Mode switch change? Same exact mission list for me

[jacozilla]

My be I'm just bugged but until yesterday, mode switching to check mission board - between open and solo - would give me a different mission list, as long as the session timed had run its course.

e.g. Land somewhere new in solo -> check mission board -> grab missions -> switch to open -> check mission board, different missions available -> grab missions -> wait up to 10-11 min max for session timer

today, switching between modes produced the exact same mission board - literally exact same mission list or partial list if I grabbed some already in one mode. The session timer still refreshes both boards, but I can no longer check different modes, it is now always synchronized and same.

anyone else notice or see this change?

*perhaps matters or perhaps not, but currently way out so can't check bubble systems, am seeing this change out at sothis / CEOS while running local salvage missions for mats.

 

[Robert Maynard]

If that is the case, I'd be pleased that Frontier have fixed the inconsistency between mission boards that exist in the same "place" at the same time (just in different modes).

 

[fennster]

Thank Zeus for that... What a stupid mechanic that was. Anybody that exploited it deserves their game wiping. And yes it was.... An EXPLOIT.

 

[Brimstone]

That's funny, the last few times I tried this I'd get one list of missions for solo, and one list for open, but they wouldn't refresh. When I was bringing cigars to one of the engineers, I'd also check the mission board and I'd have the same exact list of missions for well over an hour.

 

[jacozilla]

Thank Zeus for that... What a stupid mechanic that was. Anybody that exploited it deserves their game wiping. And yes it was.... An EXPLOIT.

Well im not going to argue re the change if it is general and just not bug / temp glitch with me, since I never relied on nor care if mode switching to pickup missions faster goes away - like I said I just do local missions in between while waiting the 10 min, but you need a refesher course on what an exploit is.

If mode switching to pickup missions FD themselves shows and gives you is an exploit - then any use of any function FD give you in which the user takes it 'as is' would equally be an "exploit".

based on your massively broad scope of "exploit" - then anyone waiting the 10 min to pickup new missions when it refreshes is also an "exploit". FD implemented a 10-11 min timer, I waited and used that function to get new missions. I used that function 'as is' without any other tool, hack, or change to how the function works - but simply using an FD provided function is an exploit to you apparently.

 

[sbdags]

Good RIP mode switching.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

And yes it was.... An EXPLOIT.

I didn't even know this existed and I'm glad they fixed it.

 

[fennster]

Well im not going to argue re the change if it is general and just not bug / temp glitch with me, since I never relied on nor care if mode switching to pickup missions faster goes away - like I said I just do local missions in between while waiting the 10 min, but you need a refesher course on what an exploit is.

If mode switching to pickup missions FD themselves shows and gives you is an exploit - then any use of any function FD give you in which the user takes it 'as is' would equally be an "exploit".

based on your massively broad scope of "exploit" - then anyone waiting the 10 min to pickup new missions when it refreshes is also an "exploit". FD implemented a 10-11 min timer, I waited and used that function to get new missions. I used that function 'as is' without any other tool, hack, or change to how the function works - but simply using an FD provided function is an exploit to you apparently.

On further research, it's not an EXPLOIT, in the words of FD. It is however against the spirit of the game? Make of that what you will..

I mean honestly. Did FD design mode switching? No? then it's an exploit.... There really are some people in this world..

In video games, an exploit is the use of a bug or glitches, game system, rates, hit boxes, or speed, etc. by a player to their advantage in a manner not intended by the game's designers.^{[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploit_(video_gaming)#cite_note-DOG_03.2C_474-1"][1][/URL]}Exploits have been classified as a form of cheating; however, the precise determination of what is or is not considered an exploit can be controversial. This debate stems from a number of factors but typically involves the argument that the issues are part of the game and require no changes or external programs to take advantage of them.^{[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploit_(video_gaming)#cite_note-Consalvo_07.2C_113-2"][2][/URL] I made it big so you can find it.}

 

[CMDR Crumpeteer]

Well im not going to argue re the change if it is general and just not bug / temp glitch with me, since I never relied on nor care if mode switching to pickup missions faster goes away - like I said I just do local missions in between while waiting the 10 min, but you need a refesher course on what an exploit is.

If mode switching to pickup missions FD themselves shows and gives you is an exploit - then any use of any function FD give you in which the user takes it 'as is' would equally be an "exploit".

based on your massively broad scope of "exploit" - then anyone waiting the 10 min to pickup new missions when it refreshes is also an "exploit". FD implemented a 10-11 min timer, I waited and used that function to get new missions. I used that function 'as is' without any other tool, hack, or change to how the function works - but simply using an FD provided function is an exploit to you apparently.

They are two very different things, though.

The reset timer makes sense and is intentional. It's simulating new missions becoming available as time passes, as one would expect. On the other hand, having multiple sets of missions between game "modes" makes no sense at all. I highly doubt that was intentional, just something that they'd get around to fixing eventually.

