The Open v Solo v Groups thread

[Aashenfox]

Do all of those who like to shoot at other players care about the experience of their targets?

Which, unfortunately for them, also applies to those who like to shoot at other players.

This is generally how multiplayer games work. Don't get the acts the wrong way around. The people shooting are playing the game according to the rules, staying in open, getting blown up if that happens, the people blocking are using sanctioned FD magic to affect instancing for everyone. Go to PG or solo if you can't handle other players in your multiplayer game.

I can see that you are not going to be convinced taht my suggestion/assertion which is NEVER going to be implemented/taken seriously by FD has any merit whatsoever, and I assure you that you won't convince me that an instance blocking function in a multiplayer game is a good thing, so perhaps we could stop wasting each other's time explaining why you think I want gankers to have free reign (I don't) and why I think that a multiplayer game should be a multiplayer game and that blocking is selfish, especially when solo and pg modes exist. Elite (not very) Dangerous

 

[Robert Maynard]

This is generally how multiplayer games work. Don't get the acts the wrong way around. The people shooting are playing the game according to the rules, staying in open, getting blown up if that happens, the people blocking are using FD magic to affect instancing for everyone. Go to PG or solo if you can't handle other players in your multiplayer game.

Selective acceptance of the rules of Open is a thing, and has been obvious for over a decade - and it's clear that some seem to think that the ability to shoot at any player one instances with is OK but the ability to menu exit or block are not.

There is no getting "the acts the wrong way round" because the three rules apply equally to all players (even if some players place one of them higher than the other two).

The advice to go to a Private Group can equally be made to those seeking a "no-block" experience.

 

[Aashenfox]

Selective acceptance of the rules of Open is a thing, and has been obvious for over a decade - and it's clear that some seem to think that the ability to shoot at any player one instances with is OK but the ability to menu exit or block are not.

There is no getting "the acts the wrong way round" because the three rules apply equally to all players (even if some players place one of them higher than the other two).

The advice to go to a Private Group can equally be made to those seeking a "no-block" experience.

I agree, there are going to be occasional bad actors. Why do I and players like me choose to deal with them head on instead of blocking people? It's because we don't want to use magic to avoid consequences of flagging for pvp, and not only that, affect the game experience IN OPEN for others.

"The advice to go to PG can also apply to people who don't like blocking" - we're talking about the 'open' experience as a multiplayer choice and how blocks affect instancing 'in open'. You press open, you are accepting that you will run into other cmdrs, the VAST MAJORITY of whom are friendly and great to play with. I will not be convinced that blocking is good thing in a multiplayer game. Griefing should be reported to FD and each case should be taken on its merits and sanctions applied to players (the famous solo ban), imo. That's how pretty much every other game deals with it too, without the need for blocking. The fact that Elite is peer to peer and it's rare to see alot of cmdrs in one place makes it, in my opinion, a selfish act to use the block feature in open.

I guess it's something you need to experience, when you spend half an hour or more trying to instance because you play in the same area as people who abuse the blocklist, it becomes a lot more frustrating than dealing with a mailslot blocker or a suicidewinder. I'm sure if you experienced this you'd be more sympathetic

 

[Robert Maynard]

I agree, there are going to be occasional bad actors. Why do I and players like me choose to deal with them head on instead of blocking people? It's because we don't want to use magic to avoid consequences of flagging for pvp, and not only that, affect the game experience IN OPEN for others.

Indeed - however each and every player is free to make their own decision as to whether dealing with those players is worthy of their game time.

"The advice to go to PG can also apply to people who don't like blocking" - don't think you thought that through, we're talking about the 'open' experience as a multiplayer choice. You press open, you are accepting that you will run into other cmdrs, the VAST MAJORITY of whom are friendly and great to play with. I will not be convinced that blocking is good thing in a multiplayer game. Griefing should be reported to FD and each case should be taken on its merits and sanctions applied to players (the famous solo ban), imo. That's how pretty much every other game deals with it too, without the need for blocking. The fact that Elite is peer to peer and it's rare to see alot of cmdrs in one place makes it, in my opinion, a selfish act to use the block feature in open.

Selecting Open means that one plays by the rules of Open - no more, no less. The "Open experience" that some desire is not the reality of the Open mode we all share.

That some don't like all of those rules is clear - however Frontier set the rules and, as mentioned earlier, implemented the block feature unasked and before the game launched.

 

[Aashenfox]

Indeed - however each and every player is free to make their own decision as to whether dealing with those players is worthy of their game time.

Selecting Open means that one plays by the rules of Open - no more, no less. The "Open experience" that some desire is not the reality of the Open mode we all share.

That some don't like all of those rules is clear - however Frontier set the rules and, as mentioned earlier, implemented the block feature unasked and before the game launched.

Yep, it's unlikely to ever get changed now, I don't disagree with you, but also 'FD wants it this way' is literally the worst possible reason. We discuss, maybe we sow seeds fo change.

I added this after you replied to my previous post, so just in closing...

I guess it's something you need to experience, when you spend half an hour or more trying to instance because you play in the same area as people who abuse the blocklist, it becomes a lot more frustrating than dealing with a mailslot blocker or a suicidewinder. I'm sure if you experienced this you'd be more sympathetic

 

[Robert Maynard]

Yep, it's unlikely to ever get changed now.

Maybe - however if the change was additive, e.g. a new Open(-no-block) mode option on the launcher (that shared the same galaxy), then there'd likely be little complaint from those who would otherwise be adversely affected by a subtractive change, e.g. removing the instance block from the only Open game mode.

I added this after you replied to my previous post, so just in closing...

I guess it's something you need to experience, when you spend half an hour or more trying to instance because you play in the same area as people who abuse the blocklist, it becomes a lot more frustrating than dealing with a mailslot blocker or a suicidewinder. I'm sure if you experienced this you'd be more sympathetic

While little of the initial sympathy stock remains after over a decade of some players telling other players how they should play the game, there is still some left for those who don't prey on those uninterested in PvP and whose gameplay experience may be affected by other players using the block feature.

 

[Aashenfox]

Maybe - however if the change was additive, e.g. a new Open(-no-block) mode option on the launcher (that shared the same galaxy), then there'd likely be little complaint from those who would otherwise be adversely affected by a subtractive change, e.g. removing the instance block from the only Open game mode.


While little of the initial sympathy stock remains after over a decade of some players telling other players how they should play the game, there is still some left for those who don't prey on those uninterested in PvP and whose gameplay experience may be affected by other players using the block feature.

yep, no argument, except that I would propose again that my solution to this would be to make instance blocks temporary. Like, 1 month or something. I agree that clearing the list involuntarily would upset people, so the only change I would propose is this. You block someone so you can go about your day, but a month later your block is removed to help smooth out p2p instancing. The chances of you running into the same griefer over and over, months apart, is pretty small, even in my world.

Slight change of subject... I was most surprised to see FD release both the pound for pound best combat ship for 1v1 in the game (Corsair) and then a month later give people a medium FSD reset SEEKER, knowing FD as we do, why do you think they enabled solo 'ganking' (ganking by definition is multi attackers, you get what I mean)..? Seems directly incompatible with certain prior policies, such as implementing such a pwoerful blocking feature (for one).

This isn't a gotcha, I'm genuinely curious what the motivation was, I would not have done this personally! XD

 

[Robert Maynard]

yep, no argument, except that I would propose again that my solution to this would be to make instance blocks temporary. Like, 1 month or something. I agree that clearing the list involuntarily would upset people, so the only change I would propose is this. You block someone so you can go about your day, but a month later your block is removed to help smooth out p2p instancing. The chances of you running into the same griefer over and over, months apart, is pretty small, even in my world.

Blocks being removed after a month is the same as the list being cleared involuntarily - it would just be gradual rather than all at once.

Maybe better to let the player decide on the term of the block rather than them arbitrarily being removed after a fixed period of time (which could be shorter than the time between a player's game sessions for the infrequent player).

Slight change of subject... I was most surprised to see FD release both the pound for pound best combat ship for 1v1 in the game (Corsair) and then a month later give people a medium FSD reset SEEKER, knowing FD as we do, why do you think they enabled solo 'ganking' (ganking by definition is multi attackers, you get what I mean)..? Seems directly incompatible with certain prior policies, such as implementing such a pwoerful blocking feature (for one)

If it's the best 1v1 combat ship in the game then it works for PvE players as well as for PvP players - and the FSD reset is also useful in PvE when NPCs try to jump out when losing an engagement.

 

[Aashenfox]

Blocks being removed after a month is the same as the list being cleared involuntarily - it would just be gradual rather than all at once.

Maybe better to let the player decide on the term of the block rather than them arbitrarily being removed after a fixed period of time (which could be shorter than the time between a player's game sessions for the infrequent player).

If it's the best 1v1 combat ship in the game then it works for PvE players as well as for PvP players - and the FSD reset is also useful in PvE when NPCs try to jump out when losing an engagement.

