The Open v Solo v Groups thread

[Riverside]

Probably Morbad does not see this answer as I think he has blocked me on forums. But nevertheless, I do consider blocking gankers as a public service, but more as editing errors in universe away from my game experience. If side effect is ruining gankers instancing well I do not shed any tears over that.

I think a lot of players feel the same way, and FDev did change blocking from being primarily only chat to more effectively preventing the likelihood of instancing with the blocked player, and I do agree that if a player (ganker type or whatever) is complaining about blocking the solution (as I see it) is to not be, or associate with, the kind of player others would block.

Nevertheless my block list is empty and several of the most interesting Cmdrs I have met have been very much the type I could see others might block, and the kind of players that use block that I have met come across as ones I would not miss if I never instanced with them again. YMMV.

 

[Bigmaec]

Probably Morbad does not see this answer as I think he has blocked me on forums. But nevertheless, I do consider blocking gankers as a public service, but more as editing errors in universe away from my game experience. If side effect is ruining gankers instancing well I do not shed any tears over that.

What you constantly don't get is that you are ruining everyone's instancing, not just that of gankers.

 

[SteveWW57]

Probably Morbad does not see this answer as I think he has blocked me on forums. But nevertheless, I do consider blocking gankers as a public service, but more as editing errors in universe away from my game experience. If side effect is ruining gankers instancing well I do not shed any tears over that.

I now have a better awareness of Morbad's views on what he believes that other players do to harm his gameplay experience. In the example given of a third party attempting to help him out initially and third party then blocking the "gankers" caused an issue for him. However, this is a completely different category to a peaceful trader of explore being jumped by a significantly more powerful ship whose CMDR is looking for an easy kill for fun. Morbad's issue might have been resolved by communication with the third party, which may have been tried to no success.

Steve

 

[CMDR Cknarf]

Not really as a claim relating to a "right attitude" was made - implying that one has been defined.

Open is Open indeed, yet people feel it's OK to preferentially attack hollow markers "for reasons" and ask the targets not to complain - going as far as to suggest that the targets change their play-style to accommodate the attackers.

It’s not the complaining so much, as I understand the frustration of being attacked when you’re trying to get something done.

It’s the complaining, combined with absolutely no attempt or desire to change their situation.

Whether it’s engineering, defensive flying, offensive flying, utilizing modes, blocking, or just accepting your fate and trucking on anyway. These are all much preferable to whining and doing nothing.

The game provides us everything we need to deal with hostile players, even the option to not deal with them at all.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It’s not the complaining so much, as I understand the frustration of being attacked when you’re trying to get something done.

It’s the complaining, combined with absolutely no attempt or desire to change their situation.

Some players have little desire to engage in combat - and similarly little desire to compromise their ship builds to mitigate the unwanted attacks that some players choose to initiate.

Complaints regarding the game are not limited to those who don't like being attacked by other players.

Whether it’s engineering, defensive flying, offensive flying, utilizing modes, blocking, or just accepting your fate and trucking on anyway. These are all much preferable to whining and doing nothing.

Which is a "change the way you play the game, while the attackers don't need to change a thing" approach.

The game provides us everything we need to deal with hostile players, even the option to not deal with them at all.

Indeed - yet some players get quite stroppy when particular options are used - because they can't shoot at players who are affecting "their" game.

 

[CMDR Cknarf]

I think a lot of players feel the same way, and FDev did change blocking from being primarily only chat to more effectively preventing the likelihood of instancing with the blocked player, and I do agree that if a player (ganker type or whatever) is complaining about blocking the solution (as I see it) is to not be, or associate with, the kind of player others would block.

Nevertheless my block list is empty and several of the most interesting Cmdrs I have met have been very much the type I could see others might block, and the kind of players that use block that I have met come across as ones I would not miss if I never instanced with them again. YMMV.

I am saddened that the few people I would ever want to block because of comms only would disappear from my game, because I would really like to shoot those people lol.

I wouldn’t mind a comms only option. For now, I will continue to suffer.

 

[CMDR Cknarf]

Some players have little desire to engage in combat - and similarly little desire to compromise their ship builds to mitigate the unwanted attacks that some players choose to initiate.

Solo/PG, and the block function do not require build adjustments or engineering of any kind to use. Complaining is still not a viable solution.

Complaints regarding the game are not limited to those who don't like being attacked by other players.

Which is a "change the way you play the game, while the attackers don't need to change a thing" approach.

Play how you want, but consider accepting the consequences gracefully.

Indeed - yet some players get quite stroppy when particular options are used - because they can't shoot at players who are affecting "their" game.

They are in the same boat as the other whiners, and just as insufferable.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

What you constantly don't get is that you are ruining everyone's instancing, not just that of gankers.

Well if effect of non blocking is that I have to suffer existence of such errors in universe, I consider it just unacceptable. Rather I just happily block them. Regardless of consequences. If my blocking ruins some others chance to meet gankers, they can always fly in PG with said gankers.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Play how you want, but consider accepting the consequences gracefully.

Like those who complain about perceived instancing issues as a consequence of other players using the block feature?

 

[Bigmaec]

Regardless of consequences. If my blocking ruins some others chance to meet gankers, they can always fly in PG with said gankers.

At this point you're just trolling.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Not really as a claim relating to a "right attitude" was made - implying that one has been defined.

