Elite Dangerous Blocking System: A Call for Change

[Riverside]

This thread is definitely wandering into hotel california territory.

Varonica, you have a curious personal definition of PvP. It is called PvP because it is an adversarial scenario between players, as compared to PvE, which is player(s) vs the environment (eg NPCs or just the landscape). What you are describing is the difference between interacting with vs acting on you.

Have a look here if you are unclear on the differences:

Bartle taxonomy of player types - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Here's a TL;DR for easy consumption:

I am a peaceful person. I am capable of great harm but choose not to. If someone is incapable of harming me they are not peaceful, they are harmless. Note that that is not the same as defenceless.

 

[Shabine]

I am a peaceful person. I am capable of great harm but choose not to. If someone is incapable of harming me they are not peaceful, they are harmless. Note that that is not the same as defenceless.

Whenever you head out into Open, this is the exact mentality you need to have if you aren't out for blood. You have to know that there are people who there who are, and you need to be prepared to either defend yourself or lose everything. That said, it isn't easy to defend yourself against a meta Fer-De-Lance, but the kind of people who build those probably aren't the least bit interested in you. Defenseless, harmless, or otherwise.

Also, I have a graph of my own to share.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

Personally I disagree with the idea of blocking players purely because they're gankers

It's still a terrible idea though.

In any multiplayer game you have to be able to remove people you find rude, annoying or offensive from your game that you play for fun. Removing them from chat isn't removing them from your gaming experience.

 

[Riverside]

Whenever you head out into Open, this is the exact mentality you need to have if you aren't out for blood. You have to know that there are people who there who are, and you need to be prepared to either defend yourself or lose everything. That said, it isn't easy to defend yourself against a meta Fer-De-Lance, but the kind of people who build those probably aren't the least bit interested in you. Defenseless, harmless, or otherwise.

Also, I have a graph of my own to share.

View attachment 346589

Defending against a 'meta FDL' certainly requires some skill and a certain level of equipment, but it's not that hard. Killing one in a ship built primarily for PvE activities is near impossible.

Your pie chart is missing the important (relevant) part; that you can never leave

 

[Shabine]

Your pie chart is missing the important (relevant) part; that you can never leave

Shhhhh!

We don't tell them that. They either figure it out or they don't.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Assuming not trolling, everyone will just say "Go find a PvE private group. Problem solved".

Not sure if that actually solves the problem, but that's generally how opposition to this proposal has played out historically.

You should know this. You were there.

Technical issues aside, i feel as though FD should do it. Its a lesson that was learned decades ago in the online world, you want people to enjoy the game and maximize your profits you offer them PvE servers (in ED's case it would require separate BGS, and that used to be an argument against, but now we do have separate BGS with Legacy). And those who want PvP servers can have them.

History has also taught us, generally, PvP servers don't do very well with most games, because without the PvEers, many PvPers are not interested in real PvP, they just want easy targets, so they just move on. However, for the real PvPers, they get their own realm unaffected by people playing with their "BGS" in other modes.

Its a win-win for the majority, the only losers are the gankers and griefers, and i doubt anyone cares about them.

 

[varonica]

This thread is definitely wandering into hotel california territory.

Varonica, you have a curious personal definition of PvP. It is called PvP because it is an adversarial scenario between players,

You can't have an adversarial conflict between players if one of them is unarmed. That's like saying a person tied up to a chair is engaged in a fight if he is being punched repeatedly by an unrestrained person. A combat ship, by definition, is armed, if a ship has no weapons then it shouldn't be targetable, mind you that would make CG's in open a bit easier.

Adversary: one's opponent in a contest, conflict, or dispute.

Can't be an opponent if you aren't resisting, you are just a target.

 

[Shabine]

Its a win-win for the majority, the only losers are the gankers and griefers, and i doubt anyone cares about them.

I find this sentiment among a certain portion of the population to be rather strange. I think that's because it's foreign to me. I come from single shard games like EVE where life in the universe is always dangerous, because the approach to an open multiplayer environment there is to avoid limiting how players interact with one another. That's a big part of the appeal. It's that anything can happen, because I don't control you... I can only control how I react to you.

I find it even more strange in a game where, again, PvE players have the option to avoid this potentially dangerous Open environment by playing alone or finding a PvE group. Open was always like this. It was always a place where something bad might happen to you and it very well could be someone else's fault. Years later, people are still bemoaning it without accepting that this is just how Open works.

