Legal Exploit?

[vlaskov1tz]

Hi Community and Developers,

this is the question for game developers - when are you going to fix game mode-switch exploit which generates new missions in a hub? Well, if it's intended you should consider to add a refresh button instead on the mission table...

 

[Red Fox Four]

So instead of waiting 10 or 15 minutes (I forget how long it is for it to auto-refresh) you can just switch game mode and it auto-refreshes the bulletin board with different missions?

If so, NICE!

 

[[VR] Deggial]

So instead of waiting 10 or 15 minutes (I forget how long it is for it to auto-refresh) you can just switch game mode and it auto-refreshes the bulletin board with different missions?

No. Instead of doing something else/interesting for 10 or 15 minutes, you can just switch game mode and it auto-refreshes the bulletin board with different missions.

Which is - let's be honest - quite tedious, immersion breaking and simply an exploit. Sure, play your game as you like. But please, don't come here to complain that ED is boring! (Edit: The last part is not targeted at you, Fox. But there are more than enough people around here at the forum doing exactly this.)

 

[DrakeAurum]

Well, the obvious time for them to do it would be the 2.1 update, as it revises missions in general. I'm curious to see whether they do actually make any such change.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Hi Community and Developers,

this is the question for game developers - when are you going to fix game mode-switch exploit which generates new missions in a hub? Well, if it's intended you should consider to add a refresh button instead on the mission table...

There is no such thing as a 'legal exploit' by definition. Anyway, one of the problems is that currently you dont have much choice in missions. Espescially when you just start out it can take HOURS before there is even a single mission you can accept. This problem didnt exist in 1.0, it was slowly introduced when the mission parameters were added. The new system in 2.1 (going in beta in +-1 week) should change that: you can contact specific factions and they'll offer multiple missions you can actually do. But until that the current system is pretty broken, so they consider the 'exploit' a temporary bandaid around it. Any modifications to the current system (refresh button for example) would be a waste of time considering the currect system is about to thrown out the window.

 

[Arry]

A board refresh option would be nice, but it won't stop the greedy jumping from mode to mode.

I feel this is an exploit and should be stopped, but I would say that that is harder than we may imagine. Maybe if the game sees you mode jumping, more than twice within a few minutes; then you should be sent straight to open and not be able to change for a fixed period of time.

I am not saying that open should be seen as a threat; but it is the riskiest mode of play, to run multiple and stacked missions in.

 

[[VR] Deggial]

I think sleutelbos is right regarding the reason why the exploit is so tempting and how 2.1 will probably solve the issue.

+1

 

[Ian Skippy]

A board refresh option would be nice, but it won't stop the greedy jumping from mode to mode.

I feel this is an exploit and should be stopped, but I would say that that is harder than we may imagine. Maybe if the game sees you mode jumping, more than twice within a few minutes; then you should be sent straight to open and not be able to change for a fixed period of time.

I am not saying that open should be seen as a threat; but it is the riskiest mode of play, to run multiple and stacked missions in.

How about this: contacts from minor factions will not give more than 2 missions at a time regardless of mode. Two missions from that faction in your list? The contact tells you to work more and talk less. There, done.

 

[Nerwan]

Hi Community and Developers,

this is the question for game developers - when are you going to fix game mode-switch exploit which generates new missions in a hub? Well, if it's intended you should consider to add a refresh button instead on the mission table...

According to the devs it's not an exploit.. And think about this for a second, they have CGs and game mechanics were you're expected to deliver 100s of tonnes of meta-alloys. How do you do that without mode switching at the barnacle? In effect they've built it into the game.. :-(

 

[[VR] Deggial]

According to the devs it's not an exploit.. And think about this for a second, they have CGs and game mechanics were you're expected to deliver 100s of tonnes of meta-alloys. How do you do that without mode switching at the barnacle? In effect they've built it into the game.. :-(

This is indeed a related issue.

Tinmann has proposed an interesting solution for this in the Newsletter thread: The status of the player's last 10 (or so) visited POIs should be stored. Exploited barnacles wouldn't yield new meta-alloys until they fall out of this stack.

Obviously, CGs like the mentioned will have to reflect the change and the goals would have to be adjusted accordingly.

 

[Mephane]

While I do agree that missions should be synchronized between all play modes (e.g. changing modes gives you exactly the same missions), I still don't think this is an exploit, but a workaround to the often abysmal mission selection. "Oh you are a trader of high rank, flying a Python? Why not deliver 3 cans of poop to Hutton Orbital? This is urgent, it needs to reach them in 20 minutes. Of course we pay premium, 5000cr in cash upon timely delivery."

 

[Derath]

According to the devs it's not an exploit.. And think about this for a second, they have CGs and game mechanics were you're expected to deliver 100s of tonnes of meta-alloys. How do you do that without mode switching at the barnacle? In effect they've built it into the game.. :-(

That was like the worst example of it they could have made :/ it was encouraging something already so dubious lol. I dont' blame anyone for doing it, but i still like to give FD stick for not fixing it and making a CG about it.

Edit: can't rep mephane again but +1 anyway, as mentioned its also a problem that the mission board has so many woeful missions

 

[Arry]

How about this: contacts from minor factions will not give more than 2 missions at a time regardless of mode. Two missions from that faction in your list? The contact tells you to work more and talk less. There, done.

If the switching mode exploit can be fixed, it doesn't matter how many missions you get to stack. The stacking choice is yours and I would ask for more missions options on the board.

I am working with a new player at this time and he has not been offered a mission that he can do alone, for close to 25 hours of play. Lots of missions that can and will get him killed, or ruin his reputation gains, but nothing realistic for a new player. For myself, now in Fed (removes bad taste) and allied to Empire space, missions are a plenty. I have managed to rank up 4 times, in very little time, but then I have a 10mil Cobra to play with. I dropped him 250k to get him out of the sidey, but still no viable mission for him. So something needs to change, just for the new players.

 

[Ian Skippy]

If the switching mode exploit can be fixed, it doesn't matter how many missions you get to stack. The stacking choice is yours and I would ask for more missions options on the board.

I am working with a new player at this time and he has not been offered a mission that he can do alone, for close to 25 hours of play. Lots of missions that can and will get him killed, or ruin his reputation gains, but nothing realistic for a new player. For myself, now in Fed (removes bad taste) and allied to Empire space, missions are a plenty. I have managed to rank up 4 times, in very little time, but then I have a 10mil Cobra to play with. I dropped him 250k to get him out of the sidey, but still no viable mission for him. So something needs to change, just for the new players.

Already confirmed: rank wont lock missions anymore, only reputation, and missions will be generated for the player specifically for the faction of the player's choice. The more missions you do for them, the more choice and better rewards you'l' get. But if you dont mind stacking missions, whats the problem with mode-switching? Its basically just a cumbersome and boring way to get to something you dont object to.

 

[Von Shadow]

Its the worst mechanic for grinding but until we get reasonable missions for reasonable reward for naval progression its become the accepted way

 

[Arry]

Already confirmed: rank wont lock missions anymore, only reputation, and missions will be generated for the player specifically for the faction of the player's choice. The more missions you do for them, the more choice and better rewards you'l' get. But if you dont mind stacking missions, whats the problem with mode-switching? Its basically just a cumbersome and boring way to get to something you dont object to.

1st it takes me ages to switch modes. (My PC therefore my problem)

Like it or not; it is taking advantage, of the current system, to gain an advantage. Therefore: It is an exploit. Yes everyone can do it, but it does not make it right.

 

[Bomba Luigi]

Just don't do it if you don't like it.

The only place where I would say it is problematic is in CGs where people have to do it in order to complete the CG, becasue the numbers are set so high that you have to do it because they know people will do it and the goals would end too quick if the numbers aren't so high. Its a bit messed up in that regard.

 

[EUS]

The real way to make it "realistic" would be to increase the amount of jobs available to something in the hundreds.
10 jobs posted on the board is nuts.

 

[Some1else]

I would say, who cares if another player wishes to sit in a base and log in and out for however much time they can stand it. It's not hurting other players, and other players can do the same. So where's the problem?

I tried this at HIP 10716, and couldn't stand it after a while. I didn't really see the missions refresh after one time through. So I ended up taking a couple of surface salvage missions to kill the time between the refresh. It was far more enjoyable. But heck, if folks wish to sit there and clicky-clicky through game modes, more power to them!

LLaP

S1E

 

[Ian Skippy]

I would say, who cares if another player wishes to sit in a base and log in and out for however much time they can stand it. It's not hurting other players, and other players can do the same. So where's the problem?

I tried this at HIP 10716, and couldn't stand it after a while. I didn't really see the missions refresh after one time through. So I ended up taking a couple of surface salvage missions to kill the time between the refresh. It was far more enjoyable. But heck, if folks wish to sit there and clicky-clicky through game modes, more power to them!

LLaP

S1E

The problem is that many of us like to 'be the best we can be'. And that isnt very much fun if the best you can do is log in/out. Its the same with 'balance'. One can say 'who cares if Weapon X is overpowered, if you dont like it dont use it.' Sure, but it means I have to intentionally handicap myself and make 'dumb' choices. Having multiple equally viable options is way more fun than one Super Option and a whole bunch of vastly inferior ones.