2261 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

Vegos wrote...

How? By not agreeing with you? No agreeing with you is not acting unprincipled. Acting unprincipled would mean I would be verbally assaulting you and insulting you. I have not done that.....Yet.:innocent:

Of course not agreeing with me has nothing to do with you being unprincipled, that's common sense.

But, then, I suppose that means I likely have a different reason to say so, now doesn't it? I've actually mentioned before. It's the fact how you are so quick to forget all your talk about "facts" and go with an assumpion you "back up" by basically saying "I think it would be dumb otherwise" if it benefits you.

If you're so hot on facts, give me fact. But fact is, there is no information just how many running SP campaigns the MP will affect. You pulled that one out of thin air, and now you're trying to weasel-word your way out of the corner you talked yourself into.

THAT is cheap. THAT is unprincipled.

Speculation is based on hard facts and deduction based on previous action and current direction. Thefacts are that bw is a very self aware company. They try not to do obvious mistakes.The simple fact that make gr point from mp attach globally to all play thoughs with out sameway of balancing it is a big mistake. And no my point is not unprinciple ether.

[dreman9999]

Fenderbaum wrote...

it appears that doing certain extra things like playing co-op, participating in a social game, or other similar things can effect what happens during the ending sequences of Mass Effect 3 much like doing the loyalty missions in Mass Effect 2 effected the ending of that game.

http://www.co-optimu...mpressions.html

Mass Effect/Bioware posted that on Facebook....so...are the haters still going to believe what Casey says?

It moreof a fact thatit would effect the game like how the normandy upgrades effect the ME2. And it more of the fact that the GR points makes that effect not the mp...Mp just happento be one of the sources of GR points. In short, the writer og the article just didn't go to deal with the facts and did not expain it correctly. You can easilly find other article that explain the mp better.

[Garrison2009]

It looks as though, from what I've read in several different reviews, the player will at one point, after completing a set number of missions in MP, have the choice to import his or her MP Galaxy at war points into the SP Campaign. The article I read stated it as if it was an optional act and did not necessarily HAVE to be done. This, hopefully, will lay to rest some fears that people have been voicing.

[Comsky159]

Garrison2009 wrote...

It looks as though, from what I've read in several different reviews, the player will at one point, after completing a set number of missions in MP, have the choice to import his or her MP Galaxy at war points into the SP Campaign. The article I read stated it as if it was an optional act and did not necessarily HAVE to be done. This, hopefully, will lay to rest some fears that people have been voicing.

Alright, so it's ended up as sort of like a benign tumor then. Better than what was originally feared but still rather unsightly on the whole.

[dreman9999]

Garrison2009 wrote...

It looks as though, from what I've read in several different reviews, the player will at one point, after completing a set number of missions in MP, have the choice to import his or her MP Galaxy at war points into the SP Campaign. The article I read stated it as if it was an optional act and did not necessarily HAVE to be done. This, hopefully, will lay to rest some fears that people have been voicing.

Thanks Garrison... I waswrong and right. I was wrong about is being per play through but  I was right to think they would have a control disubution to your playthroughs...That  it's not global.

[dreman9999]

Comsky159 wrote...

Garrison2009 wrote...

It looks as though, from what I've read in several different reviews, the player will at one point, after completing a set number of missions in MP, have the choice to import his or her MP Galaxy at war points into the SP Campaign. The article I read stated it as if it was an optional act and did not necessarily HAVE to be done. This, hopefully, will lay to rest some fears that people have been voicing.

Alright, so it's ended up as sort of like a benign tumor then. Better than what was originally feared but still rather unsightly on the whole.

Again, they have to make a mp in a way that if someone doesn't want to play it won't miss anything for not playing it. They have to gimp it in some way. It was never ment to stand on it's own.

[Vegos]

Speculation is based on hard facts and deduction based on previous action and current direction. Thefacts are that bw is a very self aware company. They try not to do obvious mistakes.The simple fact that make gr point from mp attach globally to all play thoughs with out sameway of balancing it is a big mistake. And no my point is not unprinciple ether.

You do realize nothing you say at this point will convince me to take you seriously anymore, right? Save your breath.

@Garrison; Thanks for that bit of information, it's actually helpful.

[dreman9999]

Vegos wrote...

