Is switching between open and solo play to gain new missions considered a punishable exploit?
- Thread starter Xenharmonic
- Start date
Duke Nukem
The problem is not switching modes per se, but the game then offering you stuff that it was not going to offer in the previous mode. The solution to bouncing a RES to 'get a better spawn' is not to have 'good' spawns and 'bad' ones but have spawns that are sometimes good, sometimes bad, always variable, where bouncing a spawn does not give an advantage because the probabilities are the same.
Whatever the game allows you to do without using external code/programs to alter the experience cannot by definition be an exploit. If you use the game as it is coded and find a way to use the mechanics to your advantage that is a bit dubious, is a loophole . The devs can choose to close the loophole but are on shaky ground if they start banning people for using the program as they designed it. There have been many "loopholes" during beta and release that have been altered or closed . Rares trading was a doozy .
Yeah, no. FD themselves have labeled combat logging as an exploit and people do that everyday. When you and a friend could have a hold full of illegal goods and take turns scanning each other to rack up multi million credit bounties in quick succession then killing each other for collection, that was an exploit, and I'm sure we'll see plenty more throughout elites lifetime. Just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD.
Combat logging is NO ingame-mechanic. Don't twist every word.
CL is an exploit because some would use 3rd party tools (operating system, applications, other physical components)
Switching instances by changing Game Mode is totally valid to be not an exploit.
Last edited:
Except it is an exploit. Just because you use it and want to justify it as being OK doesn't make it so. I doubt frontier intentionally designed the mission system in a way that to make the most of it you have to constantly return to the main menu and change modes. You are exploiting a side effect of the games code for personal gain in a way the devs never intended, that is the very definition of an exploit.
I've corrected you. Greetings to our regulatory authority in Brussels
Aye, so want to, not have to. Huge distinction.
As already pointed out, the multiple threads about naval rank progression covers this many many times, with FD being clear that it's not considered an exploit nor a 'wrong' action. It is NOT in the spirit of the game however according to FD, but it is also not a violation of any rule nor subject to any punitive action.
Will they do something about it? Who knows, evidently it is on their radar now that it's being so publically touted as a way to get rich quick instead of as a way to get naval rank progression SLIGHTLY faster with the rank system being somewhat dodgy per FD. I guess the difference between a work around for a dodgy system and just making lots of creds fast is the difference between WAI and Exploiting in FD's eyes.
Personally, I consider it an exploit, always have, as you are obviously bypassing the built in limits of the game. The fact that the software allows it is what makes it an exploit, using the code in an unintended manner. Using 3rd party tools is hacking/cheating. Some of you are trying far too hard to hide or justify what you are doing because you KNOW it's wrong...
Will they do something about it? Who knows, evidently it is on their radar now that it's being so publically touted as a way to get rich quick instead of as a way to get naval rank progression SLIGHTLY faster with the rank system being somewhat dodgy per FD. I guess the difference between a work around for a dodgy system and just making lots of creds fast is the difference between WAI and Exploiting in FD's eyes.
Personally, I consider it an exploit, always have, as you are obviously bypassing the built in limits of the game. The fact that the software allows it is what makes it an exploit, using the code in an unintended manner. Using 3rd party tools is hacking/cheating. Some of you are trying far too hard to hide or justify what you are doing because you KNOW it's wrong...
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
spot on!
if ships just randomly jumped in and out, and i never knew what it would be, what would be the point of constantly logging in and out all the time? it would be way better that way, and more believeable.
better still would be if on a hidden file on your pc it noted what ships were in the instance at last log out and then put the same back in if you log out and relog in within 10 mins
the exact same method could work with BB missions.
