Jump to content

NQ contradicts their own Code of Conduct with new construct announcement.


FerroSC
 Share

Recommended Posts

NQ announced they would remove jancko constructs from the game and eliminate the advantage they give players who use them.

 

NQ has apparently rolled this change back and will allow people to keep their unfair advantage in PvP and other areas of gameplay even though the Code of Conduct expressly prohibits:  

 

*"Exploiting the game through any game error or bug that gives an unintended advantage."*

 

This ability to stack elements was unintended which is apparent by NQ removing them from the game.  We know this from their most recent post in which they say: 

 

*"Elements Stacking is a bug, there’s no way around it. As a bug, especially one generating a lot of gameplay imbalance, it has to disappear at some point. So here’s a heads up for all builders who made Constructs with stacked Elements."*

 

So they admit they need to remove them.  They admit they create an unfair advantage.  Yet they will allow them to continue being used to the detriment of the rest of the players without such an advantage.   In fact, it is now the responsibility of the non-advantaged players who have to both find/report the ship and run the risk of losing our own ships from a ship the dev's acknowledge is an unfair advantage.  

 

There are plenty of ways to deal with this, but allowing them to persist until they get caught is about as short sighted as you can be.  I understand there are collectible ships that should not get removes from the game.  One suggestion is just tag them as janked so the owner has to either fix them or not fly them.  You could lock the constructs in place, or make the stacked elements a mass multiplier that detriments the ship's abilities... any of these would allow the player to keep their investment but not their advantage.  

 

I think they should re-think this a little longer or change the Code of Conduct to reflect the fact that you can in fact take advantage of bugs or exploits, so long as you don't get caught.  
 

Edited by FerroSC
Formatting
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think you should re-think your ragepost. specifically the part that says:
 

Quote

and will allow people to keep their unfair advantage in PvP

 They clearly and specifically stated, in the very announcement you clearly saw and read because you already mentioned that you know they are backtracking a bit on their initial decision:
 

Quote

we will limit the Construct deletion to Constructs with stacked Elements which meet both of the following requirements: • The Construct has been involved in PvP after Ares release. • The involved Construct has also been reported to the Customer Support which will address the situation accordingly.

Construct deletion will only happen in the case that the said Construct with stacked Elements has been reported for participating in PvP (and proof has been found on our side).

 

So you won't find anyone PvP'ing in stacked ships and if you do, report them and their ship goes poof. I'm willing to bet that if you get your salad tossed by someone using a stacked ship, and you report them, NQ will probably fix your ship for you if you ask nicely. NQ are cool like that. Stop being such a whiner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, EpicPhail said:

i think you should re-think your ragepost. specifically the part that says:
 

 They clearly and specifically stated, in the very announcement you clearly saw and read because you already mentioned that you know they are backtracking a bit on their initial decision:
 

 

So you won't find anyone PvP'ing in stacked ships and if you do, report them and their ship goes poof. I'm willing to bet that if you get your salad tossed by someone using a stacked ship, and you report them, NQ will probably fix your ship for you if you ask nicely. NQ are cool like that. Stop being such a whiner.

If quoting their own ToS and their own announcements to show a contradiction is a rage post then I guess this is a rage post.   I call it a disappoint post because I'm continually disappointed in NQs lack of clarity in their own rules. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DU as a game, markets itself as a persistent, single-shard universe sandbox.

 

The persistent part kinda goes out the window when you just delete things players made willy-nilly, and that's what people got upset about. So they clarified and said that no automatic deletion would take place, only if you push the envelope. For now, the constructs are allowed to exist for persistence - Yet they will still be largely non-functional what with all their elements being disabled or obstructed.

Can you explain to me, how that is a bad thing, in any way shape or form? How does this negatively impact you? It doesn't. It only positively impacts those who may be around you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, EpicPhail said:

Can you explain to me, how that is a bad thing, in any way shape or form? How does this negatively impact you? It doesn't. It only positively impacts those who may be around you.

