Jump to content

What do you think of Jancko / Stacking elements


Turing
 Share

What do you think of Jancko / Stacking elements  

49 members have voted

  1. 1. What do you think of Jancko / Stacking elements

    • Its fine
      6
    • Not fine
      43


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Turing said:

what is your opinion on stacking / Janckomancy

 

What do you mean exactly? Has so much happened since I went on holidays? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, permanently remove it, but with a grace period.

 

Have some kind of reminder / hint be placed to the affected core / ship etc. to let the owner know that something needs to be done.

 

I have bought ships way ago, so I wouldn't know how these are affected.

 

How about static constructs?

 

See also

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against stacked elements.
But problem is how NQ implements things.
They do it with absolute no regards to players.

They left problem for over a year and now expect people to change their ships in a single night.
Things like that proves that someone very incompetent is making decisions about the game and it should stop.
I mostly buy ships and the 3 small ships i've done don't have anything stacked, but there are people with many ships who stacked elements and they are screwed right know.
We don't even have tools to deal with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Draqolas said:

I'm against stacked elements.
But problem is how NQ implements things.
They do it with absolute no regards to players.

They left problem for over a year and now expect people to change their ships in a single night.
Things like that proves that someone very incompetent is making decisions about the game and it should stop.
I mostly buy ships and the 3 small ships i've done don't have anything stacked, but there are people with many ships who stacked elements and they are screwed right know.
We don't even have tools to deal with it.


 

If it looks like an exploit, if it smells like an exploit, if it tastes like an exploit, then it is most definitely an exploit.
 

If you bought a ship with a janko exploit and the seller of that ship is a good trading they will most likely refund you in exchange for the token of that ship.

If not, don't buy from this vendor anymore, there are dozens of ship vendors who have made PvP and PvE ships very good and without janko exploits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Draqolas said:

Cool story bro.
Good thing we have list of stacked elements on every ship so we can check ship prior buying.
Oh, wait. WE DON'T

 

Stacking should be prohibited. But Draqolas is right, we need to have tools to identify stacked elements.  There are a lot of ships bought by players using some stacked elements and the owners don't know that their ships are using this technique.

 

Solution could be :

- disable all stacked elements.

- mark ship that it has stacked elements so owner know that something is wrong.

- mark stacked elements so owner know what is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Draqolas said:

They left problem for over a year and now expect people to change their ships in a single night.

Correction, you knew it was a problem for over a year and continued taking advantage with no foresight of the future.

 

If you know exactly what you're doing, then I find it rich that yall are going to complain when NQ finally decides to do something about it.

 

While I would agree that it would be nice to have something in-game that allows us to detect and correct the problem on our own along with destruction of the element upon pilot activation instead of wholesale deletion of the construct, NQ is going to do what NQ is going to do, even if it frustrates us all to high heaven.

 

For people who purchased ships with elements that aren't readily visible, okay you have my actual sympathies on this. If you purchased a ship from someone in the past and you can't make the checks yourself, then I recommend you'd check with the seller to see if your ship falls into spec. If it does, great, no further action. If it doesn't, ask if they creator can exchange your construct for something similar that is in spec, if they do, great, write their name down. If they don't, great, also write their name down then tear that ship down (if you can, I don't know how this drm works since I've never bought a ship from someone else before...) before NQ does.

 

Finally, if you really just don't know what to do and are pulling out your hair in frustration, ask NQ. Find a gm in-game (@GM in the help channel) and ask them if they can determine if your ship runs afoul of the rules, because believe it or not, NQ is likely going to want to help people now ahead of wholesale deletion later. This could result in a public relations issue and I'm sure they don't want that. By interacting with the players this way, NQ can also build a list of popular ships where this issue is present in, then (hopefully, DING-DONG NQ here's a suggestion) release a list of ships to the community with at least a weeks lead time, and the community can pick up the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DarkHorizon said:

Correction, you knew it was a problem for over a year and continued taking advantage with no foresight of the future.

Correction, my ships don't have stacked elements, i'm talking about ships i bought from other creators.
I don't have tools to check it and first we should have tools to check it, for second it would be nice if NQ would release list of popular ships that have stacked elements so we can check it.

On top of it, in case if you are not aware, there is quite many creators who left the game, and many people continue to leave the game on daily basis.
So if you have a ship from one of those people, u can't even consult it with creator.

