Long running macro's threat by FD - What exactly is a long running macro?!

[clinton]

In yesterday's livestream, there was an obscure threat to users of "long running macros". It was perhaps in connection to something called "single unit trading", but I'm not sure.

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGqndJFKOfA;t=40m15s

I'm just wondering what "long running macros" actually are? Are we going to get emailed about docking request macros, as they're a number of keystrokes. Or is it macros that continuously run for a long time? If so, what sort of macro could be useful to run for a long time?! I can't think of any advantage of automating something and sitting at a station for hours.

Edit: I think I've found a sort of explanation here, but I do find it hard to believe as I suspect the devs wouldn't be braindead enough to count transactions not total cargo traded for influence purposes as it's so easily and obviously exploitable. I'm pretty sure FD is smarter than this so I think the actual explanation is more complex than this post suggests:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ation-Large-Faction-Influence-Swing-Mechanics

 

[Asp Explorer]

I have some suspicions, but I can't wait to find out what's really going on

 

[Riverside]

In yesterday's livestream, there was an obscure threat to users of "long running macros". It was perhaps in connection to something called "single unit trading", but I'm not sure.

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGqndJFKOfA;t=40m15s

I'm just wondering what "long running macros" actually are? Are we going to get emailed about docking request macros, as they're a number of keystrokes. Or is it macros that continuously run for a long time? If so, what sort of macro could be useful to run for a long time?! I can't think of any advantage of automating something and sitting at a station for hours.

I'm no expert but I'd guess the number of transactions has more of an effect on the BGS than the actual transactions themselves, so sell one tonne, log out, log back in, sell another etc.

I can imagine it would put a fair old load on the servers.

 

[Gunnet]

To me it seemed pretty clear that they were talking about people effectively botting, rather than automating simple tasks like docking requests.

As far as I know, the point here was that 1 transaction involving 100 tons of goods has less effect on the BGS than 100 transactions of 1 ton each. Few people would have the patience to buy/sell like that manually, but with a long macro it would just be a matter of going afk for a few minutes while it ran.

 

[Asp Explorer]

I'm no expert but I'd guess the number of transactions has more of an effect on the BGS than the actual transactions themselves, so sell one tonne, log out, log back in, sell another etc.

I can imagine it would put a fair old load on the servers.

I'm thinking along similar lines - but even something as simple as request key reverification every X logons would have killed that stone dead a long time ago.

 

[the100thmonkey]

There's some ambiguity in the language as to whether Dav meant users of macros that run long, or users who have used macros for a long time.

Trading in single units affects the BGS far more than trading in bulk. The money is the same, but the transaction servers calculate influence on a per-transaction basis rather than sheer value. Because of that, it's a lot less boring, though not more effective, to do single-transaction trading with a macro.

It's clear from the comments that the devs consider it an exploit, although frankly I don't see the issue that the devs do with making a repetitive task less boring. The issue is single-unit trading.

 

[Riverside]

Blasted min-maxers cause all the problems, why can't they all learn to be mediocre like me?

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

The issue is single-unit trading.

Sounds familiar - fix the symptom, not the cause.

 

[crushdepth]

There's some ambiguity in the language as to whether Dav meant users of macros that run long, or users who have used macros for a long time.

Trading in single units affects the BGS far more than trading in bulk. The money is the same, but the transaction servers calculate influence on a per-transaction basis rather than sheer value. Because of that, it's a lot less boring, though not more effective, to do single-transaction trading with a macro.

It's clear from the comments that the devs consider it an exploit, although frankly I don't see the issue that the devs do with making a repetitive task less boring. The issue is single-unit trading.

Agree, if there's a "problem" they should adjust the way their simulation works. The rest of the game involves a lot of mundane repetition, if some nerd wants to sit there and sell 400 tonnes of cargo one tonne at a time I can't see what's wrong with that.

 

[Morbad]

=
It's clear from the comments that the devs consider it an exploit, although frankly I don't see the issue that the devs do with making a repetitive task less boring. The issue is single-unit trading.

Agree, if there's a "problem" they should adjust the way their simulation works. The rest of the game involves a lot of mundane repetition, if some nerd wants to sit there and sell 400 tonnes of cargo one tonne at a time I can't see what's wrong with that.

It is a silly system, but it's still an issue that they aren't selling the cargo one unit at a time, their bots/macros are.

If you can't be bothered to do it yourself, don't do it at all. The lack of appeal of some tasks is a critical part of the game's balance.

 

[CMDR Dumbfries]

Or they can just fix the god forsaken BGS, so it isn't possible to game it by selling one tonne at a time.
Is it really that hard to fix something so simple?

 

[Julio Montega]

Or they can just fix the god forsaken BGS, so it isn't possible to game it by selling one tonne at a time.
Is it really that hard to fix something so simple?

Agreed. Shouldn't be too hard to track all transactions of a CMDR
per day and add them up to a pool.

 

[dynamicbob]

sounds like the issues are about to be fixed though, maybe a warning first and then bam back to solo

 

[Jethzk]

I take issue with anything that waists time for the sake of wasting time. Benefiting 1 unit trading over the whole stack does just that.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

Agree, if there's a "problem" they should adjust the way their simulation works. The rest of the game involves a lot of mundane repetition, if some nerd wants to sit there and sell 400 tonnes of cargo one tonne at a time I can't see what's wrong with that.

The BGS calculates influence based on transactions and not based on absolute values.

For the BGS it's a huge difference if 100 times one ton of cargo was sold or bought at a station or if one time 100t where bought/sold (1x100t > 100t)
If somebody wants to affect the BGS in the most effective way that player has to sell the cargo one ton at a time. Some players use macros for that giving them a huge advantage over other players who don't use macros or who sell the cargo in one piece.

The problem is, that the BGS has a "bug" and players are "exploiting" that bug and on top of it players are using marcos to speed up the "exploit".

- - - Updated - - -

sounds like the issues are about to be fixed though, maybe a warning first and then bam back to solo

And? That wouldn't be a punishment at all. What if that player is already in Solo Mode?
Someone using "exploits" to influence the BGS can't be punished by "banning" them into Solo - the only way would to punish them would be a ban to shadow mode (that doesn't affect the BGS).

 

[DukeIronHand]

A "macro" here actually being a software programmed key/button that sells cargo in a station one unit at a time?

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

A "macro" here actually being a software programmed key/button that sells cargo in a station one unit at a time?

Yes. That's the problem.

 

[Bran Tse Mallory]

I own my keyboard, should imagine all of you do too... No company has the right to tell me how I use the hardware attached to my machine or the machine itself. If I choose to set up a macro or even write some code to do a job when a key or combination is pressed then that is entirely up to me. Not some other company whom I have a loose agreement with, especially when the macro software EULA was accepted before the Frontier one.

Sorry Frontier but part of being a software developer is to stop exploits by coding them out not telling us how to use OUR property to which you have no rights to do so.

 

[Red Anders]

Agree, if there's a "problem" they should adjust the way their simulation works. The rest of the game involves a lot of mundane repetition, if some nerd wants to sit there and sell 400 tonnes of cargo one tonne at a time I can't see what's wrong with that.

If someone wants to actually sit there and do it, they aren't using a macro.

Not going to say too much about it for obvious reasons but there are far greater levels of automation than that going on.

It's clear from the comments that the devs consider it an exploit, although frankly I don't see the issue that the devs do with making a repetitive task less boring. The issue is single-unit trading.

You're right about the issue. However botting (like combat logging amusingly enough) is considered to be an exploit in every online game that I've come acrosss. Although I won't be remotely surprised to see posts from people suggesting FDev are some wacky authoritarians for wanting to prevent it, I suspect most of them will come from people who last played a computer game before this when Frontier was still in the shops.

I own my keyboard, should imagine all of you do too... No company has the right to tell me how I use the hardware attached to my machine or the machine itself. If I choose to set up a macro or even write some code to do a job when a key or combination is pressed then that is entirely up to me. Not some other company whom I have a loose agreement with, especially when the macro software EULA was accepted before the Frontier one.

If all you're doing is making a macro to automatically lower your landing gear when you request docking and stuff like that, this is not targeted at you.

I will also add a tip for other readers. Asking for details of exactly what is involved in an exploit (even if just out of curiosity) is not going to get answered and might be (forum) bannable. Just saying.

 

[Schlack]

The BGS calculates influence based on transactions and not based on absolute values.

For the BGS it's a huge difference if 100 times one ton of cargo was sold or bought at a station or if one time 100t where bought/sold (1x100t > 100t)
If somebody wants to affect the BGS in the most effective way that player has to sell the cargo one ton at a time. Some players use macros for that giving them a huge advantage over other players who don't use macros or who sell the cargo in one piece.

I don't believe that this is the complete picture, there are limits built in to the system. As discussed on another thread, to use this method takes a significant level of dedication (without the use of macros) to be effective. To damage a faction significantly, even unopposed, would take a period of months and can be defended against. It is far from the worst imbalanced mechanism to effect the BGS. At one stage single smuggling missions caused a 10% influence swing. Also they are looking at fixes but going by previous experience it will take a major patch, and it will likely not be announced. The Devs do like to introduce sneaky changes and see if we notice.