How to implement no-logging correctly

SO!
There are a lot of issues relating to how exactly to implement no-log off in a way that's fair, realistic, but risky!
On the one hand, people need to be risking their loot in order to make space into what MA intended. but on the other, if a real life issue were to occur, and place their avatar out of their control through no fault of their own, exactly how much risk are we going to expose them to when all they wanted was a ark>caly? Do we leave them physically on the ship till they can get ahold of their avatar again, potentially overloading the ship servers with walls of logged off flesh in the process? Do we dump them at a nearby station, allowing them to simply log off to safety if their ship is losing, despite MA's changes and the pirates efforts, while also removing a players ability to live on a ship like myself and dozens others?

Both of these systems have their merits, both have their cost and downfalls, so why not mix the two!?
This is my proposal.

You have two methods to log out, one i will refer to as the involuntary variety (DC) and the voluntary one (cryo)
The idea is very simple. Lets say that two people are taking a VIP warp, the popular Ark>caly on the mothership 'mtndew'. one person, who we will call 'lootius' has loot, while the other, 'nothingbutdung' does not have loot. The mtndew pulls out of ark and powers up its warp drive, when suddenly, Lootius's home loses power, and Dung gets a phone call. Dung goes to the Mtndew's closest bed, and is placed into cryo, and vanishes from the server. Lootius does the AFK pose, and stays physically on the ship.

Oh shit! The Infamous pirate conglomerate 'Getlooted' drops a warp mine, and catches the Mtndew with it's pants around its ankles, crewless and vulnerable!
Naturally, the Mtndew gets it's shit kicked, and upon blowing, BOTH Lootius and Dung are tossed into space. both are killed, along with the pilot. Dung is placed back in cryo where he belongs, and can stay with the ship as he intended while away. Lootius, unfortunately, is dumped at Zues station. Let me explain this last part further, and detail why this must happen.

Lets say everything stays the same, bar one difference. Getlooted are at the wrong warp gate, and the Mtndew slips past, landing outside of CSS. They pull into station, and here we see something different occur.
Dung stays with the ship, as he has accepted the risk of being killed and looted for an indefinite period. But he doesn't care, he has no loot! Lootius, on the other hand, isn't in cryo, and is instead DC'd and on the ship. The game recognizes that he isn't connected, and in order to not expose him to exponentially more risk than he intended, and weigh down the server with inert bodies, dumps his power losing ass on the first safe station he comes to and removes him physically from the game world. In this scenario, Caly SS. In the last, Zeus

Every single person wins. Dung stays with the ship he crews, works on, and for all intents and purposes lives with. Lootius takes the risk he accepted, moving through PVP space, and if he gets there safe, that's it. No more for him. He didn't ask to be dragged around till his power comes back, and to be subjected to that would be unfair. Getlooted get's their crack at the Mtndew, and if they win, claim rights to all loot aboard, whether you're logged on or not.

This really is the best of both worlds, and after days of contemplation, this is the best system i can think of. If you think you can do better, take a crack at it! I would love to hear peoples thoughts on this.

I dunno I find it a little hard to understand..

Why not just increase the time the ava remains in game after dc to 3 minutes or something, then there would be enough time to destroy the ship and loot the players?

Feel free to correct my ignorance.

I do think that MA should change their process now for how they plan and implement new features, it should go through the playerbase to avoid the usual scenario where they bring out new content and we point out why it's so flawed then it takes 6-12 months to sort out.

Due to the immense size and fragmentation of proffesions and play styles in EU I don't think the "Comitee board meeting" model is effective now..

Soo much over-complication due to a rule that is no longer relevant

For me the fact that there is an MA sanctioned way of getting around lootable space means its no longer necessary so why not keep space pvp but instead of from players pockets the 'loot' comes from decay created in space?

PVP'ers will get their action-and I bet more of it-MA gets to continue with its pvp based space plans and the rest of us get to go about our virtual lives without feeling like the company is setting us up to be robbed blind for no apparent reason.

mitsuwa said:

(...)
On the one hand, people need to be risking their loot in order to make space into what MA intended.
(...)

Click to expand...

How do you know that it is not working as intended already .

Kitch said:

(...)
Why not just increase the time the ava remains in game after dc to 3 minutes or something, then there would be enough time to destroy the ship and loot the players?
(...)

Click to expand...

This would not solve the problem - most players log out "before" leaving safe space and log back when the MS is docked on next SS. So this would just extend safe warping procedure for next 3 minutes .

---

@on topic:
I vote: remove lootable aspect from most space completly and leave it only in space mob hunting zones (making them like pvp3/4).

Falagor

Falagor said:

How do you know that it is not working as intended already .



This would not solve the problem - most players log out "before" leaving safe space and log back when the MS is docked on next SS. So this would just extend safe warping procedure for next 3 minutes .

---

@on topic:
I vote: remove lootable aspect from most space completly and leave it only in space mob hunting zones (making them like pvp3/4).

Falagor

Click to expand...

Sorry when I wrote that I was smoking crack

Nah I think you should be 100% lootable when your in space whether logged in or not so yeah I guess Mitsuwa's idea is fine, I see logging off to avoid risk as pure unambiguous exploiting so it should not be possible

mitsuwa said:

SO!
Do we leave them physically on the ship till they can get ahold of their avatar again, Do we dump them at a nearby station, allowing them to simply log off to safety if their ship is losing, despite MA's changes and the pirates efforts, while also removing a players ability to live on a ship like myself and dozens others?

Both of these systems have their merits, both have their cost and downfalls..

Click to expand...

Nope to both, they are both pants ideas. I much prefer the container idea and its very much in keeping with the current path of the missions. Also allowing space crew to live aboard and still combats the issue.

mitsuwa said:

one person, who we will call 'lootius' has loot, while the other, 'nothingbutdung' does not have loot. Lootius's home loses power, and Dung gets a phone call. Dung is placed into cryo, and vanishes from the server. Lootius does the AFK pose, and stays physically on the ship.

Click to expand...

Wait you've lost me! So the afk one goes into Cyro, and the Dc'd one goes into an afk pose? Surely it should be the other way around? Like - Lootius dcd, goes into cyro, Dung is afk, goes afk pose?



I can kinda see where you are going with it, and it was a fun story I appreciate people coming up with ideas to help improve our beloved space.

I just think it could all be a tad simpler by saying that your loot goes into a ship container. If you dc it gets sent back to the last ss you were on. That way, if someone wants to travel with loot they have to actually be online.

If someone dc's with loot then they can complete their journey but the loot cant, if someone dc's without loot, it makes no odds, and if crew or passengers dc then they don't get flung back across the universe, regardless of loot

That takes away the risk free element of transporting loot,is in keeping with MA's plan and still allows for accidental disconnections, without a whole load of fuss

I won't vote in the poll, as although I'm not in favour, I wouldn't call anyone an idiot who puts ideas across and is trying to improve things.

I am confused by all of this as it has been a while since I spent any serious time playing in space.

Is it the opinion of the space fairing players that the container system means that we believe MA are going to remove the log off in space function when on a warp capable ship ?

In the past when I was hanging around in space a bit this was the main discussion point for all players in space - MS owners, crews and pirates. It seemed to have been established back then that this was the only way to develop space. Everyone on both sides in space seemed to agree.

Pirates would be able to loot all players killed on Warp Ships which sounds bad for the average tourist but even I back then understood the need for this. Warp ships would have to beef up their SI even more to counteract the pirates and it would have produced a situation where Warp captains might even employee squadrons of quad pilots to help defend their ships, either by having them on board to be spawned at a moments notice or as escorts in the periods when the MS was in pvp but not at warp.

I agreed with all of this at the time but looking at it now, I ask the question of who would lose out. It seems to me that players would have to pay higher prices for warp jumps than currently without the protection they have now with the log off function.

Maybe I have it all wrong, do we think the intended container system gives protection against normal players losing their loot in space ? For example I have 10,000 basic leather extractors I want to move from Ark to Caly. Currently I can pay the warp fee plus the 7 ped to TP from Caly SS to the surface.

With the container system would I pay a fee, say 15 ped for arguments sake on Ark to have my extractors transported to Caly. An MS captain sees my delivery request and agrees to haul it. When the MS safely delivers the cargo to Caly they get say 10 ped for doing this. If during the flight the MS is attacked and destroyed by pirates, they claim the loot in the container. The loot in the container is worth a lot more than the delivery fee, so why bother delivering it to collect the delivery fee. If on the other hand the container system does not allow the pirate to access the stackables but only take possession on the container then presumable the pirate is forced to deliver the container to receive any delivery fee.

In view of what I have outlined above I have a few points to make.

1. Does the pirate have to go planetside to deliver the containers or can they be dropped of at the relevant SS. I know from experiencing a few months in space that landing fees end up being something spacefarers try to avoid, they soon mount up.

2. Currently pirates have the chance to loot all stackables from a player they kill in pvp. This can be (so it is alleged) a considerable amount of ped. If each container has only the value of the delivery charge, is it financially viable for the pirates to go to all the expense of destroying an MS to collect a few delivery fees.

3. If this is not the intention then the alternative is I pay the delivery charge for my stackables to go from Ark to Caly (15 ped). MS owner agrees to courier it. Pirates destroy the MS and take containers. If the pirates can loot the actual stackables and not just the container delivery value, then I have lost all my stackables even though I paid for a service to deliver them. In the real world people pay extra for recorded delivery and insurance against such occurences, I have trouble comprehending how this will all work.

However as I said before it has been a while since I spent any real in game time in space so maybe someone more enlightened than me can explain how they think this system might work.

moondog said:

I am confused by all of this as it has been a while since I spent any serious time playing in space.

Is it the opinion of the space fairing players that the container system means that we believe MA are going to remove the log off in space function when on a warp capable ship ?

In the past when I was hanging around in space a bit this was the main discussion point for all players in space - MS owners, crews and pirates. It seemed to have been established back then that this was the only way to develop space. Everyone on both sides in space seemed to agree.

Pirates would be able to loot all players killed on Warp Ships which sounds bad for the average tourist but even I back then understood the need for this. Warp ships would have to beef up their SI even more to counteract the pirates and it would have produced a situation where Warp captains might even employee squadrons of quad pilots to help defend their ships, either by having them on board to be spawned at a moments notice or as escorts in the periods when the MS was in pvp but not at warp.

I agreed with all of this at the time but looking at it now, I ask the question of who would lose out. It seems to me that players would have to pay higher prices for warp jumps than currently without the protection they have now with the log off function.

Maybe I have it all wrong, do we think the intended container system gives protection against normal players losing their loot in space ? For example I have 10,000 basic leather extractors I want to move from Ark to Caly. Currently I can pay the warp fee plus the 7 ped to TP from Caly SS to the surface.

With the container system would I pay a fee, say 15 ped for arguments sake on Ark to have my extractors transported to Caly. An MS captain sees my delivery request and agrees to haul it. When the MS safely delivers the cargo to Caly they get say 10 ped for doing this. If during the flight the MS is attacked and destroyed by pirates, they claim the loot in the container. The loot in the container is worth a lot more than the delivery fee, so why bother delivering it to collect the delivery fee. If on the other hand the container system does not allow the pirate to access the stackables but only take possession on the container then presumable the pirate is forced to deliver the container to receive any delivery fee.

In view of what I have outlined above I have a few points to make.

1. Does the pirate have to go planetside to deliver the containers or can they be dropped of at the relevant SS. I know from experiencing a few months in space that landing fees end up being something spacefarers try to avoid, they soon mount up.

2. Currently pirates have the chance to loot all stackables from a player they kill in pvp. This can be (so it is alleged) a considerable amount of ped. If each container has only the value of the delivery charge, is it financially viable for the pirates to go to all the expense of destroying an MS to collect a few delivery fees.

3. If this is not the intention then the alternative is I pay the delivery charge for my stackables to go from Ark to Caly (15 ped). MS owner agrees to courier it. Pirates destroy the MS and take containers. If the pirates can loot the actual stackables and not just the container delivery value, then I have lost all my stackables even though I paid for a service to deliver them. In the real world people pay extra for recorded delivery and insurance against such occurences, I have trouble comprehending how this will all work.

However as I said before it has been a while since I spent any real in game time in space so maybe someone more enlightened than me can explain how they think this system might work

Click to expand...

As far as I am aware the new container missions won't actually have any direct link to your loot. It auction linked. You buy something from auction, and have the option to instantly transfer it to your avatar for a fee. It won't be that "Bonnie" is transporting your loot through space. More than you paid your fee, you get your loot. This fee is then added to the mission pool, and used as part payment to those doing missions of various values.

So players will have the option to transport it now safely and instantly for a fee - which can be "earned" by space players by doing missions, or you take your chances in space.

If taking your chances, then a similar container system could be implemented to both be in keeping with the theme, and remove the "logged out" transport of stackables

Although that is all just from what I have read, I can't wait to see how it all pans out

Yup the actual space missions will not envolve carrying actual lootable stuff (as far as we know)
If however you jump on a mothership carrying loot when the "log off " exploit has been removed ,all your loot is vulnerable.

So the container solution does seem the best so if you do lose power , your not lootable all night or week long.

The transport fees collected for the Normal and Instant Delivery options will be held in a special transport fee pool. In a subsequent Version Update, transport missions will be made available that can be claimed by spaceship pilots via a queue system that incorporates the available transport fee pool, pilot skills, time limitations, and ship cargo capacities.

It will still be possible to transport goods and resources through space in the current manner, though changes will be made in upcoming Version Updates to address currently existing issues and loopholes that allow for risk-free transport of goods and materials through space.

Click to expand...

https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/showthread.php?267553-Developer-Notes-10-Galactic-Transport

I also have to vote for just expanding the container system, it needs to be enforced that lootable stuff gets moved into a container when entering space - this is the only way for a spacecraft to be limited in transport capabilties by the number and weight of containers.
The system you suggest could work together with a container system thought.

It is important that transport capabilties are limited to avoid space to be dominated by a single spacecraft and transporting people logged out holds the risk of surpassing limits.
As i said in the past currently there is a limit of 50 people per ship online at the same time, but if you can transport stuff while logged out then the limit is set by the guestlist which is 500 and if mindark ever fixes the option to make ships public there actually isnt any limit to the amount of people logged on a ship at all.

Only with adjustable limits such a system can be balanced and containers allow for easy adjustments in size, weight and avaiabilty.

Your system also doesnt consider hunting and living in space as pointed out by Alaina - we cant have hunters logout on the ship and safely move their loot to another spacestation this way - hunting loot needs to stay with the ship or exploits become possible.

Alainax said:

Nope to both, they are both pants ideas. I much prefer the container idea and its very much in keeping with the current path of the missions. Also allowing space crew to live aboard and still combats the issue.


Wait you've lost me! So the afk one goes into Cyro, and the Dc'd one goes into an afk pose? Surely it should be the other way around? Like - Lootius dcd, goes into cyro, Dung is afk, goes afk pose?



I can kinda see where you are going with it, and it was a fun story I appreciate people coming up with ideas to help improve our beloved space.

I just think it could all be a tad simpler by saying that your loot goes into a ship container. If you dc it gets sent back to the last ss you were on. That way, if someone wants to travel with loot they have to actually be online.

If someone dc's with loot then they can complete their journey but the loot cant, if someone dc's without loot, it makes no odds, and if crew or passengers dc then they don't get flung back across the universe, regardless of loot

That takes away the risk free element of transporting loot,is in keeping with MA's plan and still allows for accidental disconnections, without a whole load of fuss

I won't vote in the poll, as although I'm not in favour, I wouldn't call anyone an idiot who puts ideas across and is trying to improve things.

Click to expand...

This looks good on paper, but if I'm on a ship that can last 30 seconds in an attack, and I have 10k loot, my ass is about to have an 'accidental' dc so that loot is whisked away to safety

moondog said:

then presumable the pirate is forced to deliver the container to receive any delivery fee..

Click to expand...

I had to rofl at how unrealistic that is.. Imagine blackbeard looting a load of treasures then safely delivering them for a modest fee

If you're on a mothership, there are still other players not disconnected who can help defend you (healing, shooting, flying).

I feel like the real problem would be when you're flying on your own.

It's unfortunate that people would abuse any system meant to protect legitimate disconnects. Honestly, because of the obvious abuse that would occur, the only real option in my opinion is that disconnects have a 60 second timer countdown (equivalent to teleporting). If you are attacked in that time and were honestly disconnected, it's unfortunate, but there's no way to tell between legit and abuse of mechanic disconnect.

im pretty sure that this wont be implemented by just extending the log out timer

Scurvy Sityl said:

If you're on a mothership, there are still other players not disconnected who can help defend you (healing, shooting, flying).

I feel like the real problem would be when you're flying on your own.

It's unfortunate that people would abuse any system meant to protect legitimate disconnects. Honestly, because of the obvious abuse that would occur, the only real option in my opinion is that disconnects have a 60 second timer countdown (equivalent to teleporting). If you are attacked in that time and were honestly disconnected, it's unfortunate, but there's no way to tell between legit and abuse of mechanic disconnect.

Click to expand...

Prelonging logout procedures in space surely would help to avoid misuse of them, however in the case of a true disconnect every crewmember who wants to quickly get back ingame to support his ship/crew in an ongoing battle would be shut out till the logoff timer expires which could be quite devastating in a large scale battle when there is lots of people and disconnects due to lag.
A solution could be if mindark found a way to allow us to log back into the game while our avatar is still ingame, then those who got disconnected unintentional would have the chance to get back quickly to fight for their ship and crewmates.

I want to remind everyone that MA has said nothing about removing logout. That's just something someone extrapolated to from the original message and now you all think it is the truth. I don't think it will disappear since it would ruin repair skilling and hunting in space. No one uses logout anyways, at least no one with brains enough to travel with the safest of the space travel businesses.

That would cost MA money. All that is said is that some exploit will be fixed. Perhaps it is just the speed hack. Removing logout makes no sense at all and space would be even more dead, despite giving away low cost captain skills to everyone (but a few players, kudos).

Or I hVe missed something which I highly doubt I have.

John B Knight said:

Prelonging logout procedures in space surely would help to avoid misuse of them, however in the case of a true disconnect every crewmember who wants to quickly get back ingame to support his ship/crew in an ongoing battle would be shut out till the logoff timer expires which could be quite devastating in a large scale battle when there is lots of people and disconnects due to lag.
A solution could be if mindark found a way to allow us to log back into the game while our avatar is still ingame, then those who got disconnected unintentional would have the chance to get back quickly to fight for their ship and crewmates.

Click to expand...

That's a good point.

WhiningSkeptic said:

I want to remind everyone that MA has said nothing about removing logout. That's just something someone extrapolated to from the original message and now you all think it is the truth. I don't think it will disappear since it would ruin repair skilling and hunting in space. No one uses logout anyways, at least no one with brains enough to travel with the safest of the space travel businesses.

That would cost MA money. All that is said is that some exploit will be fixed. Perhaps it is just the speed hack. Removing logout makes no sense at all and space would be even more dead, despite giving away low cost captain skills to everyone (but a few players, kudos).

Or I hVe missed something which I highly doubt I have.

Click to expand...

Here is what they actually said:

Bertha Bot said:

It will still be possible to transport goods and resources through space in the current manner, though changes will be made in upcoming Version Updates to address currently existing issues and loopholes that allow for risk-free transport of goods and materials through space.

Click to expand...

So the issue in their POV is "risk-free transport".

WhiningSkeptic said:

I want to remind everyone that MA has said nothing about removing logout. That's just something someone extrapolated to from the original message and now you all think it is the truth.

Click to expand...

Thats right , MA have hinted at this with their statement that they will fix risk free travel in space. Thats what everyone is basing this off.

What else could that statement mean ?

WhiningSkeptic said:

I don't think it will disappear since it would ruin repair skilling and hunting in space. No one uses logout anyways, at least no one with brains enough to travel with the safest of the space travel businesses.
snip...

Click to expand...

I have never quite understood this either.

