Blocking feature being abused or was it intended to be this way? FDEV?

[Vorxian]

It could work both ways though..

If it were possible to blanket block lists of players.. say from the 'combat logging' accusation list.. then these folks wouldn't ever have to be instanced with cheeseballs to.

I saw my name on one of these lists once.. which is odd as I seldom play in open, and have never CL'd to any player... probably because I advocate CL'ing on the forum in hypothetical scenarios maybe [haha]

..anyway..

it'd start narrowing down who I find in my instances to. Never a bad thing if I find myself flying a 70m liability in open

 

[znôrt]

A wing fight, 4 vs 4. Wing 1 has a healing ship with the other team blocked. Wing 2 can no longer win the fight due to being unable to remove the healer, healer is also under no threat as they cannot be shot at.

does this really happen? if this is the case then it's instancing what is severely broken. i find the block mechanism fine but it definitely shouldn't be able to split wings, that's utter nonsense.

that said, we know that instancing per-se could potentially produce this situation by chance (it's not like elite:dangerous is a game where you can take pvp seriously, not that we didn't know that).

however if it can be deliberately produced that's gross.

frontier? how is this supposed to work?

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

I think accounts that are frequently blocked should be placed under increased scrutiny and there needs to be handed out stricter measurements against them. There is a reason why they become blocked frequently and it disrupts the operation of the game.

That way the whole thing will regulate itself.

 

[Jason Lightning]

I think accounts that are frequently blocked should be placed under increased scrutiny and there needs to be handed out stricter measurements against them. There is a reason why they become blocked frequently and it disrupts the operation of the game.

That way the whole thing will regulate itself.

Really? That has risk of punishing pirates, I probably get blocked all the time despite following all the 'right' pirating practices, I don't even use an overpowered ship to do my piracy. Why should I get in trouble for being blocked by players who would be better suited to playing in private or solo where they don't even have to face threatening players?

 

[jmp470]

This topic makes me laugh so much!!! Dear, fellow players. Please don't block me, so I won't kill you. I swear to be a good griefer, or pirate.

 

[GreyAreaUK]

Really? That has risk of punishing pirates, I probably get blocked all the time despite following all the 'right' pirating practices, I don't even use an overpowered ship to do my piracy. Why should I get in trouble for being blocked by players who would be better suited to playing in private or solo where they don't even have to face threatening players?

I think the 'increased scrutiny' bit is fine, providing it doesn't involve automatic sanctions. That's too easy to game. Increased scrutiny should just mean a real human takes a look at the player's activities. If all is good then all is good. If not, other things happen. A legit pirate should have nothing to fear from increased scrutiny.

 

[Stealthie]

Hard to summon up much sympathy for people who are, apparently, finding themselves unable to find sufficient supplies of cannon-fodder and who are, instead, finding themselves stuck with other people of a similar disposition.

I guess it's up to everybody to set their own standards.
Personally, I've met quite a few groups who were acting "questionably" but I've never felt strongly enough to block them.
You'd have to be a gigantic tool to make it onto my block list and I certainly wouldn't block somebody just cos they attacked me or pirated me.

 

[jmp470]

Really? That has risk of punishing pirates, I probably get blocked all the time despite following all the 'right' pirating practices, I don't even use an overpowered ship to do my piracy. Why should I get in trouble for being blocked by players who would be better suited to playing in private or solo where they don't even have to face threatening players?

thanks for the morning laughs. "But, I follow the pirate code". Remember history, pirates were made irrelevant! The the real world the are killed, here they are blocked!!

 

[Agony_Aunt]

until they can see you and attack because you're fighting a wing they are in, but you can't see them to fight back

That would be a bug presumably.

 

[askavir]

Playing with other people is a privilege, not a right.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Really? That has risk of punishing pirates, I probably get blocked all the time despite following all the 'right' pirating practices, I don't even use an overpowered ship to do my piracy. Why should I get in trouble for being blocked by players who would be better suited to playing in private or solo where they don't even have to face threatening players?

