Elite Dangerous Blocking System: A Call for Change

[Helmut Grokenberger]

I wasn't patronizing you, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I'll take you at your word that you understand what I say. Which is why I can only conclude you're deliberately misrepresenting my position in your posts, thus why I'm putting you on ignore.

Even if you block me now and probably will not read this, let me say this: At this point, we have argued often enough that you know I have no problem with the language barrier. Your comment was patronizing and condescending, and that is already ignoring your little "I've been here longer than you" stab.

But at this point: Whatever. You can bend this all you want. Have a nice life.

 

[Brrokk]

How is that position not completely hypocritical? Blocking is choosing who others play with, often spoiling their fun. It's not just telling people to leave, it's forcing them out.



Not if block is in play, because the blocker has made that decision for me, no matter who they block.



I wasn't patronizing you, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I'll take you at your word that you understand what I say. Which is why I can only conclude you're deliberately misrepresenting my position in your posts, thus why I'm putting you on ignore.



I'm not sure that anything in your statement serves as a counter example to anything I said.

Anyone can say anything in system chat. With that as your source, you have little idea of knowing who is actually doing things you find objectionable, if someone wants to confuse or deceive people...and they will if that's the only way to oppose them and they are given the metagaming tools to do so, which they are.

People fighting in a CZ certainly doesn't fit any definition of ganking I have and blocking your CMDRs opponents in a CZ is going to damage my game, especially if those CMDRs are also my CMDRs opponents.

Sorry, but block is what FD have given us to choose who we play with. They could have given us an Open-PvE mode, or better C&P, or more granular options for reporting crimes, but they've been lazy. It works, but if there are knock-on effects, they're effects which FD have chosen to allow. Someone said it a few pages back: we have to play the game we've got, not an imaginary one we happen to want.

I doubt that knock-on effects from block are ever clearly seen though. I guess that wing/friend lists, timezones and ping compatibilities are usually much more significant.

I always think that anyone who really wants Open to be unfiltered by block really needs to campaign for an Open-PvE mode. Having that would mean most of us would hardly ever need to use block.

 

[Shabine]

They can add a "fake" pad, I mean... one that works for exit only for those cases (i.e. on the side of the pad) or a door at the end of the hangar so you can undock your ship and fly out of the outpost. But yeah, mechanic is terrible because first of all we have too few pads

That would work. Like, a temporary spawn point. And yeah, way too few pads.

If you block someone and I find myself matched with them, I am, for the duration of that instance, excluded from playing with anyone who has been matched with you. If I find myself matched with you, I am excluded from playing with anyone matched with them.

Since I cannot know who has blocked whom, my only recourse to be free from the influence of your block is to make sure I'm not in the same system or local space instance, or I switch to a mode you're not using, all of which defeat the purpose.

Wow. What an absolute mess.

Open-PvE mode

You know what? I used to bristle at this idea. I mean... come on, just roll out and accept your fate! But the more I think about it... I played games like DAoC and WoW for years on both PvP and PvE servers, and that system was just fine. My raiding group was on one server and my 8-man world PvP group on the other, and it was great. PvE could even be set up as just another mode that we could hop to. It would virtually eliminate the need for Solo and PGs unless people really wanted whitelisted communities, and you wouldn't even need to get rid of those options.

Brrokk, you've convinced me that PvE and PvP modes would actually be really great things. It took a while, but I got here in the end.

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

Brrokk, you've convinced me that PvE and PvP modes would actually be really great things. It took a while, but I got here in the end.

Many people have come to the same conclusion many times before. Alas, it ain't happening. Sadly.

 

[Shabine]

Many people have come to the same conclusion many times before. Alas, it ain't happening. Sadly.

Oh I know. Just, for what it's worth, I no longer think that would be a bad thing in this particular game. In some others, yes, but not here.

