Force disconnect

[dognosh]

Depends on what you use it for.

I was not stating an opinion , but fact. Mode switching is NOT an exploit.
Mainly becasue FD would have a hard time stopping it, so they've gone with "oh well, don't do it but if you do we don't mind"
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/400760-Progress-on-Mode-Swapping-exploits

Not being rude, but I trust Obsidian ant's words more than yours

 

[Morbad]

I was not stating an opinion , but fact.

Which is itself an opinion that I vehemently disagree with.

You can't abuse a mechanism without that mechanism and there are absolutely ways to utilize mode switching to one's advantage that go against the spirit and intent of the game, which harm the game.

Context is everything. No mechanism can be an exploit in and of itself and no mechanism is categorically immune to undesirable exploitation.

For example, I can abuse the GraphicsConfigurationOverride.xml and hyperspace jumps to my advantage in game. Frontier would almost certainly never say that using the override file or hyperspace jumps are intrinsically exploitative, but fact of the matter remains that I can reduce the nebula sample counts so I always load systems faster than anyone using the stock presets ever can. This could give me an edge in everything from CGs, to buckyball races, to PvP pursuit or escape and evasion.

On the other hand, mode switching to gain access to a landing pad wouldn't qualify as an exploit as the game has glaring issues with docking and instancing mechanisms that make it virtually mandatory from time to time. Only if there actually was a queue or something of the sort could mode switching be an undesirable exploit, in this context.

Mainly becasue FD would have a hard time stopping it, so they've gone with "oh well, don't do it but if you do we don't mind"

They wouldn't discourage it in those contexts if it was being used as intended or they thought they way it was being used was beneficial.

A statement to the effect of that in your quote is pretty damning evidence that Frontier does consider mode switching, in the context being discussed in that thread, an exploit.

 

[Arry]

Loitering is punishable by death, so should being parked for too long on a bay. You should be allocated a time with requirements to request extension which may be denied if people are waiting or you enter hanger and log off, or your required to leave. Allowed pad time could be dependent on traffic or standing with controlling faction.

There should be a verbal and written warning, such as: You have 1 minute to enter hanger or leave pad, or you will be removed by force.

That way, the AFKs will understand what happened; after the fact.

Question: If they just landed there, is that where they will find their ship; after the re-buy is completed?

 

[Vandaahl]

"Please remember, pad snoring is a crime punishable by death."

Sounds good [up]

 

[Morbad]

Not being rude, but I trust Obsidian ant's words more than yours

I'm curious as to why you have to take anyone's word for it either way.

What is your own line of thinking when categorizing something as an 'exploit' or not?

Personally, my assessment goes something like this:

- Is the particular use in question intended? If it is, it's not an undesirable exploit, even if it's a poor mechanism.
- Can it provide an in-game advantage? If it categorically cannot, it's irrelevant, and cannot be a cheat.
- Does it facilitate Frontier's vision for the Elite setting, or detract from it, relative to other alternatives, if any? If it furthers Frontier's vision, it's emergent content, not an exploit. If it's a less obtrusive work around to a hole in the current depiction of their setting, it's not an exploit.

If it provides some sort of benefit, that was unintended/undesirable, and has no in-game context that would jive with Frontier's vision or be broadly beneficial to the game, then it's cheating via exploit.

There should be a verbal and written warning, such as: You have 1 minute to enter hanger or leave pad, or you will be removed by force.

While I agree that there should be ample warning, it's worth noting that entering the hangar neither leaves nor frees up the pad.

Though their internals are not always well defined, stations are not tesseracts. What you see is what you get, and if it doesn't fit, it can't (or at least shouldn't) be there.

 

[Arry]

I'm curious as to why you have to take anyone's word for it either way.

What is your own line of thinking when categorizing something as an 'exploit' or not?

