Afk Auto-boot

[sirrobin]

I say just log them off after a half hour

[MarantZ]

It's self-indulgent just playing the game  So let's all log off and go help the needy.

 

But playing EL doesn't affect the gaming experience of others does it? It's not until you do something such as afk at a storage (for, as yet, no established practicle reason) that other players are affected. So yes, it is self indulgent.

 

Aaargh lol, nobody is arguing the point that afking at public places is bad. I totally agree. I think everybody here does.

 

We have merely established that afk per se isn't so bad, but afk at storage is. We have also established it isn't so much the bandwidth that is the problem, but the fact a players character burdens everyone else's pc with additional processing load. This wasn't so clear at the beginning of the thread. Who is arguing? No one.

Edited May 13, 2005 by MarantZ

[Aislinn]

But playing EL doesn't affect the gaming experience of others does it? It's not until you do something such as afk at a storage that other players are affected. So yes, it is self indulgent.

161921[/snapback]

....lets try this again. Afking is not necessarily the same as afking at storage. If I am afk say...in a house someplace, that does not affect anyone else anymore than if i was not afk and happily playing someplace. Part of my enjoyable gameplay is to remain online afk. I do not in any way advocate afking at storage, at beam, wraith, or any public area.

 

Afking does NOT equal afking in public crowded places.

So disconnecting us who do not do this is NOT fair.

[MarantZ]

Afking does NOT equal afking in public crowded places.

So disconnecting us who do not do this is NOT fair.

 

Have you read any of my posts? A couple of my quotes:

 

It is this graphical processing of all the characters at storage that causes the problem at storages for everyone's pc's!

 

We have merely established that afk per se isn't so bad, but afk at storage is.

 

When did I say disconnect people for being afk? I didn't.

When did I say afk is the same as afk at storage? I didn't. In fact I said exactly the opposite!

 

Please do me the courtesy of reading my posts before responding to them.

Edited May 13, 2005 by MarantZ

[Aislinn]

As has been said, it isn't actually the bandwidth that is the problem - it's the fact you are connected.

Additionally, your statement of 'bandwidth is cheap' infers that everyone should pay for bandwidth so that they can cater for people who want to be self indulgent and not log off. Not what I'd call 'fair'.

161822[/snapback]

Yes, I did read what you wrote.

[MarantZ]

Yes, I did read what you wrote.

 

No, you only read PART of it.

 

I also noticed your quoting of me is, shall we say, heavily edited. If you quoted the entire paragraph, instead of just a sentence, you would see a big difference!

 

You suggest I said:

 

As has been said, it isn't actually the bandwidth that is the problem - it's the fact you are connected

 

What I actually said was:

 

As has been said, it isn't actually the bandwidth that is the problem - it's the fact you are connected. Your connection means that there is another character that everyone else's pc has to process. It is this graphical processing of all the characters at storage that causes the problem at storages for everyone's pc's!

 

As is obvious, they are very different.

 

Like I said, Please do me the courtesy of reading my posts before responding to them.

Edited May 13, 2005 by MarantZ

[Aislinn]

I also see that several of your posts are edited...possibly AFTER I read them?

 

All I am wanting to point out is that afking is no worse than playing, and not self-indulgent. It is totally different if you are afking in a remote area far removed from storages and any other heavily populated/traffic areas.

[MarantZ]

I also see that several of your posts are edited...possibly AFTER I read them?

 

Not after youve read them. I like to ensure they don't have spelling mistakes. I wouldn't change anything else - its a dirty trick. I simply like to submit posts with out spelling mistakes.

 

All I am wanting to point out is that afking is no worse than playing, and not self-indulgent. It is totally different if you are afking in a remote area far removed from storages and any other heavily populated/traffic areas.

 

Agreed.

Edited May 13, 2005 by MarantZ

[DaWolffe]

After reading through all this it seems obvious that the four options offered in the poll are no longer sufficient. It appears that most agree there shouldn't be a kick/auto-boot type thing for AFK. At the same time, it is apparent, there needs to be some type of control mechanism to keep the AFK'ing from diversely affecting the game.

 

Perhaps the poll should be re-cast to better reflect the overall consensus of the community that has spoken. Proposal could be;

 

1) Yes, there should be a disconnect for excessive AFK.

2) Going AFK over 1hr should go to "CONTROL" state. (to be further discused)

3) No, there should NOT be a disconnect for excessive AFK.

 

It seems that if this were done then '2' would win. The logical course then becomes to discus various options for the "CONTROL" state. Then present them to the developers to see which of the options could actually be implemented while producing the intended outcome.

[Mr.Mind]

The only reason I ever go AFK is if I want to be able to get the harvest xp for the hour when I come back instead of wasting it.

[Daxon]

The only reason I ever go AFK is if I want to be able to get the harvest xp for the hour when I come back instead of wasting it.

161984[/snapback]

 

That might be the best reason yet: most people are not going to log out and second-guess what the ingame time is, only to log in a couple of minutes after the hour changes.

[ttlanhil]

That might be the best reason yet:  most people are not going to log out and second-guess what the ingame time is, only to log in a couple of minutes after the hour changes. 

161990[/snapback]

This is certainly true, but if you get cut off after an hour, you've already got a clean harvest-hour waiting for you when you get back anyway

[SitDownAtStorag]

Afk to ensure harvest entitlement when you get back is ok, we all do it. The issue is to establish if people are sufficiently annoyed when players do that at storage. And if so, what could be done about it, if anything.

[Vanyel]

They are doing it at storage, near resources, at beam - everywhere, but in calm, quiet and peaceful places!

That's what should be finished. The problem is what to do? Tp, boot, make pkable? Ha!

I don't have anything against being afk in whole - just ^^

[SitDownAtStorag]

I know it's unpopular, but the idea of making someone pkable after a couple of hours of afk near a busy area is........ appealing!

[MarantZ]

I know it's unpopular, but the idea of making someone pkable after a couple of hours of afk near a busy area is........ appealing!

 

Heh heh! *Evil glint in eyes*

[Lyanna]

Thank you, DaWolfe, for trying to clear things up.

 

Okay, I'm simply of the opinion that we go for the second option... setting AFK players to some sort of CONTROL state after 1 hour. The easiest and friendliest of those options, of course, is to teleport them to some remote and quiet place (like a bed somewhere... maybe the dormitories in Tarsengaard Mage School?). They can easily beam out when they return.

 

The thing about afk, I noticed, is that newbies can get very frustrated trying to talk to an afk-player sometimes. Which is why IP, beam, or even some houses in popular areas are not good ideas.

 

-Lyn-

[Benvolio]

Ok so the only pro is to save bandwidth... so where is the con? 

 

Also, it does cause lag from FPS going down with extra people on the screen... esp in storage.

160876[/snapback]

the con would be that people would not be able to leave the chars on to read for the 45 minutes or whatever

 

what if you could not be afk in highly populated areas, i.e. storages, etc?

[LaNora]

but if you took away the afk people, the game would be EMPTY, and right now they add something to the scenery, when you walk around in real life there are peeps who arent talking to you but they are still there adding to the scenery, i sak leave them alone. <_<

[Vanyel]

but if you took away the afk people, the game would be EMPTY, and right now they add something to the scenery, when you walk around in real life there are peeps who arent talking to you but they are still there adding to the scenery, i sak leave them alone. <_<

162891[/snapback]

 

There is at least grain of truth in it, but I still think afk ppl should be tped or disconnected (after one hour - they will not loose their precious harvesting time). AFK peaple are like wax sculptures and EL is not museum.

[SitDownAtStorag]

I thought we moved on from that. AFK = OK! AFK at storage/heavily populated areas = BAD!

 

The discussion now is what would be the ideal way to deal with those who AFK at BUSY AREAS ONLY!

[Derin]

Thank you, DaWolfe, for trying to clear things up.

 

The thing about afk, I noticed, is that newbies can get very frustrated trying to talk to an afk-player sometimes. Which is why IP, beam, or even some houses in popular areas are not good ideas.

 

-Lyn-

162142[/snapback]

 

That's why we have the afk messages, so that other ppl would know that you are afk.

[jakoblin]

let me clarifie about bandwidth.

 

I use hotspot bandwidth. u use a laptop that is connected to a hotspot that is sponsor by a business .

 

that bandwidth is free.