Speculation is based on hard facts and deduction based on previous action and current direction. Thefacts are that bw is a very self aware company. They try not to do obvious mistakes.The simple fact that make gr point from mp attach globally to all play thoughs with out sameway of balancing it is a big mistake. And no my point is not unprinciple ether.

You do realize nothing you say at this point will convince me to take you seriously anymore, right? Save your breath.

@Garrison; Thanks for that bit of information, it's actually helpful.

Heck, you make it sound that I was wrong to think bioware would make gr points from the mp globally given out in the game.:innocent:

[Killjoy Cutter]

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Says the one that blatantly ignores stated facts.

LoL @ marketing double-speak as "facts". 

Never mind that you still don't begin grasp even one of the actual objections that people have to the MP as it has been tacked on, and reject out-of-hand all suggestions as to how those objections could be addressed. 

You're the same Bioware sycophant who vehemently rejects even the concept of the option of AI bots and offline play for the added multiplayer content, and keeps insisting that the multiplayer and side-mission content is identical. 

You have absolutely no room and no standing to talk about "not getting it". 

1. I'm not ageinst bots.

2. I'm looking more at what people are asking for and truely seeing what they get if they get what they want. Playing a  co-op horde mode alone with bot's makes the game no longer a co-op game, it makes it a survival mode. Playing the game with bots make the chances of beating the mode worse because you working with bots with very limited intelligences. If you want the bots and the horde mode experience....Just ask for it based on the sp where they already have a proper system in place.

3. The issues in hand is how the mp will effect the sp. And it mute, why? Because you can get EVERYTHING YOU GET AS A REWARD FROM THE MP IN THE SP. You don't get anything extra from doing the mp that you will also get from the sp...NOTHING!!!!!
So if anyone is worried about the mp effecting their game.....DON'T PLAY THE MP!!!!!!!

The system as described by Bioware removes any possibility of the MP not affecting the SP.  To think otherwise is to ignore the basics of game design while wearing super-thick fanboy glasses.   Once it CAN affect SP, then it ALWAYS affects the design of the SP game.  Whether or not someone plays the MP is absolutely irrelevent to whether the inclusion of MP affects the SP campaign.

And Bioware's marketing blather that it won't is meaningless.

Ok, then......For you togetthe awnser for this.....I need for you to do some home work.......Read my 2nd point, then my 3th point. If you still don't understand....Read them again....And if you still feel upset....Read the last word for my 3th point.....

I have the answer.  Your inability to understand the English language does not translate into anyone else needing to re-read your posts -- you're just wrong.

I don't even have to make a full comment to answer this.(Heck, you don't even us an argument to even try to prove me wrong) The point is:

2. I'm looking more at what people are asking for and truly seeing what
they get if they get what they want. Playing a  co-op horde mode alone
with bot's makes the game no longer a co-op game, it makes it a survival
mode. Playing the game with bots make the chances of beating the mode
worse because you working with bots with very limited intelligences. If
you want the bots and the horde mode experience....Just ask for it based
on the sp where they already have a proper system in place.

3.
The issues in hand is how the mp will effect the sp. And it mute, why?
Because you can get EVERYTHING YOU GET AS A REWARD FROM THE MP IN THE
SP. You don't get anything extra from doing the mp that you will also
get from the sp...NOTHING!!!!!
So if anyone is worried about the mp effecting their game.....DON'T PLAY THE MP!!!!!!!

If you can't understand that then.....It's clear your not thinking logical.

Your stated position is based entirely on charitable assumptions and trusting the statements of a company that has already proven itself very much less than trustworthy.  You don't get to talk about "logical". 

As for "it won't be co-op anymore if there are bots", SO WHAT?  What exactly is it about other people playing the "MP" content alone, with the aid of AI bots, that bothers you so damn much?   

Regarding the effect that the addition of the linked MP will have on the SP content, it's been explained ad nauseum how and why the one affects the other.  Your only response the entire time as been "but it just doesn't!" repeated over and over and over again. 

The addition of MP that can affect the SP campaign means that the MP affects the design of the SP campaign, full stop.  The SP campaign is altered by even the possible influx of benefits from MP play.  That's what you're either failing to grasp, or deliberately ignoring.  Adding linked MP alters the design of the SP, full stop. 

[Killjoy Cutter]

dreman9999 wrote...