I'm not saying that anything is wrong with people who disagree or who can't really understand where I'm coming from. It just seems like screaming at the wind to make it stop blowing, you know? It won't change the way the weather works.

 

[Riverside]

You can't have an adversarial conflict between players if one of them is unarmed. That's like saying a person tied up to a chair is engaged in a fight if he is being punched repeatedly by an unrestrained person. A combat ship, by definition, is armed, if a ship has no weapons then it shouldn't be targetable, mind you that would make CG's in open a bit easier.

Adversary: one's opponent in a contest, conflict, or dispute.

Can't be an opponent if you aren't resisting, you are just a target.

You are thinking of asymmetric encounters. You could ram your opponent (ie not fly defenceless), you could trap your opponent (eg out-manoeuvre your opponent causing them to take environmental damage).

As I said, if you aren't resisting you are helpless. It doesn't matter whether you are peaceful or not it's still a Player vs Player adversarial encounter.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

I think we can rely on in-game punishment system to provide more severe penalties

Not in the slightest, and this would only make things worse for the average player.

What are the two most common reasons discussed to block someone right now on the forums?
1) They're taking up the large pad on the Tarach Tor rescue megaship (or somewhere equally high-traffic low-capacity) and appear to have gone AFK
2) They're in a broken AX CZ instance but are refusing to / failing to notice requests to leave it to start a fresh one

Neither of those are anything that should be considered an in-game crime.

Furthermore, making the crime system harsher on criminals tends to have counter-productive effects because it hits "accidental" criminals way harder than "deliberate" ones. If we take the distant third reason of "they were shooting at me" ...
- people in AX CZs are having big problems with the tiny assault bounties they're picking up from stray shard/frag shots causing them to be locked out of the station they're defending
- there are the occasional player-killers around as well, but they're getting far fewer mentions
... so AX CZ etiquette is to turn crime reporting off so that you don't lock your allies out of the nearby station for an accidental (and largely harmless vs human ships) stray shot in a furball
... but of course, if you turn crime reporting off so that the crime system stops disproportionately punishing your allies, it can't do anything if someone is shooting at you deliberately either.


The crime system should primarily be for PvE activity - does the faction I'm doing this to dislike it enough to slap a bounty on me and open fire? If applying the same rules to player-vs-player interactions also leads to some bounties, then fine, it can do ... but the point of the crime system should be to make PvE criminality fun: if committing crimes isn't fun, they shouldn't have been implemented in the first place, since this is a game and supposed to be fun. Therefore, the punishment for crimes should apply to the character but provide fun for the player. (As opposed to now, where the punishment is annoying thousands of AX pilots and the few gankers shooting at them don't care despite being given a much larger in-game "punishment" on paper)

On the other hand, questions of "who do I want to play with?" should not primarily be answered with in-game tools (beyond the general "it's a big galaxy, what are the odds of meeting anyone anyway?") - meta-game tools like private groups, blocks, and where applicable (actual cheating, say) Frontier-imposed bans are the right way to deal with them.

 

[Screemonster]

I believe that stronger criminal consequences could be a way to prevent harassment in open play.

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

 

[metatheurgist]

Technical issues aside, i feel as though FD should do it. Its a lesson that was learned decades ago in the online world, you want people to enjoy the game and maximize your profits you offer them PvE servers (in ED's case it would require separate BGS, and that used to be an argument against, but now we do have separate BGS with Legacy). And those who want PvP servers can have them.

History has also taught us, generally, PvP servers don't do very well with most games, because without the PvEers, many PvPers are not interested in real PvP, they just want easy targets, so they just move on. However, for the real PvPers, they get their own realm unaffected by people playing with their "BGS" in other modes.

Its a win-win for the majority, the only losers are the gankers and griefers, and i doubt anyone cares about them.

I'm not sure a server is needed; we're almost there. All that's needed is the ability to subscribe to a shared block list. Sort of like an Anti-PG.

 

[Screemonster]

I'm not sure a server is needed; we're almost there. All that's needed is the ability to subscribe to a shared block list. Sort of like an Anti-PG.

I've seen those go very badly on social media sites. All it takes is one bad actor with an ego to stroke and you've got people getting added to the unperson list for merely questioning why their buddy is on the unperson list.