 

[shadragon]

I have no objection to stacking missions, as long as there is an increase in difficulty for each additional mission taken. Stack ten missions and expect lots of interest in the contents of your cargo bay by anyone with a FSD interdictor and / or cargo scanner.

Want to make 20 million on a series of stacked Robigo missions? That's fine, but you'll work for it fighting off Wings of security ships, Dangerous / Elite level pirates and maybe a few CMDR's or two who heard what you were up too. You'd be a nervous mess with sweat running down between your shoulder blades on completion of the last mission.

That way it's self-regulating. The more missions they take, the harder it is to complete. Those who want the challenge can stack; those that don't, won't.

 

[TomP]

I think you may all be jumping the gun.

Mode switching works as long as you are logging into a different server at the main menu. Sometimes you don't, and are repeatedly connected to the same server. On the bottom left corner of the main menu, note the final three digits. If these do not change, neither will the mission board.

 

[jacozilla]

On further research, it's not an EXPLOIT, in the words of FD. It is however against the spirit of the game? Make of that what you will..

I mean honestly. Did FD design mode switching? No? then it's an exploit.... There really are some people in this world..

In video games, an exploit is the use of a bug or glitches, game system, rates, hit boxes, or speed, etc. by a player to their advantage in a manner not intended by the game's designers.^{[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploit_(video_gaming)#cite_note-DOG_03.2C_474-1"][1][/URL]}Exploits have been classified as a form of cheating; however, the precise determination of what is or is not considered an exploit can be controversial. This debate stems from a number of factors but typically involves the argument that the issues are part of the game and require no changes or external programs to take advantage of them.^{[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploit_(video_gaming)#cite_note-Consalvo_07.2C_113-2"][2][/URL] I made it big so you can find it.}

They are two very different things, though.

The reset timer makes sense and is intentional. It's simulating new missions becoming available as time passes, as one would expect. On the other hand, having multiple sets of missions between game "modes" makes no sense at all. I highly doubt that was intentional, just something that they'd get around to fixing eventually.

ok - to be clear, we're having a friendly theory craft talk, I'm really not vested in whether this is kept, changed, etc. I usually do the wait with local missions so it changes my life precisely zero.

however, while I do see the distinction both of you are trying to make why mode switching to get new missions is different than using the timer - totally get it there is a distinction even though at broad level it is same use of direct function given by FD.

but ok, for sake of unbiased chat, let's say mode switching to get more missions is an exploit as defined by you - not in spirit of the game or or intentional design.

that definition makes a number of things I DO engage in and many players who actually advise players to do the same on this forum as exploits as well.

1. Entering a RES and instead of fully flying out manually and flying back in to reset the RES instance if you are not getting decent ship spawns, people mode switch to save time flying back in/out and refresh the instance. How is this going around the tme needed normally like the normal mission board time any different? Is this an exploit as well?

2. Landing on planet to scavenge for mats and not getting any or any good rock types spawning - people mode switch to save the time of taking off and landing again. Again, the benefit is to go around the built in time needed similar to built in time for mission refresh. Is this an exploit?

3. There was the most bizarre thread when I last actively played where a player posted he happily logged in and out while at station - he would take off from dock inside the station, but then immediately log out. He called this "trade logging" because at that time, no idea if changed now, it would spawn you way outside the station past the mass lock zone and would shave some time off his leaving station routine with his slow trade ship.

it caused such a debate that FD stated it was not combat logging and not technically against the game rules. So if "trade logging" - and I know it sounds utterly silly - but if that saved time is not an exploit then why is mode switching for new missions an exploit? Or did FD change stance on this like their statement re combat logging which is the only form of mode logging that I am aware of FD has officially stated is against the game rules and reportable. Apologies but I've been gone since 1.4 and returned for 2.1, no idea what has officially changed or not.

if #1 or #2 are not exploits by your eyes. Despite going around the built in game time to normally get a new instance like a new instance of the mission board - why are those not exploits in your opinion but new is ion board instance is?

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

I have no objection to stacking missions, as long as there is an increase in difficulty for each additional mission taken. Stack ten missions and expect lots of interest in the contents of your cargo bay by anyone with a FSD interdictor and / or cargo scanner.

Want to make 20 million on a series of stacked Robigo missions? That's fine, but you'll work for it fighting off Wings of security ships, Dangerous / Elite level pirates and maybe a few CMDR's or two who heard what you were up too. You'd be a nervous mess with sweat running down between your shoulder blades on completion of the last mission.

