Page 28 of 45 FirstFirst ... 23262728293033 ... LastLast
Results 406 to 420 of 666

Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.
Thread: Lead Designers advice on dealing with griefing (part 2)

  1. #406
    Originally Posted by MarkAusten View Post (Source)
    Hey! At least you have an excuse. I can't spell correctly and I don't have dyslexia. I rely on the wonderful autocorrect thing that my iMac has otherwise my posts would be more incomprehensible than they really are.
    Same, the only reason my posts are partially legible is auto-correct. I've got a total blind spot for apostrophes at the end of words as well, I can look up whats* right and I've forgotten again by the next sentence.



    (That 's' could go either way, I have absolutely no idea. Maybe I should have been a grocer)

  2. Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread. #407
    Lead Designer- Elite: Dangerous Frontier Employee
    Hello Commanders!

    A couple of points worth noting:

    The block effect is asymmetrical, in that it is much stronger when the blocking player is arriving at a location where the blocked player already is - effectively more of the onus is on the blocker to change their game than the blocked player.

    Instancing is a pretty complicated calculation, affected by a significant number of checks, such as instance populations, quality of player connections, friends, wing members, blocked players, blocking players, recent connections (and possibly more - far cleverer folk than me work this out). The weightings for these elements varies as well - wing membership, for example, is an extremely strong weighting towards allowing a match up.

    Whilst I'm sure that to some degree matchmaking can be influenced, the complexity and number of elements completely out of the player's control (or even knowledge) are a strong limiting factor.

    At the end of the day, ignoring players is a completely personal choice, that *influences* the chance of meeting ignored players, reducing the *potential* for match making with them.

  3. #408
    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    Hello Commanders!

    A couple of points worth noting:

    The block effect is asymmetrical, in that it is much stronger when the blocking player is arriving at a location where the blocked player already is - effectively more of the onus is on the blocker to change their game than the blocked player.
    Thank you for that. However, if we look at it the other way around:

    Player A has blocked player B.
    Player A has exited SC and is now in space outside a station with players C, D and E (not friends or wingmates, just random players). Will Player B be unable (or be much less likely) to join that instance? I'd assume 'yes'.

  4. #409
    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    Hello Commanders!

    A couple of points worth noting:

    The block effect is asymmetrical, in that it is much stronger when the blocking player is arriving at a location where the blocked player already is - effectively more of the onus is on the blocker to change their game than the blocked player.

    Instancing is a pretty complicated calculation, affected by a significant number of checks, such as instance populations, quality of player connections, friends, wing members, blocked players, blocking players, recent connections (and possibly more - far cleverer folk than me work this out). The weightings for these elements varies as well - wing membership, for example, is an extremely strong weighting towards allowing a match up.

    Whilst I'm sure that to some degree matchmaking can be influenced, the complexity and number of elements completely out of the player's control (or even knowledge) are a strong limiting factor.

    At the end of the day, ignoring players is a completely personal choice, that *influences* the chance of meeting ignored players, reducing the *potential* for match making with them.
    As long as the process of blocking affects the Blocker more than the blockee.

    say for instance, I'm a wizzard that likes to farm horcruxes..... and as a result 10% of the total ED community has blocked me because they don't like how I play the game...


    now lets assume that in every single instance of 10+ there will be 1 CMDR that has blocked me.

    If I arrive at the busy instance will I be denied instancing rights? just because there is 1 out of the 10 people in the instance that holds a grudge for me killing everyone in hogwarts?


    Blocking etc, if designed correctly should make use of a "greater good" logic, where if less than 85% of that instance has blocked you, you are allowed to instance

  5. Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread. #410
    Lead Designer- Elite: Dangerous Frontier Employee
    Hello Commander CMDR ColD_ZA!

    The chance of your evil wizardry causing you to not join an instance is (notwithstanding the multitude of other checks that I've mentioned) proportional to the number of Commander's in the instance who have blocked you.

    The more folk who have blocked, the lower the chance of a match up.

  6. #411
    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    ...effectively more of the onus is on the blocker to change their game than the blocked player.
    Geez, there's a comment which is headed for instant meme status.

    Did you really mean to suggest that people who block those they consider to be acting unreasonably need to "change their game"?

    If you didn't mean it that way you should probably clarify what you did mean.

  7. #412
    Originally Posted by Stealthie View Post (Source)
    Did you really mean to suggest that people who block those they consider to be acting unreasonably need to "change their game"?
    It sounds perfectly reasonable. Imagine the instances are pubs. You are offered a list of pubs that you can drink at but one of them is currently hosting that wizard whose wand is too pointy for your taste. So you choose another pub. The landlord doesn't turf the wizard out when he sees you coming.

    The difference being that you are not actually shown the pubs or their patrons. The matchmaking server bundles you into a taxi and you roll out at the establishment it's chosen for you.

  8. #413
    Originally Posted by Stealthie View Post (Source)
    Geez, there's a comment which is headed for instant meme status.

    Did you really mean to suggest that people who block those they consider to be acting unreasonably need to "change their game"?

    If you didn't mean it that way you should probably clarify what you did mean.
    Makes sense to me. The one with the populated blacklist is more difficult to matchmake. Plus we should all try to get along yada yada.

  9. #414
    Originally Posted by Riverside View Post (Source)
    Makes sense to me. The one with the populated blacklist is more difficult to matchmake. Plus we should all try to get along yada yada.
    Well, yeah.

    If the intention was to say that a player who's got a bunch of people on their block-list is likely to find themselves in a new instance, that's fair enough.
    Hell, even if some group are the biggest bunch of tools around (who might even have been caught cheating previously), I still wouldn't expect them to be "kicked" from an instance just cos I'd arrived in it and they were on my block-list.

    It's just that a comment such as "change your game" suggests it's up to people to deal with those who they find unacceptable, instead of blocking them.

  10. #415
    Originally Posted by Stealthie View Post (Source)
    It's just that a comment such as "change your game" suggests it's up to people to deal with those who they find unacceptable, instead of blocking them.
    Which is true, of course, up to a point. Beyond that point is a different matter.

  11. #416
    Originally Posted by Stealthie View Post (Source)
    Geez, there's a comment which is headed for instant meme status.

    Did you really mean to suggest that people who block those they consider to be acting unreasonably need to "change their game"?

    If you didn't mean it that way you should probably clarify what you did mean.
    I read it to mean if you use block, it will (depending on overall calculation) change the possibility of you entering an instance with someone you've blocked. So by using block, you effect your own chances of joining instances with blocked players, not kick the blocked elsewhere.

    Subjective anyway, as always.

    Sandro's second comment is only interpretable one way however, the more players in an instance have blocked someone the more effective it will be at keeping that someone out of that instance.

  12. #417
    Originally Posted by Stealthie View Post (Source)
    It's just that a comment such as "change your game" suggests it's up to people to deal with those who they find unacceptable, instead of blocking them.
    Honestly I think you are overanalysing. Change your game refers to the effects of you changing what happens in your game by using block, not some mystic guidance to true ED-wisdom from the RNG gods.

  13. Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread. #418
    Lead Designer- Elite: Dangerous Frontier Employee
    Hello Commander Stealthie!

    Originally Posted by Stealthie View Post (Source)
    Geez, there's a comment which is headed for instant meme status.

    Did you really mean to suggest that people who block those they consider to be acting unreasonably need to "change their game"?

    If you didn't mean it that way you should probably clarify what you did mean.
    To be precise, what I mean is that being the person who initiated the block, your game is more likely to decide to change instance than if you were the target of a block. I hope that's clear, though perhaps you want to avoid half quotes as the whole sentence...

    The block effect is asymmetrical, in that it is much stronger when the blocking player is arriving at a location where the blocked player already is - effectively more of the onus is on the blocker to change their game than the blocked player.
    ... should hopefully give the context as to why this isn't me saying that players have to play differently, rather a statement to highlight the fact that as the Commander initiating the block, you are telling the game to prioritise changing your own game experience above changing others.

  14. #419
    Originally Posted by Zaphod Hawke View Post (Source)
    As it turns out,

    I do care about the block list function. A little.

    I read the following post yesterday:

    https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...=1#post5784444

    This was news to me.

    If I never see you in SC, or anywhere else, I could not care any less about being on your block list.

    If the block list does not prevent instancing in SC, but prevents successful interdiction from SC, then it's just an "I win" button.

    No such feature should ever exist in a multiplayer game, IMHO.
    I agree with your view. If you never see them it shouldn't matter a jot, if you do you should be able to interact. However the rules for matchmaking only attempt to block or match, they aren't a guaranteed block any more than winging up is a guaranteed match.

  15. #420
    Originally Posted by Zaphod Hawke View Post (Source)
    As it turns out,

    I do care about the block list function. A little.

    I read the following post yesterday:

    https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...=1#post5784444

    This was news to me.

    If I never see you in SC, or anywhere else, I could not care any less about being on your block list.

    If the block list does not prevent instancing in SC, but prevents successful interdiction from SC, then it's just an "I win" button.

    No such feature should ever exist in a multiplayer game, IMHO.
    I can't see an MMO working without a block.

Page 28 of 45 FirstFirst ... 23262728293033 ... LastLast