Fenderbaum wrote...

it appears that doing certain extra things like playing co-op, participating in a social game, or other similar things can effect what happens during the ending sequences of Mass Effect 3 much like doing the loyalty missions in Mass Effect 2 effected the ending of that game.

http://www.co-optimu...mpressions.html

Mass Effect/Bioware posted that on Facebook....so...are the haters still going to believe what Casey says?

It moreof a fact thatit would effect the game like how the normandy upgrades effect the ME2. And it more of the fact that the GR points makes that effect not the mp...Mp just happento be one of the sources of GR points. In short, the writer og the article just didn't go to deal with the facts and did not expain it correctly. You can easilly find other article that explain the mp better.

You don't know that.  You're just presuming it's true.  

[dreman9999]

@Killjoy Cutter

It not that bots both me. It the fact that we can ask for something better than bots......Why ask forbot we can't control whwn we can get the sp system that works and get a better expriance with a sp gamepley base survival mode?
And no, themp does not directly  affect the sp. It's the GR points. You can get it from the mp. We are also getting facebook games, and phone games that add gr point tothe game as well. The sp also gives the player gr points,too, and can be played excusively with no punishmnet for not playing the mp.
So....A player does not get anything more to their sp from the mp that they won't get by playing the sp alone.

Multiplayer is very optional

Modifié par dreman9999, 28 octobre 2011 - 05:40 .

[dreman9999]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Fenderbaum wrote...

it appears that doing certain extra things like playing co-op, participating in a social game, or other similar things can effect what happens during the ending sequences of Mass Effect 3 much like doing the loyalty missions in Mass Effect 2 effected the ending of that game.

http://www.co-optimu...mpressions.html

Mass Effect/Bioware posted that on Facebook....so...are the haters still going to believe what Casey says?

It moreof a fact thatit would effect the game like how the normandy upgrades effect the ME2. And it more of the fact that the GR points makes that effect not the mp...Mp just happento be one of the sources of GR points. In short, the writer og the article just didn't go to deal with the facts and did not expain it correctly. You can easilly find other article that explain the mp better.

You don't know that.  You're just presuming it's true.  

Yes, I do. Their is a whole faq page on bioware your ignoring that states this as well as other articles that explains this better than that site.

[Il Divo]

dreman9999 wrote...

2. I'm looking more at what people are asking for and truly seeing what
they get if they get what they want. Playing a  co-op horde mode alone
with bot's makes the game no longer a co-op game, it makes it a survival
mode. Playing the game with bots make the chances of beating the mode
worse because you working with bots with very limited intelligences. If
you want the bots and the horde mode experience....Just ask for it based
on the sp where they already have a proper system in place.

3.
The issues in hand is how the mp will effect the sp. And it mute, why?
Because you can get EVERYTHING YOU GET AS A REWARD FROM THE MP IN THE
SP. You don't get anything extra from doing the mp that you will also
get from the sp...NOTHING!!!!!
So if anyone is worried about the mp effecting their game.....DON'T PLAY THE MP!!!!!!!

If you can't understand that then.....It's clear your not thinking logical.

No, sorry. You don't get to play the "multiplayer is optional" card, and then take a stance on this regarding bots in co-op. It follows the exact same logic train. Bots are optional. If you don't like them, you can play with real people.

I don't play Bioware games to receive less content than other players, and I personally have no interest in playing online. Bots means I have access to the full Mass Effect 3 experience, which is what I'm after. Bioware can simply re-balance everything around AI squad-mates, akin to the single-player.

Modifié par Il Divo, 28 octobre 2011 - 05:40 .

[dreman9999]

Il Divo wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

2. I'm looking more at what people are asking for and truly seeing what
they get if they get what they want. Playing a  co-op horde mode alone
with bot's makes the game no longer a co-op game, it makes it a survival
mode. Playing the game with bots make the chances of beating the mode
worse because you working with bots with very limited intelligences. If
you want the bots and the horde mode experience....Just ask for it based
on the sp where they already have a proper system in place.

3.
The issues in hand is how the mp will effect the sp. And it mute, why?
Because you can get EVERYTHING YOU GET AS A REWARD FROM THE MP IN THE
SP. You don't get anything extra from doing the mp that you will also
get from the sp...NOTHING!!!!!
So if anyone is worried about the mp effecting their game.....DON'T PLAY THE MP!!!!!!!

If you can't understand that then.....It's clear your not thinking logical.

No, sorry. You don't get to play the "multiplayer is optional" card, and then take a stance on this regarding bots in co-op. It follows the exact same logic train. Bots are optional. If you don't like them, you can play with real people.

I don't play Bioware games to receive less content than other players, and I personally have no interest in playing online. Bots means I have access to the full Mass Effect 3 experience, which is what I'm after. Bioware can simply re-balance everything around AI squad-mates, akin to the single-player.

Guess I have to explain agein. I'm not say bots are bad. I'm saying we should ask for something better than bots that are shadows for real thinking people. I'm saying bot won't be able to handle the difficulty of the hmp horde mode. You will end up plying on your own in the end facing enemies in a mode made for mulitple people to face. Why ask for something that will not work right.
I'm just saying, a sp survival mode based on sp combate and AI control would be better than a mp with bots which you can't control.

[Il Divo]

dreman9999 wrote...

Guess I have to explain agein. I'm not say bots are bad. I'm saying we should ask for something better than bots that are shadows for real thinking people. I'm saying bot won't be able to handle the difficulty of the hmp horde mode. You will end up plying on your own in the end facing enemies in a mode made for mulitple people to face. Why ask for something that will not work right.
I'm just saying, a sp survival mode based on sp combate and AI control would be better than a mp with bots which you can't control.

Regardless, last time that was attempted, we got Pinnacle Station as a result. The primary point is that, however MP generates GR, we potentially want access to that too. It's not just about possessing a horde mode, but about having an adequate method of generating resources, that involves more than planet-scanning.

[dreman9999]

Il Divo wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Guess I have to explain agein. I'm not say bots are bad. I'm saying we should ask for something better than bots that are shadows for real thinking people. I'm saying bot won't be able to handle the difficulty of the hmp horde mode. You will end up plying on your own in the end facing enemies in a mode made for mulitple people to face. Why ask for something that will not work right.
I'm just saying, a sp survival mode based on sp combate and AI control would be better than a mp with bots which you can't control.

Regardless, last time that was attempted, we got Pinnacle Station as a result. The primary point is that, however MP generates GR, we potentially want access to that too. It's not just about possessing a horde mode, but about having an adequate method of generating resources, that involves more than planet-scanning.

Thanks for ignoring the fact that ME1 combat is bad.
The main problem was not the pinnical station is bad, it was that the combat for ME1 is bad. That's clearly not the case for ME2 or ME3. The combatis fantastic. Heck, if the pinniacle station arguement still had groud, it would be used as a con ageinst mp.
Also, mp is not the only soruce of GR. We don't even know if it's the best soruce of GR anyway. Wehave sp, thefacebook game and the phone game the make gr as well. It mute to argue that you have to play the mp to get gr because it's not the only source.

Modifié par dreman9999, 28 octobre 2011 - 05:56 .

[Vegos]

Thanks for ignoring the fact that ME1 combat is bad.

You making an universal claim or saying that you didn't like ME1 combat?

I actually liked it myself. Sure, it was not conventional, but it was still fun enough. Good luck with that universal claim of yours.

Modifié par Vegos, 28 octobre 2011 - 05:57 .

[dreman9999]

Vegos wrote...

Thanks for ignoring the fact that ME1 combat is bad.

You making an universal claim or saying that you didn't like ME1 combat?

I actually liked it myself. Sure, it was not conventional, but it was still fun enough. Good luck with that universal claim of yours.

But it is a universal claim. Every reveiw for ME1 state how flawed the combat is. A mass majority of the fans complained about it. It was the prime reason why ME2's combat was changed so much....Because ME1 combat was not that good at all, it's unbalaced and messy.

[Vegos]

Modifié par Vegos, 28 octobre 2011 - 06:06 .

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...
No, sorry. You don't get to play the "multiplayer is optional" card, and then take a stance on this regarding bots in co-op. It follows the exact same logic train. Bots are optional. If you don't like them, you can play with real people.

I don't play Bioware games to receive less content than other players, and I personally have no interest in playing online. Bots means I have access to the full Mass Effect 3 experience, which is what I'm after. Bioware can simply re-balance everything around AI squad-mates, akin to the single-player.

