98 réponses à ce sujet

[swn32]

godlike13 wrote...

Are u saying the reload trick was intentional?

That's exactly what he is saying and thats what im arguing against. I didnt think anyone actually thought this obvious bug was intentional until today 

As for it being a single player game, if something gets ****ed about enough or gets deemed enough of an issue it can be patched. Just look at the shield bubble in Dragon Age. Most everyone on the forums agreed it was HORRENDOUSLY overpowered, and low and behold it got patched. 

Except no one complained against it because they found it to be a fun bug and its not overpowered either, rather makes up for the shortcomings of the underpowered claymore.

Modifié par swn32, 20 septembre 2010 - 05:32 .

[sinosleep]

Pretty much. The way I see it I can't be entirely certain that the first time a move was canceled out of to lead to a combo in a fight game it was intentional. But what I can be sure of is that in all these years since the discovery of animation canceling not once have I seen a sequel remove them across the board like they would with any other bug. In fact, I've actually seen specific cancels either added or removed from game to game (Street Fighter 4 to Super Street Fighter 4 saw several characters either lose or gain a way to cancel into a super combo) in order to balance it. All the while these cancels have remained officially undocumented while being added or removed for balance purposes. Seems rather strange if they weren't in any way intended right?

There are some people that seem to be implying Bioware is simply trying to put a positive spin on a negative problem but to me that flies in the face of when they've admitted X thing is a bug or X thing is overpowered. They patched the shield bubble in Dragon Age, they patched the old 360 squad points glitch. They've admitted to the stasis bug, talked about charge and fortification not getting full benefit from research due to balancing and taken wildly different stances on different issues with the game. I'm of the opinion that if they were in the business of spin they would do it more often than they have.

The reload trick came out because they decided to bring it up. Not cause someone else figured it out first and they complained. Not to cover up a bug. Christina Norman brought it up of her own volition and since it applies to every weapon, on every class, and seems perfectly patchable since it's a part of the original code and not dlc specific I'm of the opinion that either it's intentional or it's at the very least an accepted part of gameplay. Which given my love of fighting games isn't that hard for me to believe.

p.s. Although I should add, that even if it were to be a bug or exploit, it doesn't really have any bearing on my original post any damned way. Since any time I make a recommendation about the claymore I specifically mention the reload trick. Which is all I was originally asking for. Don't post X bonus power is awesome without bothering to specify, it's only that awesome if you take advantage of Y,  particularly if Y happens to be a comfirmed exploit.

Modifié par sinosleep, 20 septembre 2010 - 05:43 .

[OniGanon]

The stats do say that the GPS has a minimum refire time on 1s on the UNcharged shots, but has a ROF of 178RPM (decidedly faster than 1 shot per sec). So the ability to very quickly follow a charged or partially charged shot with an uncharged shot could very well be intended (and only situationally useful).

[swn32]

sinosleep wrote...

Pretty much. The way I see it I can't be entirely certain that the first time a move was canceled out of to lead to a combo in a fight game it was intentional. But what I can be sure of is that in all these years since the discovery of animation canceling not once have I seen a sequel remove them across the board like they would with any other bug. In fact, I've actually seen specific cancels either added or removed from game to game (Street Fighter 4 to Super Street Fighter 4 saw several characters either lose or gain a way to cancel into a super combo) in order to balance it. All the while these cancels have remained officially undocumented while being added or removed for balance purposes. Seems rather strange if they weren't in any way intended right?

I will stop responding to these ridiculous comparisons between a fighting game genre and a TPS. Fighting games have all sorts of nonsense in them. Like in street fighter you can wall jump off thin air if it happens to be at the end of the screen. Comparing mass effect with them is borderline stupidity.

sinosleep wrote...

There are some people that seem to be implying Bioware is simply trying to put a positive spin on a negative problem but to me that flies in the face of when they've admitted X thing is a bug or X thing is overpowered. They patched the shield bubble in Dragon Age, they patched the old 360 squad points glitch. They've admitted to the stasis bug, talked about charge and fortification not getting full benefit from research due to balancing and taken wildly different stances on different issues with the game. I'm of the opinion that if they were in the business of spin they would do it more often than they have.

They obviously didnt patch out the reload bug because they were of the opinion it didnt unbalance the game. People found it fun and it made claymore a weapon worth choosing.

sinosleep wrote..

The reload trick came out because they decided to bring it up. Not cause someone else figured it out first and they complained. Not to cover up a bug. Christina Norman brought it up of her own volition and since it applies to every weapon, on every class, and seems perfectly patchable since it's a part of the original code and not dlc specific I'm of the opinion that either it's intentional or it's at the very least an accepted part of gameplay. Which given my love of fighting games isn't that hard for me to believe.

She brought it up because it was a fact. It was a fault with their reload system that didn't need fixing. No one in the dev team would have come up with the "brilliant" idea of shooting sideways out of a gun. Its just an acceptable part of gameplay, it simply couldn't have been intentional because then they wouldn't have made the animation look so retarded while reload tricking.

