Poll about exit-to-menu delay time

[AJW]

If people can purely play "however they like," multiplayer functions and mechanics are simply broken, because no one naturally "wants" to be interdicted when trading, and no one naturally "wants" to be hunted when they have a bounty. Especially when people play in Open, the mentality of extreme individualism is detrimental to the game, not productive.



There are plenty of limitation and stipulation as to how the game should be played, just because players are enacting certain parts of the mechanics don't make it automatically illegitimate.

https://www.elitedangerous.com/en/gameplay/combat

I can think of few things more detrimental to a game than trying to force people to play against their will. And there is nothing special about open, except that you can play alongside others without joining a group. That is all it does. Nothing else is required.

As for the advertisement, it isn't a contract, for multiple obvious reasons. Making it irrelevant to any claims of 'limitation and stipulation'. It tells the player what they can do, not what they must. Can do, assuming that anyone else wants to play their way.

If you want to set 'limitations and stipulations' beyond the contract with FD, do it in a group. And stop pretending that 'open' mode is subject to imaginary rules...

 

[Mohrgan]

I can think of few things more detrimental to a game than trying to force people to play against their will. And there is nothing special about open, except that you can play alongside others without joining a group. That is all it does. Nothing else is required.

As for the advertisement, it isn't a contract, for multiple obvious reasons. Making it irrelevant to any claims of 'limitation and stipulation'. It tells the player what they can do, not what they must. Can do, assuming that anyone else wants to play their way.

If you want to set 'limitations and stipulations' beyond the contract with FD, do it in a group. And stop pretending that 'open' mode is subject to imaginary rules...

Harsh? Possibly. True? A certainty.

 

[GluttonyFang]

I can think of few things more detrimental to a game than trying to force people to play against their will. And there is nothing special about open, except that you can play alongside others without joining a group. That is all it does. Nothing else is required.

How about basic respect for other legitimate players and not use an option meant for bug fixing to escape unwanted legitimate game play? I can do a trade run a lot faster if I log every time someone interdicts me, can I do it? Yes, but at the same time I'm disrespecting those that choose to play in the same mode that decided to partake in player piracy, a legitimate profession.

Edit:

Detrimental to the multiplayer unscripted aspect of the game.

As for the advertisement, it isn't a contract, for multiple obvious reasons. Making it irrelevant to any claims of 'limitation and stipulation'. It tells the player what they can do, not what they must. Can do, assuming that anyone else wants to play their way.

Not meant to be a contract, it's meant to show that those are legitimate game play, meaning they deserve just as much respect as the ones people diversely decide to engage in. Logging out of it is disrespectful.

If you want to set 'limitations and stipulations' beyond the contract with FD, do it in a group. And stop pretending that 'open' mode is subject to imaginary rules...

Having basic courtesy for other legitimate game play it's not limitation and stipulation, it's called being a respectful human to others who partake in the same activity of playing the game and playing legitimate features of the game they wish to without encountering player induced broken mechanics and abuse of FD's good will to let people handle minor bug encounters on their own.

Edit:

To put simply, if people want to play an online game like a solo game/game with only friends, well, news flash Open mode is not that, and creating excuses to make it so only show how inconsiderate people are toward legitimate game play they refuse to acknowledge and conveniently claiming that they get to disrespect other players.

 

[Spiridon]

Having basic courtesy for other legitimate game play it's not limitation and stipulation, it's called being a respectful human to others who partake in the same activity of playing the game.

Then how come your sole enjoyment here is to pester other people?

 

[AJW]

How about basic respect for other legitimate players and not use an option meant for bug fixing to escape unwanted legitimate game play? I can do a trade run a lot faster if I log every time someone interdicts me, can I do it? Yes, but at the same time I'm disrespecting those that choose to play in the same mode that decided to partake in player piracy, a legitimate profession.



Not meant to be a contract, it's meant to show that those are legitimate game play, meaning they deserve just as much respect as the ones people diversely decide to engage in. Logging out of it is disrespectful.



Having basic courtesy for other legitimate game play it's not limitation and stipulation, it's called being a respectful human to others who partake in the same activity of playing the game and playing legitimate features of the game they wish to without encountering player induced broken mechanics and abuse of FD's good will to let people handle minor bug encounters on their own.

Edit:

To put simply, if people want to play an online game like a solo game/game with only friends, well, news flash Open mode is not that, and creating excuses to make it so only show how inconsiderate people are toward legitimate game play they refuse to acknowledge and conveniently claiming that they get to disrespect other players.

There is nothing remotely respectful about demanding that people comply with your personal definition of how the game should be played just because they have clicked on a button marked 'open'.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Then how come your sole enjoyment here is to pester other people?

It's not pestering, it's interacting and becoming a part of the triangle between trader pirate and bounty hunter.

 

[Spiridon]

It's not pestering, it's interacting and becoming a part of the triangle between trader pirate and bounty hunter.

Have you ever considered that you got it wrong? That other humans don't see it like you do? As in, your victims?

 

[Mohrgan]

It's not pestering, it's interacting and becoming a part of the triangle between trader pirate and bounty hunter.

The triangle was never whole. Completely made of vapor. Like one of those optical illusions where you see a shape, then the camera angle shifts, and you see it's only a bunch of fragments hanging from wires.

 

[GluttonyFang]

There is nothing remotely respectful about demanding that people comply with your personal definition of how the game should be played just because they have clicked on a button marked 'open'.

It's to embrace all legitimate gameplay, how is excluding certain gameplay due to your personal desire respectful whatsoever? Inclusiveness hello?

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Have you ever considered that you got it wrong? That other humans don't see it like you do? As in, your victims?

Then don't pick Open mode where all legitimate game play mixes.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

The triangle was never whole. Completely made of vapor. Like one of those optical illusions where you see a shape, then the camera angle shifts, and you see it's only a bunch of fragments hanging from wires.

And to keep it broken is okay because...?

 

[AJW]

It's to embrace all legitimate gameplay, how is excluding certain gameplay due to your personal desire respectful whatsoever? Inclusiveness hello?

I'm not remotely advocating 'excluding certain gameplay'. If people want to play that way, they can. With other people who want to play the same way. That's how games work...

 

[GluttonyFang]

I'm not remotely advocating 'excluding certain gameplay'. If people want to play that way, they can. With other people who want to play the same way. That's how games work...

Are you possibly suggesting that we need a private mode to be inclusive of all legitimate game play?

That is incomprehensible to me when we have an Open mode.

 

[Joe Akeem]

All out of crisps. For what it's worth, Fang and his beagle boys entourage makes open a little more tickler.

It is called OPEN. FDEV have numerous times encouraged piracy. 'blaze your own trail'. In the real world you never know your hitchhikers true intent. Sounds pretty much like a realistic sim to me.

And that's coming from a 'victim' of piracy.

*EDIT* Sorry, derailed the subject. Can't win em all etc

 

[Mohrgan]

It's to embrace all legitimate gameplay, how is excluding certain gameplay due to your personal desire respectful whatsoever? Inclusiveness hello?

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



Then don't pick Open mode where all legitimate game play mixes.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



And to keep it broken is okay because...?

A noble thought, but completely out of the Developers hands at this point. It was not missed, even during development, that something like what we see now would come to pass. Not even Anophelese (spelling?) can charm the unwilling into your sights. It's no surprise at all that, given the chance, players would choose Solo, when not following the combat path.

Asserting some bond, some pact between players, that compels them to serve as extras in your production is chasing 'fool's gold'.

 

[GluttonyFang]

A noble thought, but completely out of the Developers hands at this point. It was not missed, even during development, that something like what we see now would come to pass. Not even Anophelese (spelling?) can charm the unwilling into your sights. It's no surprise at all that, given the chance, players would choose Solo, when not following the combat path.

Asserting some bond, some pact between players, that compels them to serve as extras in your production is chasing 'fool's gold'.

Unlike Anopheles, I have no intention of "bringing players into Open," I want an Open mode that is truly tolerant of all legitimate game play. Those that choose to play in the mode won't feel disenfranchised, and get to be more definitively selective about how they play in private and solo mode.

 

[Mohrgan]

Unlike Anopheles, I have no intention of "bringing players into Open," I want an Open mode that is truly tolerant of all legitimate game play. Those that choose to play in the mode won't feel disenfranchised, and get to be more definitively selective about how they play in private and solo mode.

You can have that. But, my guess it will be 'dog eat dog' with very few squirrels to chase. There is no argument that can make people happy to work against their own interests. As always you can only expect to play with others that share your views. There is simply no way around that.

 

[GluttonyFang]

You can have that. But, my guess it will be 'dog eat dog' with very few squirrels to chase. There is no argument that can make people happy to work against their own interests. As always you can only expect to play with others that share your views. There is simply no way around that.

Right now that view can't be maintained with piracy and bounty hunting being broken, and the first step to solve that is crime and punishment and legal 15 second log out.

Police response time definitely increased and is a lot more deadly, so while it improves even more with SJA's AI, it's time to look at legal 15 second log out.

 

[AJW]

Are you possibly suggesting that we need a private mode to be inclusive of all legitimate game play?

That is incomprehensible to me when we have an Open mode.

We have a mode that allows players to play alongside others without joining a group. That is all it does. Nobody playing on it is obliged to comply with anyone else's definition of 'legitimacy'. Not least because there is nothing whatsoever that even informs a prospective player as to what other people think is 'legitimate'. You read the EULA (or not, but that is your own choice...) You buy the game. You click 'open'. No discussion on 'legitimacy' involved. No agreement. Zilch. Nada.

Stop pretending that 'open' has rules. It doesn't, beyond the contractual agreement between purchaser and supplier which apply to the game in general. And the contract doesn't say that you have to play pirate pew-pew with GluttonyFang. If you don't want to, you can log off...

 

[Mohrgan]

Right now that view can't be maintained with piracy and bounty hunting being broken, and the first step to solve that is crime and punishment and legal 15 second log out.

Police response time definitely increased and is a lot more deadly, so while it improves even more with SJA's AI, it's time to look at legal 15 second log out.

None of that will change the dynamic. It would just alter it's shape some. Players would still make the choices that limits their losses. Knowing they can't just log off, would only compel players to not choose open, and still not be available to you. Changing this stuff isn't going to make combat loggers stop.

 

[GluttonyFang]

We have a mode that allows players to play alongside others without joining a group. That is all it does. Nobody playing on it is obliged to comply with anyone else's definition of 'legitimacy'.

It's FD's definition of legitimacy, and defined profession.

Not least because there is nothing whatsoever that even informs a prospective player as to what other people think is 'legitimate'. You read the EULA (or not, but that is your own choice...) You buy the game. You click 'open'. No discussion on 'legitimacy' involved. No agreement. Zilch. Nada.

Except FD made it clear that trading, exploring, smuggling, bounty hunting, piracy, mining are all legitimate profession and game play.

Stop pretending that 'open' has rules. It doesn't, beyond the contractual agreement between purchaser and supplier which apply to the game in general. And the contract doesn't say that you have to play pirate pew-pew with GluttonyFang. If you don't want to, you can log off...

It's not rules, it's a general atmosphere of reciprocity and acquiescence of game play encounter legitimized by FD themselves.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

None of that will change the dynamic. It would just alter it's shape some. Players would still make the choices that limits their losses. Knowing they can't just log off, would only compel players to not choose open, and still not be available to you. Changing this stuff isn't going to make combat loggers stop.

The source of combat logging was a lack of crime and punishment, that is in the process of being addressed, which along the line, combat logging and safe logging will also be addressed.

 

[Mohrgan]

It's not rules, it's a general atmosphere of reciprocity and acquiescence of game play encounter legitimized by FD themselves.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



The source of combat logging was a lack of crime and punishment, that is in the process of being addressed, whch along the line, combat logging and safe logging will also be addressed.

That is your wish, but it is not the reality. There is no esprit de corps that finds the traders of the galaxy happy to take a loss. There is no gentleman's agreement that has pirates take their licks when cornered by a bounty hunter. No careful explanation of what FD deems to be legitimate game play will convince anyone to be the victim. Not in large numbers anyway.

C&P doesn't drive people to combat log. The threat of destruction does. Even with a good response from the authorities won't keep people from ensuring their own profit margin. No plea to sportsmanship has any chance of changing the dynamic that has been created.