296 réponses à ce sujet

[Holiday]

Raging Nug wrote...

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.

It doesn't matter how helpful they might have been to the community. They cheated. They hurt the community as a whole by cheating. They knowingly broke the rules. They deserved to get banned. Like you said, the ToS are absolute.

[dysturbed0ne]

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.

But they are there and the people exploiting it should be banned. BW already said banning people doesn't affect how fast or slow the patches come out, so why should should punishment take a backseat?

[Homey C-Dawg]

It's the mindset of the cheaters more than the actions I don't like. It's the kind of mindset that allows for twisted logic like "If i steal and get away with it, then it wasn't wrong".

Modifié par Homey C-Dawg, 19 juin 2012 - 08:54 .

[Ravenmyste]

keep going and we will have a good atmosphere to play in hopefully they can get the cheaters out and stop them cold,

[OblivionDawn]

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.

Banning people and patching the bugs that they're exploiting aren't mutually exclusive.

[StefanBW]

Great, now fix the connection issues that this game suffers from.

[Dynamik78]

stefanbw wrote...

Great, now fix the connection issues that this game suffers from.

I play since day one and on 7327643257643254343 games I played, me or the host or any player got disconnected just 5 or 6 times
That's odd because I don't have the best connection and never suffered much lag as well...Mabe I am just lucky

Modifié par Dynamik78, 19 juin 2012 - 09:01 .

[Raging Nug]

dysturbed0ne wrote...
But they are there and the people exploiting it should be banned. BW already said banning people doesn't affect how fast or slow the patches come out, so why should should punishment take a backseat?

Because then you end up with fewer people to play with.

Most of you seem to disagree with me on this - there's not much I can do about that. I'm not suggesting these people didn't deserve to be punished, but like I said, a sentence is more helpful to the community than capital punishment.

[InsomniaticMeat]

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.

Ever wonder if these bans are permanent, or just temp ones? Because really.  Giving everyone whoever got banned a permanent ban.. Would be really, really bad taste.

Since they'd have to buy the game again, spent lots of time playing MP again to get back into the game, etc. etc. Though I can see why buying the game again is a good thing when you see through EA's eyes, since it kinda does add more money to the collective.

[JMC002]

I don't want to play the game with people who cheat. They should be banned.

[jerrinehart]

There will always be exploits in games, and if you choose to take advantage of them then you will get caught, and you will be banned.

As for the issues persisting since launch, is another story, as I agree with you on that, but just because you can, doesn't mean you SHOULD.

[Astartes Marine]

Raging Nug wrote...
Most of you seem to disagree with me on this - there's not much I can do about that. I'm not suggesting these people didn't deserve to be punished, but like I said, a sentence is more helpful to the community than capital punishment.

You are assuming they got permanent bans in the first place which may or may not be the case. 

[Adhok42]

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.

Ah good ole' corporate efficiancy eh Thomas? A department for every possible concievable thing from CEO to Janitorial staff. I remember a comic where a CEO promoted her assistance to Head of the Lackey Department before disbanding it as a joke because he wanted to be in charge of something.

[NathanW18]

millerm277 wrote...

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.

They've sold >2 million copies. They've banned about 0.1% of possible players.

True, but I've seen a few people multiple times in different lobbies. I really don't think that many people are playing for that reason.

I'm still happy they're banning people, though.

[JMC002]

I've seen banned people reinstated on the leaderboards before. I assume that they won their case and the ban was removed.

[Raging Nug]

Astartes Marine wrote...
You are assuming they got permanent bans in the first place which may or may not be the case.  

I'm repeating what I've read, which is that people have been banned. If the meaning of the word 'banned' is ambiguous, maybe another word should be used in its place.

[P51Mus7ang]

I support Bioware in the ban, as I understand from reading the person banned can plead their case to come back, I highly doubt these are one off's finding a bug and it happening once, I suspect they are exploiting the bug(s) and know fully what they are doing, the vast majority of us know right from wrong.

The code in this game would be mind boggling and near impossible to get it right the first time, I manage a large group of IT people, we write a lot of our own code for GPS tracking, the guys do a great job but crap always happens, some things are a quick fix, I have seen other issues take weeks, has nothing to do with the size of the IT group or their skills, fixing one issue can create other(s) so it does take time.

[Ubergrog]

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.

Needless to say, you're still banning people over issues that involve holes in your programming. Yes,  I know that patching is a complex and difficult process, but you have a very large company with a large number of programmers. I see patches getting released twice a week for a other games just as complex as this one that have one tenth the team Bioware does.

I would have more sympathy if your last patch actually DID anything.  Not a single bug that was mentioned actually was fixed, and now all of the sync kill enemies are glitched out.


If you want to ban people, fix your game first.  

[KiraTsukasa]

I'm glad BioWare is banning cheaters. It shows that they actually care about the state of their game. Take a look at High Moon Studios and War for Cybertron. The amount of cheaters in that game across three platforms is staggering, and HMS doesn't care.

So good show BioWare. Good show.

[Adhok42]

Raging Nug wrote...

Astartes Marine wrote...
You are assuming they got permanent bans in the first place which may or may not be the case.  

I'm repeating what I've read, which is that people have been banned. If the meaning of the word 'banned' is ambiguous, maybe another word should be used in its place.

I think you're focusing too much on comparing the two(Patching and Banning). The coders who work on patching have nothing to do with the banning division. There's no comparision. Having two different teams working on different aspects allow the company to focus on both equaly.

What strikes me as odd is that you seem to think that patches are as simple as "Search Master Code for Varible 'X' that's causing the bug, change it to varible 'Not X'. Save changes. Upload updated master code."

That's not how patching works. Bugs get into the system through mundane "Working As Intended" code when the system reads it in the wrong order. This can be done because each code has a specfic priority. Situations where conflicting code is being read can create a bug when one code has a higher priority but shouldn't come before another code with a lower priorty. Chaging the priorty can suddenly cause more conflict because said lower code shouldn't come before a particular code that has an even higher priorty then the first two examples combined.

The code works as intended but actual gameplay can cause the system to read it in the wrong order. Hence the existance of QA. Even then it's stil like trying to find a needle in a haystack to find the conflicting code. You see images of what the code is telling the system to display. QA sees this as well.

This is what developers see:
trigger=shoot
enemyshot=dies.exe
enemyshot=seekcover.exe
enemy=health=3
ifhealth=1;GOTO;dies.exe
ifhealth=>1;goto;seekcover.exe

Harder then it looks trying to sift through something like that to find a bug where if an enemy gets killed he's suddenly invincible eh?

I'm sure an actual coder can explain it more eliquently then I can but hopefully I've painted a rough picture.

[OblivionDawn]

KiraTsukasa wrote...

I'm glad BioWare is banning cheaters. It shows that they actually care about the state of their game. Take a look at High Moon Studios and War for Cybertron. The amount of cheaters in that game across three platforms is staggering, and HMS doesn't care.

So good show BioWare. Good show.

Exactly. The same for Call of Duty. As soon as a new game is released, the cheaters swoop down on the previous one like a pack of hyenas upon an injured antelope.

[Pitznik]

Raging Nug wrote...

dysturbed0ne wrote...
But they are there and the people exploiting it should be banned. BW already said banning people doesn't affect how fast or slow the patches come out, so why should should punishment take a backseat?

Because then you end up with fewer people to play with.

Most of you seem to disagree with me on this - there's not much I can do about that. I'm not suggesting these people didn't deserve to be punished, but like I said, a sentence is more helpful to the community than capital punishment.

We actually end up with less chance of suddenly finding ourselves in glitched/hacked game. So your chance to have a normal game increased, not decreased... You say we don't know anything about them - we know one thing that matters, they decided to cheat/exploit, that is enough to know. What kind of knowledge you need? Nice cheater is a cheater nonetheless.

[Astartes Marine]

Raging Nug wrote...

Astartes Marine wrote...
You are assuming they got permanent bans in the first place which may or may not be the case.  

I'm repeating what I've read, which is that people have been banned. If the meaning of the word 'banned' is ambiguous, maybe another word should be used in its place.

Yes people have been banned, the length of time for said bans is variable and has not been told to us, not like we have a right to know each individual case anyways. 

Using the justice comparison you used earlier, temp bans are like serving jail/prison time, perma bans are like life imprisonment and IP bans would be the capital punishment sentence as that would effectively ban the entire console and all profiles on it from accessing the ME servers.

I would expect that as a Tier 2 violation by BioWare's own description the offenders would be given a temp ban if it were a first/second offense.  Repeat offenders though would probably get perma bans.

Modifié par Astartes Marine, 19 juin 2012 - 09:29 .

[Babbylonian]

Ubergrog 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.

Needless to say, you're still banning people over issues that involve holes in your programming. Yes,  I know that patching is a complex and difficult process, but you have a very large company with a large number of programmers. I see patches getting released twice a week for a other games just as complex as this one that have one tenth the team Bioware does.

Excellent, a testable claim:  How about you give us the companies' names and a detailed breakdown of the numbers of people working on each game within those organizations.  That should be easy enough since you know all about it, right?

I would have more sympathy if your last patch actually DID anything.  Not a single bug that was mentioned actually was fixed, and now all of the sync kill enemies are glitched out.

Which sync kill enemies are "glitched out?"  As far as I can tell, most people who complain about sync kills complain because either a) they really hate getting sync killed (totally understandable) or  they have a ton of lag and so a sync kill takes longer to register (Bioware doesn't control the quality of connections between points on the Internet).  Either way, I would not call them "glitched."

If you want to ban people, fix your game first. 

I'm obviously not speaking for Bioware here, but if I was:  "kk thx"

[PrebuiltTub]

cant wait for all the missile glitchers to get it!!!