Trade Logging?

[Cmdr_Halfmead]

Bought a T9, did 3 trade runs...4th run got interdicted by a Python, got stressed and actually forgot to combat/trade log so BOOOM!!!

So i paid the insurance, sold my modules on the T9 and bought Python again, now 18 Million credits in the hole after that short experiment . I seriously doubt that T9 traders aren't 'tradelogging' all the time, otherwise the cost would just be crazy, caus' it sure can't defend itself, guessing that even a wing of those pesky/annoying/silly powerplay npc's will get you dead....

As for 'penalty' for combat/trade logging, just script it so that your ship throttle down and ALWAYS stay in the game 1 minute after you have exited the game ALT-F4 or otherwise, pretty sure that'd stop it, and it wouldn't hurt explorers either.

 

[scorpyon]

Bought a T9, did 3 trade runs...4th run got interdicted by a Python, got stressed and actually forgot to combat/trade log so BOOOM!!!

So i paid the insurance, sold my modules on the T9 and bought Python again, now 18 Million credits in the hole after that short experiment . I seriously doubt that T9 traders aren't 'tradelogging' all the time, otherwise the cost would just be crazy, caus' it sure can't defend itself, guessing that even a wing of those pesky/annoying/silly powerplay npc's will get you dead....

I don't think you understand what Trade Logging means.
There's no interdiction involved.
And no interaction with other players at all, actually....

 

[jacozilla]

It's not even an issue... I choose 5 trip/h because it's easier to calculate in your head how I got there without doing all kinds of explanations.

I don't care if your route has massive profits because not everyone runs your route & if they do it will bring down its profitability. Feel free to share though.

Then your math is theory that has no practical basis in reality.

If the only way to get 20% boost is by running an inefficient route, then what you get is an admittedly 20% boost on a much lower base value.

Quote me when you choose to misrepresent my words. I never said I had massive profits - simply that by all the posts I've read, 8.6M/hr seems near or at the top end for a type 9, and that 4200+ CR/ton profit was at or near the top end.

Whether it is the absolute max or not matters less than the fact using known data from a route towards the upper end of the curve yields only 12.5% in boost via trade logging. That 12.5% is still quite considerable given the larger base volume.

I don't really care what you choose to believe, but if you're going to admit your math is pure theory and not from actual known trade data, then really you're just not credible.

 

[Samosa]

Just to throw some "real world" into the mix - no matter what the percentage advantage may be, I trade in solo for maybe an hour a day. Weekends, possibly two hours a day, maybe. On and off. The actual financial advantage would probably be neither here nor there since I may do two runs, go make a cup of tea, chat with my wife, who knows. All that's really happening is a 20% decrease in boredom.

 

[jacozilla]

Just to throw some "real world" into the mix - no matter what the percentage advantage may be, I trade in solo for maybe an hour a day. Weekends, possibly two hours a day, maybe. On and off. The actual financial advantage would probably be neither here nor there since I may do two runs, go make a cup of tea, chat with my wife, who knows. All that's really happening is a 20% decrease in boredom.

If you put a bobblehead right in front of your monitor ala in your cockpit as you haul cargo, it scientifically decreases your boredom by 50%.

 

[Samosa]

If you put a bobblehead right in front of your monitor ala in your cockpit as you haul cargo, it scientifically decreases your boredom by 50%.

I saw those in pictures from early versions! I need them in the game. Need.

 

[KaizoMK]

If you need a small break to get food or drink, theoretically you could launch and exit, then just come back when you're ready. I imagine it'd save you loads of time in a type 9.

 

[salad]

But undocking is so fun.


No wonder you people get bored of playing the game so fast, you are gaming the game just to see the numbers going up.

 

[askavir]

Its not exploiting or cheating, as they are not harming anyone elses gameplay. Its at most only immersion disruptive if someone sees it.

This said, I really don't give a damn if other players choose to avoid playing the game so they can save 5 seconds and pursuit their divine credits per hour.

After all, why would someone fly their ships, if they can spend their time in a much fun way like pressing "J" in sequence and admiring the witch space loading screen... And when they arrive at the destination, they engage docking computer, god forbid if they actually had to do any flying in the game themselves. After all, its not a space simulator, but a virtual money simulator, money that can then be very well spent in bigger or better equipped ships that those players will never actually fly...

