To Solo Play Players: If You Could Disable PVP, Would You Play in Open Play Mode Instead?

[Morbad]

So let redo the who argument, but this time, lets put your lack of skill in the hotseat, you are failing a pretty simple game mechanics of interdiction from other players, how pathetic isn't that? as you have said yourself, you rather submit than trying to win the interdiction from another player. this is a stupidly EASY thing todo. so if I can do that, how can't you?

Easy. I have no incentive to learn the tunnel game. The submit/escape routine is faster that fighting an interdiction and is much more reliable than any fair contest (where a CMDR of similar competence would win about half the time) of the tunnel game could possibly be.

If there were meaningful consequences to this lack of skill, I would acquire that skill.

That's what I want. I want to have to learn to succeed. I don't want a game that allows me to ignore what should be relevant skills. I will naturally gravitate to the path of least resistance, so that path should be a challenge.

Regardless, my argument works no matter what my personal skill level is. It just so happens that I am one of whatever portion of people who cannot be sufficiently challenged by lowest common denominator NPCs, but these people would still exist even if I were an abject incompetent.

or should we go over the whole thing with players having different interests and skills in this game again?

That's exactly where I was coming from.

Where is the NPC content that caters to those who want a challenging organic experience?

That players exist who are not fun to play with is reason enough for the block feature to exist in this game, especially as it's not a PvP-focused game, i.e. players are an optional extra - even in Open.

There are players that are not fun to play with because of their use of the block feature. Why does their preference take precedent over every other person they instance with? Why must the block feature exclude others and not just remove the blocker?

The implication that the block feature can only be used to prevent PvP (which would still be an absurdity, in Open) is false and the idea that is even the majority use of the feature is wholly unfounded. Hell, I've been directed to use the feature by support to, among other things, deal with people who were AFK on landing pads. How is that sane way to police a game? Why should I be able to tell others that they cannot encounter said CMDR just because matchmaking happened to prefer my client as host?

Other players, that do not have to be specifically whitelisted/vetted for, are the entire reason for Open to exist. To allow players to unilaterally exclude third parties from meeting is mindbogglingly lazy.

 

[galahad2069]

Yup - there's no need to learn how to destroy NPCs if one does not wish to do so - and there are no adverse consequences for not learning to do so.

It does not seem so. The post you were replying to did not say anything about NPCs in specific.

 

[Robert Maynard]

There are players that are not fun to play with because of their use of the block feature. Why does their preference take precedent over every other person they instance with? Why must the block feature exclude others and not just remove the blocker?

That others may (possibly) be affected by instancing issues due to other players existing on a CMDR's block list is an unfortunate consequence of the block feature - however it does not seem to be one that has caused Frontier to change their position on the necessity of the block feature itself.

The implication that the block feature can only be used to prevent PvP (which would still be an absurdity, in Open) is false and the idea that is even the majority use of the feature is wholly unfounded. Hell, I've been directed to use the feature by support to, among other things, deal with people who were AFK on landing pads. How is that sane way to police a game? Why should I be able to tell others that they cannot encounter said CMDR just because matchmaking happened to prefer my client as host?

The block feature can be used to excise particular CMDRs from ones gameplay for any reason - there's no restriction on its use nor are the reasons for using it prescribed.

Regarding policing the game, Frontier know that they have players with different ideas as to what constitutes "good" gameplay - and they don't force them to play together, even in Open.

Other players, that do not have to be specifically whitelisted/vetted for, are the entire reason for Open to exist. To allow players to unilaterally exclude third parties from meeting is mindbogglingly lazy.

It's one reason - however that Frontier decided to include a block feature in their multi-player game suggests that the need outweighs the downsides, for them at least.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

That's exactly where I was coming from.

Where is the NPC content that caters to those who want a challenging organic experience?

Thargoids, CZ's. Or is the problem that you must choose to go there instead of npc gameplay forced on you?

There are players that are not fun to play with because of their use of the block feature. Why does their preference take precedent over every other person they instance with? Why must the block feature exclude others and not just remove the blocker?

The implication that the block feature can only be used to prevent PvP (which would still be an absurdity, in Open) is false and the idea that is even the majority use of the feature is wholly unfounded. Hell, I've been directed to use the feature by support to, among other things, deal with people who were AFK on landing pads. How is that sane way to police a game? Why should I be able to tell others that they cannot encounter said CMDR just because matchmaking happened to prefer my client as host?