So NQ was incorrect when they said this issue creates "a lot of gameplay imbalance" and that its "a bug".  You realize if someone is "advantaged" then inherently someone else has to be "disadvantaged".   That's what that word means. Is that someone has a better setup than someone else.  In this case, that better set up is from exploiting a bug and NQ says that in plain English.  Not going to do your mental gymnastics on this.  The ToS contradicts their actions.  Plain and simple.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stacked elements will not work as of the Demeter patch going live (The patch after Ares). Thats at most maybe another 3 or 4 months out. In the meantime, you still can't use them at all in PvP. Quit your whining and go play something else if you're that salty about it.

No one is at an advantage from this, at most all you could do is haul something in the meantime, whoopie. Such benefits, much gainz, wow.
You're forgetting that all those people also have to figure out what they're going to do about a new ship, in the meantime. So it's not really an "advantage" so much as it is a give and take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can use them in PvP and only if you are reported and confirmed by NQ will they get deleted.  You could kill a thousand ships before getting reported.  That's what their words say.  "If you use them and get caught we will take it away."  They are not disabled.  They are not even marked.  They are free to be used for several months and given the sheer number of them out there, the PvP spicy boys can lose one a day and still have left overs when Demeter drops. 

 

Quit saying "you cant use them in PvP" because by their own words, you 100% can and there is no consequence for doing so unless you are reported and NQ can prove your allegations.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, XKentX said:

2 PVP pros discussing how and what ships should be used in PVP

Hi.  I'm not a pvp pro and never claimed to be.  I've been shot down a couple times and never actually fired a weapon myself.  I am 0-3 at PvP.

 

  I am, however, fluent in English and can read the ToS and the recent Dev announcement and identify the contradictions between the two.  Im not suggesting what ships should be used, I'm suggesting that the message from NQ be consistent and changes implemented on a way that is as fair and equitable as possible.  

 

The script you suggest would be fantastic.   Other suggestions have been good, too.  A variety of options have been suggested and we should feel free to discuss those as a player community.  It seems the only bad ideas in this discussion have come from NQ themselves in the way they have chosen to tackle this issue.  I don't think coming onto the forum and being condescending to other players is constructive in any way, but everyone has their own interests, I suppose.  Lemme ask you this Kent:  if NQ grounded all the ships with "unbalanced" elements until they were fixed, not deleted but simply immobilized, would that be a reasonable solution for this problem or do you think the ships should be allowed to persist and NQ should let them fade out organically and focus on other things?  What other ways could they fix this that would allow players to keep their investment but not their in-game advantage? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, FerroSC said:

Lemme ask you this Kent:  if NQ grounded all the ships with "unbalanced" elements until they were fixed, not deleted but simply immobilized, would that be a reasonable solution for this problem or do you think the ships should be allowed to persist and NQ should let them fade out organically and focus on other things?  What other ways could they fix this that would allow players to keep their investment but not their in-game advantage? 

Any option that can have a clearly defined non GM-manually-deciding rule they can come up with is good on my side.

Keep investment ? Make the thing freeze in place until fixed, doesn't matter why and what. People that build ships will have +1 reason to build again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is plain BS that an exploit is only acted on after reported And been active in pvp.... well this typically says, please use the exploit for everything you can think of exept pvp.  So how usefull is element stacking in those missions where people told they put 20 alts on a ship?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple solution. All stacked elements are instantly irreparably destroyed upon any damage to a construct (collision or PvP hits)

The only way to keep using your exploit construct is to never take even 0.1% damage from any means.

Exhibition pieces and collectables can be displayed in museum style. Any exploit rich construct that is being used for regular game functions will not last long. You get to keep the voxel design of the construct but the exploited elements are gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Aaron Cain said:

It is plain BS that an exploit is only acted on after reported And been active in pvp.... well this typically says, please use the exploit for everything you can think of exept pvp.  So how usefull is element stacking in those missions where people told they put 20 alts on a ship?