On the other hand, there are also players that for some unexplainable reason are completely imcapable of docking the ships or even flying through the mail slot, and if this provides them with a way to "play" the game then better, the more of these gys purchase the game, the more the game can be made better for the players who are actually playing it.

 

[Dhan]

I am against exploiting, yes. But my definition of exploiting is fairly tightly focused - as in, there are only few things I consider exploits.

I asked re: the for or against high res logging because it seems whether you believe trade and high res logging are exploits or not - good or bad or not - it is consistent to believe both are bad, or both are good. But highly inconsistent to believe one is ok, one is an exploit since as you pointed out, uses same mechanic (log out) to gain same advantage (time avoid flying in-game space).

My definition of exploit is easier related as simple examples -
1) Finding some quirk in an RPG where if you click the buy and sell buttons really fast, gets you free loot - I consider this an exploit because it is taking advantage of something obviously not intended. (e.g. goods are meant to be purchased, yet you get it free)

2) Using a mechanic that exists to do what the mechanic is advertised for - logging out to log out - and finding as a result that it saves you time, I would categorize as min/maxing, which is a behavior some people chase, some don't care, and some call exploit. I don't know if can ever be factually decided who is right or wrong - the bottom line is whatever the game manufacturer calls an 'exploit' is, and what they allow 'isn't'

But my personal definition is that if you use a mechanic the game gave that does exactly what the mechanic is supposed to do - log out = log out, then any other side effect is like military tactics - there is no fair or unfair about surprise attacks, it just is part of min/maxing your superiority or options over another. You either choose to use it in that way or not.

But if you use a game mechanic that does the opposite or complete different from what it is supposed to do - Buy button that is supposed to buy commodities, but gives you free commodities instead - then that is using a game mechanic outside of it's designed function, and the side effect of free goods is an exploit.

Long answer to a short question but best I can do. I also don't acknowledge there is any more veracity to my answer than anyone else. Ultimately, 'exploit' is whatever the game devs says it is, and whatever they allow isn't. Doesn't mean we can't have opinions about it - but pretending there is an actual definitive line that proves one party right vs the other is in my opinion pretty silly.

The problem is that they aren't using the mechanic just to log out. They are using it to teleport outside of the station. The purpose of the logout button is to remove yourself from play, not avoid death or teleport out of a station or reset a RES. I see both the buy example and the logging example as exploiting because neither are intended. You could argue that one is more detrimental than the other but you can't really argue that it is not an exploit if we go by the definition I laid out before, "an unintended use of game mechanics to try to gain an advantage." What I'm seeing is people saying it's not an exploit because it's not that bad or not a big deal.

How exactly do you detect when someone is doing this?
You logged off near a station! Exploit!

Since they are using the Save & Exit game menu route, there's nothing wrong with this.

If FD are really at all concerned about this (not sure why they would be, since what does it matter? People are saving themselves what? a few seconds?) - they could simply put in a check that detects if you are inside the station when logging out.
If so, then stick you back in the hangar for when you log back in.
Simples.

Should be pretty easy to detect with some basic logging of information.

Player buys goods > hits launch > logs out > relogs > warps > sells goods at next station

That repeated several times in an hour would be a dead giveaway.

 

[jacozilla]

The problem is that they aren't using the mechanic just to log out. They are using it to teleport outside of the station. The purpose of the logout button is to remove yourself from play, not avoid death or teleport out of a station or reset a RES. I see both the buy example and the logging example as exploiting because neither are intended. You could argue that one is more detrimental than the other but you can't really argue that it is not an exploit if we go by the definition I laid out before, "an unintended use of game mechanics to try to gain an advantage." What I'm seeing is people saying it's not an exploit because it's not that bad or not a big deal.

Should be pretty easy to detect with some basic logging of information.

Player buys goods > hits launch > logs out > relogs > warps > sells goods at next station

That repeated several times in an hour would be a dead giveaway.

intended function - thats precisely why I dont consider trade logging an exploit. Dont like it , dont do it, but ok by me if others do. When you click buy, you buy an item - hence carrying out that button's intended function.

When you log out in a station, FD themselves designed that function so you would re-log outside the station - that IS the intended function of log out at station. Now we can talk about how that is a terrible idea, bad design, poor workaround to the rematerializing inside station and die issue, but whther you agree its a good deisgn decison or not - no player is hacking the system to logout in station and appear outside when relog.