It's not like we haven't already seen certain people brag about "serving justice" in the form of stream-sniping people in their exploration ships when their "crime" was saying lol in san tu system chat when one of the law enforcers got ganked.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I find this sentiment among a certain portion of the population to be rather strange. I think that's because it's foreign to me. I come from single shard games like EVE where life in the universe is always dangerous, because the approach to an open multiplayer environment there is to avoid limiting how players interact with one another. That's a big part of the appeal. It's that anything can happen, because I don't control you... I can only control how I react to you.

I find it even more strange in a game where, again, PvE players have the option to avoid this potentially dangerous Open environment by playing alone or finding a PvE group. Open was always like this. It was always a place where something bad might happen to you and it very well could be someone else's fault. Years later, people are still bemoaning it without accepting that this is just how Open works.

I'm not saying that anything is wrong with people who disagree or who can't really understand where I'm coming from. It just seems like screaming at the wind to make it stop blowing, you know? It won't change the way the weather works.

Let me try and address your points.

1) EvE - EvE was built from the ground up to be adversarial between players. This is tricky to get right, and some who attempt it fail. New World tried it and after initial feedback they took a huge step back from it. The players who play EvE know what they are getting and want that sort of experience. Very few play EvE just to PvE and don't like the PvP because even if you stay in Concord space there are still those who will go in and kill you even if they know they will lose whatever they send in. Elite on the other hand is much more of a chill game and many players enjoy just doing their own thing, they don't want that edge of the seat playing. If ED had set out and advertised itself to be a player adversarial environment and built itself in line with that, it could have, possibly, been a good PvP game. But the mechanics as developed (crime and punishment, combat, balance, etc) simply don't support it.

2) PGs - yes, they can, and many do. But what would happen to Open if every single player that is not interested in PvP switched to PGs or solo? Pretty much the same as what a separate PvE server would do right? What is strange for me is why so many who don't like PvP stay in Open, but i guess that is due to the limitations of PGs. When most people you meet in Open are PvEers or at least, not hostile, you get a much better experience in Open than in PGs, where player numbers are much lower. Even in Mobius the number of players there is much lower than there would be in a proper PvE server.

3) Open was always like this - well, not quite. In the early days Open was a much better experience. Without engineering, synthesis, and all the additional shield and hull modules the ships were much better balanced. A viper was a decent PvP ship, so even poor people could get involved in PvP, but with engineering and extra modules the hitpoint inflation began as well and PvP became a lot less fun and interesting. Early PvP was much more seat of the pants and visceral. Watching PvP these days is an absoloute snoozefest. Just people non-stop popping SCBs for ages while they tickle each other to death for 20 minutes. Plus it helped in the early days that not everyone was loaded, but people kept complaining about the grind and over the years FD relented and now credits have no meaning, which means the rebuy deterrent is also gone. I've posted my own thoughts in the past about how PvP could be more balanced and fun for all involved, but this isn't the place to get into that discussion.

But ok, let's roll with all PvEers that don't want PvP should be in PGs, then what is the harm with having a separate Open PvE mode? Again, everyone gets what they want, except for the most toxic elements of the community.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Thank you for your response. I believe that stronger criminal consequences could be a way to prevent harassment in open play. However, I think the current system of unlimited blocking and complete disappearance is extreme and could lead to negative experiences for players.

It could help, but not much. This is the fantasy land Star Citizen backers are living in, because they believe CIG when they say they will create an environment with really good crime and punishment system that will ensure all can enjoy the game they want to. Its just pure fantasy, you can't give both PvEers and PvPers what they want in the same shared environment. We have literally decades of evidence to support this.

Either you have a C&P system that allows the toxic elements to do what they want or you make it so draconian that it negatively affects the PvEers as well (see ED's notoriety system as a weak example), and even then, with the most draconian system, some of the most toxic still won't care. To bring up Star Citizen again, get thrown in jail for committing a crime, log off, log in with a different account, rinse and repeat, while waiting for jail timers to go down.

 

[SteveWW57]

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.

Having anti intercept equipment in the game would be a good idea from some points of view. No interdictions by NPCs* or players. EXCELLENT! I would add it to my unarmed ships and could play in open and meet friendly, but not hostile CMDRS. Blocking could be reserved for pad blockers etc.

Of course, all those wanting targets or simply feel that everyone should instead develop skills or build ships to survive without this equipment will be totally opposed to the idea.

* Unless the equipment only works against players.

