The 15 second logout timer in action

[Galaxias]

Aaaand now there is milk on my keybaord...

Go to bed, It’s late!

 

[philngraves]

Go to bed, It’s late!

First I have to flush the milk residue from my nostrils... messy business that, and all Sylveria's fault...

 

[Bryan K]

Honestly not sure what your asking... how does someone log me? Like has a log launcher on their ship that hurls a couple thosand pounds of space oak at me? Cuz that sounds pretty awesome.

Long story short, the game’s P2P architecture allows for all sorts of nefarious computer wizardry, and supposedly some clever folks figured out how to force a disconnect on another player in their instance at will. Probably against the ToS, but virtually impossible to prove conclusively enough to lead to enforcement.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Cool video @touch of grey

Now lets watch what happens when the 15 second timer doesnt work. And how the majority of this community acts when they get blown up in a spaceship game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yfg8cYlfnSM

 

[philngraves]

Long story short, the game’s P2P architecture allows for all sorts of nefarious computer wizardry, and supposedly some clever folks figured out how to force a disconnect on another player in their instance at will. Probably against the ToS, but virtually impossible to prove conclusively enough to lead to enforcement.

Oh... I thought that might be what he was referring to, or that he left out a word. I went with the latter as the first sentence in the post of mine he quoted was 'I play on xbox...'

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Yep, can't wait. This is actually tongue-in-cheek though; I'm hoping the devs make timer logging as bad as Alt+F4, but that probably won't happen.

I hope we get what you're looking for out of this.

Sooner rather than later.

 

[Sylveria]

I hope we get what you're looking for out of this.

Sooner rather than later.

Just remember, if Frontier are about to start establishing rules in an environment where there are none... it sets precedence.

Be careful what you wish for, you might get it- and others may get what they wish for, too.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Long story short, the game’s P2P architecture allows for all sorts of nefarious computer wizardry, and supposedly some clever folks figured out how to force a disconnect on another player in their instance at will. Probably against the ToS, but virtually impossible to prove conclusively enough to lead to enforcement.

Absolute nonsense! You don't have to be clever at all More than half the time it's absolutely circumstantial, and not even intended behavior.

It's utter scrubbage - but as far as mining tears from pew-pewlords is concerned - it's absolutely delicious.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Just remember, if Frontier are about to start establishing rules in an environment where there are none... it sets precedence.

Be careful what you wish for, you might get it- and others may get what they wish for, too.

I want it. I want rules set. For a lot of things. Please bring it on.

 

[Asp Explorer]

I want it. I want rules set. For a lot of things. Please bring it on.

Mmmm - just imagine someone thinks of firewall rules - you've got once chance at that.

And that's no chance at all

 

[Sylveria]

I want it. I want rules set. For a lot of things. Please bring it on.

Then on that, we're in definitive agreement.

I'm all for rules against combat logging, as long as rules against shooting unarmed vessels are established at the same time. Equal penalties for both parties.

Combat logging would be defined as those who have returned fire in an engagement logging off before combat has finished. Shooting unarmed vessels is self-explanatory. If a vessel does not return fire, then apparently they're unarmed.

Penalty should be let's say... immediate ship self-destruction with a full rebuy penalty and no insurance?

Still want those rules?

 

[Bryan K]

Absolute nonsense! You don't have to be clever at all More than half the time it's absolutely circumstantial, and not even intended behavior.

It's utter scrubbage - but as far as mining tears from pew-pewlords is concerned - it's absolutely delicious.

Agreed. Always good for a laugh to see gankers get screwed over.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Then on that, we're in definitive agreement.

I'm all for rules against combat logging, as long as rules against shooting unarmed vessels are established at the same time. Equal penalties for both parties.

Combat logging would be defined as those who have returned fire in an engagement logging off before combat has finished. Shooting unarmed vessels is self-explanatory. If a vessel does not return fire, then apparently they're unarmed.

Penalty should be let's say... immediate ship self-destruction with a full rebuy penalty and no insurance?

Still want those rules?

No, because you're setting (a personal) set rules depending on if the person plays the game or not.

I can fly around in a shieldess tankless asp. And turn in powerplay or BGS stuff.

How about set the rules. We have crime and punishment as well as being sent to a detention center when killed or bounty collected.

Again, I think people need to understand the game they are playing, use the tools available to them within the game like engineers to survive. Not the 15 second timer.

Another thing, you all need to start learning what wins and losses are.

This forum is outright childish when it comes to losing. Some of you are close to 40 year old women and men acting like a buncha 6 year olds when it comes to this game.

It gets old.

