Long running macro's threat by FD - What exactly is a long running macro?!

[IndigoWyrd]

This all seems like a whole lot of trouble for what?
I do not align myself with powers, the BGS is of no interest to me. Sure, I look at system states when I'm trying to decide where to go to make credits based on what I'm flying and what I feel like doing.
But with so many inhabited systems, it really doesn't matter to me which ones are in what state. If there's an Outbreak and I want to haul medicines for money, then I'll go where the Outbreak is. If it's cured, great, I'll move on to another Outbreak system. Same with Famine, same with War or Civil War - I just go to where the "action" is. Seems to be strange benefit to owning my ship.

Personally I find the way these work right now to be.. kind of.. fake. A War that lasts only 3 days? I think the entire system needs reworked from the ground up.

 

[babelfisch]

This all seems like a whole lot of trouble for what?
I do not align myself with powers, the BGS is of no interest to me. Sure, I look at system states when I'm trying to decide where to go to make credits based on what I'm flying and what I feel like doing.
But with so many inhabited systems, it really doesn't matter to me which ones are in what state. If there's an Outbreak and I want to haul medicines for money, then I'll go where the Outbreak is. If it's cured, great, I'll move on to another Outbreak system. Same with Famine, same with War or Civil War - I just go to where the "action" is. Seems to be strange benefit to owning my ship.

That's how I do it as well, but I realise that others are investing lots of time in playing the BGS. If someone has an unfair advantage because he is using exploits I'd say it should get fixed.

Personally I find the way these work right now to be.. kind of.. fake. A War that lasts only 3 days? I think the entire system needs reworked from the ground up.

Wars can last up to 28 (?) days. There have been wars in reality that lastet shorter than 3 days. Also remember it's a game, some things just need to go quick. On the other hand I would like to see some major story conflicts that last from months-years.

 

[SuBSynk]

So you are saying it is intended gameplay and I did it wrong all the time? Everyone should be selling only one by one? Because if it's not an exploit and it gives you an advantage it must be intended gameplay. Sorry, the definitions on exploits are pretty clear and don't need anyone from FDEV confirming it. If they are going to punish it or just change the mechanic is a different topic.

This debate becomes pure semantics.

ie...I could "exploit" the use of burst lasers to beat an opponent, this would however not be an exploit in the sense of breaking the EULA.

For me its very important to have confirmation from FD that certain things are breaking the EULA, iam not trying to be pedantic but -for instance- in the "combat logging" or "harassment" debates people fall on both sides and i feel its up to FD to confirm or deny, rather than us guess, just like they did with those topics.

As a streamer i play ED almost every day and its important that i know that i am not ever breaking the EULA or featuring "exploits" on the stream. I also get asked by the viewers about the BGS and the mechanics involved.

I believe that not even mentioning the transactional mechanics or ducking the questions about BGS "secrets" that give groups an advantage over their opponents is dishonest.

That is why i always double check with support when it comes to this stuff..regarding missions stacking, handing in bounties 1 at a time, handing in exploration system by system (No macro's of course) even questions like "what constitutes harassment" etc.

All I'am asking for is a little clarification on these matters, rather than us all stumbling about in the dark and second guessing the EULA based on "off the cuff" remarks made on live streams.

Up till now there have been many tickets put into FD about manually selling 1 tonne at a time or handing in separate bounties etc and nothing has been stated about it being an exploit (macros ofc are a different issue) so its all very confusing to me

 

[babelfisch]

This debate becomes pure semantics.

ie...I could "exploit" the use of burst lasers to beat an opponent, this would however not be an exploit in the sense of breaking the EULA.

For me its very important to have confirmation from FD that certain things are breaking the EULA, iam not trying to be pedantic but -for instance- in the "combat logging" or "harassment" debates people fall on both sides and i feel its up to FD to confirm or deny, rather than us guess, just like they did with those topics.

As a streamer i play ED almost every day and its important that i know that i am not ever breaking the EULA or featuring "exploits" on the stream. I also get asked by the viewers about the BGS and the mechanics involved.

