This is part of a series of proposals to improve PowerPlay in various ways. The goal is to make PowerPlay a more interesting, dynamic, and rewarding experience, without needing to scrap the whole thing and rebuild from the ground up - evolution rather than revolution. Each proposal is intended to be relatively straightforward to implement (though of course we have no special insight into the specifics of the Elite codebase), and most of them (except where mentioned) stand alone and do not need a lot of other changes to make them work.
Please limit discussions to the specific topic at hand - pros, cons, tweaks, etc. If you have alternative proposals, by all means make a separate topic! The parent thread for this series is here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...out-incrementally-improving-powerplay.551571/ Although the authors are Winters/FLC commanders, these proposals have been made and discussed by pilots from many Powers.
Blocking players only blocks communications, not instancing, if both players are pledged to Powers
If there is a block made by one PP-pledged Commander on another PP-pledged Commander, it does NOT prevent instancing and combat between the two Commanders. The block does continue to block direct and indirect communications between the two, as it currently does.
Discussion:
It is important for players in an online game to be able to block offensive and persistently aggressive behaviours. However, PowerPlay by its nature is an activity where persistent aggression is often the entire point, especially if blockading a system against enemy forces. Balancing the two needs of personal safety and fair play is important - however using blocking to avoid interception is an unfair tactic in a game where interception is a key feature.
Blocking opposing Powers PVP interceptors is unfortunately a fairly common tactic by some Commanders, and allows them to stay in Open, attack other enemy Commanders (for example haulers and underminers) while avoiding being intercepted by that Power's dedicated PVP players. It is also used by some haulers to avoid being intercepted (though hauling in PG or Solo is also common).
This change would ALLOW instancing and combat between two PowerPlay-pledged Commanders, even if one has blocked the other. If EITHER Commander is NOT pledged to a Power, the block operates as it currently does, blocking both communications and instancing. Thus, unless both players opt in to PowerPlay, this proposal has no effect on them.
Blocking while pledged will still block communications from the blocked player - this is a way to deal with channel-spam and profanity and verbal abuse and so on. However it will not prevent instancing with the blocked player, and combat and death can still occur.
If a player does experience persistent aggression, bullying, or other distressing behaviour from another PowerPlay Commander, they always have the option to leave the violent and belligerent world of PowerPlay by un-pledging. Once this happens their blocks will work as they currently do.
This proposal works best in conjunction with the Open Only PowerPlay proposal: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...ng-powerplay-make-powerplay-open-only.556584/
Open question: blocking other Commanders does have a known legitimate use - to work around the unfair practice of pad-blocking. This would need to be solved a different way - see the proposal “Remove commander from instance as soon as landed”: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...ander-from-instance-as-soon-as-landed.555316/
Open question: there is the loophole of a PVP interceptor who is flying under orders from a Power, but who does not actually pledge to that Power. This commander can still use blocks to cheat, because they are not pledged. While they cannot earn merits for their Power (they are not pledged) they can still intercept and kill other players flying for that Power. However, they will earn Notoriety by doing so (because they are not pledged to a Power), which is sufficiently annoying that it should help reduce the occurrence of this cheating behaviour. This may still happen even so, but probably less than it currently does, and is certainly no worse than the current situation.
Please limit discussions to the specific topic at hand - pros, cons, tweaks, etc. If you have alternative proposals, by all means make a separate topic! The parent thread for this series is here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...out-incrementally-improving-powerplay.551571/ Although the authors are Winters/FLC commanders, these proposals have been made and discussed by pilots from many Powers.
Blocking players only blocks communications, not instancing, if both players are pledged to Powers
If there is a block made by one PP-pledged Commander on another PP-pledged Commander, it does NOT prevent instancing and combat between the two Commanders. The block does continue to block direct and indirect communications between the two, as it currently does.
Discussion:
It is important for players in an online game to be able to block offensive and persistently aggressive behaviours. However, PowerPlay by its nature is an activity where persistent aggression is often the entire point, especially if blockading a system against enemy forces. Balancing the two needs of personal safety and fair play is important - however using blocking to avoid interception is an unfair tactic in a game where interception is a key feature.
Blocking opposing Powers PVP interceptors is unfortunately a fairly common tactic by some Commanders, and allows them to stay in Open, attack other enemy Commanders (for example haulers and underminers) while avoiding being intercepted by that Power's dedicated PVP players. It is also used by some haulers to avoid being intercepted (though hauling in PG or Solo is also common).
This change would ALLOW instancing and combat between two PowerPlay-pledged Commanders, even if one has blocked the other. If EITHER Commander is NOT pledged to a Power, the block operates as it currently does, blocking both communications and instancing. Thus, unless both players opt in to PowerPlay, this proposal has no effect on them.
Blocking while pledged will still block communications from the blocked player - this is a way to deal with channel-spam and profanity and verbal abuse and so on. However it will not prevent instancing with the blocked player, and combat and death can still occur.
If a player does experience persistent aggression, bullying, or other distressing behaviour from another PowerPlay Commander, they always have the option to leave the violent and belligerent world of PowerPlay by un-pledging. Once this happens their blocks will work as they currently do.
This proposal works best in conjunction with the Open Only PowerPlay proposal: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...ng-powerplay-make-powerplay-open-only.556584/
Open question: blocking other Commanders does have a known legitimate use - to work around the unfair practice of pad-blocking. This would need to be solved a different way - see the proposal “Remove commander from instance as soon as landed”: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...ander-from-instance-as-soon-as-landed.555316/
Open question: there is the loophole of a PVP interceptor who is flying under orders from a Power, but who does not actually pledge to that Power. This commander can still use blocks to cheat, because they are not pledged. While they cannot earn merits for their Power (they are not pledged) they can still intercept and kill other players flying for that Power. However, they will earn Notoriety by doing so (because they are not pledged to a Power), which is sufficiently annoying that it should help reduce the occurrence of this cheating behaviour. This may still happen even so, but probably less than it currently does, and is certainly no worse than the current situation.