That way it's self-regulating. The more missions they take, the harder it is to complete. Those who want the challenge can stack; those that don't, won't.

it is self regulating like you say now. Missions have a chance of hostile ships being sent against you, minimum 1, sometimes multiple per mission depending on mission level. Most I've had is 4 assigned to one mission. If you stack a lot of missions, since the RNG is so high a hostile ship will be assigned - you can easily have 10 stacked missions and 5 of them generate specific NPCs that will trail you forever until you or he is dead.

To/from sothis with around 8-12 missions, I've had usually 5-6 and as many as total 12 assigned ships emailed to me. In the email it will say name and count like ships 1/2 meaning one of two ships. The chain interdictions is quite exciting and sometimes very frustrating - but like you say I signed up for that by being greedy. I can live with that.

 

[babelfisch]

1. Entering a RES and instead of fully flying out manually and flying back in to reset the RES instance if you are not getting decent ship spawns, people mode switch to save time flying back in/out and refresh the instance. How is this going around the tme needed normally like the normal mission board time any different? Is this an exploit as well?

Yes, this is an exploit. But it's not punishable.

2. Landing on planet to scavenge for mats and not getting any or any good rock types spawning - people mode switch to save the time of taking off and landing again. Again, the benefit is to go around the built in time needed similar to built in time for mission refresh. Is this an exploit?

Yes, this is an exploit. But it's not punishable.

3. There was the most bizarre thread when I last actively played where a player posted he happily logged in and out while at station - he would take off from dock inside the station, but then immediately log out. He called this "trade logging" because at that time, no idea if changed now, it would spawn you way outside the station past the mass lock zone and would shave some time off his leaving station routine with his slow trade ship.

Yes this was an exploit. But it was not punishable. And since FDEV fixed it, it's quite clear that this was an exploit.

 

[777Driver]

3. There was the most bizarre thread when I last actively played where a player posted he happily logged in and out while at station - he would take off from dock inside the station, but then immediately log out. He called this "trade logging" because at that time, no idea if changed now, it would spawn you way outside the station past the mass lock zone and would shave some time off his leaving station routine with his slow trade ship.

Devs apparently patched that out in 2.1, trade logging will put you back on the pad within the station. Wasn't just a few traders doing it, a few smugglers would undock then log out, a way to avoid any police scans.

 

[cmdr_Havalok]

I thought the mode SWITCH could not be removed as it was dependent on the server you connected with, but you might see the same list as you might hit the same server depending on region and server traffic.

 

[Darth Ender]

Yes, this is an exploit. But it's not punishable.


Yes, this is an exploit. But it's not punishable.

Yes this was an exploit. But it was not punishable. And since FDEV fixed it, it's quite clear that this was an exploit.

Not punishable now because FDev doesn't deal with cheaters properly. As soon as it became apparent that players were gaming the system by mode switching they should have had a message delivered to all players warning them about changing modes frequently will get your game wiped and your cmdr name posted permanently in a new section of Galnet hosted by the Pilots Federation labeled "Dishonerable Commanders to be Avoided" and a posting on the launcher / website to the same effect. As a stop-gap until they made a proper patch. Some companies know how to handle cheaters, FDev seems afraid to deal with them.

 

[babelfisch]

Not punishable now because FDev doesn't deal with cheaters properly. As soon as it became apparent that players were gaming the system by mode switching they should have had a message delivered to all players warning them about changing modes frequently will get your game wiped and your cmdr name posted permanently in a new section of Galnet hosted by the Pilots Federation labeled "Dishonerable Commanders to be Avoided" and a posting on the launcher / website to the same effect. As a stop-gap until they made a proper patch. Some companies know how to handle cheaters, FDev seems afraid to deal with them.

I think there would be easier ways to fix it. For example a 10 minutes timer before you can log in again after mode switching. Anyway, I don't care. If people want to do that and Frontier doesn't want to act against it I don't see the problem.

 

[fennster]

ok - to be clear, we're having a friendly theory craft talk, I'm really noted vested in whether this is kept, changed, etc. I usually do the wait with local missions so it changes my life precisely zero.

however, while I do see the distinction both of you are trying to make why mode switching to get new missions is different than using the timer - totally get it there is a distinction even though at broad level it is same use of direct function given by FD.

but ok, for sake of unbiased chat, let's say mode switching to get more missions is an exploit as defined by you - not in spirit of the game or or intentional design.

that definition makes a number of things I DO engage in and many players who actually advise players to do the same on this forum as exploits as well.

1. Entering a RES and instead of fully flying out manually and flying back in to reset the RES instance if you are not getting decent ship spawns, people mode switch to save time flying back in/out and refresh the instance. How is this going around the tme needed normally like the normal mission board time any different? Is this an exploit as well?

2. Landing on planet to scavenge for mats and not getting any or any good rock types spawning - people mode switch to save the time of taking off and landing again. Again, the benefit is to go around the built in time needed similar to built in time for mission refresh. Is this an exploit?

