. I'd love to see the results.
I apologise. I Misread in your OP where the quotation ended and thought that the testing of the blocking system was part of the quotation from the designer.So it's you doing the testing, not FDev. Sorry for the confusion.
No need to appologize the OP could have been clearer, I got the impression you were annoyed at cheats not being banned anyway which is a very common view (and one I totally agree with) and doesn't really need any sort of explanation.
You completely forgot about the block function, which is part of Open and was always meant to be.
If you can't see him you don't know if he is in Solo, PG or blocked in Open. Since you can't tell the difference, why do you care?
Open is what it is, and pvp is allowed, is part of the game. If you dont like pvp avoid with real mechanics, not blocking players. Open doesn have easy, normal or hard mode. This is not the way it was dessigned to. My ships are all ready for flying in open and if I get killed I dont block them, I try to learn new things about it.
Blocking players that are better or have better ships or builds than you is not the solution.
Last edited:
Blocking is a real mechanic, and it is working exactly as designed.
Your last few posts have been talking about "Open" as if it were some special thing.
"Open" is just a name for the game client connectivity mode.
There is but one game we're all playing : The base game called Elite: Dangerous, which is the NPC's, BGS, Galaxy simulation, and so on and so forth.
"Solo", "Group", and "Open" are all just that one game, with the game client doing exactly the same thing in each mode connecting to the same back-end servers.
The only difference between the three connectivity modes is: "Which other game client will I connect to?".
"Open" means the game client will try to connect with any other game client running in the same instance.
"Private Group" means the game client will try to connect with another game client in "Private Group" mode and with the same PG tag name.
"Solo" means the game client will not try to connect with another game client.
Nothing special about Open one bit. This is why the blocking feature should not be so controversial - all it means is a player's game client will not try to connect with the game client of the player who has been blocked.
If folks are getting so worked up about a handful of players being added to a block list, they should be positively livid that "Solo" and "Private Group" connectivity modes are basically equal to BlockList++, because that's basically what those two connectivity modes effectively are.
Why do we care? So that we can protect our damn systems and powers from opposition in PowerPlay. The block mechanic is an exploit. If I shoot a CMDR in respect of defending my own system, that player will block me, hence escaping justice and continue ruining my system unprovoked. The system will be abused heavily, especially as an advantage for UA bombers. A game that is intended to be "dangerous", should not be called "Elite: Harmless".
That player could also just switch to solo or a private group. The existence of block changes nothing about players' ability (or rather lack thereof) to use PvP to exert influence over PP and the BGS.
Exactly.
The only real potential to abuse the block function comes in attempting to prevent other players from instancing with a bunch of other people.
That's a fair criticism but it's one which is only going to be relevant to a tiny minority of players and, even then, the fact that the Friend-List takes priority over the Block-List minimises this issue.
That being the case, I don't have any problem with something that's likely to be useful to the majority, even if it has consequences for a minority.