I'm a dog, and I don't fly very well with paws.How can you play this game for 6000 hours and still not have the money for a carrier, even if just accidentally?
Any compensation incoming for non-exploiters?
- Thread starter Denneb
- Start date
Platitudes like that are what the rich, filthy people say to keep the dumb smhucks in line.
As I've already said, my argument was based on the notes of the previous patch, not the one that hasn't even gone live yet and the preliminary ("these patch notes may be edited before the update is due to go live as changes are added, removed or adjusted.") notes of which I wasn't even aware of at the time of the 1st post I made here, my bad, sorry.
BTW, the notes of the upcoming 15 July patch still only mentions an issue specifically related to SLF's, not an exploitable bug in the general respawn mechanism of SSD's.
Under normal circumstances, in any online game there are 2 significant events in the history of exploits:
A. developers make an announcement reading something like "dear gamerz, we have this little issue with our game, please don't use it to your advantage, because we recognize it as an exploit and any ill-gotten credits will be subtracted from your account".
B. developers make a second announcement: "dear gamerz, with this awesome little patch we have just applied we fixed the problem".
The exploit is called a cheat/exploit beween A and B, but not outside these boundaries and definitely not after announcement B.
The lack of proper communication on fdev's part, their apparent incompetence when it comes to fixing bugs and/or the lack of QA is not the players' fault.
That is, of course, a player opinion.
Deleted member 182079
D
The lack of comms on FDev's part is likely due to them not wanting to rock the boat, especially in light of the fact that those "ill-gotten" or otherwise gains over the past weeks have more than likely funded quite a few FCs, which in turn yielded some Arx sales (you do see more FCs with cosmetics applied than vanilla ones, at least in my experience of dropping into a number of them in various places).
They'd be stupid to cause upset by removing credits (and more so for assets in the form of carriers), they'll just address the underlying problem so whoever benefited from it can consider them lucky to be in the right place at the right time. I'd do this in the most understated way possible if I was FDev, because the salt avalanche will be inevitable once the relevant sub-group of players realise what happened.
If I was feeling sadistic as a dev (and I know I have been on some smaller games) I wouldn't remove the credits if they'd been spent on assets, I'd work out the outstanding amount and make them owe it as a loan. Enjoy not having rebuys until you've paid it off!
Quite true, we've all already bought the game, so like it or lump it, it's tough, Frontier have got our money.
I can't see them screwing over the punters that have spent money to buy ARX to decorate their Carrier's by removing the aquired assets.....
.....I'm waiting 'til Thursday, then I'll have accumulated enough 'free' ARX to get a different Carrier Design - Not decided yet whether to go axe or ball
Deleted member 182079
D
Haha, imagine the outcry, would be worth it with a ton of popcorn.
The thing is, if Elite was a competitive MP game, it would make sense to remove credits/assets (say, GTA5 is a good example, or any of the shooters - and could be seen as levelling the playing field again - but since it's not (PvP is only 'informally' competitive i.e. there's not even leaderboards or tracked K/D ratios etc., CQC would qualify but is a separate entity unaffected by in-game progress) FDev have nothing to gain from this.
You could argue that the biggest downside to all this is players who have been 'robbed' of a more consistent, gradual progression curve. And FDev will want that to be back in the game because it encourages more longer term play (which tends to translate into Arx sales eventually), instead of players spending 20 hours in the game and then dropping it after quickly unlocking end game content, be that FCs or large A-rated ships.
Although, on that last point I do wonder whether those of us who value a slow burn in terms of progression are a dying breed in this age of instant gratification, and I'm overstating the importance of it.
Deleted member 182079
D
I went for axe... no regrets.Quite true, we've all already bought the game, so like it or lump it, it's tough, Frontier have got our money.
I can't see them screwing over the punters that have spent money to buy ARX to decorate their Carrier's by removing the aquired assets.....
.....I'm waiting 'til Thursday, then I'll have accumulated enough 'free' ARX to get a different Carrier Design - Not decided yet whether to go axe or ball
Really? I'm edging towards ball......but yet to finally decide, both look decent
I went for the ball, and though I have no regrets, I'd also want the axe. Would probably be the other way around if I chose the axe.
As nearly always, I agree with pretty much everything you said, with the exception of this bit.
Being able to make the SSD's respawn by retreating 25+ kms from the rock is not any more absurd than sitting near Jameson's crashed Cobra, relogging and being able to fill your material storage to the rim with unobtanium level encoded thingies by rescanning all 4 data points without moving an inch.
