I have some suspicions, but I can't wait to find out what's really going on
Setting up a Macro to basically FARM the system via various means. As opposed to actual real-time user input.
Long running macro's threat by FD - What exactly is a long running macro?!
- Thread starter clinton
- Start date
Setting up a Macro to basically FARM the system via various means. As opposed to actual real-time user input.
I suspect another problematic type of macro is one which mode-switches to stack missions of a given type until the mission limit is reached. I suspect the overhead of a mode switch isn't trivial and having a number of machines doing it continuously while their owners are afk is one of the targets here - especially if they are badly written and don't stop when the limits have been reached.
Again it could be mitigated by not allowing a switch of mode to refresh the missions board, or by not permitting missions of a similar type to be stacked, reducing the incentive to do so. Alternatively adding an increasing and explicit (i.e. you get told about it and warned that the pattern is being logged) delay for subsequent logins/switches after a small number (to allow for crashes) might help dissuade.
Again it could be mitigated by not allowing a switch of mode to refresh the missions board, or by not permitting missions of a similar type to be stacked, reducing the incentive to do so. Alternatively adding an increasing and explicit (i.e. you get told about it and warned that the pattern is being logged) delay for subsequent logins/switches after a small number (to allow for crashes) might help dissuade.
However, you forget the other half of what the background simulation is. It's not just background, it's also a simulation. With a simulationist PoV in mind, the current system where the number of transactions matters a lot rather than the size and quality of said transactions is a pretty poor simulation.
Or y'know: Deliberately exploiting unintended mechanics. Dress it up however you like, but botting an exploit is just cheating to my eyes.
^ this.
I don't get all the fuss about macros : the game mechanics are faulty IMO. Fixing the farming simulation first would make them useless.
FD threatening players for revealing and exploiting such stupid mechanics seems ridiculous.
They are saying that they know people are gaming the system using keyboard automation tricks and they will be taking action to deal with this form of CHEATING.
I wouldn't want to be one of the players they will be targeting. Depending on how serious they want to take the breaking of the user agreement, these cheaters could find themselves banned from the game.
I wouldn't want to be one of the players they will be targeting. Depending on how serious they want to take the breaking of the user agreement, these cheaters could find themselves banned from the game.
.
Wow! I am impressed. Because on a lot of what you now wrote here i can agree and you even managed to write that without an insult included.
.
I mean yes, we don't know the code of the BGS. But we by now know a lot on how it behaves and how it can be gamed. (Even i know a few things about how it can be gamed, and i don't even bother about that... so how much more must those know, who went into detail there? ) Also yes, nothing we can ever suggest here will be "here is the algorythm, you just still have to implement it and it's good". We'd have to know the system specifications to be able to do that. (And no, i am not refering to the hardware, what many people read as "system specifications", but really the data model, data flows, etc. And it's quite obvious that we'll never be given that, without even considering how abuseable the system would get if we'd be handed that Information. ) But still we can supply ideas on how things could be done better. Not finished solutions, but ideas on what's wrong and how it could be better.
.
Where i disagree is that we players turned the BGS into a game. I mean as a pure semantics-warrior i could point out that the game is a game, the BGS is part of the game, so Frontier made it a game. But we can also look beyond pure semantics, and rather at some of the events Frontier did over the last year. In a number of them, the BGS played an important role, be it intentional or not. And when people complained about problems with events and the BGS, there were some developer comments along the lines that the BGS is there for a reason and that we players can influence it.
.
So hey, if we players even get told by the developers to game the system, what would you expect us to do? A developer who even asks people to game their system should really be prepared for that to then happen and then should also be willing and able to put in fixes when people find unintended ways of influencing the gamed system.
.
As mentioned above, there is evidence that the no. of transactions is not the only factor taken into account by the simulation.
Agreed,
I have thought about using a macro to do the sell amount per ton rather than drop a bulk load off, but even though my index finger is pretty shot after a gaming session,, it sort of comes with age...I wasn't even aware of this exploit, or what ever people want to call it, till i read about it on the forums. But in the interest of fair play and me being me..I diddnt nor use any other sort of macros.
Even if it isn't the only factor involved selling 1 ton or selling 100 one at a time shouldnt work out more than selling the 100 as bulk, or am I missing something here.
I dont use macro's of any kind and for selling and buying I dont see it as an issue as there shouldn't be the issue for it to have in the first place.
Last edited:
"I want this outcome, which requires these actions, but I do not wish to do these actions and still attain the same outcome."
That's where a macro goes from "convenience" to "exploit".
- - - Updated - - -
Since you can say that so definitively, you obviously must have a perfect understanding of why a single transaction has a higher effect, right?
That's where a macro goes from "convenience" to "exploit".
- - - Updated - - -
Since you can say that so definitively, you obviously must have a perfect understanding of why a single transaction has a higher effect, right?
No argument from me on this - However we're talking about using ED which is software.
What you just attempted to do, inadvertently, is suggest that botting is "legal" (in ToS / EULA sense, not law of land sense) because after all it's my PC - I can do what I want on it and how that interracts with ED be damned!
Clearly it's not ... so go figure that out and come back to me
Maybe they are doing both? Fixing the issue and sending them emails, because telling them that they are exploiting and should stop / not repeat it in similar cases sounds like a reasonable action? Personally I couldn't care less if they get banned from the game.
No I dont hence why I have edited my post...after thought is a wonderful thing
I think what I was saying is why is it like it is...selling 100 one at a time of a same amount should be equal to selling 100 all in one go ..right...
Last edited:
Last edited:
I'd love to know the answer to the "why" it's designed this way. I can't really think of any good reason, it really does seem to me like a very bad design for effecting the BGS. The very design itself is encouraging macro use, and that just isn't a wise design choice as it's unfair and disrespectful to the player's time.
So I'm curious, why do single transactions mean more than large transactions? :S
IIRC Frontier changed this to encourage you to trade in more than 1 thing - ie - not haul full cargo loads of the same item.
It also helps the little guys hauling around smaller units of stuff over those with T9s.
While trade inequities in the game should be fixed, people who take advantage of them should be kicked repeatedly in the proverbials with pointy shoes.
Besides, if your life is centered around gaming the BGS, you need a life. It's a flipping game. Just play it.
Learn how botting works (sophisticated macro's basically) then say "no way"
I know how a bot works thank you very much, therefore I repeat "no way"
A bot can get feedback from the game, a macro can't. That's the difference.