You write text but no actual words. No logical argument for your statements. Nonsensical babble that somehow you believe is an intelligent argument.
Go away please...
Gankers Exploiting block mechanic
- Thread starter Fuego Estelar
- Start date
You write text but no actual words. No logical argument for your statements. Nonsensical babble that somehow you believe is an intelligent argument.
Go away please...
Actually, no it doesn't.
Gankers tend to blow up noobs, which tend to not know about blocking.
It does mess up the instancing of CMDRs with big friendlists (and blocklists) though.
Again I repeat myself.
INTENDED GAMEPLAY.
You should push FDev for a solution against ganking(crime&punishment or whatever) instead of being content with a safe space mechanic. You know? As in add stuff to gameplay? And not remove it?
Play there with whom? People presumably venture into Open to meet players they don't already know, otherwise they'd already be in PG.
And PvP'ers could do exactly the same, they could play in their own PG.
You're arguing that Open should be reserved ONLY for those interested in PvP, and others should abandon it or be driven out of it. Others disagree with that, they want to use Open differently to the way you want to use it.
This is really not the purpose of contextual law enforcement. The power differential between victim and perpetrator should be irrelevant in most jurisdictions.
In-game law isn't there to enforce player social dynamics, but to reflect the intended depiction of the setting.
Makes slightly more sense, in the context of a platform where an identity/account is necessarily shared across games.
However, this is often not the case with PC games--it's never occurred to me to use the same name in association with different games, and my CMDR name and forum/youtube name aren't even the same. I also don't think it's a remotely ideal situation on any platform. If someone is breaking the rules of a service they use, they should be removed. It shouldn't be on the victim of their harassment to do anything but report harassment for investigation.
If no rules are actually being broken, then there is no actual cause to remove the other player from your experience in a multiplayer game.
The only nasty behaviors possible in a game, from my perspective, are out of character harassment and cheating.
If blocking were only chat based, I'd have hundreds of CMDR blocked by now, and wouldn't need to put system chat on another tab...but I can't do this because the damage it does to instancing (both my own and to others) make it unworkable.
These are often mutually incompatible goals, or should be.
To even make it possible, the system has to prioritize your block over everyone else's ability to play with everyone else.
Block imposes your instancing preferences on others. The modes do not.
This is my primary argument against an instancing block.
Why should your desire to avoid a given CMDR trump my ability to encounter that CMDR and anyone instanced with them?
Last edited:
It might not be to everyone’s liking but since, from what I’ve heard, the Block function has only been strengthened through the life of the game on the Dev’s own initiative, that it’s here to stay. Most of the posts here certainly seem to ask for the opposite, rather than more ‘carebear’ (I really despise that term) protection through Block.
It is, after all, a curiosity of a multiplayer game where any direct multiplayer interaction is, as seems to be intended by the Devs, fully and entirely optional.
C&P system is woefully inadequate to force sys sec ratings to mean something. And it seems to me it that it stays that way. Plus quite big or at least loud part of community want it to stay that way. As I have said before, I have nothing against murderhobos lurking in low sec or anarchy systems. But allowing them in med or high sec is immersion breaking.
That leaves solution to players hands, and if one wants to play in open, but does not want that kind of immersion breaking experience, block function is highly usefull for that purpose.
And here we disagree.
No, it's not about me.
But you DO lack a certain degree of sensitivity
I will mention a single word and i will not delve into it any more, if you still dont get it, so be it: rainbow
That's because this game is not designed as competitive shooter, where this would be an issue.
It's rather made as family friendly, relaxing experience, where you control how much other content in your game you want.
Simple as that.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Note to all participants: please discuss the topic. Other participants are not the topic. Failure to comply will result in reply bans, advisories and / or warnings for those who persist and may result in thread closure.
The part of the community that wants sys sec rating to stay as it is (or even tone it down) is the same part of the community that regularly commits friendly fire accidents or loses their 3D shielded Asp to planetary gravities slightly above Plutos gravity.
Most PvPers have no problem with meaningful sys sec ratings, they just want a setting where the sys sec rating doesn't differentiate between NPCs and CMDRs.
there are sooo many ways to harass someone...
And in a game where pvp combat is a minor, side activity, block can solve a lot of issues - for the price of potentially ruining someone's pew v pew session.
We both know that even if you yourself have taken precautions against various exploits, countless others (especially noobs) have not. So do they deserve to be locked out of important systems because of a draconian gameplay mechanic?
If anything, what you support would elevate suicidewindering from a rare nuisance to the mother of all salt mines.
EDIT: Incidentally, there are ways around the docking computer so that the target still commits murder
Last edited:
To be honest, as a self-confessed long-term semi-professional seal ripe for a good clubbing, and given that more experienced players are quite proficient at poking holes and revealing potential exploits in most suggestions for strengthening C&P mechanics, I’m reasonably happy with them as they are.
I’m not saying they’re perfect, but as yourself and @Morbad point out most suggestions either break immersion or already flimsy gameplay loops, so I’m quite content to admit that I don’t have the slightest clue how to write a space-lawbook and I’ll have to just keep playing as they are
The same "noobs" are highly likely to have no ideea of this block mechanic or how it actually works.
And then you say: "well they can google search"
And then I say: "Well they can also google search the 100m speed limits in starpots". The announcer on loud-speakers even says about this so many times.
So your argument is invalid...sorry.
Noobs don't even currently know many of the mechanisms of game that can and will hurt them. I did not know about those when I was newbie, but lets put that on learning experience. And who is to say that losing permission has to be permanent. Though I like more about lets say vigorous LE but that would ruin our innocently criminal noobs day as good as permit lock.
Yeah? And what are the ways? Besides feeling offended about ship names or chat text?
Man, I'm a poor debater in other people's imaginations.
Under certain rather uncommon conditions, yes. I understand the argument, if A has blocked B and A is instanced with C, then B cannot meet C because the block will shunt him into a different instance.
However:
1. A, B and C have to be all online at the same time.
2. A, B and C have to be in the same place at the same time.
3. A and C have to be in the same instance before B tries to drop in (if B and C are present, A gets excluded, not B)
4. This assumes B and C would otherwise have met, which might be unlikely in a crowded system due to instancing limits anyhow.
Is this rather unusual set of circumstances sufficient justification for completely disabling instance-blocking, a facility which is rather useful for many players, and thereby forcing unwanted "gameplay" onto them (or driving them out of Open to avoid that)? Many disagree.