Further more you could argue that if crimson faction had just offered me 8 million to take 5 tons of slaves from Sothis to Sol they would not then hand out a mission 5 mins later to take 3 tons from sothis to sol (otherwise they would have just made the mission 8 tons in the 1st place) so a lock on the amount of missions to a similar vicinity would make sense so they just will not be offered to you until they were completed.
further more the same faction may not give 5 missions even to different places at the same time as they may feel it too much putting all eggs in 1 basket. It would not be unheard of for the game to put limits like that, after all when you think about it rares trading is the most illogical thing ever.
why would I limit you to 10 tons of an item because it is super rare? surely I would just up the core price of my product? (indeed the whole rare thing could be better anyway, take them off the commodities list full stop, but make them awarded you sometimes with a tone of their super rare in demand item for a job well done - finishing ahead of time in a delivery, or killing 10 pirates instead of 8 in a kill pirate mission etc etc.
or randomly when buying gold from somewhere you get a message anomaly detected in hold, and it turn out due to an error 3 tons of lavian brandy were loaded onto your ship along with your (insert random thing here)
or anomaly detected 2 kg of narcottics detected in the guts of that slave you are carrying. (which would mean having trade items in quantities other than tons) but still, there is loads which could be done here, to improve the rares trading ..... as well as the BB missions, as well as the RES sites.....
hmmmm i went off piste again
Last edited:
Not an exploit at all, and in some instances its needed and i mean that with regards to mining. Ive generally picked up 1 mission, then left it for 10-15minutes for missions to respawn, not a single one - I did this for an hour (did house work etc) and in that hour of waiting no new missions spawned for mining. Ok that could be down to just plain bad luck, but it was also a wasted hour for what is potentially a broken mission mechanic. So from my POV - fast tracking missions is perfectly fine.
Id call getting round the limit on rare's in your cargo hold an exploit more - but no one is calling for that to be stopped.
Id call getting round the limit on rare's in your cargo hold an exploit more - but no one is calling for that to be stopped.
Not really trying hard. That is something off the cuff. Exploits are the effort/reward of hacking. If you want to exploit software you HAVE to use 3rd party tools.
Last edited:
Hurricane Moon
Banned
lol why even start a can of worms pc brigade bait thread?....i always used to do this at tun to rank up fast to get the gunship.......
you paid for the game like the next man.....play it however you want imo......
you paid for the game like the next man.....play it however you want imo......
Traffic update at Sothis of people are are not switching modes to gain big reward missions!
Here's what I've been able to deduce so far from all this:
1) Multiple mission queues is an inelegant workaround to an underlying problem which should be fixed. Then the workaround can be removed.
2) The rumor going around seems to be that you *always* get a new set of missions every time you switch modes. This over-exaggerates the problem.
3) The reported 21M credit per hour number which prompted the call of "exploit" in the first place is a demonstrably false over-exaggeration.
And regardless of how the problems are fixed, I think we can all agree that long range gameplay to random destinations should remain more profitable than short loop trading between a fixed pair.
Now for the detailed reasons:
1) Multiple mission queues is an inelegant workaround to an underlying problem which should be fixed. Then workaround can be removed.
I think the reason this has been left in for so long is people playing the background sim (especially now that there are player-group minor factions in game) would be unable to help their faction when it enters certain states. For example, in civil war only combat missions count toward influence, and if no combat missions spawn, or if all the missions which spawn happen to be too high rank for you, you can be left sitting at the station checking the board every five minutes while you are unable to effectively help your faction.
I would rather see a fix where depending on the state of the background sim, stations are guaranteed to give you at least one mission you can take for each the available types. That is, a mission which matches your current elite rank, reputation level, and perhaps ship size. If it's really smart it can factor in cargo too and whether or not the station offers outfitting. The other factors effecting the specifics will still be random, and so will the profit since it appears to be a function of those things. But at least you will have something to do!
2) The rumor going around seems to be that you *always* get a new set of missions every time you switch modes. This over-exaggerates the problem.
What is actually happening is a player can have multiple mission lists. For example, if you log into open and then into solo you'll have a separate list for each. If you now switch back to open you'll see the same list there as the first time. In this case you have just doubled the amount of mission choices you have. But you still have to wait the usual 5 minutes for those two queues of missions to cycle themselves separately.
3) The 21M credit per hour number which started the call of "exploit" is a demonstrably false over-exaggeration.
The source video in question did not account the time for the initial 500 LY trip to Sothis or the time spent gathering its first load of missions. This cuts the profit per hour dramatically. Mission stacking also in my experience increases the number of interdictions, further slowing you down. Most people in that thread are reporting taking those things into account the gains are similar to or moderately greater than trading, which is fair for an activity that is inherently more difficult, random, and risky. FDev will analyze the actual credit/hour data to judge the numbers and balance. But I think whichever method FDev takes to fix the mission board, long range gameplay to random destinations should remain more profitable than short loop trading between a fixed pair.
1) Multiple mission queues is an inelegant workaround to an underlying problem which should be fixed. Then the workaround can be removed.
2) The rumor going around seems to be that you *always* get a new set of missions every time you switch modes. This over-exaggerates the problem.
3) The reported 21M credit per hour number which prompted the call of "exploit" in the first place is a demonstrably false over-exaggeration.
And regardless of how the problems are fixed, I think we can all agree that long range gameplay to random destinations should remain more profitable than short loop trading between a fixed pair.
Now for the detailed reasons:
1) Multiple mission queues is an inelegant workaround to an underlying problem which should be fixed. Then workaround can be removed.
I think the reason this has been left in for so long is people playing the background sim (especially now that there are player-group minor factions in game) would be unable to help their faction when it enters certain states. For example, in civil war only combat missions count toward influence, and if no combat missions spawn, or if all the missions which spawn happen to be too high rank for you, you can be left sitting at the station checking the board every five minutes while you are unable to effectively help your faction.
I would rather see a fix where depending on the state of the background sim, stations are guaranteed to give you at least one mission you can take for each the available types. That is, a mission which matches your current elite rank, reputation level, and perhaps ship size. If it's really smart it can factor in cargo too and whether or not the station offers outfitting. The other factors effecting the specifics will still be random, and so will the profit since it appears to be a function of those things. But at least you will have something to do!
2) The rumor going around seems to be that you *always* get a new set of missions every time you switch modes. This over-exaggerates the problem.
What is actually happening is a player can have multiple mission lists. For example, if you log into open and then into solo you'll have a separate list for each. If you now switch back to open you'll see the same list there as the first time. In this case you have just doubled the amount of mission choices you have. But you still have to wait the usual 5 minutes for those two queues of missions to cycle themselves separately.
3) The 21M credit per hour number which started the call of "exploit" is a demonstrably false over-exaggeration.
The source video in question did not account the time for the initial 500 LY trip to Sothis or the time spent gathering its first load of missions. This cuts the profit per hour dramatically. Mission stacking also in my experience increases the number of interdictions, further slowing you down. Most people in that thread are reporting taking those things into account the gains are similar to or moderately greater than trading, which is fair for an activity that is inherently more difficult, random, and risky. FDev will analyze the actual credit/hour data to judge the numbers and balance. But I think whichever method FDev takes to fix the mission board, long range gameplay to random destinations should remain more profitable than short loop trading between a fixed pair.
NO, it's far from an over exaggeration: I know people making 150 million per day from about 5 hours play time.
When I went to get the traffic report, I checked to see if this (ambiguous) exploit still works. In under 40 minutes, I jumped to Sothis, switched modes and filled 28 tonnes of my current 34 tonne capacity with 26 million worth of missions - that's about 5 missions, which will take me next to no time to deliver. (if I was that way inclined)
Last edited:
Does that include cheating?
I don't think paying for something indicates you can use it however you want.
If you applied that same logic to guns, cars, planes, skateboards, businesses etc etc you will probably recognise why it doesn't and shouldn't work that way.
Nice to hear. Where exactly is your point ? Other poeple getting rich faster than you ?