That's an acceptable compromise (a choice of length of time with a year being max). o7

Regarding the missiles though, a lot of gankers are very happy. Strange choice. It's definitely going to have a marked effect in organic pvp, regardless of pve advantages. Very few npc ships got away from me over the years

 

[Robert Maynard]

That's an acceptable compromise (a choice of length of time with a year being max). o7

Not suggesting for a moment that "forever" should not be an option - the behaviour of some players more than deserves that.

 

[Aashenfox]

Not suggesting for a moment that "forever" should not be an option - the behaviour of some players more than deserves that.

People change. Imo 'forever' is the entire problem, as we've discussed.

I have switched sides in my time in the game, I was a ganker hunter for many many years, now I'm an outlaw. My character's arc features disillusionment and betrayal

 

[Robert Maynard]

People change. Imo 'forever' is the entire problem, as we've discussed.

Whether it's a problem to be solved or a welcomed feature remains a matter of opinion.

I have switched sides in my time in the game, I was a ganker hunter for many many years, now I'm an outlaw. My character's arc features disillusionment and betrayal

Every player has a choice of how to play, until their chosen gameplay comes up against the choices available to those they may wish to interact with.

 

[Lateralus]

I'm not interested in PvP and certainly wasn't looking for it while hauling prep in an unarmed, unshielded T6 for a month waaay back in PP1.
The unintuitive part had to do with the CC... stuff that I still don't understand.

PP2 underming is more interesting and feels more relevant, but again I wouldn't be looking for PvP doing it as again I'm looking to slip through unnoticed.
Whether defending PP players can identify which systems and facilities appear vulnerable and are likely to attract underminers is another question.
A chess board doesn't tell you your opponent's next move you have to anticipate it.

(All of the above was done in Open for the record)

You've highlighted the problem pretty well there... You're not interested in PvP but you want to undermine unnoticed. Currently it's way too easy to do this as the 'chess board' has thousands of squares, so you're never really in any danger of being noticed. Chess is all contained in a small area where PvP is unavoidable (and the whole point of the game), so the analogy does not fit very well.

As there is very unlikely to be any changes to modes, offering a pvp mission system for powerplay would offer a risk vs reward system where the rules can be set more stringently (I.e. no mode switching, menu logging etc) alongside enemy activity alerts. All this can be done without affecting current gameplay offerings to PvE players.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

This is generally how multiplayer games work. Don't get the acts the wrong way around. The people shooting are playing the game according to the rules, staying in open, getting blown up if that happens, the people blocking are using sanctioned FD magic to affect instancing for everyone. Go to PG or solo if you can't handle other players in your multiplayer game.

As long as getting shot is according to internal rules of games setting. But, hundreds of "I'm roleplaying a psychokiller" "I shoot for lulz" "Wanna be visiting star on my Tube channel, no, you are still gettin there", that experience gets rather stale. Add to that station trolling and other shenanigans.

I have never blocked person shooting me when I have a bounty. Never would block a pirate either. Or if it happens in inhabited anarchy system, well bad things happen.

But I have zero tolerance for typical gankers&trolls and so on.

 

[Aashenfox]

As long as getting shot is according to internal rules of games setting. But, hundreds of "I'm roleplaying a psychokiller" "I shoot for lulz" "Wanna be visiting star on my Tube channel, no, you are still gettin there", that experience gets rather stale. Add to that station trolling and other shenanigans.

I have never blocked person shooting me when I have a bounty. Never would block a pirate either. Or if it happens in inhabited anarchy system, well bad things happen.

But I have zero tolerance for typical gankers&trolls and so on.

To be honest, I get that, the game is currently well set up for you and I totally understand why you would support that. I'm glad to hear you are not frivolous with the block button. o7

The issue I have is a direct result of a certain playstyle (don't get me wrong, I've never been a griefer, but I like to play with other pvpers including griefers and gankers, and I've also opposed big player groups in BGS activities, always in open (to my frequent detriment), people who do frivolously use the block button to avoid consequences for their actions; so in the circles I go around, I do actually run into occasional instancing issues. As mentioned, I think the strongest thing I would ask for in this regard, is just that blocks aren't forever. It only takes 1 minute to refresh a block if it expires and you run into that person again, and you're free for another X period of time, while it would entirely solve the issue and make sure the problem doesn't snowball no matter how long the game lives.

