Getting instanced with people on your block list

SickleCider

I'm sorry to add more to the mound of complaints on the forum, but this is an issue that really sticks with me.

Seriously. Why are we still getting instanced with people on our block list? When I block someone, it's a very clear indicator that I do NOT want to play with that person, and I shouldn't have to avoid maps or playing at certain hours to stay away from that person. Relogging just keeps chucking you into the same instance, too. It's almost like blocking improves your chances of matching with someone.

PS4. I don't know if it's different on other platforms. In all the other PS4 games I play, blocking someone prevents matching with them, so it's a thing that's possible to implement.

EDIT: Sorry the above sounded a little confrontational in hindsight. I didn't intend the tone to be grating, but it sure is! The post should have been framed as a question: why does this happen? Some people have pointed out some technical limitations and uncertainties that are worth a consideration.

EDIT2: I'm going to attempt to sum up everything I have learned since I made this thread. There are far fewer instances than some dim people (ahem, me) would assume, so at the bottom line, the infrastructure for instance-avoidance isn't there. When the population is small, you're more likely to run into the same people--a given--which explains why some people are having a hard time avoiding certain other players. While this can lead to some amount of upset, and also exposes players to unwanted griefing, more robust "protections" would require a rewrite of the game's fundamental structure. Even if there were more instances available--and I"m going to borrow another person's phraseology here--the number of "complex permutations" cross-referencing everyone's block lists would probably just choke a game that barely works for a lot of people as it is. Aaaand this is why even an in-house block feature could only do so much. People also pointed out the potential for abuse--blocking people over lost PVP matches (an oversight of mine, because I never PVP in this game), and the next really struck me: people could bully someone by blocking them en masse and thereby gating them out of the game. So, I admit my complaint was pointless/ill-informed, because this is probably the best things can be, even though a lot of people wouldn't call it ideal.

A handful of people spoke about the abuse they've received from other players. They talked about getting matched up in dungeons, for example, with people who'd been nasty to them. I obviously agree your only choices shouldn't be deal with it, go somewhere else, or stop playing, but I do hope that people will choose one of the latter two options. Nothing in this game is worth the amount of stress you're putting yourself under by staying. It's probably hard not to think of it as a concession, so think of it as filtering your emotional environment.

What started this? I was angry at a player who'd been camping in a zone for weeks, holding all of the harvesting nodes hostage. No matter what day of the week or what hour of the day, they'd spot me and start actively following me around the map to contest every node. Definitely a player, not a bot. It's actually the first person I've blocked in ESO in probably two years, but I guess after a long time of this, and my inability to adapt, I was seeing red. Never contacted them, didn't want to escalate, etc. I think a lot of the really stupid fights that happen between players in this game could be avoided if they had better tools to get away from each other, but, see above. That being said, I do see the irony of this paragraph following the one before it.

Goregrinder

Because restraining orders don't actually delete people from existence.

spartaxoxo

Do you mean activity finder?

SickleCider

@spartaxoxo I can't speak to that. I never use the activity finder.

Donny_Vito

Yes, this is definitely implemented on other games on Xbox. The only issue I can see is that ZoS would have to be fetching data from a different server each time a person wants to load in. Granted, I'm not sure what data they cache from your account when you log into the game, but it seems to me they'd have to query the Xbox/PS4 servers to get the contents of the block list and then execute logic from there. Seeing as they want to limit the amount of available instances to keep performance as optimal as possible (I know this is laughable with the current state of the game), I don't think they'd want to create new instances just for one person because he has people blocked from every other instance.

redspecter23

It would be near impossible to cross reference all ignore lists of all players and separate them into instances that all adhere to those individual block lists.

It could theoretically be done for group finder situations though still increasing the load on an already broken system, but for overland, understand how difficult it would be to implement.

DaNnYtHePcFrEaK

You really think they have something in place that warns people when they're instanced with people they block? You know how many people play this game right? So if you block someone on face book and see them in the street what do you do? GET ON WITH IT....

Pheefs

Yeah that's awkward making...
isn't there a slash command to change instance?

SickleCider

Pheefs wrote: »

Yeah that's awkward making...
isn't there a slash command to change instance?

I don't know about anything like that on console, but if there is, that'd be ideal!

SickleCider

Donny_Vito wrote: »

Yes, this is definitely implemented on other games on Xbox. The only issue I can see is that ZoS would have to be fetching data from a different server each time a person wants to load in. Granted, I'm not sure what data they cache from your account when you log into the game, but it seems to me they'd have to query the Xbox/PS4 servers to get the contents of the block list and then execute logic from there. Seeing as they want to limit the amount of available instances to keep performance as optimal as possible (I know this is laughable with the current state of the game), I don't think they'd want to create new instances just for one person because he has people blocked from every other instance.

"Sorry, you can't log in. You have blocked all of Tamriel."

Yeah, I guess I can see how that'd be an issue. I think the only way they could get around that is implementing something in-house and putting a cap on how many people can be on your list. Does that sound more feasible?

tmbrinks

If you're talking about Activity finder, I can understand how that would be an expectation when you block somebody.

To ask to not be included in in the entire instance of a zone is a bit preposterous.

What you're asking for is a bit vague in your OP.

Donny_Vito

Versispellis wrote: »

Donny_Vito wrote: »

Yes, this is definitely implemented on other games on Xbox. The only issue I can see is that ZoS would have to be fetching data from a different server each time a person wants to load in. Granted, I'm not sure what data they cache from your account when you log into the game, but it seems to me they'd have to query the Xbox/PS4 servers to get the contents of the block list and then execute logic from there. Seeing as they want to limit the amount of available instances to keep performance as optimal as possible (I know this is laughable with the current state of the game), I don't think they'd want to create new instances just for one person because he has people blocked from every other instance.

"Sorry, you can't log in. You have blocked all of Tamriel."

Yeah, I guess I can see how that'd be an issue. I think the only way they could get around that is implementing something in-house and putting a cap on how many people can be on your list. Does that sound more feasible?

Yeah, I think that's how it would have to be implemented. But then again, as others have said, it would have to only apply to Group Finder activities. Because I'm thinking about Cyrodiil....what happens if you have someone blocked? Can they not enter that campaign? Do you get kicked out of the campaign so they can join? Both of those are not good solutions, and I honestly don't think there is one when you only have one instance for each campaign.

Pheefs

I did a little research and it looks like that's a big ole NOPE
I thought there was one, maybe they had to disable that command when Justice came in?
only the "Port To" commands can change your instance, go to Group Leader or Guildie or Friend.

SickleCider

Donny_Vito wrote: »

Versispellis wrote: »

Donny_Vito wrote: »

Yes, this is definitely implemented on other games on Xbox. The only issue I can see is that ZoS would have to be fetching data from a different server each time a person wants to load in. Granted, I'm not sure what data they cache from your account when you log into the game, but it seems to me they'd have to query the Xbox/PS4 servers to get the contents of the block list and then execute logic from there. Seeing as they want to limit the amount of available instances to keep performance as optimal as possible (I know this is laughable with the current state of the game), I don't think they'd want to create new instances just for one person because he has people blocked from every other instance.

"Sorry, you can't log in. You have blocked all of Tamriel."

Yeah, I guess I can see how that'd be an issue. I think the only way they could get around that is implementing something in-house and putting a cap on how many people can be on your list. Does that sound more feasible?

Yeah, I think that's how it would have to be implemented. But then again, as others have said, it would have to only apply to Group Finder activities. Because I'm thinking about Cyrodiil....what happens if you have someone blocked? Can they not enter that campaign? Do you get kicked out of the campaign so they can join? Both of those are not good solutions, and I honestly don't think there is one when you only have one instance for each campaign.

Ah, yes, Cyrodiil.

I guess there's a possible discussion that could be had about that. I definitely wouldn't want to see anyone get kicked or prevented from doing activities because they're on my block list. I wouldn't necessarily mind getting chucked from an instance so they could join, but I don't think most people would have that attitude.

It's frustrating. I don't want to escalate things by reporting a person just because I really don't like them, and I won't do that. That'd be really scummy. I really wish there were some reliable means for players to avoid each other.

SickleCider

Pheefs wrote: »

I did a little research and it looks like that's a big ole NOPE
I thought there was one, maybe they had to disable that command when Justice came in?
only the "Port To" commands can change your instance, go to Group Leader or Guildie or Friend.

Ah, that's really unfortunate.

FierceSam

Sounds like something ZOS really should get their heads around.. otherwise they become complicit in some very nasty behaviour.

I mean if I’ve gone so far as to report something (eg abusive behaviour) to ZOS I expect them to act on it. The fact that they think that merely having me block that person is even a vaguely acceptable way of dealing with this is bad enough, but when they can’t even get that right.... that’s offensive.

ZOS have a moral responsibility to deal with this as a matter of urgency.

tmbrinks

FierceSam wrote: »

Sounds like something ZOS really should get their heads around.. otherwise they become complicit in some very nasty behaviour.

I mean if I’ve gone so far as to report something (eg abusive behaviour) to ZOS I expect them to act on it. The fact that they think that merely having me block that person is even a vaguely acceptable way of dealing with this is bad enough, but when they can’t even get that right.... that’s offensive.

ZOS have a moral responsibility to deal with this as a matter of urgency.

So... to make a real life example...

You get a restraining order against somebody because they've been abusive. They will be banned from your residence, your workplace, and cannot approach you.

However, you want to extend the punishment so that they can't go to any restaurant, any store that you MIGHT be at, on the off chance that you and them are in the same place at the same time. You want to effectively ban them from the city and all other cities you might go to.

Yes, I completely agree that there should be some protections against abusive behavior, but you are effectively saying that they should be banned from the game because they MIGHT run into you.

Trust me, ZoS looks into abusive behavior, they have chat logs. I know people who've been abusive who've gotten banned.

I'd also venture that 90% of the cases of "abuse" that are reported are somebody whispering somebody saying they didn't do well in a dungeon/delve/PvP and are venting, and that's the end of it. Could they have probably been nicer, yes. Was it probably rude, yes. Is it abusive, no.

SickleCider

@tmbrinks I really don't think that's analogous, or at all what people are asking for. The situation is really more like that person steps into a Starbucks you happen to be in, and as a consequence you can't leave and go to another Starbucks, you just have to not have Starbucks if you want to avoid this person, because every Starbucks is the same Starbucks.

My whole thing is that I don't want to escalate things with a report if I don't have to. I think a lot of conflicts of personality can be just avoided rather than confronted.

tmbrinks

Versispellis wrote: »

@tmbrinks I really don't think that's analogous, or at all what people are asking for. The situation is really more like that person steps into a Starbucks you happen to be in, and as a consequence you can't leave and go to another Starbucks, you just have to not have Starbucks if you want to avoid this person, because every Starbucks is the same Starbucks.

My whole thing is that I don't want to escalate things with a report if I don't have to. I think a lot of conflicts of personality can be just avoided rather than confronted.

But that is what has been asked for.

A person is being abusive. You want the "block" feature to restrict contact of any type, intentional or non-intentional. What I stated is the real-life analogy (since a restraining order is the real-life equivalent to a "block" feature)

The intentional is them being in a place they KNOW you would be at (your home, your work, your kids' school)

The non-intentional are places you MIGHT be going. Store, coffee shop, etc... I'm pretty sure restraining orders don't restrict you from going to these types of places (I don't have one... lol)

redspecter23

If a person is actually being abusive, then the answer you're looking for is an in game ban. This removes them from the instance for everyone. If the behavior isn't bad enough for a ban, I'd say it's also not bad enough to banish them from certain instances that other players are in.

Don't get me wrong, if they implemented this feature, I would go on a banning spree of every pet sorc I could possibly find just to get them out of my field of view permanently. It would be glorious for me personally, but I also understand that it's a personal issue for me that I don't like pet sorcs and they have every right to be there currently.

spartaxoxo

tmbrinks wrote: »

Versispellis wrote: »

@tmbrinks I really don't think that's analogous, or at all what people are asking for. The situation is really more like that person steps into a Starbucks you happen to be in, and as a consequence you can't leave and go to another Starbucks, you just have to not have Starbucks if you want to avoid this person, because every Starbucks is the same Starbucks.

My whole thing is that I don't want to escalate things with a report if I don't have to. I think a lot of conflicts of personality can be just avoided rather than confronted.

But that is what has been asked for.

A person is being abusive. You want the "block" feature to restrict contact of any type, intentional or non-intentional. What I stated is the real-life analogy (since a restraining order is the real-life equivalent to a "block" feature)

The intentional is them being in a place they KNOW you would be at (your home, your work, your kids' school)

The non-intentional are places you MIGHT be going. Store, coffee shop, etc... I'm pretty sure restraining orders don't restrict you from going to these types of places (I don't have one... lol)

Real life restraining orders do work that way. They can't be within a certain distance from you. If you show up to someplace they happened to be at, they have to do their best to stay 100 feet from you and generally speaking you just leave those that's not always feasible.

spartaxoxo

OP they don't restrict by instance because they only have so many of them and a person could find themselves unable to play the game. If you see that person, I recommend simply leaving the area and coming back later.

SickleCider

OP they don't restrict by instance because they only have so many of them and a person could find themselves unable to play the game. If you see that person, I recommend simply leaving the area and coming back later.

Thank you. Yeah, I get that now. More often than not, when I get invited to a group, it tells me that that person is in a different version of whatever-place-I-happen to be in and asks if I want to port. It gave me an erroneously generous estimate of how many instances there are.

tmbrinks

spartaxoxo wrote: »

tmbrinks wrote: »

Versispellis wrote: »

@tmbrinks I really don't think that's analogous, or at all what people are asking for. The situation is really more like that person steps into a Starbucks you happen to be in, and as a consequence you can't leave and go to another Starbucks, you just have to not have Starbucks if you want to avoid this person, because every Starbucks is the same Starbucks.

My whole thing is that I don't want to escalate things with a report if I don't have to. I think a lot of conflicts of personality can be just avoided rather than confronted.

But that is what has been asked for.

A person is being abusive. You want the "block" feature to restrict contact of any type, intentional or non-intentional. What I stated is the real-life analogy (since a restraining order is the real-life equivalent to a "block" feature)

The intentional is them being in a place they KNOW you would be at (your home, your work, your kids' school)

The non-intentional are places you MIGHT be going. Store, coffee shop, etc... I'm pretty sure restraining orders don't restrict you from going to these types of places (I don't have one... lol)

Real life restraining orders do work that way. They can't be within a certain distance from you. If you show up to someplace they happened to be at, they have to do their best to stay 100 feet from you and generally speaking you just leave those that's not always feasible.

Yes, but they don't restrict them from actually going to those places, they just restrict you from interacting with the person the restraining order is against (and they have to try and avoid you)... just like the block list restricts the person from being able to interact/message you.

FierceSam

tmbrinks wrote: »

FierceSam wrote: »

Sounds like something ZOS really should get their heads around.. otherwise they become complicit in some very nasty behaviour.

I mean if I’ve gone so far as to report something (eg abusive behaviour) to ZOS I expect them to act on it. The fact that they think that merely having me block that person is even a vaguely acceptable way of dealing with this is bad enough, but when they can’t even get that right.... that’s offensive.

ZOS have a moral responsibility to deal with this as a matter of urgency.

So... to make a real life example...

