Elite Dangerous Blocking System: A Call for Change

[Riverside]

It wasn't sys chat that was the issue. It does I'd the individuals causing the issue together with out of context 'reasons'.
In Morbads terms 'an explicit admission '.
Think 'bank robber posts pics'.
View attachment 346871

Sorry I'm not really sure what your point is here. Any player certainly can state what their intentions are, its something I regularly do. That doesn't mean most do, nor that you should necessarily take them at their word. You can never be sure. The images you posted do not at face value show a criminal, they only show someone with bling.

At the most basic level, mode choice doesn't directly affect the experience of another player. Nobody in Open can instance with you, you can't instance with them. Not ideal but not unreasonable.

System chat crosses modes but can be disabled but doing so doesn't affect anyone but yourself. There is no downside to this to anyone but yourself.

Blocking other players while remaining in Open has the potential to disrupt instancing for other players. Morbad's point (AFAIK) is that it would be better for his game experience if he could instance with anyone that was willing to instance with him. Not to remove choice from anyone else, but to have any kind of player instancing filter affect the player doing the filtering (as modes do) rather than being one that affects his Cmdr.

This isn't my own stance on blocking (I gave it in my first post in this thread) but it does make sense & based on how Morbad has described his playstyle here, is consistent & understandable. Disabling chat or to a lesser extent mode choice don't affect other players, Blocking ideally shouldn't either. If I were to block another Cmdr I should reasonably expect to be the one who is deprioritized from instancing with other Cmdrs. Perhaps it already works this way, I have never tested it.

 

[Brrokk]

It wasn't sys chat that was the issue. It does I'd the individuals causing the issue together with out of context 'reasons'.
In Morbads terms 'an explicit admission '.
Think 'bank robber posts pics'.
View attachment 346871

... or the self- published "Distant Ganks 2" leaderboard.

 

[Brrokk]

There is no contradiction between this and the way I treat the game.



I think your confidence in the veracity of your guesses is misplaced.

There are countless potential in-character reasons to attempt to destroy other CMDR vessels. Not all of them are efficient in the terms of a broader metagame, but failing to minmaxing everything from an OOC gamist perspective shouldn't imply a lack of in-game incentive; some people would suggest exactly the opposite.

Indeed, it's not my desire to better portray my character that causes him to initiate hostilities upon strangers as infrequently as he does, it's my jadedness as a player. I personally know that violence doesn't actually have much of any in-game utility, due to the virtually non-existent consequence mechanisms in this game, so it's sometimes too much of a chore to properly play a character who should believe that he can actually hurt his foes. As a result, my character ignores interlopers he should just shoot down, and I sometimes have him talk when silence would rationally serve his goals best.

Ironically, if the game were more immersive, and more conducive to roleplaying a character in a credible version of the Elite setting, I'm almost certain I'd be mistaken for a griefer far more often.

There are only two categories of people in my block list:

1. Those who have actually confessed that they gank or destroy players' ships for no game reason and revealed their CMDR name at the same time.

2. Those who have exploded the unarmed cargoless Sidewinder "Griefer Blocker" in Deciat with no attempt at communication before or after.

People I don't want to play with.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

Sorry I'm not really sure what your point is here. Any player certainly can state what their intentions are, its something I regularly do. That doesn't mean most do, nor that you should necessarily take them at their word. You can never be sure. The images you posted do not at face value show a criminal, they only show someone with bling.

At the most basic level, mode choice doesn't directly affect the experience of another player. Nobody in Open can instance with you, you can't instance with them. Not ideal but not unreasonable.

System chat crosses modes but can be disabled but doing so doesn't affect anyone but yourself. There is no downside to this to anyone but yourself.

Blocking other players while remaining in Open has the potential to disrupt instancing for other players. Morbad's point (AFAIK) is that it would be better for his game experience if he could instance with anyone that was willing to instance with him. Not to remove choice from anyone else, but to have any kind of player instancing filter affect the player doing the filtering (as modes do) rather than being one that affects his Cmdr.

This isn't my own stance on blocking (I gave it in my first post in this thread) but it does make sense & based on how Morbad has described his playstyle here, is consistent & understandable. Disabling chat or to a lesser extent mode choice don't affect other players, Blocking ideally shouldn't either. If I were to block another Cmdr I should reasonably expect to be the one who is deprioritized from instancing with other Cmdrs. Perhaps it already works this way, I have never tested it.

I haven't heard such a convoluted excuse since the kid told me they'd done 'X' but I couldn't punish them because I didn't see them do 'X' despite the confession.
Didn't work then, good luck with that defence in court.
I suppose you could try appealing to Mama...

 

[Morbad]

There are only two categories of people in my block list:

1. Those who have actually confessed that they gank or destroy players' ships for no game reason and revealed their CMDR name at the same time.

2. Those who have exploded the unarmed cargoless Sidewinder "Griefer Blocker" in Deciat with no attempt at communication before or after.

Fair enough, though I can certainly see in-character rationales for #2.

I haven't heard such a convoluted excuse since the kid told me they'd done 'X' but I couldn't punish them because I didn't see them do 'X' despite the confession.
Didn't work then, good luck with that defence in court.

I'm not trying to solve a crime or assign blame to anyone for anything. I'm trying to play a game that I enjoy best when I can be immersed in my character and the setting it makes a token effort to depict.

Giving other players the benefit of the doubt, as far as possible, that their characters have a place in that game, best achieves that. To do otherwise, to assume the worst, when I absolutely will not be blocking anyone anyway, could not possibly help my game.

Indeed, this is why I was so disappointed when I found that block was meanginfully influencing matchmaking (we were always aware it was supposed to do something, but for a long time it either wasn't, or it's effect was too subtle for cursory testing to show). I had a lot of people blocked when I believed it was chat-only, because if they couldn't talk, they could not break my immersion except via overt cheating.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

 

[Yure]

I think we can rely on in-game punishment system to provide more severe penalties instead of having a harsh block system that lacks responsibility. In fact, many anti-gankers have been blocked by gankers, which leads to even more rampant behavior, but that's also a part of the game.

You mean like all their assets being frozen by the bank and ships and weapons impounded to be auctioned off so as to restitute the victims for their loss, suffering, and mental trauma... I think you may be on to something here. Instead of blocking a player making the ganker cleanly dissapear, ganker gets a head bounty. In which when he is killed by another player or authority... they perma-die and have to restart from a sidewinder with same amount of credits as a new account. I think you are onto something here. I mean i'd just settle for station guns shooting those camping the mail slot, but I like where this is going.

 

[Jmanis]

You mean like all their assets being frozen by the bank and ships and weapons impounded to be auctioned off so as to restitute the victims for their loss, suffering, and mental trauma... I think you may be on to something here. Instead of blocking a player making the ganker cleanly dissapear, ganker gets a head bounty. In which when he is killed by another player or authority... they perma-die and have to restart from a sidewinder with same amount of credits as a new account. I think you are onto something here. I mean i'd just settle for station guns shooting those camping the mail slot, but I like where this is going.

Or just say what you really mean.

Remove pvp from the game. Ships and weapons just clip through other players. That's what you really want.

 

[Yure]

What I want is folks who like this stuff to make a community agreement to attack only those with power play factions.

I'd settle for CG stations to act accordingly and attack folks that violate no firing zone consistently.

I have had some cool interactions with folks that have interdicted me. Getting blown up coming out of mail slot out of a station I am allied with is tad bit annoying.

 

[CardioTherapy]

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.

That won’t help the open play. In any way the system is totally broken, blocking or not. The game needs a real and well-developed crime system which is missing now.

 

[Old Duck]

Remove pvp from the game. Ships and weapons just clip through other players. That's what you really want.

People who truly want to grief others will still find a way. Overwatch, which was a team-based PvP game with friendly-fire disabled, still had to add a block feature because players on your own team would do stupid things like jump up and down in front of you while you're trying to aim, or they'd go in a corner and just sit there, essentially reducing your team size, or they'd run recon for the enemy and actively help the enemy out. The ability to block such players from being on my team was a godsend, even though it comes with the same "I can't instance with a fellow on your block list" catch-22 that bothers Morbad so.

 

[Jmanis]

People who truly want to grief others will still find a way. Overwatch, which was a team-based PvP game with friendly-fire disabled, still had to add a block feature because players on your own team would do stupid things like jump up and down in front of you while you're trying to aim, or they'd go in a corner and just sit there, essentially reducing your team size, or they'd run recon for the enemy and actively help the enemy out. The ability to block such players from being on my team was a godsend, even though it comes with the same "I can't instance with a fellow on your block list" catch-22 that bothers Morbad so.

It was an inane response to an inane suggestion... and tbh, i can't be bothered to repeat the same counter-arguments over and over and over again.

Want to punish crime? Let's start with a conversation about rewarding it first, otherwise you can't punish it, and it will forever remain a mechanism for griefing.

 

[SteveWW57]

People who truly want to grief others will still find a way. Overwatch, which was a team-based PvP game with friendly-fire disabled, still had to add a block feature because players on your own team would do stupid things like jump up and down in front of you while you're trying to aim, or they'd go in a corner and just sit there, essentially reducing your team size, or they'd run recon for the enemy and actively help the enemy out. The ability to block such players from being on my team was a godsend, even though it comes with the same "I can't instance with a fellow on your block list" catch-22 that bothers Morbad so.

A bit off topic, but World of Tanks (WoT) could do with a block feature. Although I do not play it, I have watched a few vids of the cheating. Primarily about platoons of effectively NPC tanks being matched into a game where one of the tanks on the opposing team farms them to raise their stats. The tanks to be farmed take no part in the game, often causing one of the teams (of 20? IDK) to lose. Someone is paying someone else (a boosting company that advertises in game!) to increase a players stats, complete the difficult achievements and obtain the premium tanks.

