Oops! Wrong thread... sorry
Lmao! That confused me immensely mate!
Ignoring or harming PvP in game design is contributing to ganking
- Thread starter Hole in Head
- Start date
Lmao! That confused me immensely mate!
Sorry, old chap, I typed my reply in one window and hit post in another.... It's me age
(I did repost it in the right place just to confuse you further
)Sorry, old chap, I typed my reply in one window and hit post in another.... It's me age
(I did repost it in the right place just to confuse you further
It was hilarious, from one oldie to another lol! At least I didn't have a big enough brain failure to require me to read all 55 pages to find it...!
Deleted member 121570
D
For the benefit of clarity - I'm merely pointing out that the block mechanic can be used in circumstances that have nothing to do with types of scenario you're describing at all.
Someone could express an opinion or say something in system chat that causes me to think they're a jerk, and I'd block em so I don't have to play with them ever. That'd have nothing to do with their in-game character. It'd be merely removing them, as a person from my gaming experience, and ensuring they don't ever have an experience with me either. This is all legit as far as I'm concerned. Nothing to do with 'in game' characters. It's real people playing a game, after all.
My original point was purely that the effects of being blocked, extending to those who have not been blocked, is due to crappy instancing mechanics in the game - and not people's choices about who to interact with or not within their gaming experience.
However, given that is the system, it's clearly obvious that the way to avoid the instancing headaches is to also avoid getting blocked for whatever reason. That is within your own control mostly, through your interactions with others. I suppose there could be someone who just randomly blocks random folks for fun. That'd be seriously weird though.
Happy.
My poit is that you should concider not to block someone for an relatively harmless reason like being victim of a gank in open play, as a block can potentially mess things up for other players too.
I don't like blocking, yes. I can understand why some might want to block players though.
I won't judge you for using it, as well as I won't judge a player for attacking you for any reason whatsoever. I only ask that you may ask yourself if you really must block a player when you do, as it is a sensible matter and will effect others.
My question is, Why should that matter? The only consideration a player has to make is to the rules of the game. If the rules allow it, you can do it. Right? That has been a mainstay of player interaction in E|D since launch. If you don;t like what the block feature does to instancing, play in Solo or a Private Group with rules against blocking.
It doesn't. I'm asking you on a personal level from one player to another. What you do ingame is purely up to you.
A chat only block is something I've been asking for ever since I discovered that block was actually applying an instancing effect.
And I disagree.
There is no way to put this power in the hands of players and have an Open mode function as an Open mode.
What one player does in relation to another is not remotely in my control.
People block for all sorts of reason, and they block all sorts of people I have no reason to have a problem with. Indeed, about the worst thing some other player can do to me in this game is use the block function in a manner that excludes others from interacting with me. I have no way of even reliably knowing that they are doing this, and no good way to counter it. I cannot block someone whom I don't know is a problem, and even if I did I cannot block someone without creating a bigger problem. I cannot friend everyone in the game, and even if I could, I would not want to as there are a variety of technical and gameplay related issues to that as well.
,
Oh. Well, I, long ago, blocked anyone who isn't in a certain PG. So my blocking days are over now Before they even got started.
I back the current block mechanic because I have compassion for those who seek to meet new people in-game, without this interaction being held hostage to PvP. As in: If you want to meet other players, you must submit to unwanted attacks, often without am in-game justification, for those attacks. Just because they wanted to attack.
I am reminded. regularly, that attacks on Commanders need no justification. I submit, that the block feature in this game, needs none either.
Oops! Wrong thread... sorry
Back out slowly, do not make eye contact.....run! RUN!
If those others are choosing to play with someone who has you blocked they are choosing that person over you. No one is forced to group with anyone. Everyone in a group accepts the restrictions of each others block lists.
Tolerable? That's absurd. Your tolerance has no bearing on others consent to instance with you. Its either a yes from everyone or it's a no. That is how consent works.
That's nice, irrelevant but interesting I suppose.
You are creating an artificial distinction. Both tools are in game. Players didn't add blocking, the devs did. If you are finding yourself blocked than some part of your behavior is unacceptable to those blocking you and it is their choice to edit you out of their gaming experience, just like you can edit them out of yours.
It's perfectly fair and perfectly consistent so that each player can choose their participation with other players. The only way to object is to somehow feel that some players have more right to agency than others.
Deleted member 121570
D
I prefer a complete block mechanic, myself. Give the people the power of Jerkz-begone! Like a good cleaning product or something
That largely will depend upon how you define an Open Mode, so whilst you're of course entitled to believe this, others will believe different. Important, since FDev implemented the blocking mechanics and the instancing code, they would appear to be in the latter camp (or it's possibly just another one of their fails).
I agree, but I'd thought that's what you felt was the problem - given that someone else's blocklist affects you by crapping up your instancing with those you'd like to play with.
Ultimately though, we all have the ability to influence whether or not players block us as individuals. Reducing blocklists would therefore seem to depend on the behaviours people demonstrate in game to each other, taking some personal accountability so as not to provoke unnecessary blocking that scuppers the interactions of other players through the crappy instancing implemented by FDev in their apparently never-ending inability to do anything properly.
To me it is pretty sensible, I accept fact that I can be attacked in open. All I ask is some courtesy and sensible reasons. If one cannot abide with such standards, well I do not want to have common play with such person. Such policy keeps MY play eventually clean of persons not meeting my standards. Those standards are not exorbitantly high. If such policy prevents someone to meet such persons in same instance with me, well I'm so sorry but I'm not going to let certain player type to ruin my gaming session.
IMO the best way to deal with unwanted PvP. Personally I would support an open PvE too. Even more if the blocking function could be made comms only then. Right now I feel restrained not to use blocking even if there's a player throwing insults at me or whatever, as I fear that I will freck up my own instancing.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Which rather suggests that Frontier's stance on player choice extends to Open and Open isn't as Open as some players want.
That argument relies on a specific definition of Open that evidently is not how the developers are using the term.
Not true. You have in and out of game tools to influence the behavior of others, this conversation is an example of one.
Countering a block would be denial of agency against those who have you blocked.
Remember consent only happens when all parties agree to whatever is being consented to. If someone groups with someone else who has you blocked, then all parties in the former group are withdrawing consent to instance with you.
Saying that somehow harms you is equivilant to being upset that someone groups with someone with bad bandwidth and who can not instance with you for that reason.
You do not have a right to instance with everyone. You have the privilege to instance with people who are willing and able to instance with you.
If those others are choosing not to play with someone not on my block list, they may well be forcing me to group with a different instance than I otherwise would.
They have it imposed upon them, which isn't quite the same as acceptance.
Being able to arbitrarily rescind consent on the fly, after the fact, when it comes to the rules of a game, does not and cannot work.
If this were any other game, would you honestly expect to be able to unilaterally exclude another player from interacting with any of the other players? How could that possibly work?
I feel the same way about elements of your position.
They can also chose other player's participation with other players, without their consent or knowledge, which is most certainly not fair.
This is irrelevant. The devs added everything, but that doesn't mean every use is intended, or acceptable.
It's also beside the point, as this is a critcism of the existence of this feature, and not just of it's overt abuses.
The ability to block is a feature that gives some players more agency than others. It prioritizes exclusion over inclusion in an ostensibly Open mode.
Any notion of the Block feature messing with instancing is academic, at best. Find any player that can identify just one opportunity where a block messed with instancing, And, I would be happy to discuss it. Now, I'm not talking about a recitation on the implications that can be derived from the rules of blocking. I'm asking for a moment where an expected meeting or encounter didn't happen because of the block function.
No one will be able to do that. There is no way for any Commander to diagnose what occurred in the matchmaking process.
I bring it up because this whole issue cannot be detected in game. Players only know about the instance they are in, and can in no way pin-point why they got there. It's just a worry that people impose upon themselves. It's that monster under the bead, that vanishes when you go to look. Stop looking for it, and it won;t trouble you. Or, just think of how many people you weren't instanced with because of connection, distance, language and/or platform. That should chase the tiny bugaboo of Blocking right out of the equation.
P.S. I would also like to mention that the Friends list could and should have the same kind of influence over matchmaking. Where is the outrage over the Friends list then?
Last edited:
I consent to my CMDR encountering any others when I click Open and all players that have not blocked mine consent to encountering him by clicking Open.
If you are blocking someone and thus excluding them from the instance our CMDRs share, you are assuredly violating my consent, because I sure as hell did not willfully agree to let you dictate who I can or cannot encounter.
Both of those things would be harmful to my entertainment and thus upsetting to some degree. The difference is that the occasional bad connection is an unfortunate and unavoidable reality of network infrastucture, while someone being able to breaking up a group of players with block is due to a flawed design choice by the game developer and a recklessly indifferent or malicious player.
And you should have neither the right nor priviledge to tell me that my CMDR cannot instance with CMDR Gwydion for example. But if you block him, while my CMDR has been paired with you, that's exactly what you're claiming.
Yes, if people don't want to play with you then tti can not instance with them. It's a privilege to do so, not a right.
Not true. No one is forced to group with anyone else. When you agree to a group you agree to the combined block list.
It works just fine.
This isn't any other game. I support block features in every mumtiplayer game. If someone does not want to play with you they should not be compelled to do so. Forcing someone to play with another against their will is a denial of agency.
Explain where I'm wrong and we can talk about it.
Not true, you have the ability to ask about and accept by grouping or decline by not grouping other players block lists. No one is forced to group
The burden of proof for that would be on someone claiming something is unintended. All actions in any game must be coded to be possible. In this case the tool is designed specifically so that instancing is prevented. If you think that's an error find evidence to support your position. As things stand the evidence says the tool is working as intended.
It's fine to criticize. However if you feel people should not be able to block each other you need to make a case for why agency should be denied to players who currently have it. I haven't seen anyone make a case beyond their personal distaste for being blocked.
Each player has identical agency. We may all withdraw consent to instance with anyone we find objectionable for any reason.
Again Open is an adjective. It describes a mode of play. It is not a requirement that we play with everyone we meet, else the block tool would not function to prevent instancing. That isn't a bug its been deliberately coded into the game.