Elite Dangerous Blocking System: A Call for Change

alex192004

alex192004
CMDR DT said:
Can you give me an example, according to Ed's world view, the same type of games, which can pull the block directly the whole person is evaporated. I can understand that the blacklist system is designed to prevent language conflicts, but I can't understand that the blocklist system can directly vaporize a player. For example, If two squadrons are in conflict, a squadron can simply black out all the other squadron members, which is very game-breaking and not good for the game. But if you're saying that this part of the content isn't important at all, and it's okay without this part, then forget it, and I will suggest the ED changes its name as ES (Elite Safety). I'd like to ask you one last question, dude, don't you think it's ridiculous that there are limits to the private group, but there's no limit to blocking?
Click to expand...
when you respond to any of my questions, i respond to yours. I ask several times before. To your squadron example, a whole squadron can go to solo and attack the systems of the others, you can counterattack also from solo. The galaxy is shared for all the modes it make 0 sense block a entire squadron when you just need to go to solo or private group. I ask again, whats you point?¿ i see that you register today, maybe you don´t know about how all the modes shared the same galaxy?? What kind of punishment you want to erase the block system, credits? the majority of the old playerbase has thousand of millions, credits are meaningless.
 
Last edited:

nemolomen

nemolomen
It "can" be quite fun and instructional...but in most cases where effort would be lost, it hurts...although, even in open, its easy to avoid for the most part...
 

DemiserofD

D
I agree completely that the crime and punishment system should be solving this problem. However, by suggesting that blocking be removed before fixing the crime and punishment system, you are putting the cart before the horse. Fix crime and punishment first, then suggest that blocking no longer needs to prevent instancing.

Of course, even then, there would need to be Provisions made for the other uses of blocking. For example, right now, if I am constantly instancing with a laggy player, I will block that player temporarily to allow myself to get a new or different instance.
 

rootsrat

Volunteer Moderator
rootsrat
CMDR DT said:
I am a long-time player of Elite Dangerous and would like to express my concern regarding the current blocking system in the game. While I understand the need to protect players from harassment and unwanted communication, the current system of unlimited blocking is causing more harm than good.

As a game with a strong emphasis on player interaction and open-world exploration, Elite Dangerous is unique in its genre. However, the current blocking system has created a divide between players and has the potential to severely damage the player experience. With the current system, players can effectively disappear from each other's game world entirely, making it difficult to engage in player-vs-player combat or even participate in player-run events and activities.

I would like to suggest a more reasonable solution to this issue. Given that the game already has a solo mode, which essentially blocks all player interaction, I believe that the blocking system should only affect communication, rather than the entire player. This means that blocked players would still exist in the same game world, but communication between the blocked and blocking players would be restricted.

I strongly urge you to consider this proposal, as I believe it would help to maintain a healthy player community and prevent further division among players. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Click to expand...
Big NOPE from me. Definitely not with the current broken (in my opinion) non-competitive PVP and C&P systems.

The first excessively favours the attacker, from the strength of player interdictors to pulling the victim to the attackers position to lacking defensive measure against the overpowered weaponry of PVP builds, to chain-interdiction inevitability to making high-waking out pretty much the only viable option of escaping alive.

The second focuses mainly on monetary penalties for the attacker, which is a completely non-punishment, considering how easy it is to accrue several billion Credits nowadays.

Until non-competitive PVP and C&P systems are more balanced or fixed even, the current blocking system is the best way to avoid gankers and griefers, while still being able to play with the people that you'd want to encounter in your space adventures.

I wouldn't mind a change to how blocking works if Elite had:
- a reasonable non-competitive PVP system (i.e. one that gives victims better defences and doesn't favour the attacker so excessively) AND
- a reasonable C&P system, that was oriented more around actual police response, restrictive access to systems and places and bounty hunting being profitable and worthwhile

Until that happens - no thanks, the blocking works perfectly fine.


----

Also, with [modhat on] - before this discussion about BLOCKING turns into Open vs Solo thread, may I remind you that we have a thread for that already and it's here --> https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/the-open-v-solo-v-groups-thread.607291/
 

Shabine

Shabine
CMDR DT said:
Thank you for clarifying your point. It is true that in other games like EVE and SC, players can still exist in the game world even if they are not interacting with others directly, whereas in ED, blocking someone results in a complete disappearance from the game world. I also agree that the private group feature in ED can be a good alternative to avoid unwanted interactions instead of relying solely on the blocking system. Thank you for your input on this matter.
Click to expand...
I don't know what you mean by "games like EVE and SC, players can still exist in the game world even if they are not interacting with others directly". It might just be the wording of that sentence. EVE and SC are full-on, constant, unending, unceasing, perpetual PvP games. You can die anywhere at any time. You can have your ship stolen, ransomed, exploded, whatever, even in the most "secure" space. You have no choice. The only alternative is to not play those games. ED is casual as hell already anyway.

I say let 'em block. So they/you disappear. So what? That's just how it is.
 

Riverside

Riverside
I play in Open, I have never used (or felt the need for) the block function. I have long held the opinion that if you don't want to be blocked, play in such a way that others are unlikely to want to block you.

I think the game is best played in open and that BGS conflicts played out by both sides in open is the game at it's best.

I don't agree that forcing other players to have to play with you would be as popular as what we have now, but if the block were to revert to chat only I would play that game, it wouldn't impact my game. I am aware it would impact the game for others though, and weighing up one side not having as much fun (fewer 'victims' to hunt) vs the other side potentially not playing in open or even not playing at all because of the lack of that blocking option, I'd have to go with keeping the option to block.

It would be nice if players could be encouraged to limit the use of the block function to a sensible amount (eg only really obnoxious players) but we all draw our line in the sand in different places & ultimately people will use it if it is available so the only potential changes I think might work would be to limit blocks to a certain length of time or limit the total number of blocks that can be used at any one time (so to block one more, the oldest one must be removed or similar).

It adversely affects instancing, but lots of things affect instancing. I would play an Open only, no blocks game but it would be a different game to what we have now, and one a lot of other people would not want.

So while the benefits of blocking are not ones that benefit me (apart from maybe the game being a bit more popular) the downsides have to be accepted for the sake of those that would be adversely affected if it were not the way it is.

Also, hotel california thread is here:

The Open v Solo v Groups thread

I guess they were right, it seems you can never leave. The topic of open vs solo vs groups continues to be a popular discussion. Rather than see new threads being created and closed when duplicate topics alreadys exist, we have chosen to combine these into one easily affordable single...
forums.frontier.co.uk forums.frontier.co.uk
 

CMDR DT

CMDR DT
rootsrat said:
Big NOPE from me. Definitely not with the current broken (in my opinion) non-competitive PVP and C&P systems.

The first excessively favours the attacker, from the strength of player interdictors to pulling the victim to the attackers position to lacking defensive measure against the overpowered weaponry of PVP builds, to chain-interdiction inevitability to making high-waking out pretty much the only viable option of escaping alive.

The second focuses mainly on monetary penalties for the attacker, which is a completely non-punishment, considering how easy it is to accrue several billion Credits nowadays.

Until non-competitive PVP and C&P systems are more balanced or fixed even, the current blocking system is the best way to avoid gankers and griefers, while still being able to play with the people that you'd want to encounter in your space adventures.

I wouldn't mind a change to how blocking works if Elite had:
- a reasonable non-competitive PVP system (i.e. one that gives victims better defences and doesn't favour the attacker so excessively) AND
- a reasonable C&P system, that was oriented more around actual police response, restrictive access to systems and places and bounty hunting being profitable and worthwhile

Until that happens - no thanks, the blocking works perfectly fine.


----

Also, with [modhat on] - before this discussion about BLOCKING turns into Open vs Solo thread, may I remind you that we have a thread for that already and it's here --> https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/the-open-v-solo-v-groups-thread.607291/
Click to expand...
Thank you for your reply, I read your thread, your thread should be more responsive, more practical. I read the comments, the main contradiction is that the players can not stop ganker's intercept, I feel that adding an anti-intercept equipment in the game to ensure that the player doesn't become some ganker's "plaything" is better than a simple, practical block to make the player disappear. It's not real and a bit ridiculous. Thanks a lot.
 

CMDR DT

CMDR DT
Riverside said:
I play in Open, I have never used (or felt the need for) the block function. I have long held the opinion that if you don't want to be blocked, play in such a way that others are unlikely to want to block you.

I think the game is best played in open and that BGS conflicts played out by both sides in open is the game at it's best.

I don't agree that forcing other players to have to play with you would be as popular as what we have now, but if the block were to revert to chat only I would play that game, it wouldn't impact my game. I am aware it would impact the game for others though, and weighing up one side not having as much fun (fewer 'victims' to hunt) vs the other side potentially not playing in open or even not playing at all because of the lack of that blocking option, I'd have to go with keeping the option to block.

It would be nice if players could be encouraged to limit the use of the block function to a sensible amount (eg only really obnoxious players) but we all draw our line in the sand in different places & ultimately people will use it if it is available so the only potential changes I think might work would be to limit blocks to a certain length of time or limit the total number of blocks that can be used at any one time (so to block one more, the oldest one must be removed or similar).

