UPDATED: Developer-Friendly & Condensed Proposal for an In-Game Pause: Pausing Character, Not Game

I still think in addition to taking 5 seconds to initiate, you should have to be at full health/energy shield and if there is the concept of "in combat" you must be out of combat.

This should be something you can only use between fights, never during fights.

I'm not going to re-quote a dozen paragraphs. All you've done is reassert your original arguments and failed to address my point. I will rephrase.

A limit is not a flaw, the fact that weapons don't do a billion damage isn't a flaw, it's a limit. A specifically chosen limit put in place to make the game more difficult and balanced. The things you've listed about portal scrolls are not flaws, they are the reason that portals exist. They are meant to be limited in quantity and they are meant to disappear after certain time specifically to counter the type of thing that you are suggesting.

Devs don't want a thousand inastances with afk players in them taking up bandwidth that could be used for other players, that's why they disappear after 8 minutes. Pausing for longer than that would result in the same problems. So again, your pause feature is the exact same thing as a portal scroll.

And yes, players would use it exactly as I describe as a way to circumvent waypoints. If there's anything we know about arpg players, is that they will find and exploit everything that gives an advantage and being able to indefinitely pause in an area would make progressing through content substantially easier than the waypoint system. Which again, is specifically in place to prevent the type of thing that you are suggesting.

I clearly stated that my inability to see a use for a pause feature was not an argument, but just something that I don't get. So, I don't know why you suggested I was using it as an argument.

"

Hulkcore wrote:

I'm not going to re-quote a dozen paragraphs. All you've done is reassert your original arguments and failed to address my point. I will rephrase.

That's fine, but to stand my ground firm and steady, I'll be quoting you every step of the way the more you refute with this Thread. I have addressed your points in that I don't agree with them. I've made that more than clear enough given examples and explanations.

"

Hulkcore wrote:

A limit is not a flaw, the fact that weapons don't do a billion damage isn't a flaw, it's a limit. A specifically chosen limit put in place to make the game more difficult and balanced. The things you've listed about portal scrolls are not flaws, they are the reason that portals exist. They are meant to be limited in quantity and they are meant to disappear after certain time specifically to counter the type of thing that you are suggesting.

A 'limit' is also not necessarily an 'aggravation' regarding Portal Scrolls either, and NOT because of their limits, as you put it. The 'limit' of Portal Scroll is not what I have a problem with. Get it right already. Your irrelevant comparisons, again, miss the target in that it has nothing to do with what I'm trying to get across in my proposal. I understand why Portal Scrolls exist and what they're used for, and will still be used given an in-game Pause feature. Pausing the game does not replace nor is the same as a Portal Scroll in that you cannot access your Stash, Vendors, get Quests from NPCs, etc.; you are just pausing the game, for you only, whether in a Party or not. It's very simple yet you make it more complex than need be to understand that. You cannot possibly be this impaired in judgement.

"

Hulkcore wrote:

Devs don't want a thousand inastances with afk players in them taking up bandwidth that could be used for other players, that's why they disappear after 8 minutes. Pausing for longer than that would result in the same problems. So again, your pause feature is the exact same thing as a portal scroll.

If that would be a problem regarding bandwidth, all GGG has to do is code to where if a Paused player only is AFKed for more than 8 minutes in an instance, make them immediately get sent back to Town and their Portal(s), closed. This has also been added to my Thread.

Simple fix. Moving on . . .

"

Hulkcore wrote:

And yes, players would use it exactly as I describe as a way to circumvent waypoints. If there's anything we know about arpg players, is that they will find and exploit everything that gives an advantage and being able to indefinitely pause in an area would make progressing through content substantially easier than the waypoint system. Which again, is specifically in place to prevent the type of thing that you are suggesting.

That's pure B.S. Waypoints are not going to be obsolete, with or without an in-game Pause. I don't know how many times I have to say it. Waypoints are still needed to get around, and as a means of meeting people in the same town instance during trade sessions by exiting out to a Waypoint and CNTRL + Click on the Town and meet up with whatever player your trading with. There are many things Waypoints would still be used for, so I don't know where you get off on Waypoints being avoided by players given an in-game pause.

