Ah well just a litle Rant

This is equally as restrictive as blocking anyone you like. It's kind of the opposite end of the same radical spectrum.

You you don't like someone or they made you a tad bit upset? Block them.
Someone isn't tough enough for you? They shouldn't be playing the game at all.

There's a middle ground between those two things I'd like to find.

 

Don't know... if you think of experience like practice, then it makes sense that killing the same thing over and over gives you experience, because it gives you practice. I don't know if thats the problem that needs to be addressed.

 

Well if the blocking is just muting text then why add somebody to the block list for stealing your kills? That doesn't make sense.

Also imagine a person going around challenging people to duals... what if somebody doesn't like duals so they just BLOCK him. LoL I mention that because I bet it happens.

It isn't that I should be in charge of the rules for the player. My point isn't how you use your block list it is HOW THEY DESIGN the block list that matters. I would like them to DESIGN the block list so that it isn't something someone uses as a first response to an agitation. There's a difference between slight agitation, and horrible pests.

How about this scenerio? If you interact with a person and you upset them for some reason, wouldn't you rather have them say something like "I'm sorry could you please stop doing XYZ because it bothers me, or would you be fine with them just blocking you without ever talking with you to see if it can be worked out? Doesn't it seem reasonable that in a social game, that a social solution be the first course of action?

I'm all about people's freedoms, but I'm more concerned with giving them feedback regarding a potential abuse of a feature that might unnecessarily hinder the social aspect of the game. There should be an incentive to trying to work the problem out.

***************************

Now imagine that I walk up to a random female avatar, and say /flex "Hi, here's my address come by later for some fun". Now to me that is obviously not serious. I just want to get a reaction out of the other player, but say the player has no sense of humor, and just blocks me. I think without limitations the block list is to readily used. Community requires people to interact and also deal with some problems from time to time.

So Yes a 20 person limit seems fair, because if there is somebody with more than 20 people on their block list right now there is something wrong. It is pre-alpha, and there are no negative consequeces to anything in this game. People are also testing and doing things they might not otherwise do when they start their real character. So if somebody has more than 20 people on the block list now, then it will be used frequently when the real game is launched.

Definitely certain types of people gravitate to block lists quicker than others, but the game design shouldn't cater to anti-social behavior when the intention is to create a social environment. Let it be something used for real pests, not just the person asking to dual or stealing your kills in mulitiplayer. I'm not joking right now. This really seems like a problem.

 

Sure there is a mentality that gravitates toward blocking people because they choose to ignore minor annoyances. Yet, that's the type of thing that should be accounted for when developing the block list or any other social mechanism. This is a design concern not a player concern.

It is not uncommon to get mad at something that is clearly annoying. So how is this resolved? Have the players read a manual about how to communicate effectively? I think the easiest solution is to just limit the block list to 10 or 20. Open multiplayer is a choice. Players ought to communicate, and resolve conflicts. Every manager has to deal with resolving conflict in their teams, it is one of the things they learn. Imagine if people on a team just magically ignored everything from the other members of the team.... I suppose they won't argue anymore, but they won't be able to communicate very professionally either.

So now let's think about guilds. Same thing. There will always be conflict that must be resolved in any setting there are groups that work together. If they stopped communicating altogether, then nothing will get done, and the guild will be partially dysfunctional (part of the social experience was silenced mechanically). I would hate to have lots of scenarios where one character comes to another and says, "Dundar, told me to tell you that the guild master is looking for you..." "Well, you tell dundar, I don't want to talk to him." Silly right? Wouldn't it just be better if they avoided contact as much as possible, but if they have to say something they just say, "Hey, guildmaster wants to talk to you... poof Dundar the warrior leaves.

 

I have only had to block one person, so far, I unblocked them to hear what they had to say, but they were very rude and obnoxious about a specific duel, I was cheating apparently, even though I don't know how to cheat. Anyway, the specifics aren't important, however the nature of the game is going to be filled with individuals who are just there to annoy and create hatred, all the same there will be good natured individuals as well. Let's just say that there will be a 20 person limit to the block. There may be an entire guild devoted to the vocal torture of any individual not in their guild, how would we block every single one of them if we only have 20. I think at that point the limit would be greifing players because of the inability to block their text.

At any rate, I don't mind seeing a player, but If I block the individual, they should not be shown as visible on my screen, imo. And I should be invisible on their screen. However there should be a way around this. If someone is blocked, they shouldn't be able to invite you to anything, nor talk to you, nor trade with you. However, if the person is set to Ignore, there could be a totally different set of variables that go along with that instead. Ignore/Block should not be the same thing.

Block means block, no visibility, no friending, no partying, no invites at all, no trading, no anything, no contact at all, not even be able to see their character. If I enter a zone my friends should come first and that person/s very last if anything at all.

Ignore means ignore, to not hear or be able to read their text but also be able to see their character on-screen, still be able to see them and enter a game with them, but just not 'hear' them.

 

The guild that is designed as a grief mechanism sounds like that would be a violation of the SotA terms of service. It should be logged as a complaint and then they receive a warning or a ban.

Really there shouldn't be that many people that require a block. Blocking should be designed as a last case scenerio.


The truth is the people that made my block lists in other games I rarely ran into them. Most of them I did not need to block for longer than 15 minutes. It is good to just block them while they are ranting and raving at you for whatever reason, and while a special few remain blocked because they are really rude or annoying because every encounter with them is a real problem.

So 20 people on a block list is just fine because you can safely remove most of the other people because they might not even remember you by the time you need to free up a space on your block list. If you are a mass blocker type person that needs more than 20 people blocked at a time then maybe the issue is you.

 

what does it matter?

This game has a system whereby it allows you to filter out anyone you want ANYWAY to the point of playing single player or just playing with your friends, so why should it matter if I just can't STAND redfish, he just p@#ses me off, not because he has done anything but his very existence annoys me right down to his silly red bird (No you don't really just using you as an example) then what is wrong with a system which removes him completely from my game while still letting me play with others?

YES I know, "but PVP", PvP shouldn't take over everything

 

I think what I meant to say was that I would like to see a tiered kind of system that involves different levels of reporting, for instance,
Ignore
Block
Ban
Report

 

I'd like to add two to this list:

Gold Farmer / Bot

Environmental Griefer (someone hiding near lava / high drops and casting Gust at unsuspecting players, or standing in front of them repeatedly for annoyance's sake)

 

I haven't had to ignore anyone yet, mostly because there isn't a lot of people on. But I don't want anyone saying I can only ignore so many or I shouldn't be allowed to play if I do.

 

*Flashback to BON3D00d and pLaTeDeWd*

 

If SotA does become very popular then the filters are going to be really important (and narrowly defined) anyway in order to prevent players being matched with people they have no interest in playing with. I am assuming instance sizes are still pretty small? Perhaps a hundred players or so? (this would seem about the right number going by my experience in Neverwinter which also divides players into separate instances)

 

20 is arbitrary. Just like 200 is arbitrary. It might as well be the bigger one.

I still think a block option is necessary, I just don't think it should apply in pvp zones. That will keep people from abusing the system but still permit them to retain their privacy / sanity.

 

If only it was as easy to block the wife in RL

 

How anyone thinks that a block list is a bad ideas is beyond me, I can and will block people for MANY different reasons. That is my choice if you make it so I HAVE to listen to EVERYONE there would be VERY few people playing as the infantile inbesils will overtake the game. Looks at UO generals chat sometime, truly pathetic.

As for the post it was more to just point out how that in all games we will HAVE to deal with idiots, unfriendly, disrespectful, and immature players.

 

That makes sense. Personally I would rather err on the side of running into a few creeps. Also there is the slight possibility that the selective multiplayer system will resolve much of this. It might discover if we are a role player, and match us with other role players.

Although the ability to run into people who are a annoying is a humanity issue. I know this is a fantasy world, but to avoid all problems is dull and boring. Back in the days when I played UO, I never felt the need to block anybody EVER. Sure there were creeps and people who tried to steal your stuff, but that was part of the fun. Being able to block everybody that annoys you might actually take away from the experience of being able to say, "that guy was going to try to mess me up here, but I beat him at his own game."

*****************

This also leads into the next big problem... PvP. Where would people get frustrated at other people the most? Well, it seems to me that getting beat by the same person in PvP a few times in a row might be annoying. If you block that guy it might solve the problem, but really that ruins the PvP experience for the person you just blocked. He might have liked beating you. That's why he flagged for PvP, and now there is a game mechanic to stop that player from beating you up??? don't flag for PvP if you don't want to die. This is why the block feature needs to be turned off for players flagged for PvP.

 

I'm sorry you feel that way about your fellow humans. I too have experienced some people I get along with, and some people who I don't seem to have chemistry with.


Another big reason I would like the block list diminished (not eliminated), is so that people are forced into ethical dilemmas. Are they going to resolve minor conflicts, or will they be rude to the person that annoys them. Blocking a person who is simply annoying bypasses this basic situation that all humans will encounter. If SotA wants to be a game of virtue and moral dilemmas, then we shouldn't be ignoring all the so called infantile imbeciles. We ought to rise above the circumstance and extend love and grace.

You cannot uphold the principle of Love by ignoring everybody that bothers you. So this is a fundamental issue for the game itself.


EDIT: If Lord British wants people to experience the virtues (and learn something that matters), then we need to also experience being outside our comfort zones in order to prove you are virtuous. Anybody can act like an avatar of love around people that are easy to love. Test thier love by putting them with creeps.

 

another great point but sota seems to go the trend of every other modern MMO but WHY????? they are all terrible compared to older games. I dont wanna sound like a old fart already but really gaming these days is very poor aside form the graphics and the interface and the later is only the case with some companies.
But why does every MMO has to look exactly the same? some feature new refreshing ideas but totally give up on what was good in earlier games. Somthing new gets added at the cost of another thing that has been working brilliantly in the past. Apart from Rockstar games who are the only company that shows how games with todays technology are supposed to be done, every other game is the same over and over again but with leaving the best ideas aside... I dont get it
Is there a law about gaming that every MMO has to feature certain things otherwise I have not the slightest understanding on why games just keep becoming worse (by most companies and the exception is not only rockstar if youre digging into genre specific games)

SOTA team please dont take any inspiration from modern games and go back to your roots PLEASE!!!! this game is my last hope for the next 20 years.... Actually was

Another great example for that is Skyrim! The only thing skyrim offers is technology; stunning graphics in a huge world THATS IT! Story is bad interaction with npcs is bad like most of the true RPG aspects. Skyrim with weaker graphics wouldnt stand a chance against good old RPGs. I personally think Skyrim (when I say skyrim I mean TES but from a pure RPG perspective I hear the earlier TES were amazing I never got to try them) became such a huge success because everyone had seemed to have given up on the RPG genre and there wasnt anyone to compete with Bethesda. If some old companies (like Origin...) didnt run out of resources or whatever reason caused such a huge brand to collapse, if those would have kept making RPGs I think we wouldnt even know Skyrim today because Bethesda just wouldnt have been able to compete.
But thats probably just me...

Anyway Sota dont follow the trends you have made far better games in the past maybe take a day off to play old ultimas would help more than the current developping....

 

Nah good graphics is what Im looking for, thats also what a lot more people are looking for.

 

Please not on a 5 million budget! With that budget I would have told them to make the best 2D game the world has seen and that doesnt mean it would look ugly.
I think they should rly leave graphics aside for now the budget is just too tight to compete with the big fishes out there but with a stunning gameplay, tons of fun and a great comunity I think Sota could really make a point in todays gaming industry. they succeeded on the comunity side already thou. But good graphics is "easy" but making someone have fun with your product is hard and it isnt achievable just by raising the budget. But LB has proven that he has those skills I just hope he didnt leave them in space like some bad rumors say...