Powderpanic
Banned
They only said that as they are unable to think of a way to make the game playable without it.
Mode switching for missions and Smeaton Orbital [200mill/hour]
- Thread starter Red Fox Four
- Start date
They only said that as they are unable to think of a way to make the game playable without it.
And yet many seem to be able to play the game just fine without mode switching. Odd that...
You may well be right. Ultimately I couldn't give two shiny ones about mode switching one way or the other, they could come out tomorrow and say it's an exploit and we'll ban people for it (lol) or say that not doing it is an exploit and we'll ban people for it. Won't affect my game significantly either way.
I'm sure I don't need to point out to you the irony of the thread though, which is what first drew my attention to it. Here we have loads of people screeching about something that FDev have said isn't an exploit and calling for it to be banned. Meanwhile in a thread about something FDev have declared to be an exploit...
Last edited:
I'm sure I don't need to point out to you the irony of the thread though, which is what first drew my attention to it. Here we have loads of people screeching about something that FDev have said isn't an exploit and calling for it to be banned. Meanwhile in a thread about something FDev have declared to be an exploit...
This would seem to be another example of perception overriding reality.
Seems like most of the criticism in this thread focuses on the way a credit imbalance undermines various aspects of the game rather than being a demand for anything to be "banned".
Meanwhile, in a thread about (presumably) combat-logging.... what?
In those threads, most people are usually concerned that the possibility of false-positives, and the potential for deliberately manipulating P2P networking, are more harmful than the actual "crime" itself and so any solution to the problem would need to be fail-safe.
Seems like in both cases the criticism is intended to encourage improvements to the game which will yield a positive effect for ALL players.
What's wrong with that?
You are correct, as I recall it USED to be a requirement. I'm getting old!
Your reasoning seems rather a tad unreasonable!? There is no material loss at play here. It's not unlike people who write in and complain that they are offended on another (unnamed) person's behalf, except with less justification. A poor way to run a society or a game.
What an odd rebuttal. Are you saying a situation in a computer game can never be compared to any non-computer situation?
People exploit broken systems all the time in real life. Yes - the tax system is not a game - but many treat it as a game, with loop-holes to exploit. There are many other examples I could give re design, planning, staff hire & pay - some companies have been caught. Not many. The game continues...
Deleted member 115407
D
Or, as others have suggested. just break the mission boards down into categories that players can search through, with each category offering a number of contracts available.
Why don’t we just ask for a refresh button in the next QoL suggestion thread?
Also make the botton be a toggle that keeps refreshing until the missions look like what we want.
Eh... actually just have a mission builder menu when you dock that you pick all the elements (location, passengers... and also the payout.)
Hmmm actually, just give everyone 10 billion when you dock....screw it, just make everything in the game worth 0 credits.
Also make the botton be a toggle that keeps refreshing until the missions look like what we want.
Eh... actually just have a mission builder menu when you dock that you pick all the elements (location, passengers... and also the payout.)
Hmmm actually, just give everyone 10 billion when you dock....screw it, just make everything in the game worth 0 credits.
Last edited:
ORLY?
Is it specifically the word 'banned' that you have an issue with there? I'm not invested in it in any way, so let's change it to removed, or indeed any other word of your choosing to represent a change to the current status quo, which is without doubt what is being requested.
It's difficult to see any way that the thread can be talking about a credit imbalance because that would suggest that we're discussing something that some players are able to do whilst others are not able to do; clearly that isn't the case. That leaves us with a discussion of people's choices (key word there) in how to approach the game.
Could the game present a better selection of options from which those choices could be made? Of course it could.
Is such altruistic concern for their fellow Commanders gameplay experience what is prompting all of the posts in this thread about mode switching? Nah, it really isn't is it? If that was the case the thread wouldn't be filled with repeated cries of 'this thing that FDev have said isn't an exploit is an exploit and it must be stopped!' There are certainly some posts making suggestions, none of which are new and none of which have been implemented in the three years the game has been live for, but there are just as many which are seeking to apply a label to other players for honestly, I don't even know what purpose, although there is a distinctly holier-than-thou flavour to some of them.
I think you may need to read a few of those combat logging threads again mate. Right before anybody starts talking about false positives come the usual posts about 'why should anybody care', 'it's fine because I'm only logging on teh griefers' etc. I have seen plenty of those threads on the forum and every single one of them is the same. So yes, to make it abundantly clear, my remark was intended to highlight the fact that I find this thread's insistence (from the OP onwards) on treating players who make use of board-flipping as exploiters somewhere between embarrassing and nauseating when considered alongside the prevalent attitudes towards something that FDev have specifically identified as cheating.
Note, that does not state (or imply) that everybody in this thread is accusing people of being exploiters, or that everybody in the other threads mentioned is excusing cheating. Even taking account of the very high signal to noise ratio in both cases though, it's certainly not down to a false perception on my part. I've seen versions of this thread for over two years now and there's an underlying tone of 'blaze my trail not yours' served with a side order of petty jealousy in all of them. Frankly, I just wish people would shut the hell up about how other people choose to earn their credits.
The posts that are genuinely doing that? Nothing at all.
Anyway this is obviously distracting from the very discussion that you say we should be having, so I don't intend to expand on it further.
Last edited:
Care to give me a hint?
You missed my point. When you said the way this works makes any other activity in the game worthless is the main area where you lack logic. If you truly feel that something that pays better makes everything else that pays less "worthless" then, yes, I stand by my opinion that you need therapy. This is not a normal, healthy attitude for an adult.
I think they might of got mixed up with my post, which was me having a go at the wording, not the topic itself. The poster still doesn't get it though. The logic is flawed becuase what is being said is you need an Anaconda first to get the Anaconda you want, which is an impossibility. It's like the double negative of "I didn't do nothing wrong". But no one can just accept they messed up, can they?
That's not actually true. There is no technical reason they can't modify the mission generation to be consistent between different modes.
They have also consistently described combat logging as an exploit despite having no way to address that due to the underlying P2P architecture. If being able to fix an issue was essential in order to call it an exploit they never would have described combat logging as an exploit as they have no way to prevent someone from disconnecting their router cable or task-killing the client process.
Whether or not FD can actually fix an issue doesn't actually determine what they will or won't consider to be an exploit.
Last edited:
Made 142M today on one run so yep. Roughly 70M/hr.
<in Kermit drinking a cup of tea mode>
Parked up at a station close to Smeaton, looking out of my cockpit at a Commander owned Harmless rated Cutter.
But that's none of my business.
:-D
Parked up at a station close to Smeaton, looking out of my cockpit at a Commander owned Harmless rated Cutter.
But that's none of my business.
:-D
Exactly, it's really not.
That said, you can get a Cutter without firing a single shot.
Exactly, it's really not.
That said, you can get a Cutter without firing a single shot.
Just cant fathom out why no one would not have visited and enjoyed a Combat Zone in the 2 days they've had the game :-D
To some of us, combat just isn't interesting. Out of all the engineers, the one who wants Dangerous combat rating is going to be the last I unlock. I'm already Elite in the other two categories. Apart from when I'm interdicted, I hardly ever deploy hardpoints.
I have a Competent rated Cutter... Should I be handing my keys back then?
One was a bug that was actually exploited (the actual definition of exploit when referring to programming software), one is as designed.
Last edited: