Myth Busting: Does "Blocking" Another Player Stop Them Instancing With You?

[video=youtube;p8DqEDDJ1OU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8DqEDDJ1OU[/video]

During our group's current community event, the question has been raised as to whether "Blocking" another player stops instancing, or only comms with that player.

To settle the issue for once and for all, Pheyes from Cult of Quozl, and myself decided to conduct some tests. We tested three scenarios. The counterfactual, friends and no block. Friends and blocked. And unfriended and blocked.

Pheyes and I have reliably instanced with one another since Betapocalyse, so its a fairly reliable test. We also ensured we restarted our clients at each stage of the test to ensure clean results.

The results are interesting and you can draw your own conclusions.

The implications for the PvP community are equally interesting. If you enjoy blowing someone up, but can't stomach their trash talk, you can block them and so long as you remain friended, they will still instance with you.

Blocking and unfriending does seem to deny instancing.
 
Interesting. Good to know that it works now, though I'm sure it will complicate instancing issues in many scenarios...kinda wish it would only block chat and that any cheating could be taken care of by FD.

Also, it's bestiality.
 
no just the flaccid skin tube heads who constantly interdict you and spam silly missiles though having looked further at how you block someone it seems you will likely be destroyed while trying to block said skin tube heads anyway. shame you can't search and block a cmdr..
 
Interesting. Thanks to you (OP) and Pheyes for doing this experiment and making this entertaining video. [up]
 
By annoying do you mean literally any player that ever decides to shoot at you? Seems to me that's where this is headed for a lot of people.
What does it matter? It is their version of the game and not anybody elses. The choice to instance, or more accurately not instance, is a good feature for those who subjectively feel annoyed by anybody they wish, for any reason, right?
 
Quite the radical way of allowing unwilling wouldbe victims to fly in open but yet denying the wouldbe ganker his prey. I like this as a stopgap fix very much. I hope though that there's a more sophisticated approach in the works for the long run via crime & punishment.
 
Last edited:
The choice to instance, or more accurately not instance, is a good feature for those who subjectively feel annoyed by anybody they wish, for any reason, right?
I'm going to say no.

Being able to select who you can and cannot encounter, in Open, is against the spirit of the mode.

I've got quite a few people on my block list because I find them to be offensive, annoying, or generally despicable. Now I've got to remove most of them from that list and listen to their drivel if I encounter them, because most of them aren't actually cheaters and aren't breaking any rules. The whole reason I'm in Open is so that I can experience the full spectrum of legitimate CMDR interaction.
 
You and others are totally right on this, a decent crime and punishment system would sort this issue instantly. Let the gankers own anarachy, thats what anarchy IS!! It would make 'griefers' and pvp interdictors essential parts of the game and maybe stop them from being vilified.

I think what riles people is the fact you can be nutmegged anywhere, any time with no consequence.
 
1: The fact that many didn't know this, it has worked like this forever, do people not experiment with stuff?
2: The fact that the reddit thread is blowing up over this because people feel it is 'bad' for open, despite allowing more people in open, and simply blocking those they don't want to play with, people that pray on people seem to dislike that? or at least seemingly, the whole PvP v PvE debate, hilarious.
 
I just reduced my block list from about thirty people to the three confirmed combat loggers I had listed.

1: The fact that many didn't know this, it has worked like this forever, do people not experiment with stuff?
I've seen numerous people I have blocked who have never been on my friends list be instanced with me at various points throughout most of the life of the game.

Perhaps this was because they were in the same instance as a friend or wingman? Whatever the case, it was hardly clear that it was blocking matchmaking, because it often wasn't.

It's a problem that it does block matchmaking and could well explain many of the instancing issues that plague open when the feature does work.

2: The fact that the reddit thread is blowing up over this because people feel it is 'bad' for open, despite allowing more people in open, and simply blocking those they don't want to play with, people that pray on people seem to dislike that? or at least seemingly, the whole PvP v PvE debate, hilarious.
It is bad for Open and preying on other CMDRs is supposed to be a legitimate option in Open.
 
Last edited:
I just reduced my block list from about thirty people to the three confirmed combat loggers I had listed.



I've seen numerous people I have blocked who have never been on my friends list be instanced with me at various points throughout most of the life of the game.

Perhaps this was because they were in the same instance as a friend or wingman? Whatever the case, it was hardly clear that it was blocking matchmaking, because it often wasn't.

It's a problem that it does block matchmaking and could well explain many of the instancing issues that plague open when the feature does work.
Honestly there is ultimately no way to tell, and I really think it is connection/isp related more then that game feature, though yes, you are right there could be exceptions, but that is also alright? at least in my book.

It is bad for Open and preying on other CMDRs is supposed to be a legitimate option in Open.
How is it bad for open that people can play in open and still chose if they don't want to play together with a player they perceive as disruptive to the game?
 
How is it bad for open that people can play in open and still chose if they don't want to play together with a player they perceive as disruptive to the game?
Because everyone has a different definition of what is disruptive and excluding anyone who isn't actually violating any rules makes the mode decidedly less than Open.

Jim Crow has finally made it into space!
 
I am glad this little video has created a bit of debate, because I for one feel that Crime and Punishment, Blocking, Griefing etc is currently handled poorly and can be improved. Perhaps we can see some suggestions from the community on how to improve matters?
 

Ian Phillips

Volunteer Moderator
As far as I can remember, player blocking works like this:

1) you have to have the CMDR on your friends list (why is a complete mystery to me!)
2) you can then block that player

3) this results in your 'preference' to not be instanced with that player coming high up in the considerations when allocating players to instances.

Which means - blocking is NOT 100% guaranteed to never instance you with that player.

In some cases other considerations will take precedence and will result in the two of you being instanced together. One example could be entering an existing instance with multiple players already in it, and one of those is a player you have blocked. Most likely the number of unblocked players will be the deciding factor and you will enter that instance.

It is a long time ago that I read up on this, so time and old age may have got some of the details wrong - so please don't quote me on this being authoratitive. I'm pretty sure that Sandro did explain it many moons ago, if someone is interested in digging through the forum history.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom