296 réponses à ce sujet

[Raging Nug]

coldlogic82 wrote...
Really?  A lot of what you said sounded very defensive of the players, not the process.

I'm critical of people who condemn absolute strangers, so when it comes to the people white-knighting Bioware's damage control, yeah, I'll play Devil's Advocate because we frankly don't know the kind of people who were banned.

That said, I'm not arguing that they didn't deserve a ban. That's not my point. My point was made clear in my earlier post where I quoted the board meeting, which was that Bioware would rather ban players than fix the game. It was released months ago, it's still broken, and now they're making an already-shrinking community smaller.

[Holiday]

Raging Nug wrote...

dysturbed0ne wrote...

Raging Nug wrote...

Ibn_Shisha wrote...

BW internal meeting yesterday:

"Would you believe people are STILL using the host disconnect glitch!?"
"They're fools, we should ban them."
"Didn't we fix that in the patch?"
"Looks like it didn't work, and banning them's easier than fixing the problem in the first place anyway"

Fix'd.

Probably is, and effective it would seem.

If by 'effective' you mean 'stops people from playing', then yes, it's absolutely effective.
It also happens to be determental to the community, but that's beside the point, right? What matters is that those 2000 anonymous cheaters, whom we know absolutely nothing about, will never again darken our halls with whatever non-descript villainy they commited to earn those bans.

Hurray for fewer players! Soon we'll know one another by name! =D

Anyone who cheats deserves to get banned. Plain and simple. Why are you defending them?

[Dynamik78]

I don't think that the banned people have been judged for just 1 instance: i think BW is banning the serial cheaters only

I have never cheated but I do belive there is a chance of exploit accidentally: If i would ever discover a glitch which gives an unfair advantage I would never use it and report it immediately

Modifié par Dynamik78, 19 juin 2012 - 08:23 .

[ThraneDanos]

Good job bioware.  I wonder if Borderlands 2 will be as effective against cheaters....

[Raging Nug]

Holiday wrote...
Anyone who cheats deserves to get banned. Plain and simple. Why are you defending them? 

Because they make up part of the player base, and I don't believe that removing players is an acceptable alternative to fixing a game or helpful for a company with an already-poor reputation for customer relations.

That said, I'm not really defending cheaters - I'm just not impressed with the process of removing them.

[cyleric1]

Raging Nug wrote...

It was possible on the XBox as well - don't know about PS3.

So that means they've banned close to 2000 players now. I wonder how many people are still playing at this point.

I thinks this is BW's way of "fixing" the connectivity issues. /mild-sarcasm

[rymajn3]

Raging Nug wrote...

Holiday wrote...
Anyone who cheats deserves to get banned. Plain and simple. Why are you defending them? 

Because they make up part of the player base, and I don't believe that removing players is an acceptable alternative to fixing a game or helpful for a company with an already-poor reputation for customer relations.

That said, I'm not really defending cheaters - I'm just not impressed with the process of removing them.

If only patches could be made in 2 days. Hell, they can't even be made and released in 2 weeks. It's a lengthy process.

Modifié par rymajn3, 19 juin 2012 - 08:25 .

[DaDiddles]

I have no problem whatsoever with Bioware banning cheaters, glitch abusers, and exploit users from the game, especially if they catch it early. Cheats, glitches, and exploits spread like a virus. If an honest player sees a glitch or exploit used once or twice, they probably won't do it themselves, and will probably deride the cheater. But if the same honest player sees it happening dozens of times, they are much more likely to join in themselves, figuring that it must not be cheating if everyone is doing it.

I remember the ludicrous outrage some players had against the Call of Duty developers for banning players because they used glitches and exploits (like the suicide bomber exploit, and the carepackage glitch). They claimed that if it was in the game, it's fair to use.

That is simply not the case. No matter how good a developer you are, there's going to be bugs. Obviously, the ideal would be to fix the bugs before the cheat spreads. But sometimes this doesn't work. They already tried to fix a lot of things. It didn't work. We can all play the blame game if we want, but the situation is the same. Since fixing it didn't work, the only other option is "capital punishment" to deter cheaters from cheating and to stop the cheat from spreading.

If a hockey player invents rocket skates and tries to compete in a game, what do you think will happen? Mass Effect 3 multiplayer is a game, and you should only be allowed to play the game if you - play - by - the - rules.

[Thomas Abram]

Raging Nug wrote...

That said, I'm not arguing that they didn't deserve a ban. That's not my point. My point was made clear in my earlier post where I quoted the board meeting, which was that Bioware would rather ban players than fix the game. It was released months ago, it's still broken, and now they're making an already-shrinking community smaller.

You're talking about two seperate divisions here. If we were to ban 0 people patches wouldn't come out any quicker. If we were to ban 1,000,000 people patches wouldn't come out any slower.

[Raging Nug]

Connectivity issues, lol. Iseewhatyoudidthar

rymajn3 wrote...
]If only patches could be made in 2 days. Hell, they can't even be made and released in 2 weeks. It's a lenghty process.

They could hotpatch it, or make a statement, or simply leave it be and accept that they messed up and that people can use it until such a time as they release a game that 'isn't' broken.

Given that there's real money involved, it's likely that they won't (EA loves their microtransactions), but I think those might be better reactions than simply cutting players off.

[Holiday]

Raging Nug wrote...

Holiday wrote...
Anyone who cheats deserves to get banned. Plain and simple. Why are you defending them? 

Because they make up part of the player base, and I don't believe that removing players is an acceptable alternative to fixing a game or helpful for a company with an already-poor reputation for customer relations.

That said, I'm not really defending cheaters - I'm just not impressed with the process of removing them.

It doesn't really matter if they're part of the player base. They deserved to get banned. They knew the rules and the consequences, yet knowingly and repeatedly broke the rules anyway. They deserved it.  In any other MP game, they'd get banned as well. Why should ME3 be any different?

[Feauce]

After seeing MMO developers ban tens of thousands at a time for willingly taking advantage of a known exploit, you lot that are whining about the community dwindling over a couple thousand is hilarious. But that's not what these people were doing, was it? Oh wait, yes it was!

[Mandolin]

I had a strange game earlier tonight where the host disconnected around wave 8. We restarted the wave but my missiles had returned to full when there should only have been 3. At the end of the game when I checked my consumables they weren't used up and lasted until the end of the next game.

[Raging Nug]

Thomas Abram wrote...
You're talking about two seperate divisions here. If we were to ban 0 people patches wouldn't come out any quicker. If we were to ban 1,000,000 people patches wouldn't come out any slower.

Banning people for something which you intend to fix seems unnecessary. It's like the glitch on Firebase Hydra - it was your responsibility to release a product which wasn't broken, and while I understand that you can't account for everything, banning people who find these bugs should be seen as taking a backseat to fixing them.

Edit: And then when the game is finally patched, you have more people left to enjoy it. Isn't that the point?

Yes, they're two separate departments. Yes, people shouldn't be allowed to cheat. But I don't like that there seems to be more banning than patching. The game's been out for months now and the problems just seem to keep piling up. I lost all my items and credits on day 1 because of the store reset glitch and didn't get zip in compensation - so maybe I'm just being bitter, but I don't feel confidant that these are being dealt with properly.

Modifié par Raging Nug, 19 juin 2012 - 08:38 .

[Raging Nug]

Holiday wrote...
It doesn't really matter if they're part of the player base. They deserved to get banned. They knew the rules and the consequences, yet knowingly and repeatedly broke the rules anyway. They deserved it.  In any other MP game, they'd get banned as well. Why should ME3 be any different?

The terms of service are absolute, but like I said - I'd prefer that someone got a prison sentence to capital punishment.  I just don't feel that it's helpful to simply remove the 'undesirables', especially when they're anonymous and we don't actually know anything about them or how they contributed/hurt the community.

[Feauce]

Raging Nug wrote...

Banning people for something which you intend to fix seems unnecessary. It's like the glitch on Firebase Hydra - it was your responsibility to release a product which wasn't broken, and while I understand that you can't account for everything, banning people who find these bugs should be seen as taking a backseat to fixing them.

Finding bugs and willingly, knowingly, using the bug once found to gain a large, unintended advantage are completely different things.

[Raging Nug]

Feauce wrote...
Finding bugs and willingly, knowingly, using the bug once found to gain a large, unintended advantage are completely different things.

But the point is that they shouldn't be there in the first place, and banning people who use them ought to, at least publicly, take a backseat to fixing them.

[mijames1]

Raging Nug wrote...
Banning people for something which you intend to fix seems unnecessary. It's like the glitch on Firebase Hydra - it was your responsibility to release a product which wasn't broken, and while I understand that you can't account for everything, banning people who find these bugs should be seen as taking a backseat to fixing them.

If you only ever banned people for exploiting bugs that arent intended to be fixed you would only start banning people once support for the game stopped. At which point banning is pretty useless. All bugs are intended to be fixed or at least 95% are. They dont always get around to it because of time/money.

