I was recently told about the escrow system, and i did not know of this at all. That system alone reduces the issues by a lot, as if a person is blocked, that person cannot converse with you, so in the end, this will do wonders alone.
Is this your way of saying that I was right when I said there were other ways of dealing with the issues you were trying to deal with, and that an account wide blacklist is indeed not the right system for Ashes?
Not that the escrow system will prevent the types of harassment that you were talking about - although neither would a blacklist.
No, and at this point bud, it´s getting a bit much. As i said..i had never heard about that system before, and no one mentioned it to me either, including you. This system will help with some, since you cannot trade with me if you are blocked.
In terms of player-to-player trade, no.
But in most games, you can't trade with players that you have ignored anyway.
The escrow system has no impact at all on selling via the marketplace, and if you go back to the examples you gave of things you want to prevent
* Harassed and forced to hang around their abusers
* Targeted and forced to sell to rivals for low sums, unless they will keep getting ganked
* Threatened and or blackmailed into submission and free workforce for the abusers
Neither the blacklist you propose nor the escrow system will stop any of this.
The only thing the escrow system will really stop that wouldn't already be stopped is scams where a crafter asks the player to supply materials and then doesn't return the desired item.
If the situations you listed earlier are indeed what you want to see prevented, the escrow system will not assist with them - which is why I never bought it up.
Basically, the escrow system will appear much like a crafting UI window, the main difference being that two players have access to it. A player (likely the crafter) selects the desired outcome, the purchaser of the service/item selects the amount of coin to go to the crafter, and both players add components and materials to the window from their own inventory until all components and materials are accounted for (or the purchaser adds components and materials, and what is not supplied is assumed to come from the crafter).
There will likely also be provision here for stat allocation.
Then the crafter creates the item using the materials added to the UI element, on completion the item goes directly to the purchaser, and the coin goes directly to the crafter.
None of this is any use to a player that is being forced against their will to hang around with harassers - which is one of the situations you thought a blacklist would solve.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
What are the chances that the toxic player will find you in a city and want to buy what you're selling from you when they might be able to get it from other sellers that they haven't been annoying? I understand not wanting to sell to them but it's likely not going to be as much of an issue you think it might be.
I think it would be just as likely as people tracking down your Freehold.
However much of an issue it might be to find a player character's trade stall, still seems like that should have the same kind of Permissions as on your Freehold.
However much of an issue it might be to find a player character's trade stall, still seems like that should have the same kind of Permissions as on your Freehold.
Why?
A shop and a persons house a very different things. While not true everywhere, in most of the world it is illegal to refuse to sell an item to any person willing to pay the advertised price for an item offered up for general sale.
A shop and a persons house a very different things. While not true everywhere, in most of the world it is illegal to refuse to sell an item to any person willing to pay the advertised price for an item offered up for general sale.
I was going to bring this up too, but I did not think it was super relevant. Turning down service is something you can do, but it is often difficult to implement face to face.
You can't really block people face to face in the real world, the best you can get is a restraining order, but if people want to "Flag Red" they can physically get to you and ruin your day if they want.
I feel like Ashes may have plenty of people willing to throw down over shop refusal. "Okay, you want to block my guild from buying your wears? Welcome to the KOS list." All of your caravans now get sieged (Cutting down your supply), and you have to constantly watch your back twice as hard. Even around your shop. You can't go out to farm or craft more because you just die.
I could see things escalating to the point that you end up with a drastic loss in profit/time and in the end you drop the block and maybe even have to offer a discount for your life to go back to normal.
In open world situations like IRL and Ashes I don't see blocking people as a power move that makes problems go away. I see it as a move that only makes you weaker by creating a potential enemy. In blocking someone you make it far less likely that they will ever be helpful to you in the future. With good diplomacy, you could potentially turn a problem player into a trusted client. Ain't no diplomacy being done when a block is in effect.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited June 2021
"Right to Refuse Service Signs give restaurants, stores, schools, clubs, and other service providers an authority to refuse their services to patrons, unless they are doing it on the basis of race, color, religion, or natural origin, which is against law."
Cart before the horse. The reason to refuse service to a guild is because they KOS your caravans.
"Right to Refuse Service Signs give restaurants, stores, schools, clubs, and other service providers an authority to refuse their services to patrons, unless they are doing it on the basis of race, color, religion, or natural origin, which is against law."
Apple before the cart. The reason to refuse service to a guild is because they KOS your caravans.
