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

[Darth Ender]

The devs have it within their power to change things.

Perhaps they could make the trading depending on credit value, that accumulates until the tick.
The credit value would be the same whether sold in 1 tonne (chunks) or 200 tonnes at a time (for example). I guarantee you, if it is equalized, players will choose the one big sale over 200 minor transactions. Calculate the credit values during the tick. It's not like we see what is happening anyway.

Don't be accusing players of exploiting, when all they are trying to do is lessen the tedium of a tedious function of the game.
This is a dev problem, not a player problem.

Google elite dangerous bot. Nobody is accusing players of exploiting. It's just stating a fact. There is a very real situation going on where "convenience" features are making it possible to do massive scale cheating without any kind of reliable detection so far.

But yes, this is a developer problem, not one the userbase can solve. The solution is less in making it easier to trade and more about changing trading completely so it's not done in the weak-sauce way that these type of games did trading from the 1990's. Make trading require thought and skill. Then all the convenience modules to reduce tediousness wont matter because the bots wont be able to do what amounts to a complex task.

What someone needs to teach FD is that tedious != complex. Tedious != hard. Tedious != good barriers. Tedious activity is a cancer. But it's all we got for lots of things.

 

[RamirezKurita]

What someone needs to teach FD is that tedious != complex. Tedious != hard. Tedious != good barriers. Tedious activity is a cancer. But it's all we got for lots of things.

Put another way that games developers seem to forget: complexity != depth. Depth is the goal, complexity is the price to pay. Any mechanics that add significant complexity for a small amount of depth are bad ones that should be cut, while mechanics that add significant depth for a relatively small amount of complexity are good.

 

[Riverside]

Put another way that games developers seem to forget: complexity != depth. Depth is the goal, complexity is the price to pay. Any mechanics that add significant complexity for a small amount of depth are bad ones that should be cut, while mechanics that add significant depth for a relatively small amount of complexity are good.

It appears I've repped you already recently but I fully agree with this.

 

[Darth Ender]

Put another way that games developers seem to forget: complexity != depth. Depth is the goal, complexity is the price to pay. Any mechanics that add significant complexity for a small amount of depth are bad ones that should be cut, while mechanics that add significant depth for a relatively small amount of complexity are good.

depth in this game seems to directly conflict with whatever deadlines they have that they dont tell us about that more directly impacts their bottom line.

Otherwise we would have well thought out lore and outlines on what has to be incomplete aspects of the game but just have place-holders for now. So we know for sure what the vision is going to be and what needs to happen to get there.

You know what i've never read in any of the books for Elite? any random pilots in any random ship docknig at a station and checking the commodity list and buying / selling based on this commodity table nonsense. You know why? Because it's not how it would work no matter how much disbelief you suspend. That's how the stock market works. The stock market isn't about physically moving products it's about betting on future values of those products and/or companies.

If FD wants to create a stock market then fine. But physical trading needs to be completely refactored from this tired mess from elites of yesterdecade and into something that makes sense in the Elite universe for private small time traders (which all of us are as single players who dont have the option of commanding in-game corporations).

Something that isn't min-maxed by some basic spreadsheets and datamining. Something that engages the player. Something that creates value to the activity that is meaningful in the in-game universe so it feels like it makes sense and is justified. Something that a script wont be able to capture your keystrokes and such and just repeat them over and over all night long while you sleep.

 

[bigity]

If it's BGS macro problems, fix the BGS so that single transactions don't outweigh bulk.

While doing that, fix the UI so loading PP items isn't such a waste of your time chore.

 

[Darth Ender]

If it's BGS macro problems, fix the BGS so that single transactions don't outweigh bulk.

While doing that, fix the UI so loading PP items isn't such a waste of your time chore.

PP is an excellent example of business priorities trumping correctness.

Rather than a feature with depth, skill, and strategy. You have tediousness acting as a barrier of entry. What makes a rank 5 different from a rank 1 in powerplay other than automatic rewards ? Your rank 5 doesn't have to click the same set of buttons 10 times and wait for the server to respond and screens to refresh like a rank 1 player does for every allotment the rank 5 gets. This is straight up 100% tediousness being used as a barrier mechanic in the game. There's absolutely no in-game explanation for what's going on here. No redeeming qualities at all. Yet there has to be some way to give rank 5 players who invest heavily (usually) in their power to have more sway than a rank 1. The correct solution to this is not to make the rank 1 players repeat the same activity 10x more often.

A correct solution is harder though and getting that hammered out and implemented would have probably delayed PP and for whatever reason there's a time-table that trumps that.

 

[CAPT. Ho Chi Minge]

is it really such a big issue regarding someone creating a macro which basically "autopilots" i mean , how often do macros boo boo and how costly would it be.


The real issue is with the single unit transaction, it should be based on sale value alone not on total amount of sales.

 

[dynamicbob]

is it really such a big issue regarding someone creating a macro which basically "autopilots" i mean , how often do macros boo boo and how costly would it be.


The real issue is with the single unit transaction, it should be based on sale value alone not on total amount of sales.

yeah fixing that would fix the BGS exploits, that and perhaps more indepth BGS like colonies that expand and buid new ones, upgrading and downgrading of systems based on more than population heck fluid population mechanics. Fdev have to deliver on their kickstarter promises and macro squashing is a good start.

 

[Riverside]

is it really such a big issue regarding someone creating a macro which basically "autopilots" i mean , how often do macros boo boo and how costly would it be.


The real issue is with the single unit transaction, it should be based on sale value alone not on total amount of sales.

Leaving aside any opinion on the best method to 'fix' this issue (after all, it has come to light because it's in a Dev's to-do list), if one person does it occasionally it's probably not a big deal (load on the servers) but if lots are doing it regularly then that may be part of the reason why the transaction server sometimes fails.

So to be completely practical, I guess it's reached a point where it's causing a problem for the servers. As Ben Ryder pointed out earlier in the thread, it's been a known issue since before the game launched.

 

[Jmanis]

The real issue is with the single unit transaction, it should be based on sale value alone not on total amount of sales.

I'd argue demand and diversity of sales should matter more than value (eg selling 100t of grain at 50cr/t profit where there is high demand should be affect influence more than selling 100t of palladium for 400cr/t profit with low demand), but yes it does need a fix.

Problem is i reported this a while back and the effect was mitigated, not removed. While the logic of the fix is simple, i think the implementation and impact of this change might be much more complex.

It's worth noting that its not just trade. Bounties, exploration data, combat bonds all demonstrate this behavior.

 

[MottiKhan]

Did Dav actually say they'd send a "threatening" email or just an email with "bad news"? Maybe that "bad news" is that they fixed the exploit, which would actually be good news.

For myself, I'm reserving judgement until more info is garnered.

 

[Zed]

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.

I'm sure it's the former because how long you've been using macros wouldn't make any difference. I really don't see FD saying "It's ok to use macros for your first week but after that it's a no no"!

 

[xondk]

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

Well example used is single transaction vs one big transaction, so I would guess it is macro's that sell items one at the time, for the player without them having to click through a cutter full of items?

 

[Blackcompany]

"Please, give us a simple command to request docking!"
"Hell no, we want you to manually go to the side panel and needlessly press ten keys instead"

A smaller scope, but just the same point.

My god this. God docking requests are so uselessly, needlessly tedious. There is NO WAY this method would ever be accepted by real pilots...

 

[CAPT. Ho Chi Minge]

I'd argue demand and diversity of sales should matter more than value (eg selling 100t of grain at 50cr/t profit where there is high demand should be affect influence more than selling 100t of palladium for 400cr/t profit with low demand), but yes it does need a fix.