Most of the time bugs are found by players and not devs. This isnt because devs dont test it is because they cant cover everything. Fix bugs takes time. During that time something needs to be done to stop people from exploiting said bugs. Banning is really the only good option bioware has other than maybe resetting manifests but that would likely lead to more cheating to get their items back.

[jerrinehart]

Great job Bioware, keep up the good work!!

[CmnDwnWrkn]

Thomas Abram wrote...

Raging Nug wrote...

That said, I'm not arguing that they didn't deserve a ban. That's not my point. My point was made clear in my earlier post where I quoted the board meeting, which was that Bioware would rather ban players than fix the game. It was released months ago, it's still broken, and now they're making an already-shrinking community smaller.

You're talking about two seperate divisions here. If we were to ban 0 people patches wouldn't come out any quicker. If we were to ban 1,000,000 people patches wouldn't come out any slower.

LOL

That's an ABRAM SMASH if I ever saw one

[John123453242]

Good job BW!

I suggest looking into this raging nug guy. There is only one reason I can think of for defending cheaters...

[Astartes Marine]

Good work BioWare, keep them rotten cheaters at bay.  Don't need the scum polluting the game.<_<

Raging Nug wrote...
Because they make up part of the player base, and I don't believe that removing players is an acceptable alternative to fixing a game or helpful for a company with an already-poor reputation for customer relations.

Part of the playerbase or not I'd rather cheaters and abusers of exploits be removed.  They aren't worth keeping around I say, they must suffer the consequences of their actions.

Don't want a ban?  Don't abuse an obviously bannable exploit.  Not hard to understand.

[Raging Nug]

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...

Thomas Abram wrote...

Raging Nug wrote...

That said, I'm not arguing that they didn't deserve a ban. That's not my point. My point was made clear in my earlier post where I quoted the board meeting, which was that Bioware would rather ban players than fix the game. It was released months ago, it's still broken, and now they're making an already-shrinking community smaller.

You're talking about two seperate divisions here. If we were to ban 0 people patches wouldn't come out any quicker. If we were to ban 1,000,000 people patches wouldn't come out any slower.

LOL

That's an ABRAM SMASH if I ever saw one

I like Abram, but I don't like the damage control that's happening.

[Feauce]

Raging Nug wrote...

Feauce wrote...
Finding bugs and willingly, knowingly, using the bug once found to gain a large, unintended advantage are completely different things.

But the point is that they shouldn't be there in the first place, and banning people who use them ought to, at least publicly, take a backseat to fixing them.

You show me a program as complex as ME3 whose developers claim has no bugs, and I'll show you a lying bastard. Undiscovered bugs are no excuse for exploitive behavior from community members. Face it, those people were cheaters, they got caught, and now they've gotten what they deserved. They don't deserve to be remembered by us.

[Babbylonian]

Raging Nug wrote...

Thomas Abram wrote...
You're talking about two seperate divisions here. If we were to ban 0 people patches wouldn't come out any quicker. If we were to ban 1,000,000 people patches wouldn't come out any slower.

Banning people for something which you intend to fix seems unnecessary. It's like the glitch on Firebase Hydra - it was your responsibility to release a product which wasn't broken, and while I understand that you can't account for everything, banning people who find these bugs should be seen as taking a backseat to fixing them.

Are they banning people who are finding the bugs or those who are exploiting them?  There's a difference, one that you seem to think is a small one.

Edit: And then when the game is finally patched, you have more people left to enjoy it. Isn't that the point?

The game will never be bug-free, nor will it likely ever be exploit-free.  If you believe achieving that - rather than striving for it - is a realistic goal, I suspect that you don't how complex game programming is.

Yes, they're two separate departments. Yes, people shouldn't be allowed to cheat. But I don't like that there seems to be more banning than patching. The game's been out for months now and the problems just seem to keep piling up. I lost all my items and credits on day 1 because of the store reset glitch and didn't get zip in compensation - so maybe I'm just being bitter, but I don't feel confidant that these are being dealt with properly.

Oh, please.  I'll be first on line to say that Bioware has screwed up patching so far (the last update was a mess of broken promises) but, again, a perfect, glitch-free game is a goal never to be realized.  Assuming they fix this issue in the next patch, are you going to go on the offensive over the next exploit that causes Bioware to ban people?  Because there absolutely will be another exploit, and that doesn't mean Bioware is incompetent.  It's just reality.