I believe that not even mentioning the transactional mechanics or ducking the questions about BGS "secrets" that give groups an advantage over their opponents is dishonest.

That is why i always double check with support when it comes to this stuff..regarding missions stacking, handing in bounties 1 at a time, handing in exploration system by system (No macro's of course) even questions like "what constitutes harassment" etc.

All I'am asking for is a little clarification on these matters, rather than us all stumbling about in the dark and second guessing the EULA based on "off the cuff" remarks made on live streams.

Up till now there have been many tickets put into FD about manually selling 1 tonne at a time or handing in separate bounties etc and nothing has been stated about it being an exploit (macros ofc are a different issue) so its all very confusing to me

I wasn't talking about the EULA.

 

[Blackcompany]

PP is an excellent example of business priorities trumping correctness.

Rather than a feature with depth, skill, and strategy. You have tediousness acting as a barrier of entry. What makes a rank 5 different from a rank 1 in powerplay other than automatic rewards ? Your rank 5 doesn't have to click the same set of buttons 10 times and wait for the server to respond and screens to refresh like a rank 1 player does for every allotment the rank 5 gets. This is straight up 100% tediousness being used as a barrier mechanic in the game. There's absolutely no in-game explanation for what's going on here. No redeeming qualities at all. Yet there has to be some way to give rank 5 players who invest heavily (usually) in their power to have more sway than a rank 1. The correct solution to this is not to make the rank 1 players repeat the same activity 10x more often.

A correct solution is harder though and getting that hammered out and implemented would have probably delayed PP and for whatever reason there's a time-table that trumps that.

Look at RNGineers: tedious time gating is the going design philosophy round here.

Honestly, it's a wonder the game has made it this long. This keeps up, or if SC really does release...This game is dead.

 

[buellpilot]

Blasted min-maxers cause all the problems, why can't they all learn to be mediocre like me?

I am mediocre too

 

[vitriol]

Look at RNGineers: tedious time gating is the going design philosophy round here.

Honestly, it's a wonder the game has made it this long. This keeps up, or if SC really does release...This game is dead.

I'm really hoping that SC creates enough competition in 2025 for Frontier to wake up and start making real improvements.

Well, that or they retreat to their roller coasters, which would be sad and leave us in the same position, different company.

 

[babelfisch]

Look at RNGineers: tedious time gating is the going design philosophy round here.

Honestly, it's a wonder the game has made it this long. This keeps up, or if SC really does release...This game is dead.

Dead as in the game will be dead when NMS is released? Or dead as in Civilisation will be dead when the new Total War is released? Or dead as the game will be dead within one year after release if they don't listen to me?

 

[Faybs]

Dead as in the game will be dead when NMS is released? Or dead as in Civilisation will be dead when the new Total War is released? Or dead as the game will be dead within one year after release if they don't listen to me?

I wouldn't get too cocky. There are a lot of indie space sims in progress that combined have the potential to take a big bite out of FD's revenue - SC and NMS aren't the only competition by a long shot, and other than flight model and audio design ED doesn't have anything a small indie dev couldn't do a lot better. Take a look at Hellion for example, it's focused on space survival instead of spaceflight but I could see it taking a lot of the time I now spend on ED: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=674415611

 

[Riverside]

I wouldn't get too cocky. There are a lot of indie space sims in progress that combined have the potential to take a big bite out of FD's revenue - SC and NMS aren't the only competition by a long shot, and other than flight model and audio design ED doesn't have anything a small indie dev couldn't do a lot better.

Yet strangely, they don't. ED has a unique blend of ingredients that make it what it is. That particular blend may not be exactly what everyone wants, and hopefully another title will match their wants & needs more closely.

Competition improves the breed too of course

 

[Faybs]

Competition improves the breed too of course

Yes, which is the reason I like that games like NMS, SC, Hellion and the others exist - human nature being what it is, if FDev had no real competition they would just sit on their laurels and we'd get trivial "improvements" to the game made just to justify asking people for more cash. Now for example with SC, Hellion and to a lesser extent Infinite Warfare, people have a baseline of what to expect from spacelegs and so FDev can't just give us a basic walking simulator and call it a day.

