The Logoffski Manoevre

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

Bigcheese

B
Dr. Hans Reinhardt said:
I totally agree.

Some guys here want to do the grind in total safety and then have a docking computer dock for them, when they get to the end of their journey! Aren't people simply great?! ;)

These people should not be forced to do anything they don't want to do, in a game they pay for, just like everyone else.

They should not however, be allowed to influence the Universe that the rest of us encounter, or be left un-checked, wildly accusing anyone who does enjoy the MP experience, as being griefers, out to destroy their enjoyment. They have no business being in Open, only to passive-aggressively, negatively impact the experience for those around them, by having their Open Cake and then eating it in Solo. It is arrogant, selfish and just a little too entitled for my taste.
Click to expand...

So very true.

To me, the most worrisome part is that the developers feel compelled to design around such self centered, fear fueled desires. I don't think this will ever be a decent multiplayer game sadly. From a design standpoint, allowing people to play the game without any risk seems to be the top priority, even to the point where it overshadows gameplay (solo players effecting the open universe, extremely low level of difficulty, etc). Elite: Dangerous (lol) is a good example of how fear based design is bad.

I think that might be why the game is so bare bones. It's like they are afraid to implement anything because Johnny Norisk might get interrupted doing space trucking run #543. It sucks.
 
Last edited:

TheoC

T
And so it devolves once again to the same argument: "play the way I want or leave the game, otherwise the game sucks".

Well, my answer to that is " No".

Btw, I have yet to be successfully interdicted by a player and play open 99% of the time. I just get annoyed by pirates calling traders entitled because the latter won't sit still for the former to punch them... Like the guy a few thread iterations back who was complaining it's too easy for a type 6 to fly away...:
 

Cmdr Effie Trinket

Cmdr Effie Trinket
Stoo said:
If I play in open and logoff to protect my assets, then that's up to me.... I play my game, you play yours.
Click to expand...

By all means, do play your game. Just please, for the sake of common decency, stop coming into my game, presumably, just to demonstrate how you have the power to leave. Is there any other reason for you joining Open anyway?
Surely FD were onto something by giving players of your preference, TWO game modes to choose from, both of which seem to perfectly fit your specific gaming requirements; Solo and Group.
I mean no offence whatsoever, but Open? Why do you bother?
 
Last edited:

Briarée

Briarée
Bigcheese said:
So very true.

To me, the most worrisome part is that the developers feel compelled to design around such self centered, fear fueled desires. I don't think this will ever be a decent multiplayer game sadly. From a design standpoint, allowing people to play the game without any risk seems to be the top priority, even to the point where it overshadows gameplay (solo players effecting the open universe, extremely low level of difficulty, etc). Elite: Dangerous (lol) is a good example of how fear based design is bad.

I think that might be why the game is so bare bones. It's like they are afraid to implement anything because Johnny Norisk might get interrupted doing space trucking run #543. It sucks.
Click to expand...
yup, i had very high hopes about this game as a multiplayer, but the more i'm looking into it, the more i'm thinking it won't last long if they keep protecting the carebears that much, the player base will bleed out out of boredom
 

xyphic

X
Snakebite said:
If a disconnection event occurs during interdiction or combat then simply let the game take control of the ship and treat it like an NPC, that way the other players game is not ruined by the logoff event.
Click to expand...
Regardless of the rights or wrongs of combat logging, I suspect it would actually be a very complex thing to get right. Consider:


  • Who arbitrates the disconnect? Presumably the server -- too easy to exploit if arbitrated by a peer, or there may not be any peers available.
  • Who controls the AI? Assuming a non-empty instance, the server would have to transfer the NPCs you're controlling to other peers (it must do this already), clone your state into that of an NPC and arbitrate control to a peer, whilst still keeping track of the state of the NPC as if it's you.
  • What if you have an empty instance or if you're playing in solo? Who controls the NPCs? In most cases, an interdiction by or of an NPC would result in a new instance, so unless control could be arbitrated elsewhere, the exploit would still be open for non-PvP encounters. Would it be fair to distinguish the type of encounter?
  • What should happen if you log back in, e.g. if your connection just had a minor hiccup? Presumably you should take back control of your ship, which is extra complexity for the server and peer arbitration process.
  • What should happen if your ship manages to engage its FSD? Should the other player(s) be able to follow? i.e. when should your ship actually get logged off?


FWIW, assuming technical feasibility, I wouldn't be against your ship being converted to AI with flee behaviour in the case of a disconnect. But while that solution isn't available, the next best thing is for the devs to keep an eye on accounts that regularly disconnect without shutting down correctly. I don't know what they could do about it, but at least they'll get an idea of whether it's really a prevalent problem (and I suspect they are ​logging this sort of thing).
 

Mohrgan

Mohrgan
Briarée said:
yup, i had very high hopes about this game as a multiplayer, but the more i'm looking into it, the more i'm thinking it won't last long if they keep protecting the carebears that much, the player base will bleed out out of boredom
Click to expand...

Why should the Big Bad Wolves worry about the Carebears? Don't you wolves prefer a challenge? Anyone who would log wouldn't pose a challenge to you. Not getting to pop a ship isn;t the worst thing that will happen to you.
 

TheoC

T
Dr. Hans: Just as long as you get to go into other players' game whenever you want and get whatever it is you are after with no risk and no penalties, everything is fine, right? Why do you assume the only legitimate multiplayer interaction is you in a fighter vs some poor sod in a flying brick?
Briaree: If you are bored with the game, feel free to stop playing. After all, that is what you suggest to anyone who doesn't play the way you want them to play...
 

Amaze

Amaze
Briarée said:
yup, i had very high hopes about this game as a multiplayer, but the more i'm looking into it, the more i'm thinking it won't last long if they keep protecting the carebears that much, the player base will bleed out out of boredom
Click to expand...

I think a good private pvp group is needed, kind of like mobius but for pvp.

Anyone caught cheating should be kicked out of the group.

With p2p I really don't see an easy way around this problem other than to pick who you are playing with.
Maybe you guys should put every player who does this on block? idk
 

Chemist

Chemist
Snakebite, just in case we meet in space, you should know. I play open for the only reason - do this Lofoffski every time I'm interdicted. I just love that because it really hurts a pirate. It hurts even more than an ASP killing you while you expected it to be with no shields.
 

bassman

B
Chemist said:
Snakebite, just in case we meet in space, you should know. I play open for the only reason - do this Lofoffski every time I'm interdicted. I just love that because it really hurts a pirate. It hurts even more than an ASP killing you while you expected it to be with no shields.
Click to expand...

As I explained above you not "doing a logoffski" you are a logoffski.
 

Mohrgan

Mohrgan
Amaze said:
I think a good private pvp group is needed, kind of like mobius but for pvp.

Anyone caught cheating should be kicked out of the group.

With p2p I really don't see an easy way around this problem other than to pick who you are playing with.
Maybe you guys should put every player who does this on block? idk
Click to expand...

Bravo a reasonable answer that's not asking FD to coddle anyone. Brilliant! Then all the Wolves could test themselves out and the sheep can graze.
 

Briarée

Briarée
Mohrgan said:
Why should the Big Bad Wolves worry about the Carebears? Don't you wolves prefer a challenge? Anyone who would log wouldn't pose a challenge to you. Not getting to pop a ship isn;t the worst thing that will happen to you.
Click to expand...

the answer is simple: keep blueballing them, and they'll just leave because pirating / griefing is their way to play the game, deny this to them, the will leave, then no needs for the mercs to protect haulers, no need for the bounty hunters etc.....

it's like a food chaine, remove the basic elements, the rest collapses, and you end up wih a dead game 6 month after it releases......
 

Cmdr Effie Trinket

Cmdr Effie Trinket
Mohrgan said:
Why should the Big Bad Wolves worry about the Carebears? Don't you wolves prefer a challenge? Anyone who would log wouldn't pose a challenge to you. Not getting to pop a ship isn;t the worst thing that will happen to you.
Click to expand...
To campaign a point for better MP, is not necessarily to speak from the view of a Pirate only, or as someone who likes to shoot at other Cmdrs for giggles.

To dip into Open, and out again at the fist sign of a Hollow Blip, is paranoid. Pure and simple. Labelling all MP players as dastardly wolves etc, is utterly flawed.

Try not logging out once in a while. You just may find a few guys like me, who are happy to say Hi and offer a o7
 
Last edited:

EddyRockSteady

EddyRockSteady
Tell you what, with Patch 1.0Logoffski6, this entire thread is irrelevant. All you need to do is spawn and the servers attend to everything automatically. Trouble? Logoffski. Wanna dock? Logoffski. And so on and so on....
 

Continium

C
Bigcheese said:
So very true.

To me, the most worrisome part is that the developers feel compelled to design around such self centered, fear fueled desires. I don't think this will ever be a decent multiplayer game sadly
Click to expand...

This is exactly the point. When you get people like 'goonswarm' stating using 'game mechanics' is 'totally legitimate' and then crying when sombody 'logs off' to avoid combat (not proven yet, could be a bug as others have mentioned) they fail to realise that 'logging off' is ALSO a 'game mechanic' (not nice no, but what is good for the goose is good for the gander).

At the end of the day its FD that needs to shoulder the blame, they made the game this way, and if change is needed, there is no point in moaning at fellow players the only people who can change the game mechanics is FD themselves.
 
Last edited:
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom