Ignoring or harming PvP in game design is contributing to ganking

[soloe]

Ah hahahahahaha

Well, "ignore" is exactly what he wihes the in game block to be, so no hypocrisy here. If ignoring would work like a block does in game, you could no longer read or post in any thread while he is around there.

Unless I pay attention to who I add to my friend's list

Your friendlist won't "pull" your friends our of his instance, so it won't be helping in the described case.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Open is supposed to contain all kinds of players nice ones and jerks.

Any player can play in Open - if they can play in multi-player at all. That's not to say that any player needs to put up with them, even in Open.

You should only be able to block chat messages from players in open, not the actual player in my opinion. If you want to block players from your game that's what solo and private group are made for.

Being able to block players is as much a part of the multi-player experience as being able to shoot at anything one encounters - neither are restricted in their use by players. What should or should not be is for Frontier to decide - and they've only ever made the block feature stronger and easier to use over time.

 

[soloe]

Any player can play in Open - if they can play in multi-player at all. That's not to say that any player needs to put up with them, even in Open.

Being able to block players is as much a part of the multi-player experience as being able to shoot at anything one encounters - neither are restricted in their use by players. What should or should not be is for Frontier to decide - and they've only ever made the block feature stronger and easier to use over time.

Obviously.

 

[MadSinUN]

Any player can play in Open - if they can play in multi-player at all. That's not to say that any player needs to put up with them, even in Open.

I have children. And when they come up with their own games, it's fun to watch them come up with their own rules to avoid losing. The situation with the answers "I don't want to play with this guy in an OPEN game" reminds me of my children). If ED is such a "fair" game that tries to please everyone, then why is OPEN mode cut off, why is there this inexplicable and magical blocking?
Why is there no counteraction to the abuse of this block? I will tell you: I was attacked by a player (I was attacked). I called a friend and engaged in a maneuvering battle. When my friend arrived, the attacker just blocked it. Is this the concept of "I don't want to play with this guy"? He didn't want to play with my friend because my friend wouldn't let me get killed? Can someone constructively answer these questions without phrases like "this is my style and I like it so much"?

 

[Robert Maynard]

If ED is such a "fair" game that tries to please everyone, then why is OPEN mode cut off, why is there this inexplicable and magical blocking?

.... because "people". If Frontier didn't think that there was a need for a block feature then there wouldn't be one. Here's a relevant Dev quote from just before the game was launched:

Hello Commanders!

In this instance, blocking the Commander might prove quite useful.

When you block somebody, a couple of things should happen.

Firstly, you will receive no communications from them.

Secondly, during any transition where matchmaking is at work (so basically, hyperspace jumps, entering and exiting super cruise) you are much less likely to be matched with the blocked Commander.

Blocking becomes weaker when it comes up against friends (and next year, player wings), because if a blocked Commander is in the same session as a friend (say, because they haven't blocked the Commander, the blocking effect is overruled by the friendship matchmaking.

Outside of this case though, blocking should work fine.

Why is there no counteraction to the abuse of this block?

.... because it would circumvent the primary aim of the block feature.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Obviously.

Quite. However there are those who don't accept some features of the game design while accepting others.

 

[MadSinUN]

.... because "people". If Frontier didn't think that there was a need for a block feature then there wouldn't be one. Here's a relevant Dev quote from just before the game was launched:


.... because it would circumvent the primary aim of the block feature.

Because "people" and because Fdev wanted to. Do I understand your answer correctly?
I was attacked by a player (I was attacked). I called a friend and engaged in a maneuvering battle. When my friend arrived, the attacker just blocked it. Is this the concept of "I don't want to play with this guy"? He didn't want to play with my friend because my friend wouldn't let me get killed?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Because "people" and because Fdev wanted to. Do I understand your answer correctly?

Essentially, yes - the existence of the block feature in the game from the beginning suggests that Frontier decided that they would offer each player the ability to remove particular players from their game for any reason - very likely due to an understanding of player behaviours in multi-player games.

I was attacked by a player (I was attacked). I called a friend and engaged in a maneuvering battle. When my friend arrived, the attacker just blocked it. Is this the concept of "I don't want to play with this guy"? He didn't want to play with my friend because my friend wouldn't let me get killed?

How did the attacker block the incoming friend before they arrived in the instance?

 

[MadSinUN]

Essentially, yes - the existence of the block feature in the game from the beginning suggests that Frontier decided that they would offer each player the ability to remove particular players from their game for any reason - very likely due to an understanding of player behaviours in multi-player games.

Thanks for the answer. But I don't think you have much faith in the constructiveness of causes Thank you, though. Tell me, why not do a more subtle study of this mechanics, so that it would be more useful than just absurd "because they wanted to"? Well, for example, a player with the status "wanted" or an attacking player can not use the blocking function?

 

[MadSinUN]

How did the attacker block the incoming friend before they arrived in the instance?

He blocked it when he realized he couldn't handle two. The block occurred after several tens of seconds of 1vs2 combat.
Since we both do not engage in Pvp combat in principle, we did not immediately understand what happened. The lock was disabled after we exited the wing and my friend rebooted the game.

 

[soloe]

Quite. However there are those who don't accept some features of the game design while accepting others.

I haven't seen anyone who wasn't "accepting" the blocking function here. How would that even work other than stop playing the game. There's a difference in accepting something and agreeing with it, just like some people do not agree with it being possible to destroy a players ship for any reason whatsoever. Stubbornly pointing out how a feature works is not contributing much here imo.

I gather you are in favor of an open pve mode: if such an mode, or a pve-flag, would be implemented, would you agree that then ther would no longer be the need to have the blocking function do anything other than blocking comms?

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Doesn't matter really what FD do, gankers will find ways to gank, greiefers will find ways to grief, and other negative types will find ways to continue to ply their trade, which is mainly the harvesting of salty tears.

Look at EvE for an example, where people are willing to lose a lot of investment simply to blow someone up in a Concord protected part of space.

They don't care about their own loss as long as they cause someone else to lose something at the same time.

Its been stated many times in this thread how FD have provided options for people who do not wish to play alongside those people, specifically modes, block, and thanks to the large galaxy size, location (stay away from busy systems, you'll probably never see a ganker or other negative type).

The problem with threads like this and similar (open only threads) is they are done from the point of view that everyone has to play alongside the gankers and griefers and the devs should introduce mechanics to stop such behaviour, or in some cases, the devs shouldn't, because its all part of the game.

FD simply said don't wan't to play with such people, then you don't have to.

Some games solve it by providing PvE servers (although griefing can still exist, PvE griefing can be done if you get creative... and there can even be ways to PvE gank someone, through using the environment against someone).

EvE tries to do it via providing "safe" spaces, but as noted, it doesn't actually stop it, just probably reduces it a bit. And it has its equivalent of open only bonus as such spaces are usually less profitable. But such mechanics are a bad idea from the perspective of those who want to just play the game without the negative types of players.

Note: Before anyone says it, i'm not saying all PvP is negative and that all PvPers are negative players. Far from it, and you can have negative players who are negative through PvE. That could actually make an interesting discussion in itself, how negative PvEers are using the game mechanics to grief or otherwise annoy players through their PvE activities. I think a good example here were the UA bombers which were disliked by quite a lot of people.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I gather you are in favor of an open pve mode: if such an mode, or a pve-flag, would be implemented, would you agree that then ther would no longer be the need to have the blocking function do anything other than blocking comms?

No, block function is still needed even on a PvE server/mode.

There are some people, even PvEers, who you do not want to be instanced with (PvE griefing is possible) not to mention blocking comms, because some people can't help but spew inappropriate language in chat.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I haven't seen anyone who wasn't "accepting" the blocking function here. How would that even work other than stop playing the game. There's a difference in accepting something and agreeing with it, just like some people do not agree with it being possible to destroy a players ship for any reason whatsoever. Stubbornly pointing out how a feature works is not contributing much here imo.

Insisting that a feature should work differently than it does suggests that the feature is not accepted as is.

I gather you are in favor of an open pve mode: if such an mode, or a pve-flag, would be implemented, would you agree that then ther would no longer be the need to have the blocking function do anything other than blocking comms?

I am very much in favour of an additional Open-PvE mode (and not really a proponent of a PvP flag).

I'm pretty sure that some players who prefer PvP also use the block feature for particular players - and those players would probably not want to play in an Open-PvE mode. Ultimately, whether there would still be a need for a block feature in Open(-PvP) after the addition of an Open-PvE mode would be for Frontier to decide. Given the likelihood of "inventive" players coming up with "new and interesting ways to inconvenience" players in an Open-PvE mode, I'd expect the block feature to instance block in Open-PvE too.

 

[Robert Maynard]

He blocked it when he realized he couldn't handle two. The block occurred after several tens of seconds of 1vs2 combat.

As I understand it (not having used it) the block feature only kicks in at the next instance change and does not kick players from ones current instance.

Since we both do not engage in Pvp combat in principle, we did not immediately understand what happened. The lock was disabled after we exited the wing and my friend rebooted the game.

That might possibly suggest a matchmaking issue rather than a use of the block feature.

 

[MadSinUN]

Look at EvE for an example, where people are willing to lose a lot of investment simply to blow someone up

Not true. The so-called "suicidists" clearly estimate the cost of the cargo on the destroyed ship and if the cost of their ship with all modules exceeds the cost of the cargo, they will not attack you. Figuratively speaking, they are ready to merge the ship for 1 million for the sake of cargo worth 2 or more million. And if you're talking about corporate battles, it's a war, the winner gets a lot of profit, it's worth it.

large galaxy size, location (stay away from busy systems, you'll probably never see a ganker or other negative

And this may well be a cure for gank. It is strange to me when people continue to fly to Deciat as to their home, knowing that there is a great threat to be destroyed. There, these people are defeated and then start complaining.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I think a good example here were the UA bombers which were disliked by quite a lot of people.

.... remembering that Frontier removed the ability to UA bomb practically overnight, about eighteen months ago, much to the chagrin of some players:

News - Removal of 'UA Bombing'

Greetings, Commanders. From Thursday November 29, selling Thargoid Sensors at starports will no longer have any negative effect. As a result, ‘UA bombing’, as it has become known, will no longer be possible. Along with these changes, you will now be able to sell Thargoid items legally rather...

forums.frontier.co.uk

I strongly suspect that some of the uses to which UA bombing had been put caused the feature to be removed for all players.

 

[MadSinUN]

That might possibly suggest a matchmaking issue rather than a use of the block feature.

The player who attacked us confirmed in the chat that he blocked my friend. That is, in that case, the blocking was used. I saw the enemy and my friend. My friend and opponent saw only me.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The player who attacked us confirmed in the chat that he blocked my friend. That is, in that case, the blocking was used. I saw the enemy and my friend. My friend and opponent saw only me.

Then, unless the block feature breaks connections between instanced players when it is used (which I don't think it does), the attacker must have blocked the other player prior to instancing with them - which implies that they knew who they were already and could select them on recent contacts to block them.

 

[CaptainPugwash]

The problem with threads like this and similar (open only threads) is they are done from the point of view that everyone has to play alongside the gankers and griefers and the devs should introduce mechanics to stop such behaviour, or in some cases, the devs shouldn't, because its all part of the game.

So why on earth do you think this is an 'open only' thread???
The title is Ignoring or harming PvP in game design is contributing to ganking

Nothing to do with open only, if anything the main voice here is "PVE only"