Back to the same old fairy-story about tacit consent, I see. It is a lie, plain and simple. You read the EULA (or not, but that is your problem). You buy the game. You click on open. You play in open. You leave when you feel like it. No consent asked for. No consent given. A lie. And always a lie, no matter how many times you repeat it.
Poll about exit-to-menu delay time
- Thread starter Kyokushin
- Start date
- Status
Back to the same old fairy-story about tacit consent, I see. It is a lie, plain and simple. You read the EULA (or not, but that is your problem). You buy the game. You click on open. You play in open. You leave when you feel like it. No consent asked for. No consent given. A lie. And always a lie, no matter how many times you repeat it.
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.
No actually, FD has the final say on what is legitimate and what is broken, for example if they believe actual combat logging is legitimate, then it is legitimate. It doesn't matter what we say.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
You gave no objection other than you believe it's "stupid." Which I'm ignoring until you have actual objections, which you aren't providing here, again other than a baseless assertion that it's a lie.
When you do it at a cost of other player's time that is just as valuable as your own, it's controversial and need clarification.
Last edited:
I don't know, being angry that a cargo pilot can legally exit to menu to escape them is about the same as being mad that they can highwake out or win the interdiction game. Sure, maybe it's not sporting but there are other fish in the galactic sea, unless you've chased them away with your ish behavior.
Except that high wake and interdiction have counter play, logging via menu does not, already explained.
Thread is TL;DR so sorry if already said..
Regardless of time taken to exit, any attempt to exit "gracefully" should be communicated in game..
This is especially important for piracy..
And actually if implemented would have saved the lives of countless Cmdr's and avoided many "griefing" claims
Regardless of time taken to exit, any attempt to exit "gracefully" should be communicated in game..
This is especially important for piracy..
And actually if implemented would have saved the lives of countless Cmdr's and avoided many "griefing" claims
Last edited:
No. As I have made abundantly clear, this so-called 'consent' isn't stupid. It is imaginary. Nobody is even asked to consent to anything, let alone obliged to. The stupidity comes in spamming this forum with repetitive drivel claiming the contrary, while failing to provide even a scintilla of evidence to back it up. Put up, or shut up...
Last edited:
Again, you show no understanding of the concept of tacit consent, please, read this again:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/
Personal provocative commentary, ignoring.
We aren't talking about exiting ungracefully (combat logging), that has already been addressed by FDev (Sandro specifically).
Which is why I called it an example, if FD is to come out and say that combat logging is legitimate, it will be legitimate. We need the same clarity on the issue I'm bringing forth, otherwise it opens too much room for discussion.
Sure there is, the counter play is "find someone else". It's no different than jumping into another instance. It's game flow breaking, yes, but it's legal and it happens.
Thirteen-year-old pretending to be a university student. Ignored.
But "find someone else" is a meta solution to solve an in-game mechanic failure. It doesn't resolve the fact that the mechanic is broken.
What specifically are you looking for clarification on? Not a three part question mind you, or an example, but one clear question that has yet to be addressed.
Ian Phillips
Volunteer Moderator
- Status