442 réponses à ce sujet

[Zero132132]

Thanks for clarifying, Jos Hendriks, but I firmly suspect that many people will resent being forced to actually have to deal with a downside to their typical methods. The notion that effort should be expended, that risk should be taken, is one foreign to most that constantly stuck to W/G/G.

Modifié par Zero132132, 15 octobre 2012 - 12:10 .

[ShepComing4U]

Razerath wrote...

The problem wasn't camping. It was camp farming in one single spot that made it too easy. This only matters to me when those people went into a game that isn't FBW.

PuGs got a lot harder after the DLC because those people moved from FBW to other maps and had no clue of what to do. I'm all for people moving on to new things but most of them are not ready for Gold and yet they are there for the credit payout. That is basically griefing to me. Should be reportable..

Thats a whole bunch of ridiculous right there. You cant punish players for playing the game how they want, and what Bioware pushed them to do. If you've got a problem with it, then point your finger at Bioware. Experiencing new difficulties and trying to improve your gameplay isnt a crime.

[ReverendBeast]

Razerath wrote...

No what Shep? And Reverend, get a clue.

And I should defer to your superior intellect why??? 
Your comments on skill and laziness are just indicative of your pompasity sir/madam.  All full of yourself is what I think...  Which is okay as long as you do not try to belittle someone elses point of view, but then you wouldn't be pompous would you???

Who are you to tell me what the prefered game style is???

Here let me bring it down from a thoughful conversation to something you maybe able to understand a little better... 

Run and Gun players are ADHD morons who can't sit still and ruin my game play...

See a subjective point of view...  Something based on a emotions as opposed to a point of view being based on facts and logic...

To put it in the vernacular "thinking with your head up your arse"  Your point is based on your personal play style...  Others don't feel that way and you are no one to pass judgement on their play style period.

I think you are one who really needs to mature a little in your outlook, life will be a lot easier on you if you do... 

[CNevarezN]

Jos Hendriks wrote...

 A request: Could we please stay civil about a discussion like this? There is no need for insults or belittling in discussing something like this. 


There are some people who disagree with the changes to Firebase White and Firebase Glacier. This is clear from having read (and re-read) this thread and others on the subject.
Earlier in the thread I made the following post:

The layout changes to Firebase White were made (at my personal request) to address camping, not farming. Farming has never been an issue.

In hindsight (oh wonderful hindsight), this post does not convey all the information that it really should to explain my reasoning for this. I apologize for being unclear, and am writing this post to (hopefully) properly explain the reasoning behind the changes.

1) My first and pretty much only goal here is to create balanced levels that offer a decent challenge to players. My employer's bottom line only directly affects me in the sense that I make quality levels for you. Beyond that, I do not have, get, or want numbers on people who pay actual money for packs versus those who spend credits and all that entails. There are people who look at that stuff, but it is far removed from anything I do. (and to me it should stay that way)

2) Take a look at the levels in the game, both the original levels and the DLC ones that came later. Each of these has strong positions to defend, each of them has areas where you are not safe. On the whole, the levels worked out pretty well for this. People who like to occupy a strong position can find one in basically any level and do their thing, and people who want to run and gun can also do so. Add to that several types of objectives that require people to move or to stay put and you have a pretty interesting thing going.
Taking a look at most of the defendable positions in the levels, you can tell that - while they're defendable - they still require some coordination to mitigate the risk of getting flanked or exposed. The reward is that you have a strong and safe position, the risk is that enemies can flank you. 
The specific problem I (and others at the office) saw with Firebase White and to a slightly lesser extent Firebase Glacier is that specific strong, defendable positions offered the reward of being secure at almost no risk. The lower interior space in White proved to have no real alternative route for enemies to be able to flank you, or really any other type of risk that would balance out the reward. Similarly, in Glacier the tight bottleneck entrances to the basement area proved to be such a powerful funnel that no enemies would get through.
The main reason for the changes to both levels is to introduce more of a risk element to those defendable positions. The lower interior in White is still defendable, but requires attention to the new flank enemies can take, and the basement in Glacier is still defendable but requires more coordination. 

3) I'm really not on a hunt to address camping throughout the game. Firstly, camping is a valid play style and many people (as evidenced by the many passionate replies in this thread) favour it. Secondly, trying to get camping removed as a valid play style is impossible. 
The thing I wanted to refer to was defendable positions that offered the reward without the risk, and calling that camping was a poor choice of words on my part.

4) Farming is not a problem I'm concerned with. The act of repeating the same match/level/setup to gain its rewards multiple times is a product of players figuring out how to best get to the thing they want and then doing that. People can have fun with that or do it for utilitarian reasons, and it doesn't really factor into my work.

I hope this clears up why Firebase White and Glacier underwent changes.

Well, judging by what others wrote on this particular thread, you clearly addressed the Farming issue on White. You may not think you did, but the others who enjoyed White (Which judging from I've read is alot) think you did.
People here are arguing one way, then another. "Firebase White was all about being Defensive." / "Spawn rushing is where it's at. It's for pro's and people who have skill." Yeah... You started all this. Lmao!!!!

[XTR3M3]

Just Cav wrote...

No, it wasn't a problem. Frankly, I don't think that anyone who actually worked on the game cared much at all either. I honestly suspect that farmers are being hit hard because some jerk who wears a suit and counts his stocks cried loud enough about how farming discourages players from spending actual money on reinforcement packs.

bingo. you hit it right on the head.

I could find non FBWGG or GP easily before or I would just make my own UK/UK/gold lobby and it would fill up fast. There are always whiners about campers since the counter-strike days. Those were only 2 maps that were being farmed so I don't see what the problem was. Only a complete jerk would try and take farming away from people simply because that isn't the way THEY want to play.

[Jay_Hoxtatron]

ShepComing4U wrote...



Thank you for going into more detail about the changes and why they were made, but it doesnt change my dissatisfaction. Things were brought in to discourage camping in general, the additions of the Geth Bomber and Dragoon reinforce this. 

There was a lot of risk in Gold and Platinum camping of Firebase White. Out of twenty matches a day, I must've have only extracted 1 or 2 times, yet I thought it as fun and worth the effort. Now, I get downed every few shots and my teammates leave me to die. Thats not fun.

There was no risk counter camping FBW before, all enemies were coming from 2 points of entries, and it was a spam fest of guns/nades/powers.

Modifié par Jay_Hoxtatron, 15 octobre 2012 - 12:15 .

[Razerath]

ShepComing4U wrote...

Razerath wrote...

The problem wasn't camping. It was camp farming in one single spot that made it too easy. This only matters to me when those people went into a game that isn't FBW.

PuGs got a lot harder after the DLC because those people moved from FBW to other maps and had no clue of what to do. I'm all for people moving on to new things but most of them are not ready for Gold and yet they are there for the credit payout. That is basically griefing to me. Should be reportable..

Thats a whole bunch of ridiculous right there. You cant punish players for playing the game how they want, and what Bioware pushed them to do. If you've got a problem with it, then point your finger at Bioware. Experiencing new difficulties and trying to improve your gameplay isnt a crime.

Its easy to tell the difference between an ex-FBW camper and someone trying Gold as a new difficulty. Post DLC PuGs run the same risks as a Gold solo now. 

[Anders028]

 I have come to the opinion that no FBWG farming has impacted the players in playlists that for the most part went about doing unknown selections for hosting their own match and stayed away from FBWG only playlists for the most part.  The farmers have know come into playlists and are unable to hold their own even in a structured move around the map as a squad.

[XTR3M3]

What would have been smart was for them to leave the old FBW and Glacier along with the new ones so that the farmers could farm and the rest of us could play the new ones that didn't want to farm.
It would have been an easy 2 extra maps to choose from.

[iphan4tic]

The way the enemies function on this game make me feel like camping was the most reliable way to win considering the enemies extreme accuracy, sync kills and stun locks, But now we get bum rushed, insta downed then insta stomped...

[Sir_Alan_]

I personally like the new layout of Firebase White, more alternatives routes to take if the s**t hits the fan. I think farming was a fairly major issue prior to this patch/DLC, too many people were doing it and while i don't see anything wrong with wanting earn easy credit, i do get annoyed when it seems that it's all some people do.

I feel as though there are now less FBW/G/G games knocking about cus 1) the difficulty of the faction has increased and 2) the new layout is slightly more difficult to handle IF you can't handle a breach...

On a related note, i think it all boils down to the store, in particular the random nature of item distribution. It's a smart business move to keep players coming back and wasting their hours but it's frustrating knowing that of the 1M credits it took you a weekend to earn, you'll be lucky to walk away with a single ultra rare, even if it's a piece of crap.

If the store functioned like a store should be i.e. set prices for certain items, then people would be less inclined to farm for easy credits and would probably spend more time playing for fun in unknown/unknown games...

Modifié par Sir_Alan_, 15 octobre 2012 - 12:24 .

[Zero132132]

Razerath wrote...

Its easy to tell the difference between an ex-FBW camper and someone trying Gold as a new difficulty. Post DLC PuGs run the same risks as a Gold solo now. 

Yeah, if you get downed and bleed out, the odds are nearly the same that the match will end in failure.

Give it time, though. They'll either find a new easy mode for creds, get better, or they'll get too discouraged by failing so often and they'll go back to a difficulty level appropriate to their skill level.

[ZoM_Head]

BW has gone too far with the "upgrades":

The drone stuns and drops nades that stun you more, all geth except the trooper will stun you, even out of cover.

As for Cerberus, they added the dragoon that moves at a seriously high speed, and not one, not two but 3 dcragoons at the exact same time on silver. To make things worse, you can not hear them, meaning you can tell between a trooper, centurian, gaurdian, engineer, phantom and nemisis, but NOT the dragoon.

The Scion as well is seriously OP, with the N7 Destroyer, 1650 shields and cyclondi Mod IV (+150 shields), they will stun you and remove all you'r shields on the first shot across the map. Ravengers do not do that. Also, the Praetorians fire through cover across the whole map and can take down a whole squad on one shot.

Right now, i just want the banners for all factions (have collectors and reapers now), but once that is done, im doing nothing but reapers on all levels.

Thank the community for this, i personally think BW went seriously overboard with everything they did to hit the "farmers".

[Megadawg169]

Well I would like to take a moment and apoligize to Jos. This is a subject that I feel strongly about and I let myself get a bit emotional. So I apologize. I misread the context of your orginal reply and assumed you were on a holier-than-thou crusade against defenders, and with such a mindset said some things which clearly showed you in a negative, and apparently not true light, so I apologize.

[DC69]

Jos Hendriks wrote...
2) Take a look at the levels in the game, both the original levels and the DLC ones that came later. Each of these has strong positions to defend, each of them has areas where you are not safe. On the whole, the levels worked out pretty well for this. People who like to occupy a strong position can find one in basically any level and do their thing, and people who want to run and gun can also do so. Add to that several types of objectives that require people to move or to stay put and you have a pretty interesting thing going.

And yet by changing the map layout on these levels and introducing new enemies and tweaking existing ones specifically to force players out of cover you have had quite a negative impact on this playing style, while those who run and gun are affected to a much lesser extent.

Jos Hendriks wrote...
Taking a look at most of the defendable positions in the levels, you can tell that - while they're defendable - they still require some coordination to mitigate the risk of getting flanked or exposed. The reward is that you have a strong and safe position, the risk is that enemies can flank you. 
The specific problem I (and others at the office) saw with Firebase White and to a slightly lesser extent Firebase Glacier is that specific strong, defendable positions offered the reward of being secure at almost no risk. The lower interior space in White proved to have no real alternative route for enemies to be able to flank you, or really any other type of risk that would balance out the reward. Similarly, in Glacier the tight bottleneck entrances to the basement area proved to be such a powerful funnel that no enemies would get through.
The main reason for the changes to both levels is to introduce more of a risk element to those defendable positions. The lower interior in White is still defendable, but requires attention to the new flank enemies can take, and the basement in Glacier is still defendable but requires more coordination. 

Would the changes to the AI alone have helped this in the absence of the level changes?

So the community is being punished for using their initiative and maximising the rewards and minimising the risks? In that case could you tell me what chages were made to affect those people who run around and nuke spawns with rockets before the enemies have a chance to move After all this strategy clearly lacks risk. Was enemy spawn invulnerabilty introduced? Longer cooldown between launching rockets?

Jos Hendriks wrote...
3) I'm really not on a hunt to address camping throughout the game. Firstly, camping is a valid play style and many people (as evidenced by the many passionate replies in this thread) favour it. Secondly, trying to get camping removed as a valid play style is impossible. 
The thing I wanted to refer to was defendable positions that offered the reward without the risk, and calling that camping was a poor choice of words on my part.

Maybe for the sake of clarity you could explain what you or BioWare take to be camping and farming as the terms used on BSN are almost interchangeable at times.

Jos Hendriks wrote...
4) Farming is not a problem I'm concerned with. The act of repeating the same match/level/setup to gain its rewards multiple times is a product of players figuring out how to best get to the thing they want and then doing that. People can have fun with that or do it for utilitarian reasons, and it doesn't really factor into my work.

I'm sorry but clearly it does because, by your own admission, the level was changed at your request.
 

[ZoM_Head]

Jos Hendriks wrote...

 A request: Could we please stay civil about a discussion like this? There is no need for insults or belittling in discussing something like this. 


There are some people who disagree with the changes to Firebase White and Firebase Glacier. This is clear from having read (and re-read) this thread and others on the subject.
Earlier in the thread I made the following post:

The layout changes to Firebase White were made (at my personal request) to address camping, not farming. Farming has never been an issue.

In hindsight (oh wonderful hindsight), this post does not convey all the information that it really should to explain my reasoning for this. I apologize for being unclear, and am writing this post to (hopefully) properly explain the reasoning behind the changes.

1) My first and pretty much only goal here is to create balanced levels that offer a decent challenge to players. My employer's bottom line only directly affects me in the sense that I make quality levels for you. Beyond that, I do not have, get, or want numbers on people who pay actual money for packs versus those who spend credits and all that entails. There are people who look at that stuff, but it is far removed from anything I do. (and to me it should stay that way)

2) Take a look at the levels in the game, both the original levels and the DLC ones that came later. Each of these has strong positions to defend, each of them has areas where you are not safe. On the whole, the levels worked out pretty well for this. People who like to occupy a strong position can find one in basically any level and do their thing, and people who want to run and gun can also do so. Add to that several types of objectives that require people to move or to stay put and you have a pretty interesting thing going.
Taking a look at most of the defendable positions in the levels, you can tell that - while they're defendable - they still require some coordination to mitigate the risk of getting flanked or exposed. The reward is that you have a strong and safe position, the risk is that enemies can flank you. 
The specific problem I (and others at the office) saw with Firebase White and to a slightly lesser extent Firebase Glacier is that specific strong, defendable positions offered the reward of being secure at almost no risk. The lower interior space in White proved to have no real alternative route for enemies to be able to flank you, or really any other type of risk that would balance out the reward. Similarly, in Glacier the tight bottleneck entrances to the basement area proved to be such a powerful funnel that no enemies would get through.
The main reason for the changes to both levels is to introduce more of a risk element to those defendable positions. The lower interior in White is still defendable, but requires attention to the new flank enemies can take, and the basement in Glacier is still defendable but requires more coordination. 

3) I'm really not on a hunt to address camping throughout the game. Firstly, camping is a valid play style and many people (as evidenced by the many passionate replies in this thread) favour it. Secondly, trying to get camping removed as a valid play style is impossible. 
The thing I wanted to refer to was defendable positions that offered the reward without the risk, and calling that camping was a poor choice of words on my part.

