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.
13 Apr 2021, 4:53pm
Kills in a on-foot CZ count towards the same statistic as kills in your ship. And given that kills on foot are far more numerous and easy to rack up... surely you can see where this is gonna get problematic
13 Apr 2021, 8:08pm
Lambast MercyAny chance of another Off Station Page?
Sometimes there s few stories using it and I feel rude putting my post in between them.
Although I understand the problem, it's not so crowded with posts to justify another thread for it at the moment.
Chase QuinnellOn the squadron roster management page you can mass-promote/demote users based on certain criteria. Is there any way to see which members are affected by that action?
Nope, but it may be a good improvement. Adding that to the list.
DragoCubXQuick heads-up for you Artie that you should probably change how the Soldier medal is awarded with Odyssey's release:
Kills in a on-foot CZ count towards the same statistic as kills in your ship. And given that kills on foot are far more numerous and easy to rack up... surely you can see where this is gonna get problematic
Thanks. Yeah, I noticed that as well and suggested to Frontier to add additional on-foot stats a week ago. No idea when and if such stats will be added, though. But even if nothing will change, it will be probably alright - I wanted to lower the requirements for this medal anyway, so in the worst case I will simple leave it as is now or increase the requirements slightly.
13 Apr 2021, 11:29pm
I was trying to import a comparison ship build from Coriolis (as the ship page says "Note: The ship loadout is imported automatically via journals, Frontier data import or Inara API, and represents the actual ship loadout in the game. The secondary/target loadouts may be imported from Coriolis, EDSY and similar tools.") but it doesn't work, I had to rebuild the ship in EDSY.org to import successfully. Not sure if you were aware but they broke something I guess. o7
14 Apr 2021, 12:08pm
15 Apr 2021, 12:49pm
15 Apr 2021, 4:04pm
I have Jameson now but previously when I would search for modules I'd also look for a station that had other attributes like a material trader so I could kill 2 birds with one stone.
15 Apr 2021, 4:50pm
Artie[color=#FFC95F]the most visible change is to minor factions "ownership" - the "adopted" flag was replaced by "related" and "supported" tags
I'm not sure this works too well. My faction "Brian Solutions" used to say [ADOPTED] next to it on any system pages, so it was pretty clear it was effectively a Player Faction. But now it's not immediately visible to anyone that it's being supported unless you click through and see there are supporters there. I don't think most people will do that, so they're treating it like a NPC faction.
Any chance "Brian Solutions" can be flagged as a Player Faction? (Or Adopted Faction) again? Thanks!
15 Apr 2021, 5:07pm
CyvanSuggestion: Add an Outfitting section to the Station tab in Nearest Search.
I have Jameson now but previously when I would search for modules I'd also look for a station that had other attributes like a material trader so I could kill 2 birds with one stone.
Hmmm... maybe, I will think about that.
DribNairbArtie[color=#FFC95F]the most visible change is to minor factions "ownership" - the "adopted" flag was replaced by "related" and "supported" tags
I'm not sure this works too well. My faction "Brian Solutions" used to say [ADOPTED] next to it on any system pages, so it was pretty clear it was effectively a Player Faction. But now it's not immediately visible to anyone that it's being supported unless you click through and see there are supporters there. I don't think most people will do that, so they're treating it like a NPC faction.
Any chance "Brian Solutions" can be flagged as a Player Faction? (Or Adopted Faction) again? Thanks!
Nope, I was oftenly asked about "why this faction is adopted?" or "why this faction is not adopted?" or "why I cannot have the adopted flag set for my faction and the others have it?" and I do not want to act as an arbiter of it. Because, technically, there is no such flag/state in the game as well and it's all based just on a subjective perception. Also, because often the opinions differ about what faction should or should not be adopted. Thus this solution that although is still based on Inara presence, is providing objective outputs - either the minor factions is related to or supported by some squadron (and by a squadron I mean squadron having at least two members) on Inara or is not, doesn't matter what I or somebody else may say or think about it.
15 Apr 2021, 5:30pm
ArtieNope, I was oftenly asked about "why this faction is adopted?" or "why this faction is not adopted?" or "why I cannot have the adopted flag set for my faction and the others have it?" and I do not want to act as an arbiter of it. Because, technically, there is no such flag/state in the game as well and it's all based just on a subjective perception. Also, because often the opinions differ about what faction should or should not be adopted. Thus this solution that although is still based on Inara presence, is providing objective outputs - either the minor factions is related to or supported by some squadron (and by a squadron I mean squadron having at least two members) on Inara or is not, doesn't matter what I or somebody else may say or think about it.
In that case I would vote for some kind of system that marks factions with players supporting it.
As a BGS faction manager it is very convenient when I can look at surrounding systems and immediately see which factions are supported by players and which aren't. This change just made it so that less factions have such a "marker" compared to before.
I can understand being asked about the abandoned "adopted factions" system, so I'm just asking for some generic replacement marker, if possible for all player-supported factions.
15 Apr 2021, 5:36pm
15 Apr 2021, 6:54pm
ArtieIt complicates various queries on various places quite a lot, so I am not promising anything and it's a low priority. Also to be precise, there was just something about 10 minor factions set with the adopted flag, so this change will affect almost nothing in the regular operations. The regular player minor factions are not affected any way (and still marked in the lists).
Would it not be possible to simply use the existing player tag in both cases as a placeholder then?
There is more utility in that than you might think and I don't understand why you wat to put it on low priority. The amount of players benefiting from this might be a lot higher than you think.
I hope you can consider this as a temporary solution.
15 Apr 2021, 7:01pm
Last edit: 15 Apr 2021, 7:07pm
15 Apr 2021, 7:20pm
ArtieIt's how it's set - the PMF flag is static, set once for the minor faction and it's done (so it's within the same table and there are no further checks needed). Utilizing this is basically same state as for the "adopted" - people will wonder why some faction is set and why the other is not. The related/supported flags are based on what are squadrons having set, which is changing dynamically. So, I either need to extend all outputs/queries with minor factions listed to incorporate squadron settings and their number of members or have hooks on everything that may affect related/supported minor faction flag (members leaving, joining, squadron settings changes, disbanding, creating, etc.). In both cases, it's a pain in the ass and as the change currently doesn't affect anything in the listing but a few factions in comparison to the previous state, the priority is low (with something over 200 items on my ToDo list I simply must prioritize and draw lines somewhere). I am not saying it won't make it there ever, but certainly not anytime soon.
Giving the "adopted" factions the player faction tag would be the best stop-gap measure then imo. It may not be technically correct, but it's just so BGS players can look out for them. It may only be 10 factions, but those factions are present in quite a number of systems after all.
I'm trying not to be whiney about this, but I know I'd be pissed if someone started attacking "my" adopted faction and getting the excuse "well your faction is not marked as a player faction so we just assumed it has no one behind it".
Same the other way around, it'd be a massive headache to accidentally attack such a faction and then have to somehow peacefully resolve the matter. I certainly know I don't check every NPC faction for "supporting players" in the details without anything pointing me towards it
15 Apr 2021, 7:21pm
ArtieIt's how it's set - the PMF flag is static, set once for the minor faction and it's done (so it's within the same table and there are no further checks needed). Utilizing this is basically same state as for the "adopted" - people will wonder why some faction is set and why the other is not. The related/supported flags are based on what are squadrons having set, which is changing dynamically. So, I either need to extend all outputs/queries with minor factions listed to incorporate squadron settings and their number of members or have hooks on everything that may affect related/supported minor faction flag (members leaving, joining, squadron settings changes, disbanding, creating, etc.). In both cases, it's a pain in the ass and as the change currently doesn't affect anything in the listing but a few factions in comparison to the previous state, the priority is low (with something over 200 items on my ToDo list I simply must prioritize and draw lines somewhere). I am not saying it won't make it there ever, but certainly not anytime soon.
I am not sure, if we are talking about the same thing now...
So, whether it would be the existing player tag or not that is used for related/supported factions, you are saying you'd have to add additional queries in both cases?
That's unfortunate....
I thought it would run a similar query in the existing system already.
By the way, I found a powerplay window that is currently not showing any tags at all. Arguably they are not needed here though...
15 Apr 2021, 7:43pm
Ulon Yuanshi
I am not sure, if we are talking about the same thing now...
So, whether it would be the existing player tag or not that is used for related/supported factions, you are saying you'd have to add additional queries in both cases?
That's unfortunate....
I thought it would run a similar query in the existing system already.
By the way, I found a powerplay window that is currently not showing any tags at all. Arguably they are not needed here though...
Yes, we are - there is absolutely no change to the existing "[player]" tags displayed (the bug with it not being displayed for PP alerts was fixed right now, thanks for the report). Just the "[adopted]" tag in the listings was removed due mentioned difficulties. BUT, the minor faction detail pages are unaffected, there was just the "adopted" replaced by "related" and "supported", depends on the state. So, if somebody will be doing his research, he will still clearly see that minor faction is supported by and/or related to players. Actually, he will see it more clearly now, because before such information was possible to deduce just from the supporters numbers there, but now it's clearly flagged. So if somebody will be claiming: "I didn't know it's a faction supported by players!" then he is basically telling: "I was lazy to check what faction I will attack".
DragoCubXGiving the "adopted" factions the player faction tag would be the best stop-gap measure then imo. It may not be technically correct, but it's just so BGS players can look out for them. It may only be 10 factions, but those factions are present in quite a number of systems after all.
I'm trying not to be whiney about this, but I know I'd be pissed if someone started attacking "my" adopted faction and getting the excuse "well your faction is not marked as a player faction so we just assumed it has no one behind it".
Same the other way around, it'd be a massive headache to accidentally attack such a faction and then have to somehow peacefully resolve the matter. I certainly know I don't check every NPC faction for "supporting players" in the details without anything pointing me towards it
Well, putting the "adopted" flag back doesn't solve anything to me - I will get the questions "why this faction is tagged and mine not. Do something with that!" again. So I did something with that - I ceased my authority over which minor faction will be considered as adopted and which not.
I fully understand it's more comfortable to have it displayed also in the list, I get it and as I mentioned - I am not saying it will never make it there, but not soon. But, all the information about the minor faction is still visible on its page and actually, it's more clearly visible there than before. So same as I said above - anybody claiming "I didn't knew" is just saying that he haven't made his research.
Last edit: 15 Apr 2021, 7:54pm
Link to Inara Discord: https://discord.gg/qfkFWTr