Poll about exit-to-menu delay time

[GluttonyFang]

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?

In a game where exclusivity options are already provided in the selection of mode, if the only mode where all players are brought together without discrimination is susceptible to personal discretion of exclusivity, as well, especially when an encounter occurs, then its MP doesn't actually support unscripted player conflict whatsoever outside of pure consensus every step of the way.

Look at GW2, do you see people go on about how people can disengage in combat because they didn't feel like interacting in WvW?

There are many other multiplayer games that have player conflict, but near none of them require some consent every step of the way through all stages of an interaction.

 

[Jypson]

Yep:

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

I don't know if a post in Dangerous Discussions would be your best shot. I was thinking more like a direct message to Brett or Zac, or maybe a support ticket.

If I may suggest, I would word it a little differently. Something like:

Is logging out while in danger via the 15 second timer a valid and acceptable method of leaving the game?

Asking them if the multiplayer aspect of piracy and bounty hunting profession is broken may be interpreted as a loaded question.

 

[Mohrgan]

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.



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.



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."



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 - - - - -



Yep:

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

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



Would prefer FD clarifying that.

The game also allows you to exit when ever you want.

Enjoyment is in the eyes of the beholder. All of your Acquiescence argument are no less contrived. Each individual should have to choice of whom the interact with. While in open looking for the experience you seek, doesn't mean that you then have to endure that which is not fun to you, for the benefit of another.

That time argument is easily turned around on your point of view. Why should anyone spend time on an encounter they don;t want to, just satisfy another? It's just as selfish to expect someone to accept unwanted interaction as it is to deny someone the chance to force it. So it balances. Both parties can be equally selfish, and it's a wash. FD has to come down on the side of the individual. What if there were a petition to end piracy?

I say again. In the best way they can, with alienating the least amount of players, I believe FD have clarifies. Just as before, Sandro has said the 15 sec timer is legitimate. That statement was made clear, and it comes with implications that you have to accept.

 

[GluttonyFang]

I don't know if a post in Dangerous Discussions would be your best shot. I was thinking more like a direct message to Brett or Zac, or maybe a support ticket.

If I may suggest, I would word it a little differently. Something like:

Is logging out while in danger via the 15 second timer a valid and acceptable method of leaving the game?

Asking them if the multiplayer aspect of piracy and bounty hunting profession is broken may be interpreted as a loaded question.

I asked:

"So the question is, in Open mode, do player pirates and bounty hunters need the explicit consent of the targeted player (Cmdr trader/wanted Cmdr) in order to proceed with the multiplayer aspect of this profession?

That is to say is it legitimate to use the 15 second menu log out as a method of nullifying piracy or bounty hunting interaction with other players without consequence?

If it is legitimate, are the multiplayer aspect of piracy and bounty hunting profession broken, or does FD see it as working as intended?"

It's not loaded since if FD considers it to be working as intended, it's not broken, since it's their game to determine what is broken and what is not.

And I will be sending the question since the thread is not replied to.

 

[AJW]

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.

Of course they don't require explicit consent. But neither is anyone required to participate in your particular role-playing exercise. If someone doesn't like what you do, they can leave. If you can't find willing participants that is your problem, not anyone else's. Get over it.

 

[Robert Maynard]

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."

That seems to work in whichever direction one cares to apply it....

Would prefer FD clarifying that.

Ask the question in the next stream advertising thread or "Answers from the Devs" thread....

 

[Mohrgan]

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.



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?

I think you are wrong about the 'implicit agreement'. The only agreement is to play by the rules. The rules clearly state, you can exit when ever you want, with the 15 sec timer while in combat. Wasting yours or anyone's time has no bearing on the rules.

Real time MP games should exist, but never at the expense of real life. Being able to steal cargo, or pop a ship isn't a right you gain when you buy the game. It's an opportunity you can find in the game, when there are willing participants.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Enjoyment is in the eyes of the beholder. All of your Acquiescence argument are no less contrived. Each individual should have to choice of whom the interact with. While in open looking for the experience you seek, doesn't mean that you then have to endure that which is not fun to you, for the benefit of another.

Again, that argument is hypocritical, logging solely due to one's preference of exclusivity is force others to endure what is not fun to them for the benefit of the one logging in the only place where all players come together.

That time argument is easily turned around on your point of view. Why should anyone spend time on an encounter they don;t want to, just satisfy another? It's just as selfish to expect someone to accept unwanted interaction as it is to deny someone the chance to force it. So it balances. Both parties can be equally selfish, and it's a wash. FD has to come down on the side of the individual. What if there were a petition to end piracy?

And the individual non-exclusive and indiscriminate or people that want to play Open and be exclusive and discriminate of other legitimate game play? I don't think the latter is healthy for the game MP wise when there is already options of exclusivity before the entry to Open mode. If there was only Open mode, then I wouldn't blame people for being more selective.

I say again. In the best way they can, with alienating the least amount of players, I believe FD have clarifies. Just as before, Sandro has said the 15 sec timer is legitimate. That statement was made clear, and it comes with implications that you have to accept.

Implications are inexhaustible and open to fabrication, I already explained that.

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

That seems to work in whichever direction one cares to apply it....

And right now it only work one way, and that seems to be where the imbalance lies.

