Mode switching for missions and Smeaton Orbital [200mill/hour]

[Devari]

I know that. But I'm explaining how it's worded.

"Quickly earn the money for an Anaconda....

By using an Anaconda".

That's what we are told to do, rather than actually think before talking.

You could for instance, do the runs in a type 7, for a fraction of the cost, till you have the money for an Anaconda. But no one ever says that.

Basically, I'm a word n*z*? I think that'd be the right term, right?

Sure, I get what you're saying. But the idea of using an Anaconda isn't essential to the OP's argument or the concept here. Sometimes players do make arguments for incomes based on what is essentially an endgame-level setup, such as the claims of 40 mil/hr from Sothis using a Cutter when realistically most Cutters were pulling maybe 30 mil/hr on average. When I asked for specific details the 40 mil/hr claims were under optimal conditions and required a ridiculous amount of mode-switching, some players even resorted to creating private groups just to mode switch and were significantly exaggerating the sustained income that most players could actually obtain. In that case I did point out that those income levels required a Cutter and weren't a valid reason to nerf Sothis because they weren't anywhere near representative of what most players could earn.

In the case of passenger missions, an Anaconda could just as well be replaced with a Python or Asp or whatever other ship and it would still make them rather lucrative, although I suspect that average sustained incomes are substantially lower than what some players claim. I refuse to mode switch so my incomes from mission-related activities are usually 25-50% lower than what can be obtained with mode switching, plus I have two Dangerous-ranked SLF pilots each taking 8% of my profits so I have a bit of a different perspective on the income earning methods. I usually make around half of what a mode-switching player with no SLF pilots can make so for me the incomes are quite a bit more reasonable as I'm nowhere near maxing out the credits/hr from those activities. Still, I find that when you look at average incomes and put them in perspective with what an average player earns they tend to be much more reasonable in terms of supporting large-ship gameplay than some players would claim.

 

[Red Fox Four]

I think the biggest problem is being able to get into a small ship and do 40m credit missions carrying only 12-20 passengers... while big ships are basically penalized by the mission board in taking on short range, low volume missions.. Thats where the problem really is.. Not board flipping, not the passenger missions themselves.. But the entire mission delivery system..

This is why I suggested it would make more sense that large ships with alot of volume (whether passengers or cargo) should be able to get bulk missions that far exceed their carrying capacity. E.g. a mission where you have to transport 2000 passengers or 5000 tonnes of cargo.

Then you would fill up cargo hold, fly it to destination to offload, return to origin point, load up more cargo, fly it to destination... et.c. until you moved all the bulk cargo to it's destination, then you complete the mission.

Likewise for passengers you fly a group first, then return to get more passengers until all of them have been moved.

This would give large ships missions where their full carrying capacity could be put to use, and it would open up an opportunity for coop/wing missions where you could team up with a friend and both of you move the bulk cargo to it's destination. This would speed up the process (less trips required since two players are hauling) and thus encourages team-play.

 

[kofeyh]

Not true, for reasons described previously. Claiming that CMDRs operate in a vacuum with regard to assets dismisses the concerns of those that notice and/or care about the more abstract elements of the game that the acquisition and use of such assets can modify. If someone wants to not notice these things, fine, but just because they ignore it doesn't mean it's not there.

If Solo didn't exist, nor did other platforms; I'd agree with you. It does. So it's just not that simple. There are two walled gardens, as well as the PC/ Mac one. The BGS is linked; but the entire thing is inherently unbalanced from an player-per-architectural standpoint. It always will be. With split modes, split platforms, the entire thing becomes far more a "principle" than an actual, factual concern. The argument has some merit, but it's ignorant of variable time commitment, platform, and mode. Which makes it a difficult thing to argue, from a logic standpoint.

This is not to say the game could not vastly be improved with more consistency to 'level' the field a bit. I don't think really there's much to debate in that respect. But it's very evident the developer has less interest in that, than commanders do. Much less.

Again; I'm all for more consistent outcomes, absolutely; but you're arguing a partly irrelevant claim, I am afraid.

 

[operant]

I think most people can agree in one way or another that having one particular activity generating vast amounts of credits while other activities offer up measly credits isnt really beneficial to the game as a whole.

I think the biggest problem is being able to get into a small ship and do 40m credit missions carrying only 12-20 passengers... while big ships are basically penalized by the mission board in taking on short range, low volume missions.. Thats where the problem really is.. Not board flipping, not the passenger missions themselves.. But the entire mission delivery system..

When you access the mission board, it should look at what kind of ship you have, and offer missions that are compatible with your ship and loadout... I mean, you wouldnt have a courier parcel job offered up to a container ship now would you.. You wouldnt offer a data delivery mission to a semi trailer truck... It's silly...

The board should be able to look at your ship/loadout see if it is small/medium/large ship, and it's carrying mostly cargo racks, passenger modules, a mix of both, or a combat build, and offer missions that are tailored to your needs.

People wanting to rank up then can decide.. well, I will just bring a DBS or courier and get access to lots and lots of data delivery missions, and can load up more effectively.. Those wanting to do long range haul missions can show up in a cargo rack filled annie, corvette or cutter, the board then can offer missions carrying 300-500 tons of cargo 100-300ly away... so on and so forth...

Is this difficult to implement? I am sure it is.. I can only imagine it would be a herculean task to implement such an intensive system into the game.. Does that negate the fact it should be in the game?? No...We need to have something like this to really make the mission board much more effective for commanders to use.

Until then, there will always be board flipping, and those chasing after easier ways to make money...

And while in some small part I agree that it is far too easy to go from sidewinder to anaconda nowa days, I think this only negatively effects their gameplay, and in the end that is their choice..

Making the game adaptive to individual play-style would be interesting indeed. But it is probably easier for players to adapt to the environment.
To be provocative, board-flipping accommodates filling-up larger ships albeit in a tedious manner. As (probably) would having many more missions per board.
One of the main issues, on this board, seems to be other players trying to impose their vision of the game on everyone else - which is of course the one and only and true vision. Fascinating when what other people do has (I suspect) a negligible impact on other players on average. (Not sure about this totally, since the BGS and its real relevance is a mystery to me.).

EDIT: Just an additional thought. If you accept that it is easier for players to adapt to the environment than FD provide the ideal environment for all, then the game environment needs to be as rich as possible and we should all be careful about making it more rigid - asking FD to stop this, impose that etc?

 

[Phazon Xenomorph]

Is this still working as of right now? Needing more money lol.

 

[Red Fox Four]

Is this still working as of right now? Needing more money lol.

Worked yesterday, so yes.

 

[Phazon Xenomorph]

Worked yesterday, so yes.

Hmmm not sure if I wanna fit a Conda out (despise the ship utterly) or strip everything out of my combat heavy build Vette and use it for this....

 

[Nebiroth]

It's a meme. "Anaconda" is just a sort of catch all for a "big ship" and was at the start. Now we've got things like the very expensive Imperial and Federal ships, plus the new Defender. And of course, the massive cost of outfitting them and making sure you have enough cash to pay for the insurance.

There are going to be new ships, we know this as well.

The designers are going to keep putting "gold sinks" into the game, it's a way of keeping the hamsters in the wheel. The new rewards will be even more costly, because in Elite, as with most similar games, the more money you make the easier it becomes to make more, faster. Once you've got a big ship you can really get the credits rolling in.

My own view is that "exploits" like mode-hopping woul dbe way less attractive if some of the other stuff wasn;t so unrewarding. Even with the addition of collection drones, mining for example is really . I used to mine, then I realised how missions are not only more engaging, they are more profitable. Which is absurd when you consider you are mining platinum and gold literally by the ton.

Sadly I suspect they'll rebalance things by making missions as unrewarding as anything else. Maybe even block mode-hopping, so imagine what the rep grind would be without that.

Mode-hopping IS an exploit. There can be no other word for it. It cannot be intentional. They never wanted you to be able to be docked at the same station and flip game playing servers to stack up missions going to the same place. If they wanted you to do that they could put in a game mechanism, something liek pilots being able to run advertising campaigns at the station to get more missions, something like that.

It is, in essence, an admission that either (a) mode-hopping is too hard to fix or (b) Elite is horrible to play without it if you want to progress to large, well equipped ships or to get high reputation levels.

Elite's gold and rep grinds are so monstrous without it (imagine having to take all the misions offered by a faction and spending hours flying all over the place) that lot sof players would say screw it and stop playing.

 

[Red Anders]

Care to give me a hint?

I'm sorry but no. Not because I'm an evil person but because I don't want a horde of people piling in there and trashing the BGS.

If it's any consolation though, they may be 9 ls from each other in a cluster but they're not 9 ls from the entry point - the system works for me not so much because it's super-fast to just jump in, pick up and leave but because I don't like mode switching and with the flight to those stations plus a tour round them (and the other three that I can hit inside 10 minutes) I don't need to - I can check 8 boards in less than 30 minutes and after accounting for the time for the mission list to fully refresh if board switching, it works out pretty close to the same. Also worth noting that those numbers include medium pad locations, which is fine for me in a Python but not for people using Anacondas and Cutters etc.

 

[Red Anders]

Mode-hopping IS an exploit. There can be no other word for it. It cannot be intentional. They never wanted you to be able to be docked at the same station and flip game playing servers to stack up missions going to the same place. If they wanted you to do that they could put in a game mechanism, something liek pilots being able to run advertising campaigns at the station to get more missions, something like that.

Despite the fact that I don't like it and avoid doing it, which part of 'the developers have specifically said mode switching is not an exploit' do you have difficulty understanding?

 

[Phazon Xenomorph]

Despite the fact that I don't like it and avoid doing it, which part of 'the developers have specifically said mode switching is not an exploit' do you have difficulty understanding?

I think he only sees the word "exploit" and thinks that they agree with him when they've stated that while its something they don't like, it's not an exploit. But all he sees is "exploit" and thinks everyone agrees with him. Also every time I see his name I think back to that green second-to-last-boss in Super Ghouls and Ghosts which was named Nebiroth if I remember correctly.

