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

[Robert Maynard]

It was argued back in 2014 that the 3 modes should be separated and that progress in Solo or PG shouldn't affect progress in Open.

Rejected by FD

It started in late 2012 / early 2013 - when some of the first backers realised that the design of the game they had backed meant that players would not need to play with them to affect the shared galaxy - and has been raised many times since.

While Sandro effectively ruled out every game feature except Powerplay in terms of possibly being made Open only, back in the Powerplay Flash Topics of May'18, we're still awaiting Frontier's decision on that investigation (that Sandro was at pains to state was, in fact, an investigation and not a fait accompli).

 

[Ettanin]

It started in late 2021 / early 2013

Did you mean: late 2012 / early 2013?

 

[TobiasFuzz]

Okay, okay, probably it's gonna be relatively easy with gankers, as long as I'm actually better than the ganker in question and you can convince them to stay in the instance after shield drop so that I can finish them off.

But what do you think I'm supposed to do with pad blockers? FYI, ships are invulnerable while sitting on the landing pad. Maybe I could wait patiently until they've taken off and hunt them down one by one later, but then they would all come to the forums to whine about how an evil ganker (me) shot them down for no reason. Pad blockers are not typically PvPers you know, they are way more likely to belong to your kind.

How? ? ?

Block works both sides, the gankers just block all the enforcers.
Powerplay players just block their opposition,
BGS players block enemy factions,
Explorers block everyone with an interdictor etc etc.

For a MMO environment this is absurd.
A real open PVP environment should dismantle the block,
and for heavens sake if you absolutely need an open PvE mode for this, so be it

I know it is impossible. Just wanted to highlight the issue.

I did my part: I fly in open and even try to convince players to stay in open or switch to open. Now it is perhaps time that you do something? Whatever this "something" may be.

 

[Bigmaec]

I know it is impossible. Just wanted to highlight the issue.

I did my part: I fly in open and even try to convince players to stay in open or switch to open. Now it is perhaps time that you do something? Whatever this "something" may be.

I surely won't hand in 1.8 Billion credits in Explo data in open, I'm not insane

 

[TobiasFuzz]

I surely won't hand in 1.8 Billion credits in Explo data in open, I'm not insane

There you see it. I do this. Until you are willing to risk your explo data in open you have no right to judge someone because of his blocking behavior or affecting bgs from solo mode.

 

[Bigmaec]

There you see it. I do this. Until you are willing to risk your explo data in open you have no right to judge someone because of his blocking behavior or affecting bgs from solo mode.

Au contraire,

I have EVERY right. Because as Robert keeps constantly repeating, ALL MODES ARE EQUAL, AND NO ONE SHALL BESTOW HARM UPON ME, AND I SHALL BLOCK EVERYONE WHOM I WISH

 

[Darrack]

There's an easy solution but the gankers griefers/wouldn't like it.

You have a true Open like most MMOs where folks can just PVE and get on with it, group do BGS etc etc
Then another Open for Pvpers, but in my experience that would be dead as generally the muppets who like to ruin peoples day get totally owned by decent PvPers.

This is how most other MMOs work.
With an Open, NON PvP environment see how fast Solo mode dies out.
I would love to play Open and have fun but i cant be arsed with keyboard warriors who have a beef with life and want to take it out on others.

O7

 

[TobiasFuzz]

Au contraire,

I have EVERY right. Because as Robert keeps constantly repeating, ALL MODES ARE EQUAL, AND NO ONE SHALL BESTOW HARM UPON ME, AND I SHALL BLOCK EVERYONE WHOM I WISH

Yes, yes... you can do what you want. And so can I. Since I don't use block list I started to have a KOS list. Much better.
I am not afraid of open or gankers (indeed they still annoy me to hell). But I am not advocating here for myself. I am on the side of the massive amount of casual players that just want to have fun without on the cost of others enjoyment.

 

[Misty_Dark]

How? ? ?

Block works both sides, the gankers just block all the enforcers.
Powerplay players just block their opposition,
BGS players block enemy factions,
Explorers block everyone with an interdictor etc etc.

For a MMO environment this is absurd.
A real open PVP environment should dismantle the block,
and for heavens sake if you absolutely need an open PvE mode for this, so be it

why not create an alternative unrestricted open, where blocing is disabled? so everyone that feels like you can choose that mode and be sure that there you are not missing out on anybody that could potentially be instanced with.

 

[Brrokk]

Wow, we've cycled back to "instancing effects of block"?

I take a robust attitude: FD have given me block and said I should use it to exclude griefers. I therefore do this and any bad effects are the responsibility of said griefers, not me.

 

[Sylveria]

Wow, we've cycled back to "instancing effects of block"?

