@grolschie said in Accessibility: AFK timer:

*cough* a rubberband or some tape on one of the thumbsticks *cough*

...won't always work,especially with changes to catching that kind of thing that have been implemented.

Do you need a tissue? 😅

*cough* a rubberband or some tape on one of the thumbsticks *cough*

@wsurftvveeds said in Accessibility: AFK timer:

@wolfmanbush said in Accessibility: AFK timer:

I see people as people which is why I have typed my opinion in this thread as I have. I know that it's an opinion many will not share. I know that people see this as a delicate conversation to have approaching it from an accessibility point of view.

The thing is it doesn't have do be delicate at all. You have proof that this feature would be beneficial to a small, but still significant portion of the community.

In order to show that it's a bad idea you need to show that adding it would have a significant negative impact to the rest of the community. You haven't really been convincing on that point imo - like an extra 10 mins afk on a ship you were unlikely to see anyway isn't significant. Feel free to prove me wrong on that - maths on it is preferred :)

Anything else (other so called "solutions" for example) isn't really relevant to the thread.

The premise of your suggestion is that people that take longer during their afk breaks (out of their control) should be able to float around in the ocean longer while having treasure.

The only way this suggestion makes sense at all is if treasure is involved. This isn't a prove wrong or right thing. You think the environment benefits by doubling the time of afk and I do not.

No matter how risky or not risky you think a random server is it is a fact that more time = more risk. More afk time = more danger/risk.

You think people should have that chance and I do not think there has been enough brought to the thread to suggest is actually helps people from an accessibility point of view. It does serve a preference of a pirate but I don't think that preference has anything to do with accessibility within the game.

This is actually a suggestion that involves risk/reward and preferences of a pirate. This is because holding treasure and afking is a risk/reward choice, not an accessibility issue.

The reason that it's important to identify what is a risk/reward issue because if we get into risk/reward for accessibility that opens up literally everything. Selling loot, picking up loot, carrying loot, on and on. This is because there are personal struggles that effect every part of risk/reward for some people. There are also fears that people have that involve risk reward. We can try to serve people as much as we can until it starts effecting server activity and the risk/reward environment.

The game still has to remain balanced for risk/reward in the end and still has to lean towards keeping servers active.

Creating more content that focuses on people being able to get some loot and sell some loot at a mostly low risk level within 20-25 minutes would continue to make content more accessible to people that have long or unpredictable afk times. It will allow them more consistency so they can work around whatever they are going through outside of the game.

Approaching it from this angle has no negative effects on the environment (it will have positive loot production results as this is how more and more people prefer to play) and still serves people that you are trying to help with this suggestion.

@wolfmanbush said in Accessibility: AFK timer:

I see people as people which is why I have typed my opinion in this thread as I have. I know that it's an opinion many will not share. I know that people see this as a delicate conversation to have approaching it from an accessibility point of view.

The thing is it doesn't have do be delicate at all. You have proof that this feature would be beneficial to a small, but still significant portion of the community.

In order to show that it's a bad idea you need to show that adding it would have a significant negative impact to the rest of the community. You haven't really been convincing on that point imo - like an extra 10 mins afk on a ship you were unlikely to see anyway isn't significant. Feel free to prove me wrong on that - maths on it is preferred :)

Anything else (other so called "solutions" for example) isn't really relevant to the thread. (Although thank you, you have helped it stay at the top of recents!)

@squoozles said in Accessibility: AFK timer:

@wolfmanbush no thanks, disabled gamers don't need in-game carers or babysitters, which is what you're describing. Just the option to solo without getting kicked in the time we need afk, same as everyone else. With the absolute best will in the world, a disabled gamer who needs extra time has already said how helpful this will be to them. Why should we be forced to co-op because we can't wee or eat within 10 minutes? And why should we need to disclose this to others? It's humiliating and patronising.

I said people helping people. What I suggested would include disabled gamers helping each other no different than anyone else helping each other. It's people being there for one another as their time and effort allows.

I see people as people which is why I have typed my opinion in this thread as I have. I know that it's an opinion many will not share. I know that people see this as a delicate conversation to have approaching it from an accessibility point of view.

I believe it is respectful to treat people fairly and in a way I would treat anyone else no matter what they are personally facing. To be honest and objective even if it can be an unpopular opinion.

I have offered to do what I offered in this thread dozens and dozens of times on the site. To people of different types in different scenarios. It's not a belief that anyone is incapable.