Ask the question in the next stream advertising thread or "Answers from the Devs" thread....

Will do, and will also be sending some emails and PMs.

 

[Becks]

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.

It's not like I'm investing no time. I have over 600 hours in Elite Dangerous so that's a pretty stupid claim.

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?

That means that I shut down the game and deal with the matter that came up. Simply because I don't like to be killed when I'm afk. Not my problem if you can't deal with that.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Of course they don't require explicit consent. But neither is anyone required to participate in your particular role-playing exercise. If someone doesn't like what you do, they can leave. If you can't find willing participants that is your problem, not anyone else's.

The question is unanswered.

Yes, player can choose to avoid a certain legitimate profession, but in Open mode? It's either done through actual in-game mechanic of escape or it's breaking the profession out of one's exclusivity of preference.

Get over it.

Unproductive provocative commentary, ignoring.

 

[Mohrgan]

In a game where exclusivity options are already provided in the selection of mode, if the only mode where all players are brought together without discrimination is susceptible to personal discretion of exclusivity, as well, especially when an encounter occurs, then its MP doesn't actually support unscripted player conflict whatsoever outside of pure consensus every step of the way.

Look at GW2, do you see people go on about how people can disengage in combat because they didn't feel like interacting in WvW?

There are many other multiplayer games that have player conflict, but near none of them require some consent every step of the way through all stages of an interaction.

That is just your personal view. One that supports your contentions, but isn't necessarily shared by the other gamers you encounter, and not, by virtue of the rule set we have, by FD. Then you must assume the game does not support you interpretation. You want it that way, you want everyone else to act that way, but it just doesn't meet up with reality. Don't make me start using other games as examples. It isn't relavent. FD are making this game from a different mold to other games.

 

[GluttonyFang]

That is just your personal view. One that supports your contentions, but isn't necessarily shared by the other gamers you encounter, and not, by virtue of the rule set we have, by FD. Then you must assume the game does not support you interpretation. You want it that way, you want everyone else to act that way, but it just doesn't meet up with reality. Don't make me start using other games as examples. It isn't relavent. FD are making this game from a different mold to other games.

And FD needs to clarify what their stance is on the issue, otherwise it opens itself to discussion like this one. Your view is also an interpretation, I thought that's clear?

 

[frostypaw]

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?

No - it's that they're games.

 

[Becks]

No - it's that they're games.

^
Here, this.

 

[Enderby]

15 seconds is too long I'd like to annoy would-be pirates instantly.

 

[AJW]

And FD needs to clarify what their stance is on the issue, otherwise it opens itself to discussion like this one. Your view is also an interpretation, I thought that's clear?

There is no 'interpretation' required - you can't force people to play games against their will.

 

[GluttonyFang]

There is no 'interpretation' required - you can't force people to play games against their will.

No one's forcing people to play the game, the issue here is: is it legitimate to waste other players' time base on one's discretion of counts as legitimate game play in Open mode.

In Open, there is tacit consent to potentiality of all kinds of legitimate encounter, the question here is whether when the chance is actualized, people can nullify and break the interaction or not.

Edit:

Just sent the questions to Brett/Sandro/Support respectively, hopefully I get something back.

 

[Mohrgan]

Let's look at the available facts. FD has never said that players are required to play it to the end, in contrast they have said the the 15 sec. timer is legitimate. The reasonable person could conclude that there is no agreement to ensure the health of any profession.

 

[Jypson]

I asked:

"So the question is, in Open mode, do player pirates and bounty hunters need the explicit consent of the targeted player (Cmdr trader/wanted Cmdr) in order to proceed with the multiplayer aspect of this profession?

That is to say is it legitimate to use the 15 second menu log out as a method of nullifying piracy or bounty hunting interaction with other players without consequence?

If it is legitimate, are the multiplayer aspect of piracy and bounty hunting profession broken, or does FD see it as working as intended?"

It's not loaded since if FD considers it to be working as intended, it's not broken, since it's their game to determine what is broken and what is not.

And I will be sending the question since the thread is not replied to.

I read it before replying.

I think it's loaded because of the nature of the three-part question.

Question 1: Do PvP interactions require consent?

Question 2: Is it legitimate to use the 15 second timer to nullify said interaction?

Question 3: Are PvP interactions broken or working as intended?

Q1: Seems fine, but a bit odd. There is no PvP flag, so how would one even ask/give consent to engage in an adversarial interaction?

Q2: Here's the bread and butter, the real question to be answered.

Q3: You're asking them to admit that the multiplayer aspect of piracy and bounty hunting professions are brokenif players are indeed permitted to exit adversarial engagements at will.

I believe my version of the question gives them something to answer that avoids begging the question.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Let's look at the available facts. FD has never said that players are required to play it to the end, in contrast they have said the the 15 sec. timer is legitimate. The reasonable person could conclude that there is no agreement to ensure the health of any profession.

Speculation, since they also claim that player conflict is integral to the game. Also that we are working with the available fact that all legitimate professions are equal, and Open according to the manual of the game is where players come together with other players that also choose to play Open. Which means the potentiality of all encounter is established, now the question is: is it legitimate to waste another player's time and break multiplayer mechanics to satisfy individual discretion of exclusivity in Open mode.