Elite Dangerous Blocking System: A Call for Change

[Northpin]

One cannot use block to remove players that are 'not adding anything beneficial' to one's gaming experience without becoming a negative experience to someone else and the effects of a block cannot be countered with a block.

It's a paradox.

Nope it's not.
first - they designed the game this way, allowing people the choice of who they get to play along
and second - as long FDev is not actively policing a direct multiplayer game, Block is the only way to effectively deal with cheaters and griefers

 

[Morbad]

And you may get back in the same instance as it happened to me in several ocassions

Block is also useful - as in extremely useful - in the new AX CZ which sometimes gets bugged, people dont leave or they're afk, and you keep relogging and you keep getting in the same bugged instance.
A block (even temporary) on a player in a such instance is the easy and fastest way to make sure at next relog you DONT get that instance.

The utility of block was never in dispute. However, there are other, less obtrusive, solutions to essentially any given scenario where one isn't simply using it to harass others.

Nope it's not.

Yes, it is, and quite objectively so.

If I find not being able to instance with someone because of a block source of grief, more blocks is not a solution to that. Even if I could accurately infer the source of the block, I could not then block that source without still excluding those they have already instanced with. That's what is paradoxical about the statement that it's a solution to 'all' griefing.

first - they designed the game this way, allowing people the choice of who they get to play along

I never suggested otherwise.

and second - as long FDev is not actively policing a direct multiplayer game, Block is the only way to effectively deal with cheaters and griefers

This is also quite objectively not the case. Anything block can do to deal with cheaters and griefers can also be done by switching to Solo, or leaving the system. Block can preserve interactions that these other solutions cannot, but block has a cost, and is still not remotely the only effective way to prevent the encounters it's able to prevent.

 

[Old Duck]

Well, I like the block feature just as it is, but of course most of you already know that

 

[Phoenix_Dfire]

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.

This has been suggested before. One of the reasons is the block feature is exploited in Powerplay to block PvP players from escorting Transports to contested systems. So as long as all the players involved are pledged to a power, then its probably a good idea, just to silence the chat.

However, the damage that griefers (or even the fear of griefers) do to the player base is huge. When a study was done on Ultima Online, they found that on average one griefer is normally responsible for 50 players leaving the game. The equivalent in Elite's case is driving the player permanently in pvt, which diminishes the open experience. Until the in-game Crime and Punishment system is reworked in a way it can come up with a way to encourage less griefer behaviour, then the option to block a harassing player must remain in place.

 

[OrdinaryMan]

I can only accept such a suggestion if there is a mod where no one can attack anyone (or at least attack without permission).

 

[Darrack]

This has been suggested before. One of the reasons is the block feature is exploited in Powerplay to block PvP players from escorting Transports to contested systems. So as long as all the players involved are pledged to a power, then its probably a good idea, just to silence the chat.

However, the damage that griefers (or even the fear of griefers) do to the player base is huge. When a study was done on Ultima Online, they found that on average one griefer is normally responsible for 50 players leaving the game. The equivalent in Elite's case is driving the player permanently in pvt, which diminishes the open experience. Until the in-game Crime and Punishment system is reworked in a way it can come up with a way to encourage less griefer behaviour, then the option to block a harassing player must remain in place.

Extremely well put and the reasons in a nutshell why folks like me stay in Solo or PG

However joking aside from my recent Hotel California meme i do feel this thread is getting closer to the solo/open debate long runner and maybe should start dying a natural death.

O7

 

[nemolomen]

Extremely well put and the reasons in a nutshell why folks like me stay in Solo or PG

However joking aside from my recent Hotel California meme i do feel this thread is getting closer to the solo/open debate long runner and maybe should start dying a natural death.

O7

They (threads like this) all run their course in due time and just hang on rehashing the same arguments, ad nauseum...until one day when people simply stop posting in them...

 

[DemiserofD]

I wish we could use threads like this to help create a better Crime and Punishment system. We have enough combined brain power here we should be able to spot most of the difficulties before they happen.