OniGanon wrote...

The stats do say that the GPS has a minimum refire time on 1s on the UNcharged shots, but has a ROF of 178RPM (decidedly faster than 1 shot per sec). So the ability to very quickly follow a charged or partially charged shot with an uncharged shot could very well be intended (and only situationally useful).

I believe the 178RPM fire was to facilitate quick reload. They couldve reduced the fire rate to 60 RPM, but that would mean a 1 second delay between a shot and reload. Bugs like quick refire after melee is just a side effect. How can performing a melee action speed up the firerate of any weapon. That makes no sense.

Modifié par swn32, 20 septembre 2010 - 06:00 .

[sinosleep]

Realism doesn't have squat to do with the comparison, which you for some reason seem to think dictates the entirety of the comparison. The animation doesn't have to jive perfectly, it doesn't always jive perfectly in fighting games either. So once again, agree to disagree, cause I think your refusal to accept the comparison is just as ridiculous as you think the comparison itself is.

[sinosleep]

Also, you think you could cook up a reply that didn't have some kind of snide insult attached. X is obvious. Y is borderline stupidity. You can take your cheap shots and shove em.

[swn32]

Maybe cancelling the reload animation into a melee could've been intentional. No way was firing a shot in between. Fighting games are known to have ridiculous animations. But in a game like mass effect, im sure they wouldve got their animations right if they were intentional (like in gears of war).

Why should i have to perform a melee action to fire the next shot, why cant i simply fire the shot as soon as i hear the click sound. How does performing a melee action facilitate me to quickly refire a shot. This is something that transcends unrealism. Its ridiculous.

Also, you think you could cook up a reply that didn't have some kind of snide insult attached. X is obvious. Y is borderline stupidity. You can take your cheap shots and shove em.

Its not my fault if you actually thought its possible to perform a melee action when a shotgun fires. Why did the developers bother to make a recoil animation for the claymore. I bet its not the gun thats actually producing the recoil, rather its shepard who is moving the gun in that way after firing for dramatic effect.

Modifié par swn32, 20 septembre 2010 - 06:23 .

[sinosleep]

Your entire argument revolves around realism when it has nothing to do with the actual issue at hand. It is also ENTIRELY your own fault if you can't make a decent arguement without resorting to insults.

Modifié par sinosleep, 20 septembre 2010 - 06:25 .

[swn32]

I made a very simple argument, why should i have to perform a melee to perform a cancel. Its got nothing to do with realism. Its about logic. Please give me a logical reply to that (realism needn't be your concern). Why can't I press fire button simply after hearing the click, to cancel the reload and fire.

You dont need to worry about realistic factors like guns have recoil and guns shoot forward.

Modifié par swn32, 20 septembre 2010 - 06:31 .

[sinosleep]

Because it doesn't interrupt the reload animation the way using melee or casting a power does. What is used to interrupt the reload animation is irrelevant, only the fact that it does is.

Modifié par sinosleep, 20 septembre 2010 - 06:30 .

[khevan]

Does the animation look wonky when performing the reload trick with the claymore?



Yes.



Does the fact that a developer bringing up the reload trick before it was discovered by the playerbase indicative of it being intentional, or at least a known and excepted gameplay "quirk" before the game was released?



Yes.



The fact of the matter is that no matter how you look at it, there are points that could indicate that it is a bug or exploit, and there are points that indicate that it's a gameplay feature. There's no way to be sure one way or the other without asking the developers, and I don't think they're going to confirm or deny this at this point, if they haven't done so already.



I don't like the Claymore. I don't like a single shot weapon when I'm up close and personal with someone who wants to do me bodily harm. I want a second shot just in case my first shot misses. So, since I don't like the single shot Claymore, I won't ever need to take advantage of the reload trick, but I personally think it's wierd to see the shotgun fire when it's pointed to the side. I don't like it, but I'm not going to call it a bug or an exploit. It's like Reave, in my opinion. Available to be used if it makes someone elses' gameplay experience more fun, but not to my taste, and I won't use it.



The bickering about whether it's intentional or a bug is pointless, and ultimately fruitless. Why argue when nothing will change about it?

[swn32]

sinosleep wrote...

Because it doesn't interrupt the reload animation the way using melee or casting a power does. What is used to interrupt the reload animation is irrelevant, only the fact that it does is.

I agree that the developers couldve planned the interruption of reload by melee or powers. But my issue is with the shot being fired while doing so. If the developers really intended that shot being fired, why couldnt they make shooting a valid interrupt after the click is heard.

[sinosleep]

Does the fact that you can cancel a dragon punch into a super combo have any bearing at all on the fact that you can't cancel a hurricane kick into a super comb on the same character? Nope.

[swn32]

While doing a shoryuken, if you havent left the ground you are still in a position to perform a super combo. Not so while doing a hurricane kick where you are spinning and floating in mid air.