Kitch said:

I had to rofl at how unrealistic that is.. Imagine blackbeard looting a load of treasures then safely delivering them for a modest fee

Click to expand...

As I said, it has been a while since I spent any real game time in space and was trying to get my head around the situation and how it might work. I agree it seems stupid but if the log off is removed and everyone transports via containers, what is in it for the pirates ?

It does not sound legal in my ears because this is a money game, I dont know any gambling games where you are forced to play a round more, and cant stop when you want.
So ..No. I dont think MA will ever do that.

valentin said:

It does not sound legal in my ears because this is a money game, I dont know any gambling games where you are forced to play a round more, and cant stop when you want.
So ..No. I dont think MA will ever do that.

Click to expand...

MA has gone to great lengths to state their product is not a casino, so not sure that legal argument holds up.

My connection is playing up.... how ironic! Hope this is posted ONCE!

Alainax said:

I won't vote in the poll, as although I'm not in favour, I wouldn't call anyone an idiot who puts ideas across and is trying to improve things.

Click to expand...

Yes, a sentiment I very much agree with. However..... trying to surgically operate out which bits of which posts I think make sense (across a variety of 'patients' simultaneously) is frustrating me to high heaven.

I don't want any kind of monopoly on common sense, as I get more and more frustrated the more of it I seem to accrue compared to others, but what is happening around here?!

I guess my wish is that people would consider the consequences of any feature (or clearly defined part of it) before posting it and not leave it up to someone just minutes later to be able to point out an 'obvious flaw'.

But yes, if I remember correctly, MA did not say they would remove the ability to log off in space, it was about MA removing some of the consequencies of doing so. As people have put forward, one way is to tie stackables to the ship you are on in some way until you leave the ship again. However, because people are sometimes at the mercy of a lost connection for anything from seconds to weeks, I think a solution should involve player choices unless there is actually a solution to suit all. [note: having choices creates more room for exploitation - yup, even so...]

After all, team hunting has loot mode choices, for example - and joining instances requires you being in a team.
Maybe boarding a spacecraft could use some of the programming already available to MA and a player could select a timeout and a loot rule for his/her lootables.

However: returning lootables to last SS would be a way to send hunting loot to safety, so the rule would either have to be made more complicated, or I'm against that idea. The rule that could be ticked might be something like "drop off stackables to next-visited safe haven if the player does not respond to a message box on arrival".
That way any stackables would not stay tied to the ship for an extended period (in most cases). [Cue ship pilot to make an unintended warp to NI instead of Ark and see people complain later that their stuff is at NI SS for some reason...] OK, add a destination to the list selection to avoid stacks being all over the place...

It does also mean that MA would have to add storage sectors to each SS - instead of just at asteroids as at the moment, but that doesn't seem to be a problem really. We already sometimes have 2 storages per planet as it is (Arkadia underground, Cyrene hub...)

Ok, gotta go. Gawd I hope I haven't written anything really idiotic here

Scurvy Sityl said:

MA has gone to great lengths to state their product is not a casino, so not sure that legal argument holds up.

Click to expand...

Yes.. MA has told os so much even that Marco:s gun is " no loot gun " and so on.

Haruto Rat said:

Here is what they actually said:



So the issue in their POV is "risk-free transport".

Click to expand...

Thank you. My memory presented something much mor vague to me.

Some thought, based on some of the above...

Looting a downed ship.
There should not be a 'loot all' scenario, this would be ridiculous. People often cite RL examples ..well consider this, can a bank robber or house-breaker press loot-all, or do they have to just get what they can in the window of opportunity.
So this part needs to be similar to now. Ship blows up and all avatars and all mission boxes dumped to space - only those killed or captured (boxes) by pirates are looted. The remainder have lucky escape.
The more people on board greater the number of targets which reduces the risk to each individual. Birds flock and many animals move as herds to reduce individual risk from predators.
This is balanced however by having potentially more lootables on board so pirates have more potential victims.