 

[rootsrat]

Slightly less gentle reminder for everyone to refer to the last part of my post here:

Elite Dangerous Blocking System: A Call for Change

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...

forums.frontier.co.uk

 

[Brrokk]

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.

Lol, no. Block does what it's supposed to do. When I block someone it's because I don't want to play a game with them.

 

[Phoenix_Dfire]

I wish we could use threads like this to help create a better Crime and Punishment system. We have enough combined brain power here we should be able to spot most of the difficulties before they happen.

In my opinion, they've almost got it right with the present system. It feels right against NPCs but needs to be tweeked a little to fit for purpose for griefers. It's all in this https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...tate-of-the-game-before-odyssey-drops.573437/ but to summarise ;-

• Change notoriety (or add a new player only notoriety) so a player will only get notoriety if they kill another player in a Low, Medium or High Sec System (Anarchy Systems don't count), and those notoriety points stays with the Commander a lot longer.
• Power Vs Power player combat should not incur notoriety as above but should create bounties as usual.
• Create a Bounty Board, available to view at all the stations, listing the top 100 most notorious players (galaxy-wide), and, their real time location if they are in a Low, Medium or High-Security system. As Anarchy systems are not on this Bounty System, it would mean that notorious players can hide in Anarchy systems without being tracked down.
• Alternatively, when using the galaxy map in open and pvt, a little red ship icon could be placed next to a system, as long as it's not an anarchy system (similarly to the green icon denoting Friends). This icon would show that there are notorious commanders in that system, and hovering over the icon with the mouse pointer would show a list of the notorious commanders in that system.
• It give the player the options of avoiding the system because it's 'too hot', going in with their eyes open and it tell bounty hunters where there are valid PvP targets, while making anarchy's a hive of scum and villainy.

 

[Rebel Yell]

The point is: blocking happens after some bad experience which is in 99% of cases a rebuy.

Do we have to use blocking to counter a (one single) rebuy?

In 2023?

ROTFL

Imho there's no need for blocking at all in the game (given there are enough player modes for solitaires and hermits)... just report players for using bad language, that works better.

 

[rootsrat]

In my opinion, they've almost got it right with the present system. It feels right against NPCs but needs to be tweeked a little to fit for purpose for griefers. It's all in this https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...tate-of-the-game-before-odyssey-drops.573437/ but to summarise ;-

• Change notoriety (or add a new player only notoriety) so a player will only get notoriety if they kill another player in a Low, Medium or High Sec System (Anarchy Systems don't count), and those notoriety points stays with the Commander a lot longer.
• Power Vs Power player combat should not incur notoriety as above but should create bounties as usual.
• Create a Bounty Board, available to view at all the stations, listing the top 100 most notorious players (galaxy-wide), and, their real time location if they are in a Low, Medium or High-Security system. As Anarchy systems are not on this Bounty System, it would mean that notorious players can hide in Anarchy systems without being tracked down.
• Alternatively, when using the galaxy map in open and pvt, a little red ship icon could be placed next to a system, as long as it's not an anarchy system (similarly to the green icon denoting Friends). This icon would show that there are notorious commanders in that system, and hovering over the icon with the mouse pointer would show a list of the notorious commanders in that system.
• It give the player the options of avoiding the system because it's 'too hot', going in with their eyes open and it tell bounty hunters where there are valid PvP targets, while making anarchy's a hive of scum and villainy.

Not bad, but I would add more points to this:

• Give us interdiction prevention module. I'm not talking fully block it, but if you equip it, it could lessen the distance FSDI is working at and it would lower the rate it drags your ship when you're being interdicted, making it easier to win the minigame. Various sizes with varied effects strength.
• When a ship is interdicted, pull the attacker to the victim's position physically in space (the opposite happens currently). This would mean that once you get interdicted, but manage to survive the encounter and get back into Super Cruise, you're not punished by being farther away from your destination then you were when interdicted and thus making it so much easier for countless chain-interdictions to happen.
• Uncap the PVP bounties. They are still capped at 1 or 2 million Cr and this was introduced to prevent exploiting it by amassing big bounty and letting your mate destroy you for Credits. With the current earning rates this cap is completely pointless.
• Increase police response time, especially in Medium and High Sec systems. The response time for highly notorious Commanders should be almost instantaneous. (Surely the cops are aware of such people violating their system space!)
• Make ATR great again by making them more ruthless and unforgivable at pursuing notorious Commanders across the galaxy.

 

[Crank Larson]

With the current system, players can effectively disappear from each other's game world entirely,

That's the entire point of it! What are you doing to upset people that this is an issue for you?

 

[Brrokk]

That's the entire point of it! What are you doing to upset people that this is an issue for you?

That really is the right answer to all this.
If you don't like the block feature, don't provoke people into blocking you.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

• Make ATR great again by making them more ruthless and unforgivable at pursuing notorious Commanders across the galaxy.

If it wasn't gained through PvE mechanics. I find notoriety simply an annoyance when you are doing PvE missions and stuff.

Although i've found every time FD attempted to make the crime and punishment system better (from a PvE perspective) they made it simply more annoying.

Also perhaps why a one size fits all approach to PvP and PvE players doesn't always work well.

 

[DemiserofD]

If it wasn't gained through PvE mechanics. I find notoriety simply an annoyance when you are doing PvE missions and stuff.

Although i've found every time FD attempted to make the crime and punishment system better (from a PvE perspective) they made it simply more annoying.

Also perhaps why a one size fits all approach to PvP and PvE players doesn't always work well.

The biggest problem is the way it scales. Because most of the consequences apply instantly, the current system inordinately punishes first time offenders, while doing little to Career criminals.

If the system worked properly, notoriety one should be relatively easy to deal with, but going from notoriety 9 to notoriety 10 should be a massive difference.

If it worked that way, then it wouldn't matter if it came from PvE or not.

 

[Chrystoph]

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.

Versus, as used in PvP, includes a concept of competition, but you are supporting a position where the aggressor does not Want competition. In fact, they are going out of their way to "lose" inside the game because the pay out for seal clubbing is normally a net loss. Ammunition, if used, will cost more than any salvage, and the time spent yields no tangible value.

You cannot even argue that there is challenge because the aggressor has specifically chosen a victim that cannot fight back.

All of that said, with no in game benefit to be had, you need to look for benefits external to the game. Since the players likely do not know each other (11+ million accounts), Occum's Razor dictates that the aggressor is looking to cause distress or grief to their target, either the loss of time or financial value.

Most likely, this is an example of Online Disinhibition Effect, which is to say, the aggressor Knows that there will be no consequence of any substance for their actions.

In most of the iterations of this discussion, some individual will say, "I'm role playing playing a psychopath", except that, they never talk to their victim, they couldn't give you a back story if you offered them cash, and they have no idea what an actual psychopath is. Ask them what the psychopath's motivator is and you can almost hear the vapor lock.

The next "argument" will be that the game allows the behavior. While this is true, it is a red herring when you are discussing motivations. "Why do you do it?" is not Answered by stating that the rules allow the behavior.

Did I miss anything?

 

[Shabine]

Did I miss anything?

Yeah. You missed my point, which is that if you choose to play in an environment where you can be attacked at any time, regardless of whether you want to be attacked or are prepared for an attack, there is no point in complaining when it happens. You can't control other people. You don't know their motivations, and their motivations are irrelevant anyway. You can only control how you react to whatever they do.

This is the nature of Open. It always has been. People who are victims of PvP they didn't want to engage in often assail the motivations of those who victimize them, but this is utterly pointless. Would you demand to know why that shark bit you while you were swimming off the coast of South Africa? Of course not. Biting things is what sharks do. What on earth would make you think that you were ever safe, or should be safe, if you go swimming with them?

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Yeah. You missed my point, which is that if you choose to play in an environment where you can be attacked at any time,

Until you block them