Players wouldn't avoid Waypoints; they would still be used!

"

Hulkcore wrote:

I clearly stated that my inability to see a use for a pause feature was not an argument, but just something that I don't get. So, I don't know why you suggested I was using it as an argument.

Perhaps it wasn't an argument, but it was obviously an indirect statement that was so direct so as to support what your real argument was about, that just because you cannot see a use for it that it's just complete useless. I call indirect yet direct statements such as yours the 'ricochet effect' where something is said and is not meant to be direct, yet ends up hitting the person you're targeting anyway.

==================================

P.S. Not that you or anyone else here cares, but I've been in the field of psychology for many years and I know all the tricks of argument, what causes them, what goes into them, and ways to read language off all sorts be it through the spoken word, people's expressions, writing, gestures, etc.

My point is certain things you say and the way you put them makes it all too obvious you are either 1. fibbing yourself and lying to the other person in that you know damn well you're really saying or meaning what you say or 2. just plain out playing the 'I'm stupid' and 'that's not what I meant when that's really what I meant' game.

So when you say you can find no use for an in-game Pause (regardless if exploitable or not,) you're obviously against it.

Don't fool yourself and just admit it. Lying gets you nowhere. Stick to what you're saying and meaning instead of sugarcoating it all with a big sparkly mask to cover it all up.

"

Nurvus wrote:

I still think in addition to taking 5 seconds to initiate, you should have to be at full health/energy shield and if there is the concept of "in combat" you must be out of combat.

This should be something you can only use between fights, never during fights.

I think the given penalties, etc. in my Thread are more than good enough. It will quickly get annoying when someone goes to Pause Game and a message comes up constantly saying, "You can only Pause the Game on full health."

That's just terrible. My proposal in its merit makes it so the Pause feature runs seamlessly in the background without any annoying message pop-ups like you're suggesting.

Singleplayer pausing I am all for.

Multiplayer pausing, less so. It does not have the same level of usefulness, its exploitability requires a convoluted set of rules just to avoid, and it detracts from the point of being in a party to begin with.

"

Hercanic wrote:

Singleplayer pausing I am all for.

Multiplayer pausing, less so. It does not have the same level of usefulness, its exploitability requires a convoluted set of rules just to avoid, and it detracts from the point of being in a party to begin with.

Sorry, but my impenetrable argument (despite little in what you say is true,) still stands. Not everyone that's in a Party can predict whether or not they have to AFK or not, notably due to countless IRL reasons whatever they are. If duty calls (hopefully I don't have to emphasize on that,) or if you have to immediately AFK, then you have to AFK! You cannot always control the reasons you have to AFK be it you're in a Party or not. Aside from that, it is to my great guess that 8 in 10 people, at least, party up for the right reasons even if they do AFK a short time.

Even without the in-game Pause feature, players still cower away somewhere else on the map, leech, and AFK. Seriously, what's there to argue? These things are done already through the power of ancient free will. And I guess you and everyone else reading my Thread seems to forget that if long periods of AFKing, leeching or cowering away (not helping) takes place, guess what? it's called kicking players from the Party who do this.

That being said, the in-game Pause feature (when used in Parties) will most likely only be used in short spurt intervals in that the AFKing player will forewarn everyone he or she is AFKed. To check if they're lying or not, all the Party Members have to do is see if their location is changing, then, that's when you know they're leeching. The in-game Pause feature how I propose it will also most likely be more revered between Friends you play with in-game.

Also, the word convoluted is an exaggerated one. Depending on the skill level of whoever is doing the coding for PoE would look at something like this as quite simple within no more than 75-100 lines of code, or less, if they are really good. How do I arrive at those number? Answer: I have a considerable amount of knowledge (among other things used in gaming) in C++ which is what PoE's game code revolves around.

It comes down to whether or not GGG wants to implement an in-game Pause or not.

@HeavyMetalGear:

"

Hercanic wrote:

...its exploitability requires a convoluted set of rules just to avoid...

Convoluted meaning all the little rules that the player must deal with, not what it takes to program. In your main post, you have a 5 second delay before the actual pause, a 15 second restriction on when you can pause a second time, and a 2-3 total pause limit per login. All of those detract from your "when nature calls" justification. If you have a Pause feature, it should be simple for the end-user, and for the sake of consistency and intuitiveness it shouldn't deviate beyond what is necessary from how singleplayer pausing works.

What you have presented is a system wherein I must wait and watch for at least 5 seconds to make sure I won't get killed before true pausing takes effect. If I break it to stop said risk, or if another mini-emergency pops up just when I get back, I must wait another 20 seconds. If I play for many hours, my breaks are arbitrarily limited to ~3 until I log out. If I don't mind resetting my auras, losing my zombies/spectres, or dropping from my current party, I can mindlessly relog to circumvent the pause restriction. This is what I mean by convoluted.

"

Hercanic wrote:

It does not have the same level of usefulness...

In a group, the level of usefulness is diminished because your party members will be pushing forward. This means three things:

• 1) You are safer; monsters who would have otherwise wandered toward you and potentially slain you are being killed by your party.
  
  
• 2) You do not lose the instance if you portal out for a time, as there are still other players in the zone.
  
  
• 3) If gone for more than a few seconds, your party will most likely be far ahead when you come back. Catching up on foot is inefficient compared to asking for a TP. It is also, currently, hard to spot where your party members are on the map when they are deep in unexplored territory, further necessitating this action.

"

Hercanic wrote:

...and it detracts from the point of being in a party to begin with.

Finally, when in a party, going AFK is a detriment to the team. You increase monster health without increasing drop quantity (you must be within a couple screen's distance). This hurts even more on a map, which cost someone currency to make. Players can already go AFK, sure, but you are asking for a new feature to support and encourage it.

Is it really necessary, given the gains versus the alternatives? Portal'ing out drops monster health for your group, keeps you 100% safe, and lets you catch up near-instantly with a polite TP request.

Again, I emphasize that I do support a singleplayer pause. I just think a multiplayer pause, as presented in this thread, does not have a strong enough case to warrant its implementation. Even D3, which already has a simple, classic singleplayer pause, does not have a multiplayer pause.

"

Hercanic wrote:

Convoluted meaning all the little rules that the player must deal with, not what it takes to program. In your main post, you have a 5 second delay before the actual pause, a 15 second restriction on when you can pause a second time, and a 2-3 total pause limit per login. All of those detract from your "when nature calls" justification. If you have a Pause feature, it should be simple for the end-user, and for the sake of consistency and intuitiveness it shouldn't deviate beyond what is necessary from how singleplayer pausing works.

It could have gone both ways with said convoluted. And the rules are there for a reason. The Pause is legit, simple as that. The 5-second wait time before a Pause initiates is so people cannot Pause over and over again so easily. The 15 second wait is also flexible in that the integer can be brought down a few notches by GGG if they so choose. I just gave reasonable balanced values. These wait times are so people don't constantly stop, pause, stop, pause . . . This is NOT because the whole game will become still, like in Single-Player. In Single-Player, everything becomes paused; in Multi-Player, only the AFKed player gets paused and rendered temporarily invulnerable until the game resumes. The wait times are there so players can't make themselves invulnerable too often so there is no chance in the world for players to tank a deadly attack that would otherwise kill them.

"

Hercanic wrote:

What you have presented is a system wherein I must wait and watch for at least 5 seconds to make sure I won't get killed before true pausing takes effect. If I break it to stop said risk, or if another mini-emergency pops up just when I get back, I must wait another 20 seconds. If I play for many hours, my breaks are arbitrarily limited to ~3 until I log out. If I don't mind resetting my auras, losing my zombies/spectres, or dropping from my current party, I can mindlessly relog to circumvent the pause restriction. This is what I mean by convoluted.

The 2-3 limit was just a means for balance in that I acknowledged HC and Onslaught are the hardest to play and survive in, that it'd only be common sense to add this limitation. It's up for argument, but I had balanced intent when going into this whole idea. I am never one-sided in my ideas; they cover a broad scope of circumstances.

