Confession of a shameless Mode Switcher...

[Theodrid]

Which not everyone knew about;

aka = unfair advantage for a few whom kept it quiet as best they could.



Not everyone has access to founders;

aka = unfair advantage for those with founders access only



available to all;

aka = no advantage over other players and often given as advice on these forums to people who want to rank up.

Again, you are trying to redefine what the word means while claiming that is what others are doing.
An "exploit" requires someone to gain an unfair advantage over someone else. No one has an unfair advantage.

Crikey Jockey they were/are ALL unintended behaviours, don't you start the hoop jumping too, yikes, as far as I'm aware everyone could/can get access to founders given Kickstarter or rank.

And an advantage, as pointed out, does not need to involve others.

 

[Stealthie]

Must say, I find some people's claims regarding the time ranking takes to be a bit exaggerated.

The only Imperial ship I committed to obtaining was the iCourier. After that I didn't try and grow my Imp' rank at all.
So, I was at the rank of Master (for months), heard about how "grinding" could increase rank quickly and decided to test it out.
As I've said, I went to Fehu on the Friday, ground like an organ-grinder on ground crack, and I was off to Harm to buy my cheap Cutter on the Sunday night.
To do it required that I stack scanner missions which could all be completed at once, rather than one at a time - a game-mechanic which still exists.
That probably involved something like 30 hours of intensive grinding.

At the other extreme, I deliberately didn't grind to gain Fed' rank because I wanted to see how long it'd take compared to grinding.
I went to various systems, stuck around long enough to gain Allied status with most of the factions there and took the jobs they were offering.
I'd spend a couple of hours running delivery missions to build up some cash, a couple of hours delivering the mail for rank, a couple of hours fetching stuff, a couple of hours killing pirates etc and then I'd wander off and do a CG or engineer one of my ships for a day or two.
Operating like that, it took me about 9 months to gain the rank of Admiral.

TBH, I suspect that FDev's intention was to make rank-progression take about that long to as a sort of "automatic reward" for being a long-term player of the game and that seems fairly reasonable to me.
The only thing that isn't very reasonable is the uninspired gameplay that the achievement involves.
As I've said, I'd prefer it if FDev forced the player to indulge in a variety of things to gain rank.

A simple task such as "mine 200t of Painite to assist in construction of a new naval base" could require a player to embark on several weeks of gameplay to build and equip a suitable mining ship before embarking on the mission, itself, or it could be completed in a few days by a seasoned player who already has the resources to complete the mission immediately.
Similar thing with a simple "Go and find 25 ELWs for the navy to use as possible garrisons" mission; you might be able to go out and embark on it right away or you might have to unlock engineers and gain funds to build a suitable ship before completing the mission.

Point is, they'd be missions where, starting from scratch, they'd require a significant investment of time but if you'd already invested the time in the game you'd probably already have the funds, knowledge and assets to "fast-track" your way through them.

But I digress. If it's taken you 3 years to gain a handful of naval ranks, you've been doing something wrong. [where is it]

 

[Aashenfox]

Which not everyone knew about;

Again, you are trying to redefine what the word means while claiming that is what others are doing.
An "exploit" requires someone to gain an unfair advantage over someone else. No one has an unfair advantage.

I respect you for repping another post of mine despite that we are disagreeing on this subject, it says a lot about you. Brohug aside, I can't agree with the quote above, I for one avoid using the 'exploit', because it's very important to me to win 'fair and square' unless I can really justify it (for example game progress halts unless an exploit is used, and it's because of bad coding, not because I fell in a well and couldn't get out (if that happens, call Lassie please) because I was drinking too much dwarven brandy). For example, in an FPS, if I clip through a wall and get stuck faced with losing progress, or cheating using a no clipping cheat, I'll weigh up the pros and cons (for example if my savegame gets marked as 'cheat' I wouldn't do it under ANY circumstances (it's an OCD thing)) and decide if its worth it. If it costs nothing, I'd likely do it, but only when faced with problems not my own that were insurmountable otherwise.

As you should be able to understand, this means that if I believed that people gain a MASSIVE advantage from using this exploit (I've already made clear that I do not, and I think the Fdev position is indicative of this as well), then I would FEEL as though I was at a disadvantage due to my high moral code (which is as I'm sure you're going to point out, my own problem), however, I don't think punishing the most honourable players out there is really in Fdev's plans, therefore, not 'working as intended', at best, they just 'don't mind for the time being', and I'm ok with that as well. What irks me is the attempt to justify it as intended gameplay, when it so patently obviously is not.

 

[punkerich]

There have been times the mission board took ages to load. It's extremely fast now, in majority.
Still, i, as a BGS runner, encounter systems / stations where the desired faction offers 0/0 missions.

Flying 50k ls in SC to the only outpost in a system, just to be prompted with nothing a multi-role python could do,
or a lonely deliver 180t to that outpost without the possibility to change outfitting at the present station...

What should a pilot do in these cases? Stare at the screen for 15 min or longer?

Now that we have those fast loading times, how about sacrificing a tiny bit of that to actually double, triple, even quadruple
the board? With stacking off the table, why not fill your hold/cabins in one go?
Or at least make sure that every faction present will at least offer min. 5 missions at any given time.

I've been to planetary outposts where, say, 5 factions are present but only one or two give out missions, no matter board hopping, with the rest staying at 0/0...

So yes, i do it from time to time, but i hate it nonetheless.
Don't remove board hopping, remove the need to.

 

[Morbad]

What should a pilot do in these cases?

I assume none of the faction reps currently have a mission for my CMDR and if he can't wait for something to show up, he goes somewhere else.

 

[Katnisseve]

Firstly, apologies for my assumption you were male, my bad, secondly, yes you have and mode switching to stack missions is an unintended use of such so therefore is what?

Thank you, apology accepted.

Mode switching to stack missions is therefore a more effective use of time by the player that is SANCTIONED by the development team.

The definition of exploit has multiple meanings and is therefore open to interpretation. It is Fdevs interpretation that mode switching is not an exploit as it is not malicious and does not cause harm.

Ziggy... Yes... Thank you for your post on page 17. Yes, some ppl attribute exploit to a negative connotation. Here in the states, the generally accepted definition of exploit is negative.
I can't speak for the UK

 

[Theodrid]

Thank you, apology accepted.

Mode switching to stack missions is therefore a more effective use of time by the player that is SANCTIONED by the development team.

The definition of exploit has multiple meanings and is therefore open to interpretation. It is Fdevs interpretation that mode switching is not an exploit as it is not malicious and does not cause harm.

Ziggy... Yes... Thank you for your post on page 17. Yes, some ppl attribute exploit to a negative connotation. Here in the states, the generally accepted definition of exploit is negative.
I can't speak for the UK

Can you provide a link where Frontier have sanctioned it please? I've read it's unintended from Frontier, I've read they 'don't like it' but have missed them going as far as sanctioning it.

I just want to be clear here, as exploits go this one is way, way down in terms of severity in my book, I wouldn't want anyone banned or shadow banned for it, maybe, in extreme cases a rollback could be okay, (my opinion). My point is though just because this isn't the hottest chilli out there that does not stop it being one.

 

[Mohrgan]

I have nothing against other Commanders using the credit earning exploits. There have been many in the game over time, and I can't be bothered to fuss over it. I have plenty of Credits, doing it the way I feel is right for me. But, to open up a thread like this is just an attempt to justify gaming the game. If you need to 'confess' then you know it's not totally cool what you may be doing. Asking for back-up and more ways to justify wonking your way through a video game, does not build character.

 

[Jockey79]

An advantage does not have to be opposed to other players, it has to be an advantage as opposed to not using the exploit. All players can gain an advantage and it's still an advantage.

The advantage of mode switching to refresh the mission board is that you can take more missions than you would be able without it.

Okay, looks like I'll have to explain the word advantage as well.....

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/advantage
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/advantage
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/advantage

You need another person who does not or cannot gain what you have, for there to be an "advantage". And as we can all mode switch, there is no advantage.
The only other angle to argue is saying an advantage over the game design - but FD designed mode switching and was aware of the mission board refreshing before release - and have chosen to just let players crack on using it - yet actual exploits have been fixed (as posted by Theodrid)

I respect you for repping another post of mine despite that we are disagreeing on this subject, it says a lot about you. Brohug aside, I can't agree with the quote above, I for one avoid using the 'exploit', because it's very important to me to win 'fair and square' unless I can really justify it (for example game progress halts unless an exploit is used, and it's because of bad coding, not because I fell in a well and couldn't get out (if that happens, call Lassie please) because I was drinking too much dwarven brandy). For example, in an FPS, if I clip through a wall and get stuck faced with losing progress, or cheating using a no clipping cheat, I'll weigh up the pros and cons (for example if my savegame gets marked as 'cheat' I wouldn't do it under ANY circumstances (it's an OCD thing)) and decide if its worth it. If it costs nothing, I'd likely do it, but only when faced with problems not my own that were insurmountable otherwise.