Yep, agreed. It is end of day, merely my .02 cents, and like any opinion based on my own subjective interpretation of the game. That said, OP's post and title, which my response was is a straw man because the declaration of non-exploiters was stated in such a way as if it were a physical fact, and directly referenced in his OP that those who mined via respawn mechanics are "exploiters" vs those who did not that are "non-exploiters".
If I say - Exposure to sunlight synthesizes vitamin D for your body - this is a declarative statement with connotation of fact that is indeed fact.
OP equating everyone who did not mine via SSD respawn as "non-exploiters" while those that did as "exploiters" is a declarative statement disguising an opinion as presumed fact.
While conceding we are both talking opinions here, at least I have precedent and some basis of fact to support my opinion - FDev, for good or bad, has set the clear precedent when they wish to make it quite clear what is not 'intended behavior' vs just one of many, many balance changes they make, come out and declare XYZ as an exploit (e.g. combat relogging)
While in other very clear cases, again they set precedent that they changed significantly many other game functions but deliberately did NOT call it exploit nor punish nor revert any benefit players may have gained by using that game function (e.g. mission board relogging, mission stacking, skimmers 1 kill crediting all missions, etc)
So my opinion, supported by these historical facts - is that Fdev is changing game balance yet again like the many other changes they've done that curtail prior player behavior, but as they've not labelled respawn mining or SLF respawn mining as an exploit, it can not be labelled by OP or any others as such without ignoring the convenient fact Fdev themselves does not support that opinion.
Deleted member 182079
D
What put me off the ball are the proportions - the ball itself should be larger, at least 1.5x. Matter of taste of course. The axe has the most pleasing profile all round, regardless of which direction you approach from.
The hippo has grown on me, particularly regarding the thruster arrangement - but I'll hold off on that until I get really bored/sick of the axe. There's always the stock one which isn't actually that bad either.
Most of us dogs are just playing the game. We've given up on rationality from humans.
Aye. The downside is that the credit glut is making the "economy" even more lopsided and you don't necessarily even need the exploit to it. If they decide to introduce say basebuilding, everything in them has to cost billions to be something you need to earn through progress. But then those billion credit price tags take ages to grind with any other profession than mining. And since a relevant portion of players now have billions (as proven by carrier spam), you can't balance the "economy" through any other means except adding more zeros to payouts...
I have to disagree on that, I prefer a smaller ball, as I prefer the barrel-shaped parts. What in the end made me abandon axe was the lack of apparent bridge on the bulge though the axe itself is very neat profile - looks like a mining or war ship whereas the ball is more of an explorer.
It is somewhat rather disturbing that people feel the need to be compensated for being "good". I thought the whole point about being good was that you were helping society and by doing that, helping yourself as well. Same should apply to this game I should think. If you play by the rules you are helping maintain a stable game environment and that, theoretically, should indirectly help yourself as well.
Seeing as ED appears to be an ongoing run of exploits from day 1 of release (from the content of this forum I have read) and this is just the latest in a long run, why worry?
The only 'concern' I'd have would be a repercussion that affects market prices even more. I used to quite enjoy a 'reasonable' credit boost in the days when a VO hotspot had mostly VO's to be found, and an hour of fun exploding could 'earn' a 100 mill or so, setting me up for the next month or two of play, or getting the ship/upgrades I wanted.
A recent trip to a VO hotspot I used to use (local market was paying 600k /t) turned up some VO's, but many more 'not hotspot' cores...
I'd like to get a FC, I have no intention of mining myself into catatonia to do so - but would be a bit miffed if Frontier's answer to 'the egg' is to 'nerf' pricing
The only 'concern' I'd have would be a repercussion that affects market prices even more. I used to quite enjoy a 'reasonable' credit boost in the days when a VO hotspot had mostly VO's to be found, and an hour of fun exploding could 'earn' a 100 mill or so, setting me up for the next month or two of play, or getting the ship/upgrades I wanted.
A recent trip to a VO hotspot I used to use (local market was paying 600k /t) turned up some VO's, but many more 'not hotspot' cores...
I'd like to get a FC, I have no intention of mining myself into catatonia to do so - but would be a bit miffed if Frontier's answer to 'the egg' is to 'nerf' pricing
Ofc it's not. It's just a fact that only the developers can tell whether the way their code works is intentional or not.
For instance, I don't use broken things like packhounds, healing weapons and premium ammo, but I don't call them exploits (as a player I'm not entitled to do so), only unbalanced mechanics and bad game design, because that's what these things are, regardless of whether or not they are intentional.