I didn't bring up discreet or personal messaging randomly, it was an awareness of how it could be seen and an attempt to make it clear that the intent was for people to have the opportunity to help each other while allowing people to feel that their dignity/privacy was not weakened for participating in a community effort.

@wolfmanbush no thanks, disabled gamers don't need in-game carers or babysitters, which is what you're describing. Just the option to solo without getting kicked in the time we need afk, same as everyone else. With the absolute best will in the world, a disabled gamer who needs extra time has already said how helpful this will be to them. Why should we be forced to co-op because we can't wee or eat within 10 minutes? And why should we need to disclose this to others? It's humiliating and patronising.

@squoozles said in Accessibility: AFK timer:

How to support this without TMI...

Some people don't have the time to get to an outpost, sell up and log out when needing the bathroom. And some people take longer than 10 minutes for basic bodily functions. Plus food, answering the door to unexpected callers/deliveries etc can take some people longer than others.

Sure, an option to afk for longer AS A SOLO would mean your ship might get sunk, but that's better than the certainty that you will definitely get kicked and lose everything before you're back. The request is for it to only apply to solo players which is fair enough, if there's more than one of you the rest of the crew will be looking after things while you're away and can invite you back when you're kicked after the standard 10 minutes.

OP, have an upvote. The rest of you please try to see life from a slightly different perspective, eh.

I think something that could be done here is create an opportunity for the community to help each other out beyond what is available through lfg and looking for a crew on the site.

rather than just throwing another arbitrary number at the afk timer have a section of the site built around helping people with a specific accessibility related issue. Members of the community that wish to help will have the opportunity to help someone with their ship if a request is made.

It would be discreet and would just be people helping people as it was needed. Advertise the resource in the game so people are aware.

Then if it takes 5 minutes or 23 minutes it can be worked out as needed.

If a person wants to not make it public they can have some sort of private message option between people that intend to crew up during an afk emergency.

I'll watch someone's boat if they are caught up in a situation where they genuinely feel that they can't afford to leave the session based on something important.

How to support this without TMI...

Some people don't have the time to get to an outpost, sell up and log out when needing the bathroom. And some people take longer than 10 minutes for basic bodily functions. Plus food, answering the door to unexpected callers/deliveries etc can take some people longer than others.

Sure, an option to afk for longer AS A SOLO would mean your ship might get sunk, but that's better than the certainty that you will definitely get kicked and lose everything before you're back. The request is for it to only apply to solo players which is fair enough, if there's more than one of you the rest of the crew will be looking after things while you're away and can invite you back when you're kicked after the standard 10 minutes.

OP, have an upvote. The rest of you please try to see life from a slightly different perspective, eh.

@wsurftvveeds said in Accessibility: AFK timer:

@wolfmanbush It is benefiting because it means they can go to the toilet etc while playing and come back and still have their session... like myself (and I assume you) currently can. That's what accessibility is all about - making the playing field even. I assumed it was obvious?

Afk is significant risk for a solo and it is significantly amplified the longer it goes.

The scenario where it would be considered "necessary" is while holding treasure which is a personal choice and part of the same risk/reward environment that everyone goes through.

People have many personal reasons and personal emergencies that they need to afk over. It is a risk, all any of us can do is minimize the risk the best we can because afking as a solo is high risk. Holding treasure as a solo is high risk, doing both together is very high risk.

If a person is participating in story content they are taken care of.

When it comes to treasure they gotta do what is best for them in the risk/reward environment.

Outside of treasure collecting people can leave sessions and start new sessions.

If someone has long afk requirements for any reason all they can do is make sure to play efficient based on their individual situation and get that loot sold as often as possible. That way if they need to afk for a while they can hop out of a server and hop back in when they are ready to be active.

If a person is afking with their treasure they have 3 main options for parking. At an outpost/island in open sight , trying to hide around islands, trying to hide around rocks.

In 20 minutes their chances of getting picked off at an outpost or island are high. If they hide around rocks all the pve can actually spawn close to rocks. Krakens/skelly ships/megs, I've seen them all spawn around rocks. With a 20 minute timer there is a pretty decent chance that one of these 3 will pop up on a ship that is technically in open sea even though it's around a rock. 20 minutes (even the current 10) of solo afk is very dangerous and should be avoided by planning ahead based on an individuals needs and goals.

If it's an emergency situation like has been brought up in the thread then it's even more likely that there is an issue because there isn't time to try to prevent easy detection or pve issues.