Open is Open indeed, yet people feel it's OK to preferentially attack hollow markers "for reasons" and ask the targets not to complain - going as far as to suggest that the targets change their play-style to accommodate the attackers.

The "right attitude" for me is: assume everyone is hostile, fly, build / organise accordingly. Plan ahead, know where you are flying and who might be there. And if it goes wrong? Assess, improve and move on. Its a bump in the road and not a personal attack on my character- well, not unless I'm ganked by a Patty boy then its just embarrassing.

Trying to rationalize anonymous players behavior is unhealthy and counterproductive, because you are always asking "why why why" rather than using your own skills and ship to overcome or avoid that obstacle. "Changing your playstyle" to me is silly, because that "change" is me playing the game to overcome that challenge.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Sorted your typo mate

O7

Again, its a mindset. Some people are triggered because they were shot and can't assign blame / context. To me that guy lurking about is content to overcome or mitigate.

But if people can't hack it, then block or live in solo, but stay out of Open since they can;t cope with it and its implications.

 

[Bigmaec]

The "right attitude" for me is: assume everyone is hostile, fly, build / organise accordingly. Plan ahead, know where you are flying and who might be there. And if it goes wrong? Assess, improve and move on. Its a bump in the road and not a personal attack on my character- well, not unless I'm ganked by a Patty boy then its just embarrassing.

Trying to rationalize anonymous players behavior is unhealthy and counterproductive, because you are always asking "why why why" rather than using your own skills and ship to overcome or avoid that obstacle. "Changing your playstyle" to me is silly, because that "change" is my playing the game to overcome that challenge.

You get that wrong. The right attitude is block block block, and then boast about it on the forums

 

[Riverside]

Well if effect of non blocking is that I have to suffer existence of such errors in universe, I consider it just unacceptable. Rather I just happily block them. Regardless of consequences. If my blocking ruins some others chance to meet gankers, they can always fly in PG with said gankers.

I'd be a lot happier about blocking if it meant it didn't affect those around them (ie put the blocking player in their own instance, because they are the intolerant one (potentially justifiably). That would mean the concept of blocking as a service to the community wouldn't be effective in-game, it would just be a personal choice. One could still publish ones blocklist publically (where it is not considered naming & shaming) which I am also not in favour of but at least wouldn't affect my in-game experience or that of others, only their own experience.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

At this point you're just trolling.

Well ganky types tend to say that you can always fly in PG or solo...Why does not that work for them?

Have some kind of reverse mobius, ganking allowed Aah but that would not work, not enough willing victims

 

[Robert Maynard]

The "right attitude" for me is: assume everyone is hostile, fly, build / organise accordingly. Plan ahead, know where you are flying and who might be there. And if it goes wrong? Assess, improve and move on. Its a bump in the road and not a personal attack on my character- well, not unless I'm ganked by a Patty boy then its just embarrassing.

So the discussion has shifted from a defined "right attitude" to personal definitions - of which we each have our own, and they no doubt differ.

Trying to rationalize anonymous players behavior is unhealthy and counterproductive, because you are always asking "why why why" rather than using your own skills and ship to overcome or avoid that obstacle. "Changing your playstyle" to me is silly, because that "change" is my playing the game to overcome that challenge.

The behaviours of other players don't need to be rationalised beyond the fact that players are not in any way forced to behave in any way in the game - it is up to each of them to choose how to behave.

I expect it depends on whether the challenge is seen as welcome or unwelcome, given that it's player choice that creates the challenge (or not, as the case may be).

 

[TiberiusDuval]

The "right attitude" for me is: assume everyone is hostile, fly, build / organise accordingly. Plan ahead, know where you are flying and who might be there. And if it goes wrong? Assess, improve and move on. Its a bump in the road and not a personal attack on my character- well, not unless I'm ganked by a Patty boy then its just embarrassing.

Trying to rationalize anonymous players behavior is unhealthy and counterproductive, because you are always asking "why why why" rather than using your own skills and ship to overcome or avoid that obstacle. "Changing your playstyle" to me is silly, because that "change" is me playing the game to overcome that challenge.

Unless reason for attacking me is obvious, like I'm flying with active bounty. I DO demand actual explanation for attacking me. If such is not forth coming I DO classify attacker as ganker, and to block he goes.

 

[Rubbernuke]

So the discussion has shifted from a defined "right attitude" to personal definitions - of which we each have our own, and they no doubt differ.

Ummm, I thought everything was opinion anyway, this being a forum and all?

The behaviours of other players don't need to be rationalised beyond the fact that players are not in any way forced to behave in any way in the game - it is up to each of them to choose how to behave.

Yes, but in open against random players will I a) build a ship thats toilet rolls and wrapping paper or b) something I can survive in

I expect it depends on whether the challenge is seen as welcome or unwelcome, given that it's player choice that creates the challenge (or not, as the case may be).

If its unwelcome I ask then....what the hell are they doing in Open, where this possibility exists with every player encounter?

 

[Bigmaec]

The behaviours of other players don't need to be rationalised beyond the fact that players are not in any way forced to behave in any way in the game - it is up to each of them to choose how to behave.

And yet I have no chance but to accept other players choices to limit my instancing.
Your view is extremely biased.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Like it or not, thats the way I do it.