Learn to lose gracefully and take it as a learning experience for next time.

 

[Sylveria]

No, because you're setting rules depending on if the person plays the game or not.

I can fly around in a shieldess tankless asp. And turn in powerplay or BGS stuff.

How about set the rules. We have crime and punishment as well as being sent to a detention center when killed or bounty collected.

Again, I think people need to understand the game they are playing, use the tools available to them within the game like engineers to survive. Not the 15 second timer.

Another thing, you all need to start learning what wins and losses are.

This forum is outright childish when it comes to losing. Some of you are close to 40 year old women and men acting like a buncha 6 year olds when it comes to this game.

It gets old.

Learn to lose gracefully and take it as a learning experience for next time.

I knew you'd fold.

You want rules as long as they're established purely in your favor.

Unfortunately- the game doesn't work that way. Banter won't save your argument.

Either you agree it's a two way street- or you don't.

EDIT: Oh and that "shieldless asp (or whatever ship)" example you use all the time still doesn't prove intent. If you don't know the vessel is engaging in PowerPlay (carrying leaflets or whatever) or directly manipulating the BGS, then you cannot prove the intent of that vessel.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

I knew you'd fold.

You want rules as long as they're established purely in your favor.

Unfortunately- the game doesn't work that way. Banter won't save your argument.

Either you agree it's a two way street- or you don't.

No im not . Big difference. Has nothing to do with folding. Learn the game.

We already have punishments for the bad guy in place.

 

[Asp Explorer]

It gets old.

Learn to lose gracefully and take it as a learning experience for next time.

Did you ever learn basic networking my dear 90's?

Have you come to realise that a malicious player can utterly whomp anything you are trying to achieve with LAN bandwidth, without affecting you in the slightest, or it being visible to FD, or it being an exploit?

 

[znôrt]

Have you come to realise that a malicious player can utterly whomp anything you are trying to achieve with LAN bandwidth, without affecting you in the slightest, or it being visible to FD, or it being an exploit?

thanks for pointing out that p2p was a very bad and silly idea for an open world game. can't be stressed enough.

but you guys were debating about some secondary aspects of the tip of that iceberg ... please continue! [haha]

 

[Sylveria]

No im not . Big difference. Has nothing to do with folding. Learn the game.

We already have punishments in place.

You likely didn't see my edit before you responded so I'll help you out here.

EDIT: Oh and that "shieldless asp (or whatever ship)" example you use all the time still doesn't prove intent. If you don't know the vessel is engaging in PowerPlay (carrying leaflets or whatever) or directly manipulating the BGS, then you cannot prove the intent of that vessel.

Come back with a valid argument, please. Just as one cannot prove that a "ganker" is a "griefer", one cannot prove that another is intentionally setting out to circumvent game mechanics like you so wildly like to assert, either.

This is about establishing that either rules should not exist (as they don't currently) or establishing that if they do they're equally applied. Either you agree or you don't.

 

[philngraves]

Then on that, we're in definitive agreement.

I'm all for rules against combat logging, as long as rules against shooting unarmed vessels are established at the same time. Equal penalties for both parties.

Combat logging would be defined as those who have returned fire in an engagement logging off before combat has finished. Shooting unarmed vessels is self-explanatory. If a vessel does not return fire, then apparently they're unarmed.

Penalty should be let's say... immediate ship self-destruction with a full rebuy penalty and no insurance?

Still want those rules?

I understand that your example is exaggerted, however it is still exploitable. Doing so would cause a whole new chain of 'griefing' threads. Just have a wing of pvp ships and one unarmed uparmored ship to fly in front of your wing mates so that when they get shot your enemy explodes and pays a billion to rebuy his vette.

For the logging example, they rarely shoot at all. Too busy either menu logging or task killing.

With the creation of a system, you create the framework for that system to be exploited.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

You likely didn't see my edit before you responded so I'll help you out here.



Come back with a valid argument, please. Just as one cannot prove that a "ganker" is a "griefer", one cannot prove that another is intentionally setting out to circumvent game mechanics like you so wildly like to assert, either.

This is about establishing that either rules should not exist (as they don't currently) or establishing that if they do they're equally applied. Either you agree or you don't.

I cant come back with a valid argument because you're trying to win your argument on a case by case basis. Based on technicalities instead of the rules they have given us for the game.

You are making up a bunch of stupid crap because you dont understand the game in front of you and are calling it "rules".

I think you should get off the forums. Go engineer your ship. And go learn how to play the game with other people in it.

Instead of looking like a fool trying to get something changed you know nothing about.

Hows that for a valid argument?