@galactic-geek said in Accessibility: AFK timer:

Even while soloing, there is still a chance that someone, like a friend, may join your crew turning it into a duo sloop. What then?

Then you get kicked after 10 mins - which is fine because your friend can add you back.

Furthermore, even completely solo, your absence has a profound effect on the other crews on the server, since you're automatically taking up the space of potentially up to 4 other pirates that could be in your place, and more active. When AFK, you literally cut down the possibility of an encounter. That means the server is less fun for them, as there is less risk involved in a mode that is supposed to be full of excutrment and Adventure.

Please refer to my points in response to wolfman on this. An extra 10mins afk is pretty minimal in the grand scheme of things even though I accept there is a small impact.

Asking for an extended timer for solo play might seem reasonable, but on further inspection, it's actually not.

Even while soloing, there is still a chance that someone, like a friend, may join your crew turning it into a duo sloop. Now you being AFK can ruin their fun and perspective regarding you.

Furthermore, even completely solo, your absence has a profound effect on the other crews on the server, since you're automatically taking up the space of potentially up to 4 other pirates that could be in your place, and more active. When AFK, you literally cut down the possibility of an encounter. That means the server is less fun for others, as there is less risk involved in a mode that is supposed to be full of excitement and Adventure.

It's already bad enough that pirates who leave improperly lock out the ability for anyone to join for 10+ minutes. We don't need this too.

@wolfmanbush It is benefiting because it means they can go to the toilet etc while playing and come back and still have their session... like myself (and I assume you) currently can. That's what accessibility is all about - making the playing field even. I assumed it was obvious?

@wsurftvveeds said in Accessibility: AFK timer:

@wolfmanbush matt gives the example so I don't have to. I assumed you'd already read their message.

@mattonwheels90 said in Accessibility: AFK timer:

I have to agree with the OP here. Having cerebral palsy myself, simple things such as going to the bathroom or even eating can take longer than normal. If the SOT team would very kindly increase the limit from ten to 15-20 minutes, Im sure that would solve the issue. Please consider this, as it does negatively effect my playing experience. I appreciate the team's hard work and hope they won't see the request as too demanding or selfish. Thank you all!

Doesn't give me specifics of how it is benefiting and how it counters what I have posted in the thread.

and I don't think they are being demanding or selfish, and I think you have positive intent in your suggestion.

@wolfmanbush matt gives the example so I don't have to. I assumed you'd already read their message.

@mattonwheels90 said in Accessibility: AFK timer:

I have to agree with the OP here. Having cerebral palsy myself, simple things such as going to the bathroom or even eating can take longer than normal. If the SOT team would very kindly increase the limit from ten to 15-20 minutes, Im sure that would solve the issue. Please consider this, as it does negatively effect my playing experience. I appreciate the team's hard work and hope they won't see the request as too demanding or selfish. Thank you all!

@wsurftvveeds said in Accessibility: AFK timer:

@wolfmanbush

1. Yes checkpoints do exist.

2. There is some chance of loot being lost, but "very high" is a bit of an exaggeration, if anything I'd say your ship is more likely to be floating than not when you get back, considering we're only down to 5 ships and a lot of those want to avoid conflict.

3. Doesn't take treasure in to account, and given that imo you're incorrect about that, I'm not going to go any further here.

4. Yes there is some shorter content, but A - it's not the most interesting, and B - people shouldn't just be limited to that when there's a very easy way to make the rest of it accessible for them.

To respond to your more recent points - if the servers aren't consistently active, then proportionally an extra 10 minutes make even less of a difference.

It doesn't really matter if others will use it as well - the point in making it only for solo players is so there is no direct impact, and a minimal impact to other crews.

Why is holding an afk spot an advantage for stealth play? If you're talking about managing multiple accounts on the same server, that can be achieved anyway so I don't see what the point you're making is?

Longer time on the afk timer is longer time where a person doesn't need to move, it's less risk and thus an advantage.

I still haven't seen you make a case for a specific need. It appears to me that you agree with trying to make the game more accessible but don't have case for how it helps, only that you don't feel it has negative effects.

It's clear that you are going to continue to disagree on what I have said but I'm interested in a specific case that would be common enough to where it would be serving enough people through accessibility to justify it.

The accessibility is actually already being served through check points, through content that requires less time, through flooding of supplies. This allows people to close out a session when needed and hop back in with minimal inconvenience when they have the time.

