183 réponses à ce sujet

[Asebstos]

Is it about the bottom line... or is it that 28% of all matches are on FBW? I think its about variety.

I can't wait until I join a lobby and it isn't FBW Geth over and over and over.

[Computron2000]

Oz not Ozzy wrote...

Waffelmeister wrote...

FBW is the only map where you'd have a reasonable chance to actually grab a pyro anyway.

Well, maybe glacier as well.

FALSE.

My favourite solo map is Ghost and I have grabbed Pyros over the counters on that map plenty of times.

There's also a few good places for grabbing on Hydra, Condor, Giant and Vancouver.

+1 and Dagger (ammo box + hack area), Rio (LZ corridor though AI pathfinding there is screwed up on certain grab areas) and London (benches + the half cover), Jade (spawn area) as well, Reactor (Hack area). Only on Goddess is grabbing not a good mix it up tactic for me.

[78stonewobble]

Rifneno wrote...

78stonewobble wrote...

Oz not Ozzy wrote...

...sums up my feelings on the matter, other than to say I don't know what's annoying me more... That changes like these are being made in an obvious attempt to combat farming, or that the PR monkeys don't have the decency to admit it and instead try and spin all the "never intended" bollocks... it's insulting!

Not sticking your head into flames does makes sense logically. I'll give them that.

But obviously it's about the bottom line...

When did video games start making sense?

Theres usually an internal logic to a universe/fantasi/ most usually extrapolated from real life.

Would you try to attack anyone toting a flamethrower from the front in real life and grabble with him?

It does make more sense than they adding flying pies made of kittens that blow bubbles at walls but doesn't interact with the world.

[wolfsite]

I normally Snipe Pyros when I see them, though again like many others the grab did save my life when the Pyro flame began bypassing the cover I was using.

[78stonewobble]

Asebstos wrote...

Is it about the bottom line... or is it that 28% of all matches are on FBW? I think its about variety.

I can't wait until I join a lobby and it isn't FBW Geth over and over and over.

But you can pick another game or make your own.

If we flip the point of view: "I like firebase white geth and dislike other maps. Those other maps should be made harder or unbearable to others so they will play firebase white geth. Like I want them to." 

That doesn't seem fair to me.

And I don't see the problem in other people playing what they want to play aslong as I can play what I want to.

IMHO it's either bioware bottomline or some petty jealousy thats the issue.

[GriM_AoD]

Will force people to prioritise Pyros when spotted rather that laughing until they plod up to your cover.
I always shoot them on sight, they're awfully sneaky for a big yellow flamer-wielding machine... you think "he's a mile away" shoot a hunter or two, "SURPISE MOTHAFUKKA" flames in your face, diving backwards doesn't save you either..
Shoot them on sight, and this update should make other people do the same, get sick of when they come behind from where a teammate is forgot about it and it decides it wants to burn the the Quarian bum bum.

Kinda looking forward to it.

Modifié par GriM_AoD, 02 octobre 2012 - 12:02 .

[ElectroNeonPanda]

Sgt SuperWae wrote...

The extent in which farmers have been able to dictate the gaming experiences of SO MANY OTHERS is appalling.

You make it sound like farmers are actively seeking to ruin your playing experience when in reality they likely don't know or care who you are.  Farmers are just playing the game the way they enjoy and adapting to whatever changes come their way.  Instead of QQ'ing against a specific subset of the playerbase maybe direct your lamentation towards Bioware for giving players the flexibility to develop differing playstyles.  In case that wasn't glaringly clear, that was sarcasm.

[CronicleChicken]

78stonewobble wrote...

Asebstos wrote...

Is it about the bottom line... or is it that 28% of all matches are on FBW? I think its about variety.

I can't wait until I join a lobby and it isn't FBW Geth over and over and over.

But you can pick another game or make your own.

If we flip the point of view: "I like firebase white geth and dislike other maps. Those other maps should be made harder or unbearable to others so they will play firebase white geth. Like I want them to." 

That doesn't seem fair to me.

And I don't see the problem in other people playing what they want to play aslong as I can play what I want to.

IMHO it's either bioware bottomline or some petty jealousy thats the issue.

This!!! Exactly this!!!

[Anduin The Grey]

Rifneno wrote...

Anduin The Grey wrote...

As for Bioware lying, no, I wouldn't believe for a second anyone at Bioware would intentionally lie.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

You missed the tin foil hat and the would not intentionally lie part. I've played Bioware games since BG1, and throughout that time they've given support and help to us even for games most devs would have buried years before. EA I wouldn't touch with a 10foot barge pole for reasons I wouldn't advise anyone to get into, but until or even if, Bioware become completely subsumed by EA, I'm going to continue to believe in them.

[Slayer299]

I'd bet my bottom dollar that its another anti-farming bit. Its not like people might actually enjoy playing there, nah, not possible since we all know that only farmers use FBW...

[Zero132132]

78stonewobble wrote...

Asebstos wrote...

Is it about the bottom line... or is it that 28% of all matches are on FBW? I think its about variety.

I can't wait until I join a lobby and it isn't FBW Geth over and over and over.

But you can pick another game or make your own.

If we flip the point of view: "I like firebase white geth and dislike other maps. Those other maps should be made harder or unbearable to others so they will play firebase white geth. Like I want them to." 

That doesn't seem fair to me.

And I don't see the problem in other people playing what they want to play aslong as I can play what I want to.

IMHO it's either bioware bottomline or some petty jealousy thats the issue.

I'm confused... jealousy of WHAT?

[HammerFists]

Arppis wrote...

It was always intended, I remember reading it from some thread where there was Bioware response.

But does it matter?

Mike Gamble fielded a question at GamesCom in Germany in 2011 about Kal Reegar being in ME3. He said yes Kal Reegar is back for ME3.

All we get is an email saying he was killed-in-action...

7 months after release we are now told it was never intended for pyros to be grabbed? In their credit it has taken 7 months past release to fix the vanguard glitch too so maybe they are honest in that respect. However the last patch that had this bug listed as fixed didn't actually fix it.

[Lucius Aelius]

People being wrong about something doesn't make them liars, EA aside I tend to believe that the Bioware Developers are being honest when they tell us stuff, and even if/when it turns out not to be true, I for one remain inclined to believe it an honest mistake unless presented with evidence to the contrary, none of which exists in regards to pretty much anything the BW devs have ever said (to us about this/other games).

Everyone needs to get out from under their tin foil hats for a bit now and recognize that you're being laughably paranoid, seriously people.

Modifié par Lucius Aelius, 02 octobre 2012 - 06:50 .

[HammerFists]

Lucius Aelius wrote...

People being wrong about something doesn't make them liars, EA aside I tend to believe that the Bioware Developers are being honest when they tell us stuff, and even if/when it turns out not to be true, I for one remain inclined to believe it an honest mistake unless presented with evidence to the contrary, none of which exists in regards to pretty much anything the BW devs have ever said (to us about this/other games).

Everyone needs to get out from under their tin foil hats for a bit now and recognize that you're being laughably paranoid, seriously people.

Skeptical != laughably paranoid

[Lucius Aelius]

HammerFists wrote...

Lucius Aelius wrote...

People being wrong about something doesn't make them liars, EA aside I tend to believe that the Bioware Developers are being honest when they tell us stuff, and even if/when it turns out not to be true, I for one remain inclined to believe it an honest mistake unless presented with evidence to the contrary, none of which exists in regards to pretty much anything the BW devs have ever said (to us about this/other games).

Everyone needs to get out from under their tin foil hats for a bit now and recognize that you're being laughably paranoid, seriously people.

Skeptical != laughably paranoid

In this case (as in most/all other questions about the Dev's honesty about this/other games) the skepticism is excessive and unfounded, so yes, most people being "skeptical" about these things are being laughably paranoid.

[Lucius Aelius]

And these "skeptical" people are calling the Developers liars as though it's an undeniable fact, hence why it's excessive and paranoid, there is no reason to be so completely cynical about the probabilty of the devs being honest (not these Bioware devs anyway).

[Slayer299]

Lucius Aelius wrote...

People being wrong about something doesn't make them liars, EA aside I tend to believe that the Bioware Developers are being honest when they tell us stuff, and even if/when it turns out not to be true, I for one remain inclined to believe it an honest mistake unless presented with evidence to the contrary, none of which exists in regards to pretty much anything the BW devs have ever said (to us about this/other games).

Everyone needs to get out from under their tin foil hats for a bit now and recognize that you're being laughably paranoid, seriously people.

Last time I checked, when someone tells you one thing and then it turns out to be untrue than they are being dishonest.

[HammerFists]

Lucius Aelius wrote...

And these "skeptical" people are calling the Developers liars as though it's an undeniable fact, hence why it's excessive and paranoid, there is no reason to be so completely cynical about the probabilty of the devs being honest (not these Bioware devs anyway).

Previous patch notes claimed to have fixed the Vanguard and ULM mod bugs. Stated Kal'Reegar would be back for ME3. They said the ending wouldn't leave players with more questions than answers.

Vanguard and ULM mod bugs are still alive. All we got for Kal'Reegar was an email saying he was killed-in-action. They had to make the Extended Cut DLC to answer player questions.

I'm just cherry-picking a few examples here as to why I myself am skeptical. I cannot speak for everyone.

Modifié par HammerFists, 02 octobre 2012 - 07:37 .

[PraetorianVIII]

capn233 wrote...

Who cares?

Obviously you care enough to waste 30 seconds of your life to make that post.

And when I saw the patch notes, I KNEW it was a fix to stop farmers.  Geth grabbing is useful on OTHER maps like Giant and Glacier. Of course, you can't play those maps the same way that you can play White, but grabbing a Pyro can save your life in a tricky situation.

Now you run the risk of burning to death before you can kill the Pryo or run away.  F*cking farmers...

[Computron2000]

Lucius Aelius wrote...

HammerFists wrote...

Lucius Aelius wrote...

People being wrong about something doesn't make them liars, EA aside I tend to believe that the Bioware Developers are being honest when they tell us stuff, and even if/when it turns out not to be true, I for one remain inclined to believe it an honest mistake unless presented with evidence to the contrary, none of which exists in regards to pretty much anything the BW devs have ever said (to us about this/other games).

Everyone needs to get out from under their tin foil hats for a bit now and recognize that you're being laughably paranoid, seriously people.

Skeptical != laughably paranoid

In this case (as in most/all other questions about the Dev's honesty about this/other games) the skepticism is excessive and unfounded, so yes, most people being "skeptical" about these things are being laughably paranoid.

So if pyros were not supposed to be grabbed, please tell me why it takes the 3rd patch and after 7 months to address this? Is adding the pyro to the list of already existing no-grabs (hence minor if any code changes required) so difficult that it has to take 7 months?

Being naive is fine. Telling others to follow your naviety is not.

[Kingston Atticus]

RGFrog wrote...

JohnShades wrote...

I'll play devil's advocate and say they are an armored unit, the only armored unit you could counter grab. It also has no ranged attack. The idea with pyros is that you should take them out at distance, not at close range. So MAYBE (big maybe) this was their intention from the start.

No ranged attack? Srsly?!?!?!?!  The range of their flame attack extends well beyond the graphic, goes through all manner of cover and they can dodge better than a geth mook.

It was never "intended", imo. It's a retcon.

Yes But our Vorchas do pretty much the same thing and can regen and move faster. So OUR Flamethrower Character is still better than theirs.

[Zero132132]

Lucius Aelius wrote...

In this case (as in most/all other questions about the Dev's honesty about this/other games) the skepticism is excessive and unfounded, so yes, most people being "skeptical" about these things are being laughably paranoid.

Why do the pyros even have an animation for getting yanked over cover if it was never supposed to be in the game? You think that if someone somehow modded the game to make Atlases grabbable, there would just happen to be an animation already in the game for that?

[Lucius Aelius]

Slayer299 wrote...

Lucius Aelius wrote...

People being wrong about something doesn't make them liars, EA aside I tend to believe that the Bioware Developers are being honest when they tell us stuff, and even if/when it turns out not to be true, I for one remain inclined to believe it an honest mistake unless presented with evidence to the contrary, none of which exists in regards to pretty much anything the BW devs have ever said (to us about this/other games).

Everyone needs to get out from under their tin foil hats for a bit now and recognize that you're being laughably paranoid, seriously people.

Last time I checked, when someone tells you one thing and then it turns out to be untrue than they are being dishonest.

Actually no, I shouldn't have to explain this but when someone says something inaccurate, if they believed it was true when they said it then they aren't lying, just wrong. There is an appreciable difference between being wrong about something and being a liar, and if I have to explain it again my head might explode, at this rate I'll next be asked to explain/prove why two plus two equals four...

[Lucius Aelius]

Lucius Aelius wrote...

Am I the only one who takes the developers at their word when they say something explicitly? I get that without extensive programming knowledge it's hard for most people to see things from their perspective (myself very much included), but calling them liars just because they say something you don't like is a little over the top.

Especially in regards to this discussion, I daresay the one and only armored (with solely close-quarters-combat capabilities) enemy in the game that you can grab over counters may not have been intended to possess such a vulnerability (and given the similar size as other grab-able enemies, it's easy to think that the basic "mook" model was used to create the Pyro with the oversight of having failed to remove its grab-ability, not a stretch given all the other glitches and oversights plaguing this game from the get-go).

A lot of people complain about glitches, and then complain more when something they didn't know was glitched gets fixed (or just call the developers liars and refuse to believe it was a glitch). And the arguments that the game wouldn't have been released as such if it weren't intended (or would have been fixed sooner) is ridiculous and utterly baseless given all the pervasive and widespread glitches, not to mention how hard and time consuming it's been to fix them all.

I agree that the Geth are ridiculous and this only makes them moreso, but just like with the Krysae being "nerfed" once again by this latest patch, it may well open up the Geth to further rebalancing in all the ways that really make them cheap (and not being able to grab Pyros is, in and of itself, entirely sensible and not in any way cheap; if anything it was cheap how easily they could be dispatched, and now it's been set to rights).

In conclusion, unlike most people here on BSN I don't assume the Developers are lying unless I've been presented with compelling evidence accordingly, and in this (as in most/all things they've posted) there is no such evidence and people should really stop whining and just deal with reality for a change, a drastic/impossible suggestion, I know... but I can dream.

[Lucius Aelius]

Zero132132 wrote...

Lucius Aelius wrote...

In this case (as in most/all other questions about the Dev's honesty about this/other games) the skepticism is excessive and unfounded, so yes, most people being "skeptical" about these things are being laughably paranoid.

Why do the pyros even have an animation for getting yanked over cover if it was never supposed to be in the game? You think that if someone somehow modded the game to make Atlases grabbable, there would just happen to be an animation already in the game for that?

As I've already stated, the programmers likely used a basic "mook" model for all of the similar-sized enemies, gabbing being a basic component of mooks that conceivably was left in place unintentionally in the case of the Pyro, suffice it to say that glitches are difficult and time consuming to fix and they could easily have simply taken this long to see this (along with all those other glitches all at once in this comprehensive patch) get fixed.