 

[Riverside]

Yes, which is the reason I like that games like NMS, SC, Hellion and the others exist - human nature being what it is, if FDev had no real competition they would just sit on their laurels and we'd get trivial "improvements" to the game made just to justify asking people for more cash. Now for example with SC, Hellion and to a lesser extent Infinite Warfare, people have a baseline of what to expect from spacelegs and so FDev can't just give us a basic walking simulator and call it a day.

Yes. I think (on paper at least) SC stands a good chance of providing the kind of gameplay that plenty here seem to look for - client/server, open only. ED doesn't need to match SC's strong points because it has it's own. It only needs to be good enough in those areas.

I genuinely hope SC provides the gameplay some players here are looking for, we can all be winners then

 

[the100thmonkey]

Yes. I think (on paper at least) SC stands a good chance of providing the kind of gameplay that plenty here seem to look for - client/server, open only. ED doesn't need to match SC's strong points because it has it's own. It only needs to be good enough in those areas.

I genuinely hope SC provides the gameplay some players here are looking for, we can all be winners then

I understood that SC would have a solo mode and that it's slated to use a hybrid server architecture too. I admit I haven't been following SC that closely in recent months though.

 

[Ben Ryder]

I would very much like to see a game-mechanic that makes collecting powerplay supplys a less painful task. Maybe Frontier can implement an ingame macro for this?

I like where you are coming from on this. Havent given it much thought but if folk are doig stuff away from the keyboard, then why not build it in to the game. So instead of something like every half an hour you get 310t of blah prep / fortification material it becomes cumulative to a point. Lets say 1000t for arguments sake (no resetting every 30 minutes). So you go to bed and you wake up and go to work and the like and can pick up your 1000t rather than 'needing' a macro to do it for you. The result being the marco people become redundant and teh grind for credits and the like for unprofitable brain draining materials is removed.

DOnt take this idea and run away with it saying why not bot automate everything.

 

[Arkadi]

Oh thanks for giving this idea some pushing Ben!

I have no idea about that BGS single-unit trading. But with powerplay-supply collecting I can sing a song of sorrow.

Clicking every 30 minutes for allocation is extrem slow and painful process, if a Cmdr wants to gain some merits or help his power with fortifications.

Buying supplys by "fast track" mechanic on the other hand is a very costly venture - only for the rich.

So why not introduce a "auto-collection-service" for a fee?

It could be 5.000 cr for each hour of collecting. That'd be a fair deal I say.

 

[babelfisch]

I like where you are coming from on this. Havent given it much thought but if folk are doig stuff away from the keyboard, then why not build it in to the game. So instead of something like every half an hour you get 310t of blah prep / fortification material it becomes cumulative to a point. Lets say 1000t for arguments sake (no resetting every 30 minutes). So you go to bed and you wake up and go to work and the like and can pick up your 1000t rather than 'needing' a macro to do it for you. The result being the marco people become redundant and teh grind for credits and the like for unprofitable brain draining materials is removed.

DOnt take this idea and run away with it saying why not bot automate everything.

Oh thanks for giving this idea some pushing Ben!

I have no idea about that BGS single-unit trading. But with powerplay-supply collecting I can sing a song of sorrow.

Clicking every 30 minutes for allocation is extrem slow and painful process, if a Cmdr wants to gain some merits or help his power with fortifications.

Buying supplys by "fast track" mechanic on the other hand is a very costly venture - only for the rich.

So why not introduce a "auto-collection-service" for a fee?

It could be 5.000 cr for each hour of collecting. That'd be a fair deal I say.

I am not into powerplay but this sounds like the whole mechanic should be replaced. Maybe we could come up with something that involves actual gameplay instead of automating something that involves no real gameplay in the first place?