"

Hercanic wrote:

It does not have the same level of usefulness... In a group, the level of usefulness is diminished because your party members will be pushing forward. This means three things:

1) You are safer; monsters who would have otherwise wandered toward you and potentially slain you are being killed by your party.

This already happens through the power of said ancient free will in my other comment when people cower (don't help,) leech in a Party or AFK anyway with or without this in-game Pause feature.

"

Hercanic wrote:

2) You do not lose the instance if you portal out for a time, as there are still other players in the zone.

Yes you do. My specifications, granted if I read you correctly, clearly say that if a player is AFKed for more than 8 minutes -- when instances otherwise reset -- they are instantly brought back to Town and all their Portals are closed. Please read the updated specifications more thoroughly before making statements.

"

Hercanic wrote:

3) If gone for more than a few seconds, your party will most likely be far ahead when you come back. Catching up on foot is inefficient compared to asking for a TP. It is also, currently, hard to spot where your party members are on the map when they are deep in unexplored territory, further necessitating this action. [/li][/list]

You cannot be serious. Wait . . . you are. Ifsoever your Party sees you're AFK for say 10+ minutes, isn't it only logical (unless with friends) that you're quite possible going to get kicked from the Party with or without an in-game Pause? Like I said, the in-game Pause feature will quite possibly be more revered when playing with Friends and whatnot opposed to when you're with complete strangers you've never played with before.

"

Hercanic wrote:

"...and it detracts from the point of being in a party to begin with." Finally, when in a party, going AFK is a detriment to the team. You increase monster health without increasing drop quantity (you must be within a couple screen's distance). This hurts even more on a map, which cost someone currency to make. Players can already go AFK, sure, but you are asking for a new feature to support and encourage it.

Is it really necessary, given the gains versus the alternatives? Portal'ing out drops monster health for your group, keeps you 100% safe, and lets you catch up near-instantly with a polite TP request.

You say "finally" and here I am saying "again," again. So, again, whether you AFK by use of a Portal Scroll sitting idle in town or using the in-game Pause feature, you'll still need to or be able to catch up with your Party, but as I said before, more than not, if a Party Leader (unless it's your friend you forewarned about going AFK,) sees you've been gone for 10+ minutes, you are going to be kicked.

P.S. I don't care how many people come at me, I will stand my ground on this to the very END. Thus far, I think my proposal for an in-game Pause is the most legit to-date for Single-Player and Multi-Player.

@HeavyMetalGear:

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

Please read ... more thoroughly before making statements.

You might want to take your own advice:

"

Hercanic wrote:

If gone for more than a few seconds, your party will most likely be far ahead when you come back.

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

You cannot be serious. Wait . . . you are. Ifsoever your Party sees you're AFK for say 10+ minutes,

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

you'll still need to or be able to catch up with your Party, but as I said before, more than not, if a Party Leader (unless it's your friend you forewarned about going AFK,) sees you've been gone for 10+ minutes,

I say seconds, you say 10+ minutes. I assumed you've played PoE in a party and did not need to explain this point further, but groups move fast. We aren't even talking about lengths in minutes for how quickly you can and will be left behind.

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

"

Hercanic wrote:

In a group, the level of usefulness is diminished because your party members will be pushing forward. This means three things:

1) You are safer; monsters who would have otherwise wandered toward you and potentially slain you are being killed by your party.

This already happens through the power of said ancient free will in my other comment when people cower (don't help,) leech in a Party or AFK anyway with or without this in-game Pause feature.

You missed the point of this section of my argument. My first post began that I supported singleplayer pausing, then followed that multiplayer pausing has diminished usefulness in comparison. My second post went on to expand this subject. The three bullet points have to do with singleplayer vs. multiplayer pausing and why MP pausing is less useful.

In singleplayer, if you stop and idle somewhere, even if you cleared your immediate surroundings, monsters can and often do wander into your area. They aggro, attack your character while you are away, and you come back to a dead Exile. In a multiplayer game, if you stop and idle, your party is still clearing the area and pushing out. This is what makes multiplayer safer than singleplayer when idling.

