Ah, I see what you are getting at. Apologies for jumping in inappropriately.
Anti griefer CG suicide-winder interdiction units...
- Thread starter Strangepork
- Start date
Ah, I see what you are getting at. Apologies for jumping in inappropriately.
He owns a license to play the game
True enough.
Monster.
Btw, what controller is being used? That is one crazily accurate @#%$* you have there. Either that, or you have a very steady hand.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Indeed - my point was that Steam does have rights with regard to terminating a player's access to games (in certain circumstances, of course).
Those all long range weapons?
Took a little longer before Engineers, but since the speed differential was lower, it was still possible:
[video=youtube;8iDkGVh417Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iDkGVh417Q[/video]
So let's say I play in solo. All potential PVP players can't see me. I do not affect their game play.
Let's say I play in private group. All potential PVP players can't see me. I do not affect their game play.
Let's say I identify folks I don't care to interact with, I block them. Those specific PVP players can't see me (or their chances of seeing me are significantly reduced). I do not affect their game play.
In all cases, my interaction with PVP players is functionally equivalent. Nothing is taken from anyone, gameplay is not compromised for anyone. How is this even an issue?
Is this about placing a moral judgement on people based on the nature of use of the game? Seems like an argument that can't be won.
Let's say I play in private group. All potential PVP players can't see me. I do not affect their game play.
Let's say I identify folks I don't care to interact with, I block them. Those specific PVP players can't see me (or their chances of seeing me are significantly reduced). I do not affect their game play.
In all cases, my interaction with PVP players is functionally equivalent. Nothing is taken from anyone, gameplay is not compromised for anyone. How is this even an issue?
Is this about placing a moral judgement on people based on the nature of use of the game? Seems like an argument that can't be won.
Read back through the thread. You are not correct in saying that blocking players in Open does not affect other's game play. Part of the point, I think, is that it does.
Correction on the block list, it does affect them as they can't instance with the others in your instance, who might not share the same sentiments you have about the block list. Solo and Private by contrast do not affect instancing for those in Open.
Edit: Personally that is the primary issue I have with blocking, it affects other players who aren't using the block list and may actually want the randomness of Open negatively, if it didn't affect everyone else's instancing there would be less objection
Last edited:
Almost, but not quite true. The somewhat unfair exception is piracy. I do feel that if you play in Open you should be prepared to accept some piracy from legit RP'ing pirates (who, it has to be said, can be great fun).
The problem is this: say you've blocked a pirate. Now let's say you're in an instance with 10 other players. Your block effectively extends to the entire instance, and reduces the pirate's ability to instance with the other players (for the duration of that instance).
Where pure PvP'ers are concerned they probably don't care as they should be off in their own instance and not be bothered. Where gankers/griefers are concerned I couldn't give a half-ounce of deep-fried Biowaste what their opinions are. They just don't like the fact that people say they play in Open but don't want to play with them.
You can do whatever you like at the menu of the copy of the game you own, it's your choice. I'll never try to lecture you or disapprove or get all pedantic about trivialities. I fully support you in doing whatever you choose.
One of the features of the game I own is a block list, which I can use as I see fit. I knew about the block function before buying the game, perhaps you should do a little more research to avoid disappointment with future purchases.
Exactly player choice trumps all.
Now be fair, the only reason you are banging on about ownership is because the last few times you've clutched your pearls at me for using the block function I've told you it wasn't your choice.
Splitting hairs is still splitting hairs. I own what's in my house in all but the sense of the word. I paid cash or credit thus I own it regardless of the dictionary meaning. "Used with a possessive to emphasize that someone or something belongs or relates to the person mentioned."
Now Im splitting hairs I know I dont own ED it's FDs, but the game on my PC if someone asked "Oh Jim do you know anything about ED, Oh yeah I own that."
We could go around and around for ever but the misss want to play some ME-Andormada MP so have a good weekend.
I seem to recollect that you've been playing the game for quite a while and I also recollect that everyone thought the block feature was only relevant for comms in game until about a year or so ago. I remember seeing the reddit post about demonstrating blocking also affecting instancing becoming famous.
So where did you find this information prior to purchase? Especially as you've just dismissed small print associated with games a few posts up.
That I agree with - but I don't think PvP is the reason.
This I'd very much disagree with. I do all my mission running in Open with a combat-capable Python, have never seen a mission that wouldn't fit in its hold (192 tonnes), and never died to a player attack in it.
The only defensive module that takes cargo space is a 6A shield generator. That plus a couple of shield boosters and some weapons (engineered, but not optimally so) is enough to destroy any NPC opposition (Elite Anacondas are pretty common) and survive with plenty of margin against PvP attacks.
(If I was optimising for cargo space, I could swap the 6A for a class 5 prismatic, and take out the scanners and SRVs in the small internal bays, to get to ~250 tonnes capacity with basically the same defense. But I'm not a natural min-maxer and can't be bothered refitting my ship every time I want to do something else.)
For that matter, the best bulk trading profits are often found at CGs where the demand is fixed and very high - and of course the risk of hostile action is high. Mission running, on the other hand, can be done basically anywhere, where the chance of meeting a hostile player is virtually nil - I'm usually doing it in systems with single-figure traffic reports - so even in Open there's not much need to fit for PvP.