Other players, that do not have to be specifically whitelisted/vetted for, are the entire reason for Open to exist. To allow players to unilaterally exclude third parties from meeting is mindbogglingly lazy.

Well there is that kind of block, it is called solo mode.
But you are essentially saying that people cannot have fun with co-op mode without also being compelled to play with players they really do not want to play with it. It is kind if you want to have party in IRL but need to allow also people who start fighting and thrash your place, or cause police to get involved.

For every people I have blocked I did have encounter I did not like at all. Why should I be compelled to meet those players over and over again?

I do understand that some people get irritated when they get blocked, but well perhaps there is something in their gaming style that others do not like?

 

[Robert Maynard]

It does not seem so. The post you were replying to did not say anything about NPCs in specific.

Only that one needed to learn how to destroy them if one wanted to destroy them.

 

[Morbad]

That others may (possibly) be affected by instancing issues due to other players existing on a CMDR's block list is an unfortunate consequence of the block feature - however it does not seem to be one that has caused Frontier to change their position on the necessity of the block feature itself.

The block feature can be used to excise particular CMDRs from ones gameplay for any reason - there's no restriction on its use nor are the reasons for using it prescribed.

Regarding policing the game, Frontier know that they have players with different ideas as to what constitutes "good" gameplay - and they don't force them to play together, even in Open.

It's one reason - however that Frontier decided to include a block feature in their multi-player game suggests that the need outweighs the downsides, for them at least.

Well, that's all a big 'duh'. I've already made all of those points. They fall under Frontier lazily abdicating policing, resulting in an 'Open' that is far less open and more exclusionary than any mode deserving of the term should be.

I'm still at a loss as to why, beyond simply not giving a damn, this system was chosen over several potential alternatives I see.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Well, that's all a big 'duh'. I've already made all of those points. They fall under Frontier lazily abdicating policing, resulting in an 'Open' that is far less open and more exclusionary than any mode deserving of the term should be.

I'm still at a loss as to why, beyond simply not giving a damn, this system was chosen over several potential alternatives I see.

What are potential alternatives? Some active game masters policing the game? Enough downvotes for player resulting to dropping to "thrash tier" instancing?
Or just continuous clownfest?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Well, that's all a big 'duh'. I've already made all of those points. They fall under Frontier lazily abdicating policing, resulting in an 'Open' that is far less open and more exclusionary than any mode deserving of the term should be.

Open has never been as "Open" as some want it to be - as no-one needs to play in it to play the game.

I'm still at a loss as to why, beyond simply not giving a damn, this system was chosen over several potential alternatives I see.

What alternatives would those be?

 

[Morbad]

Open has never been as "Open" as some want it to be - as no-one needs to play in it to play the game.

I need to play in it to play the game that was sold to me and the mode would be far better off if people who didn't want to play Open selected a mode more suited to their tastes and didn't crap up Open for those who do want an open mode.

What alternatives would those be?

I see four primary possibilities.

The first, and what I would consider most ideal, would be dispensing with the idea that players should be able to arbitrarily dictate instancing to other players, while Frontier assumes responsibility for removing players who cannot follow the ToS. I have a pretty good idea of why they didn't go this path though; it would require actual work.

The second potential alternative would be to change the block functionality so that rather than pushing the blocked CMDR into another instance when they try to enter one they would otherwise be matched with, the blocker would instead be removed, either to an extant instance where no one they blocked was present, or to a new instance if no such instances were available. This would minimize the amount of collateral damage from block as well as sap it's potential for abuse, while still preventing the one blocked from being instanced with the blocker. The only potential downside I can think of, relative to the current system, would be that third parties would occasionally see a blocker vanish as they were re-instanced when someone they had blocked enters the instance. I consider this trivial issue as the game has never enforced any mechanisms that would prevent this particular type of context defiance, which occurs regularly, for myriad reasons. If necessary, it could also be tied to one's wing, to prevent wings from being broken up.

A third possibility would be to have blocking not affect instancing at all, just make the blocker and blocked ships unable to directly detect or interact with each other. This would solve all instancing related issues, but has the potentially serious downside of confusing people. Indeed, a not-so-rare networking bug can result in just this sort of effect and I've seen fairly large groups of CMDRs drop what they were doing to try to figure out why some of them could see ships others could not.

The last and most subtle sort of solution I envision would be an overhaul of the blocking vs. instancing weights, with the goal of minimizing the impact on third parties. Perhaps that was something that was originally accounted for, but the current weights seem to prioritize exclusion above all else, which is what makes it so easy to abuse, and gives it the potential for unintended adverse effects that it has.

 

[Zieman]

the mode would be far better off if people who didn't want to play Open selected a mode more suited to their tastes and didn't crap up Open for those who do want an open mode.

Open PvE mode added to the list, as the default choice offered by the game, would get rid of most of those who you lovingly refer as crapping up Open.

 

[Ettanin]

There are players that are not fun to play with because of their use of the block feature. Why does their preference take precedent over every other person they instance with? Why must the block feature exclude others and not just remove the blocker?

Get a dedicated IPv4 address, no instancing issues, no empty instances. Tough luck if you can't. Not my problem.

Any other solution requires FDev to invest into an infrastructure or into more TURN servers, both of which are an expenditure FDev tries to shirk away from.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I need to play in it to play the game that was sold to me and the mode would be far better off if people who didn't want to play Open selected a mode more suited to their tastes and didn't crap up Open for those who do want an open mode.

The mode is shared by all players (those who can play in the multi-player game modes that is) and it is the only populated multi-player game mode that a player can access (without knowing about specific Private Groups and applying to join them). It's also the only game mode with an unlimited population.

Open belongs not just to those who want unrestricted gameplay.

I see four primary possibilities.

The first, and what I would consider most ideal, would be dispensing with the idea that players should be able to arbitrarily dictate instancing to other players, while Frontier assumes responsibility for removing players who cannot follow the ToS. I have a pretty good idea of why they didn't go this path though; it would require actual work.

Players not breaking ToS does not equate to players being "fun to play with" - and players don't need to play among the latter, in this game.

The second potential alternative would be to change the block functionality so that rather than pushing the blocked CMDR into another instance when they try to enter one they would otherwise be matched with, the blocker would instead be removed, either to an extant instance where no one they blocked was present, or to a new instance if no such instances were available. This would minimize the amount of collateral damage from block as well as sap it's potential for abuse, while still preventing the one blocked from being instanced with the blocker. The only potential downside I can think of, relative to the current system, would be that third parties would occasionally see a blocker vanish as they were re-instanced when someone they had blocked enters the instance. I consider this trivial issue as the game has never enforced any mechanisms that would prevent this particular type of context defiance, which occurs regularly, for myriad reasons. If necessary, it could also be tied to one's wing, to prevent wings from being broken up.

Which would effectively punish the player using the block feature rather than limiting instancing for the blocked player(s).

A third possibility would be to have blocking not affect instancing at all, just make the blocker and blocked ships unable to directly detect or interact with each other. This would solve all instancing related issues, but has the potentially serious downside of confusing people. Indeed, a not-so-rare networking bug can result in just this sort of effect and I've seen fairly large groups of CMDRs drop what they were doing to try to figure out why some of them could see ships others could not.

Not sure how this would work.

The last and most subtle sort of solution I envision would be an overhaul of the blocking vs. instancing weights, with the goal of minimizing the impact on third parties. Perhaps that was something that was originally accounted for, but the current weights seem to prioritize exclusion above all else, which is what makes it so easy to abuse, and gives it the potential for unintended adverse effects that it has.

I expect that the instancing weights were among the aspects of the block feature that were changed when making it more effective.

 

[Bigmaec]

Open PvE mode added to the list, as the default choice offered by the game, would get rid of most of those who you lovingly refer as crapping up Open.

Part of the charm - in my opinion - is that open is the default (or leftmost choice on the menu) mode.
"Open PvE" could be a second option, if block is neutered on "open PvP" mode. But there will be many screams against both suggestions from all sides

 

[Zieman]

Part of the charm - in my opinion - is that open is the default (or leftmost choice on the menu) mode.
"Open PvE" could be a second option, if block is neutered on "open PvP" mode. But there will be many screams against both suggestions from all sides

Open PvE as the default, with current block option in effect.
Open PvP could be the second, or it could be the fourth option. But block in open PvP would block only comms.

 

[Morbad]

Open belongs not just to those who want unrestricted gameplay.

Evidently it belongs only to those who want restricted gameplay, because their whims take absolute precedence.

Players not breaking ToS does not equate to players being "fun to play with" - and players don't need to play among the latter, in this game.

I'm saying that, in the ostensibly 'open' mode of an open world MMO, if a player isn't breaking any rules, the preferences of others is no cause to exclude them.

Which would effectively punish the player using the block feature rather than limiting instancing for the blocked player(s).

And why should the blocked player be punished? We've already established that blocking can be done for any reason or none. So, it stands to reason that being blocked should not have any stigma attached to it and should not imply that one is somehow deserving of punishment. It's a wholly subjective and arbitrary choice made by one player.

Making blocking harm the fewest people is the goal.

The current system punishes everyone, except perhaps the blocker, and sometimes even then as I strongly suspect there are a fair number of cases where those blocking others are dumbfounded as to why they can't find the instance they were previously in, or the non-blocked players whose company they were previously enjoying.

Not sure how this would work.

It would work exactly the way I described, which actually happens in the current game, it's just a bug at the moment. Every client in this game has it's own subjective PoV, normally those clients instanced with each other get a nearly identical and vaguely synchronous one. The mechanism I describe would alter the perspectives of the blocker and blocked to exclude each other.

I expect that the instancing weights were among the aspects of the block feature that were changed when making it more effective.

That was obviously the mechanism of the change.

I'm saying it was a stupid, reckless, disruptive, harmful, ill conceived, change that should, at the very least, be reassessed from the perspective of a malicious player, intent on using the tools provided to harm the experience of others.

 

[SteveWW57]

And let us not forget:
There are two irreconcilable viewpoints.
There is a real or perceived belief of many players that there are other players who will attack/harass for the fun of it and wreck their ability to play and enjoy the game with others.

Steve 07.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Evidently it belongs only to those who want restricted gameplay, because their whims take absolute precedence.

In that those who want unrestricted gameplay can't force them to engage in it, it would seem to.

I'm saying that, in the ostensibly 'open' mode of an open world MMO, if a player isn't breaking any rules, the preferences of others is no cause to exclude them.

I understand that. That does not make those players fun to play with though.

Making blocking harm the fewest people is the goal.

Indeed.

It would work exactly the way I described, which actually happens in the current game, it's just a bug at the moment. Every client in this game has it's own subjective PoV, normally those clients instanced with each other get a nearly identical and vaguely synchronous one. The mechanism I describe would alter the perspectives of the blocker and blocked to exclude each other.

If the blocked player could not interact with or otherwise affect the player who blocked them then that could possibly work - noting that it may end up being a bit odd for other players who may assume that the blocker and blocked could see each other.

That was obviously the mechanism of the change.

I'm saying it was a stupid, reckless, disruptive, harmful, ill conceived, change that should, at the very least, be reassessed from the perspective of a malicious player, intent on using the tools provided to harm the experience of others.

Players can use other tools provided to harm the experience of others - which is likely why the block feature exists in the first place.

 

[Morbad]

If the blocked player could not interact with or otherwise affect the player who blocked them then that could possibly work - noting that it may end up being a bit odd for other players who may assume that the blocker and blocked could see each other.

That was in my original statement.

Players can use other tools provided to harm the experience of others - which is likely why the block feature exists in the first place.

That's not in dispute and not really relevant.

It's clear that Frontier either didn't care, or somehow didn't anticipate, that people would take the powerful networking tool given to them and apply it to aggrieve others...which is every bit as ridiculous from my perspective as giving a player character a gun and being surprised they shot another player character with it. Every tool placed in player hands should be assessed from the perspective that some very creative, very malicious, people will exhaustively examine it for it's potential to screw with others. The least damaging tool that accomplishes the goal is what should be handed out. The mechanism we have now is like giving violent incarcerated felons those giant acrylic toothbrushes...they don't clean teeth any better, but they make a hell of a lot more dangerou shivs, than the soft little finger toothbrushes.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

That was in my original statement.



That's not in dispute and not really relevant.

It's clear that Frontier either didn't care, or somehow didn't anticipate, that people would take the powerful networking tool given to them and apply it to aggrieve others...which is every bit as ridiculous from my perspective as giving a player character a gun and being surprised they shot another player character with it. Every tool placed in player hands should be assessed from the perspective that some very creative, very malicious, people will exhaustively examine it for it's potential to screw with others. The least damaging tool that accomplishes the goal is what should be handed out. The mechanism we have now is like giving violent incarcerated felons those giant acrylic toothbrushes...they don't clean teeth any better, but they make a hell of a lot more dangerou shivs, than the soft little finger toothbrushes.

What kind of malice is behind say blocking somebody who cheats, combat logs, suicidewinder's, slot blocks, messes with landing pads, or somehow other ways tries to ruin your gamesession? Who is actually the malicious player?

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Likewise someone who obsessively attacks you for multiple times? What fun I do get from said player? Why should I continue to interact with said player? And why onus would be on me, if I block him for good?