Problem is i reported this a while back and the effect was mitigated, not removed. While the logic of the fix is simple, i think the implementation and impact of this change might be much more complex.

It's worth noting that its not just trade. Bounties, exploration data, combat bonds all demonstrate this behavior.

id tend to agree that it should favour more to the profit margin, good point. im sure the boffins will come up with something. the real issue is the single transaction exploit which at least they realise is a real issue, server load and BGS manipulation.

 

[xondk]

"Please, give us a simple command to request docking!"
"Hell no, we want you to manually go to the side panel and needlessly press ten keys instead"

A smaller scope, but just the same point.

I seriously doubt these kinds of short macro's are the problem, more macro's that repeat certain actions for x time.

 

[babelfisch]

Don't be accusing players of exploiting, when all they are trying to do is lessen the tedium of a tedious function of the game.
This is a dev problem, not a player problem.

I'd say it's both. Also I don't think asking them to lessen the tedium of something that you aren't supposed to do in the first place makes sense. No, don't lessen the tedium of exploiting the game, fix the exploit instead.

 

[Daitya Zo]

How about you stop telling me what you think I said and actually learn what you rights are as opposed to a company rule that has no basis in anything but contract law. You cannot override an already agreed to contract with another.

As I said, you wouldn't understand. But it's really this simple: You aren't allowed to automate high-speed transactions on someone else's server, if they say you can't. In the case of a game, you can have your license taken away to use the game-- you can be kicked. In the case of a bank, you could do prison time.

I could write a macro to do high-speed single transactions on FD's servers, and lose my right to play. I could write a macro to do high-speed single transactions on a financial server, and lose my right to do anything but sit in a prison cell for several years.

I can type anything I want on my keyboard, but I could go to jail for some things I type. Just because you are allowed to use a keyboard, does not give you the right to sit and inject code into a power grid management computer and cause a blackout. If you do that, and you get caught, you will go to jail.

Similarly, if you get caught sending anything (macro or not) out onto the web, onto private servers that you only have access to, according to their terms-- if you do that, and you get caught, you will face whatever penalties written into law. There are a lot of things you can send out into the internet with a keyboard, but if you have been given a license to use a private server, with conditions attached, and you void those conditions-- then the owners of that server can void your access. If someone says you can use facilities available to the public for a charge (like FD's server, which is private property...), and you go into those facilities and smash sheetrock or pee on the floor with a transactions macro, then YES, surprise, they can kick you off their private facilities. There is nothing hard about this.

I can ban people from a private server as surely as I can ban people from a private beach house. Your right to enter some other house does not apply to your right to enter my beach house.

And I can have rules. If you enter my PRIVATE beach house, you can't track sand onto the carpet. If you do, I can kick you out. Similarly, if you use FD's PRIVATE server, you can't run all kinds of automation code on their PRIVATE server. If you do, they can kick you off.

If your macro sends fast transaction data to FD's PRIVATE server, then you can type it all you want and store it in your mouse or gaming software or WHATEVER. But if you use it to send automation data to FD's private server, and they have said you can't do that-- then boom, they win.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

I would never equip one.

Therein lies the basis of your .. As "you" would never equip one, and not using it is only a minor incovenience to "you" then obviously anyone else who actually does use one must be joining in the squeek and cheating behind the scenes

Come on - you can do better than that.

Bottom line - only FD know why they make changes / fixes / look at things.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Rules do not override your right to use your PC as you see fit - that is your legal right as the owner of the hardware.

Incidentally have you read the EULA / ToS - it's complete garbage. During the DL and installation of the client (reinstalling ED) I read this:

If you do not agree to this EULA, then you must not Use the Game. If you are in the process of downloading the Game, you have the right to withdraw from the transaction without charge and for any reason prior to completing the download of the Game. However, you will lose the right to cancel the transaction once you begin to download the Game.

So .. you can basically get a refund during download and before playign the game, but you can't get a refund if you begin downloading the game [wacko]