rootsrat
Volunteer Moderator
Oh I completely agree!
But not with the current state of C&P and non-competitive PVP ("emergent gameplay") balance.
Elite Dangerous Blocking System: A Call for Change
- Thread starter CMDR DT
- Start date
-
- Tags
- blocking progression
But not with the current state of C&P and non-competitive PVP ("emergent gameplay") balance.
Given the consistency of CG campers a couple of well chosen blocks can improve CGs drastically. Certainly that was my experience on console. Apparently Mobius is more active on PC.
rootsrat
Volunteer Moderator
lol when you put it that way...
it has been this way long before online computer games. If Bob refuses to invite Jimmy to play board games because Jimmy keeps flipping over the boards, Johnny cannot play with Jimmy as long as Bob is hosting game night. Johnny can either choose to go to Bob's, or he can play with Jimmy. But he certainly cannot force Bob to invite Jimmy just so he can play with Jimmy.
Those aren't the only parties likely to be present. Most of the anti-gankers are anti-gankers because they want to directly oppose gankers. A significant subset of gankers also enjoys fighting anti-gankers. Many haulers appreciate some excitement, while others may not like being corralled in with only gankers. Plenty of other people may simply be in Open to encounter as many others as possible.
Block is a problem no matter who uses it, and no matter their reason for using it, because of how efficient it is at fragmenting instances. In it's current implementation it's nearly perfectly exclusionary.
This is not an accurate assessment of my position and I do not believe it's even a vaguely rational interpretation of my posts in this thread.
If this is a language barrier, ask for clarification before trying to tell me what I mean. If not, let me know so I can add you to my ignore list, which, most unlike an in-game block, will spare me a lot of wasted words without preventing anyone else from engaging with either of us.
For the record, I think anyone unable to abide a certain situation should remove themselves from it, before demanding the removal of others who have equal right to be where they are, and certainly before being able to excluding random bystanders. This is how society at large functions, because it's the only way a society of ostensible equals can function.
rootsrat
Volunteer Moderator
The problem is, there are no equals when it comes to ganking. I know you don't see the issue with the C&P and ePVP (e = emergent), but I do. Or maybe you do see the issue, but you don't think that correcting it will be beneficial to the overall health of in game encounters.
Therefore we'll never find a consensus in this discussion. I think that'll be it from my side then, I've used up all of my arguments and I don't like repeating myself, so from my side I'll just agree to disagree with you.
This is what I meant by intellectualizing. You are playing a frikkin' game, you are not prevented from entering a voting booth and executing your constitutional rights. Players can choose who they want to play with, and telling them to leave when someone else is spoiling their fun is just ridiculous. And you can choose if you want to play with one or the other. Nothing more, nothing less.
And don't patronize me. My English is probably better than some of the native speakers' hanging around here.
Woah! You mean some players can actually deploy an anti-gank field? That does seem like they are doing anti-ganking right! 
I'm speaking of the interactions of players in the context of a shared game. Blocking is something a player does to another player, which alters non-contextual, technical aspects of the game.
In-game crime and punishment shouldn't be about policing players (disruptive players shouldn't be allowed to be players), it should be about representing and channeling various in-game characters, organizations, and behaviors in a contextual manner that reinforces the logical depiction of the setting.
I perceive enormous problems with the way C&P is implemented as well as with various gameplay balance mechanisms, but those exist wholly independently of my issues with the block functionality. If no one had ever heard of a ganking or griefing and this was some kind of MMO utopia, it would not justify the ridiculous C&P mechanisms we have. Likewise, from my perspective, no lack of C&P or any other problems the game has with depicting it's setting would justify the block feature.
I don't expect consensus, nor do I think any player consensus or lack thereof has any real bearing on what gets implemented at this point.
Frontier is operating from the perspective of a business maintaining a product. The path of least resistance, even at the expense of the game, is evidently the optimal expense/return ratio.
Woah! You mean some players can actually deploy an anti-gank field? That does seem like they are doing anti-ganking right!
Now imagine how much less interesting things would have been if the assumed ganker had blocked my CMDR, or if my newbie wingman (who I had just met moments before and randomly grouped with) had known what block was and blocked those they perceived as potential gankers.
Anyway, blocking doesn't kick anyone out of the game, of course, it just pushes them around. If ganking is a problem, blocking is a poor anti-ganking field as those gankers excluded by it will just be matched with others, often those least likely to be prepared to resist them.
In normal society many of our actions are moderated by long term consequences. We develop a reputation that people around us will respond to. If we are super nice then people like us. If we are violent criminals not so much. We lose access to certain priveledges and authorities will intervene.
It is obvious that FDev does not want to implement long term consequences of behaviour. I suspect it is because in a video game it is too easy for a player to dig a hole too deep to be able to ever climb out of. Making the game essentially unplayable for those that go on several killing sprees. Restoring a positive reputation too much of a task, reduced access to certain resources, and a target painted on their ship.
So instead we have a blocking feature.
It is obvious that FDev does not want to implement long term consequences of behaviour. I suspect it is because in a video game it is too easy for a player to dig a hole too deep to be able to ever climb out of. Making the game essentially unplayable for those that go on several killing sprees. Restoring a positive reputation too much of a task, reduced access to certain resources, and a target painted on their ship.
So instead we have a blocking feature.
Cool story bro.
Let's be clear. The block function is a bad remedy for poor C&P. It is the only player remedy available to deal with the poor C&P.
Let's be clear. The block function absolutely does NOT 100% prevent you from being instanced with a player that you have blocked. I have have instances many, many times with players that I have blocked. It just reduces the chances you will be instanced with them, it is not perfect.
Let's be clear. The "realism" argument fails on both sides of the debate. Skulking about a high security system lulz ganking with impunity is about as realistic as trying to erasing a pilot from existence with a keystroke. Both are game realities, not setting realities.
Let's be clear. What is the likeliehood that C&P will get a refresh or block will go away in this 9 year old game?
Let's be clear. The block function absolutely does NOT 100% prevent you from being instanced with a player that you have blocked. I have have instances many, many times with players that I have blocked. It just reduces the chances you will be instanced with them, it is not perfect.
Let's be clear. The "realism" argument fails on both sides of the debate. Skulking about a high security system lulz ganking with impunity is about as realistic as trying to erasing a pilot from existence with a keystroke. Both are game realities, not setting realities.
Let's be clear. What is the likeliehood that C&P will get a refresh or block will go away in this 9 year old game?
I thought so.
I've seen people talk about crime and punishment for years, but a cohesive solution has never been put forward. Everyone seems to have their own idea of what it should be. The problem is that there is no way to effectively punish someone in any way that Frontier would probably actually implement that they can't somehow get around or would end up being a mere inconvenience. In fact, the more you try to regulate PvP, the more creative people become in skirting regulations.
Current system is completely broken. I mean, it doesn't exist.
The worst part of it is how easily these automated punishment systems can be weaponised - see what happened when reckless flying charges were implemented to punish station ramming. How long did it take before someone had the bright idea of smashing a beat-up shieldless stock sidewinder into people on their way into Jameson's? Days? Hours? How many times have I had someone interdict me with a clean ship and try to ram me without actually pulling the trigger on their weapons, to bait me into firing first and getting a bounty for it? More than once. Create situations that are intended to punish the aggressor, and you get people pulling all sorts of tricks to attack people in ways that fool the system into thinking they're the victim.
I like to play in open because of PVP too.
But in this cg with "megaship" unable to have more than one large ship landed is the only time i ever used blocking. I was way more patient than i should, i could go to pg or solo but i dont want to. I want to play online
He had to know there was only one avaiable L pad so i assume it was on purpose. I dont like trolls, so i blocked him.
This is the way
As for killing, well, really was meaning to talk more generally about anyone, but yeah.
I would never block anyone for just killing me.
Last time someone killed me out of the blue (years and years ago), i got a sidewinder, fitted it with a mining laser and an interdictor, and then went after them interdicting them and plinking them with the mining laser. They got quite annoyed with it because they were happy to blow me up when i was flying something valuable but its clear they knew they weren't getting salty tears from me with the sidewinder.
Hihihiii
A ganker (aka a type of pvp-er) not wanting to be harassed by an anti-ganker (aka another type of pvp-er)
Harassed as in interdicting them and disrupting their flow of ganking unarmed / non-pvp equipped ships?
Indeed, but if everyone would block gankers, the instancing would be much nicer and less disrupted, because only the gankers would be affected and nobody else
last time when i got intentionally killed was during the last October AX CG.
i did block about 3 gankers, but not because one of them killed my already damaged challenger twice, but because they were disrupting the AX CG in open making the people quit or move to solo.
One instance was quite frustrating since we got to hydra, got a couple of hearts off the first hydra then i noticed a couple of FDL attacking the AX players and that instance was over - within 5-10 minutes it was almost empty