what do you suggest? booting out the blocker off its current instance because you are about to enter it? First come first serve, sir.
To Solo Play Players: If You Could Disable PVP, Would You Play in Open Play Mode Instead?
- Thread starter AMX-008 GaZowmn
- Start date
If your gameplay is to disrupt other's gameplay experience, well tough luck.
In the end all of this is completely pointless, as only FDev can change something..
How about ways the game could reduce griefing?
Hogging a pad in open, the commander gets moved into a hangar when the pad is needed for another commander.
A commander is trying to interfere with you landing, the station defences take him out if he doesn't move away from your assigned pad.
Someone is trying to suicidewinder you, keep to the speed limit.
Someone trying to wedge you in the slot, surely the game could work out who is at fault, or just destroy the ship no using the auto docker.
I'm sure there are plenty other ways to grief and probably most could be handled by the game itself.
Still this won't change the fact that some player will only want to play in solo, others will want cooperative PvE, and still others will want PvP.. Still I'm sure that the game could make open a more pleasurable experience if some thought and work was put in to remove some of the griefing vectors.
Harder ones to solve would for instance be what to do when someone lands his Anaconda on top of your DBX to hinder you from taking off. I'm sure there are many more...
How about ways the game could reduce griefing?
Hogging a pad in open, the commander gets moved into a hangar when the pad is needed for another commander.
A commander is trying to interfere with you landing, the station defences take him out if he doesn't move away from your assigned pad.
Someone is trying to suicidewinder you, keep to the speed limit.
Someone trying to wedge you in the slot, surely the game could work out who is at fault, or just destroy the ship no using the auto docker.
I'm sure there are plenty other ways to grief and probably most could be handled by the game itself.
Still this won't change the fact that some player will only want to play in solo, others will want cooperative PvE, and still others will want PvP.. Still I'm sure that the game could make open a more pleasurable experience if some thought and work was put in to remove some of the griefing vectors.
Harder ones to solve would for instance be what to do when someone lands his Anaconda on top of your DBX to hinder you from taking off. I'm sure there are many more...
This doesn't describe most of those you seem to be criticizing.
If I look at this thread's remotely recent participants that you could possibly be referring to, Galahad2069 is mostly an organized PvPer; Bigmaec does occasionally engage in 'non-consentual' PvP, but would be very hard to mistake for a ganker; and I haven't had my CMDR fire on another except in self-defense, the defense of a wing member, or part of the rare consensual duel/match in about six years.
It feels like you're projecting. The gankers you seem to take umbrage with aren't here and aren't making these arguments. They have no shortage of targets, no matter what their preferred methods are, and don't fuss over technical issues that they think would make the game better, because they don't care.
I was addressing the statement where you specifically said that block was tantamount to playing in a different mode for the blocker. Not this other statement which I never contested.
I posted some potential alternatives here.
Regardless, I'm generally operating under the assumption that my CMDR is not the one that has been blocked as my CMDR rarely initiates aggressive behavior. Most of the people that I'm aware of that have blocked my CMDR have done so because of my statements on this forum, which is rather ironic as I don't play myself in my in-game character.
Not the best instancing system, IMO, when the second, or third, or whatever, person in the instance can dictate who is able to interact with those who were there first, or who would have been able to come later.
Noone interrupts your play other than FD, the ones who designed the game to work like it does.
You did not hear of something, therefore it does not exist? Lmfao
That explains why so many misconceptions exist in threads like this one, coming from people who literally do not know anything about PvP but yet they have very a strong opinion about how a particular game element does or should work.
Out of morbid curiosity, care to tell me why your behaviour should require any kind of justification, provided that you are not cheating and everything you are doing stays perfectly within the rules of the game?
Well perhaps your behauviour does not need any justification. Though I might require it, as I otherwise deem you to be one of those I do not want to play with. You are of course free to not give any justification. In that case though I make my decision automatically.
Probs been suggested before.
For basic ship and commander defence why not engineered modules, specialised hulls and shields or any other tech that could be created to block and prevent the use of weapons against a commanders ship.
If i land on a planet i cant use my repeater in the srv if im not so far away from the ship, why couldnt this tech be improved upon to create a ship defence system that jams all weapons from targetting the ship it is installed on within a certain range?
It wouldnt stop or prevent other abuses but would at least be a start to letting players play in open with less risk of attack.
For basic ship and commander defence why not engineered modules, specialised hulls and shields or any other tech that could be created to block and prevent the use of weapons against a commanders ship.
