The Crusade: We take on CODE (Video) 3vs3 Battle

[JeffRyan]

And some people do not try to guess at game play when intentions are not explicitly stated. That doesn't mean they're cheaters, exploiters, or griefers. Not to go all kumbaya on you, here, but if we can at least land on that conciliatory note then there may yet be peace in our time. Or, something...

I haven't called anybody stupid, or mocked them. I have however been accused of being a) a cheater, b) an exploiter .. with zero supporting evidence except some hearsay about 'a developer told me it was an exploit in a message they won't let me show you'....

Well it was also dealt with by Mephane:

Quote Originally Posted by I_Am_Static View Post
Saying "proof of exploit" means nothing other than YOU consider it an exploit. Once again, FD have already stated the shield recharge into SC IS intended.
They have not:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...l=1#post745478
Currently, shields don't exist in super cruise (for technical reasons). This being the case, we fully regenerate them once you drop out of super cruise.

It's not ideal; we're looking into getting shields (and hopefully the power distributor) working in super cruise - our preference will always be that there is as much ship persistence between different modes of travel as possible.
In other words, because the game is not yet able to save shield status in supercruise or when logged out, in the meantime the game simply assumes full shields not because an intentional reset happens, but because at some point during the transition, when the game engine would have to load a shield value that does not exists, thus can only set it to some predefined value, which is 100%.

This is in no way a confirmation that shields resetting through supercruise is an intended game mechanic. It is a side effect of a missing technical detail, and when used for personal advantage, it becomes an exploit.

Quote Originally Posted by I_Am_Static View Post
Again, for the cheap seats. Perhaps they consider the nav-lock itself rather than the shield recharge to be an exploit.
Shield reset also applies to non-wing scenarios. It's just that a wing is needed to guarantee you enter the exact same instance again.

This.

There's mocking going on right from the start of this thread by the OP and the rest. Hardly a moderator in sight except in some secret squirrel messages which apparently completely mean FD have ruled on the issue ... or something.

Mods are in sight, I've been infracted already for this thread.

 

[Moriarte]

I haven't called anybody stupid, or mocked them. I have however been accused of being a) a cheater, b) an exploiter .. with zero supporting evidence except some hearsay about 'a developer told me it was an exploit in a message they won't let me show you'....

Welcome to the internet, where you can never win.

All jokes aside, I stand by the folks who mentioned that the feature, which is actually in the game, right now, as a result of development process, should NOT be a basis for shaming people as cheaters and exploiters. Point your spears at FD, not at each other, you brigands and white knights.

Oh, and Lonewarrior, what's up with the formatting? Is it dyslexia-friendly or something?

 

[FuegoPantalones]

Well it was also dealt with by Mephane:
This is in no way a confirmation that shields resetting through supercruise is an intended game mechanic. It is a side effect of a missing technical detail, and when used for personal advantage, it becomes an exploit.

I'm sorry, but that's simply not the case. I take no exception to the facts as stated, but that still leaves us with the following problem:

Option 1: Have shields maintain their value and/or charge rate after transitioning to SC or logging out. This option, though desirable, was technically unfeasible for whatever reason.
Option 2: Have shields reset to 0 after transitioning to SC or logging out.
Option 3: Have shields reset to 100 after transitioning to SC or logging out.

They chose and implemented option 3. Option 1 may have been more desirable, but that doesn't negate the fact that option 3 is what was deliberately implemented. How am I, as a player, supposed to play the game the way they would have liked to have made it instead of how they actually made it?

 

[lonewarrior]

I haven't called anybody stupid, or mocked them. I have however been accused of being a) a cheater, b) an exploiter .. with zero supporting evidence except some hearsay about 'a developer told me it was an exploit in a message they won't let me show you'....

You mean the one I posted on youtube?
-
OMFG go and look for yourself
-
I.POSTED.IT.THERE
-
How many times do I need to say it?

 

[JeffRyan]

You mean the one I posted on youtube?
-
OMFG go and look for yourself
-
I.POSTED.IT.THERE
-
How many times do I need to say it?

That's pretty definitive actually.

 

[FuegoPantalones]

When you, the poster, calls something an "exploit" the moderator will treat it as though you've posted an exploit regardless of actual content. Why? Because the General Discussion forum isn't the place to reporting those types of issues. It serves only as a confirmation that you've broken forum rules, not that something is - or is not - an exploit.

 

[chagnampra]

How am I, as a player, supposed to play the game the way they would have liked to have made it instead of how they actually made it?

It's a sandbox game, meaning you can play it however you choose to - within the rules of FD, of course. Granted, this gameplay mechanic is currently allowed, even if we can all agree that it undermines the flow of PvP and makes better, more skilful combat and shield / power management seem somewhat redundant. This may not always be the case if and when FD implements a change. Until then, you can either choose to use it or not.
(I personally won't be as I don't feel it's in the spirit of the game and will inevitably be changed in time, anyway. That's just my opinion, for what it's worth.)

 

[Jezzah]

That's pretty definitive actually.

Now in fairness I haven't seen this video nor do I intend to. This stickied bit above the discussion is the dev's pipeline for information on various things. If they haven't posted in there then its just opinion rather than fact or even just that they are looking into it and gathering evidence like the combat logging thread.

Still such a small non issue in reality for the dev's scheme of things to fix at this point. the OP has a grudge against code which is fair enough maybe it's well earned maybe it's not well earned. but he flys an fdl which should negate the main issue about getting into SC for his targets due to mass lock.

 

[lonewarrior]

So basically whatever evidence I find your not going to believe it
-
Fine
-
I've requested the thread be closed

 

[JeffRyan]

So basically whatever evidence I find your not going to believe it
-
Fine
-
I've requested the thread be closed

It's the only sensible solution we're going round and round.

 

[khaitom]

When you, the poster, calls something an "exploit" the moderator will treat it as though you've posted an exploit regardless of actual content. Why? Because the General Discussion forum isn't the place to reporting those types of issues. It serves only as a confirmation that you've broken forum rules, not that something is - or is not - an exploit.

So would you not consider the hull invulnerability "technique" that only works on the Anaconda to be an exploit either? Being able to suffer absolutely no damage from any weapons after shields are down certainly seems like it but by your definition it isn't.

 

[JimSpitfire]

I'll leave it up to frontier to decide what's exploiting or not.

However one thing I know 100% for certain that it's an incredibly cheap move.

 

[Gédéon_Lecanard]

I'll leave it up to frontier to decide what's exploiting or not.

However one thing I know 100% for certain that it's an incredibly cheap move.

Exactly my thought.