Ignoring or harming PvP in game design is contributing to ganking

[Oddy-B]

Is there any reason to assume they've changed?

A few things
Mining or are all the miners in open?
Record number of players returning to the game due to the fleet carriers
Increased sales in Elite Dangerous in the past two years

want more?

Elite Dangerous - Steam Charts

An ongoing analysis of Steam's player numbers, seeing what's been played the most.

steamcharts.com

 

[Morbad]

I find nothing inane about having an ability to exclude chosen individuals from your game experience, so whilst I respect your opinion - I disagree and don't understand why it's inane.

Open, to me, implies a degree of inclusiveness that isn't compatible with the arbitrary whims of the player base. Every CMDR who is following the rules of the game is a part of the environment and a legitimate encounter. Blocking people in Open is no different from allowing CMDRs to move stars, set their own prices for Engineering, or block NPCs.

However, the fact a block spills into how if affects other players, who are not on that blocked list, and messes up their contact with others, even including others people's likelihood of encountering the blocked person (that they haven't blocked)...is a problem. It's a failure in the instancing arrangements, so it's borked.

The only way I imagine it could be any other was is if there was a block system where the blocked CMDR was not excluded from the instance, but rendered unable to see or interact with the blocker. However, this would introduce quite a few other problems.

A few things
Mining or are all the miners in open?
Record number of players returning to the game due to the fleet carriers
Increased sales in Elite Dangerous in the past two years

want more?

Mining might skew mode demographics, but I'm not sure the rest would.

 

[soloe]

Yet the players doing the "ganking" aren't expected to think twice about what they do as them being blocked may mess with third parties too?

Yes. My point is that the one is an in universe action and the other is not. I am also convinced that the blocking function in open is a bad design choice for reasons already pointed out. However I won't judge anyone who blocks a player - it's a legitimate action. I only ask to do it for a serious reason only.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Is there any reason to assume they've changed?

Is there any reason to assume they have not?

Reading around other threads there are (unsubstantiated) claims of many 'top tier' PvP players leaving the game permanently, sales of the game have exceeded expectations (from Frontier's own investor reporting) so a massive influx (allegedly) of new players in the last fiscal year...

It doesn't take much to push a new player from open, if they are inclined to 'progress' in the game without impediment...

We really could do with an update that gives actual average figures rather than the ambiguous comment made (was it Sandro again?) two years ago.

 

[Morbad]

I only ask to do it for a serious reason.

Everyone thinks their reasons are the best of reasons, it's why I think players shouldn't be able to choose what they encounter in the 'Open' mode of a shared multiplayer game.

 

[Mohrgan]

Yes. My point is that the one is an in universe action and the other is not. I am also convinced that the blocking function in open is a bad design choice for reasons already pointed out. However I won't judge anyone who blocks a player - it's a legitimate action. I only ask to do it for a serious reason.

Why would one need an in-game reason to block someone, then no one seems to need an in-game reason to attack another player? If a feature is part of the game, it needs no more justification than why you might buy any given ship does. This is just an example of players trying to impose some kind of 'space-chivalry' on top of rules/features to suit their wants.

 

[Robert Maynard]

That is two years ago, hardly recent.
So there is no recent evidence of the Open/Solo/PG numbers.

Nothing more recent.

Similarly, the statement that Frontier are "well aware" that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP has not been restated more recently to my knowledge.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yes. My point is that the one is an in universe action and the other is not.

Both are actions taken by players in response to situations. All player decisions are made out of universe.

 

[Deleted member 121570]

Open, to me, implies a degree of inclusiveness that isn't compatible with the arbitrary whims of the player base. Every CMDR who is following the rules of the game is a part of the environment and a legitimate encounter. Blocking people in Open is no different from allowing CMDRs to move stars, set their own prices for Engineering, or block NPCs.

Fair enough. To me, I consider it perfectly legit to have the ability to ignore actual people I don't like. None of the other examples you mention are actually people, so they're immune - just content.

Actual people can and should be open to exclusion for no more than a whim or dislike, as far as I'm concerned. Some people are just jerks. It's a game, not RL, and so no reason to put up with such crap at all. Don't wanna get blocked? Don't annoy anyone then. Easy. If folks want to annoy others, well - they just run the risk of getting blocked.

The only way I imagine it could be any other was is if there was a block system where the blocked CMDR was not excluded from the instance, but rendered unable to see or interact with the blocker. However, this would introduce quite a few other problems.

This might actually work, but yeah - we don't have it, cos FDev made it this way. It'd certainly fix the issue though.
So...the problem is actually the instancing system, not people choosing not to play with or encounter those they consider irritants.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Yes. My point is that the one is an in universe action and the other is not. I am also convinced that the blocking function in open is a bad design choice for reasons already pointed out. However I won't judge anyone who blocks a player - it's a legitimate action. I only ask to do it for a serious reason.

2 of my 3 accounts are PvE only play. When they are close to / in inhabited space both work from a PG (as 1 does play with friends) and operate in systems which appear to be BGS stable (as I have no wish to undo someone else's efforts) as much as is practical (I don't know everything that is going on in the game).

None of the accounts have anyone blocked, nor are likely to have, because I do understand the issues caused to instancing by such a list...

If those who only wish to play PvE did the same, there would be no issues in open for those who wish to enjoy the 'full' gamut of play
Even I ask myself why any PvE only player would wish to be in open, it is a bit like a pacifist insisting on taking a holiday in a war zone

 

[TiberiusDuval]

One can attack on what ever reason one has. So it is just fair that one can block people on what ever reason one has. Some people just do not like fair play.

 

[Morbad]

Is there any reason to assume they have not?

Because there has been few fundamental changes to who the game attracts.

In the absence of evidence of relevant change, the safest assumption is that prior trends apply.

Reading around other threads there are (unsubstantiated) claims of many 'top tier' PvP players leaving the game permanently, sales of the game have exceeded expectations (from Frontier's own investor reporting) so a massive influx (allegedly) of new players in the last fiscal year...

It doesn't take much to push a new player from open, if they are inclined to 'progress' in the game without impediment...

We really could do with an update that gives actual average figures rather than the ambiguous comment made (was it Sandro again?) two years ago.

I don't disagree with any of that, but raw numbers don't imply anything about mode distribution, and the game has always had a high attrition rate among players who either get bored with the game, or who see it change in ways they don't like and stop playing.

Fair enough. To me, I consider it perfectly legit to have the ability to ignore actual people I don't like. None of the other examples you mention are actually people, so they're immune - just content.

In a multiplayer game, other players are content too. That's kinda the point.

If every individual player gets to cherry pick their content, any sort of consistency goes out the window.

It'd certainly fix the issue though.

Not without side effects. Block someone in a way their CMDR simply doesn't appear to you, but still occupies the same instance and they can pick apart your wing without you being able to assist, kill your side in a CZ without you being able to interfere, or follow around one of your PvP foes with heally beams while everything looks very strange from your perspective...among a variety of other possible complications.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The main difference being those games were single player.

With the ideas for rap sheets for its distant reboot 27 years into the future working in a MMO context....

 

[Rubbernuke]

Yep, Mr Braben did a good job there. Too many cooks spoil the broth perhaps?

Maybe. But its funny being beaten by a game that has atmo landings 27 years its junior that fits on a few floppies.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Oops! Wrong thread... sorry

 

[Stelar 7]

Blocking should be available for … 'social interactions', but not affect instancing at all.

If you log into open you agree to everything ED offers, including PvP. It you daon't want to, join a non-PvP Group.

Crapping up my instancing, for any reason, is not just fine.

This is a multiplayer game, and in Open, a direct one. Allowing one player to arbitrarily and unilaterally exclude others from their CMDR's instance, which may include many other CMDRs who have no issues at all with the individual being excluded, is the the only way a block could work, and is pretty crappy in conception.

If you don't want to play with someone who isn't breaking any of the game's rules, you should keep your CMDR out of Open, not take it upon yourself to tell me who I can and cannot encounter while your CMDR is around.

Nonsense.

If someone chooses not to play with you that is their right.

If it's happening a lot you may want to rethink your interaction strategy.

Just like a person flying in open needs to be aware of the additional threat of pvp the pvp minded player needs to be aware of the threat of block.

They are both valid game tools. If you like one and not the other you are a hypocrite.

 

[Morbad]

If someone chooses not to play with you that is their right.

Should it also be their right to tell others that they cannot play with me? Cause that's the main issue here.

If block only had an impact on the one doing the blocking, or only on the one being blocked, it would be far more tolerable, but that's not how it works.

They are both valid game tools. If you like one and not the other you are a hypocrite.

I don't consider PvP a game tool or even something to be distinguished from PvE, except where the game falls short with NPC challenges.

An in-game entity (CMDR or whatever) engaging another in-game entity in a contextual in-character scenario, is not the same as an out-of-character player tool.

 

[Rat Catcher]

I don't disagree with any of that, but raw numbers don't imply anything about mode distribution, and the game has always had a high attrition rate among players who either get bored with the game, or who see it change in ways they don't like and stop playing.

This is exactly what I was saying

The initial comment by Frontier was ambiguous in its formation (almost contradictory) but has been quoted many times since.

Should Frontier be generous to provide the relevant statistics (we know they have them!) at least we would be able to determine the player distribution from accurate information.

I would imagine Odyssey might spur a reasonable influx of FPS fans, if Frontier have done it well they may even stay - then the demographic would certainly tip into a true majority in open.

 

[Deleted member 121570]

In a multiplayer game, other players are content too. That's kinda the point.

If every individual player gets to cherry pick their content, any sort of consistency goes out the window.

Treating other people purely as content, rather than as people, seems a bit misanthropic. I'd argue the point is to play with other people - experiencing content together.
Treating people as just content equivalent to an NPC or a star, or station, or anything else non-actual-human may lead to just getting blocked, and suffering the janky instancing forever after.

 

[Morbad]

Treating other people purely as content, rather than as people, seems a bit misanthropic. I'd argue the point is to play with other people - experiencing content together.
Treating people as just content equivalent to an NPC or a star, or station, or anything else non-actual-human may lead to just getting blocked, and suffering the janky instancing forever after.

I treat their characters as content and I am playing with them when they yank my character out of SC and dive on him with six ships, or whatever.

To accuse them of trying to harm me, the player, because they are using their characters against mine seems more than a bit misanthropic and paranoid to me.

For example, I can't imagine that @Gwydion [RoA] here has been personally wronged by me, or that he's ever wronged me, but I'm pretty sure our CMDRs have shot at each other before, and that it hasn't always been in symmetric encounters (I seem to recall my CMDR's shieldless FAS being taken apart by about fifteen railguns spread over at least four ships that dropped into a low wake of his).

Likewise, I don't believe for one second that @TiberiusDuval gives a damn about any other player, based on his statements in this thread.

That's all beside the point though. What players think of eachother shouldn't have anything to do with what the game allows to happen between their characters.