Failed to explain? You seriously not reading my posts eh? Fair enough.
If you suddenly paralysed and then get hit by a truck, dont expect to get your body back intact after 15 seconds.
How long would a ship need to remain persistent to prevent a menu log from being abused?
Failed to explain? You seriously not reading my posts eh? Fair enough.
If you suddenly paralysed and then get hit by a truck, dont expect to get your body back intact after 15 seconds.
I just said pretty-much the exact same thing in a previous post.
IF the timer only applied to PvP (or, possibly, all combat) then the whole "real-life stuff" argument wouldn't be as important.
As it is, though, it applies in a whole heap of situations where the game simply thinks you're "in danger", even if there's no ship actually attacking you at the time - or, in some cases, even if there isn't another ship within 20,000Ly of you.
On top of that, even if the timer did only apply to combat, and it was extended, what then?
You're still going to get people CLing, both from PvE and PvP combat.
How do you deal with that... in a way that doesn't encourage the use of IP manipulation?
Or does that need fixing too?
So, we now have to extend the timer, re-write the threat-detection code so the game only applies the timer to players who're actually in combat and then re-write all the network code so that IP manipulation tools can't be used.
All so that some people don't get salty about missing the opportunity to blow up an extra ship?
I guess it might be nice but, y'know, it seems like ED has other things that could be prioritised ahead of that.
Nope but i can see where some people come from. They are thinking about the timer that triggers at alien sites when it saids it will move your ship outside the structure or if you have taken hit by sentinells.
If the timer would ever be more than the 15 seconds, then yes personally i dont have a problem in those structures to remain the same or even less. But when hit by sentinels or other npc ships, timer should still remain the same or get a bit higher, but when dealing with humans, it should count minutes, not seconds.
fair enough, then i guess it's time to change the official brochure
(proposed change in italics or
"Upgrade your ship with an unique and excruciating grind and customize every component with pointless powercreep and cheap shiny cosmetics as you
fair enough, then i guess it's time to change the official brochure
(proposed change in italics orstrikeout)
"Upgrade your ship with an unique and excruciating grind and customize every component with pointless powercreep and cheap shiny cosmetics as youhunt,explore,fight,mine,smuggle, tradeand survivein thecutthroatgalaxy of the 34th century. Do whatever it takes to earn the skill, knowledge, wealth and power to stand among the meaningless ranks of the Elite, or just let it hanging whenever you want to fart unmolested thanks of the new and revolutionary risk-free multi-solo game technology"
Most people know about modes and things before they buy.
I just said pretty-much the exact same thing in a previous post.
IF the timer only applied to PvP (or, possibly, all combat) then the whole "real-life stuff" argument wouldn't be as important.
As it is, though, it applies in a whole heap of situations where the game simply thinks you're "in danger", even if there's no ship actually attacking you at the time - or, in some cases, even if there isn't another ship within 20,000Ly of you.
On top of that, even if the timer did only apply to combat, and it was extended, what then?
You're still going to get people CLing, both from PvE and PvP combat.
How do you deal with that... in a way that doesn't encourage the use of IP manipulation?
Or does that need fixing too?
So, we now have to extend the timer, re-write the threat-detection code so the game only applies the timer to players who're actually in combat and then re-write all the network code so that IP manipulation tools can't be used.
All so that some people don't get salty about missing the opportunity to blow up an extra ship?
I guess it might be nice but, y'know, it seems like ED has other things that could be prioritised ahead of that.
See i think we may still be on a similar wave length!
All those issues like logging at structures i'm all for getting rid of i mean, its daft. If you are not in danger you should just be able to disappear. I think a 2 min time when obviously engaged is the way forward.
In regards to force closing i mean, FD say they CANT fix that weather or not its true who knows but i think it would be a start not to give people a legal "out" of all danger, at least then when it happens it was done against the rules.
Vanishing from the game to preserve one's assets, with no in-game context to explain where the ship went, is probably the most common way an out-of-game event has in-game consequences.
While I don't have any hard statistics to back it up, I'm quite convinced that the number of log-offs because of in-game danger completely dwarf the number of log-offs that merely coincide with in-game danger. If everyone that logged off while in-danger simply went straight to the rebuy screen when logging back in, this would minimize the in-game consequences of out-of-game events, not increase them.
Everyone is affected, to some degree or another, by assets that have been preserved when they should have been lost (and vice versa, though the latter is less common and can be reimbursed via support).
No one who isn't trying to cheat would be negatively affected by a revised timer system that removes the wait needed to confirm a log off while in danger, but extends the time that situation can play out.
The instant you click quit, there should be no reason or benefit to you remaining at your system further...but whatever was going to happen should.
Yes.
The thing is that it is normal to prioritize almost anything over a game, but it is not okay to demand to 'win'. When I play poker and I have to take a call, I simply forfeit that round. If it happens in ED I accept I lose a ship. This "I demand to be invulnerable or else I will cheat" is not the kind of mentality anyone over the age of five should have, IMHO.
Because it will have a consequence either way. The real question is who should burden this consequence; the person with the RL thing coming up or the other person. Where I am from you take responsibility when stuff happens on your end, and dont shift the consequences to someone else. If you cannot handle that, play single player games.
There are plenty of other legal "out" of all danger options in ED.
- Engineered Prismatics, boosters and SCBs.
- G5 Dirty enhanced drives.
- Fast boot sequence FDS.
- Engineered armour and HRPs.
The timer is a minor issue in this. The game isn't designed with competitive PvP in mind. It only works if both players are willing or if one is far weaker than the other.
I don't think this will ever change.
Getting upset that people don't stay in an unfair one sided fight is no different.
The prevalence of clogging and logging are both being overstated I think, most people are just successfully waking out.
Let's just try to work through this...
Is it "fair and right" that, say, an explorer or trader can only inhabit the most populous mode (Open) if they're willing to accept the possibility of being attacked?
Is it "fair and right" that an unwitting target, in Open, is likely to have more to lose than an attacker in a dedicated combat ship?
The answer, if we're being honest, is obviously "no, it's not".
The only response anybody will get to those concerns, however, is "Well, it's in the game so get used to it".
Well, the menu-logging is in the game too.
This thread would seem to suggest those complaining aren't accepting their own advice and "getting used to it, cos it's in the game".
Funny old world, innit?
What the heck? Of course that is 'fair and right'. In Open everyone can be attacked by everyone else, that is the very concept of Open. It isnt an unintended side-effect, it is what it is designed to be: an open multiplayer sandbox with player freedom and the resulting consequences. And the game is designed in such a way that an explorer or trader can survive any attack if he makes the right decisions. I know you dont like that, but that is your problem and not the game's fault. The length of the timer is up for debate, and FD has already said they are looking into it because due to all the changes since launch 15s has become laughably short. And contrary to what people who dont like the very idea of Open like to believe, the log-out timer is not designed to be God Mode for people to lazy to learn the basics of flying their space ship.
Its a regular old world, and your post was just really lacking in sense and logic.
Yea the menu logging is in the game and i have accepted it, otherwise i would be playing something else.
Funny how you are talking about "legit" mechanics of the game, while you admitted you also task kill the game when needed. Which is ofc your right to do, since it is your pc. Ofc that doesnt make it either the right thing to do or fair, but you dont care, i got that loud and clear.
But i wonder if you played another game that is punishing that kind of behavior, if you were still doing the same thing. Or if the devs one day removed the silly place holder and implemented proper mechanics about combat logging, "legit" or not, i would like to know if you would preserve the same attitude of treating other people online the way you do.
Except that nobody is suggesting that the consequence should be shifted onto the other player (that the remaining player's ship should get blown up instead). An end to the combat mitigates the consequences for both participants.
Of course, there's another "fair" alternative: as nobody knows who would have won if RL had not intervened, auto-destruct both participants. I imagine this would be controversial.
What the heck? Of course that is 'fair and right'. In Open everyone can be attacked by everyone else, that is the very concept of Open. It isnt an unintended side-effect, it is what it is designed to be: an open multiplayer sandbox with player freedom and the resulting consequences. And the game is designed in such a way that an explorer or trader can survive any attack if he makes the right decisions. I know you dont like that, but that is your problem and not the game's fault. The length of the timer is up for debate, and FD has already said they are looking into it because due to all the changes since launch 15s has become laughably short. And contrary to what people who dont like the very idea of Open like to believe, the log-out timer is not designed to be God Mode for people to lazy to learn the basics of flying their space ship.
Its a regular old world, and your post was just really lacking in sense and logic.
You obviously haven't thought this through, people who don't like the very idea of open are very unlikely to be in open in the first place.
I'm struggling to see any consequences here to be honest...you're in a fight with someone...then they go (probably for a legitimate reason, possibly not) fight ends...what is the consequential loss here...
If they Menu Logged because they were losing the fight - you won (in exactly the same way as if they high-waked) you control the battlefield their mission aborted your AA/AD successful...
HE hasnt thought this through?? Lol.
It is has been explained more than once in this thread that is not just about calling it a "win". Read the thread.