I'm not creating drama or ask anything ridiculous.
I just want NQ to start respecting people's time, and if they require us to do something in very short period of time, despite ignoring the case by them self for over the year, to at least give us a tool to check whether we are offenders or not.

So before you start attacking people, read entire post or just don't write anything to annoy people.
Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Draqolas said:

So before you start attacking people, read entire post or just don't write anything to annoy people.
Thank you.

I read your entire post, I read it from top to bottom. I read a couple of parts twice or three times to make sure I was more certain on some of the things I wanted to say in my reply. What's the problem here? 🤨

 

This was known for a year eleven and a half months. It should have come as absolutely no surprise. If you think this is me attacking you or others, not only is that completely unintentional, it's just the truth as it stands. Weather or not you knew of that I suppose is debatable, particularly if you're new or just don't go on the forums / discord. For a moment though, lets just use a little bit of logic here and think this through:

 

Say I wanted my toaster to toast bread twice as fast, I don't try and push a second toaster into the first one, nor do I toast the toaster that's toasting my toast, that just doesn't work. Instead what I should do is buy a more powerful toaster.

 

 

Now, creators that have left the game, while that bites, this is all too common irl too. Certain parts stop getting made because the final products that required those parts are no longer sold and much of the sold product has since made its way to the bin via improvements, general wear and tear, etc. Lets ignore logic for a second, say you don't know if your ship is jank or not. Again, perhaps contacting a GM or filing a support ticket will help yield some answers like I mentioned in my above post. A GM might be willing to remove the elements in question and put them in your inventory or linked container. Have you made the attempt or are the GMs taking a hands off approach here, has their been any public announcements about the GMs stance on this?

 

Can't get in touch with the creator and the GM's won't remove the offending elements from protected constructs, your best bet would be to just tear it down before and recover what losses you can before NQ does it for you. Maybe you'll get lucky and the parts increased in value so you can actually sell them at a profit. Not saying that's a good reason, just a silver lining. 

 

If you've been flying that ship for a long time, look around, maybe there's something better available. I know, if it ain't broke don't fix it, but if there's a recall notice then you should probably take some precautions and look into things or take it to someone who can do that for you.

 

I'm not creating any drama either, I'm actually trying to offer up some useful solutions to the situation you guys all suddenly (somehow) find yourselves in. In fact, I came up with my own idea of Jank to Just as part of a solution NQ could offer before going ham fisted on the playerbase and creating a bad public relations situation. If there was an option where players could perform a jank inspection in-game by themselves, great, I'm all for it. I just don't think NQ will develop that in time for the update so Jank to Just is my idea of a temporary solution in the meantime. 

 

If all else fails, make some noise in their official thread. They already publicly backed away from pve core destruction, so you know it works.

 

Lets take a quick look at the solutions I've offered up here between these two posts:

 

Quote

then I recommend you'd check with the seller to see if your ship falls into spec. If it does, great, no further action. If it doesn't, ask if they creator can exchange your construct for something similar that is in spec, if they do, great, write their name down. If they don't, great, also write their name down

Quote

then tear that ship down (if you can, I don't know how this drm works since I've never bought a ship from someone else before...) before NQ does.

Quote

ask NQ. Find a gm in-game (@GM in the help channel) and ask them if they can determine if your ship runs afoul of the rules,

... A GM might be willing to remove the elements in question and put them in your inventory or linked container.

Quote

or filing a support ticket will help yield some answers like I mentioned in my above post.

Quote
Quote

If all else fails, make some noise in their official thread.

 

  • Two solutions you can do this second with absolutely no intervention from NQ.
  • Two solutions require a game-mod, this may require some moderate amount of waiting time:
    • The first option is direct support where if you have at least a half hour to spare and elect to provide your discord contact info if you won't be around in-game.
    • The second option is an in-game event. This would require coordination between the players in-game as well as the game-devs. The time needed is unknown but it can be accomplished quickly.
  • One solution involves a support ticket, it is the weekend so support is offline and you likely won't receive an answer in a reasonably acceptable time.
  • One solution requires a player protest which may or may not be successful but has worked as recently as this past month.

