My take on this is that the blocking player should only block chat, voice (and multicrew mm in 2.3), not instancing. I see stupid people who post/spam stupid stuff in mobius but i would rather have them just shut up than have less people i get instanced with as i like when players populate places instead of brain dead npcs. But i also think there should have been open pve mode from the beginning. So i think i am quit weird [noob]
Myth Busting: Does "Blocking" Another Player Stop Them Instancing With You?
- Thread starter Azazel_77
- Start date
I dislike the idea of players being able to block other players from their instances, but if FDev are going to persist with this folly, they should amend it so the blocking only works in high/medium security systems.
Why should hostile players be blocked in low-sec or anarchy systems in open...? It provides yet another method of undermining adversarial play-styles in this game.
Why should hostile players be blocked in low-sec or anarchy systems in open...? It provides yet another method of undermining adversarial play-styles in this game.
Last edited:
Disagree. If someone is intentionally disconnecting to save their assets, or cause problems for another player, they are cheating and that is automatically worse, than any legitimate in-game interaction, in the view of many, including myself.
Same here.
If there was such a mode from the beginning, maybe they could have made Open truly Open. However, I think it's too late for a radical reworking of the modes now.
Quite a few people, including, apparently, some at Frontier, do not like adversarial play styles.
Last edited:
Indeed, it seems that all Fdev want PvP to be is pointless duels between combat players, rather than the 'meaningful' & dynamic PvP they originally talked about in the early days.
PvP will never be meaningful as long as they provide multiple methods to circumnavigate it.
It will always revert back to ganking and meaningless 1v1/wing fights, as that is all that is left once all purpose has been gutted by protection-mechanics.
You are talking about the PvP involving a domina and a slave don't you? The one with the victim, which needs to get punished if he tries to escape and needs to be bound to one certain mode
Sorry, that's not my fetish.
Not really. I didn't want to get into a whole PvP v PvE / Open v solo debate.
As the posts in the thread suggest, there are different ways at looking at this.
Some people think its a great thing because they can exclude people they see as anti-social gankers from being able to be denied interfering in their game.
The PvP community is concerned about what this means for further degrading instancing, which is already questionable.
I didn't want to stride forth with any particular view point in my initial post. I have my views, which I've made clear. But I thought this a critical piece of PSA.
As the posts in the thread suggest, there are different ways at looking at this.
Some people think its a great thing because they can exclude people they see as anti-social gankers from being able to be denied interfering in their game.
The PvP community is concerned about what this means for further degrading instancing, which is already questionable.
I didn't want to stride forth with any particular view point in my initial post. I have my views, which I've made clear. But I thought this a critical piece of PSA.
The assumption here is that "they are trying to make you miserable", more often than not they are looking for player vs player action which can be very exciting. I don't think the intent is just to make you miserable.
I find it strange that you are willing to justify circumventing Frontier's rules just because you don't like the in game action.
Last edited by a moderator:
You are talking about the PvP involving a domina and a slave don't you? The one with the victim, which needs to get punished if he tries to escape and needs to be bound to one certain mode
Sorry, that's not my fetish.
No.
My point is that nothing in the main game is designed to be exclusively PvP... everything is designed to placate PvP and PvE, therefore the PvP side is rendered irrelevant because it can be undermined in solo/private or now by blocking players.
Powerplay should be the answer to this issue, but it isn't for the same reason - it should be open only.
Fdev just can't bring themselves to create something in the main game exclusively for PvP, even though it would help to mitigate the problem of ganking and other meaningless player-kill scenarios.
All you would see on the forums/reddit/steam/youtube is comments like "oh... another pew pew update, nothing for us explorers AGAIN!!! eee" etc
Last edited:
Combat logging has been confirmed to be cheating, and if you're doing it I hope you're getting reported for it leading to a ban.
Murder for the sake of murder in Elite is a legitimate game play option, which was also confirmed.
If you don't want to run the risk of being killed while playing, play in a private group (it's kinda why they are there).
