Forums » Bugs
Selling Ore to Latos counts for Basic Miner Accomplishment
Kinda defeats the purpose of the sell requirement of the Accomplishment as you can cycle the same Ore over and over.
This does not defeat the purpose at all. Both requirements are separate. You must mine AND sell the total qty of ore. If you mine 90000 ores then later sell 90000 of that ore repeatedly in Latos, you still fulfilled the requirements to the T.
I do think this method does break the spirit of the badge requirement, even if it doesn't break what is stated. That being said, the time commitment required for solo mining is so excessive in its current state, I'd debate whether it *needs* to be fixed... but that's for suggestions.
This method has been on the wiki for a long time, so i wonder if the devs are already aware of it, though. There are multiple sections dedicated to quoting information from the devs (including a1k0n or momerath), though they're *usually* labeled as such... I'd actually thought this was one such developer quote oroginally, but I seem to be misremembering, as its not listed as such.
This method has been on the wiki for a long time, so i wonder if the devs are already aware of it, though. There are multiple sections dedicated to quoting information from the devs (including a1k0n or momerath), though they're *usually* labeled as such... I'd actually thought this was one such developer quote oroginally, but I seem to be misremembering, as its not listed as such.
I will agree that it defeats the spirit of the badge but some of the mining badges aren’t even in the realm of possibility. A lot of them are pretty excessive. I think having one shortcut is fair enough.
I will agree that it defeats the spirit of the badge but some of the mining badges aren’t even in the realm of possibility. A lot of them are pretty excessive. I think having one shortcut is fair enough.
I disagree. Having silly ways of circumventing things is a bad idea. It makes newbies who are less familiar feel like they wasted time "playing the game as it was intended", and it makes it infeasible to add more badges that might work in a similar manner, with meaningful content, because they become exploitable.
It would be much better to make the game work properly, and then re-assess the actual badge definitions and requirements.
Notably, the planet-cracker and other super-high badges were not made in error. I just didn't anticipate that some of my intended features would have so many architectural challenges (hence, no Trident Type P or Type S). The system was "scaled" with future capabilities in mind, that didn't come to fruition as intended. But, that still isn't a good reason to make the system intentionally exploitable.
I disagree. Having silly ways of circumventing things is a bad idea. It makes newbies who are less familiar feel like they wasted time "playing the game as it was intended", and it makes it infeasible to add more badges that might work in a similar manner, with meaningful content, because they become exploitable.
It would be much better to make the game work properly, and then re-assess the actual badge definitions and requirements.
Notably, the planet-cracker and other super-high badges were not made in error. I just didn't anticipate that some of my intended features would have so many architectural challenges (hence, no Trident Type P or Type S). The system was "scaled" with future capabilities in mind, that didn't come to fruition as intended. But, that still isn't a good reason to make the system intentionally exploitable.
I just didn't anticipate that some of my intended features would have so many architectural challenges (hence, no Trident Type P or Type S).
Can you elaborate on this? Is there something about similar variants (or their intended abilities) that caused issues with those two ships?
Can you elaborate on this? Is there something about similar variants (or their intended abilities) that caused issues with those two ships?
Elaborating on all of that, the intended plans and then what went-awry, would be pretty time consuming.
Somewhat briefly: There was a set of specific design goals, which mandated new fundamental capabilities in the game, which unfortunately went awry during implementation. I didn't know that at the time when I made the "public announcement" of the upcoming variants in the Newsletter, everything had been reported as "good" at the time; then by the time I did know, there was no way we could pull together the time to redo/fix the whole system (although I kept "hoping" we could for quite awhile).
That may sound kind of strange, that we couldn't "fix" it easily, or in the time since then; but some development has very "linear" time requirements (like engine work), needing a big block of un-interrupted time. When you're running a "live service", you're constantly chasing little unexpected "fires" and support-issues and mini-outages and other problems (which can escalate and become major problems if not addressed), all of which makes "lengthy linear development" a challenge.
Anyway, that's all pretty far afield from the Sell stat being a bit exploitable in the Latos system.
Somewhat briefly: There was a set of specific design goals, which mandated new fundamental capabilities in the game, which unfortunately went awry during implementation. I didn't know that at the time when I made the "public announcement" of the upcoming variants in the Newsletter, everything had been reported as "good" at the time; then by the time I did know, there was no way we could pull together the time to redo/fix the whole system (although I kept "hoping" we could for quite awhile).
That may sound kind of strange, that we couldn't "fix" it easily, or in the time since then; but some development has very "linear" time requirements (like engine work), needing a big block of un-interrupted time. When you're running a "live service", you're constantly chasing little unexpected "fires" and support-issues and mini-outages and other problems (which can escalate and become major problems if not addressed), all of which makes "lengthy linear development" a challenge.
Anyway, that's all pretty far afield from the Sell stat being a bit exploitable in the Latos system.
So, in proper field of "proper" accomplishment of the badge, would it be implied that ore bought has a flag that disqualifies it? That would probably be the most simple solution. Sell ore, it counts. Ore then obtains flag SOLD=Y and it not longer can count for any mine/sell badges.
re-assess the actual badge definitions and requirements
might be a good idea
might be a good idea