Honestly, bad instancing is a function of what you have been doing and who you have been opposing over the years, so active pvpers like myself, when playing with other active pvpers run into the instancing issues more often than players that mind their own business, of course, that's natural and makes people think it's a non issue. It's still a rare problem, I don't want to make a big deal out of it, but int he overall open vs pg and solo debate, it's a key variable.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

Exercising one's own right at the expense of others and then turning around and saying 'it was my right, FD approves it' does not make the act itself any less selfish or porrly considered, imo. You probably have a right to paint your house pink with green polka dots if you want to (just a silly example), but you wouldn't do it, because it would affect others around you.

Oh you sweet summer child...
What happens is your neighbours report you to the local council, said neighbours being corporate hotel chains who find your expression of individuality doesn't match heir corporate colour scheme. Said Council is of course composed of the managers of said corporate hotel chains who are under instruction to ensure the corporate approved colour scheme is adhered to and the rest is history...
Link

 

[Felix DiCestria]

You've highlighted the problem pretty well there... You're not interested in PvP but you want to undermine unnoticed. Currently it's way too easy to do this as the 'chess board' has thousands of squares, so you're never really in any danger of being noticed. Chess is all contained in a small area where PvP is unavoidable (and the whole point of the game), so the analogy does not fit very well.

As there is very unlikely to be any changes to modes, offering a pvp mission system for powerplay would offer a risk vs reward system where the rules can be set more stringently (I.e. no mode switching, menu logging etc) alongside enemy activity alerts. All this can be done without affecting current gameplay offerings to PvE players.

The poacher isn't likely to be interested in sending a telegram to the gamekeeper, but who makes the best gamekeeper?
You claim there are thousands but a competant player would know that only a handful of systems are likely to present as a vulnerable target at any point in time. Both attacker and defender have access to the same information, what do you think the underminer is likely to be looking for?

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

Exercising one's own right at the expense of others and then turning around and saying 'it was my right, FD approves it' does not make the act itself any less selfish or porrly considered, imo.

I know I am ripping your quote a little bit out of context, and I apologize in advance, but what you wrote perfectly illustrates the double standard going on. This isn't aimed at you, your post is just perfect to illustrate my point.

When people complain about griefers and gankers, they get exactly that line: It's well within the rules to shoot at you willy nilly, you agreed to it, yadda yadda. And when you have a particularly nasty participant of the discussion, the ones complaining get also ridiculed, called carebears, forum dads, get pelted with git gud memes or are being told to stay in solo, because the people annoying them are "just playing the game by its rules".

When a persons defends their right to block, because it also is well within the rules to not to want to be instanced with a muppet, it suddenly becomes a selfish act that and poorly considered. If one even suggest that, actually, the annoying person is responsible for the blocking action, the person being annoyed is, again, blamed, ridiculed, what have you. The player causing the annoyance by "playing by the rules" on the other hand, again, gets away scott free.

Frankly, this widely accepted double standard is pretty disgusting.

 

[Aashenfox]

I know I am ripping your quote a little bit out of context, and I apologize in advance, but what you wrote perfectly illustrates the double standard going on. This isn't aimed at you, your post is just perfect to illustrate my point.

When people complain about griefers and gankers, they get exactly that line: It's well within the rules to shoot at you willy nilly, you agreed to it, yadda yadda. And when you have a particularly nasty participant of the discussion, the ones complaining get also ridiculed, called carebears, forum dads, get pelted with git gud memes or are being told to stay in solo, because the people annoying them are "just playing the game by its rules".

When a persons defends their right to block, because it also is well within the rules to not to want to be instanced with a muppet, it suddenly becomes a selfish act that and poorly considered. If one even suggest that, actually, the annoying person is responsible for the blocking action, the person being annoyed is, again, blamed, ridiculed, what have you. The player causing the annoyance by "playing by the rules" on the other hand, again, gets away scott free.

Frankly, this widely accepted double standard is pretty disgusting.

Despite it not being aimed at me, I feel compelled to respond, since I totally agree. You're not wrong, and both are 'selfish acts' (the blocking more so when it's used frivolously than in the case you describe), which is why I conceded fairly rapidly that the block function is needed/acceptable and switched to a small but significant modification that it not be permanent. I will say again that forever, is already10 years, and many people who were once gankers are no longer that way and there are many legit pointless blocks in place. o7

 

[Aashenfox]

Oh you sweet summer child...
What happens is your neighbours report you to the local council, said neighbours being corporate hotel chains who find your expression of individuality doesn't match heir corporate colour scheme. Said Council is of course composed of the managers of said corporate hotel chains who are under instruction to ensure the corporate approved colour scheme is adhered to and the rest is history...
Link

Yes, and in 'most' multiplayer games, the same thing is the case, the 'authority' sorts it out. But you did kinda miss my point, deliberately and with humour, so I forgive you