Open-Only in PP2.0?

[Robert Maynard]

Ironically for the wider game I have no problem at all with block as is.

Given that Powerplay 2.0 seems to be "the wider game, but pledged", and that it is available to players in all three game modes, there's no compelling need to change the block feature (although I'll be very interested to find out whether Frontier have chosen to tweak it in relation to Powerplay 2.0 - only four more sleeps....).

 

[Agony_Aunt]

On the topic of the block feature, i understand why some people don't want it, but from my perspective, there are simply too many idiots in online games whose sole goal is to ruin the fun of other people, and all online games, even PvE only games, need a block feature.

PvE games I hear you say? Yes, because its still possible to be a jerk in PvE games. There was a clan in Ark who deliberately went into PvE games and set up like prison camps around the spawn points so anyone new spawning in would be locked inside them. Because it was PvE, no destroying other people's structures. So they would be locked in. They also found other ways of griefing players as well using PvE mechanics.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Given that Powerplay 2.0 seems to be "the wider game, but pledged", and that it is available to players in all three game modes, there's no compelling need to change the block feature (although I'll be very interested to find out whether Frontier have chosen to tweak it in relation to Powerplay 2.0 - only four more sleeps....).

From whats been shown V2 very much is 'more BGS, less 'classical' PP, so in that regard I agree. If PP had kept a more rigid V1 approach then block would have needed looking at since it would have essentially been CQC but across the bubble.

 

[Rubbernuke]

On the topic of the block feature, i understand why some people don't want it, but from my perspective, there are simply too many idiots in online games whose sole goal is to ruin the fun of other people, and all online games, even PvE only games, need a block feature.

PvE games I hear you say? Yes, because its still possible to be a jerk in PvE games. There was a clan in Ark who deliberately went into PvE games and set up like prison camps around the spawn points so anyone new spawning in would be locked inside them. Because it was PvE, no destroying other people's structures. So they would be locked in. They also found other ways of griefing players as well using PvE mechanics.

It really comes down to what the feature needs to work- for example in CQC blocking would be stupid. PP V1 (if it had gone open) would have required blocking to be changed because outright killing would be tactically important- given that V1s PvE was virtually nil (unlike V2 where PvE is nearly all of it- and actual PvE at that).

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

Indeed - although the faint pre-echoes of "the PPP aren't enough of a challenge" are already leaking from a possible timeline....

It'll nicely balance out the strong pre-echoes of "Any player to player interaction is exploitable, so needs to be culled' bleed through from the future we're already getting.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

It really comes down to what the feature needs to work- for example in CQC blocking would be stupid. PP V1 (if it had gone open) would have required blocking to be changed because outright killing would be tactically important- given that V1s PvE was virtually nil (unlike V2 where PvE is nearly all of it- and actual PvE at that).

How else can i win in CQC if i can't block Musketeer?!!!!!

Seriously though, arena games do need block features so you can block cheaters. Yes, you can report cheaters to the devs, but they can take time to take action, assuming they take action at all.

So hard disagree on this.

Actually, let's flip this around and ask: Wouldn't you like the ability to block cheaters in PP? Imagine you're doing your thing and someone comes along with their infinite shield ultra-weapon ship and blasts you, wouldn't you like to be able to block them until FD, maybe, one day, get around to taking action? Or will you switch to PG/solo to avoid them? Or continue playing? Or quit for the night?

 

[Robert Maynard]

It'll nicely balance out the strong pre-echoes of "Any player to player interaction is exploitable, so needs to be culled' bleed through from the future we're already getting.

Possibly - however NPCs, unlike players, don't collude with players to let them gain rewards designed for contest without actually contesting the interaction for which the reward is given.

 

[Rubbernuke]

How else can i win in CQC if i can't block Musketeer?!!!!!

Seriously though, arena games do need block features so you can block cheaters. Yes, you can report cheaters to the devs, but they can take time to take action, assuming they take action at all.

So hard disagree on this.

Actually, let's flip this around and ask: Wouldn't you like the ability to block cheaters in PP? Imagine you're doing your thing and someone comes along with their infinite shield ultra-weapon ship and blasts you, wouldn't you like to be able to block them until FD, maybe, one day, get around to taking action? Or will you switch to PG/solo to avoid them? Or continue playing? Or quit for the night?

You report them to FD (as others have in the past) and move on. In the past I can remember merits being taken away when exploits were uncovered quite quickly (within the day).

The other is mitigation by design- you can't protect against everything, but for many aspects you can use whats available.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

You report them to FD (as others have in the past) and move on. In the past I can remember merits being taken away when exploits were uncovered quite quickly (within the day).

The other is mitigation by design- you can't protect against everything, but for many aspects you can use whats available.

But until they take action you're going to do what? "move on"? What does that mean? Stop doing what you want to do because of a cheater? Wouldn't it be nice to have some feature that allowed you to avoid them instantly, rather than your play session being ruined?

 

[Wily Rites]

I'm studying computation, finite state machines and logic at the moment, curious thing how, for some, reality will always involve leaking out around the edges by breaking the illusion of the sandbox. Whereas for others immersion in the service provided is all that they want or need to be happy.

The issue is the exact same one as that of exploits in any system, but the issue is a deep one... Even monkey's do it, oddly enough it always requires language and a notion of progression or time, and a quick easy reward.

Now power plays, in reality should be about putting trust into a power to alleviate the misery caused by these 'folk of the lie', these pirates. But the reality is that the system of power play then becomes far to tempting a target for even more powerful exploits ... and so the cycle continues.

Where then does it end, we might well ask? The conclusion that I've arrived at is 'knowledge of the self', hacking the system at its very lowest level, that being your very own interface with the world. So that one can understand why anything happens; Including the need to exploit an edge.

And this in elite, to my mind comes squarely back to exactly that, being elite; The status that was originally defined to distinguish oneself from pirates.

Pirates need an edge ... can't get by without them.

 

[Rubbernuke]

But until they take action you're going to do what? "move on"? What does that mean? Stop doing what you want to do because of a cheater? Wouldn't it be nice to have some feature that allowed you to avoid them instantly, rather than your play session being ruined?

The problem will always be a balance, and for me that point is different to you.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

No. 5C, or Fifth Column, refers to the practice of joining a Power specifically to sabotage it's access to Command Capital and send it into turmoil. For example, preparing and then successfully expanding to a system that is a huge drain in CC, rather than a system that brings in positive CC.

Thankfully, this tactic will no longer be possible in PowerPlay 2.0.

One of the many things that lead to me turning my back on PP was the Imperial PMF (who were also in the Dangerous Games) I was with doing this to DeLaine.

It was just as cancerous to me as the self aggrandising about how much they were conducting in all their actions Solo/PG to 'avoid' (their words) interacting with rivals (due to fear of shattering their self-perception of being top dogs) and if we tried to get a group together to go undermining in Open, heated, raised voices about how we were 'giving the game away' or 'idiots for not doing it in solo' in the case of a PP CZ by folks who would be logged in for 8-9hrs AFK turretboating.

Pretty much the beginning of why I turned my back on PP.

The outcome to the story was pretty hillarious, but thats one for another time.

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

But until they take action you're going to do what? "move on"? What does that mean? Stop doing what you want to do because of a cheater? Wouldn't it be nice to have some feature that allowed you to avoid them instantly, rather than your play session being ruined?

While it might seem helpful to have an instant block feature, it could be easily misused by players with exploitative or cheating intentions. Without proper oversight, anyone could mass-block commanders by collecting their names from public boards, which would be unfair and detrimental to the community. Therefore, a third-party reviewer or some form of moderation would be necessary to prevent such misuse.

 

[Robert Maynard]

While it might seem helpful to have an instant block feature, it could be easily misused by players with exploitative or cheating intentions. Without proper oversight, anyone could mass-block commanders by collecting their names from public boards, which would be unfair and detrimental to the community. Therefore, a third-party reviewer or some form of moderation would be necessary to prevent such misuse.

Which begs the question: "unfair and detrimental" to which part of the community?

With the follow-up question: ".... and why should their play-style preference be priorisited over that of others?"

 

[Wily Rites]

The problem will always be a balance, and for me that point is different to you.

We all look out at the world through very different lenses.

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

Which begs the question: "unfair and detrimental" to which part of the community?

For the part of the community that doesn't misuse it. However, to prevent abuse, an active reporting and moderation system should be implemented.

With the follow-up question: ".... and why should their play-style preference be priorisited over that of others?"

It shouldn't be prioritized, because those who are unjustly blocked by witch-hunters/exploiter would have their gameplay experience unfairly affected. Allowing players to block others without proper oversight could lead to misuse and harm innocent players.

 

[Robert Maynard]

For the part of the community that doesn't misuse it. However, to prevent abuse, an active reporting and moderation system should be implemented.

It shouldn't be prioritized, because those who are unjustly blocked by witch-hunters/exploiter would have their gameplay experience unfairly affected. Allowing players to block others without proper oversight could lead to misuse and harm innocent players.

There are those who accept that players can't continue to force their choice of direct interaction on others and those who don't. The game does not need to be changed to remove the consequences of the gameplay choices that the latter make.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

The problem will always be a balance, and for me that point is different to you.

Indeed it is.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

While it might seem helpful to have an instant block feature, it could be easily misused by players with exploitative or cheating intentions. Without proper oversight, anyone could mass-block commanders by collecting their names from public boards, which would be unfair and detrimental to the community. Therefore, a third-party reviewer or some form of moderation would be necessary to prevent such misuse.

Then the same argument as Rubbernuke, the costs vs the benefits.

I think the costs of a few players blocking a ton of players they wouldn't enjoy playing with vs the people being able to block cheaters is rather clear.

 

[Mr Jack Burton]

Then the same argument as Rubbernuke, the costs vs the benefits.

I think the costs of a few players blocking a ton of players they wouldn't enjoy playing with vs the people being able to block cheaters is rather clear.

Good point. Also removing the feature is cheap. In the long term, in case it results that removing the feature for few players is healthy for the rest of the community, maybe it could happen. At the end those few players can enjoy PG .