Poll about exit-to-menu delay time

[GluttonyFang]

You guys are gonna get the finger wag. You could continue this in PM's.

I'm still trying to hold a proper debate, can't say for my converse partner though, considering his or her string of ad hominem and personal commentaries.

 

[AJW]

Great, then only a complete imbecile would take seriously the suggestion that everything in the game demands some sort of explicit consent from the player.

Oh look, how productive.

I have never made any such claim. It is you that has made the claim that 'consent' for piracy role-play has been given, and used it to justify your arguments for enforcing your own personal preferred standards. Since this 'consent' is fictional, your arguments fall down. Which is why you engage in this repetitive drivel. Find a legitimate evidence-based argument instead...

 

[GluttonyFang]

I have never made any such claim. It is you that has made the claim that 'consent' for piracy role-play has been given, and used it to justify your arguments for enforcing your own personal preferred standards. Since this 'consent' is fictional, your arguments fall down. Which is why you engage in this repetitive drivel. Find a legitimate evidence-based argument instead...

Ah, avoiding the argument regarding tacit consent, very productive.

I made the claim that consent to the potentiality of piracy was given when playing in Open mode, let it be player or NPC. The actualization of that potentiality is acquiescence by the game's universe and its in-game mechanics.

 

[AJW]

Ah, avoiding the argument regarding tacit consent, very productive.

I made the claim that consent to the potentiality of piracy was given when playing in Open mode, let it be player or NPC. The actualization of that potentiality is acquiescence by the game's universe and its in-game mechanics.

Long on words. Devoid of evidence. One cannot consent to something without knowing about it.

And that is my final word. If you want to continue this exercise in vacuous polysyllabic pseudo-philosophising, find some other mug...

 

[Ian Phillips]

OK guys. Enough of the persoanl arguments please.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Long on words. Devoid of evidence. One cannot consent to something without knowing about it.

Tacit consent, you still haven't given proper objection to it other than claiming that it's "stupid." Which I don't take seriously.

And that is my final word. If you want to continue this exercise in vacuous polysyllabic pseudo-philosophising, find some other mug...

And that proves the one being stubborn isn't me, I'm trying to facilitate a conversation whereas you are not taking into your opposition's argument into account seriously whatsoever as you reflected in your replies.

Therefore I await proper objections to be given that doesn't contain personal commentaries and ad hominem disguised as reasoned arguments, otherwise I rest my case.

 

[Becks]

Maybe y'all should get back on topic?
You know, the exit timer and if it should be extended.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Maybe y'all should get back on topic?
You know, the exit timer and if it should be extended.

Extended, and make the confirm exit button usable since the beginning of the count down, this way people with actual emergency can walk away immediately. Those that try to avoid unfavorable encounters and abuse the safe exit will suffer the consequence of whatever danger they got themselves into.

 

[Becks]

Extended, and make the confirm exit button usable since the beginning of the count down, this way people with actual emergency can walk away immediately. Those that try to avoid unfavorable encounters and abuse the safe exit will suffer the consequence of whatever danger they got themselves into.

That's something I would agree with. If it has the desired effect, stopping combatlogging by denying a fast menulog, is another question.

 

[AJW]

Maybe y'all should get back on topic?
You know, the exit timer and if it should be extended.

Perhaps we should ask FD whether they can make this an option to be set by whoever initiates the group? The poll so far seems to suggest that there isn't much momentum for a general change, but if individuals want to set different rules amongst themselves, why not?

 

[GluttonyFang]

That's something I would agree with. If it has the desired effect, stopping combatlogging by denying a fast menulog, is another question.

We currently have much more solid ground to punish combat logging with the improved crime and punishment system than pre-2.1/1.6

 

[Becks]

We currently have much more solid ground to punish combat logging with the improved crime and punishment system than pre-2.1/1.6

Could you expand that?
I don't think I get how a system catered to ingame crimes can punish a fourth wall breaking 'crime'.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Could you expand that?
I don't think I get how a system catered to ingame crimes can punish a fourth wall breaking 'crime'.

In the past, combat logging was more controversial because of the uncontrolled existence of "griefers." I won't argue over the legitimacy of ganking game play since that's pointless. But regardless, the blame was largely on crime and punishment for being inadequate for protecting non-combative/vulnerable players.

With the recent change to system authority response, there is less of a ground to blame the lack of crime and punishment. FD has more ground to punish combat logging more severely, in comparison to the past. Players that consistently combat log when in danger can already be flagged, now it's just a matter of furthering the punishment against loggers and compensation to those combat logged on.

Edit:

Meh, sleepy, gonna go hug my carebear to sleep.

 

[Becks]

In the past, combat logging was more controversial because of the uncontrolled existence of "griefers." I won't argue over the legitimacy of ganking game play since that's pointless. But regardless, the blame was largely on crime and punishment for being inadequate for protecting non-combative/vulnerable players.

With the recent change to system authority response, there is less of a ground to blame the lack of crime and punishment. FD has more ground to punish combat logging more severely, in comparison to the past. Players that consistently combat log when in danger can already be flagged, now it's just a matter of furthering the punishment against loggers and compensation to those combat logged on.

Ah right. Haven't thought of that. Interesting to see how stuff has influence on apparently unrelated stuff.

 

[hookandsling]

Anyone stating I cannot - sometimes I have to dash off and do x, y, z, well I have two words - Time management.

Here's two more: Small. Children.

Otherwise with you on logging. Needs a fix of some sort.

 

[Spook 00]

Personally, I think you should only be able to exit to menu when docked, landed on a planet or if you have your thrusters powered off and your throttle at 0.

There is something to be said for cold powering off your ship when leaving the game. I would love to see it enforced, even to the point of powering off the master battery and thus UI with the game remembering that you are cold powered off when you next fire the game up, perhaps even rewarding players that do it somehow....

This is the best Idea, If you were to leave the game without powering down thrusters, turning stuff off, Explorers starting the auxiliary power supply you could be subjected to excessive heat and maybe damage to your modules and hull. Depending on how much damage you have already would make it the commanders decision on how the game was departed from.

The more I think bout this the better it gets. The longer a commander stays in a fight the more combat damage his ship will have, therefore the longer he waits to pull the plug the more likely his ship will blow due to improper shutdown. A commander who has full shields and hull who has a real life problem would just sustain damage that can be repaired on next login.

I think this needs a new thread for discussion.

 

[babelfisch]

In the past, combat logging was more controversial because of the uncontrolled existence of "griefers." I won't argue over the legitimacy of ganking game play since that's pointless. But regardless, the blame was largely on crime and punishment for being inadequate for protecting non-combative/vulnerable players.

With the recent change to system authority response, there is less of a ground to blame the lack of crime and punishment. FD has more ground to punish combat logging more severely, in comparison to the past. Players that consistently combat log when in danger can already be flagged, now it's just a matter of furthering the punishment against loggers and compensation to those combat logged on.

Edit:

Meh, sleepy, gonna go hug my carebear to sleep.

I don't think that this is going to happen. You are right that the morality of combat logging took a big hit due to better authority response. But it's pure speculation that this leads to proper punishment by FDEV. They could've punished combat loggers before since they already said it's considered an exploit and the best argument against 'griefers' is still Solo mode, not better authority response. And we still have the problem that we don't know if someone pulled the plug or if someone has connectivity issues. People will argue that it's a strange coincidence when someones connection always drops when he is in combat, but what happened to the benefit of the doubt? Allegedly FDEV has means to distinguish deliberate and unintentional combat logging, I just don't believe it until someone explains how this should work.
Even if we see punishment against combat loggers at some point I don't think that they are going to punish the trader that pulls the plug once or twice a week (I am very sure that you'll need to do this repeatedly before FDEV takes action against you), they will punish those that initiate combat and leave the game as soon as it gets dangerous. Due to the nature of the game and the size of the galaxy it's unlikely that a trader combat loggs repeatedly in a short span of time.
That's why I don't believe that a longer timer will improve piracy, if anything it will lead to more combat logging and I doubt that FDEV is able to change anything about that.

So what can YOU do about combat logging? Simple: Create a private group. Invite all the people that want to play with you. Kick everyone who leaves the game during combat, regardless of pulling the plug, logging to menu or connectivity issues. Promote it on the forums. Call everyone that doesn't join your group a coward. If you are clever you'll find a way to reward people that play with you. This is the only solution I can think off - everything else will not work.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So what can YOU do about combat logging? Simple: Create a private group. Invite all the people that want to play with you. Kick everyone who leaves the game during combat, regardless of pulling the plug, logging to menu or connectivity issues. Promote it on the forums. Call everyone that doesn't join your group a coward. If you are clever you'll find a way to reward people that play with you. This is the only solution I can think off - everything else will not work.

I have to admit, at first I thought this was a silly idea, but thinking about it it makes a lot of sense. It's not unlike the solution presented for Open PvE play.

Curious whether there will be menu logging mode infiltrations.

 

[Stigbob]

I voted zero, it's just a game and real life demands can't always wait.

People using the menu to escape combat will just pull the plug or kill the process anyway.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I have to admit, at first I thought this was a silly idea, but thinking about it it makes a lot of sense. It's not unlike the solution presented for Open PvE play.

Just as PvP is a possibility in Open, so is the possibility that a player (for whatever reason) will choose to leave the game at an inconvenient time for the other player.