Peops who log off during a dual!!

[Vander Mey jr.]

You should only be safe whilst docked and in the hanger!

Deep space explorers would disagree with that. Plus, those of us with a real life don't have time to jump - supercruise - dock when the phone rings, one of the kids has hurt itself or the wife calls for dinner. ;-)

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

However, some of the more pro-PvP players do seem to want a challenge - are they doing it wrong?

They are looking for combattive players in a combat zone, or a pirate / bounty hunter standoff, not exactly what we're talking about here. ;-)

When you're a pirate, you're bouncing your target, surprise attack from six o'clock high. If you allow the Type to get its guns to bear, you are doing it wrong. ;-)

 

[OldSalt]

My past experience on this issue (and I guess many others) is in playing dedicated PvP games, dogfight and coop servers in combat sims, online FPS games etc. In that situation combat logging is right up there with mugging nuns but ED is a slightly different scenario because not all PvP combat is mutually entered into, where it is old rules apply and its a no-no, but as to the other cases (and although I personally can't condone it) I can understand it. I can't see a way around this apart from a timer based system but how feasible that is I do not know.

 

[Jex =TE=]

While a player chooses to play in a game where combat is possible it does not mean that that combat is desired. Likely - certainly.

What is this supposed to mean? It's also true that a player can travel to a star so s/he's .20ls away from it and whilst highly rivetting stuff, not really relevant to the question I asked now, is it.

Here it is again for you.

Originally Posted by Jex =TE=
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?

 

[dementia]

Deep space explorers would disagree with that. Plus, those of us with a real life don't have time to jump - supercruise - dock when the phone rings, one of the kids has hurt itself or the wife calls for dinner. ;-)

I can see the former argument but the latter is pretty weak. I have a really busy life but I plan my time enough so that I always have time to get to a port.

For the explorers it should also be part of the risk however as a compromise I'd suggest a feature that means your ship is invisible on the scanner unless other players are right on top of you (or within visual range). This would stop the combat cowards and provide an acceptable level of safety for the explorers.

 

[Vander Mey jr.]

Here it is again for you.

Semantics. What Robert is most likely pointing to is that, neither the game mechanics nor the terms & conditions rule out logging off during combat, so obviously there is no rule against it. It might be bad sportmanship or a smart move, in no case does it violate written rules.

I also want to point out, again, that there is a logoff delay when under attack. Your ship is sitting ducks for a certain time (15 seconds in Beta, haven't tested it since). That's the game mechanic in place, and if necessary, that's the point where things could be tweaked. For example by extending that timer.

IMHO, 15 seconds is about right. If you can't blow up the target in that time... you get my drift.

 

[Robert Maynard]

What is this supposed to mean? It's also true that a player can travel to a star so s/he's .20ls away from it and whilst highly rivetting stuff, not really relevant to the question I asked now, is it.

Not everyone plays the game for combat.

Here it is again for you.

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?

NPCs cannot give consent - so no. NPCs are fundamental to the game though as players would get very bored waiting around to encounter another player if they strayed from the most populated areas (and possibly if they stayed).

Players can, of course, be attacked by ships - the "rules" do not include (nor exclude) combat - combat is an occurrence. Whether a player wants to participate in combat is up to the individual - some fight, some run.

Lastly, "why is it ok for AI to attack you but not players" is the trickiest one to try to answer. I expect that, for some at least, it is because the NPCs follow Frontier's internal game rules for NPCs (and that is therefore the same for everyone), whereas some players can be much more irrational, dogged and unpleasant (especially with comms).

 

[Vander Mey jr.]

For the explorers it should also be part of the risk however as a compromise I'd suggest a feature that means your ship is invisible on the scanner unless other players are right on top of you (or within visual range). This would stop the combat cowards and provide an acceptable level of safety for the explorers.

Sorry, no deal. I'm offline for days, and there should be exactly zero chance for my ship to be destroyed while I am at work, on vacation, or otherwise not even close to the controls. Especially when the only purpose to be gained from destroying a non-cargo-carrying explorer is griefing the player. I'm quite surprised to even hear that suggestion, as it's so obviously game-breaking.

 

[JohnRoberts]

here's an idea. Why not fight people who are equipped to and actually want to fight you back.

Piracy is not about fighting people, its about robbing them, and making a profit. The cargo gets vaporized with the ship, so dead pilots are worthless.

Also, there is no point trying to take the moral high ground with characters like me, who dispensed with moral considerations years ago.

(And if you still don't get it: Its called Elite: Dangerous - anyone playing in Open mode is by definition a willing participant, and being cut-throat, murderous scumbag is a promoted and totally legitimate role to play).

John Bartholomew Roberts

 

[Jex =TE=]

Semantics. What Robert is most likely pointing to is that, neither the game mechanics nor the terms & conditions rule out logging off during combat, so obviously there is no rule against it. It might be bad sportmanship or a smart move, in no case does it violate written rules.

I also want to point out, again, that there is a logoff delay when under attack. Your ship is sitting ducks for a certain time (15 seconds in Beta, haven't tested it since). That's the game mechanic in place, and if necessary, that's the point where things could be tweaked. For example by extending that timer.

IMHO, 15 seconds is about right. If you can't blow up the target in that time... you get my drift.

Except the developers have said it's an exploit and not a game mechanic and why they coded in the timer which isn't working right now. Exiting the game is as much of playing the game as is putting a jigsaw puzzle back in its box.

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

Not everyone plays the game for combat.



NPCs cannot give consent - so no. NPCs are fundamental to the game though as players would get very bored waiting around to encounter another player if they strayed from the most populated areas (and possibly if they stayed).

Players can, of course, be attacked by ships - the "rules" do not include (nor exclude) combat - combat is an occurrence. Whether a player wants to participate in combat is up to the individual - some fight, some run.

Lastly, "why is it ok for AI to attack you but not players" is the trickiest one to try to answer. I expect that, for some at least, it is because the NPCs follow Frontier's internal game rules for NPCs (and that is therefore the same for everyone), whereas some players can be much more irrational, dogged and unpleasant (especially with comms).

LOL

OK so you agree that there's no difference between players and AI when it comes to attacking you so there's no argument. We got there in the end

Now would you like to start a new thread since you're trying to derail this one with "Player Attitude - A look into why players are much more irrational, dogged and unpleasant (especially with comms) than the AI!!"

This is what makes engagements so interesting btw

 

[CMNDRMK]

If there were no ways to reach Elite status except by partaking in combat, you might have a point. However, two of the three reputation ranks do not *require* combat to reach the rank of Elite. Additionally, mining does not require combat; some missions do not require combat.

While a player chooses to play in a game where combat is possible it does not mean that that combat is desired. Likely - certainly.



While a player chooses to play in a game where combat is possible it does not mean that that combat is desired. Likely - certainly.

Massive goal post shift. You built your argument around consent. When you press the play button you are consenting to entering a game world where undesirable things may happen. Your whole argument above is moot.

 

[Robert Maynard]

LOL

OK so you agree that there's no difference between players and AI when it comes to attacking you so there's no argument. We got there in the end

Now would you like to start a new thread since you're trying to derail this one with "Player Attitude - A look into why players are much more irrational, dogged and unpleasant (especially with comms) than the AI!!"

This is what makes engagements so interesting btw

There's no difference to the attack itself - however the NPC does not have a motive - the player does. While some players may role-play the encounter well (and may even get a similar response), some will no doubt dispense with the niceties and won't get any response.

No need to create a new thread - it's proven.

Interesting is a term best defined by the person on each end of the encounter - those definitions may vary significantly.

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

Massive goal post shift. You built your argument around consent. When you press the play button you are consenting to entering a game world where undesirable things may happen. Your whole argument above is moot.

I suppose so - just made the point to emphasise that the game is not all about combat and therefore not all about PvP combat - therefore to play in open is to accept the risk of PvP combat without necessarily actively seeking it.

 

[Zed]

I cant be bothered to read all this but:
historical
noun: duel; plural noun: duels
A prearranged contest with deadly weapons between two people in order to settle a point of honour.

What the OP describes is more like
noun: mugging; plural noun: muggings
An act of attacking and robbing someone in a public place:
‘he was the victim of a brutal mugging’

But I agree they shouldn't log off to avoid it.

 

[bassist9]

I cant be bothered to read all this but:
historical
noun: duel; plural noun: duels
A prearranged contest with deadly weapons between two people in order to settle a point of honour.

What the OP describes is more like
noun: mugging; plural noun: muggings
An act of attacking and robbing someone in a public place:
‘he was the victim of a brutal mugging’

But I agree they shouldn't log off to avoid it.

Ha ha I admit my spelling and grammar isn't one of my strong points.

 

[dementia]

Sorry, no deal. I'm offline for days, and there should be exactly zero chance for my ship to be destroyed while I am at work, on vacation, or otherwise not even close to the controls. Especially when the only purpose to be gained from destroying a non-cargo-carrying explorer is griefing the player. I'm quite surprised to even hear that suggestion, as it's so obviously game-breaking.

I disagree. If you are away for days then find a station or a safe place to leave your ship floating in space. If it were me I'd SC at maximum speed for about 15 minutes before logging off if there were no stations nearby. Chances of anyone finding you is next to zero. Of course there would have to be rules for NPCs so they didn't attack you and I'd support that as they are generated by the game so could appear anywhere but it is human players we are talking about here.

 

[bassist9]

I cant be bothered to read all this but:
historical
noun: duel; plural noun: duels
A prearranged contest with deadly weapons between two people in order to settle a point of honour.

What the OP describes is more like
noun: mugging; plural noun: muggings
An act of attacking and robbing someone in a public place:
‘he was the victim of a brutal mugging’

But I agree they shouldn't log off to avoid it.

Ha ha I admit my spelling and grammar isn't one of my strong points.

Yeah mugging, piracy the lines get blurry in my eyes. If I was in the position of the guy I was trying destroy I would of either tried to run or fight back, that's how I see it any how.

Its just the logging thing that bothers me, many reasons why I stopped playing other online games.

 

[Jex =TE=]

There's no difference to the attack itself - however the NPC does not have a motive - the player does. While some players may role-play the encounter well (and may even get a similar response), some will no doubt dispense with the niceties and won't get any response.

No need to create a new thread - it's proven.

Interesting is a term best defined by the person on each end of the encounter - those definitions may vary significantly.

What the heck does a motive have anything to do with getting into a fight???? What the blazes are you arguing about motive for, for god sake - ROFLMFAO!!

Stop building straw men - you're argument is done with. There's no difference in the attack and you are perfectly ok with AI attacking you so you're perfectly ok with players attacking you. There is no conversation being had in this thread about "motive" and it is not a point of contention or even relevant, no matter how much you try to shift the goalpost.

Can you stick with the argument please - do you wish to retract your admission "There's no difference to the attack itself"?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Can you stick with the argument please - do you wish to retract your admission "There's no difference to the attack itself"?

Not at all. An attack is an attack, whether it was sought out by both parties or just one of them.

Motiveless PvP combat would seem to be a bit pointless though, would you not agree?

 

[graham.reeds]

Did anyone actually read my suggestion or were you all too busy scoring semantic points?

 

[Jex =TE=]

I disagree. If you are away for days then find a station or a safe place to leave your ship floating in space. If it were me I'd SC at maximum speed for about 15 minutes before logging off if there were no stations nearby. Chances of anyone finding you is next to zero. Of course there would have to be rules for NPCs so they didn't attack you and I'd support that as they are generated by the game so could appear anywhere but it is human players we are talking about here.

Even though part of me likes the idea it will just cause way more problems. I still think there should be an "Iron Man" mode or whatever they call it where you never log out (ala Rust) and you only have 1 life (so death means you start from 0). You get no reward for it, just the satisfaction of knowing you did it and it should save as a separate character. This way you can play ur regular one too.

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

Not at all. An attack is an attack, whether it was sought out by both parties or just one of them.

Motiveless PvP combat would seem to be a bit pointless though, would you not agree?

So what are you babbling about then?

Who cares about motive, the AI have no motive either so there's still no difference.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Did anyone actually read my suggestion or were you all too busy scoring semantic points?

Guilty as charged. This one?

My suggestion, back in the DDF, was to keep the player 'in the game' until the player was 'safe' and place it under control of AI who was under the condition of keeping the player alive and escape as soon as possible, and the AI skill is commensurate with their combat ranking.

That way it would allow people who have flaky connections a chance to reconnect and people who are pirating the player to take what they wanted.

As long as people know then they can't complain. If they have a valid disconnect then that is unfortunate and if they did it in purpose then they are penalised.

It would seem to be a viable proposition, indeed.