As you should be able to understand, this means that if I believed that people gain a MASSIVE advantage from using this exploit (I've already made clear that I do not, and I think the Fdev position is indicative of this as well), then I would FEEL as though I was at a disadvantage due to my high moral code (which is as I'm sure you're going to point out, my own problem), however, I don't think punishing the most honourable players out there is really in Fdev's plans, therefore, not 'working as intended', at best, they just 'don't mind for the time being', and I'm ok with that as well. What irks me is the attempt to justify it as intended gameplay, when it so patently obviously is not.

You're mixing in your morals. Morals have nothing to do with defining words.
Exploit has a black and white definition, one which people are choosing to ignore to push their agendas.

Now I'd be happy to discuss the morality of mode switching to avoid blockades, refresh mission boards, to dock at busy stations. But I think we'd need a new thread for that.

Crikey Jockey they were/are ALL unintended behaviours, don't you start the hoop jumping too, yikes, as far as I'm aware everyone could/can get access to founders given Kickstarter or rank.

And an advantage, as pointed out, does not need to involve others.

At the time you could exploit founders for credits, no not everyone could gain access to it.
So only a limited number of players could (and did) use that exploit.

I had access at the time, but my friends didn't. So there was an "unfair advantage" for a limited number of players.
Unlike the missions boards, where we can all log out / in again.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Jockey,

If you don't address my arguments but prefer to be condescending (explain the word advantage) we're done.

I know very well what the word means and I explained how it applies.

 

[Theodrid]

@Jockey,

Jockey, if you wanted to save time in the morning before work I could suggest to you that it may be advantageous to you to prepare your packed lunch the night before. That doesn't advantage anyone but you but it is still advantageous to you.

On the advantage, well you could have done the engineer exploit when it was exposed, you could have helped your friend to the required rank to exploit founders, simply because something is time/effort sensitive does not mean it isn't available to everyone.

 

[DukeIronHand]

I have nothing against other Commanders using the credit earning exploits. There have been many in the game over time, and I can't be bothered to fuss over it. I have plenty of Credits, doing it the way I feel is right for me. But, to open up a thread like this is just an attempt to justify gaming the game. If you need to 'confess' then you know it's not totally cool what you may be doing. Asking for back-up and more ways to justify wonking your way through a video game, does not build character.

Uhh...thanks? And yea I get it's gamey I suppose. In a game.
Hopefully when I grow up I can be a more upstanding video game player.
I'll think about it while I wait for missions for the next 8 months...oh wait...no I won't.

 

[Jenner]

Must say, I find some people's claims regarding the time ranking takes to be a bit exaggerated.

....

That probably involved something like 30 hours of intensive grinding.
[where is it]

Not sure if serious...

So you're saying that the complaints about the grind and the time it takes to gain ranks are overblown, but it took you 30 hours to grind out a Cutter?

To me that really sounds like a really long time to spend grinding.

 

[Mohrgan]

Uhh...thanks? And yea I get it's gamey I suppose. In a game.
Hopefully when I grow up I can be a more upstanding video game player.
I'll think about it while I wait for missions for the next 8 months...oh wait...no I won't.

Cheeky, but I expected that. You decided that actually playing the game made some of your goals too long term for comfort, so you justify wonking through a pass time. Whatever. Being glib about it just shows you are perfectly willing to manipulate things to get your way. Live as you like.

 

[Aashenfox]

Okay, looks like I'll have to explain the word advantage as well.....

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/advantage
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/advantage
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/advantage

You need another person who does not or cannot gain what you have, for there to be an "advantage". And as we can all mode switch, there is no advantage.
The only other angle to argue is saying an advantage over the game design - but FD designed mode switching and was aware of the mission board refreshing before release - and have chosen to just let players crack on using it - yet actual exploits have been fixed (as posted by Theodrid)



You're mixing in your morals. Morals have nothing to do with defining words.
Exploit has a black and white definition, one which people are choosing to ignore to push their agendas.