FD designed the logout at station function that way, hence it is the intended function. All a player is doing is using that intended function in best tactical way to save time. I agree it cheapens game play, but thats my taste only. I cant agree using a function that FD gave you in whole, with no modifications or hack, and that does exactly what that 'button' is supposed to do is a hack.

now, if FD came out and said reappearing in a different place from logout is a bug, then yes - using logout at station to trade log would be an exploit. But its the opposite - FD themselves designed the station logout to move you outside the station. FD designed modules to be toggled power, so is it an exploit we take advantage of that to carry way more modules than pur max power can carry? Some players carry half a dozen extra shield cell banks, all turned off - then turn one off and next one with full charges on. Is this an exploit?

no. modules were designed to be installed even if we lack power to use them, making max power rating irrelevant as long as you manually toggle all the extra modules off. This is FD design and hence intended function. Same for logout at station - unlike my click buy for X credits but get it for free example, players who log out at station are using precisely the function FD implemented - good or bad that design may be.

 

[askavir]

This could be instantly fixed in a simple way: logs out inside of station -> logs back in inside the hangar. Done.

 

[Dhan]

intended function - thats precisely why I dont consider trade logging an exploit. Dont like it , dont do it, but ok by me if others do. When you click buy, you buy an item - hence carrying out that button's intended function.

When you log out in a station, FD themselves designed that function so you would re-log outside the station - that IS the intended function of log out at station. Now we can talk about how that is a terrible idea, bad design, poor workaround to the rematerializing inside station and die issue, but whther you agree its a good deisgn decison or not - no player is hacking the system to logout in station and appear outside when relog.

FD designed the logout at station function that way, hence it is the intended function. All a player is doing is using that intended function in best tactical way to save time. I agree it cheapens game play, but thats my taste only. I cant agree using a function that FD gave you in whole, with no modifications or hack, and that does exactly what that 'button' is supposed to do is a hack.

now, if FD came out and said reappearing in a different place from logout is a bug, then yes - using logout at station to trade log would be an exploit. But its the opposite - FD themselves designed the station logout to move you outside the station. FD designed modules to be toggled power, so is it an exploit we take advantage of that to carry way more modules than pur max power can carry? Some players carry half a dozen extra shield cell banks, all turned off - then turn one off and next one with full charges on. Is this an exploit?

no. modules were designed to be installed even if we lack power to use them, making max power rating irrelevant as long as you manually toggle all the extra modules off. This is FD design and hence intended function. Same for logout at station - unlike my click buy for X credits but get it for free example, players who log out at station are using precisely the function FD implemented - good or bad that design may be.

You logging in outside the station is an intended result of logging inside the station, that everyone can agree on. However, common sense tells me that using this intended feature in the manner that it is being used is not intended by the developers.

I'm assuming that the reason you log back in outside the station is to avoid the awkward scenario where you log back in inside a wall of the station.

 

[jacozilla]

You logging in outside the station is an intended result of logging inside the station, that everyone can agree on. However, common sense tells me that using this intended feature in the manner that it is being used is not intended by the developers.

I'm assuming that the reason you log back in outside the station is to avoid the awkward scenario where you log back in inside a wall of the station.

Correct - to avoid the re-materialize death because the trade logging doesn't work if you just log out in station, per se. If you logout while docked, you login same place. So players do the launch sequence, hover a few meters above the pad, then log out. This technically means they are actually 'in space', not anchored to the station via dock.

If FD logged the player back into that 'space' where they left, the relative position of that space may actually be inside the wall of the station, and I don't pretend to know what or why the technical block is - but the station movement or orbit or something, can cause the player to collide and die. Whether they may deserve that is another issue, but whatever reason, FD made this function = reappear outside the hyper point of station.

And I see your point, not really arguing that it's a good thing to do, which is why I don't do it. But I can't bring myself to call it an exploit because to be fair and try to understand others don't share my playstyle preference, I've chosen the absolute bare minimum definition of exploit rather than what admittedly becomes lot more complicated 'right' or 'wrong' arguments when you expand that definition

In black and white terms, you're still not going to ever get 100% of any population to agree, but I feel the buy button is good example. If you click buy, and somehow end up with a free item rather than what the screen just said was the cost to buy that item - as close to 100% as we are ever going to get a population of diverse humans will agree that is an exploit because clearly Function X operated in that case as Result Y.

When you start debating more heatedly though is when Function X produced intended Result X + [insert whatever player can min/max to take advantage of here]

It's hard to call this one an exploit because if we do, then it's just a degree of where we draw that line - not necessarily the formula itself.