Log- Offs
On log off (voluntary)
All avatars would be warned, on log-out request, that they will remain lootable until ship next docks at a Spacestation. if they accept then they are offered an additional 2 options:
a. Stay with ship.. this is what I think Mitsuwa means by 'cryo'. Avatar is lootable only until next station, it is then ignored by system until next log-in. This is not an exploit to avoid pirates any more than getting off at the SS to go to sleep. It just removes the need to get back to the ship on next log-in
b. Leave ship at SS. They remain lootable until that specific journey is complete and ship docks. The system then places them on the SS. When they next log in they can use TP to planet or risk local pirates and fly to planet.. their choice.

So why don't we leave all log offs vulnerable until they get off the ship ?
1. Crew..
We do need to sleep, work in rl, have a life, we are not robots, but if we can only safely log-off at a SS and ships move all the time, is it reasonable for logged off crew to have to leave the ship and have the problem of returning to it next day?
This imo tips the balance too far towards the pirates. Why? Because ships are left short handed until crew get back to them, or they lose crew completely cos fed up of having to waste hours per week quadding to ship or waiting at SS.
Also they would additionally be vulnerable while quadding, and although almost certainly lootless, have the inconvenience of additional delay, decay etc if shot down.
Oh boo hoo I hear the pirates say. But heads up, if the crews are lost because too much of a pain in the ass to be in space, then those lovely MS's will likely go dark and cease operating, where is your lovely loot then. A few quads taking a risk (needles in a haystack) leaves you worse off than today.

2. Customers..
It is unreasonable to expect an avatar or it's loots to be vulnerable for longer than the intended journey. Too many rl things can interfere and leave this outside player control.
So... 2 options on accepting the 'ticket to ride'
a. They are deemed lootable until next docking when system places them on the SS.
b. They can select destination and remain lootable until that specific SS is reached, then system places them on SS (this is essential for multiple warps such as scheduled services, or double warp to get friend(s) on way to final destination
Pirates can still loot them for the intended period in space, but avatar at no greater or lesser risk than if they stayed logged in.

Involuntary log-off
For those of you that think all log off in space (or elsewhere in game) are voluntary or if DC then quick to log back in, consider these scenarios, and I'll bet you have experienced 1 or more, and know many people who have too.
Crash to Desktop, but server busy and unable to re-log... (go on are you really that 1 person in EU that has never had that happen)
Family emergency, have to rush to deal with sick child, accident in home etc
Internet loss
Power outage, very common in for instance parts of USA, Canada, Australia where monsoons, tornados floods or winter snowstorms disrupt power for days or even weeks
Computer dies,, not everyone can afford to go back out and buy one tomorrow..you could be out of game for months
A real life crisis is not therefore added too unnecessarily, but logging off as an exploit is eradicated as they are still at risk until chosen destination.
Solution. They are deemed lootable until next docking when system places them on the SS
There is still some limited risk of being looted so pirates happy, but if these things happen you don't need to be worrying unduly about your lootables in space, you don't need a calculated risk to be escalated and beyond your control.

Lets not be seeing people rage quit because EU has turned a RL tragedy into a source of stress and or serious loss in game too.

It is first and foremost a game and supposed to be fun​

​

I would just like to point out that functionally, the ToS 'container' system is the same as my idea, minus on difference: you cant send loot back to the SS if you're under attack.
I'm not sure if I'm losing meaning somewhere in all the semantics, please clarify if you mean something different.

Ooh! I know! Craftable containers (UL) and craftable lock-picking sets (single-use) to open a container that doesn't belong to you!

mitsuwa said:

I would just like to point out that functionally, the ToS 'container' system is the same as my idea, minus on difference: you cant send loot back to the SS if you're under attack.
I'm not sure if I'm losing meaning somewhere in all the semantics, please clarify if you mean something different.

Click to expand...

Part of the containr systems suggestion was that the containers get sent back to last docked spacestation if person logs for a set amount of time inentionally or unintentionally.
So the sending back is covered in both our suggestions.

I have additional questions now.
Your system allows the contingency of logging off still. The loot is just kicked back to a safe station and you have to try again later. Mine means that the crew have to do what they were already doin, which is get from A to B without dying, and if they can, you are dumped to station with your loot.

Given that this is the sole difference, which it is, what about your system makes it more fair and favorable vs mine?


Kratt, please hang yourself at your earliest convenience.