No emergency required its just a question of my priorities, what you want is very low on that scale.
How long would a ship need to remain persistent to prevent a menu log from being abused?
No emergency required its just a question of my priorities, what you want is very low on that scale.
On the subject of honor its no less honorable than ganking or noob splatting, which triggers a lot of it in the first place. Gankers who then log when it goes wrong are pretty much as low as the cheats/station griefers. That's all subjective though.
"Its only a game but avoid breaking Wheatons law" is probably the healthiest attitude, along with sensible choices at the menu screen and a willingness to block people you don't like playing with.
False. You keep forgetting that this discussion is about menu-logging. There is absolutely no reason to assume that the menu-logger doesn't care about the other player - only that he also cares about other stuff that might be more important or urgent than playing a game.
So Open should only be for those with no family, no friends, and no life?
Hmmm.
If a player task-kills, he's obviously invulnerable to whatever the other guy does. I suppose it's possible to substitute some sort of "replica" for the remaining player to fight (hosted on his own PC), but nothing done to the replica can affect the one who just isn't there anymore. Perhaps the remaining player could still earn experience and/or loot cargo from the replica?
Otherwise you'd need some sort of central database that records unexpected disconnects, with the remaining player's PC doing the reporting, and the task-kiiler given some sort of sanction on logging back in. But then you'd also need some way of judging the frequency of "suspicious" disconnects, so I can see why it's rather a lot of hassle to deal with a trivial problem.
Whereas if you penalise menu-logging by measures that can't be enforced on combat-loggers, you'd be incentivising combat-logging in preference to menu-logging. That's counterproductive.
Otherwise you'd need some sort of central database that records unexpected disconnects, with the remaining player's PC doing the reporting, and the task-kiiler given some sort of sanction on logging back in. But then you'd also need some way of judging the frequency of "suspicious" disconnects, so I can see why it's rather a lot of hassle to deal with a trivial problem.
Whereas if you penalise menu-logging by measures that can't be enforced on combat-loggers, you'd be incentivising combat-logging in preference to menu-logging. That's counterproductive.
If you up the time the menu log takes you'll just encourage more players to combat log.
Some kind of maths guy could draw a graph of that.
Some kind of maths guy could draw a graph of that.
I was wondering when this popular, among u, excuse would come up. If your game crashes or you have dc every once in a while, thats no problem everybody has that, but if you have a crappy line or a crappy rig then the least you should do, is avoid playing online multiplayer games and thus destroying other peoples instances.
You are probably the ship that every single time in a wing fight is rubberbanding lol.
In every post of yours you keep trying to derail the discussion. Ganking or noob splatting is not the subject.
Not so urgent apparently, since he cares about not losing his space pixels and has the time to exit via the menu or task kill the game.
This is not even an excuse because from all the cmdrs that i ve seen dissapearing in front of me, ONLY ONE send me a friend request afterwards and said that he had an emergency and left. Allthough i dont approve his task kill method used, i appreciated that he at least told me afterwards that something happened. On a similiar occasion that happened to me with a DC, i contacted the other cmdr afterwards and offered to meet and he could get the kill as he pretty much deserved because i was also losing the fight.
As you can see, there are ways to treat others in a civilized way even if it is a game, instead of being a selfish person that just doesnt care.
Yes you got that right. Thats my main point.
Jesus Christ..
2 days lockup. Gotta have the griefer, their parents and their son all have a chance to unload on the scrub. And then the friendlist. And then their friendlists.
True, but instead of providing a "legit" combat log method that they abuse and bragg about on the internet, you take that away from them, so when it happens repeatedly we know who is who, and no more lame excuses about yada yada frontier approves and all that and keep abusing a silly game mechanic like the 15 sec exit timer.
Ofc its low, you like it the way it is because basically its an to gankers, ignoring the fact its also an to any danger the galaxy had to offer.
Last edited by a moderator:
Poor gankers.
Every other game with a competitive PVP incorporated has a 1 minute plus logout timer. The players in those games are not so wrapped up in secure foam that they complain about it because lets be honest, crashes barely happen (i cant remember my game ever crashing). The chances that they happen just at the perfect time?
Lets put it another way, more people are just quitting out of fights they are no longer winning than people "crashing" when they are losing, its an exploited (legal) mechanic not a feature.
The amount of times I've ever needed to log out suddenly in combat is 0. People are basically saying "this feature should remain because *insert potential 1% occurrence here*
Hows about we design the feature based on the most likely scenario? Such as the its HIGHLY UNLIKELY at the exact moment you are in combat losing a fight you'll have an emergency and need to go or CTD.
I'd say this is the problem, but it isn't a problem its an excuse and its an excuse people know they are making, saying "This feature is useful because theirs a 0.33% chance this might happen" knowing the real reason they are defending it because "I dont want to lose my space pixels".
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually its usually the gankers picking the wrong fight that use the mechanic. Its not about gankers, its about making all the ships invincible and removing any possibility of death, its about there being no danger in our "cut throat" galaxy because FD have created a legal method of avoiding it.
Is there genuinely a train of thought that goes..."Here's someone playing what is, when all is said and done, just a video game...that has to go off and do something REAL, answer the door/phone...respond to his family...take a pan out of the oven etc etc...so I want them to be penalised IN GAME...for them doing that" how bizarre!
Yes... "penalised IN GAME". Let me put in in bold for maximum visibility "YES penalised IN GAME". As.... IN GAME.
Its only just a game, we are not talking about introducing the death penalty in real life. Jesus.....
LOL you make it sound like: "what are these savages? Oh my God, how can they say that awful thing about not responding to FAMILLY aaaarrgghhh".
Again: Penalised for dissapearing from an interaction with another human person, not penalised for leaving the dog without water.
The reason behind the action is personal for the person involved and irrelevant to the discussion.
Last edited:
TheMegaTurnip
Banned
Reset every time damage is taken from any source.
Or 1 minute.
Or 1 minute.
Who gets in to combat when they are making dinner? In this game you already have to screw up to get caught in an unwanted combat situation AS IS, let alone decide to do a combat zone while dinner is on the go...
There is genuinely a train of thought that goes "Ignore the 90% who use the logout feature to avoid death in this already too easy game, 10% of us don't want burnt chips."
As you so eloquently put it, its a game; and a game should have loss, not "meh don't fancy seeing buy back today".
But WHY? If they're NOT cheating, and ARE answering the phone or whatever... WHY is it so vitally important to punish them in-game for doing this???
But you are STILL refusing to accept that the person phoning or ringing the doorbell is also an actual human person too. It's not up to YOU to decide which person deserves attention.
And what if I'm in Solo, fighting an NPC when a real-life person requires my attention? I should be punished for giving a real person priority over an NPC opponent? Or will it only apply to PvP?
As has been pointed out up-thread (and is the reason why it remains in Dangerous Discussion rather than in PVP) the vast majority of times logging out using the menu timer occurs is just in the course of general play...NOT in a PvP situation...
That said, if you're so offended by the thought of someone you're in Combat with logging out midway through an encounter without any comms (because presumably you'd have to be a real d*ck to resent someone saying "GTG - RL -sorry!" part-way through an encounter) just play Elite with/against better people or at least initiate better encounters...
Your complaint seems to be I'm in an encounter with a random anonymous person on the internet and who I don't know/have anything in common with...I've initiated an encounter they DON'T welcome...and they've left without letting me have my fun..."
Its not about whats vitally important to someone or nothing important to someone else. Its about what is fair and right. Its not something new, other games deal with the matter for years with success. Is it so difficult to understant?
I said a million times, about human interactions, allthough personally i would apply the same rules in all modes. Logging out when "in danger" should have more consequences than only 15 seconds.