Then i guess those people simply don't enjoy being pirated. Let them have their way, and you won't have to cause them any annoyance. You can then focus on those who are happy being pirated.

If nobody is happy being pirated... well, that's a different problem.

 

[Jason Lightning]

I think the 'increased scrutiny' bit is fine, providing it doesn't involve automatic sanctions. That's too easy to game. Increased scrutiny should just mean a real human takes a look at the player's activities. If all is good then all is good. If not, other things happen. A legit pirate should have nothing to fear from increased scrutiny.

So under your recommendation my Open instance will quickly be dropped of players, who I had no intention of killing because of my particular methods of piracy, and I'll be monitored personally, all because a group of players who should be happier in Mobius insist on playing Open with safe space turned on?

I don't even do the Quince cheat, last time I went there was to do non-profit BGS work (force lockdown) and scanning players in protest of cheaters. Why don't we put everyone from Quince under scrutiny instead, they are the most likely to cheat after all having done so already.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

I think the 'increased scrutiny' bit is fine, providing it doesn't involve automatic sanctions. That's too easy to game. Increased scrutiny should just mean a real human takes a look at the player's activities. If all is good then all is good. If not, other things happen. A legit pirate should have nothing to fear from increased scrutiny.

Exactly. Can as well look at those who constantly block. If it's just legit stuff they want to block the feature gets deactivated for them and they can happily mash their block button for the rest of the day without any harm done.
Just like I'd expect reports and false reports to work. It's a handy metric to weed out disruptive players.

 

[Luniticisi]

That would be a bug presumably.

That is what I was assuming, as far as I knew the blocking feature doesn't work like that.

 

[Jason Lightning]

Then i guess those people simply don't enjoy being pirated. Let them have their way, and you won't have to cause them any annoyance. You can then focus on those who are happy being pirated.

If nobody is happy being pirated... well, that's a different problem.

I'd be more than happy to let them do whatever if it didn't also cause me to get empty instancing. The block system forces me into empty instances and not the other way around.

Why don't they just go to solo or private if they aren't happy with the risks that Open is supposed to have? That's a better solution, block list should be for actual harassment only.

 

[Jason Lightning]

Exactly. Can as well look at those who constantly block. If it's just legit stuff they want to block the feature gets deactivated for them and they can happily mash their block button for the rest of the day without any harm done.
Just like I'd expect reports and false reports to work. It's a handy metric to weed out disruptive players.

Actually that way isn't so bad, if I get an exception to being blocked by getting the 'not harassing' seal of approval I'm fine with that, since I don't cheat or commit inappropriate illegitimate acts.

Though it's impractical for manpower purposes.

 

[GreyAreaUK]

So under your recommendation

I don't recall recommending it. 'Not seeing an immediate problem with' and 'recommending' are two very different things.

my Open instance will quickly be dropped of players, who I had no intention of killing because of my particular methods of piracy, and I'll be monitored personally, all because a group of players who should be happier in Mobius insist on playing Open with safe space turned on?

And the problem is? If your play-style reveals itself to be completely inline with game rules then it doesn't matter how many people block you, no action will be taken against you.

 

[Rob At Work]

If you block enough people will it become solo?

 

[Cosmos]

Playing with other people is a privilege, not a right.

Except on the website it advertises the game as 'epic multiplayer'.. Its pushing it to call it a multiplayer game, I've yet to see the epic part and frankly considering all the whining that goes on it really doesn't feel like a privilege at all. More like sitting in a kindergarten with 50 kids having a tantrum.

 

[GreyAreaUK]

Except on the website it advertises the game as 'epic multiplayer'.. Its pushing it to call it a multiplayer game, I've yet to see the epic part and frankly considering all the whining that goes on it really doesn't feel like a privilege at all. More like sitting in a kindergarten with 50 kids having a tantrum.

So, to extend that analogy, on one side of the class we have the kids who are crying about being bullied and how it isn't fair, and on the other side we have the bullies crying because the other kids won't play with them and it isn't fair.


And so the wheel continues to turn...