Hey everyone! Your friendly neighborhood Dr Doom here!

I was just thinking of a little idea, not really a suggestion, but certain I feel a fair though: It would be cool if overly aggressive players were not allowed to block comms against the aggress (ship they're attacking like crazy). I mean, lets face it, if you're beating the snot out of someone like crazy, they should be allowed to comm you!

Scenario: You're significantly higher rank, have attacked a players planet, disabled the player twice, and raided him nearly all you can with his action count; and the player has responded with 1 action (an arti); then you shouldn't be able to block that player's comm. You deserve to hear from him! haha

Just a thought. Not an actual suggestion as I dont think this could be implemented anyway.

i actually like it

It could be implemented (or close enough) thusly: if someone has taken an offensive action against you within the last X amount of time, then he or she can comm you regardless of whether they have previously blocked you.

Yeah but I think you should still be able to block in that scenario. I just mean like in situations where a player is being a real doucher, they shouldn't be able to block comms from the person they're being overly aggressive/rude/annoying etc. against.

I can see an issue with that already xD

Would you really like to have players that spout off like this -

getting past a comm block?

If you are being a complete doucher for no reason, then the comms are on you. If they break the TOS or whatever with their comms then obviously the appropriate actions should be taken.

Are you a girl? I never knew all this time

Darth did you JUST make that in response to my thread? If so, you really should take the time to read the whole post before taking the time to edit a picture of a baby..

I did read the whole post. To some people even 1 random hack is "overly" aggressive. To some people, not being bunny-locked is "underly" aggressive. At what point should the GAME decide someone is being too aggressive?

But how do you define aggressive? rainbow badges? a zeroing from 3/5/5? zeroing from 50+?

If you have so many actions to begin with, then doesn't that mean that you've been aggressive as well?

edited for fail grammar. and I see that I was ninja'd, too :/

First of all friends, I stated a scenario already. You are asking questions I've answered in the OP.
If you have many actions, it doesnt mean you were being a doucher to one person. I often have a high action count without using anything but TMs and with all actions gaining badges.
Thirdly, this was an idea. You are discussing semantics of an idea I already suggested couldn't be implements.
Again, please read the entire post before commenting.

And just to re-illustrate my point since you're clearly missing it: This is a karma thing more than an "aggression" thing. If you are being a complete doucher, i.e. behaving in an absolutely unwarranted manner, then in my opinion you deserve to have to hear from the person you're messing with. Its like a cant have your cake and eat it too sort of thing. Nobody deserves the right to be a complete wad of crap and not at least hear about what a wad of crap they're being. Honestly, anybody who disagrees is probably a wad of crap or a doucher. Its not about semantics or if 1 hack or 2 hacks is bad.

I see where the OP was going with his idea (and have read the entire thread) but, for me, the responses left on chiaro's comm graphically illustrate the problems with an approach like that.
Responses like that are completely unacceptable, regardless of "aggression" or anything else.

In my opinion, taking away a player's ability to simply block disgusting responses of this kind by attempting to code some kind of karma system would be unworkable and a step in the wrong direction.

I definitely wont dispute that that particular players words were absolutely undesirable. Not classy at all.

What legion are they in?

Man, how come I can't get love like that on my comms? I even CM people sometimes, just for fun.

You can in all likelihood get that person banned for that, or Dan might block them from comming anyone at all. He's done it before.

I have to give this idea a big -1.

I've been called every name in the book, told off and insulted so many times I cant even count. Sure, sometimes i might deserve it when I go on a stat padding run and multi hit people but most of these have come from people that just happened to show up on my bt more than once, more than twice, more than 3 times even. (If the game puts the same person on my bt over and over, then the game has made them fair game for me, dont complain cause i take advantage of it)

Just because someone "thinks" i'm a #$&*$# or "thinks" I am overly aggressive doesn't give them the right to spout off at me on my comms with no ability to block them. That's just BS.
There are too many crybaby's in this game that love to flood peoples comms with messages telling them what a-holes they are to make this a good idea.In fact Ive run into many people who are more aggressive with their crybaby insult comms than anything I did to them to make them mad in the first place.

People should have the right to block ANYONE they choose, period.
But thats just my opinion.

Your opinion is annoying because you've already ignored two points made in this thread. The situations you described you get into mostly are not the ones I'm suggesting are appropriate for this kind of idea, and if the comm is in violation of any rules then obviously they deserve to get blocked, possibly from leaving any comms at all, as mentioned already.

-1 to you.

You seem to be missing the point as well Dr. Dense...

Any game defined level of aggressiveness is going to be arbitrary. If this feature were to be set at any threshold to trigger, some people are going to be peeved that it is too low,, aawhile others will say the trigger is too high. Therefore, the only fair way to implement it would be to set it at ANY action, which is just plain stupid and ridiculous.

No my friend, you are missing the point. I made the point. And I stated in the OP this could not be implemented. Thank you, then, for agreeing with me