4) Farming is not a problem I'm concerned with. The act of repeating the same match/level/setup to gain its rewards multiple times is a product of players figuring out how to best get to the thing they want and then doing that. People can have fun with that or do it for utilitarian reasons, and it doesn't really factor into my work.

I hope this clears up why Firebase White and Glacier underwent changes.

Sorry Sir, i really do not see that at all. FBW and FBG feel like they have been hit hard to stop farming or to make it harder.

Personally, in this game, farming and camping are the exact same thing. I know that is not technically correct, but when someone "camps" FBW, it means that they farm for credits.

As i said, those changes were not required and seriously changed the feel for it. I mean since march, we were used to those maps, and now it has changed and just, is not right at all.

[Jadebaby]

Jos Hendriks wrote...


My employer's bottom line only directly affects me in the sense that I make quality levels for you.

Are you able to tell me what your employer's bottom line is?

[Jadebaby]

Razerath wrote...

The problem wasn't camping. It was camp farming in one single spot that made it too easy. This only matters to me when those people went into a game that isn't FBW.

PuGs got a lot harder after the DLC because those people moved from FBW to other maps and had no clue of what to do. I'm all for people moving on to new things but most of them are not ready for Gold and yet they are there for the credit payout. That is basically griefing to me. Should be reportable..

wow, now whose the butthurt one?

[EndeavourL]

Delicious tears.
Adapt or die.

[mbergeron468]

They should simply kill the servers and say it is now a single player only game and that would fix the whole mess.

[ParatrooperSean]

[quote]geceka wrote...

If you too literal, running with the pizza doesn't absolutely guarantuee success of the objective either, so it must be fine by your standards. Also, I've seen a missile glitcher being downed in a Platinum game once, so even that doesn't absolutely super-duper-surely-always-even-if-you-mess-it-up-completely guarantee success.

Yet, as you said, FBW camping made Gold very easy, compared to what it is on other maps. And that was the bug/design issue/exploit/whatever that Bioware fixed. Reading this thread, I tend to think that more people are happy with the changes than are not, so it's all ok.
[/quote]

By my standards? You are the one who said exploits involve guaranteed success, not me.

Running with the pizza is unquestionably an exploit because it makes the game behave in a way that was unintended. And yes, I'm OK with it because it's a very minor exploit and because Bioware is OK with it.

I get that you think camping the counters at FBW made the game too easy. That doesn't de facto make it an exploit.

[/quote]

[joker_jack]

It all comes down to forcing people to spend actual money on packs. No artistic integrity, no uping the anty, just money. You have to remember who Bioware is owned by. FB white and glacier represented a serious dent in potential profit from mp. EA has done this sort of thing in the past. It's why alot of their mp's last for such a short time. Main reason BW still won't fix the geth even though with the map changes, they killed the major farming. Just another foot note in the dark age of game.

[Fox-snipe]

Jos Hendriks wrote...

Taking a look at most of the defendable positions in the levels, you can tell that - while they're defendable - they still require some coordination to mitigate the risk of getting flanked or exposed. The reward is that you have a strong and safe position, the risk is that enemies can flank you. 
The specific problem I (and others at the office) saw with Firebase White and to a slightly lesser extent Firebase Glacier is that specific strong, defendable positions offered the reward of being secure at almost no risk. The lower interior space in White proved to have no real alternative route for enemies to be able to flank you, or really any other type of risk that would balance out the reward.

The sooner people read & comprehend this one, single paragraph the sooner we can be done with this so-called "discussion."  It's simply a matter of risk-vs-reward.  Old White had zero risk when properly run, enemies would not flank you.

Beyond that....

Bioware is not out to get you! Drop the paranoia about "OMGZ MONIES" and related BS.  As clearly evidenced by most of you making this claim, you have had, and continue to have, no intention in using real money to buy packs.  End result?  Absolutely no change in the revenue generated from the game.

[ReverendBeast]

Jos Hendriks wrote...

 A request: Could we please stay civil about a discussion like this? There is no need for insults or belittling in discussing something like this. 


There are some people who disagree with the changes to Firebase White and Firebase Glacier. This is clear from having read (and re-read) this thread and others on the subject.
Earlier in the thread I made the following post:

The layout changes to Firebase White were made (at my personal request) to address camping, not farming. Farming has never been an issue.

In hindsight (oh wonderful hindsight), this post does not convey all the information that it really should to explain my reasoning for this. I apologize for being unclear, and am writing this post to (hopefully) properly explain the reasoning behind the changes.

1) My first and pretty much only goal here is to create balanced levels that offer a decent challenge to players. My employer's bottom line only directly affects me in the sense that I make quality levels for you. Beyond that, I do not have, get, or want numbers on people who pay actual money for packs versus those who spend credits and all that entails. There are people who look at that stuff, but it is far removed from anything I do. (and to me it should stay that way)

Agreed Jos, let the bean counters stay on their floor and not contaminate your decisions... Kudos to BW for allowing your team this and thank you for being straight up about it.

2) Take a look at the levels in the game, both the original levels and the DLC ones that came later. Each of these has strong positions to defend, each of them has areas where you are not safe. On the whole, the levels worked out pretty well for this. People who like to occupy a strong position can find one in basically any level and do their thing, and people who want to run and gun can also do so. Add to that several types of objectives that require people to move or to stay put and you have a pretty interesting thing going.
Taking a look at most of the defendable positions in the levels, you can tell that - while they're defendable - they still require some coordination to mitigate the risk of getting flanked or exposed. The reward is that you have a strong and safe position, the risk is that enemies can flank you. 
The specific problem I (and others at the office) saw with Firebase White and to a slightly lesser extent Firebase Glacier is that specific strong, defendable positions offered the reward of being secure at almost no risk. The lower interior space in White proved to have no real alternative route for enemies to be able to flank you, or really any other type of risk that would balance out the reward. Similarly, in Glacier the tight bottleneck entrances to the basement area proved to be such a powerful funnel that no enemies would get through.
The main reason for the changes to both levels is to introduce more of a risk element to those defendable positions. The lower interior in White is still defendable, but requires attention to the new flank enemies can take, and the basement in Glacier is still defendable but requires more coordination.

See I keep hearing this repeated over and over and yet I found the enemies always coming in through the back door on FBW; on Plat levels mind you.  So maybe I should not pass judegment on this as maybe you were reffering to Gold???  I mean Phantoms coming in the back door could take down the whole room if there happened to be a Banshee or two and/or a Prime or two drawing your collective fire...  So I really think this statement is incorrect.

3) I'm really not on a hunt to address camping throughout the game. Firstly, camping is a valid play style and many people (as evidenced by the many passionate replies in this thread) favour it. Secondly, trying to get camping removed as a valid play style is impossible. 
The thing I wanted to refer to was defendable positions that offered the reward without the risk, and calling that camping was a poor choice of words on my part.

Thank you for sticking up for campers!  However, the spots did not provide purely defendable positions that offered no risk at Plat.  Jos it is impossible to shoot without exposing yourself no???  With the Pre DLC balance changes alone this was insured no???  Now we have to deal with other units that force you from cover as well...  So I think the r/r ratio is far from being tilted to the player's advantage. Do you see my point???  There are a whole slew of changes that have balanced the r/r away from the player...  I think I can argue pretty effectively it shifted way to much, especially when you throw in room changes as well...  

4) Farming is not a problem I'm concerned with. The act of repeating the same match/level/setup to gain its rewards multiple times is a product of players figuring out how to best get to the thing they want and then doing that. People can have fun with that or do it for utilitarian reasons, and it doesn't really factor into my work.

I hope this clears up why Firebase White and Glacier underwent changes.

Thanks Jos for taking time on Sunday to address this and for giving me the opportunity to present my views. I appreciate where you are coming from and I hope you can do the same.  I also hope getting a little feed back from the players was enlighttening for you as well...

  

[StarcloudSWG]

Someone made a comment about the changes in groups 'addressing specific weaknesses' in those groups as being a good thing. I don't believe it is. It means that all groups have the same strengths and have few weaknesses, which means they start on the long development slide to being interchangeable.