Otherwise, I oppose the change to the blocking function.

Steve

 

[SteveWW57]

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.

It's non consensual PvP. One player wants to engage in it, and one does not.

Why should a player be bullied out of open and the benefits and enjoyment of that environment, just because someone else wants to get their lols by making less capable ships go boom?

Steve

 

[Shabine]

EvE - EvE was built from the ground up to be adversarial between players. This is tricky to get right, and some who attempt it fail. New World tried it and after initial feedback they took a huge step back from it. The players who play EvE know what they are getting and want that sort of experience. Very few play EvE just to PvE and don't like the PvP because even if you stay in Concord space there are still those who will go in and kill you even if they know they will lose whatever they send in. Elite on the other hand is much more of a chill game and many players enjoy just doing their own thing, they don't want that edge of the seat playing.

Here I would simply point out that Elite players are anyone who is or has been playing Elite for almost a decade now. In all that time, engineering aside, Open was always a place where surprise PvP could happen. So while Elite players may be more casual, Open has never provided a totally carefree PvE experience. We all knew that when we signed up.

When most people you meet in Open are PvEers or at least, not hostile, you get a much better experience in Open than in PGs, where player numbers are much lower.

Well, you do. I quite like risk.

Without engineering, synthesis, and all the additional shield and hull modules the ships were much better balanced. A viper was a decent PvP ship, so even poor people could get involved in PvP, but with engineering and extra modules the hitpoint inflation began as well and PvP became a lot less fun and interesting. Early PvP was much more seat of the pants and visceral.

We can agree that early PvP was better, but it could still happened even if you were weren't looking for it, right? That's kinda my point. It was never optional in Open. It just used to be more accessible. Those unable or unwilling to defend themselves were always, as they are now, potential victims.

Again, everyone gets what they want, except for the most toxic elements of the community.

Well, you also lose all the danger that makes shared open worlds so, to borrow a word from you, visceral.

 

[metatheurgist]

I've seen those go very badly on social media sites. All it takes is one bad actor with an ego to stroke and you've got people getting added to the unperson list for merely questioning why their buddy is on the unperson list.

It's not like we haven't already seen certain people brag about "serving justice" in the form of stream-sniping people in their exploration ships when their "crime" was saying lol in san tu system chat when one of the law enforcers got ganked.

Sure, that's why you can subscribe to them. You have a choice, there will be several lists and you can pick the one you want. There will be good actors, there will be bad actors.

 

[Morbad]

PvP requires 2 willing players

If the interaction in question is within the purview of legitimate gameplay (i.e. not against any rules), that's willing enough.

None of my ships have weapons, would you class that as PvP if I were attacked?

Absolutely.

I have no weapons, I can't fight back.

Your character exists within and influences the same setting. You have as much ability to fight back as your opponent does to counter your character's actions via other means.

Nah, not even. There is no inherent right for someone to play in my space. Maybe I don't like them and I don't have to give a reason.

I agree that C&P or balance are neither here nor there.

I do not agree that there is any space that could ever be exclusively yours in a game like this.

In any multiplayer game you have to be able to remove people you find rude, annoying or offensive from your game that you play for fun.

In multiplayer games, and public social interactions in general, the standard is to remove one's self if one is not content with the situation. For it to be otherwise would impinge upon the many to satisfy the arbitrary whims of the one; which is what Elite: Dangerous has with regard to direct instancing, but not the overarching game.

I cannot think of a single multi-player game that allows unilateral removal of players from the game, unless one is the host of that game. Even Elite: Dangerous doesn't allow this...it only allows removal from one's instance and chat window, which is only a fraction of the game. Other interactions, even unwanted ones, remain completely intact. Anyone can ravage one's PMF or crap all over the BGS in the areas one frequently haunts, and no matter how much that may upset someone, there is no provision to avoid this other than through counter-gamplay of one's own, or ignoring it.

If I run a private server or a table top game, I control who is allowed to play. If one player has a problem with another they can appeal to me, the host, and if I find their argument persuasive, I may remove the offending player...otherwise they can pack their up and leave.

Most multiplayer video games are like this, but with a more distant or abstract host. I cannot remove other players from a Battlefield server without appealing to the host or automated mechanisms (vote kick) the host has set up. I cannot exclude other players from a party I have joined in most MMOs without appealing to the rest of the party to form a new one, excluding the player I have taken issue with.