 

Why would you put them on the ship? Just use VR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Aaron Cain said:

It is plain BS that an exploit is only acted on after reported And been active in pvp.... well this typically says, please use the exploit for everything you can think of exept pvp.  So how usefull is element stacking in those missions where people told they put 20 alts on a ship?

 

 

Honestly element stacking has no real use in anything other then PVP as far as i know.  I have no idea how effective it is in PVP, but i assume it must be making a difference otherwise NQ wouldn't be doing all of this.

 

But for hauling weight, if you need more room for elements you can always use a larger core.  So unless you are running out of room for engines and containers on a Large core, then you have no reason to stack elements.

 

The exploit needed to be fixed.  But the answer to your question is that no one was getting rich running missions because of element stacking.  They could have made just as much Quanta running missions in a giant cube shaped pile of elements.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the op 100% allowing an exploit to be used is bad for everyone. 

 

Its bad because it gives an unfair advantage to those not using the exploit. 

Its bad because it creates an incentive for non exploiters to become exploiters. 

Its bad because it sets a precedent that exploits can be used as long as NQ says nothing. And if an exploit is used by a large ammount of people, it can even become protected against NQ action. 

 

@EpicPhail how about you debate points, instead of trying to dodge with "near insults"? It was not a rage topic. It was a quite logical one. And its about using an exploit. Not if its used in PVP or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Atmosph3rik said:

But for hauling weight, if you need more room for elements you can always use a larger core.  So unless you are running out of room for engines and containers on a Large core, then you have no reason to stack elements.

On atmos planets like Alioth etc. it would be a huge advantage for haulers stacking engines and wings to get a smaller footprint with less atmos drag and higher top speed, making it easier to leave the planet etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@joaocordeiro  Agree on this.

The way NQ acts on exploids is totally random, one almost suspects that it is actually based on who was cought with the exploit. Nice example remains the schematics exploit.

Also it is funny to read the forum and discord and actuall people calling out using exploids and making billions with them or killing other players and as expected the following seconds What happens is>>>>>>>>> Nothing at all, except people who comment on it and do not exploit are named haters/losers/etcetc. it doesnt matter how good a game is, action irregular or prefering some players over others, GM that use position for "friends" all these things in the end can kill Any game

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Aaron Cain said:

GM that use position for "friends" all these things in the end can kill Any game

I think its not about "friendship". I think its more about the impact on an already depleted community. 

 

I think their they see this groups/persons that play an important role in bringing new players and keeping the game with players and they are afraid that taking action against them will make a huge chunk of the remaining playerbase to quit the game. 

 

It is a delicate situation, but worse than taking the risk is this "bi-polar" communication, where in one announcement they say "we will take action" and in the next they say "we wont take action"... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Atmosph3rik said:

 

 

Honestly element stacking has no real use in anything other then PVP as far as i know.  

 

I said that in general chat in game and got a lot of push back from the PVPers. They certainly thought there were non-PVP (or at least non-combat) uses for the exploit. It does give a slight advantage for moving stuff in atmo, but that's pretty minor. I'm not sure what other non-combat advantage they had in mind.

 

The advantage in combat is that the ship can have higher acceleration without incurring a cross-section cost. Target cross-section affects hit probability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Daphne Jones said:

The advantage in combat is that the ship can have higher acceleration without incurring a cross-section cost. Target cross-section affects hit probability.

On top of that, it negates any "battlefield literacy" a non-advantaged player may have.  Consider this:  an experienced Pilot sees a M core ship inbound. This experienced pilot has been playing a long time and he knows very well the capabilities of each core size and the risks associated with engaging each one.  With the "unbalanced" elements, his battlefield literacy is 0.  He has no idea what could be on that M core.  He knows what is on *his* M core,  but without a fair playing field this player is not just potentially disadvantaged at a technical level; But he is also disadvantaged at a tactical level because all of his information, which should be accurate, is completely unreliable because the rules of the game are not clear.   Even if the ship he is facing DOESN'T have any unbalanced elements, the fact that it persists in the game means any engagement is done blindly without anyway to know what you are actually going to encounter.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...