You get a restraining order against somebody because they've been abusive. They will be banned from your residence, your workplace, and cannot approach you.

However, you want to extend the punishment so that they can't go to any restaurant, any store that you MIGHT be at, on the off chance that you and them are in the same place at the same time. You want to effectively ban them from the city and all other cities you might go to.

Yes, I completely agree that there should be some protections against abusive behavior, but you are effectively saying that they should be banned from the game because they MIGHT run into you.

Trust me, ZoS looks into abusive behavior, they have chat logs. I know people who've been abusive who've gotten banned.

I'd also venture that 90% of the cases of "abuse" that are reported are somebody whispering somebody saying they didn't do well in a dungeon/delve/PvP and are venting, and that's the end of it. Could they have probably been nicer, yes. Was it probably rude, yes. Is it abusive, no.

It’s abusive if the person on the receiving end feels it’s abusive. That’s how it works. It’s about them, not you.

ZOS like many online companies need to do a lot more to deal with this kind of thing.

SpacemanSpiff1

if you 'ignored' them, they already cannot contact you and you don't see what they post in chat. outside of stalking you at your ingame house, there's little reason to block them more than that.

Stebarnz

Someone creams you in BG you block them so as not to get creamed by a better player! grow up!

SickleCider

Stebarnz wrote: »

Someone creams you in BG you block them so as not to get creamed by a better player! grow up!

Nice bait. I never PVP.

Rinthetharmo

Yes agree, and we need a much bigger ignore list as well, why am i forced to deal with mudholes i dont like unless i remove another mudhole from the list.. Makes no sense and its downright wrong that w are forced to accept bullies, rude players, loud kids or wahtever other reason u put ppl on ur ignore list for. We dont all have the same amount of tolerance for stupid behaviours and we ought to be able to palce them on ignore list so we cant ever get a w from them again. There are bully laws in palce in mmo's i know this, and it gets bypassed by this failure. I dont want to remove one old jerk, to make room for another, i want them all to be there as long as i deem fit. The game is full of rude ppl and we should be able to block them! Other games are able to make it work so ignored players wont be grouped with u in dungeons just fine, its really lacking and disapointing to hear that it doesnt do this in this game. You meet someone who was calling ur mother names , making u cry or whatever reason, and u instantly lost the will to do taht dungeon and the fun goes away. As always the mudholes win just like in the real world. Sad sad..

redspecter23

Versispellis wrote: »

Stebarnz wrote: »

Someone creams you in BG you block them so as not to get creamed by a better player! grow up!

Nice bait. I never PVP.

It may be bait, but it would be a consequence of what you're asking for. Some players would use it this way. They would simply start ignoring players for all sorts of reasons. That removes them from the potential pool of BG opponents. As I mentioned above, I'd use the system to basically ban all pets from my instances. Others would find very creative ways to abuse the system for their own personal gain.

As with any system, outliers and potential abuses need to be considered even if you're coming from a very sincere situation to begin with. Take the proposal and twist it as far as possible to see if it's not broken and your proposal is currently very broken. It would need to be refined to prevent abuses worse than the ones you're looking to avoid by implementing it.

idk

It is not practical for a block list to be used to keep players in separate instances. It could easily require multiple instances for a zone that needs only one. It just makes no sense.

The first priority a block/ignore list should do is keep them from directly communicating with you. You should be able to see what they see in zone chat as well as them seeing what you post there.

A secondary feature of an ignore list should prevent them from being grouped with you via the GF but I do not think Zos has enabled that in game.

redspecter23 wrote: »

It would be near impossible to cross reference all ignore lists of all players and separate them into instances that all adhere to those individual block lists.

It could theoretically be done for group finder situations though still increasing the load on an already broken system, but for overland, understand how difficult it would be to implement.

This explains the issues with having the ignore list work as OP seems to think it should.

As for the ignore list working with GF, iirc SWTOR has it that way. Anyone on your ignore list cannot be grouped with you via the games random group feature. I could be wrong, been a long time.