 

[operant]

Despite the fact that I don't like it and avoid doing it, which part of 'the developers have specifically said mode switching is not an exploit' do you have difficulty understanding?

Surely if you keep repeating something it becomes true, especially if you believe it should be true. ;-)

 

[jasonbirder]

Despite the fact that I don't like it and avoid doing it, which part of 'the developers have specifically said mode switching is not an exploit' do you have difficulty understanding?

Developers have said its not an Exploit (Capital E) essentially cheating...but it obviously is an exploit (lower-case e) you're "exploiting" a loophole in the game caused by Mission boards not being persistent across instances, to pick up more/more lucrative Missions than you would through simply playing the game (without resetting multiple times)
You're not using an aimbot...or modding your ship stats..or any of the countless things that would be called an Exploit by the developer...but you are exploiting a loophole in the system to rack up profits merely playing the game wouldn't deliver...

 

[Stealthie]

Despite the fact that I don't like it and avoid doing it, which part of 'the developers have specifically said mode switching is not an exploit' do you have difficulty understanding?

Understanding and agreeing are not the same thing.

Let's not forget that the dev's also said that sideycide wasn't an "exploit" either... and yet they're currently taking steps to stop it happening.

Seems pretty obtuse to insist that quitting out of a game is a truly valid way of influencing stuff that happens in the game.
To me, it's just like menu-logging to avoid having a ship destroyed or restarting the non-horizons version of the game to get off the surface of a planet.

Might not be considered cheating but it's certainly an "exploit" because it's using a game-mechanic for an unintended purpose in order to gain an advantage.

And I'd be quite happy to argue that with Sandro Sammarco or David Braben, over a beer.

 

[operant]

Whatever it is called, it is currently allowed.
Whether it should be is a debate.
Whether players should use it, is a debate.
But not based on the use of a word - 'exploit', which has at least three distinct meanings.

 

[Jex =TE=]

OFP was fantastic, I still have the game CD somewhere..... I wonder if I can get it to work...

Armed Assault 3 is what you want. It's the same game, just BIS lost the name as Codemasters took it then made their awful version of the game. Arma3 IS OFP 1 but with better graphics and options - it really hasn't changed that much even the mission editor is pretty much the same

 

[Red Anders]

Developers have said its not an Exploit (Capital E) essentially cheating...but it obviously is an exploit (lower-case e) you're "exploiting" a loophole in the game caused by Mission boards not being persistent across instances, to pick up more/more lucrative Missions than you would through simply playing the game (without resetting multiple times)
You're not using an aimbot...or modding your ship stats..or any of the countless things that would be called an Exploit by the developer...but you are exploiting a loophole in the system to rack up profits merely playing the game wouldn't deliver...

I'm going to assume you're using the word 'you're' as a figure of speech rather than suggesting I'm doing anything at all.

Technically your last line is also incorrect; profits per hour/other arbitrary time unit maybe, but the game would in fact deliver the missions (and therefore the profits) anyway - what people are actually doing is saving 15 minutes or so of their time. That's actually a pretty important distinction; if people were obtaining credits that simply weren't available without mode switching by using it I suspect there would be a different attitude to it from a lot of players, but as things stand people are literally just bypassing a relatively short amount of waiting time. As I already said, I can look at pretty much the same number of boards I could see by mode switching for 30 minutes by just flying round stations.

 

[operant]

Is this thread about mode switching or the amount of credits being earned.
I use mode switching all the time, not only for stacking, but mostly to try to find something I want to do (often single mission), faster than waiting for a single board to refresh. (I don't need the credits.).

 

[Red Anders]

Understanding and agreeing are not the same thing.

Let's not forget that the dev's also said that sideycide wasn't an "exploit" either... and yet they're currently taking steps to stop it happening.

Seems pretty obtuse to insist that quitting out of a game is a truly valid way of influencing stuff that happens in the game.
To me, it's just like menu-logging to avoid having a ship destroyed or restarting the non-horizons version of the game to get off the surface of a planet.

Might not be considered cheating but it's certainly an "exploit" because it's using a game-mechanic for an unintended purpose in order to gain an advantage.

And I'd be quite happy to argue that with Sandro Sammarco or David Braben, over a beer.

I'm not suggesting or insisting anything, that's the beauty of having a developer comment on the subject - I don't need to.

As for what players want to call it, to be honest people's internal belief structures aren't really something I concern myself with too much.

Also worth pointing out yet again that I think it's lame, immersion breaking and only ever do it as a last resort; in particular not to reset the mission boards. I'll freeely admit to relogging at Dav's Hope for engineering materials but that's because unlike with mission boards, just waiting for a bit instead will not have any effect and the layers of RNG mean that I have literally wasted hours of my time on material collection already.

 

[kofeyh]

Essentially, people are complaining others aren’t waiting like they are. I mean, I enjoy waiting as much as the next person but if the only difference is how long are people waiting, then you have to question the sanity of that.

Again; the developer has had AMPLE opportunity to resolve this; they have elected not to. So perhaps this just isn’t really as much of a priority for the developer as people want to believe.