Peops who log off during a dual!!

[NinjaTrek2891]

I never attack clean people, but when they are wanted. It doesn't really frustrates me that they log off. It already gives me pleasure I scared the sh*t out of them.

They will watch out for friendly fire next time

 

[Jex =TE=]

PvP is not a rule of open - if it was a rule then we would be penalised for not obeying it (i.e. participating in it). It is, however, a possibility.

No, it is a rule of open play. If a player attacks you, you have no choice but to respond. Even if he lands no hits on your ship and you get away, it's still a pvp engagement.

The game allows pvp therefore it is a rule of the game that you can be attacked by other players. The devs have said, according to people in this thread, that Disconnecting from a battle is against the rules.

 

[Mr_Blastman]

Doesn't sound like piracy to me. I thought the idea of piracy was to collect cargo not destroy the cargo.

If you want to kill players then go to a conflict zone. Then if they log off during combat feel free to have a rant.

If you want to kill players be a bounty hunter! Then you can murder with impunity if they have a bounty on their heads. Price? Their fault. You're just doling out justice in the name of the law!

 

[Robert Maynard]

I find this a bit nitpicky. PVP is a game mechanic defined by rules. Whoever joins open play consents to this rules automatically.

Pedantic, certainly. Yes, they consent top the rules that govern PvP - however there are no rules that apply regarding initiation of PvP - therefore no rules to be consented to in that respect.

In chess there is a rule that you can move the queen in any direction. Another rule is: You are not forced to do it. But you are forced to accept that your component kills your queen.

The rules in chess govern the starting position, movement of pieces and the definition of "check" and "checkmate". Chess is, however only a combat game - to choose to play chess is to choose to enter into combat. If a player does not want to participate in that form of combat then they don't play chess - simple. There is much more in Elite: Dangerous than combat alone.

 

[Mr_Blastman]

ED could have solved this problem by never allowing single player to begin with... but I dunno how the kickstarter would have gone over if they had. I myself rather have the risk of humans attacking me in the game. It makes it more exciting with all the added uncertain risks.

 

[Beetlebum]

If a player does not want to participate in that form of combat then they don't play chess - simple.

And if one does not want to take the risk of being attacked by another player, he does not play open mode. See? Simple as well.

 

[jamotide]

And if one does not want to take the risk of being attacked by another player, he does not play open mode. See? Simple as well.

Give it up, there is no point in arguing with mister Robert "semnatics" Maynard. This is the guy who claimed that "physical DRM free edition" only means that the disk has no physical protection against copying it (as in "physically DRM free") LMAO

 

[Beetlebum]

ED could have solved this problem by never allowing single player to begin with... but I dunno how the kickstarter would have gone over if they had. I myself rather have the risk of humans attacking me in the game. It makes it more exciting with all the added uncertain risks.

I absolutely agree with this! At least they should seperate the servers completely and disallow swapping between them.

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

Give it up, there is no point in arguing with mister Robert "semnatics" Maynard. This is the guy who claimed that "physical DRM free edition" only means that the disk has no physical protection against copying it (as in "physically DRM free") LMAO

I think you are right. Thanks for the warning!

 

[Jex =TE=]

waaat? what is this? a contrargument?

Try thinking about it

Get back to me if you have questions

 

[CMNDRMK]

The rules in chess govern the starting position, movement of pieces and the definition of "check" and "checkmate". Chess is, however only a combat game - to choose to play chess is to choose to enter into combat. If a player does not want to participate in that form of combat then they don't play chess - simple. There is much more in Elite: Dangerous than combat alone.

There maybe more than combat in elite, but none of those things are exclusive to combat, which is the only condition which would make your argument make any sense. Your argument only makes sense if there is core mechanic in the game whereby for combat, both parties have to agree and somehow players were circumventing that to attack other players "without consent".

As it is un provoked attacks are a core mechanic of the game, by playing the game you accept that unprovoked aggresion is possible and you inherently consent to this. Its a simulation once you have made the real world decision to press play, that is real consent, any un consent in the game is simulated.

 

[stumagoo]

I have had 3 internet failures in 2 days each time was while I was exiting supercruise and about to head for a star..... is your fix going to punish me for my ISP's crappy exchange by smashing my ship into a sun after my net has crashed on me..... I have mentioned many times I have an instable net connection. it causes many issues which means to avoid issues that would appear to be combat logging and the plain problem I have with rubberbanding in combat etc I play in a pve group. yes its a problem but its not as big an issue as you all make it. All you pirates claim that its only a game and that traders should get over the idea of losing a few virtual credits well same goes to you if you loose out due to a combat log. Yes its not fair but neither is losing hours worth of trading revenue to someone who wants to get something for nothing.

 

[Red Rascal]

If you are playing in open mode, you are fair game whether you like it or not. It doesn't matter if you give consent. Pirates are pirates. I can't imagine a pirate ship on the open sea pulling up to a vessel and demanding their goods, and the vessel says, "I do not give consent". Would the pirate turn around and go home at that point? Nope. It doesn't have to be a pirate either, could just be a bully picking on a kid at school. If the kid doesn't give consent, I guess the bully will stop. Again, nope. This is the cost of human on human interaction. So far, the humans I've dealt with have been peaceful, but I'm sure my time is coming.

 

[Whisky Tango Foxtrot]

They need a slap full stop, happened a few times now!! I like a bit of piracy you know blow peops up steal there cargo.

But hey guess what when you nearly destroy them they log off!!!

Open play is flawed this needs fixing like many others things.

Rant over

Bosh

All I can say is, if i am carrying a cargo, and I absolutely cannot afford to lose it, (because i have just upgraded, and am just leaving an insurance margin in cash), then I will logout if I think I cannot escape with boosts. And if another player does not like it, well, F-you my good sir, F-You very much.

 

[Mispunt]

There are no rules, only mechanics. Tough luck if you are interdicted, tough luck if your target disconnects.
Disconnecting is lame but penalizing those players by keeping their ship in the game for long enough so someone can destroy them would lead to other problems as long as random disconnects still happen. I had 4 yesterday (unusual) and would have been extremely miffed if I had to rebuy my ship because I planted it in the side of a station thanks to P2P issues.
This is, for now, the lesser of two evils where a only a smaller group is negatively affected vs everyone else running the risk of random penalties.

 

[CMNDRMK]

The chess analogy is so bad, in chess there are specific rules limiting the scope of activity to chess, its a truism. In ED no analogue of such rules exist. You might want to trade, but there is no set of rules limiting the actions of other players in relation to that decision. You might want to play chess, but there is nothing saying anyone else has to, unlike in real chess, where by definition, both players must play just chess.

 

[Jex =TE=]

I find this a bit nitpicky. PVP is a game mechanic defined by rules. Whoever joins open play consents to this rules automatically.



In chess there is a rule that you can move the queen in any direction. Another rule is: You are not forced to do it. But you are forced to accept that your component kills your queen.

LMAO this was the EXACT example I was going to use to crush his argument

 

[Arithon]

How could you solve this?

Currently you can't just log off during an attack, there is a 15 second wait period. Could this be extended? 30 seconds? 1 minute? Or just no quit until you're back in supercruise?

If someone's ISP cuts them off, or their router reboots etc. then an automatic penalty has to take this possibility into account. You can just destroy everyone who disconnects every time.

An "if you exit now, your ship will self-destruct!" message could be one option, but that still doesn't take into account ALT-F4. So what else? Frontier could log anyone that disconnects during combat and keep a count, with a view to penalising repeat offenders maybe. Your ISP might fail, even frequently but if the majority of your disconnects coincide with being in battle, that's a bit fishy.

I don't think there is an easy, one-size-fits-all answer to this. Maybe a combo of "boom if quit" and "in-game fine if disconnected X times during combat"?

 

[Mispunt]

I have had 3 internet failures in 2 days each time was while I was exiting supercruise and about to head for a star..... is your fix going to punish me for my ISP's crappy exchange by smashing my ship into a sun after my net has crashed on me..... I have mentioned many times I have an instable net connection. it causes many issues which means to avoid issues that would appear to be combat logging and the plain problem I have with rubberbanding in combat etc I play in a pve group. yes its a problem but its not as big an issue as you all make it. All you pirates claim that its only a game and that traders should get over the idea of losing a few virtual credits well same goes to you if you loose out due to a combat log. Yes its not fair but neither is losing hours worth of trading revenue to someone who wants to get something for nothing.

This.
Also, piracy is a hobby.

 

[Jay8ch]

It would be quite easy to implement a "no save if there's a hostile ship within 10km" type rule surely?

 

[Jex =TE=]

Pedantic, certainly. Yes, they consent top the rules that govern PvP - however there are no rules that apply regarding initiation of PvP - therefore no rules to be consented to in that respect.



The rules in chess govern the starting position, movement of pieces and the definition of "check" and "checkmate". Chess is, however only a combat game - to choose to play chess is to choose to enter into combat. If a player does not want to participate in that form of combat then they don't play chess - simple. There is much more in Elite: Dangerous than combat alone.

Does the Ai need to consent to fight as well?

When you start the game you start knowing full well what the rules of the game are. Included in that is the fact that you can get attacked by other ships.

Now, why is it ok for AI to attack you but not players?

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

I have had 3 internet failures in 2 days each time was while I was exiting supercruise and about to head for a star..... is your fix going to punish me for my ISP's crappy exchange by smashing my ship into a sun after my net has crashed on me..... I have mentioned many times I have an instable net connection. it causes many issues which means to avoid issues that would appear to be combat logging and the plain problem I have with rubberbanding in combat etc I play in a pve group. yes its a problem but its not as big an issue as you all make it. All you pirates claim that its only a game and that traders should get over the idea of losing a few virtual credits well same goes to you if you loose out due to a combat log. Yes its not fair but neither is losing hours worth of trading revenue to someone who wants to get something for nothing.

Unfortunately yes, if you suffer disconnects in combat then you'll have to suffer them just like the rest of us. You can't seriously expect that because you have a dreadful ISP that the rest of us should suffer because of it?