Accessibility isn't really just letting people take longer afk gambles on their ship floating around in the ocean. Accessibility is trying to make sure that we as a whole are providing as much access and quality of life as reasonably possible to more people that participate in the game. It helps a lot by offering content that requires shorter amounts of time, check points for story content and even event content is awesome with this, making it to where people can pop in and out of sessions if they need to and are still able to participate in the content and with the story. While they are active.

The fish text is an example. That is cheesey as heck for people that are using it outside of accessibility related reasons but it is providing more quality of life and access to people that are using it for accessibility. Afk timers aren't bringing that same clear benefit.

@wolfmanbush

1. Yes checkpoints do exist.

2. There is some chance of loot being lost, but "very high" is a bit of an exaggeration, if anything I'd say your ship is more likely to be floating than not when you get back, considering we're only down to 5 ships and a lot of those want to avoid conflict.

3. Doesn't take treasure in to account, and given that imo you're incorrect about that, I'm not going to go any further here.

4. Yes there is some shorter content, but A - it's not the most interesting, and B - people shouldn't just be limited to that when there's a very easy way to make the rest of it accessible for them.

To respond to your more recent points - if the servers aren't consistently active, then proportionally an extra 10 minutes make even less of a difference.

It doesn't really matter if others will use it as well - the point in making it only for solo players is so there is no direct impact, and a minimal impact to other crews.

Why is holding an afk spot an advantage for stealth play? If you're talking about managing multiple accounts on the same server, that can be achieved anyway so I don't see what the point you're making is?

@wsurftvveeds said in Accessibility: AFK timer:

@wolfmanbush said in Accessibility: AFK timer:

I do not think it truly offers enough accessibility assistance to justify the negative effects of letting sloops afk for 20 minutes in a game that needs activity to thrive.

Sloops can already afk for 10 minutes. An extra 10 minutes means nothing when you can go 30 mins to an hour without seeing another ship anyway.

Besides any other ship that loads in to the server once that sloop has been kicked (no matter what the afk timer is) would just spend ~10 mins loading supplies anyway, so the impact is less than you'd think.

The servers do not consistently have an abundance of activity. They very often have a lack of universally appealing activity which is why hopping is such a major part of the participation.

The people that will use this for the accessibility benefits will be minimal. This will be used by many people that just want to afk for whatever their reason is (that isn't involving accessibility)

This can be used to just hold a spot on a server, an advantage for stealth play, intentionally or unintentionally extending inactivity on a server.

I'd be open to hearing how this would be significantly useful in a way or ways that counter/s the points I made in my original post.

@wolfmanbush said in Accessibility: AFK timer:

I do not think it truly offers enough accessibility assistance to justify the negative effects of letting sloops afk for 20 minutes in a game that needs activity to thrive.

Sloops can already afk for 10 minutes. An extra 10 minutes means nothing when you can go 30 mins to an hour without seeing another ship anyway.

Besides any other ship that loads in to the server once that sloop has been kicked (no matter what the afk timer is) would just spend ~10 mins loading supplies anyway, so the impact is less than you'd think.

Maybe they could put a warning message on screen (or have your FOV shrink more and more) during the last minute or two before lazybeard kicks in, just as a last chance to get back into the game if you had to afk due to IRL issues.

Accessibility is important and there have been many features added that I think are helpful to people even though they may allow people that use them for non-accessibility reasons to have an advantage to some degree.

On afk I do not agree with implementing the suggestion.

With there being check points now, with the game being flooded with supplies, it is easier than ever to take a break when needed.

So this comes down to treasure, treasure on a boat for that long of an afk is going to have a very high chance of being lost.

Since it is easy to start a tall tale with a check point, since it is easy to start a new session with many supplies available, and since the treasure it likely to be lost in a long afk session anyway I do not think it truly offers enough accessibility assistance to justify the negative effects of letting sloops afk for 20 minutes in a game that needs activity to thrive.

With the addition of content that has a shorter time requirement to get some treasure I think this creates a situation where people can still participate and accomplish something in shorter time increments if needed.

I have to agree with the OP here. Having cerebral palsy myself, simple things such as going to the bathroom or even eating can take longer than normal. If the SOT team would very kindly increase the limit from ten to 15-20 minutes, Im sure that would solve the issue. Please consider this, as it does negatively effect my playing experience. I appreciate the team's hard work and hope they won't see the request as too demanding or selfish. Thank you all!