Inara updates, bug reports, requests
When you try to link your accounts, you may receive the http error 400 about expired tokens. It's an issue on Frontier's end that I cannot solve on Inara. Fortunately, the solution is simple - please give it a few days and it will start to work later (probably when the access token on their cAPI server expires). If the error 400 appeared later and it worked before, try to reauthenticate as said in the error message (may be just a regular reauth forced by Frontier). Alternatively, you can try to use the workaround below. If even that won't work, it's the problem described above.
Please vote for the issue on the official bug tracker: https://issues.frontierstore.net/issue-detail/21258
Possible workaround: Try to connect the account while you are in the game. It may work.
Game data and imports not available for console commanders and PC players with Legacy game version
Inara supports only the Live game version (so PC Horizons 4.0 and Odyssey) since game update 14, thus all the game data on the site and the commander data imports work only for those game versions.
30 Jun 2018, 10:01am
many thanks as always for your fabulous work.
I will share some thoughts about the Rooster. As a Wing Leader of more than 200 Pilots it is a essential part of Inara for me.
- I can´t see now actually, how many Posts a CMDR has written. To know this was a great help for me before.
- Refreshing the side after every single promotion is not very convenient, because I have to sort the list again and again.
- More information of the Pilots on the promotion site, like combat rank and game platform, would be very welcome.
- I like to have more SQ Leaders, but not anyone has to change the Threads for example, it would be great to disconnect those rights from the ranks.
It would be great if you find the time to have a look on this
Many thanks
Serge
Last edit: 01 Jul 2018, 4:14pm
30 Jun 2018, 11:59am
Sorry, should have read other posts before! I aggree though about missing credibility
30 Jun 2018, 12:05pm
i cannot believe real Arena Players to manipulate their rankings..
i mean.. its a question of honour .. isnt it
30 Jun 2018, 12:24pm
PalkkipantteriIt seems that Engineering Blueprints are out of date.
I noticed that FSD range increased mod G5 still has arsenic and datamined wake exception on inara, but neither of those are recuired ingame. Also ingame at least rhenium is needed for G5 mod. I remember that, because I had to go and trade for it yesterday.
Strange as i just traded the legacy mod in for my Conda and i require Arsenic,Chemical Manipulators/datamined Wake Exceptions
30 Jun 2018, 12:59pm
GraXXoRThose stats were cool. It was always one of the first things i looked at.. I just discounted the noobs with 10,000,000,000,000 credits and quadruple elite but no history.
That information is still readily available.
30 Jun 2018, 1:50pm
30 Jun 2018, 1:55pm
Alshain AquilaeThe system of Mot has an erroneous station list in it that needs to be removed. It's an unpopulated system and the station is the engineer from Achenar.
Thanks, fixed.
PalkkipantteriIt seems that Engineering Blueprints are out of date.
I noticed that FSD range increased mod G5 still has arsenic and datamined wake exception on inara, but neither of those are recuired ingame. Also ingame at least rhenium is needed for G5 mod. I remember that, because I had to go and trade for it yesterday.
I am not sure where the problem is, but I do not see any differences from the data currently in the game?
30 Jun 2018, 1:56pm
As mentioned and as you are all aware, the current rankings were pretty volatile to any false or incomplete information provided by commanders, not just ranks, but also credits/assets. There is currently no easy way how to fight it. Sometimes even very improbable numbers (on the first look) are actually valid (as proven by screenshot sent) and sometimes probable numbers are false. As there is no way how to have 100% bullet-proof confirmation of these information, the rankings reliability is limited.
But, that's just one part of the problem. The another part is from which information the commander's score should be calculated. Currently, there were ranks and credits/assets counted in. As ranks (and their progress) are quite straightforward, there was needed to also incorporate another value to distinct people sitting on the same ranks, typically triple/quadruple elites, otherwise they will end with the same score. So the credits/assets were chosen. Over time, it was shown that this value is pretty problematic, due presence of known or less known "more-than-generous" missions and activities in the game that allowed to amass a huge amount of credits in the very short time. In that moment, the credits/assets numbers lost any informational value of commander's progress and just heavily skewed the rankings. There is no easy way out of it - I made a limitation of how much credits contributes to the score, but it was not enough. Another idea was to include playtime from the in-game statistics imported via journals/API and use it instead of credits/assets or for Cr/hour ratio. Unfortunately, this step will effectively filter out all console players and it's something I am very hesitating to do. Partly because I do not want to exclude console players, partly because it will lower the rankings reliability even more.
