Any compensation incoming for non-exploiters?

[Denneb]

THe patch notes for Wednesday call the SLF thing an "issue". Officially not an exploit at this time. /Thread

If you like to play with words, then an "issue" is something unintended that needs fixing. Taking advantage on non intended gameplay for personal benefit is the definition of exploiting. Otherwise it would be mentioned as a "non-issue", that needs no addressing

 

[galahad2069]

What was your argument again?


(Note: This is a quote from the new patch notes!)

My argument was based on the previous patch notes, which stated exactly the same thing.

 

[Haradrim]

I don't want compensation, but I'd prefer if they remove "issue" related credits and bring mining more in-line with the rest of the game universe. Mining can still make more than other professions, but not by such an absurd amount. If mining really did make that much more, do you think all these NPCs would be wasting their time with other jobs? Everyone in-game would be mining

 

[Morbad]

At least if you think fdev are professionals, not a bunch of amateurs

They are professionals, but that doesn't imply that they are particularly good at QA, just that they are being paid for it.

who don't even know how their own game works and throwing in a lazy cooldown timer in the wrong position was the best they could come up with.

I think this is probably a fairly accurate description of what happened.

It certainly wouldn't be the first time FDev had identified the wrong problem, applied an incorrect fix, and/or prematurely announced that a problem had been solved.

If they really wanted this bug squashed sooner, it would have been squashed by now. Obviously FD are happy to allow this to continue......for the time being

By that reasoning SLF's inducing stutter and rubberbanding is intentional, because the issue has lasted over a year, and that's not even a record for FDev.

Now if I'd gone into the game files & found my credit balance & altered it to 18bil........that, I would call an exploit!

That would be a hack, of Frontier's database, not cheating via the exploitation of an unintended game mechanism.

I don't know how some of you guys play other games that allow Mods to be used

I mod games all the time. However they are either single player titles, which are impossible to cheat in because I am the only player, or they are games I host, where I set the rules. And if I'm hosting a game where someone is abusing some unintended functionality, rather than pointing out that problem to me so I can fix it, they wouldn't be welcome on my server or at my table any more.

Frontier's intent may not always be as clear as I make mine, but it's quite an absurdity to think that being able to reset the contents of an asteroid by flying 25km away, so that people could bypass all sorts of gameplay to make disproportionate profit was what they were aiming for, or that they'd find it to be beneficial emergent content.

Modifying a value, whether in a file, memory or network packet is cheating, as it is using mechanisms outside of the game mechanics to product in game results.

Hacking and exploiting, in these contexts, are both forms of cheating. It's just about how the unfair advantage is generated.

How can you play this game for 6000 hours and still not have the money for a carrier, even if just accidentally?

I've been playing for ~8k hours since the last forced reset. 5 billion CR is probably close to my CMDR's gross lifetime earnings. Out of that a billion or so have gone to NPC crew, and another billion to various expenses. The remainder is split between all the ships I enjoy flying and more credits than I'll ever need for any gameplay I find enjoyable. My CMDR will probably never be able to afford a fleet carrier, and I am entirely content with not having to manage one. I tried them for about 90 minutes in the Beta and that was enough for a lifetime.

That I am not even vaguely incentivized to have my CMDR care about his finances is one of my main complaints about this game.

 

[Moriarte]

By that reasoning SLF's inducing stutter and rubberbanding is intentional, because the issue has lasted over a year, and that's not even a record for FDev.

SLF’s inducing stutter and rubber-banding is likely a networking issue which, I suspect, given it’s scope, deep roots and inherent global networking inequality, isn’t easy to fix outright. Applying timers for individual sub-surface deposits, on the other hand, sounds to me like a task that can be accomplished with relative ease. I wouldn’t say it’s about changing one variable, but it’s somewhere close, considering the abundance of reporting done on the identified issue. Is there a huge incentive within FD to fix SSD respawn timers and by that directly harm actual GBP inflow potential coming from the ARX shop? I don’t think that latter incentive is overwhelming.

 

[Old Duck]

Hello fellow commanders. The instantly replenishing LTD subsurface deposits mining frenzy is just the cherry on top of the general mining rewards fiasco (compared to other activities).
FDev trying hard to patch it, is a clear testament that its is NOT intended gameplay, and taking advantage of non-intended gameplay for personal benefit is the DEFINITION of exploiting.

So, as a loyal player with over 5500 hrs of non-exploitative gameplay and with hundreds of game extras purchased, I think I am entitled to ask a simple question to the developers:
Is there any compensation incoming to the people who chose to forfeit a tremendous in-game advantage and didn't exploit?
Or even, is there any penalty incoming to the ones who did exploit, and for example, earned themselves in a few days the luxury of buying and sustaining an FC for life?

I would really like to see FDev here not following the real life example that rewards exploiting and penalizes good ethos.
Thanks for your time.