 

[Schlack]

I believe that not even mentioning the transactional mechanics or ducking the questions about BGS "secrets" that give groups an advantage over their opponents is dishonest.
(

The transactional mechanics were reported on this forum, discussed at length in the BGS thread, bug reported both publicly and privately. I'm not seeing any dishonesty there. Would you care to advise what else could be done in respect of the 1T trading - especially considering many of us believed it fixed. The mechanics are discussed, theorized, debated and tested in the BGS thread - where is the dishonesty there?

as regards "secrets" and advantage over "opponents" I'll repost some previous comments:

What we are sponsoring, and what we have worked hard for since the game launched, is a functioning, fun, balanced BGS. We prefer if these exploits were fixed rather than used as they ruin the game and damages the integrity of the game long term.

We engage with other groups and individuals who are interested in the BGS via the BGS and bug threads. Helping them along and enabling them build up their own knowledge of the game - even those who are lore enemies. We have many player group neighbours with whom we have not even attempted to fight as we believe that space is big and co-existence is quite possible. it takes some diplomacy and goodwill from both sides but it is very workable. (A shout out to our very good neighbours too who seem to share this philosophy).

We have also gained knowledge that is hard earned through testing, theorizing and experimenting, following dev comments obsessively and engagement with the wider community. Let me be clear I am not talking about exploits - though it is part of our work to find and help eliminate them - it is more about a deep understanding of the game mechanics, how they interact and how they can be put to best use for whatever goal we are working on.

This is being painted in terms of group vs group action and advantage however figuring out the BGS is a big part of enjoying the game for us. We do not want to deny others the pleasure of discovery! It is not elitist to put effort into the game get advantages in the game. Should BGS groups share all their tactical and strategic knowledge gained through that hard work to those who have neither the inclination or the determination to do so? The game then becomes "Press X to BGS" which would not hold anyone's interest for too long.

This very thread is proof that this knowledge is available to everyone if they engage with the game and figure it out.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...Large-Faction-Influence-Swing-Mechanics/page9

 

[SuBSynk]

The transactional mechanics were reported on this forum, discussed at length in the BGS thread, bug reported both publicly and privately. I'm not seeing any dishonesty there. Would you care to advise what else could be done in respect of the 1T trading - especially considering many of us believed it fixed. The mechanics are discussed, theorized, debated and tested in the BGS thread - where is the dishonesty there?

I was referring to the fact that if i do not mention the transactional nature of the BGS I am being dishonest to my viewers. I was not referencing other player groups.

Now you mention it though i do know of some player groups have used some of these mechanics to destroy their enemies. That is why these "secrets" have to be known by all or the playing field is not level.

The thread you mention was started purposefully to spread this knowledge, rather than the few using these mechanics against the many. Our group was attacked with these mechanics and it took masses of proof and repetitive posting in that thread to get the "BGS experts" to even agree they existed.

Some people clearly wanted to keep this knowledge to themselves, to use against their enemies and some have been doing exactly that for months...

 

[Schlack]

My apologies, I misread your post in relation to dishonesty.

Now you mention it though i do know of some player groups have used some of these mechanics to destroy their enemies. That is why these "secrets" have to be known by all or the playing field is not level.

Thankfully few, but for any size faction it would take dedicated action of weeks to do any serious long term damage, especially if defended against. I don't like this mechanic, it should be fixed but it is not as apocalyptic as some are painting it and it is far from the worst that has existed in game.

 

[SuBSynk]

My apologies, I misread your post in relation to dishonesty.



Thankfully few, but for any size faction it would take dedicated action of weeks to do any serious long term damage, especially if defended against. I don't like this mechanic, it should be fixed but it is not as apocalyptic as some are painting it and it is far from the worst that has existed in game.

Yea easy to misread my posts as a i write in a bit of a weird way

Unfortunately it only took 3-5 days to wreck even founders world, as we showed in the thread you linked. Not weeks but days and in an extremely high pop system filled with player traffic.

Reminiscent of the old cop killing nuke this needs to be fixed & soon.