If everyone agreed all this did was save lets say 0.5 seconds, then people will say - well, the line here is obviously really narrow, useless, doesn't really help much, so who cares. Go ahead and get carpal tunnel logging in and out. They are therefore saying it is not the act itself which is an exploit, but how much one was able to capitalize on it. That becomes a dicey area then because who decides 'how much' is normal min/maxing any player wants to do to some degree, and how much is 'exploit'?

But because the time saving is 1 min+, sometimes as much as 2 min if the station is one of those weird ones where you exit and have to loop backwards across the station in order to jump out on your route - people say that line is now huge and broad, that is a really clear min/max advantage, and therefore it is an 'exploit'

Ideally, FD would figure out a way to modify the logout function so that the new intended function is - logout at station floating in space = same thing as logout at station anchored to dock.

 

[Samosa]

Ideally, FD would figure out a way to modify the logout function so that the new intended function is - logout at station floating in space = same thing as logout at station anchored to dock.

Being able to hit space to bypass the launch cutscenes would go a long way towards making this all irrelevant.

Doing the same for getting to the outfitting screen would be nice, too.

I really didn't mind those animations the first hundred times...

 

[jacozilla]

Being able to hit space to bypass the launch cutscenes would go a long way towards making this all irrelevant.

Doing the same for getting to the outfitting screen would be nice, too.

I really didn't mind those animations the first hundred times...

Yea. It's also odd why the landing pad has to do a full inversion flip too. If it rotated in simple clockwise or counter-clock motion the instant you set down, you would already be in nose towards exit launch position soon as you got done refueling or whatever.

Only reason they'd play the inversion animation is if you wanted to enter that hangar - for protection, not for outfitting - I agree it should just be instant transition there just like for shipyard.

By entering hangar for protection I mean that on outposts at least, I've found ducking into the hangar quite handy at times when getting attacked by insane allied security ships that are allied, but for some reason firing on me

 

[Dhan]

Correct - to avoid the re-materialize death because the trade logging doesn't work if you just log out in station, per se. If you logout while docked, you login same place. So players do the launch sequence, hover a few meters above the pad, then log out. This technically means they are actually 'in space', not anchored to the station via dock.

If FD logged the player back into that 'space' where they left, the relative position of that space may actually be inside the wall of the station, and I don't pretend to know what or why the technical block is - but the station movement or orbit or something, can cause the player to collide and die. Whether they may deserve that is another issue, but whatever reason, FD made this function = reappear outside the hyper point of station.

And I see your point, not really arguing that it's a good thing to do, which is why I don't do it. But I can't bring myself to call it an exploit because to be fair and try to understand others don't share my playstyle preference, I've chosen the absolute bare minimum definition of exploit rather than what admittedly becomes lot more complicated 'right' or 'wrong' arguments when you expand that definition

In black and white terms, you're still not going to ever get 100% of any population to agree, but I feel the buy button is good example. If you click buy, and somehow end up with a free item rather than what the screen just said was the cost to buy that item - as close to 100% as we are ever going to get a population of diverse humans will agree that is an exploit because clearly Function X operated in that case as Result Y.

When you start debating more heatedly though is when Function X produced intended Result X + [insert whatever player can min/max to take advantage of here]

It's hard to call this one an exploit because if we do, then it's just a degree of where we draw that line - not necessarily the formula itself.

My definition is pretty basic. I'll reiterate it: an unintended use of game mechanics to try to gain an advantage. That leaves me with two possible conclusions why you don't consider this an exploit, either you think my definition of exploiting is not correct, or you think that this method is an intended way to play the game in the eyes of the devs. Which is it?

If everyone agreed all this did was save lets say 0.5 seconds, then people will say - well, the line here is obviously really narrow, useless, doesn't really help much, so who cares. Go ahead and get carpal tunnel logging in and out. They are therefore saying it is not the act itself which is an exploit, but how much one was able to capitalize on it. That becomes a dicey area then because who decides 'how much' is normal min/maxing any player wants to do to some degree, and how much is 'exploit'?

But because the time saving is 1 min+, sometimes as much as 2 min if the station is one of those weird ones where you exit and have to loop backwards across the station in order to jump out on your route - people say that line is now huge and broad, that is a really clear min/max advantage, and therefore it is an 'exploit'

Ideally, FD would figure out a way to modify the logout function so that the new intended function is - logout at station floating in space = same thing as logout at station anchored to dock.