Isn't this like asking a bank to give everyone free cash because somebody else robbed it? You undercut your own moral high ground ("I don't exploit") by demanding a free handout because you're a good person...

 

[Schmack]

Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, this is a multiplayer only game and 'just play the game your way' has limits because of this fact.

The OP is at least as entitled to their complaints as you are to your gameplay.

If this wasn't evident already with the BGS then surely it is with carriers being omnipresent.

 

[Schmack]

Am I the only one who likes hunting for materials?

 

[Sysmon]

Am I the only one who likes hunting for materials?

Nope, scavenging is my favourite activity.

S

 

[Morbad]

SLF’s inducing stutter and rubber-banding is likely a networking issue which, I suspect, given it’s scope, deep roots and inherent global networking inequality, isn’t easy to fix outright.

It's an issue that was absent from 2.2 through 3.3. I'd have thought that looking at whatever changed between 3.3 and 3.4 would have allowed them to fix the problem, but apparently it's not that simple...instead they addressed a barely related non-issue, marked the real problem as fixed when nothing had changed, and forced us to file new support tickets.

Is there a huge incentive within FD to fix SSD respawn timers and by that directly harm actual GBP inflow potential coming from the ARX shop? I don’t think that latter incentive is overwhelming.

With so many apparently eager to hand them money no matter the quality of the product, there is little incentive to improve anything.

 

[[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos]

Am I the only one who likes hunting for materials?

No. I also like it.

 

[RiotRabit]

Two commanders are walking together down a road. One looks 20 meters ahead and sees a amazing exploit which nets them an easy 10 billion credits. The other looks 100 meters ahead and sees a problem economy due to credit inflation. They argue over the exploit. Both arguments are out of self-interest.

 

[[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos]

Two commanders are walking together down a road. One looks 20 meters ahead and sees a amazing exploit which nets them an easy 10 billion credits. The other looks 100 meters ahead and sees a problem economy due to credit inflation. They argue over the exploit. Both arguments are out of self-interest.

However, the CMDR who engages in the exploit could be held accountable for provoking a 'fix' inflation. The CMDR who doesn't engage in it, speaks for themselves and everyone else who doesn't engage because of the inflation comes, those that provoked it, have the money to ride it out. Those that didn't are really punished by it.

In that sense, exploit CMDR is way more self-interested, his actions simply don't take anyone else into account at all. Non exploit CMDR's actions , even if not the primary objective, did not have the capacity to hurt anyone else. They also reasoned that inflation would come for all, not just him. So he gets some credit.

 

[RiotRabit]

Sadly, best potential solution (other than taking player's money) would be to introduce a series of new features, gameplay, ships, etc. which barely utilize credits, then ramp up the upkeep of fleet carriers so they become a net credit sink. After a few months or a year, "listen to players' complaints" and recorrect. Effectively forcing those with lots of money to spend or sell. Just a brainstorm. Not perfect.

 

[Malcolm Tucker]

Am I the only one who likes hunting for materials?

Nah, at least as far as bombing around in the SRV goes anyway.

I like to see how far it can fly on low g planets.

Plus nuking piratey pirates is always fun.

Mat traders make life easier anyway.

 

[[VR] Orodruin]

My argument was based on the previous patch notes, which stated exactly the same thing.

Your argument was that the previous patch notes proved that everything was now working as intended. The new patch notes stating the same thing directly contradicts that. If it had been working as intended it would not need patching again. Nice try though.

 

[Bob McBobblehead]

Knowing your conscience is clear, is compensation enough.

 

[gooddoc]

I owuld still go for exploit.

An exploit is using a mechanic to produce an unintended behaviour. Some of the debate in this thread is whether the current behaviour is intended or whether the last patch failed to address all the problem.

Modifying a value, whether in a file, memory or network packet is cheating, as it is using mechanisms outside of the game mechanics to product in game results.

Simon

Exploit is a subjective term & as such depends on how each individual Player will view what actually constitutes an 'exploit'.
As previously stated, my concern is what I do & not what others do.

I will therefore only abide by what Frontier states is an exploit (as it is their game, their rules).
What ever any other Player says.....it's just their personal opinion.

 

[jacozilla]

Straw man OP title - player opinion can call whatever they want as 'exploit', but until Fdev officially calls it one, it is not.

Otherwise, every player who did some action that differs from a later on balance change in patch note would be guilty of 'exploiting' whatever was the status quo before the patch change.

I don't have a FC, have no skin in the game re: SLF mining or regular cruising around method - my preference is hauling tritium for making my slower but decent road to FC credits - but until and unless FDev brands it an exploit, it is a game function that used to be here, and presumably once successfully patched out, will no longer be here.

 

[Captain Willard]

The beauty of pg and solo. No matter how you play, it doesn't affect me and I play both.