I approve of everything in this post.  But especially the bolded part.

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

Il Divo wrote...
No, sorry. You don't get to play the "multiplayer is optional" card, and then take a stance on this regarding bots in co-op. It follows the exact same logic train. Bots are optional. If you don't like them, you can play with real people.

I don't play Bioware games to receive less content than other players, and I personally have no interest in playing online. Bots means I have access to the full Mass Effect 3 experience, which is what I'm after. Bioware can simply re-balance everything around AI squad-mates, akin to the single-player.

I approve of everything in this post.  But especially the bolded part.

Haha, can I get that in writing? Oh wait....

Modifié par Il Divo, 28 octobre 2011 - 06:34 .

[Taciter]

Il Divo wrote...

iakus wrote...

Il Divo wrote...
No, sorry. You don't get to play the "multiplayer is optional" card, and then take a stance on this regarding bots in co-op. It follows the exact same logic train. Bots are optional. If you don't like them, you can play with real people.

I don't play Bioware games to receive less content than other players, and I personally have no interest in playing online. Bots means I have access to the full Mass Effect 3 experience, which is what I'm after. Bioware can simply re-balance everything around AI squad-mates, akin to the single-player.

I approve of everything in this post. But especially the bolded part.

Haha, can I get that in writing? Oh wait....

I concur... Il Divo for Priminister, Killjoy for minister of defence!
 
p.s. lol.. dreman has started his own thread.. that child is a menace!

Modifié par Taciter, 28 octobre 2011 - 10:35 .

[Vegos]

Taciter wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

iakus wrote...

Il Divo wrote...
No, sorry. You don't get to play the "multiplayer is optional" card, and then take a stance on this regarding bots in co-op. It follows the exact same logic train. Bots are optional. If you don't like them, you can play with real people.

I don't play Bioware games to receive less content than other players, and I personally have no interest in playing online. Bots means I have access to the full Mass Effect 3 experience, which is what I'm after. Bioware can simply re-balance everything around AI squad-mates, akin to the single-player.

I approve of everything in this post. But especially the bolded part.

Haha, can I get that in writing? Oh wait....

I concur... Il Divo for Priminister, Killjoy for minister of defence!
 
p.s. lol.. dreman has started his own thread.. that child is a menace!

Can I be the minister of foreign affairs?

[Taciter]

Vegos wrote...

Taciter wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

iakus wrote...

Il Divo wrote...
No, sorry. You don't get to play the "multiplayer is optional" card, and then take a stance on this regarding bots in co-op. It follows the exact same logic train. Bots are optional. If you don't like them, you can play with real people.

I don't play Bioware games to receive less content than other players, and I personally have no interest in playing online. Bots means I have access to the full Mass Effect 3 experience, which is what I'm after. Bioware can simply re-balance everything around AI squad-mates, akin to the single-player.

I approve of everything in this post. But especially the bolded part.

Haha, can I get that in writing? Oh wait....

I concur... Il Divo for Priminister, Killjoy for minister of defence!
 
p.s. lol.. dreman has started his own thread.. that child is a menace!

Can I be the minister of foreign affairs?

Indeed you may Vegos, you've earned that right as one of our more vocal AI squaddie supporters! I'll settle for Cabinet Secretary.

p.s. Check out the thread on Origin - it appears that BF3 has provoked a colossal outrage for its Draconian implementation of Origin.. great stuff! Les Gens sont libere!

Modifié par Taciter, 28 octobre 2011 - 11:04 .

[Garrison2009]

iakus wrote...

Il Divo wrote...
No, sorry. You don't get to play the "multiplayer is optional" card, and then take a stance on this regarding bots in co-op. It follows the exact same logic train. Bots are optional. If you don't like them, you can play with real people.

I don't play Bioware games to receive less content than other players, and I personally have no interest in playing online. Bots means I have access to the full Mass Effect 3 experience, which is what I'm after. Bioware can simply re-balance everything around AI squad-mates, akin to the single-player.

I approve of everything in this post.  But especially the bolded part.

Well it looks as if there'll be no need for bots. From several different reviews, it looks like they've made it so you can play completely by yourself in MP, if you so wish, and difficulty is changed accordingly. So yeah, other players are not ABSOLUTELY required for Co-op (A wise move on Bioware's part in my opinion).