Ah, but my suggestions are annoying people, okay, I won't provide further input at this point. This is a joke btw, laugh. 😏

 

Believe it or not Draq, I'm not against what you're saying in any way and even agree in some instances. Some newer players might be caught off guard, but older players either knew in advance or should be willing to take their own steps to ensure their construct falls into compliance, or tear it down. At the end of the day, we all should have some personal responsibility. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/18/2021 at 6:43 AM, Knight-Sevy said:

If it looks like an exploit, if it smells like an exploit, if it tastes like an exploit, then it is most definitely an exploit.

 

and

 

On 9/18/2021 at 2:42 PM, DarkHorizon said:

Correction, you knew it was a problem for over a year and continued taking advantage with no foresight of the future.

 

NQ declared it NOT an exploit by ALLOWING it. They did not say "We'll condone it while we work on a fix but will have any constructs using the exploiit once the fix is in place", they said it was ALLOWED which is not the same.. It's a prime example of how communicating badly sets expectations.

NQ knew full well that many werebuiklding and selling ships using stacked elements. It was actively used to actually design nice looking ships. They _never_ even remotely hinted at the consequences they pretty much dumped on the few peopel they have left playeg the game. People who may have come in WELL after the initial announcement and who may not even be aware of it. 

 

OP makes the correct point that NQ can't just flip the switch like they did (and have no reversed). They can't just go around and delete constructs now that they closed this loophole. 

NQ tends to carpet bomb anything they can't go in for and fix specifically. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Jake Arver said:

 

and

 

 

NQ declared it NOT an exploit by ALLOWING it. They did not say "We'll condone it while we work on a fix but will have any constructs using the exploiit once the fix is in place", they said it was ALLOWED which is not the same.. It's a prime example of how communicating badly sets expectations.

NQ knew full well that many werebuiklding and selling ships using stacked elements. It was actively used to actually design nice looking ships. They _never_ even remotely hinted at the consequences they pretty much dumped on the few peopel they have left playeg the game. People who may have come in WELL after the initial announcement and who may not even be aware of it. 

 

OP makes the correct point that NQ can't just flip the switch like they did (and have no reversed). They can't just go around and delete constructs now that they closed this loophole. 

NQ tends to carpet bomb anything they can't go in for and fix specifically. 

Are you seriously complaining that your exploit ships are no longer allowed?
 

NQ said even in the early communication that these ships will be “fixed” so I’m sorry but any Janko element ships out there owned by you is on you, not NQ. All NQ is doing is fulfilling the part where they said a fix was coming, it has come now deal with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Jake Arver said:

NQ declared it NOT an exploit by ALLOWING it. They did not say "We'll condone it while we work on a fix but will have any constructs using the exploiit once the fix is in place", they said it was ALLOWED which is not the same.. It's a prime example of how communicating badly sets expectations.

 

Mate

 

 Okay, lets pick this apart. Step into my brain for a second, and don't worry, I don't bite.  🙃

 

Quote

In short, we’d like to ask our community to use common sense when encountering issues in the game;  If it looks like an exploit, smells like an exploit, or sounds like an exploit, chances are it is an exploit. Don’t DU it!

 

We are in a testing phase, and reporting these bugs/issues is important. Abusing them may lead to sanctions against accounts, up to and including removal from the game.
...
Overlapping engines with other elements (obscuring): A fix will be rolled out that will prevent this from occurring. No action will be taken, unless additional abuse is occurring. [Allowed]

 

 

 

NQ asks the community to use 'common sense'. Okay, so since we're talking about bugs they probably mean what's not supposed to happen.

 

They mention 'issues' which, again we're talking about bugs so it's probably not intended.

 

'Exploit' gets mentioned a few times, okay this sounds serious. If people are able to find ways to do things that gives them an advantage in-game against other players then that sort of levels things up a step from just a game bug like see-thru terrain or ground spikes while flying.

 

We're testing so stuff like this should be reported so that it can't be done in the released game Documenting evidence of the exploit and recreating it so the devs can reproduce it, then fix it will be accepted as long as it isn't taken advantage of in future instances or spread around publicly.

 

Making use of these exploits will lead to punishments, blah blah blah.

 

Okay now we get down to particular cases and scenarios. Some are red and not allowed while others are green and allowed.

 

Alright here we go, overlapping elements, ahh it looks like they're currently allowed but they also stated that a fix will be rolled out at some point.

 

 

With the afore mentioned use of common sense and a little deductive reasoning on each of those above points, I came to this conclusion.