If i land on a planet i cant use my repeater in the srv if im not so far away from the ship, why couldnt this tech be improved upon to create a ship defence system that jams all weapons from targetting the ship it is installed on within a certain range?
It wouldnt stop or prevent other abuses but would at least be a start to letting players play in open with less risk of attack.
Because I don't believe that there are people with 6 ganking accounts I know nothing about PvP
... very coherent. And you expect me to take your statements seriously?You seem also to not believe that some players are very negative effected by ganking (I am making an effort to not use the term PvP).
We have talked in circles over and over without pointing at the obvious. ED is a fantastic game, there is so much to do and endless possibilities to coop. For some you have to be a bit creative, yes, but this game offers a lot. PvP is the smallest and for me least interesting activities. Why should someone play this great game to blow up neewbs? Or to get happy by ruin others gameplay? What are this people?
Yes, the game allow ganking in a specific mode. That doesn't mean you have to do it. A lot of things are allowed or tolerated, that doesn't mean this things are good behavior or must be done.
If people insist to gank, to force their playstyle on others, this victims have every right to oppose. If necessary by blocking. As I wrote earlier: For me now it is obvious why FDev implemented the block feature.
I am so sick of that. If PvP is part of good RP and reasonable I am the least person to advocate against it. All other wanna be PvPers, Gankers etc get no respect or understanding from me. Thank God, I have a g5 eng anti-gank ship. I don't fear gankers anymore. And will try to kill them. Always. If I loose I just learn and get better.
Sorry for the emotional approach, I will calm down now.
Last edited:
I only have one account because I think one player = one account is the only fair way to limit potential influence and keep the game from becoming pay-to-win (with regards to BGS/PP), but I could certainly afford more (this single beta backer + LEP acount was about $350), and getting a half dozen, or more, accounts to 'G5 muderboat' status--not that you need a 'G5 muderboat to gank most people, or anything other than the starter sidewinder to follow people around and block their wing members--would not be particularly difficult for me.
Also, I don't need a job. Why would I work if I don't need any more money? See quote in signature.
I can't be sure, but I suspect there are others who aren't the 'work ethic' type, willing to turn that crank just for the sake of their souls...not that they'd have to be to have enough free time to cheese their way to success in this game. Some of them are probably gankers, and they are probably living their best lives, from their own perspectives.
Anyway, the price of an ED account has been as low as free, and is frequent discounted to the 5-10 EuroPoundDollar range. Six ganking accounts for someone who enjoys ganking isn't even vaguely far fetched. Not particularly necessary or efficient, but not far fetched.
Indeed. The onus for any remedy to problems allowed by ill-conceived or poorly implemented mechanisms is ultimately on Frontier.
On that we can agree. Of course what are deemed as ill-conceived or poorly implemented mechanisms vary wildly.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
If the reason for playing in a different game mode was to not play with one or more specific players then using the block feature to block those players is equivalent to lpaying in a different game mode - as the player won't instance with those players. That the player using block in Open will instance with different players is neither here nor there in this example.
True enough.
I am not convinced that gankers with 6 accounts are a reliable argument to negate blocking effects as was tried here. May they exist, the one or two players that eventually have 6 accounts they can not be used here to argue for not using a feature that saved thousands of players gaming experience.
I don't think it's a particularly good argument for that particular point either--I'm just pointing out that it's almost certainly not as impractical as you previously suggested.
Almost certainly.
But it being against the rules and the rules being enforced in a meaningful way are two very different things.
So yoiu porojectiung your own things on what I wrote, and then you accuse me of doing just that. I did specificllay not talk about gankers in my post, for a reason, and here you are, projecting your stuff on my message. it is sad when you run out of arguments and have to make stuff up to fit your narrative.
those are some of them yes.
Maybe there are nuances to your use of 'force PvP on others' and 'griefers' that I'm not grasping, but my point remains...you don't seem to be referring to anyone who is actually here. Your claims that this argument is being perpetuated by the types of players you say they are strikes me as a strawman. Those pointing out the flaws in and potential for abuse with the block mechanism are not, generally speaking, 'forcing PvP' upon anyone, or even mostly likely to be the targets of blocks themselves, by the criteria you've mentioned.
Since I am, by far, the most verbose critic of these mechanisms, why don't you point out where you think I fit your "players whose chosen game play is to attack other players", or what you mean by me "running out of targets", while playing my CMDR, who largely minds his own business? Or am I somehow not in the group you're refering to, despite being the prime author of the argument you're criticizing?
No one likes to be misrepresented. I'm not sure I've misrepresented you, but I'm pretty damn sure you've been misrepresenting me.