While this is the case in about the same number of places in the world as those that don't use the metric system, in most of the world you are given a list of valid reasons you can refuse service, rather than reasons you can not refuse service.
Intoxication is one such reason, as is specific restrictions placed on the items you are selling.
I also would strongly suggest you don't rely too heavily on what is essentially a signwriting company (where you got the above quote from) for legal advice. Not that it seems you are doing that right now - just more of a general piece of free advice.
Cart before the horse. The reason to refuse service to a guild is because they KOS your caravans.
Yes, and the reason you are on KOS is that you refused service in this hypothetical situation.
Leaving a channel for diplomacy open is always going to be a stronger option than blocking people.
Like, I said blocking people is not a feature in the real world. You can take steps to reduce the channels people can go through to interact with you, but you can't prevent interaction.
Ashes is going to be much more dangerous than the real world because the punishment for murder is much less harsh. Even if you got your block feature for sales, you might find that it is not worth using for these reasons.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited June 2021
LMFAO!!
I been KOS for stuff I've said in the forums way before now.
The only reason to block people in the first place is because they've caused you grief and diplomacy already failed.
I'm not going to regret blocking people I block.
I feel like Ashes may have plenty of people willing to throw down over shop refusal. "Okay, you want to block my guild from buying your wears? Welcome to the KOS list." All of your caravans now get sieged (Cutting down your supply), and you have to constantly watch your back twice as hard. Even around your shop. You can't go out to farm or craft more because you just die.
You seem awfully picky to get into fights. I can understand that you are eager for PVP, but really...this is getting somewhat.... let´s say dodgy.
If i refuse you service, that is my right. For that, you threaten with killing me on sight, and destroying any of my caravans, and you will kill anyone farming for my store. And you will continue until i drop the block, and give a discount??
Then we know where you stand bud. Noted and remembered.
Just a personal suggestion. Perhaps dial down the level a bit, since you are starting to paint a decently less than good picture of yourself and your motives. You can for sure be a fully PVP oriented guild, and siege all day long. I salute you for it if you want that...but the debate is fully over when you draw this poorly chosen threat card. Threatening a player with ganking and harassments, because I choose to refuse customers MY service.
Cart before the horse. The reason to refuse service to a guild is because they KOS your caravans.
Yes, and the reason you are on KOS is that you refused service in this hypothetical situation.
Leaving a channel for diplomacy open is always going to be a stronger option than blocking people.
Like, I said blocking people is not a feature in the real world. You can take steps to reduce the channels people can go through to interact with you, but you can't prevent interaction.
Ashes is going to be much more dangerous than the real world because the punishment for murder is much less harsh. Even if you got your block feature for sales, you might find that it is not worth using for these reasons.
You can block interaction in real life though. A shop owner can bar someone from their store for bad behavior, why wouldn’t that option exist in player stalls?
For any Auction Houses, it’s a 3rd party seller so ofc the personalized buyer-bans wouldn’t apply, but freehold stalls and personal marketplace shops should have the option to blacklist a limited number of players.
I feel like Ashes may have plenty of people willing to throw down over shop refusal. "Okay, you want to block my guild from buying your wears? Welcome to the KOS list." All of your caravans now get sieged (Cutting down your supply), and you have to constantly watch your back twice as hard. Even around your shop. You can't go out to farm or craft more because you just die.
You seem awfully picky to get into fights. I can understand that you are eager for PVP, but really...this is getting somewhat.... let´s say dodgy.
If i refuse you service, that is my right. For that, you threaten with killing me on sight, and destroying any of my caravans, and you will kill anyone farming for my store. And you will continue until i drop the block, and give a discount??
Then we know where you stand bud. Noted and remembered.
Just a personal suggestion. Perhaps dial down the level a bit, since you are starting to paint a decently less than good picture of yourself and your motives. You can for sure be a fully PVP oriented guild, and siege all day long. I salute you for it if you want that...but the debate is fully over when you draw this poorly chosen threat card. Threatening a player with ganking and harassments, because I choose to refuse customers MY service.
I´l just assume it was a poorly worded example.
Where do you get this idea that I am looking for a fight? I have played a number of competitive open world games in my past. That experience comes with a unique prospective about how people will behave in game worlds where things have value and there and next to no safe zones.
You want your block list so much that you can't see the downsides. When people like Noanni and me point out reasons for why your ideas are bad or why no rational actor would use your suggested feature. You act like we are looking for a future fight in the game, or are acting in bad faith. That is not what is happening. We are just pointing out flaws in your ideas.
People pointing out flaws in your ideas in not an attack on you, it is an attack on your ideas. If you bring ideas to the forums, expect some critique.
You can block interaction in real life though. A shop owner can bar someone from their store for bad behavior, why wouldn’t that option exist in player stalls?
For any Auction Houses, it’s a 3rd party seller so ofc the personalized buyer-bans wouldn’t apply, but freehold stalls and personal marketplace shops should have the option to blacklist a limited number of players.
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but there is no magical force in reality that prevents someone from returning to an establishment when barred. If someone really wants to gain access to a place, they can, and they can do a lot of damage in the process.
Like I said, the penalty for breaking the law in such an extreme manner is very high in real life, yet these things still happen. In online worlds where the penalty is much much lower people will cause misery over the slightest thing. I have seen blood wars go on for weeks because someone found out a day later they had been charged slightly over market value for simple mats.
Steven even said it yesterday in the live stream. The corruption system is there to make it, so the game is not a complete gank box. In moments of passion if you want to go red you can.
LMFAO!!
I been KOS for stuff I've said in the forums way before now.
The only reason to block people in the first place is because they've caused you grief and diplomacy already failed.
I'm not going to regret blocking people I block.
I'll leave it to you to decide when to unblock someone and open the channel for diplomacy when getting killed all day is no longer fun.
Sometimes a simple conversation is all that is needed to make your worst enemy your strongest ally.
As I said earlier in this thread, there are very few countries that have this right - the right for a business to refuse to sell to an individual for any reason other than a select few.
In most of the world, legal rights generally err towards the disadvantaged party, which is generally the purchaser, not the seller. As such, most of the world give buyers the legal right to buy off who ever they wish, and if they are willing to pay the asked for price, unless there is a very specific reason why the seller can not sell to that person (restricted items being the most common), the seller is compelled to sell to the buyer.
It is a very odd situation in which rights are afforded to the party with more power (sellers of items are generally large companies, buyers of items are generally individuals).
As I said earlier in this thread, there are very few countries that have this right - the right for a business to refuse to sell to an individual for any reason other than a select few.
In most of the world, legal rights generally err towards the disadvantaged party, which is generally the purchaser, not the seller. As such, most of the world give buyers the legal right to buy off who ever they wish, and if they are willing to pay the asked for price, unless there is a very specific reason why the seller can not sell to that person (restricted items being the most common), the seller is compelled to sell to the buyer.
It is a very odd situation in which rights are afforded to the party with more power (sellers of items are generally large companies, buyers of items are generally individuals).
I don´t think AoC will be created with any RL trade and seller systems, but this is a game element, and if someone approaches another and has an offer, or want to do some trade, the other part can say, no. I would say it´s not much more advanced than that. Reason....well who knows, but still, it´s up to one and each.
This is also an RP element, as a guild could be a supporter to an enemy faction or what not..and thus any sales is off the table.
I don´t think AoC will be created with any RL trade and seller systems, but this is a game element, and if someone approaches another and has an offer, or want to do some trade, the other part can say, no. I would say it´s not much more advanced than that. Reason....well who knows, but still, it´s up to one and each.
Indeed.
In most of the world (where the rights generally fall to the buyer not the seller), if you are walking down the street and I say I want to buy your shoes, you are under no obligation to sell them to me.
If you set up a stall and say you are selling those same shoes for a set amount of money, if I offer you that amount of money, you are compelled to sell them to me.
This is also an RP element, as a guild could be a supporter to an enemy faction or what not..and thus any sales is off the table.
I don't see how this could ever be a factor, considering marketplaces are specific to the node (mostly).
If you support a rival "faction", that would mean you are from a rival node. Sell your wares in your own node and this will mean that you can prevent those rivals buying your wares simply due to preventing them from getting to your node.
As to RP, adding RP elements to the game is fine - but not to the point that they impact on the rest of the playerbase.
I would be surprised if they needed to actually prevent players from using services in a node they are at war with.
Node wars are likely to last a number of hours, and only during prime time.
Going in to a node that you are at war with - meaning citizens of that node will have reason to kill you, and you are likely KoS to their guards - is not likely to be a high priority.
@Vhaeyne We are done bud, and you have stated your opinion...quite clear.
What exactly is my opinion?
I am curious if you listen to anything anyone says on here, or if you just ignore criticism.
I have listened to you, i have read it, but in many ways i disagree. You have all rights in the world to express your opinion, but i have no obligations to agree. When arguing for a time, people enter a stale area, and it becomes non constructive. You are set in your opinion, as am i in mine.
I would say, let us agree to disagree, and let it be.
Vhaeyne We are done bud, and you have stated your opinion...quite clear.
What exactly is my opinion?
I am curious if you listen to anything anyone says on here, or if you just ignore criticism.
I have listened to you, i have read it, but in many ways i disagree. You have all rights in the world to express your opinion, but i have no obligations to agree. When arguing for a time, people enter a stale area, and it becomes non constructive. You are set in your opinion, as am i in mine.
I would say, let us agree to disagree, and let it be.
This isn't answering the direct question that was asked of you in the post you quoted.
It actually just points out that you do not, in fact, read what others are saying - which was the point behind the direct question that was asked of you.
Vhaeyne We are done bud, and you have stated your opinion...quite clear.
What exactly is my opinion?
I am curious if you listen to anything anyone says on here, or if you just ignore criticism.
I have listened to you, i have read it, but in many ways i disagree. You have all rights in the world to express your opinion, but i have no obligations to agree. When arguing for a time, people enter a stale area, and it becomes non constructive. You are set in your opinion, as am i in mine.
I would say, let us agree to disagree, and let it be.
This isn't answering the direct question that was asked of you in the post you quoted.
It actually just points out that you do not, in fact, read what others are saying - which was the point behind the direct question that was asked of you.
What about i do not agree is missed here? A discussion can be done with even if people do not yield.
And that is exactly whats going on here. I cannot convince you of anything, as you cannot convince me. I have stated several times, let´s just agree to disagree, and that´s where i stand.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Noanni can't do that. Which is why they are on my ignore list.
i have read it, but in many ways i disagree. You have all rights in the world to express your opinion, but i have no obligations to agree. When arguing for a time, people enter a stale area, and it becomes non constructive. You are set in your opinion, as am i in mine.
I would say, let us agree to disagree, and let it be.
Keep in mind, the only hard opinion I gave was that I worry about how the feature could be abused. Noanni gave a solid example of how your feature can ruin espionage.
I actually recommended that you guys ask for a whitelist in addition to or instead of a black list. Based on hearing how some of you would plan to use your proposed feature.
Beyond that, all I have done is explored the possible realities of using your proposed feature. You have taken the time to disagree with everything I put forth in this thread, which is something I welcome. I prefer all ideas are attacked from all prospective. Without doing this, we are all just mindlessly agreeing that things are good without seeing the full picture.
What is sad is that the conversation has not entered a stale area yet. There are plenty of benefits and flaws to explore in your idea, but you only seem to think exploring the benefits is progress.
What is worst is that I am far from set in my opinion on this particular topic. When I am proposing additional features that work in tandem with your feature, that is not being "Set in my opinion.". Player stall block lists just screams of a feature with possible exploits. If we don't explore the downsides, we will end up with another family summoning system. A feature that probably sounded great when Intrepid was thinking it up, but has only been contested by the community.
I invite you to read my replies as the constructive criticism they are intended to be. If we were face to face at a bar discussing this, we would be light years ahead on this topic. I am sure of that.
Comments
In terms of player-to-player trade, no.
But in most games, you can't trade with players that you have ignored anyway.
The escrow system has no impact at all on selling via the marketplace, and if you go back to the examples you gave of things you want to prevent Neither the blacklist you propose nor the escrow system will stop any of this.
The only thing the escrow system will really stop that wouldn't already be stopped is scams where a crafter asks the player to supply materials and then doesn't return the desired item.
If the situations you listed earlier are indeed what you want to see prevented, the escrow system will not assist with them - which is why I never bought it up.
Basically, the escrow system will appear much like a crafting UI window, the main difference being that two players have access to it. A player (likely the crafter) selects the desired outcome, the purchaser of the service/item selects the amount of coin to go to the crafter, and both players add components and materials to the window from their own inventory until all components and materials are accounted for (or the purchaser adds components and materials, and what is not supplied is assumed to come from the crafter).
There will likely also be provision here for stat allocation.
Then the crafter creates the item using the materials added to the UI element, on completion the item goes directly to the purchaser, and the coin goes directly to the crafter.
None of this is any use to a player that is being forced against their will to hang around with harassers - which is one of the situations you thought a blacklist would solve.
However much of an issue it might be to find a player character's trade stall, still seems like that should have the same kind of Permissions as on your Freehold.
A shop and a persons house a very different things. While not true everywhere, in most of the world it is illegal to refuse to sell an item to any person willing to pay the advertised price for an item offered up for general sale.
Fantastic. Very kind of you.
I was going to bring this up too, but I did not think it was super relevant. Turning down service is something you can do, but it is often difficult to implement face to face.
You can't really block people face to face in the real world, the best you can get is a restraining order, but if people want to "Flag Red" they can physically get to you and ruin your day if they want.
I feel like Ashes may have plenty of people willing to throw down over shop refusal. "Okay, you want to block my guild from buying your wears? Welcome to the KOS list." All of your caravans now get sieged (Cutting down your supply), and you have to constantly watch your back twice as hard. Even around your shop. You can't go out to farm or craft more because you just die.
I could see things escalating to the point that you end up with a drastic loss in profit/time and in the end you drop the block and maybe even have to offer a discount for your life to go back to normal.
In open world situations like IRL and Ashes I don't see blocking people as a power move that makes problems go away. I see it as a move that only makes you weaker by creating a potential enemy. In blocking someone you make it far less likely that they will ever be helpful to you in the future. With good diplomacy, you could potentially turn a problem player into a trusted client. Ain't no diplomacy being done when a block is in effect.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
Cart before the horse. The reason to refuse service to a guild is because they KOS your caravans.
While this is the case in about the same number of places in the world as those that don't use the metric system, in most of the world you are given a list of valid reasons you can refuse service, rather than reasons you can not refuse service.
Intoxication is one such reason, as is specific restrictions placed on the items you are selling.
I also would strongly suggest you don't rely too heavily on what is essentially a signwriting company (where you got the above quote from) for legal advice. Not that it seems you are doing that right now - just more of a general piece of free advice.
Yes, and the reason you are on KOS is that you refused service in this hypothetical situation.
Leaving a channel for diplomacy open is always going to be a stronger option than blocking people.
Like, I said blocking people is not a feature in the real world. You can take steps to reduce the channels people can go through to interact with you, but you can't prevent interaction.
Ashes is going to be much more dangerous than the real world because the punishment for murder is much less harsh. Even if you got your block feature for sales, you might find that it is not worth using for these reasons.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
I been KOS for stuff I've said in the forums way before now.
The only reason to block people in the first place is because they've caused you grief and diplomacy already failed.
I'm not going to regret blocking people I block.
You seem awfully picky to get into fights. I can understand that you are eager for PVP, but really...this is getting somewhat.... let´s say dodgy.
If i refuse you service, that is my right. For that, you threaten with killing me on sight, and destroying any of my caravans, and you will kill anyone farming for my store. And you will continue until i drop the block, and give a discount??
Then we know where you stand bud. Noted and remembered.
Just a personal suggestion. Perhaps dial down the level a bit, since you are starting to paint a decently less than good picture of yourself and your motives. You can for sure be a fully PVP oriented guild, and siege all day long. I salute you for it if you want that...but the debate is fully over when you draw this poorly chosen threat card. Threatening a player with ganking and harassments, because I choose to refuse customers MY service.
I´l just assume it was a poorly worded example.
You can block interaction in real life though. A shop owner can bar someone from their store for bad behavior, why wouldn’t that option exist in player stalls?
For any Auction Houses, it’s a 3rd party seller so ofc the personalized buyer-bans wouldn’t apply, but freehold stalls and personal marketplace shops should have the option to blacklist a limited number of players.
Where do you get this idea that I am looking for a fight? I have played a number of competitive open world games in my past. That experience comes with a unique prospective about how people will behave in game worlds where things have value and there and next to no safe zones.
You want your block list so much that you can't see the downsides. When people like Noanni and me point out reasons for why your ideas are bad or why no rational actor would use your suggested feature. You act like we are looking for a future fight in the game, or are acting in bad faith. That is not what is happening. We are just pointing out flaws in your ideas.
People pointing out flaws in your ideas in not an attack on you, it is an attack on your ideas. If you bring ideas to the forums, expect some critique.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but there is no magical force in reality that prevents someone from returning to an establishment when barred. If someone really wants to gain access to a place, they can, and they can do a lot of damage in the process.
Like I said, the penalty for breaking the law in such an extreme manner is very high in real life, yet these things still happen. In online worlds where the penalty is much much lower people will cause misery over the slightest thing. I have seen blood wars go on for weeks because someone found out a day later they had been charged slightly over market value for simple mats.
Steven even said it yesterday in the live stream. The corruption system is there to make it, so the game is not a complete gank box. In moments of passion if you want to go red you can.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
I'll leave it to you to decide when to unblock someone and open the channel for diplomacy when getting killed all day is no longer fun.
Sometimes a simple conversation is all that is needed to make your worst enemy your strongest ally.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
As I said earlier in this thread, there are very few countries that have this right - the right for a business to refuse to sell to an individual for any reason other than a select few.
In most of the world, legal rights generally err towards the disadvantaged party, which is generally the purchaser, not the seller. As such, most of the world give buyers the legal right to buy off who ever they wish, and if they are willing to pay the asked for price, unless there is a very specific reason why the seller can not sell to that person (restricted items being the most common), the seller is compelled to sell to the buyer.
It is a very odd situation in which rights are afforded to the party with more power (sellers of items are generally large companies, buyers of items are generally individuals).
I don´t think AoC will be created with any RL trade and seller systems, but this is a game element, and if someone approaches another and has an offer, or want to do some trade, the other part can say, no. I would say it´s not much more advanced than that. Reason....well who knows, but still, it´s up to one and each.
This is also an RP element, as a guild could be a supporter to an enemy faction or what not..and thus any sales is off the table.
In most of the world (where the rights generally fall to the buyer not the seller), if you are walking down the street and I say I want to buy your shoes, you are under no obligation to sell them to me.
If you set up a stall and say you are selling those same shoes for a set amount of money, if I offer you that amount of money, you are compelled to sell them to me. I don't see how this could ever be a factor, considering marketplaces are specific to the node (mostly).
If you support a rival "faction", that would mean you are from a rival node. Sell your wares in your own node and this will mean that you can prevent those rivals buying your wares simply due to preventing them from getting to your node.
As to RP, adding RP elements to the game is fine - but not to the point that they impact on the rest of the playerbase.
Sounds very likely. I assume that would be, either done by default, or perhaps that is something for each of the leaders to decide.
Node wars are likely to last a number of hours, and only during prime time.
Going in to a node that you are at war with - meaning citizens of that node will have reason to kill you, and you are likely KoS to their guards - is not likely to be a high priority.
What exactly is my opinion?
I am curious if you listen to anything anyone says on here, or if you just ignore criticism.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
I have listened to you, i have read it, but in many ways i disagree. You have all rights in the world to express your opinion, but i have no obligations to agree. When arguing for a time, people enter a stale area, and it becomes non constructive. You are set in your opinion, as am i in mine.
I would say, let us agree to disagree, and let it be.
This isn't answering the direct question that was asked of you in the post you quoted.
It actually just points out that you do not, in fact, read what others are saying - which was the point behind the direct question that was asked of you.
What about i do not agree is missed here? A discussion can be done with even if people do not yield.
And that is exactly whats going on here. I cannot convince you of anything, as you cannot convince me. I have stated several times, let´s just agree to disagree, and that´s where i stand.
I would prefer to not have to even use my list, but it´s up to one and each, but if they persist, last resort at least.
I guess I will take your word for it.
Keep in mind, the only hard opinion I gave was that I worry about how the feature could be abused. Noanni gave a solid example of how your feature can ruin espionage.
I actually recommended that you guys ask for a whitelist in addition to or instead of a black list. Based on hearing how some of you would plan to use your proposed feature.
Beyond that, all I have done is explored the possible realities of using your proposed feature. You have taken the time to disagree with everything I put forth in this thread, which is something I welcome. I prefer all ideas are attacked from all prospective. Without doing this, we are all just mindlessly agreeing that things are good without seeing the full picture.
What is sad is that the conversation has not entered a stale area yet. There are plenty of benefits and flaws to explore in your idea, but you only seem to think exploring the benefits is progress.
What is worst is that I am far from set in my opinion on this particular topic. When I am proposing additional features that work in tandem with your feature, that is not being "Set in my opinion.". Player stall block lists just screams of a feature with possible exploits. If we don't explore the downsides, we will end up with another family summoning system. A feature that probably sounded great when Intrepid was thinking it up, but has only been contested by the community.
I invite you to read my replies as the constructive criticism they are intended to be. If we were face to face at a bar discussing this, we would be light years ahead on this topic. I am sure of that.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.