And those people would be using a flawed definition of exploiting. This seems to be the case quite often I find, take a look at this thread for example. "It's not really a big deal so it's not exploiting," they'll say, which translates to me as "It's only a little exploiting so it's not that bad."

By my definition, those 0.5 seconds would still be considered exploiting. Now whether or not that 0.5 second example is grounds for an instant ban is another matter altogether.

If people want to justify their actions to make themselves feel better, so be it.

 

[jacozilla]

My definition is pretty basic. I'll reiterate it: an unintended use of game mechanics to try to gain an advantage. That leaves me with two possible conclusions why you don't consider this an exploit, either you think my definition of exploiting is not correct, or you think that this method is an intended way to play the game in the eyes of the dev. Which is it?

The former, not the latter. I will reiterate I have never said nor intend to defend trade logging as a 'good' thing, but no - it's not an exploit because I don't agree with your definition, as you do not with mine.

On a purely logic 101 basis - yes, if I agree that: "an unintended use of game mechanics to try to gain an advantage" = exploit;
then yes, I would agree trade logging falls into that definition. That's a logical conclusion that follows that premise.

However, I don't agree with the premise, that logging out within the space of the station and then reappearing outside the hyper point is unintended. FD specifically and intentionally made logging out hovering inside station = intended re-log outside hyper point of station.

you and I can agree - and for my part I do agree that is a BAD implementation, and a BAD idea to do it that way - but at least for my part, it is very clear that FD themselves coded it that way, the function works exactly as intended that way, and therefore using it is any player's right to use ANY existing game mechanic to gain an advantage, including knowing things like with current game mechanic, NPCs are not persistent.

NPC not persistent is why people log out at res sites. The intended function of logout-outside-station is to store spatial coordinates and return to same coordinates at login - but the side effect of this is that at login, NPCs are regenerated because the existing game mechanic is NPCs are not persistent. For this same reason, I don't call res logging an exploit either - players could fly out of the asteroid field, then fly back in - being able to RESET an instance is clearly in my mind an intended FD design decision - otherwise players would not be able to fly out and fly back in to have new RNG and new opponents.

But the way min/max players are taking advantage of that is similar to trade logging - they are using the intended and totally correct function of logout outside station, preserving their spatial position on re-log, but knowing the side effect of other game mechanic - NPCs not persistent - will give them the advantage of a totally reset res site.

Whether the reappearing at hyper for logout within station space or logout in same spatial coordinates when logging outside of station space is a good mechanic, bad mechanics, not well balanced - those are all topics that can be debated on my part without calling it an exploit. I've admitted it is my (and others) definition - I don't claim omnipotent declaration powers why this definition is more worthy than another.

What I do claim is that IF you agree with the logical construct of my premise, then my conclusion is understood - just as I understand your conclusion, but just don't agree with the premise.

 

[Samosa]

My definition is pretty basic. I'll reiterate it: an unintended use of game mechanics to try to gain an advantage. That leaves me with two possible conclusions why you don't consider this an exploit, either you think my definition of exploiting is not correct, or you think that this method is an intended way to play the game in the eyes of the devs. Which is it?

Just as an aside, as you and others may or not remember:

Subverting a system for something other than its intended use - that used to be called "hacking", and not in the "Oh dear, they've hacked the VAX again" sense of hacking. It wasn't a dirty word, it was something rather clever people did to achieve a result through means that nobody had yet considered.

I think the line is drawn somewhere around whether other people's days are being spoiled by one's behavior.

If I glitch inside a wall and am able to shoot other players all day long without any risk to myself, well, that's definitely a harmful exploit.

If I just can't be bothered to watch the same animation and skip a few seconds of repetitive flight that I've played out a hundred times in the past week, in a solo environment, in which my impact on the background simulation is absolutely, undeniably negligible, well, then... That's a minor hack and harms nobody.

Edit: This is somewhat irrelevant, but I'd be really interested to know the country of origin of those who feel one way or another. I'd be willing to bet that the results would be very curious indeed.

 

[jacozilla]

Edit: This is somewhat irrelevant, but I'd be really interested to know the country of origin of those who feel one way or another. I'd be willing to bet that the results would be very curious indeed.

USA - but California, which is kind of a separate country culture-wise within the USA, and Northern California origin which is very different from what I now call the LA crowd, despite now being located in sunny, always no real weather SoCal.