 

"Overlapping elements are currently not an intended feature of the game. NQ intends to fix this at some point but as of now they are so widespread that NQ will not actively punish the players for this activity. Once a fix for this is applied, the community will be discouraged from further use with various punishments until stacked elements no longer pose an issue. The use of the word 'exploit', while it may not point directly to stacked elements though still could, implies that some players might still find ways around and will thus be punished accordingly."

 

With that in mind, I did not create any jank ships and have been too poor to purchase any ships knowingly or unknowingly janky. The proposed changes to fix jank do not appear to affect me as I was able to build my ships and they have turned out just fine. With the little bit of deductive foresight and reasoning, this is just another bug fixing patch. I underline appear in acknowledgement that there is still some uncertainty on constructs eligible for deletion.

 

I won't discount miscommunication on the devs part, but the player does at the end of the day bear some responsibility. Just because something on a list of bugs said that it was allowed, didn't mean it would be forever.

 

Coming back to this, since the update is now live and as of this post only applies to constructs where PVP occurred (direct with weapons, not merely entering the space), this will be my last addition to this particular thread. Chow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/21/2021 at 4:25 AM, Jake Arver said:

 

и

 

 

NQ объявил это НЕ эксплойтом, РАЗРЕШИВ это. Они не сказали: "Мы будем мириться с этим, пока работаем над исправлением, но у нас будут какие-либо конструкции, использующие эксплойт, как только исправление будет установлено", они сказали, что это РАЗРЕШЕНО, что не одно и то же.. Это яркий пример того, как общение плохо формирует ожидания.

NQ прекрасно знал, что многие покупали и продавали корабли, используя сложенные элементы. Он активно использовался для создания действительно красивых кораблей. Они никогда даже отдаленно не намекали на последствия, которые они в значительной степени свалили на тех немногих людей, которых они оставили играть в игру. Люди, которые, возможно, пришли значительно позже первоначального объявления и которые, возможно, даже не знают об этом.

 

OP правильно указывает, что NQ не может просто переключить переключатель, как они это сделали (и не имеет обратного хода). Они не могут просто обойти и удалить конструкции теперь, когда они закрыли эту лазейку.

NQ склонен бомбить ковром все, чем они не могут заняться и что конкретно исправить.

Mister, in the topic where it is indicated what is allowed and what is not, and we are talking about EXPLOITS AND BUGS, which means that they will be corrected sooner or later. But they wrote to the community questions about what can be used and what is prohibited .. LOGICAL that this is until they are fixed, because any bug and exploit must be fixed.

Therefore, THEY DID NOT DECLARE IT NOT EXPLOIT, they said that it is EXPLOIT and until the moment of repair it can be used without fear of BAN.

If they some where say is not a bug\exploit pls.. let send to us here link where they say is not exploit \ bug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone explain to me:

-if you have 2 engines, you use up 2 times fuel

-if you have 4 engines (2 are stacked so you 'cant' see them), you use up 4 times fuel?

 

Or does stacking prevent fuel use? If it doesnt, I think it should be a feature in this game. Sure 2 military= 4 basic engines, but the weight!!! yes yes

I think some designs maybe deserve stacking, really!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Sabretooth said:

Can someone explain to me:

-if you have 2 engines, you use up 2 times fuel

-if you have 4 engines (2 are stacked so you 'cant' see them), you use up 4 times fuel?

 

Or does stacking prevent fuel use? If it doesnt, I think it should be a feature in this game. Sure 2 military= 4 basic engines, but the weight!!! yes yes

I think some designs maybe deserve stacking, really!

 

Less cross section:
- You have more efficient cargo in atmo compared to people who do not cheat.
- You are less likely to be hit in pvp compared to people who don't cheat

NQ equilibrium are based on the volume that an element occupies on your construct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Knight-Sevy said:

 

Less cross section:
- You have more efficient cargo in atmo compared to people who do not cheat.
- You are less likely to be hit in pvp compared to people who don't cheat

NQ equilibrium are based on the volume that an element occupies on your construct.

Thank you very much!!

 

I still dont think it should be banned, I think it should just has to be exposed somehow and even implemented into the game.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Sabretooth said:

Thank you very much!!

 

I still dont think it should be banned, I think it should just has to be exposed somehow and even implemented into the game.

 

Then I will stack everything into one XL engine and have a flying monster engine killer !

