Incrementally Improving PowerPlay - Blocking PP players only blocks communications, not instancing

[August Lagrange]

Personally I think the block button should be changed to a mute button. I've seen a number of recruits block other players not realising that it stops instancing, and intending just to stop friend requests, which PVPers often send.
Getting around players you don't want to encounter adds to the experience- I say this as someone who is truly awful at PVP and has been killed many, many times in my T9. It's part of the game. You can pick times of the day when you can operate without interference, you can take a chance, you can make your ship ungankable. There are many options.
I don't see any reason to block people, but plenty of reason you might want to mute them.

 

[Pavel M D]

the blockages must be removed completely so that the player cannot block another player.

need to make sure that the player can provide video evidence of humiliation and insults from another player, send this to the FD and the FD already makes a decision to block.
Moreover, these rules should be very strict: block only for racism, insulting relatives, extortion, and the like.

 

[DemiserofD]

I disagree. You're not going to get more people engaging this way, you're going to end up with more players ignoring the system entirely. The block system exists as it currently does for very good reasons.

Besides which, you can't force players to engage in pvp. If given the choice between playing a game they don't like or not playing at all, they'll pick not playing at all most of the time.

I'm sorry, but while your suggestions started out decent, they've degenerated into the same old bull-crap gankers have been whining about for years, and it's never going to happen.

---

If you want more people to engage in open content, you need both protections for them and incentives for them. By which I mean, reasons why playing with others is more fun, not monetary rewards. And protections meaning a noob player who's made all his money doing courier missions isn't going to lose everything to rebuys because enemy players think it's funny to blow them up repeatedly. Powerplay isn't supposed to be locked behind the highest bar in the game - pvp - either. It's for everyone.

For example, if you had missions to engage in CQC-type content in powerplay systems. You take the mission, and get a fighter that is deployed into a conflict zone where you mostly fight AI but can meet other players as well.

---

But as for the actual suggestion? No, no, a thousand times no.

 

[Pavel M D]

you disagree because 99% use blocking
adequate players never block other players because it is a shame.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I disagree. You're not going to get more people engaging this way, you're going to end up with more players ignoring the system entirely. The block system exists as it currently does for very good reasons.

Besides which, you can't force players to engage in pvp. If given the choice between playing a game they don't like or not playing at all, they'll pick not playing at all most of the time.

I'm sorry, but while your suggestions started out decent, they've degenerated into the same old bull-crap gankers have been whining about for years, and it's never going to happen.

---

If you want more people to engage in open content, you need both protections for them and incentives for them. By which I mean, reasons why playing with others is more fun, not monetary rewards. And protections meaning a noob player who's made all his money doing courier missions isn't going to lose everything to rebuys because enemy players think it's funny to blow them up repeatedly.

For example, if you had missions to engage in CQC-type content in powerplay systems. You take the mission, and get a fighter that is deployed into a conflict zone where you mostly fight AI but can meet other players as well.

---

But as for the actual suggestion? No, no, a thousand times no.

Powerplay is gang warfare. You opt in twice (Open and pledge). The worst that can happen is that you are killed as you do your role- you should not be able to block someone who is fully entitled in killing you while in Powerplay because.....thats what you are supposed to be doing.

Block language and chat from people? Yes.

 

[DemiserofD]

you disagree because 99% use blocking
adequate players never block other players because it is a shame.

I use block in precisely the way it was intended to be used. Get over it.

 

[Pavel M D]

DemiserofD
u fed?

 

[DemiserofD]

Powerplay is gang warfare. You opt in twice (Open and pledge). The worst that can happen is that you are killed as you do your role- you should not be able to block someone who is fully entitled in killing you while in Powerplay because.....thats what you are supposed to be doing.

Block language and chat from people? Yes.

I don't see why not? I can always just do the exact same thing in Solo, only without the chance to meet friendly players.

If they want me to participate in pvp you're gonna have to give me darn good reasons to do so, and trying to force me to do so isn't one of them.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I don't see why not? I can always just do the exact same thing in Solo, only without the chance to meet friendly players.

If they want me to participate in pvp you're gonna have to give me darn good reasons to do so, and trying to force me to do so isn't one of them.

Then don't pledge. Don't make yourself a target.

 

[DemiserofD]

Then don't pledge. Don't make yourself a target.

I don't see why not? I want to participate. This is content for everyone, not just pvpers with blinged-out ships.

All this suggestion would do is prohibit the majority of players from participating at all, which is a ridiculously stupid idea for a game like this, or for a game-wide system.

Might as well make powerplay only apply to CQC. Heck, if you did that, I wouldn't have any problem with the suggestion. Go nuts.

 

[Malcolm Tucker]

Just remove all the rewards except salary and anything directly related to PP, so those who want to RP or whatever, can.

Everybody else can safely ignore it.

Problem solved.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I don't see why not? I want to participate. This is content for everyone, not just pvpers with blinged-out ships.

This is gang warfare between Powers. Its not holding hands. ED is a game where combat is ever present, why should Powerplay be different?

 

[DemiserofD]

This is gang warfare between Powers. Its not holding hands. ED is a game where combat is ever present, why should Powerplay be different?

Because limiting content to exclusively pvpers with blinged out ships is a terrible approach to game design. You're never going to make a successful system that starts by excluding the vast majority of players. Best case, you end up with a small niche community of active players who keep it alive, similar to the few regulars on CQC.

Is that what you really want? Powerplay to be in the same state as CQC?

Besides which, the vast majority of the game is PVE content. Nobody's given a good reason why this should suddenly change for powerplay.

 

[Nadreck]

the blockages must be removed completely so that the player cannot block another player.

need to make sure that the player can provide video evidence of humiliation and insults from another player, send this to the FD and the FD already makes a decision to block.
Moreover, these rules should be very strict: block only for racism, insulting relatives, extortion, and the like.

Not going to happen. That would involve Frontier having to create a team to judge all instances like this. Whereas the current system lets the players decide. Do you want to try to blow up a jerk, or just remove him from the game? It's the player's call.

But this does raise a point. The subject of the thread relates to the use (or not) of the block function within PowerPlay, not in the rest of the game. I see the logic of that, but it does mean absolutely no "moderation" of players in PowerPlay, anything goes.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Because limiting content to exclusively pvpers with blinged out ships is a terrible approach to game design. You're never going to make a successful system that starts by excluding the vast majority of players. Best case, you end up with a small niche community of active players who keep it alive, similar to the few regulars on CQC.

Is that what you really want? Powerplay to be in the same state as CQC?

Besides which, the vast majority of the game is PVE content. Nobody's given a good reason why this should suddenly change for powerplay.

I want Powerplay to be a feature where pledges, actions and events have weight and consequence. I'm not against a system where people contribute in safety (here is my take on Open only Powerplay where it does just that) but it can't cross over with people who risk destruction to do the same thing.

Powerplay Proposal (strong anti 5C, mode specific, plus other tweaks)

This is a Powerplay overhaul proposal that uses all of Sandros ideas plus a few more based on the 3.x BGS rework to enhance the feature, and employ strong anti 5C measures. Sandro Sammarcos proposal changes are included as they were originally. Problem Powerplay does not function well across...

forums.frontier.co.uk

 

[DemiserofD]

I want Powerplay to be a feature where pledges, actions and events have weight and consequence. I'm not against a system where people contribute in safety (here is my take on Open only Powerplay where it does just that) but it can't cross over with people who risk destruction to do the same thing.

Powerplay Proposal (strong anti 5C, mode specific, plus other tweaks)

This is a Powerplay overhaul proposal that uses all of Sandros ideas plus a few more based on the 3.x BGS rework to enhance the feature, and employ strong anti 5C measures. Sandro Sammarcos proposal changes are included as they were originally. Problem Powerplay does not function well across...

forums.frontier.co.uk

I see no reason why there shouldn't be crossover. The best system would be one where pvp is encouraged and facilitated but not required. Remember, being about competition does not inherently mean being about pvp. You don't need to kill someone to beat them. CG's are an excellent example of this. There has never been a CG where pvp was required, and yet they remain a fun competitive experience.

 

[Old Duck]

the blockages must be removed completely so that the player cannot block another player.

Well since you put your demands in bold, I'm sure we'll get an update tomorrow from Frontier removing the block feature.

Too bad all you loons are distracting from the OP's request, a request I actually support (assuming the no-block rule applies only between PP players).

 

[Rubbernuke]

I see no reason why there shouldn't be crossover. The best system would be one where pvp is encouraged and facilitated but not required. Remember, being about competition does not inherently mean being about pvp. You don't need to kill someone to beat them. CG's are an excellent example of this. There has never been a CG where pvp was required, and yet they remain a fun competitive experience.

But why can't someone stop you directly? Otherwise what happens is the lowest denominator is the most efficent - in this case solo grinding.

 

[GroG79]

So how does this adres the problem? The problem being PP players using block... Not the blocking itself.

 

[DemiserofD]

Well since you put your demands in bold, I'm sure we'll get an update tomorrow from Frontier removing the block feature.

Too bad all you loons are distracting from the OP's request, a request I actually support (assuming the no-block rule applies only between PP players).

Fundamentally, I don't think negative reinforcement is going to be an effective strategy. Many players, if presented with the choice of fighting a player they blocked, or not playing at all, won't have enough of a connection to the game mode to bother doing something they've actively attempted to avoid.

If you want to encourage players to pvp, it should be through positive methods that reward them for pvp, not negative ones that punish or prevent them from avoiding it.