They certainly make the balance of the "make money slowly" methods much less relevant in practice.
Though... I'd consider ordinary missions to be "quickly" anyway, nowadays, compared with ordinary trade, combat or exploration.
It's interesting you mention that. I was pirated the other night at a CG. I was thrilled to have the experience, I was sad I had just dropped off my cargo. I immediately friended the commander (now he can find me any time to pirate me in open). I definitely did not block him. I see what you mean about the exporting of block lists to other players within an instance. I wonder what the data will say about the use of the block feature. Will it be targeted blocking of griefer type pvp players or all wanted players in general? I suppose there might be some players that enjoy playing with other players that station ram, station mine, and blitz exploration sites...
You don't understand why it's an issue because you have some very fundamental misconceptions about what the block feature is doing. Not that I have all the details, but I am aware of the dev statements on the feature and have participated in some hands on testing.
The Block and Friends lists are altering instancing prioritization. Other factors are wings and almost certainly some sort of connection/ping test (details on this are sketchy, but people with large pings to each other or who are nearing the limits of their bandwidth certainly seem to be paired less frequently, other factors being the same). If you block someone and they are in a given instance, matchmaking will try to put you in a different one. If the total weight of the instancing factors in play are strong enough, this can separate friends from instancing with each other, or even split up wings. Gameplay can most certainly be compromised for many people.
I'll give you an example of what happened to me a few weeks back that I strongly suspect was due to two CMDRs blocking me:
My wing and I, which consisted of three CMDRs, two flying exploration Anaconda, plus my own Corvette for overwatch/support were intent on investigating one of the active Thargoid structures. We arrived at the structure, discovering that a pair of Imperial Cutters were already present. They didn't seem hostile, so we proceeded to setup. One of my wingmen moved in to land near the structure while I was investigating in an SLF. At this time the both Cutters opened up on his Anaconda, I switched back to my mothership and moved to engage, but it was too late...thirteen OCed MCs and a huge beam laser made short work of a non-combat fit ship. I covered my second wingman while he moved off fighting the Cutters until it became clear that there wasn't any practical way for me to drive either off without wasting all of my consumables. So, I was forced to jump away.
Since we were still intent on investigating this structure, and one of my wingmen was still on the surface in an SRV, I decided I would leverage my less ammunition dependent setup and faster shield regeneration by conducting hit and run attacks against the Cutters. I attacked, jumped away, immediately jumped back and made a bee line for the structure, then attacked again. I did this five times. On the sixth attempt, instancing failed. The game started putting me in an empty instance, separate from the one my wingmate was still in (which had two hostile Cutters in it). My attempts to communicate with the Cutter CMDRs also failed, suggesting a block.
I strongly suspect that the weight of instancing factors in an instance of three CMDRs whose players were all in relatively close geographical proximity, where one was winged with me, and two had me blocked, was enough, combined with me being overseas, to reliably exclude me from this instance.
Thus, my wingman had to drive his SRV about 20km away to a safe distance and we then had to reinstance, with me deliberately spawning the instance, to be placed together....all because a pair of players decided it was better to block the only ship that could potentially threaten theirs while they went about destroying less robust vessels encroaching on their claim.
Now, some assumption/inferences were made here, but it fits all experimental data on hand and seems to be the most likely scenario.
Anyway, given the way the instancing weight works, its exceedingly easy for this feature to have unintended consequences, or to be deliberately abused. I can think of countless ways to actively disrupt the game for other people with block lists.
Invite the wrong person to an event that requires careful instancing to be successful (PvP league, distant worlds)? One or two people secretly blocking others will waste hours of dozens of peoples time.
Want to win a fight or exclude an escort of a trader? Have everyone in your wing block the best pilot or strongest ship in your enemy's wing and then interdict their weakest member...chances are they will never get that blocked member in the instance.
Want to troll fuel rats? Get to the target in a rat call first and block the rats dispatched. Sure, you could just shoot the target down, and people do occasionally do this, but with block lists you can tie people up much longer and have plausible deniability ("I'll cover you until the ship with fuel gets here").
The possibilities are endless.
I still think UK trade law will trump any small print bull a games company adds that could be deemed to be unfair. they have a captive audience (as you say) but It's not exclusive to steam I accepted loads of games TOS and EULA before Steam was even a sparkle in someone's eye. The thing is if it could be argued as being an unfair or unreasonable "condition" then I'm certain it wouldn't stand up in a court of law and that includes banning someone "because reasons".
Because if a court of law found in favour of a condition in a software's TOS or EULA than we would see almost all businesses demanding people sign off on a TOS or EULA tailored to everything and anything and we can kiss consumer rights goodbye.
Rinzler o7o7o7
Banned
1,200 DPI mouse with a very steady hand (takes practice!)
Which would have to be for fair reasons, and not at a drop of a hat. Cheating is like voiding a warranty.
I'm just saying we shouldn't just accept the TOS and EULA situation as "set in stone". I'm finding the blind following of TOS and EULA's disconcerting!
No one is blindly following anything, but I suspect quite a few are blindly violating terms.
The more you dislike the terms of an agreement or statute, the more you need to be familiar with it. Can't weigh risk vs. reward if you're willfully ignorant of the components of the risk.