 

No, really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2021 at 11:37 AM, Sabretooth said:

 

Or does stacking prevent fuel use? If it doesnt, I think it should be a feature in this game. Sure 2 military= 4 basic engines, but the weight!!! yes yes

I think some designs maybe deserve stacking, really!

I've thought this too.  An industry unit where you could put 2 completed engines in, one gets consumed in "research" and the other comes out of the industry with a substantial buff, far beyond any talent buff.  Obviously 1 + 1 would not equal two, but you would open up a wide variety of design options if something like this was available.  Depreciating returns on researching the same engine could be tweaked so it's not too OP of a mechanic, and fully researched Exotic engines would take weeks to complete so its not for everyone, but why not let people make super charged engines and stuff?  Seems like a solid idea.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, FerroSC said:

I've thought this too.  An industry unit where you could put 2 completed engines in, one gets consumed in "research" and the other comes out of the industry with a substantial buff, far beyond any talent buff.  Obviously 1 + 1 would not equal two, but you would open up a wide variety of design options if something like this was available.  Depreciating returns on researching the same engine could be tweaked so it's not too OP of a mechanic, and fully researched Exotic engines would take weeks to complete so its not for everyone, but why not let people make super charged engines and stuff?  Seems like a solid idea.  

 

This is the same idea from the other thread that you've posted in like 5 times arguing against it though lol

 

It's too bad you worked so hard to derail that thread or we could have had a nice discussion about the idea.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Atmosph3rik said:

This is the same idea from the other thread that you've posted in like 5 times arguing against it though lol

Except the other thread is about why stacking was used to begin with, in which the author tries to convince the reader that the exploit was used for anything other than an in-game advantage. From "different metas" to artistic ability, that thread basically said stacking was used for every reason other than in-game advantage.  Didn't need me to derail it.  Some posts are train wrecks from the beginning..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, FerroSC said:

Except the other thread is about why stacking was used to begin with, in which the author tries to convince the reader that the exploit was used for anything other than an in-game advantage. From "different metas" to artistic ability, that thread basically said stacking was used for every reason other than in-game advantage.  Didn't need me to derail it.  Some posts are train wrecks from the beginning..

  

 

Except they're right.  There's two totally separate issues here but your so caught up on the idea that someone might have gotten more stuff then you, that your just having your own little argument against element stacking and ignoring everything else.

 

Stacking was an exploit and it needed to be fixed.  Literally no one is disputing that.

 

Stacking was giving people an unfair advantage in PVP.

 

Stacking was also an easy way around the fact that the only method of balancing how many functional elements can fit on one ship is the choice to sacrifice aesthetic appeal.

 

When building a ship you have to choose between a ship that looks good, or ship that can compete with other ships in terms of functionality.  That's a terrible way of balancing it. and stacking wouldn't have been nearly as prevalent if that wasn't the case.

 

Stacking was an exploit, but it was also a symptom of the fact that they need a better method of balancing power.

 

See how the one topic leads into the other one? if you actually read the words.

 

So do you think we could all go back to the other thread and have a nice discussion about engine buffs and power management now, without all the derailing?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I was pointing it out because of the experience in the game Avorion, where engines and directional thrusters are not blocked by exterior design.

 

With 'allowed' stacking, there would be a chance of more beautiful builds with much power. Instead of building a super design with outside element uglyfication, we could have ships that are superpowerfull and still look sleek. It is somewhat already implemented with airbrakes,

 

I only ask for a way to implement it into the game so everyone can see it is stacked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol so lets say they get rid of stacking and go to jankyism vs janckoism.

 

The next logical step is then to delete all ship blueprints since NQ probably does not realize that most of this stuff is baked into the fabric of the game at this point and even if all ships that exist now are unstacked and janky like they seem to like it. Whenever this delete hammer is done and the coast is clear people are just going to bust out their blueprints once the coast is clear.

 

Here is a thought instead killing creativity to make things that look good or fly good why not restrict the number or size of military weapons that can go onto a ship?

 

Stacking normal elements is not the problem as much as limits and size classifications of weapons on military ships in a supposed futuristic sci-fi game that is devoid of most futuristic parts that it being supposedly hundreds or thousands of years in the future we are still stuck with sub par parts that barely function as is with what we have to work with..

 

If PvP is all NQ cares about they do a really bad job at implimenting it while everything else in the game is lacking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...