Now I'd be happy to discuss the morality of mode switching to avoid blockades, refresh mission boards, to dock at busy stations. But I think we'd need a new thread for that.




At the time you could exploit founders for credits, no not everyone could gain access to it.
So only a limited number of players could (and did) use that exploit.

I had access at the time, but my friends didn't. So there was an "unfair advantage" for a limited number of players.
Unlike the missions boards, where we can all log out / in again.

Funny, I think you're the one ignoring the definition of an exploit, and I have quite some experience, I'm 40 years old, playing video games since they were invented, ranked top 5000 worldwide at 5 well known titles at various times in my life, my biggest claims to fame are WoW and Unreal Tournament, both of which have had their fair share of issues with exploits. For me, this isn't even a question, and it's you whose really trying hard to justify that this isn't an 'exploit' by the purest definition.

What's more, morals have everything to do with it, players who see it as an exploit and avoid it as such, are at a disadvantage compared to players like you who clearly think that anything the game allows due to the way it's coded is 'fair game'. I'm here to tell you we don't all think like that, therefore you DO have an advantage. Now, if you had that advantage because I was stupid, rather than overly moral, then I'd have nothing to say, but the fact is, you have an advantage over someone because they have a stricter code which they are not willing to forego just to get an advantage. If I did the exploit a lot, I would never be satisfied with the rank, it would always whisper in my ear 'you took advantage of unintended gameplay until it was patched, you didn't earn this fair and square'.

Fortunately, in terms of reputation, it doesn't make a big difference, so I don't feel at a disadvantage (credits is a different matter, the exploit makes a HUGE difference), but the fact is, you do have an advantage because you can so easily justify cheating as a means to an end, that's not a slur on you, everyone should play games how they want, but you DO have an advantage over other players until it's patched. To pretend that it's their problem they aren't using an exploit is like trying to justify murder by saying 'everyone can do it if they want?' (another bad analogy but my meaning is clear).

 

[Morbad]

Gaming the mission board is an exploit that does provide unfair advantages.

I cannot mode switch for the purpose of refreshing missions without manipulating the game in an explicitly unintended way that will further compromise my sense of verisimilitude and damage my enjoyment of the game. Those that care neither about the intent of the mode feature, nor about the game presenting itself in a plausible fashion, can take missions faster and thus accrue rewards and manipulate the BSG at a greater pace than I can.

This is no different, except in subjective magnitude of reward, from using the exploit that provided grade five modules for the cost of a grade one.

This is no different, except in subjective magnitude of reward, from the old Shinrarta module exploit where one could make 10% on by selling modules to LFT 926 (no subset of the player base is prohibited from attaining the Founder's World Permit, and even if they were, the exploit would still have been an unfair advantage to those who were not willing to cheat).

Same goes for any other exploit, as it's used in remotely the context presented in this thread, ever.

Exploit has a black and white definition, one which people are choosing to ignore to push their agendas.

You may be right, but the understanding of the definition that you are pushing is still a fallacy.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I just realized people seem to think single player games can't have exploits.

 

[Theodrid]

I just realized people seem to think single player games can't have exploits.

I need to spread some rep Ziggy but have a Werther's Original on me instead.

 

[JesusRocks1988]

Thing is... Sometimes you do actually have to mode switch to get the mission board working. I mean, the was an instance with an engineer invite contract I had in the "not available" section, when I got to the rep level for it to be available, it disappeared entirely and I had to relog and mode switch several times to get it to appear.

Other times you really feel like doing something particular, yet the mission board isn't playing ball so you need to check the other modes to see if they have any of the activity you want to do. Or even to get a number of available missions at a number above 0. Nothing worse than getting to a station because my evening's task involves a particular mission type, only to find none available - like getting faction rep to unlock an engineer.

Besides, if I am allowed to stack missions on the board in one mode, why can't I swap between modes to do the same if the only result is triggering a fresh set of missions?

 

[DukeIronHand]

Cheeky, but I expected that. You decided that actually playing the game made some of your goals too long term for comfort, so you justify wonking through a pass time. Whatever. Being glib about it just shows you are perfectly willing to manipulate things to get your way. Live as you like.

Darn right. Very much "too long term for comfort"!!!
Thats what the thread is ultimately all about.
100's of hours (which equals many months on my schedule) grinding rank missions for a g-d video game spaceship?
Yea. I do not desire to spend my precious limited life span doing that.
Fly well.