When the post game stats are examined, it is clear who the parties are; the account being boosted and the accounts providing targets. The accounts providing the targets were active once, went dormant for 5-10 years and suddenly get reactivated. The problem is, when the stats are looked at, these reactivated accounts can have a thousand games where they do nothing, and only get farmed.

If the non cheating players could block all these cheaters, then they would get better games and not play in a rigged game.

Steve

 

[Screemonster]

What I want is folks who like this stuff to make a community agreement to attack only those with power play factions.

There are plenty more completely valid and intended reasons to attack another player than that. Some of them aren't even crimes.

 

[nemolomen]

There are plenty more completely valid and intended reasons to attack another player than that. Some of them aren't even crimes.

Wait, what's that? You mean players attacking other players in Open is BOTH by design AND valid gameplay? Whaaaattt?

 

[Old Duck]

What I want is folks who like this stuff to make a community agreement to attack only those with power play factions.

While not a "community" agreement, that's been my own gold standard of attacking other CMDRs "unprovoked". Though you'd be surprised how many CMDRs lose their mind when I did, despite us being clearly marked as ENEMY in red to each other. If you don't want to be attacked by enemy powers, don't pledge!

 

[Ettanin]

Not necessarily a block issue, but also a port forwarding/port reachability issue which is exacerbated by CGNAT and Dual Stack Lite.

Frontier doesn't like to spend expensive AWS computing time on bridging commanders together so if you have a CGNAT or Dual Stack Lite connection and/or no forwarded ports and no reachable instance (blocked or not) is available for you, empty instance it is. TURN, as documented, is only used in three cases:

• To keep an already established multiplayer instance connected together if the last CMDR directly reachable left it.
• To keep wing members instancing together
• To keep multicrew consistent

Be reachable, behave friendly, don't force in-the-same-instance actions onto others that obviously don't like it and you are more likely to see other commanders.

 

[Yure]

There are plenty more completely valid and intended reasons to attack another player than that. Some of them aren't even crimes.

Like?;

 

[Yure]

While not a "community" agreement, that's been my own gold standard of attacking other CMDRs "unprovoked". Though you'd be surprised how many CMDRs lose their mind when I did, despite us being clearly marked as ENEMY in red to each other. If you don't want to be attacked by enemy powers, don't pledge!

Concur! If you don't like it don't participate.

 

[Jmanis]

Like?;

I'd flip the question around; when isn't killing OK? Broadly, it's when it's against the EULA, but a little more specifically, it's:

• If you're using cheats/exploits/unintended mechanics[1]; or
• If your objective/intent in killing someone is to directly degrade their experience of the game.

Outside of those two, as far as I'm concerned killing another player is A-OK anytime.

The first is a no-brainer... the second is hard to define, because you need to establish intent[2], but fundamentally it's simply "If you're upset someone killed you, that's your problem. If someone's goal is to make you upset by killing you, that's their problem". Simply by expressing or being upset that you got killd isn't enough... and I'd go so far as to say if your expectation is for other people to follow unwritten rules[3], then that is some pretty anti-social behaviour and is much more toxic than someone simply killing someone else in the game.

But to backpedal to a point I made before; is high-security space dangerous enough for criminals? I argue, no. But the problem is the current equation is that crime writ-large in high sec is low-risk, no reward. By extension, griefing is low risk, no reward.

So how to fix this? You can't just make crime writ-large high risk, no reward. You might as well just remove that from the game because that's awful game design.
So firstly, conducting crime (that may or may not necessitate killing another player) in, say, High Security needs to be high reward. In doing so, it means anyone making a career out of crime in a way that nets that reward will receive a proportional (but not crippling) negative outcome (like losing a life in most other games)... but anyone committing crime in such a way that doesn't garner that reward simply be crippled, because their pursuits have left them without that safety net.

Criminal game loops must be designed in a way that incentivises doing them in a particular way that is rewarding, to counterbalance a severe punishment for failing to do it in the intended way.
A trivial example of this is CZs... there is no crime recorded in (non-AX) CZs because it's a warzone, and the understanding you could be killed (be it by an enemy or an ally) should be readily understood.

If you simply make crime high risk and no reward, guarantee the first victim of such a C&P system will be the player who never does crime (and therefore doesn't understand it) and got baited into accidentally committing a crime that wrecks their game experience, not a seasoned criminal who understands the C&P rules. It simply becomes a tool for griefing.

"Bad Guys" know the rules, and that's critical to understand when designing a C&P system that absolutely punishes bad guys for doing the wrong thing, but not good guys doing the right thing nor bad guys doing the right thing.

[1] This is at the whim of FD, to a degree
[2] The good part here is most griefers can't help themselves but taunt their opponents. Just a shame capturing and reporting that is a bit of a mess in ED.
[3] I know there was mention of large-group raids where people need to do the right thing for <reasons>. In a private group, sure. In a world of pubbies, your expectation should be that others can't or don't know to follow those rules. Open ED is a world of pubbies.