 

[Morbad]

They can add a "fake" pad, I mean... one that works for exit only for those cases (i.e. on the side of the pad) or a door at the end of the hangar so you can undock your ship and fly out of the outpost. But yeah, mechanic is terrible because first of all we have too few pads

The stations aren't supposed to be abstractions. They only have the number of pads/hangars they have because that's how many will fit inside the model.

I don't have a problem with this. Not all stations should be able to accept an unlimited amount of traffic. Congestion and all the stuff that goes along with it should be a thing.

The problem, IMO, is how stations react to traffic. Allowing someone to idle in one of your precious hangars while high priority traffic builds up outside is ridiculous.

Sorry, but block is what FD have given us to choose who we play with.

And the ability to choose who others play with, which is what I've always objected to.

There are ways to chose who you play with, without imposing your choice upon third parties.

They could have given us an Open-PvE mode, or better C&P, or more granular options for reporting crimes, but they've been lazy.

None of these would address the underlying issue. This is not an in-character issue, so that leaves Open-PvE. Open-PvE might solve a subset of the activities that serve as pretenses for blocking, but not all of them, and we'd be having the same arguments about block if there were and Open-PvE mode.

It works, but if there are knock-on effects, they're effects which FD have chosen to allow.

Someone said it a few pages back: we have to play the game we've got, not an imaginary one we happen to want.

The existence of threads like this acknowledges these facts. They are pointing out issues with the rules as they are and asking for change to subjectively better rules.

I know change won't come, but that doesn't make the arguments any less entertaining.

I doubt that knock-on effects from block are ever clearly seen though.

Sometimes they are. rootsrat had a pretty clear example, that I was mocked a little for when I didn't assume more than was actually said. I have examples of my own that I consider as clear as anything can be.

I guess that wing/friend lists, timezones and ping compatibilities are usually much more significant.

If this were the case, in high-traffic areas, it would mean block wasn't functioning. But we know it is and we know how it has to work to do what it's being asked to do. The existence of other matchmaking issues, of which there are many, does not change how block functions.

The basic mechanism and it's implications are not in any real dispute.

 

[Darrack]

How is that position not completely hypocritical? Blocking is choosing who others play with, often spoiling their fun. It's not just telling people to leave, it's forcing them out.

But that's their problem, i doubt anyone (certainly not me) blocks innocent folks, only the muppets trying to spoil my day, they have only themselves to blame and i have no sympathy at all.

O7

 

[Brrokk]

...
Brrokk, you've convinced me that PvE and PvP modes would actually be really great things. It took a while, but I got here in the end.

You are a reasonable person to debate with! FWIW these discussions have also made me come round to the idea that there really ought to be a PvP feature. PowerPlay looks like the obvious candidate and I wouldn't mind seeing it modified so that PvP encounters are integral to part of it. Heck, I might even give that a try; I'm not opposed to all PvP, I just want it to only happen when it's a meaningful part of the game.

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

But that's their problem, i doubt anyone (certainly not me) blocks innocent folks, only the muppets trying to spoil my day, they have only themselves to blame and i have no sympathy at all.

O7

yeah but by his logic it is your fault that he cannot instance with those who you blocked if he is instanced with you, so you are the source of disturbance, not the ganker. And thus rather than pacifying your game, you should not be able to block and instead recuse yourself from the game so he is free to instance with those who spoil your game.

But I am sure I am again misinterpreting. Even though he said that almost literally.

Damn, I already said whatever. Whatever.

 

[Darrack]

yeah but by his logic it is your fault that he cannot instance with those who you blocked if he is instanced with you, so you are the source of disturbance, not the ganker. And thus rather than pacifying your game, you should not be able to block and instead recuse yourself from the game so he is free to instance with those who spoil your game.

But I am sure I am again misinterpreting. Even though he said that almost literally.

Damn, I already said whatever. Whatever.

Trust me i wont lose any sleep

O7

 

[Morbad]

But that's their problem, i doubt anyone (certainly not me) blocks innocent folks, only the muppets trying to spoil my day, they have only themselves to blame and i have no sympathy at all.

The point is that you cannot exclude just the muppet and you cannot exclude them from only yourself. Whoever you block finds themself in another instance instead of yours, but their matchmaking weights are still intact.

While a not particularly relevant tangent, your doubt over what people will use block for is also rather naive. It's a far better griefer tool in the hands of a malicious player than any equipment a CMDR has.

 

[Morbad]

But I am sure I am again misinterpreting.

You are.

Even though he said that almost literally.

I believe you've interjected a fairly critical alteration to my meaning:

yeah but by his logic it is your fault that he cannot instance with those who you blocked if he is instanced with you, so you are the source of disturbance, not the ganker. And thus rather than pacifying your game, you should not be able to block and instead recuse yourself from the game so he is free to instance with those who spoil your game.

I am not absolving anyone of anything. Everyone is responsible for what they do, including the ganker in this scenario. However, the ganker is not bothering me (not by ganking anyway), my instancing being meddled with is. The blocker and the ganker are equivalent in this scenario. The ganker is the sole source of the disturbance Darrack perceives. Darrack is the sole source of the disturbance I perceive. The is no singular disturbance, because the disturbances are entirely subjective.

The question both Darrack and I have in this hypothetical scenario is: "How do I pacify my game, while still being able to interact with as many people as possible?"

Darrack is not going to lose any sleep over the harm caused to bystanders, so his answer is straightforward. Block the ganker.

What am I left with, when that block is my disturbance? How do I exclude the deleterious effects of a block against a third party so I can continue to experience the gameplay I selected Open for?

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

whatever. Keep twisting the issue anyway you like to keep arguing. More power to you.

 

[Morbad]

whatever. Keep twisting the issue anyway you like to keep arguing. More power to you.

I'm at a complete loss as to what you think I'm twisting. Care to clarify?

I get the impression that you think 'ganking', however you define it, is some kind of objective evil that justifies it being treated differently from other undesirable events, even if the effect is the same.

At this point, we have argued often enough that you know I have no problem with the language barrier. Your comment was patronizing and condescending, and that is already ignoring your little "I've been here longer than you" stab.

No, I don't know that. I have no way of knowing how you're interpreting my posts other than through your responses. Given how surprised I've been by your apparent interpretations of some of my posts in this thread, I thought, and still think, some sort of language barrier is a distinct possibility...and hopefully a distinctly less offensive possibility than the alternative, which is you deliberately misrepresenting me. I didn't even imply any language barrier was your fault, just that it may be present.

Case in point, the "ive been here longer than you" wasn't a stab asserting seniority, it was a counter to what I perceived as an assertion that I was somehow twisting my meaning or moving goal posts around yours; I can quote statements of mine that predate you that would likely be read the same way. This isn't a stab, this is a chronological fact. My position has not changed since the moment I came to understand what block was doing, and certainly not during the course of this thread.

I'm also generally not paying careful attention to names in cross-thread arguments and do not think it's reasonable to expect me to remember the individual nuances of posters. Some stand out, but most do not, and I argue with and against the content on hand not individual posters, unless they make something personal by acusing me of something I do not believe I have done.

Your accusations against me have all come entirely out of left field, from my perspective.

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

I'm at a complete loss as to what you think I'm twisting. Care to clarify?

I am getting griefed. I block the griefer. You basically say: You grief me by preventing me to instance with the one you blocked, you should not block the griefer, you should leave. That is very much twisting the core issue of abusive players into one that fits your narrative.

I get the impression that you think 'ganking', however you define it, is some kind of objective evil that justifies it being treated differently from other undesirable events, even if the effect is the same.

Ganking is only a placeholder. You (the proverbial you, not you personally) gank me, you keep spamming me with dirty messages, stalk me, ram me, block pads with intent - I don't care. If you are an annoying person to play with, you are gone from my instance. This is my prerogative, and rightly so.

Case in point, the "ive been here longer than you" wasn't a stab asserting seniority, it was a counter to what I perceived as an assertion that I was somehow twisting my meaning or moving goal posts around yours; I can quote statements of mine that predate you that would likely be read the same way. This isn't a stab, this is a chronological fact. My position has not changed since the moment I came to understand what block was doing, and certainly not during the course of this thread.

it's a flex. At the very least it can be perceived as one. I did.

I'm also generally not paying careful attention to names in cross-thread arguments and do not think it's reasonable to expect me to remember the individual nuances of posters. Some stand out, but most do not, and I argue with and against the content on hand not individual posters, unless they make something personal by acusing me of something I do not believe I have done.

Nice attitude. You must be great at parties. For the record: I do remember who posts what in the threads I contribute to.

Your accusations against me have all come entirely out of left field, from my perspective.

I am not accusing you of anything. I am arguing that your position of the griefee being your griefer by using the block function (griefer, ganker, disturbance, I don't care how you call it) is a very unhealthy and twisted view of the matter at hand.

And now, really really: Whatever. I am done arguing with you for now.

 

[Morbad]

I am getting griefed. I block the griefer. You basically say: You grief me by preventing me to instance with the one you blocked, you should not block the griefer, you should leave. That is very much twisting the core issue of abusive players into one that fits your narrative.

Pointing out that your actions may well be griefing me isn't twisting anything. It's just what is.

Ganking is only a placeholder. You (the proverbial you, not you personally) gank me, you keep spamming me with dirty messages, stalk me, ram me, block pads with intent - I don't care. If you are an annoying person to play with, you are gone from my instance. This is my prerogative, and rightly so.

Right, so replace 'ganking' with 'blocking' and you'll see where I'm coming from.

When your block (of whoever) keeps me from the breadth of encounters I'd normally experience; causes me to waste time futility diagnosing presumed network issues rather than playing; interferes with my CMDR's beacons; fragments the wings I'm part of; causes issues with the level of persistence (required to follow individuals across instance transitions) that would otherwise be possible; etc and so forth, where are the mechanisms for me to assert my rightful perogative to play the game without your influence, without sacrificing the same things you'd have to sacrifice without block.

it's a flex. At the very least it can be perceived as one. I did.

Nice attitude. You must be great at parties. For the record: I do remember who posts what in the threads I contribute to.

I am not accusing you of anything. I am arguing that your position of the griefee being your griefer by using the block function (griefer, ganker, disturbance, I don't care how you call it) is a very unhealthy and twisted view of the matter at hand.

And now, really really: Whatever. I am done with you for now.

Nevermind that I find your position as twisted and ridiculous as you find mine, all of this is ad hominem nonsense that has nothing to do with the mechanics or implications of the blocking system.

 

[YajM]

Wow. The thread has run all the way through textbook DARVO.
Gee, I can't imagine why anyone would object to being forced into open.

 

[SteveWW57]

Correct me if I am wrong, but is there not more than once instance as normal even without blocking? I.E. you will never get everyone in the same instance, as the game splits us up anyway?

Steve

 

[metatheurgist]

Easy solution, when you are matched with a blocked person you are auto prompted to block them too.

 

[rootsrat]

The question both Darrack and I have in this hypothetical scenario is: "How do I pacify my game, while still being able to interact with as many people as possible?"

Darrack is not going to lose any sleep over the harm caused to bystanders, so his answer is straightforward. Block the ganker.

What am I left with, when that block is my disturbance? How do I exclude the deleterious effects of a block against a third party so I can continue to experience the gameplay I selected Open for?

Would you agree that the root cause here is the hypothetical ganker though? Let's call them griefer even, for the sake of an extreme scenario. It's the griefer's actions that (subsequently) resulted in your instancing issue, even though the direct culprit is hypothetical Darrack.

There was a certain chain of events that led to this situation, and it was started by the actions taken by the griefer, NOT by Darrack.

Do you agree? If so - how would you fix the root cause? If not, then I am (again ) backing away from this discsussion with "agree to disagree" comment.