Yep. A "Wolf in sheep's clothing" argument.

Predators claiming to be victims... what a sight!

 

[TiberiusDuval]

...or preemptively blocks you for being on some online list?

Well advertise to whole world that you are going to gank on exploration gathering, that is something that is going to happen.

 

[Morbad]

It's very simple. You honest PvPers should just make sure that there is only reasonable PvP in the game. Get rid of all the gankers, pad blockers etc.

Is this a joke?

It's neither my, nor any other player's, place to decide what constitutes 'reasonable PvP' and the idea that 'honest PvPers', whatever that is supposed to mean, have any more power over what others do than you is an absurdity.

I am on the side of the massive amount of casual players that just want to have fun without on the cost of others enjoyment.

This statement is incompatible with a pro-block stance. Excluding the people I may wish to encounter from encountering me, or vice versa, has a clear cost to these players' enjoyment.

Functionally no different from playing in a different mode.

Except if one was in a different mode, they wouldn't have to crap up other's experiences to get the experience they were going for.

That's a pretty damn big functional difference.

FD have given me block and said I should use it to exclude griefers. I therefore do this and any bad effects are the responsibility of said griefers, not me.

How am I supposed to exclude griefers whose mechanism of choice is the block function? Or those who inadvertently cause grief? Without abandoning the only mode that provides the gameplay I'm after? It's not like I can see who has a block running, or get to actively choose which instance my CMDR is dumped in. We are at the mercy of an anonymous mechanism with far reaching impact.

If my CMDR is instanced with yours, and you've blocked anyone I may want to encounter for any reason, you've degraded my experience, despite my CMDR having done nothing to yours. Yet, your preferences take precedent over my own. It's this enormous double standard implicit in this functionality that I take issue with and the hypocrisy of your statement is an exemplar of this problem. It's somehow someone else's responsibility for what you've done to me.

Yep. A "Wolf in sheep's clothing" argument.

Predators claiming to be victims... what a sight!

The means by which blocking victimizes people are clear and part and parcel of it's functionality.

Meanwhile, I haven't seen anyone whose character fits the definition of 'predator' you seem to be going for anywhere in at least the past fifteen pages. Would you care to point out any examples? Not that implying that a 'predator' cannot also be a victim is anything less than disingenuous and blatantly false.

 

[TobiasFuzz]

Is this a joke?

It's neither my, nor any other player's, place to decide what constitutes 'reasonable PvP' and the idea that 'honest PvPers', whatever that is supposed to mean, have any more power over what others do than you is an absurdity.

No it's not. You want your little game and I want my little game. You complain about blocking, I complain about non existence of reasonable PvP. By the way I described what this is. And I am sure the devs had this in mind and not stupid ganking when they implemented the possibility for PvP.

This statement is incompatible with a pro-block stance. Excluding the people I may wish to encounter from encountering me, or vice versa, has a clear cost to these players' enjoyment.

Don't you read my posts before answering to them? I am not pro-block, I am pro-KOS list full of wannabe PvPer's. (also my abilities to fullfill my own KOS list list are limited. But I get slowly better. And it's a pitty that most gankers rather choose to flee then to die )

 

[Morbad]

No it's not. You want your little game and I want my little game. You complain about blocking, I complain about non existence of reasonable PvP. By the way I described what this is. And I am sure the devs had this in mind and not stupid ganking when they implemented the possibility for PvP.

And what in there implies that anyone here has any ability to exclude 'stupid ganking', as you define it, from the game at large? The only thing that comes close is for people to apply their arbitrary definition to their block list and impose that upon all those they come across.

Don't you read my posts before answering to them?

I do.

I am not pro-block, I am pro-KOS list full of wannabe PvPer's.

One can be pro-KOS, as silly and ineffectual as that is (no consequences for being shot down removes being shot down as a deterrent, even if you are capable of making it happen), while still being pro-block, and as I noted, the only means by which other statements of yours would seem to be able to be satisfied is with aggressive blocking.

 

[TobiasFuzz]

And what in there implies that anyone here has any ability to exclude 'stupid ganking', as you define it, from the game at large? The only thing that comes close is for people to apply their arbitrary definition to their block list and impose that upon all those they come across.

That is true and the problem. We slowly come closer to the circle I intended. So, what is the alternative to blocking when someone is harrased, ganked, griefed whatever?
Switch to solo? I personally don't want that 'cause I want people in open to coop with and my RP playstyle needs it.
Gitgud? Hybris. Most players are casual players and do not have the time for that. I needed around 1000 hours until I could withstand a g5 murder boat. 2000 hours until I could fight back with a realistic chance of winning. Perhaps other players can do that faster but then they have to do things in-game they didn't the game purchase for... Like boring searching signal sources instead of having fun with their friends doing wing-missions.

 

[Morbad]

That is true and the problem. We slowly come closer to the circle I intended. So, what is the alternative to blocking when someone is harrased, ganked, griefed whatever?
Switch to solo? I personally don't want that 'cause I want people in open to coop with and my RP playstyle needs it.

That's exactly my problem with blocking, which is a much more viable mechanism for harassment and griefing than ship to ship combat.

Switching to Solo or a tightly curated PG is the only way to avoid the blocking effect, of someone my CMDR is instanced with, from excluding all of those instanced with the individual being blocked. Natually, this is just as problematic for my own, primarily coop, organic play, where I enjoy encountering random CMDRs I don't need to have met before, as it is for yours.

The only thing a PvP ganker can do (if they get phenomenally lucky) is destroy my CMDR's ship. This is a negligible financial burden in a game where a single wing mission will pay a half-dozen rebuys, and costs only minutes of travel time. It's also a potentially enjoyable interaction, and something that can be countered, contextually, in-character.

Blocking is anonymous, has no contextuality, and a malicious blocker can potentially cause issues for a wing of coop, or mutually competitive, players in Open for hours on end.

I don't automatically associate a superficially unprovoked attack upon my character with an attempt to cause greif to me as a player. Frankly, I'm not sure why someone actually trying to grief me would bother attacking my character when there are vastly more bothersome means on hand that have no counter, and essentially no chance of being enjoyable.

 

[AEBRAM]

I am going to chime in on using 'blocking' to separate players. The suggestion to use 'blocking' that would displace two parties into another instance would not be the resolution to the problem. It would create more.

How would there be any difference between 'blocking' another player and playing on a Solo server? A solo server choice requires less effort from the player, it avoids any player changing CMDR names to dodge the block, and solves the whole problem all together entirely - no 'blocking' feature necessary.

Also. The 'blocking' could have a different cause-and-effect where ED squadrons, communities, discord groups, etc. could begin compiling an entire list of all the CMDR names, as a public notice 'block' list for other commanders to avoid PVP hostile encounters. This behavior does occur in other game communities that do create, track, and share those should be 'blocked' with other players.

Elite Dangerous requires some search engine 'homework' to learn tips, tricks and how-to; imagine an open list of names being shared, and to avoid possible chance, everyone who reads the lists adds those names to their 'blocking' list. There would be no negative drawback for wrongfully adding someone's name, therefore, there is no reason not to add, and add more, to the 'block' list.

I don't see 'blocking' being a viable solution. I do not foresee 'blocking' being a solution, as an indirect 'toggle' alternative to arbitrarily separate players to avoid unwanted PVP interactions.

 

[Ettanin]

it avoids any player changing CMDR names to dodge the block

a) the Commander name can only be changed in very special circumstances
b) the block references the cmdr id, not the name
c) intentionally evading blocks is harassment and can lead to a permanent ban of all accounts involved.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I am going to chime in on using 'blocking' to separate players. The suggestion to use 'blocking' that would displace two parties into another instance would not be the resolution to the problem. It would create more.

How would there be any difference between 'blocking' another player and playing on a Solo server? A solo server choice requires less effort from the player, it avoids any player changing CMDR names to dodge the block, and solves the whole problem all together entirely - no 'blocking' feature necessary.

There is no Solo "server" as such - players in all game modes affect the same shared galaxy, the only difference being who they do, or don't, choose to instance with.

While players may change their CMDR name, that does not change whether they are blocked by a particular player (just as CMDRs don't stop being on ones friends list if they change their name).

Also. The 'blocking' could have a different cause-and-effect where ED squadrons, communities, discord groups, etc. could begin compiling an entire list of all the CMDR names, as a public notice 'block' list for other commanders to avoid PVP hostile encounters. This behavior does occur in other game communities that do create, track, and share those should be 'blocked' with other players.

Avoiding hostile PvP encounters is permissible in this game - as PvP itself is an optional extra that no player needs to engage in when affecting any mode shared game feature. Players who want to engage in PvP can't force those who don't to do so.

I don't see 'blocking' being a viable solution. I do not foresee 'blocking' being a solution, as an indirect 'toggle' alternative to arbitrarily separate players to avoid unwanted PVP interactions.

The block feature is simply the most precise method of removing players from ones game experience, with Solo and Private Groups being similarly effective, if less fine grained, solutions. Players cannot force other players to engage in unwanted PvP interactions if those other players choose not to play with them - and each player's choice of who to play with precedes and may over-ride any desire that other players may have to play with them.