Mode switching mission board update gone: alternative for ranking up

In video games, an exploit is the use of a bug or glitches, game system, rates, hit boxes, or speed, etc. by a player to their advantage in a manner not intended by the game's designers.[1] Exploits have been classified as a form of cheating;
1) When have the devs stated that switching between modes is "not intended"?

2) Why is it important to you how somebody else chooses to play the game with the mechanics provided by the devs?

Unless one ignores one of the factions until it is instituted, in recognition that it is under construction and will provide a better experience if engaged with at a later date, of course.
By that method we might as well not play the entire game right now and instead wait for FD to 'finish it' because almost everything currently is still under construction, i.e. placeholder content.
 
Last edited:
Why do so many players care about how other players play the game???

How does it effect your game play? Are they stealing missions from you?

Why can we take 20 missions at one time? You are not going to fly from system to system stack missions are you?

S1E
 
This. I'd rep you if I weren't on my cell.

@bomba, when I used the term "weeks" I meant in game weeks. I'm approaching 2000 hours played. Please don't get saucy with me, okay? I'm not looking for a fight, I just have a different opinion than you.
Too late, the Fight is on!
tumblr_ml5xh1Mamf1rvcjd7o1_400.gif
 
It is my new pet theory that season 3 will be primarily about war between superpowers (and maybe super aliens) and that FD will take that as their opportunity to build real Naval Careers gameplay. I'm guessing it will be something between what you've suggested and a CG. I'm hopeful, but I went ahead and ran missions until I got Duke just to be safe. The view of this thread from my Cutter is breathtaking.

I hope you're right.
 
So effectively they just doubled the time to rank up.

Only for people who were exploiting the game.

Its the same for everyone else.

And Yes: I have. I bought the game last Xmas and have a cutter. I'm a new player, and I don't feel the need to exploit it to hurry progression artificially.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Why do so many players care about how other players play the game???

Because it not a solo game, perhaps? When other people are getting resources twice as fast as others in a multi-player game, it is an issue which affects the disadvantaged players.

If it was all solo it would not be an issue, but that is not how the game works. If I was playing a chess computer and could take two turns for every one of the computer, I'm not affecting anyone and its not an issue. If I try it with a human player, the problems start.
 
That can be applied to every aspect of the game. Are you suggesting we just don't play it until it's no longer under construction? Lead by example.

I'm not suggesting anything, oh combative one. Frankly, you can jog on with your demand that I stop playing my favourite computer game.

It works for me, though. I know the navy progression is missing a lot. I know I am playing a game that is still in development. I know an overhaul is coming. Therefore I chose to ignore Fed rank until it is, so I can enjoy it then. I'm not depriving myself of anything, because I've ranked up in Empire and experienced the full rank system already.

I can leave half of the cookies on the tray until mom comes and puts chocolate on top of them.

If people so desperately want a Cutter and a Corvette so much that they do not want to experience the improved navy mission play -which they have been told is coming- that's their choice. And that choice can be rectified easily enough by simply dropping FD support a polite email, to reset rank after the improvements, so it doesn't matter one jot anyway.
 
Last edited:
Imho it's a pretty bad practice. The killing of exploits without...
1) setting up an alternative process more enjoyable than the one players used to discard in favour of the exploit
2) cancelling the benefits obtained by using said exploit
... is doing one thing: it encourages players to abuse every future exploit like there's no tomorrow. Like it or not, play for the journey and not the destination if you want, a vast amount of players play to see numbers go up. And these shortcuts will make numbers go up faster. And they're risk-free: since the gains are never cancelled, you don't even risk losing your time. No-range-limit rares, seeking luxuries, donation missions, Robigo, Sothis and now board-switching: you name it, they fixed it, and everyone kept the ill-gotten gains. The ones that did not abuse it are simply left poorer, lower ranked, and facing a massively longer time wall to reach the same situation as the posters with a Cutter in their signature that keep telling them that it's for their own good. I don't even like the Anaconda and wouldn't recommend it unless you're really after the most boring ship in the game, but I feel like strangling a kitten every time I see a Anaconda owner telling other players they really don't need a Conda and should enjoy being poor. Of course, were I to actually strangle a kitten, that crowd would probably tell the kitten that life is overrated anyway.

It doesn't matter to you, fine, we get it. But you're not alone, and though I'll never see the stats to prove/disprove it, I suspect it does matter to a large majority, hence why the game was designed with money/ranks to watch increase in the first place.

As a disclaimer, I don't need any of these anymore personally, Sothis was a convenient money maker for me, getting me a tradeconda that got me even more money through more Sothis (as well as that ridiculous 300m reward CG), and board refresh also helped me with the higher fed ranks to get a toy Corvette. I still fly the Dropship most of the time, but it's fun every now and then to play with the mini Star Destroyer or any other ship from a large fleet that can be repurposed with barely a concern for money. I quite enjoy that, and wish good luck with future exploits that will grant the same opportunity to people coming behind. Well, unless FD grow some guts and resets all progress so that everyone can enjoy the new rules on an equal footing.
 
So effectively they just doubled the time to rank up. I'll keep my popcorn handy.

So has anyone achieved rear admiral or duke without mode switching? If so how much gameplay did it take you? I'd wager 18 months. New players will love to hear that news.

Admiral without too much focus. It wasn't hard and it didn't take long. But yes, it wont happen over a week or days like now. But it can be done in 1-3 months.
 