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

"

Hercanic wrote:

2) You do not lose the instance if you portal out for a time, as there are still other players in the zone.

Yes you do. My specifications, granted if I read you correctly, clearly say that if a player is AFKed for more than 8 minutes -- when instances otherwise reset -- they are instantly brought back to Town and all their Portals are closed. Please read the updated specifications more thoroughly before making statements.

Again, I don't think you understood what my argument was targeting. If you idle in an instance, it will remain online indefinitely. PoE does not boot players who idle. Only a connection loss will cause you to lose your instance. If you portal out, however, your instance will close after the standard 8-15 minutes.

Remember, I was talking about singleplayer vs. multiplayer pausing. In singleplayer, if you portal out, you lose the instance after a time. In multiplayer, you can portal out and will never lose the instance so long as at least one party member is still in the instance.

I was not talking about how your system is set up, I was elaborating on my first post, which is why I quoted it.

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

You say "finally" and here I am saying "again," again. So, again, whether you AFK by use of a Portal Scroll sitting idle in town or using the in-game Pause feature, you'll still need to or be able to catch up with your Party

Yes, at face value, both approaches to AFK'ing put you in the same position. But one is already in the game, and the other will require work to add, so it better be worth it.

If you idle in town and request a TP when you get back, your ally's TP opens up in town.

If you idle through this pause system and come back, then what? Do you run to them? Or do you TP back to town, request a TP, and then take the TP that opens up in town?

Do you see? To catch up quickly, you end up TP'ing back to town either way. So why do you need a multiplayer pause in this situation? In short, you don't.

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

And the rules are there for a reason.

The reasons do not matter if those rules defeat the very purpose of the feature. You are competing against an existing system that accomplishes the same thing. What does your pausing system offer over town portal?

To TP, you must open your inventory, right-click on a portal scroll, then click on the portal that opens. Three actions that take 1-2 seconds to complete.

A singleplayer pause takes one action, hitting ESC, and you are done. Much faster, perfect for answering the door or phone in a moment's notice. I support this, as it is an improvement.

Now, let's look at the problems you listed against TP and compare them to your multiplayer pause:

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

The issue with Portal Scrolls is they don’t stay up very long,

Your system kicks people out after 8 minutes, the same length that portals stay open [for a vacant instance, an important distinction].

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

and do not help in situations where you need to Pause the game immediately, perhaps because you have to run to the restroom or whatever else that may cause you to do a rushed AFK.

Your system, for the sake of "balance", requires a 5 second delay. That is not 'immediate'.

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

Another reason using a Portal Scroll for AFKing is flawed because in some cases you may run low on Scrolls, have bad luck with their drop rate or lack the materials to buy them from the Vendor whether before or after battle. This is a rare case scenario for later on in the game, but can still happen.

Your system caps usage to 2-3 pauses per login. That is the same as running out of portal scrolls, except you can't find more on monsters while playing and no one in your party can drop you more (or pause your game for you like how they can open a TP for you).

Let me reiterate: The reasons do not matter if those rules defeat the very purpose of the feature.

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

P.S. I don't care how many people come at me, I will stand my ground on this to the very END.

Come at you? I was under the impression we were having a discussion, but apparently you see this as some sort of fight.

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

You cannot be serious. Wait . . . you are.

"I will stand my ground on this to the very END." ...does not demonstrate confidence, it shows stubborn closed-mindedness. As if you could never be wrong, and no argument under the sun could sway you otherwise. Why even make this statement, unless you want to shut down the discussion? If this is the case, an email to GGG would be a better medium for you.

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

P.S. Not that you or anyone else here cares, but I've been in the field of psychology for many years and I know all the tricks of argument, what causes them, what goes into them, and ways to read language off all sorts be it through the spoken word, people's expressions, writing, gestures, etc.

Although not addressed to me, I felt the need to comment on this showboating. Your arguments will stand or fall on their own merits. You claim to be an authority on argumentation, yet on several occasions, just in addressing me, you acted like an ass. You are either so unaware that I have to doubt your claimed credentials, or you are intentionally being antagonistic to generate more bumps for your thread (which would make you a manipulative ass).

I don't want to spout venom, but I will address it:

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

Please read the updated specifications more thoroughly before making statements.

Condescension.

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

You cannot be serious. Wait . . . you are.

Insulting sarcasm.

"

HeavyMetalGear wrote:

Sorry, but my impenetrable argument (despite little in what you say is true,) still stands.

Arrogance.

Did I treat you disrespectfully in any way in my previous posts to warrant these jabs? I would hope someone with "years of experience in the field of psychology" would understand professionalism.

"

Hercanic wrote:

In singleplayer, if you stop and idle somewhere, even if you cleared your immediate surroundings, monsters can and often do wander into your area. They aggro, attack your character while you are away, and you come back to a dead Exile. In a multiplayer game, if you stop and idle, your party is still clearing the area and pushing out. This is what makes multiplayer safer than singleplayer when idling.

=====================================
EDIT: The pause limit for the HC and Onslaught Leagues has now been removed from my Thread's specifications. If anything I agree with you on it would be that.
=====================================

Just for the above I quoted from you discredits almost everything you said in that you still don't understand the intent behind the in-game Pause I talk about. You read a half and not a whole of people's Threads and the ideas in them it seems. It also seems that if I am to continue to be too long-winded quoting you every step of the way like I have been, you seem to forget things that were previously said.

In what I propose for an in-game Pause, if you're alone (Single-Player,) enemies will not come at or attack you. In Multi-player when with a Party, the same thing applies. So you are wrong in that you point out enemies will attack an AFKed player for reason being I clearly stated that AFKed players are rendered temporarily invulnerable until the game is resumed.

The immediateness talked about is an error on my part, I admit, in that I'm still thinking of the way I originally thought this in-game Pause idea out. The idea of immediateness somewhat changed when someone here in the commentaries pointed out that players would be able to Pause the game too quickly so as to have a chance to either absorb or dodge attacks because of the invulnerability when paused. Then again, as stated in my Thread, that wouldn't happen because 1. When pausing in Multi-player only your character gets paused, not everything else around you and 2. Soon as you exit the ESC Menu, you are vulnerable to enemies again.

"

Hercanic wrote:

Your system kicks people out after 8 minutes, the same length that portals stay open [for a vacant instance, an important distinction].

Only because someone mentioned unnecessary used bandwidth could be a problem for those who are AFK (especially for long periods of times) in instances. This would only happen to people who press ESC to pause their character (not the entire game)

"

Hercanic wrote:

A singleplayer pause takes one action, hitting ESC, and you are done. Much faster, perfect for answering the door or phone in a moment's notice. I support this, as it is an improvement.

So too would pausing in Multi-Player when in a Party, granted you read the specifications right in this Thread, which you clearly haven't yet. This is done by pausing the paused player, not the entire game itself including other players with you, enemies or Bosses. This is done by making the player temporarily invulnerable and having enemies IGNORE the paused player making it so the area doesn't recognize the player is even there.

"

Do you see? To catch up quickly, you end up TP'ing back to town either way. So why do you need a multiplayer pause in this situation? In short, you don't.

Not if someone just so happens to AFK for more than 8 minutes, then a Portal Scroll wouldn't have to be used. That said, my Thread already points out that in some rare case scenarios you may not have a Portal Scroll to AFK for whatever dumb reason be it you don't have them on you or you just so happen to forget them from your Stash. And given you use the in-game Pause upon pressing ESC which would trigger it, I too can argue you can catch up with people even still regardless if you're AFKed for a short or long time. In a nutshell so everyone's happy, everything I just mentioned is why Portal Scrolls are needed.

P.S. Stop relating this in-game Pause so much to Portal Scrolls. You say I'm closed-minded but the same must apply to you that you just don't get it. Also, when you quote people, be sure to quote everything, not take what you want out of context.

UPDATED
Developer-Friendly - OVERVIEW and Wait Time PENALTIES Before and After Pausing:



And before disputing furthermore, please consult the above for what my Thread is trying to get across.

Thank You