There is also a "social" aspect - any rankings are by its nature a competitive thing and it may encourage some type of people to provide false information just to get higher in the ranks and get a better score. It's inevitable and as mentioned, there is very problematic to fight against it (without direct access to the data on Frontier servers without any middle-man). I rather want to encourage people to provide correct information in their profiles, to use Inara as their "homebase" where they can always overview their stuff even when not in the game, which may be also beneficial for other commanders. I have no interest in people using Inara just for boosting their ego by providing false information. Unfortunately, such kind of people appeared here as well and it affected the rankings bad way, too.
All these are the major reasons (but not only) why I have decided to discontinue Inara rankings in the current form. They still do exists (here), but there won't be any subsequent work on that made, may be removed/replaced by something else in the future and I have removed it from the CMDR profiles, also to spark exactly this kind of discussion.
------------
But, I fully understand the motivation such rankings may provide, as it gives some sense of progress, achievement and goal. I am currently evaluating various different approaches which may provide such things, in a less competitive form. Something rather on a personal level that a global ranking. However, as a global thing, I am still playing with ideas to provide some simple CQC tournament/ranking system for teams of commanders, which will be heavily curated and will require the results confirmations of the match participants (on both sides). It may provide reliable numbers and it may even spark some interesting activities and following projects (for example, applying this system not just to CQC, but also PvP matches in the Open). Is there any interest in it? How is your experience with pre-created teams (wings) matchmaking in CQC? Will it technically work at all? Any other ideas?
It's open for a discussion.
Last edit: 30 Jun 2018, 2:11pm
30 Jun 2018, 6:44pm
I can completely disagree with a few opinions of you, but take a look at the fact that you can upload your data only with APIs.
There is already the possibility from the side of making false information without having to use APIs. Just take this option away.
It is easy to fad with this page data but much harder to know how to fake API data to upload them then.
30 Jun 2018, 6:57pm
Commander KayDee
I can completely disagree with a few opinions of you, but take a look at the fact that you can upload your data only with APIs.
There is already the possibility from the side of making false information without having to use APIs. Just take this option away.
It is easy to fad with this page data but much harder to know how to fake API data to upload them then.
That's not possible, because it will meant that console players or people that do not want to use API or upload journals for whatever reason won't be able to update anything in their profiles. That's definitely something I do not want to do, for obvious reason.
30 Jun 2018, 7:01pm
First i would like to point out why the CQC ranking should stay as it was before:
CQC .. is much more related to direct competition between Players as the main game is.
Competitors are normally well informed about the standings of their opponents ingame.
If the inara ranking of single Players gets higher and does not match the ingame stats
due to modifications it would become pretty obvious that something is wrong with the player.
In a championship like CQC a Player who is trying to cheat his ranking would make a complete fool of oneself
and by the way as i mentioned earlier.. its a question of honour
01 Jul 2018, 2:21am
It would require people to input their Elite Passwords since there is no API Key, but EDDiscovery uses it successfully.
That would be hard to fake, no? I have no idea what stats are available from Elite Companion, though?
Why don't you have a flag on the stats to state whether they were imported from an API or manually input? That way we could easily see who has "official" stats and who might be "questionable".
Also, Bug Report.
There are two ships at the bottom of the ship stats page that are blank. I presume the Challenger and the Krait MK ii
Last edit: 01 Jul 2018, 2:27am
01 Jul 2018, 4:28am
GraXXoRArtie, is there no way of grabbing the correct Pilots Fed Ranks and stats from the Elite Companion Service like ED Discovery does?
It would require people to input their Elite Passwords since there is no API Key, but EDDiscovery uses it successfully.
That would be hard to fake, no? I have no idea what stats are available from Elite Companion, though?
Why don't you have a flag on the stats to state whether they were imported from an API or manually input? That way we could easily see who has "official" stats and who might be "questionable".
Also, Bug Report.
There are two ships at the bottom of the ship stats page that are blank. I presume the Challenger and the Krait MK ii
Artie just explained why that wouldn't work. Making the Inara rankings dependant on API would exclude those who don't use the tool and every console player as well.
At the end of the day they were an arbitrary, easily-faked, and ultimately meaningless ranking system.
Link to Inara Discord: https://discord.gg/qfkFWTr