I don't think anything has changed re: mode switching in particular, it's more that there just aren't [as m]any missions out there in general.

I am finding this to be correct....the refresh just brings along another small selection of missions paying out nearly nothing - so choose to earn nothing to go from A to B, or nothing from D to E.
 
Only true with the "must have cutter/Corvette after X Days of playing" premise. The real diffrence between the two mindsets is one is impatience and in a hurry and the other isn't.

Except my first 250 game hours were spent doing missions for the Federation-aligned factions near me. I ranked up once, and in that time I made almost enough money to get a Vulture. Doing that killed the game for me, for almost six months. I was just playing casually, thinking that I'd at least be able to get a Dropship by that time. No hurry. And yet, somehow, by the time I hit the end of those 250 hours, I was bored to death of everything from trading to combat and I only gained one rank out of it.
 
Because it not a solo game, perhaps? When other people are getting resources twice as fast as others in a multi-player game, it is an issue which affects the disadvantaged players.

If it was all solo it would not be an issue, but that is not how the game works. If I was playing a chess computer and could take two turns for every one of the computer, I'm not affecting anyone and its not an issue. If I try it with a human player, the problems start.

How does one rate as a "disadvantaged Player" in this case. Anyone can/could mode switch and stack missions. If you chose not to, that's on you.

If you think others should not do it because you don't think it's "right". You would not like who, or what I would compare that way of thinking to!

It seem rather apparent that some players think the time sink for rank is far to long. I can actually agree with those players that have limited game time.

A better solution for this would be if there were actually different missions with higher and lower rank gain based on skill and risk.


LLaP

S1E
 
Counter question: If it was "cheating" why did they put it in the game in the first place?

Its not cheating, its an exploit. The whole idea of an exploit is that it wasnt thought about by the devs in that sense. Switching modes was the function itself, using it to either quick-launch from a station or refresh the missions was an oversight, and I can imagine a tough one to fix. If they did fix it (and we've had these reports after every patch, so not sure yet), that'd be a nice step. Still think it should be compensated by simply generating more missions per instance.
 
Imho it's a pretty bad practice. The killing of exploits without...
1) setting up an alternative process more enjoyable than the one players used to discard in favour of the exploit
2) cancelling the benefits obtained by using said exploit
... is doing one thing: it encourages players to abuse every future exploit like there's no tomorrow.
Like it or not, play for the journey and not the destination if you want, a vast amount of players play to see numbers go up. And these shortcuts will make numbers go up faster. And they're risk-free: since the gains are never cancelled, you don't even risk losing your time. No-range-limit rares, seeking luxuries, donation missions, Robigo, Sothis and now board-switching: you name it, they fixed it, and everyone kept the ill-gotten gains. The ones that did not abuse it are simply left poorer, lower ranked, and facing a massively longer time wall to reach the same situation as the posters with a Cutter in their signature that keep telling them that it's for their own good. I don't even like the Anaconda and wouldn't recommend it unless you're really after the most boring ship in the game, but I feel like strangling a kitten every time I see a Anaconda owner telling other players they really don't need a Conda and should enjoy being poor. Of course, were I to actually strangle a kitten, that crowd would probably tell the kitten that life is overrated anyway.

It doesn't matter to you, fine, we get it. But you're not alone, and though I'll never see the stats to prove/disprove it, I suspect it does matter to a large majority, hence why the game was designed with money/ranks to watch increase in the first place.

As a disclaimer, I don't need any of these anymore personally, Sothis was a convenient money maker for me, getting me a tradeconda that got me even more money through more Sothis (as well as that ridiculous 300m reward CG), and board refresh also helped me with the higher fed ranks to get a toy Corvette. I still fly the Dropship most of the time, but it's fun every now and then to play with the mini Star Destroyer or any other ship from a large fleet that can be repurposed with barely a concern for money. I quite enjoy that, and wish good luck with future exploits that will grant the same opportunity to people coming behind. Well, unless FD grow some guts and resets all progress so that everyone can enjoy the new rules on an equal footing.
+1 Well said. Hits the core of the issue right on the head.
 
How does one rate as a "disadvantaged Player" in this case. Anyone can/could mode switch and stack missions. If you chose not to, that's on you.

If you think others should not do it because you don't think it's "right". You would not like who, or what I would compare that way of thinking to!

It seem rather apparent that some players think the time sink for rank is far to long. I can actually agree with those players that have limited game time.

A better solution for this would be if there were actually different missions with higher and lower rank gain based on skill and risk.

LLaP

S1E

You cheat, so if I don't cheat by logging out constantly and am at a disadvantage it's my tough luck?

No.


And there *are* missions with higher and lower rank gain, depending on risk... or cost in the case of charity. your better solution is in play. You going to stop doing it now? No. So it's unfortunately not a better solution than stopping mode switching from working, because the mode switchers don't stop - and it seems haven't even noticed.



Ihsp
Cafm
 
Last edited:
Same here :)


Congrats.

I've mode switched, stacked missions, ceos/sothis, and now have a Python. Now I'm off doing other things enjoying the game the way I want to enjoy the game.

How has my method impinged on yours?

All they really needed to do to resolve the issue is fix mode switching to not reset the mission board. They didn't need to nerf the payouts or quantity of missions. Simply resolving the mode switch issue would have greatly reduced the speed at which people could make cash. With all the changes they've done, they've now made it so there is zero incentive to take any of the missions thus messing with the BGS.
 
Back
Top Bottom