3. There was the most bizarre thread when I last actively played where a player posted he happily logged in and out while at station - he would take off from dock inside the station, but then immediately log out. He called this "trade logging" because at that time, no idea if changed now, it would spawn you way outside the station past the mass lock zone and would shave some time off his leaving station routine with his slow trade ship.

it caused such a debate that FD stated it was not combat logging and not technically against the game rules. So if "trade logging" - and I know it sounds utterly silly - but if that saved time is not an exploit then why is mode switching for new missions an exploit? Or did FD change stance on this like their statement re combat logging which is the only form of mode logging that I am aware of FD has officially stated is against the game rules and reportable. Apologies but I've been gone since 1.4 and returned for 2.1, no idea what has officially changed or not.

if #1 or #2 are not exploits by your eyes. Despite going around the built in game time to normally get a new instance like a new instance of the mission board - why are those not exploits in your opinion but new is ion board instance is?

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



it is self regulating like you say now. Missions have a chance of hostile ships being sent against you, minimum 1, sometimes multiple per mission depending on mission level. Most I've had is 4 assigned to one mission. If you stack a lot of missions, since the RNG is so high a hostile ship will be assigned - you can easily have 10 stacked missions and 5 of them generate specific NPCs that will trail you forever until you or he is dead.

To/from sothis with around 8-12 missions, I've had usually 5-6 and as many as total 12 assigned ships emailed to me. In the email it will say name and count like ships 1/2 meaning one of two ships. The chain interdictions is quite exciting and sometimes very frustrating - but like you say I signed up for that by being greedy. I can live with that.

And where you are falling short on this is

1. It's an exploit
2. It's not designed gameplay.

No logical thought from the developers has entered this equation. The players have found loopholes to force the game's mechanics. If the game was built better this would not be needed. Can I say it one more time 'EXPLOIT'.

Thank you I do know the definition.

 

[Bigglesof206]

Not punishable now because FDev doesn't deal with cheaters properly. As soon as it became apparent that players were gaming the system by mode switching they should have had a message delivered to all players warning them about changing modes frequently will get your game wiped and your cmdr name posted permanently in a new section of Galnet hosted by the Pilots Federation labeled "Dishonerable Commanders to be Avoided" and a posting on the launcher / website to the same effect. As a stop-gap until they made a proper patch. Some companies know how to handle cheaters, FDev seems afraid to deal with them.

Poppycock.
FD have a ranking system that makes you gain 12 rank increases to gain the ability to buy the Corvette or Cutter, each of which involves 100% progress through the rank whilst earning perhaps a half percent per mission. To rank up in ONE navy therefore requires you to fly something in the order of 2400 missions... I think anyone doing that is 'playing hard enough' without forcing them to wait for a couple of board refreshes just to collect one full load of missions.

If you gained rank for doing logical stuff for your power, delivering cargo, handing over exploration data, mining ores or killing pirates then at least people could do something other than the mind numbingly boring mission board grind - but while we are stuck with this silly method of progression then anything the game allows is fair game....and I would add, plain bloody common sense.

Exploit my small donkey like animal.

Dave

 

[jacozilla]

And where you are falling short on this is

1. It's an exploit
2. It's not designed gameplay.

No logical thought from the developers has entered this equation. The players have found loopholes to force the game's mechanics. If the game was built better this would not be needed. Can I say it one more time 'EXPLOIT'.

Thank you I do know the definition.

And where YOU are falling short is whatever definition players via social convention, or devs via any time they wish because after all it is their game - wish to apply, it has to be one that can be:

a) articulated so as to be understood if it applies to A, it applies to B - otherwise it is arbitrary and contradictory if the same advantage used in A, is not considered the same offense in B.

b) consistent - such that again it is not a double standard where the same offense is 'exploit' here but same advantage used not an 'exploit' there.

I pointed out examples where FD has not communicated REZ zone resets or planet landing resets are exploits or not like with combat logging. Yet those same time saved advantages is the same in which apparently some players deem mission board resets as exploit.

So -

1. You calling it an exploit as if it were fact means nothing when clearly FD has shown they will define and punish things like combat logging but has said nothing about switching modes to spawn new mats or rez zones.

2. You saying it is not designed gameplay means nothing unless you wish to claim you work at FD and/or have seen FD material that states what is and what isn't designed gameplay.

You stating it is your opinion, that it is an exploit is fine. Just as my opinion is just that - an opinion. Until and unless FD specifically notes it like with combat logging. The distinction is I am not declaring a statement of fact ahead of any such communication from FD or inside dev knowledge as not an employee - but you apparently are.

Wiggle it around all you want, but you're basically declaring arbitrarily as if it were some established fact because you simply deem it so personally - fine, as an opinion but when you don't seem to concede the opposite opinion is equally valid until and unless FD officially states otherwise, that is the no logical thought from you, not the devs.