It adversely affects instancing, but lots of things affect instancing. I would play an Open only, no blocks game but it would be a different game to what we have now, and one a lot of other people would not want.

So while the benefits of blocking are not ones that benefit me (apart from maybe the game being a bit more popular) the downsides have to be accepted for the sake of those that would be adversely affected if it were not the way it is.

Also, hotel california thread is here:

The Open v Solo v Groups thread

I guess they were right, it seems you can never leave. The topic of open vs solo vs groups continues to be a popular discussion. Rather than see new threads being created and closed when duplicate topics alreadys exist, we have chosen to combine these into one easily affordable single...
forums.frontier.co.uk forums.frontier.co.uk
Click to expand...
Thank you for your reply, you have spoken my heart, my idea is to make the block system change, the current stage of unlimited block, and evaporating block is not real and there will lead some problems influence the player experience. Thanks a lot.
 

Shabine

Shabine
varonica said:
But once they've blocked all the gankers and PvP players that's exactly what they have anyway!
Click to expand...
So, let's be real. Like, really real.

Ganking, griefing, seal clubbing, whatever you want to call it, is indeed PvP. That said, it's a choice that most make early on and usually end up abandoning. Because very few veteran PvPers bother with it, at least from what I've seen since 2017. They want to fight each other. They want to take on other meta rigs, because that's where the cutting edge is. It's testing your skill and your build against people who know what they're doing and want to be there, not some fresh space trucker in a Hauler trying to get that Baron rank or start up with Farseer. As I said though, that too is definitely PvP. Almost everyone who engages in PvP does it. At some point.

And when you encounter someone who blocks you because you took them down while they were willingly swimming with sharks, what are the chances you were going to learn anything from them or interact with them anyway?

Besides, as you can see, blocking has other practical functions. This dude likes Open, but he needed a pad, and some total jerk was hogging it up.
Aganar said:
Blocking is vital in CGs like one we have now. I want to play in online, but when is one player blocking only L pad there is for 25 minutes, blocking is only solution
Click to expand...
 

varonica

varonica
Shabine said:
So, let's be real. Like, really real.

Ganking, griefing, seal clubbing, whatever you want to call it, is indeed PvP. That said, it's a choice that most make early on and usually end up abandoning. Because very few veteran PvPers bother with it, at least from what I've seen since 2017. They want to fight each other.
Click to expand...

No, ganking, griefing and seal clubbing isn't PvP, PvP requires 2 willing players, the moment you have one unwilling player it isn't PvP, because one player isn't versing the other player, they are just trying to escape. None of my ships have weapons, would you class that as PvP if I were attacked? I have no weapons, I can't fight back. Basically new players, the ones that are suffering the seal clubbing are essentially the same, they have no chance, any weapons they have may as well be water pistols. Let's also be clear here, if the PvP players only wanted to fight each other, and indeed did so, then there would be no complaints regarding them, but that's not the case.
 

Shabine

Shabine
varonica said:
No, ganking, griefing and seal clubbing isn't PvP, PvP requires 2 willing players, the moment you have one unwilling player it isn't PvP, because one player isn't versing the other player, they are just trying to escape.
Click to expand...
And this is where I part ways with a lot of people's thinking. It absolutely is PvP. It's a player vs another player in an environment where that is entirely possible. Elite players aren't forced to PvP. They can play in Solo. They can play in PGs. But Open, as I mentioned before, is swimming with sharks. If you're a little fish and you get eaten, that's life. And I say that as someone who has been the little fish, the shark, and the octopus watching them.

varonica said:
None of my ships have weapons, would you class that as PvP if I were attacked?
Click to expand...
Yes, it's just dirty. You're defenseless. But you are playing in a format that you signed up to. It's a feature of the game. It has been since the start. People around here call the system "broken", but since Frontier never "fixed" it, it's just part of the game.

varonica said:
I have no weapons, I can't fight back. Basically new players, the ones that are suffering the seal clubbing are essentially the same, they have no chance, any weapons they have may as well be water pistols. Let's also be clear here, if the PvP players only wanted to fight each other, and indeed did so, then there would be no complaints regarding them, but that's not the case.
Click to expand...
You misunderstood. It takes a certain kind of PvPer to want to die. Seal clubbers are PvPers, but they're either new to it or lazy kill junkies for the most part. I consider good PvPers to be the ones that want an actual challenge. These behaviors are all nuanced though. There are as many grey areas as there are players.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom