Poll about exit-to-menu delay time

[GluttonyFang]

You explanation does the same, and doesn't move me. I can draw my own conclusions.

Mine doesn't ignore practicality, it explores it, what you're claiming has a baseless conclusion.

You can't ask FD to make the players embrace something. You can only ask the players to do so, and that hasn't worked out.

I'm asking if FD wanted all legitimate mechanics to work together, if players can reject whatever portion they dislike in an OWPvP game that involves other players that try to do the same, I would like that to be clarified since that creates chaos and rampant combat logging, and render any multiplayer aspect of the game's functionality completely explicitly consensual every step of the way.

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

Then why complain about players leaving the game if it's not about forcing people to be victims (to players who preferentially seek out other players as targets)?

Because they entered a mode where legitimate professions come together and log on people regardless due to their confined ideal of exclusivity.

Players do not directly impact on other players' games when trading to anything like the same degree as player pirates do....

And the question I'm asking is does piracy/bounty hunting need explicit targeted player consent or not, it's not a difficult question to answer and I already made a thread asking exactly that.

 

[Mohrgan]

And the question I'm asking is does piracy/bounty hunting need explicit targeted player consent or not, it's not a difficult question to answer and I already made a thread asking exactly that.

I don't think it does. I think logging into open is tacit approval for those activities. With the proviso that the player can change their mind at any time. That is why we have the 15sec timer. The timer makes you wait as long as it would take you to High Wake out. Once making the choice to be in open, is not an agreement to accept what ever happens there after. That is evidenced by the multitude of option placed in the hands of each player.

Your assertion is that if FD feels that players in open have to accept unwanted player attention, they should allow no legitimate way to exit the game. That has been addressed recently by Sandro here on this forum. He said (paraphrasing because I don;t hunt for quotations): That there is a difference between Combat Logging and Exiting the game through the menu. That exiting through the menu is a legitimate act. He also said that that doesn't mean the players have to like it.

I think you have your answer right there.

 

[GluttonyFang]

I don't think it does. I think logging into open is tacit approval for those activities.

Tacit consent, more likely.

With the proviso that the player can change their mind at any time. That is why we have the 15sec timer. The timer makes you wait as long as it would take you to High Wake out. Once making the choice to be in open, is not an agreement to accept what ever happens there after. That is evidenced by the multitude of option placed in the hands of each player. .

I don't mind even if FD tells me that everything multiplayer demands explicit player consent every step of the way, I just want to know so I can stop wasting my time in this game trying to be a pirate because it's impossible if that is the case.

Your assertion is that if FD feels that players in open have to accept unwanted player attention, they should allow no legitimate way to exit the game. That has been addressed recently by Sandro here on this forum. He said (paraphrasing because I don;t hunt for quotations): That there is a difference between Combat Logging and Exiting the game through the menu. That exiting through the menu is a legitimate act. He also said that that doesn't mean the players have to like it.

He never clarified whether it can be used to explicitly nullify multiplayer aspect of the professions that have them.

 

[SGTHACK]

All of this is a mute point. They are rebooting the computer now. Any time Frontier puts on it, won't matter.

 

[GluttonyFang]

All of this is a mute point. They are rebooting the computer now. Any time Frontier puts on it, won't matter.

Combat logging and menu exiting are different and can be detected and distinguished.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Because they entered a mode where legitimate professions come together and log on people regardless due to their confined ideal of exclusivity.

And the question I'm asking is does piracy/bounty hunting need explicit targeted player consent or not, it's not a difficult question to answer and I already made a thread asking exactly that.

That some players choose to enter the only unlimited population game mode - in the absence of an Open-PvE mode - is unsurprising. That they do not share the same enjoyment of PvP is also unsurprising. That there is no obvious distinction between "piracy done properly" and ganking from the perspective of the target (at the point of interdiction) is key. If a player has ever been ganked then they are less likely to play along with the pirate in the piracy role play that we have at the moment.

Regarding the differing wants of players, Sandro made an interesting statement in a previous post regarding griefing that would seem to be generally applicable:

The way it's currently standing, players will be able to enter and leave private groups of some sort reasonably easily, so they will be able to control the level of perceived griefing they want to suffer.

I know this is a very contentious issue, which I have been wrestling with since I first came on to the project. The way I see it at the moment is pretty straightforward:

• We have players that want a range of different experiences
• All of those experiences are valid
• Some of those experiences are mutually exclusive

So my answer is to say that we will support all of them but not to the point where one player is happy at the expense of another. And a clean way to do this is by using a grouping system.

Given that attempted piracy (with the lack of piracy declaration, etc.) is indistinguishable from ganking (and, of course, griefing) at the point of interdiction - why should players play along in the hope that they won't just be destroyed anyway?

 

[excalibus]

My personal take on it is exiting through the menu is not combat logging, it is the correct way to exit the game and should be without fear of reprisals either from FDev or from other players, if I was to log out through the menu for whatever reason during combat, needless to say the reason I had to exit was important enough to warrant exiting the game, and if I was to then be put on some kill on sight list as a result I would consider that equal to griefing...

Why? Because IMHO it would be tantamount to online bullying and harrassment if suddenly I had a series of interdictions from combat squads as a result of being put on some out of game list for in game legitimate play... If I found out about such a list and saw my commander name there, I would ask to be removed from the list and if that did not happen and if I found out the list owners commander name, a report against that commander would be filed with frontier for the reasons listed above...If I could not find out the list owners commander name I would file a grievance with the hosting service requesting the list be removed in its entirety until my commanders name is removed from it...

As for PVP consent, you consent to any type of player interaction when clicking on open, and this includes players exiting the game legitimately through the menu option at any time during player interactions or otherwise... When playing in private groups, the groups rules should be respected and followed / obeyed otherwise why are you playing in that particular group but it still does not remove the possibility of someone logging out via the menu option at any time...

For the purpose of the poll I voted to leave it as it is... 15 Seconds...

If it was increased then remove the 'exit' click requirement and it should not need to be any more than 30 seconds anyway... One more minor point to remember is that Elite Dangerous is primarily designed to be a PVE type of game as recently confirmed by David Braben, where PVP is entirely possible but it is not the main focus of the actual game mechanics, and that is the case with the mechanics, you make very little credits killing other commanders unless they have a sizeable bounty and no doubt many of the PVP crowd do PVE stuff to make the credits needed to fund the PVP stuff they enjoy the most.

 

[GluttonyFang]

That some players choose to enter the only unlimited population game mode - in the absence of an Open-PvE mode - is unsurprising. That they do not share the same enjoyment of PvP is also unsurprising. That there is no obvious distinction between "piracy done properly" and ganking from the perspective of the target (at the point of interdiction) is key. If a player has ever been ganked then they are less likely to play along with the pirate in the piracy role play that we have at the moment.

That is no excuse to disrespect all players that interdict them. It's like saying because 75% of the people combat log on me, I should abandon my approach to piracy and become unreasonable and shoot up everything.

Regarding the differing wants of players, Sandro made an interesting statement in a previous post regarding griefing that would seem to be generally applicable:

The quote you provided gives more support of what I'm claiming, that Open is where all legitimate professions come together, group and solo are for exclusivity. Playing exclusivity in Open doesn't seem to match up with that quote.

Edit:

Think about it, all legitimate profession and game play are equal. So players cannot reject any of these legitimate profession based on personal preference in a mode where people want to play with one another without exclusion (open). Those that want to tailor their experience by blocking out some of these professions are the ones who should be using private and solo modes, not using an out of game mechanic to break legitimate in-game professions.

 

[Robert Maynard]

That is no excuse to disrespect all players that interdict them. It's like saying because 75% of the people combat log on me, I should abandon my approach to piracy and become unreasonable and shoot up everything.

The quote you provided gives more support of what I'm claiming, that Open is where all legitimate professions come together, group and solo are for exclusivity. Playing exclusivity in Open doesn't seem to match up with that quote.

As Sandro said - players don't all want the same things.... In a game where every player is told to "play the game how you want to" why should any player expect that the way that they want to play in some way over-rides the wants of other players?

You would not be the first to choose the path of "I'm not getting what I want so I'm going to boil players"....

It also explains that Frontier are not in favour of forcing players to play with others - as also shown by the simple fact of the existence of three game modes and mode mobility.

 

[GluttonyFang]

As Sandro said - players don't all want the same things.... In a game where every player is told to "play the game how you want to" why should any player expect that the way that they want to play in some way over-rides the wants of other players?

Read my edit from above.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Think about it, all legitimate profession and game play are equal. So players cannot reject any of these legitimate profession based on personal preference in a mode where people want to play with one another without exclusion (open). Those that want to tailor their experience by blocking out some of these professions are the ones who should be using private and solo modes, not using an out of game mechanic to break legitimate in-game professions.

That's not the way that Frontier have implemented the game - players can indeed reject play-styles that they find to be incompatible with their own.

To suggest that non-PvP players should go to Solo / Private Groups is not a new suggestion - and it completely ignores the fact that the only unlimited population game mode is Open. Saying that players who eschew PvP should also have to eschew a large player population to play among would seem to be rather selfish.

 

[GluttonyFang]

That's not the way that Frontier have implemented the game - players can indeed reject play-styles that they find to be incompatible with their own.

By using the mode system that isn't Open.

To suggest that non-PvP players should go to Solo / Private Groups is not a new suggestion - and it completely ignores the fact that the only unlimited population game mode is Open. Saying that players who eschew PvP should also have to eschew a large player population to play among would seem to be rather selfish.

But ED is an OWPvP game, not saying PvE players don't have a place, but I think it's strong-arming to say that PvE players get to quit on PvP players in Open mode in a OWPvP game because they want to whenever they want to when there's no such thing as a flag nor friendly-fire disabling mechanic.

 

[Robert Maynard]

By using the mode system that isn't Open.

But ED is an OWPvP game, not saying PvE players don't have a place, but I think it's strong-arming to say that PvE players get to quit on PvP players in Open mode in a OWPvP game because they want to whenever they want to when there's no such thing as a flag nor friendly-fire disabling mechanic.

Indeed - and to change game mechanics to force players to stick around to be targets for players in Open is unlikely to increase the proportion of players who play in Open.

.... and PvP players choosing to attempt to impose their gameplay on other players is not "strong-arming"?

Interesting - so Open is a PvP mode in your opinion? That rather cements it. Hopefully Frontier will implement an Open-PvE mode - the sooner the better....

 

[GluttonyFang]

Indeed - and to change game mechanics to force players to stick around to be targets for players in Open is unlikely to increase the proportion of players who play in Open.

.... and PvP players choosing to attempt to impose their gameplay on other players is not "strong-arming"?

Players that want pure PvE game play shouldn't be using Open because the mechanic simply doesn't support it, players can propose for it to be implemented, which I also did despite not being a PvE player. But right now to demand that in a OWPvP game is being unreasonable and conceited.

The manual makes it clear:

"Start: Selecting this option first takes you to a menu allowing you to choose how social youwant this session to be.You can choose to start the game in Open Play, where you have the chance to encounter allother Commanders playing the same way.You can choose to start the game in a Private Group. To start in a private group you mustpreviously have created one or been invited to one (managed in the Friends and Private GroupsMenu).You can choose to start the game Solo. You will never encounter other human Commanders,but the game simulation will still take into account all other players"

There is no discrimination of PvE and PvP here, PvE players are the ones discriminating against players that interact with other players in a manner they refuse to accept as legitimate, whereas PvP players see all to be the same, in a OWPvP game in Open mode.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Players that want pure PvE game play shouldn't be using Open because the mechanic simply doesn't support it, players can propose for it to be implemented, which I also did despite not being a PvE player. But right now to demand that in a OWPvP game is being unreasonable and conceited.

Your support for an Open-PvE mode is noted. Your proposal was not really a PvE mode though.

The conceit would seem to be at least as strong from those who seek to impose their play-style on others.

.... and "playing the same way" from the manual just refers to playing in Open - nothing to do with play-style.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Your support for an Open-PvE mode is noted. Your proposal was not really a PvE mode though.

No, because I'm trying to respect FD's vision due to their reluctance to introduce a pure PvE mode, which is witnessed by all. Thus I offered an alternative that maximizes PvE gameplay.

Which is also why I'm asking the question whether 15 second menu exit really working as intended with how much it breaks multiplayer.

The conceit would seem to be at least as strong from those who seek to impose their play-style on others.

Except the ones that discriminate against other isn't PvP players, it's PvE players, who are also imposing their standards of what constitutes as legitimate game play onto PvP players who don't necessarily exclusively interact with Cmdrs in a hostile manner, in an OWPvP game in Open mode.

 

[Robert Maynard]

No, because I'm trying to respect FD's vision due to their reluctance to introduce a pure PvE mode, which is witnessed by all. Thus I offered an alternative that maximizes PvE gameplay.

Except the ones that discriminate against other isn't PvP players, it's PvE players, who are also imposing their standards of what constitutes as legitimate game play onto PvP players who don't necessarily exclusively interact with Cmdrs in a hostile manner, in an OWPvP game in Open mode.

In the Engineers launch stream it would seem that, if a way of doing it is arrived at, an Open-PvE mode from Frontier is at least a possibility (c. 41 minutes in, from memory).

Of course some PvP players don't discriminate - some of them *need* unwilling victims - you've suggested as much yourself when you dismissed the suggestion of a "Pirates and Traders" Private Group. Of course, not all predominantly PvE players discriminate - some do choose to role-play the piracy encounter.

For some PvE players it's "once bitten, twice shy" (with respect to experience random ganking) - players who subsequently attack them are therefore not worth hanging about to see what they want.

 

[Mohrgan]

All it takes is acceptance. Accept the fact that only 25 percent of the players you contact want to play that way. You have a carefully built interpretation of what open is. but the trouble is, not everyone agrees with that interpretation. In a vacuum, what you assert has merit. Philosophically I can see your point of view. But, once you actually measure up what the reality is, it falls apart. Sure if you enter open you should be willing to accept what happens. When I play in open, I surly do, but the reality is the game allows me to change my mind when ever I want. This design didn't happen by mistake, and FD have written about the reasons behind this often.

A reasonable man would follow the breadcrumbs to the obvious conclusion that FD wants people to make up their own minds, individually, on the fly. They give us the tools, we decide how to use them. What does the available evidence tell you?

 

[GluttonyFang]

Of course some PvP players don't discriminate - some of them *need* unwilling victims - you've suggested as much yourself when you dismissed the suggestion of a "Pirates and Traders" Private Group.

No, I'm in support of one:

http://inara.cz/wing/936

But outside of that I'm pushing for Open all-inclusiveness of legitimate game play that doesn't break.

For some PvE players it's "once bitten, twice shy" (with respect to experience random ganking) - players who subsequently attack them are therefore not worth hanging about to see what they want.

And if that is to be a promoted mindset, I should be going out and shooting everyone up because people's logging on me.

Oh wait, that would make me an actual griefer...

Edit:

Of course some PvP players don't discriminate - some of them *need* unwilling victims

It's not "unwilling" victims, it's victims that don't magically vanish into thin-air with no way of countering that breaks legitimate professions.

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

All it takes is acceptance. Accept the fact that only 25 percent of the players you contact want to play that way. You have a carefully built interpretation of what open is. but the trouble is, not everyone agrees with that interpretation. In a vacuum, what you assert has merit. Philosophically I can see your point of view. But, once you actually measure up what the reality is, it falls apart. Sure if you enter open you should be willing to accept what happens. When I play in open, I surly do, but the reality is the game allows me to change my mind when ever I want. This design didn't happen by mistake, and FD have written about the reasons behind this often.

Waiting for actual clarification, implications are inexhaustible.

 

[Mohrgan]

Waiting for actual clarification, implications are inexhaustible.

Words jumbled together, waiting for an actual sentence.