Personally, my assessment goes something like this:

- Is the particular use in question intended? If it is, it's not an undesirable exploit, even if it's a poor mechanism.
- Can it provide an in-game advantage? If it categorically cannot, it's irrelevant, and cannot be a cheat.
- Does it facilitate Frontier's vision for the Elite setting, or detract from it, relative to other alternatives, if any? If it furthers Frontier's vision, it's emergent content, not an exploit. If it's a less obtrusive work around to a hole in the current depiction of their setting, it's not an exploit.

If it provides some sort of benefit, that was unintended/undesirable, and has no in-game context that would jive with Frontier's vision or be broadly beneficial to the game, then it's cheating via exploit.



While I agree that there should be ample warning, it's worth noting that entering the hangar neither leaves nor frees up the pad.

Though their internals are not always well defined, stations are not tesseracts. What you see is what you get, and if it doesn't fit, it can't (or at least shouldn't) be there.

I never realised that. So how can I randomly log into the game and still be at my last landing point? If it is a busy place, with humans waiting for pads. Why is it, that I have no issues with logging into; that same pad?

I am not saying you are wrong. I believe you. It is just it is not logical, that an occupied hanger; will block the pad.

 

[Requiem Mortis]

snip......
Question: If they just landed there, is that where they will find their ship; after the re-buy is completed?

Sure seams reasonable to me....standard respawn rules.

 

[Stealthie]

Deinstancing someone is just as significant a break in continuity as being forced to log off and there is no reason to force anyone to log off for any reason other than a server restart.

Yes but, as I said, prioritising somebody who isn't actively playing the game ahead of somebody who is seems kind of assbackwards.

 

[Stealthie]

I never realised that. So how can I randomly log into the game and still be at my last landing point? If it is a busy place, with humans waiting for pads. Why is it, that I have no issues with logging into; that same pad?

I am not saying you are wrong. I believe you. It is just it is not logical, that an occupied hanger; will block the pad.

A new instance is created if you join the game at a location where "your" landing pad is in use.

It has to work like this (with regard to hangars and pads being linked) because if you land on a pad and then log out, you'll be inside the hangar when you log back in.

 

[Arry]

A new instance is created if you join the game at a location where "your" landing pad is in use.

That too is logical. and common sense. Feel a bit of a Muppet now.

 

[Wasp0]

whilst annoying, i've come to expect it with Cmdrs, but what is worse (IMHO) is when an NPC has got the pad you have been assigned too and just does not move.

 

[dognosh]

.......

Hugely impressed with your deflection skills

 

[Babellon]

I think it would nice if they implemented a queue system for landing. I can't count how many times I've arrived at a station and been forced to wait on the npc's because they're always more important than the player in the docking sequence. Lately I've noticed too that when I go to depart every ship in the station is hovering waiting to leave the station, as though they all waited for me to lift off then jumped in front to force the player to sit there with that timer.

a queue system would eliminate a lot of hassle on multiple fronts. Having NPC ships stuck on pads and having to push them off is a bug that should be fixed. I play solo almost exclusively to avoid the open play pvp and to avoid congestion at high traffic ports. a redock procedure for commanders is an option that would solve the afk problem. if you go afk for more than 5 minutes the system moves your ship through auto pilot to the center of the station, or outside the station to make room for other players. its one of the things I've found odd about elite dangerous, we're 1500 years in the future, but using technology 50 years in the past.

 

[Morbad]

Hugely impressed with your deflection skills

I'm rather insulted by your assumption that there was any deflection, intentional or otherwise, taking place.

And my questions were not rhetorical.

 

[andrewg_oz]

I don't see why it needs to be any more complicated than having the game detect if a player goes AFK and making their instance 'unmatchable'. They would effectively disappear from the game until they come back. Maybe they could be auto-disconnected if they're AFK for hours.

 

[Morbad]

I don't see why it needs to be any more complicated than having the game detect if a player goes AFK and making their instance 'unmatchable'. They would effectively disappear from the game until they come back. Maybe they could be auto-disconnected if they're AFK for hours.

That would solve the problem of someone being able to tie up a pad in Open or PG, but wouldn't remedy any of the other issues people may have with the system and could make a few of them worse. Could be a useful stopgap, but all to often stopgaps become permanent.