I think you are one of those people who can justify a gameplay element no matter how stupid it sounds, logically or realistically.

Modifié par swn32, 20 septembre 2010 - 06:39 .

[sinosleep]

And yet you can still cancel a hurricane kick into a dragon punch, during which you are required to be on the ground. Does it make complete sense? No. Does all the evidence surrounding it point to it being intentional though? Absolutely.

As for justifying things, nah, not really. I'll justify it if it seems warranted. I was one of the first people that brought up the obscene stasis damage. I was one of the first people that noticed fortification was noticibly worse than barrier or geth shield boost. If there is no justification for it at all I'm not going to defend it. I just don't think that's the case when it cmes to the reload trick. I just look at it the same way I look at fighting game cancels. Can you cancel any move into any other move? No. Are there concrete reasons I can point to as to why you can or can't? Nope. Are there concrete reasons I can look to that tell me that the devs know what can cancel into what and have a hand in what can or can't? Yup. And so that's enough for me.

Modifié par sinosleep, 20 septembre 2010 - 06:46 .

[swn32]

Right so if fighting games decide to be stupid, so should every other game? Why would the developers bother explaining the different phenomenons in the game using codex entries if they couldve just decided to leave stupid stuff unexplained. Why have a weapon like Claymore and explain why no other squadmate (except Grunt) can use it because of its recoil, and then have shepard handle it like a toy. I seriously doubt the developers intentionally wouldve added something that makes so little sense after all their efforts to justify everything else. Fighting games on the other hand dont feel the need to justify anything no matter how ridiculous they are.

Modifié par swn32, 20 septembre 2010 - 06:48 .

[sinosleep]

Are you serious? if you want to get into gameplay inconsistencies there are about a million of them. Why are enemy warps and rocket launchers such a joke (they primarily stagger, as opposed to doing damage)? Why are Krogan such a joke? Why don't biotics take minutes to recharge? There are so many inconsistencies between the gameplay and the lore that I stopped giving a crap a long, LONG time ago. Read some of the Dragon Age codexes, if the characters and items were half as powerful as their codex implies you'd solo through the game on nightmare in 5 minutes. Whether lore junkies want to accept it or not, lore will always be slave to gameplay. Always has been, always will be.

Modifié par sinosleep, 20 septembre 2010 - 06:51 .

[swn32]

So you are basically removing logic from this discussion. I asked why developers intentionally decided to require melee action while cancelling if they wanted reload cancelling as a feature. That is something that makes no sense logically. At no point someone in the dev team wouldve come up saying, doesn't it make sense to simply have fire button do the cancelling if u time it right.The gameplay inconsistencies are primarily for balance reasons. But the tricking, there's absolutely no reason the developers would require you to do a melee for cancelling. A well timed refire right after the click sound is equally hard to pull off. Also it should be noted that claymore tricking is extremely hard on an xbox because of the way the buttons are placed. Logically there are two conclusions, it was unintentional and they didnt bother to remove it later OR the dev team is irrational. I dont want to believe the latter.

Modifié par swn32, 20 septembre 2010 - 07:04 .

[godlike13]

Im having a have time believing that the reload trick was intentional, nor do it think its necessarily a "flaw" either though. I just think we just live in an imperfect world, with imperfect code. Its a simple exploit, an acceptable exploit, but still an exploit of the programming. I just can't see them intentionally putting in sideways shooting <_<.

Modifié par godlike13, 20 septembre 2010 - 07:14 .

[sinosleep]

Using the power interrupt doesn't result in a sideways shot. I'm not defending the animation, I'm defending the mechanic of reload interruption. Particularly when the easiest way to pull off the interruption is to HOLD down the fire button thus taking it out possible actions with which to interrupt in the first place.The animation doesn't need to jive perfectly to justify the mechanic just as it doesn't always jive in other genres the feature the exact same mechanic.

Modifié par sinosleep, 20 septembre 2010 - 07:18 .

[swn32]

Instead of having to hold down fire button and press melee at the right time, it makes more sense to not hold anything and simply press fire at the same time. It would make it easier for xbox users as well then, who have to use the thumb to aim as well as melee. It simply couldnt have been intentional.

Modifié par swn32, 20 septembre 2010 - 07:51 .

[Homebound]

So...Lvl 1 Warp. Not worth it? I just want my Cryo soldier to have something against all defences.

Modifié par Just_mike, 20 septembre 2010 - 12:05 .

[termokanden]

I'd say not worth it if you're only using 1 point. Would do more damage with weapons for sure, and the Warp bombs from level 1 Warp are not very powerful.

[Pacifien]

I wouldn't have thought the strategy forum would be in need of moderation, but this thread has degenerated into antagonistic bickering and I'm pretty sure the terms "incendiary ammo," "warp ammo," and "barrier" haven't been used for a couple pages now. If you want to argue an element of the game completely unrelated to the original post, I suggest starting a new topic. And keep it civil, or I'll lock that one, too.