Playing Open mode to cheat or to just block people is awful behaviour and is undermining the mode system plus ruining the game for decent players.
Last edited by a moderator:
Playing Open mode just to block players?
Who cares?
Amazing that pad blocking, ganking, griefing, noobie killing don't make a blip but blocking a DB does.
The "purity" of Open. Violated by a player block!
Who cares?
Amazing that pad blocking, ganking, griefing, noobie killing don't make a blip but blocking a DB does.
The "purity" of Open. Violated by a player block!
Like CQC?
- - - Updated - - -
Blocking players is awful and undermining open? Sorry, but there are no "decent" players with that view.
It's also the opinion of FD who, ya know, make the rules. Whilst I agree that C&P needs visiting urgently, the lack of a suitable deterrent / crime system is NOT an excuse to break these rules.
First : You can attack anyone, for any or no reason, at any time, without provocation or just cause. Such is the nature of the game as clearly defined by the devs that state (paraphrase) "ED is set in a cut-throat universe" which means anything goes.
Second: Combat logging - that is : deliberately disconnecting from the game whilst being attacked is cheating. This has been clearly stated by the devs. This is cheating.
Simply put - if you don't agree with the current C&P implementation and don't accept that you can be attacked at any time for no reason then do not set your social filters to "open" .. you are cheating and frankly deserve to be punished.
-----
Oh dear .. seems I wasted my time with the above because I just saw this:
Such a sad, sad man ...
Last edited by a moderator:
lol... not that old chestnut. The main-game I said... CQC is a different game altogether, and I'm not interested in it.
Like CQC added to the main game then?
The reason I don't really like CQC is because it's a repetitive, throwaway shooter where nothing is at stake. It has little or no impact on my progress in the game and has no sense of spontaneity nor does it contain any emergent gameplay. A PvP encounter in the main game is exciting and unpredictable, CQC is not.
I don't see how dumping it in the main game will change all of that.
I don't have any problems with nothing being exclusively PvP and feel the whole PvP/PvE dichotomy is overly emphasized all-round.
In my ideal Elite: Dangerous, PvP is simultaneously unrestricted and so blurred with PvE that the distinction is irrelevant. NPCs would be enough of a threat, of varied motivation/behavior, and have a degree of temporal persistence that combat (and other actions) with them would be hard to distinguish from combat with CMDRs.
We'll never see that though, even if it is possible.
The hypocrisy in your post is extreme.
You can't really add CQC to the main game. You can make it accessible via the main game, or even as a layer within the main game, but it will never have much context with respect to other endeavours.
People looking for the possibility of organic PvP aren't going to be attracted to QCQ or any other explicitly op-in form of combat.
Last edited by a moderator:
So many legitimate ways to avoid pvp in Elite: Dangerous and yet some resort to cheating.
Unbelievable.
We should ask M.O.M. to make a little AI ship that follows cheaters about, naming/ shaming them in game.
Just spamming the chat with "[CMDR name] is a cheater, please avoid them" - that would be funny
That way, people could use the chat "block" to force the cheaters in to psudeo solo
Last edited:
Surely what it will mean, ultimately after mass blocking, is that the PvP community gets an Open social filter (aka Mode) populated with only PvP players.
While the non-PvP community will have an Open social filter (aka Mode) with only non-PvP players.
Surely that's win-win, as everyone plays with who they want to play with.
Last edited:
So what pure PvP mode / function would you like to see in ED that isn't CQC and also doesn't compromise the PvE / Solo experience? Everything that touches the BGS or Powerplay is a no go because this is deliberately designed to be played PvE / Solo.
In reality, though, inertia, ignorance or perhaps even common sense mean that out of 1,500,000+ purchasers of this game, not even 100 paranoid randoms will actually get around to blocking all of SDC, or all known PvP-ers, or whoever it is they don't think they would want to be instanced with.
The only people who will really go full-on with this thing will be those with a very specific agenda or enemies. Not people who they might encounter, but people who they are certain to encounter, by reason of goals probably specific to a particular fixed location.
Last edited: