Poll about exit-to-menu delay time

[GluttonyFang]

This was 20 pages ago

It's a long slow hard road.

It's a logical counter argument.

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

It may break non-co-op aspects of a subset of some professions - aspects where the wants of one player oppose those of another player. Given that we have all been told to "play the game how you want to" it necessarily follows that there will be incompatible desires among players.

And as you have quoted, incompatible desires of the players are to utilize group/solo mode. Discretion of exclusivity is to be used in group and solo, not in Open.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And as you have quoted, incompatible desires of the players are to utilize group/solo mode.

Once encountered, yes - until such times as the player desires to move back to Open.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Once encountered, yes - until such times as the player desires to move back to Open.

That is a contrived argument of convenience. Think about the mechanics in place, if every pirate says "Oh, I don't like the idea of player bounty hunter coming after me in Open mode, let me log out every time they try to hunt and interdict me."

That's the root of broken multiplayer mechanics, people playing exclusivity against one another in Open.

 

[Mohrgan]

One thing is for sure. This is not an easy thing to solve. The diverse crowd we have playing this game, are here because of the diverse conditions allowed by the design of the game. Many players can find what they are looking for. Restricting and punishing are not goals and developer aspires to, that's why they do it in silence. FD has, I believe, tried gently and with a bit of levity tell us the current conditions are good with them. Sandro has commented directly and recently.

Player on Player piracy is at the discretion of the individuals involved. This is simply the only way it can be. Many of the games mechanics just offer easy ways to not be involved, from the Modes to the exit timer. This is no mistake. This is done so that every player can feel in control of their gaming experience. Even if that means some players have to accept that you can only interact with those that want to interact, and in a way they agree to interact. There is no fairer way. You can't take away from one persons gaming freedom, to feed another's. Everyone has to come to grips with that. Sometimes your hopes and vision are just not matched by reality.

 

[Robert Maynard]

That is a contrived argument of convenience. Think about the mechanics in place, if every pirate says "Oh, I don't like the idea of player bounty hunter coming after me in Open mode, let me log out every time they try to hunt and interdict me."

That's the root of broken multiplayer mechanics, people playing exclusivity against one another in Open.

I expect some players with bounties do exactly that - and there's nothing to stop them playing in either of the two modes, denying players the chance to seek them out.

Frontier, it seems to me at least, would quite like players to engage in the roles of the game voluntarily - but are not prepared to force them to - as fairly clearly demonstrated by the fact that the game has three game modes where all players can play as and when they choose, with the same commander and assets.

 

[GluttonyFang]

This is done so that every player can feel in control of their gaming experience. Even if that means some players have to accept that you can only interact with those that want to interact, and in a way they agree to interact. There is no fairer way.

Mode system I can understand, but logging when a potentiality is realized that is legitimate solely due to personal preference of exclusivity sounds very intolerant and leads to broken mechanics as we can observe.

FD needs to give us a clear sign whether multiplayer interaction needs explicitly consent of all involved parties every step of the way or not. Since if it does, it contradicts statements they support. It's not a problem that they clarify, it's a problem when they don't clarify.

You can't take away from one persons gaming freedom, to feed another's. Everyone has to come to grips with that.

That is an argument applicable to those that decide to waste other players' time by exclusive preferences in Open by logging out at whatever interaction they desire to break them even when they are legitimated by FD.

 

[Mohrgan]

And as you have quoted, incompatible desires of the players are to utilize group/solo mode. Discretion of exclusivity is to be used in group and solo, not in Open.

You simply can't make that determination. Your interpretation is not the only one available on this subject. This is your hope and wish, but it does not jive with reality. The game is designed to give the individual the choice, at all times, to play as they want to play. Without the concern of how others want to play. Clicking in open is just an agreement to be exposed to everyone else in open. Once a players decides he doesn't want that exposure, they can change their minds.

 

[GluttonyFang]

I expect some players with bounties do exactly that - and there's nothing to stop them playing in either of the two modes, denying players the chance to seek them out.

Why would that be acceptable is my question, that is by definition, broken game mechanics.

Frontier, it seems to me at least, would quite like players to engage in the roles of the game voluntarily - but are not prepared to force them to - as fairly clearly demonstrated by the fact that the game has three game modes where all players can play as and when they choose, with the same commander and assets.

Mode selection I can understand, but I just wish they'd clarify that the extent they are willing to give player discretion is to the degree of breaking multiplayer game mechanics.

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

Once a players decides he doesn't want that exposure, they can change their minds.

At the cost of another player's time? Really? What happened to player discretion again?

 

[Jypson]

I propose this thread be moved to the Dangerous Suggestions sub-forum. All of the suggestions put forward here are not within the power of the players to implement and the arguments and counter-arguments have been made half-a-dozen times already. It's up to FDev to take the feedback on-board now.

 

[GluttonyFang]

I propose this thread be moved to the Dangerous Suggestions sub-forum. All of the suggestions put forward here are not within the power of the players to implement and the arguments and counter-arguments have been made half-a-dozen times already. It's up to FDev to take the feedback on-board now.

I really wish they clarify on the matter so we can all have something to answer our question, which is essentially:

Do multiplayer features of the game professions and mechanics hostile or not require explicit consent of all involved players at all times every step of the way. If they say that is the case, then I can finally stop trying to be a player pirate since there's no such thing.

 

[Becks]

after the fact, where it's already irrelevant. this is about basic multiplayer experience, your opponent can't just vanish because poop. the game has to distinguish in real-time to keep the circus going: putting an npc in its place, with a big self destruct explosion, whatever, but somehow.

There is no way to stop a opponent from logging if he really wants to log. Elite Dangerous p2p network architecture does not allow your opponents ship to exist after the disconnect. Therefore it's relevant if you want to find and punish those loggers accordingly.

i am sensible for a situation such as yours, been there myself often enough. but you can't go ice skating either, do you? that's life. there is no need to spoil the experience to those fortunate enough. in this case there are alternatives: solo, or open with extra risk.

I can go iceskating and I can go to open, if I want. If you want to make a comparison, use a good one.

virtual life is real life too.

Haha, no. That may be the case for you, but not for me and for sure not for a whole lot of other players in this game.

there are activities that require time commitment, and multiplayer combat is one such case.
i don't. this issue doesn't worry me. i know this will not get fixed for ages, if at all, but it's still wrong, just saying.

If something more important than a game requires my time, then you have to deal with it.

 

[Mohrgan]

Mode system I can understand, but logging when a potentiality is realized that is legitimate solely due to personal preference of exclusivity sounds very intolerant and leads to broken mechanics as we can observe.

FD needs to give us a clear sign whether multiplayer interaction needs explicitly consent of all involved parties every step of the way or not. Since if it does, it contradicts statements they support. It's not a problem that they clarify, it's a problem when they don't clarify.



That is an argument applicable to those that decide to waste other players' time by exclusive preferences in Open by logging out at whatever interaction they desire to break them even when they are legitimated by FD.

Maybe it's intolerant, but that isn't covered by any agreement. On the contrary, the game offers legitimate ways to be intolerant of unwanted interaction. That apparent. I believe FD have made their position clear, to me anyway. Sandro came out pretty recently and expressed their views on the matter. The 15 sec Solution is legitimate, and that players don;t have to like it.

Yes, even if it wastes your gaming time. Gaming time which, by some, can be called a waste of time in itself. Wasting gaming time does not rise to an offense that should limit freedom. Those players being interdicted may feel the pirates are wasting their time, when all they have to do is Submit/Boost/High Wake and it all comes to nothing. My last encounter with a pirate I evaded easily, then I felt playful, and rejoined the chase for a little excitement. I believe, from the video the encounter spawned, we both had a good time. I could have just been off, and gone, but I chose to play it out. Because I decided to. For it to be fun for both parties, a big part of the game, both parties have to be willing.

 

[Jypson]

I really wish they clarify on the matter so we can all have something to answer our question, which is essentially:

Do multiplayer features of the game professions and mechanics hostile or not require explicit consent of all involved players at all times every step of the way. If they say that is the case, then I can finally stop trying to be a player pirate since there's no such thing.

Have you asked them directly like above?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Why would that be acceptable is my question, that is by definition, broken game mechanics.

Mode selection I can understand, but I just wish they'd clarify that the extent they are willing to give player discretion is to the degree of breaking multiplayer game mechanics.

It is acceptable in that Frontier do not force players to play in a particular mode - although it was proposed in the DDF that PKers with bounties could/should be locked to Open until such times as a player (specifically not an NPC) collected their bounty.

Frontier's apparent stance on freedom of choice for players means that players who rely on other players as content (players who may not appreciate the attentions of the former) will be vulnerable to no-one choosing to play with them....

 

[znôrt]

Your lack of empathy for a wider gamer base is telling and noted. My children's needs win over my in game "credits", but its an unneeded false choice. Allow log off via the timer in PVE combat, not in PVP.

that's just cynical. it's not lack of empathy. let's be realistic, this is a game, a first world luxury, not a first necessity. it's out of reach for most people in the world. what now? you do need 1000+ bucks worth of working gear to play it. where's your own empathy for all those who would love to play and can't even afford a pc?

you CAN play, you just have to accept that you have an extra external risk when entering dangerous situations.

I can imagine that'll sell wonderfully We can put the requirements on the box
ELITEANGEROUS - a game, and if you have a fancy enough PC we might let you play it with other people?

that's actually so, every game has a minimum spec requirement section. first thing to look out for.

 

[Robert Maynard]

that's just cynical. it's not lack of empathy. let's be realistic, this is a game, a first world luxury, not a first necessity. it's out of reach for most people in the world. what now? you do need 1000+ bucks worth of working gear to play it. where's your own empathy for all those who would love to play and can't even afford a pc?

An XB1 does not cost $1,000....

 

[GluttonyFang]

Maybe it's intolerant, but that isn't covered by any agreement. On the contrary, the game offers legitimate ways to be intolerant of unwanted interaction. That apparent. I believe FD have. Sandro came out pretty recently and expressed their views on the matter. The 15 sec Solution is legitimate, and that players don;t have to like it.

The game allows the use of mode selection to be exclusive, to say that players enter a mode where players are indiscriminately brought together with various different game play choices and profession choices is a place for personal discretion and exclusivity is nothing other than being disrespectful toward potential encounters and unreasonably toxic (mechanic breaking) when these potentialities are realized. Players didn't determine what game play is legitimate or not, FD did, and an out of game action they consider to be legitimate is breaking legitimate in-game profession interaction, so the question left to be asked is the one I posted above.

Yes, even if it wastes your gaming time. Gaming time which, by some, can be called a waste of time in itself.

That is a contrived argument. People play the game to enjoy it, and when the game advertises features that are broken and cause frustration due to broken game mechanics one purchased believing to be functional, that's called wasting people's time, not people trying to enjoy the game is wasting their time.

Wasting gaming time does not rise to an offense that should limit freedom.

That argument is equivalent to saying the "time of people who don't play in the way I approve is less valuable to my own (despite in a mode where all players come together), thus I don't have to care nor does it have to be adjusted as long as it benefits me more than the person being disenfranchised."

Those players being interdicted may feel the pirates are wasting their time, when all they have to do is Submit/Boost/High Wake and it all comes to nothing. My last encounter with a pirate I evaded easily, then I felt playful, and rejoined the chase for a little excitement. I believe, from the video the encounter spawned, we both had a good time. I could have just been off, and gone, but I chose to play it out. Because I decided to. For it to be fun for both parties, a big part of the game, both parties have to be willing.

That is your interpretation based on your anecdote, I'm waiting for FD to clarify so I can stop wasting time in this game on broken features and do something productive in this game that works, like mining which I enjoy.

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

Have you asked them directly like above?

Yep:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=260021

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

It is acceptable in that Frontier do not force players to play in a particular mode - although it was proposed in the DDF that PKers with bounties could/should be locked to Open until such times as a player (specifically not an NPC) collected their bounty.

Frontier's apparent stance on freedom of choice for players means that players who rely on other players as content (players who may not appreciate the attentions of the former) will be vulnerable to no-one choosing to play with them....

Would prefer FD clarifying that.

 

[Mohrgan]

An XB1 does not cost $1,000....

Neither did my PC. But, the deeper argument is that playing video games is a luxury. That luxury doesn't come at the price of being someone else's entertainment, unless you want to. In the end everyone just has to accept that only those that want to engage with you, will. That means in open, and in the other modes as well. How else can you look at it?

 

[frostypaw]

that's actually so, every game has a minimum spec requirement section. first thing to look out for.

don't you go spoiling my point with logic

fair, but i think folk know what i meant in that context. you're straying into the digital territory analogous to banning disabled people from sports with non-disabled folk.

 

[znôrt]

Haha, no. That may be the case for you, but not for me and for sure not for a whole lot of other players in this game.

you're playing with real people, in an implicit agreement to share a portion of real time in a simulated reality. if you're not up to the agreement you're wasting not only your time, but theirs.

If something more important than a game requires my time, then you have to deal with it.

of course. then go deal with it and don't worry about the game. what's the logic in your statement? that real-time multiplayer games shouldn't exist?