442 réponses à ce sujet

[Megadawg169]

Fox-snipe wrote...

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.

Unfortuntely Fox Snipe there will always be people who look for hidden agendas. I was just concerned that Bioware as making a move to attempt to elimate camping, but once Jos clarified i have no problem now. I enjoy that changes to the maps It make a nice challenge but I'm not in favor of someone telling me how i should play. Its good to know that I was mistaken.

[Matthias King]

XTR3M3 wrote...

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.

Exactly.  Agree 100%.

[Lord Rosario]

Fox-snipe wrote...

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.

That's the thing... Changing the map to make higher risk vs reward? That's fine. Adding a new enemy type to rain grenades on cover, removing grab on a trooper sized enemy that has dodging capabilities, fixing banshees to go through cover, Dragoons to smash through cover, Scion's multi-frags, seeker swarms, etc. All that sounds a lot like an assault on anyone who wants to hold down a position, with or without enemies flanking.

Jos is not the one to blame for any of that though, it's just the total change that came all at one seeming like so much of it is targeted towards keeping players from that particular play style of camping.

[Megadawg169]

Matthias King wrote...

XTR3M3 wrote...

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.

Exactly.  Agree 100%.

well.....i'm assuming that is because they didn't want two very similar maps in the playlist....then again....we do have these hazard maps.

[Megadawg169]

Lord Rosario wrote...

Fox-snipe wrote...

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.

That's the thing... Changing the map to make higher risk vs reward? That's fine. Adding a new enemy type to rain grenades on cover, removing grab on a trooper sized enemy that has dodging capabilities, fixing banshees to go through cover, Dragoons to smash through cover, Scion's multi-frags, seeker swarms, etc. All that sounds a lot like an assault on anyone who wants to hold down a position, with or without enemies flanking.

Jos is not the one to blame for any of that though, it's just the total change that came all at one seeming like so much of it is targeted towards keeping players from that particular play style of camping.

Agreed. But it can be fixed. You can make the pryo's grabbable again,  adjust the banshess again and nerf the damage and/or radius of scions, bombers, and dragoons.

[Matthias King]

Megadawg169 wrote...

Lord Rosario wrote...

Fox-snipe wrote...

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.

That's the thing... Changing the map to make higher risk vs reward? That's fine. Adding a new enemy type to rain grenades on cover, removing grab on a trooper sized enemy that has dodging capabilities, fixing banshees to go through cover, Dragoons to smash through cover, Scion's multi-frags, seeker swarms, etc. All that sounds a lot like an assault on anyone who wants to hold down a position, with or without enemies flanking.

Jos is not the one to blame for any of that though, it's just the total change that came all at one seeming like so much of it is targeted towards keeping players from that particular play style of camping.

Agreed. But it can be fixed. You can make the pryo's grabbable again,  adjust the banshess again and nerf the damage and/or radius of scions, bombers, and dragoons.

If they insist on taking away the ability to grab Pyros, then Pyros need to lose the ability to dodge entirely.  Additionally, if Dragoons are going to be the fastest moving unit in the entire game and have that ridiculous leaping attack, they need to be changed from armor to health.

More on the subject, I agree with you that all the changes do seem blatantly hostile toward defensive, support style players. 

Not everyone is a run and gun player.  And let's be honest, ME3's control scheme is clunky.  Running and the unpredictable cover system, and the "press A to do EVERYTHING!!!" controls can get you killed before you know it.  But unfortunately, Bioware is trying to force everyone to be a run and gunner.  Why?  Who the hell knows.  Some people's play style is wrong, apparently.

[FlowCytometry]

I can understand BW's motive a bit more now thanks Jos response (thanks for that). It is indeed true, at least for FBW, that the old camping area is still defend-able; it takes a bit of a mixup of strats (and not constant L-cover hugging) but its quite feasible to bottleneck enemies on the far left new corridor and the same ladder/stairs outside on the right. Its not *as* easy and safe as the old farming tactic was, sure, but bottle-necking still works quite well when done right on that map.

I am glad to hear that someone at BW (even if its just one level working guy) agrees that farming, in itself, isn't an issue, since players are basically forgoing the fun of variety and playing the game naturally for a repeated grind for max currency efficiency. Players will always find ways to grind/farm in these kind of games; stamping that out just isn't a tenable or worthwhile goal, imo.

That said, the game is becoming a bit *too* skewed against camping tactics. Imo, neither play-stye (run n' gun vs. camp) is superior nor inferior, and both extremes (and all between) should be rewarded if done competently.

[hjgfjg]

My only issue is that the hallways just looked like they were hastily added, it doesn't look very nice

[Saints_]

MissFish wrote...

I'm specifically talking about Geth, so I didn't mention Dragoons.

I actually had a hard time finding FBWGG matches. Might just be timezones and all that, though.

I don't know which servers you played on. Any time I searhced for a game I'd find FBW even when I was searching for other specific maps.

[Kenshen]

MissFish wrote...

EDIT; I play Silver and I used FBWGG to get some more credits so I can get good gear and not waste my life playing MP. Dropping down a level won't help in my case, and I'm sure many others are in the same boat as me.

This is exactly the reason it was changed.  They are hoping and wanting people like you who can't spend a lot of time playing the game to spend real cash to buy psp's.

[Coalmine]

It was a huge problem for people who wanted to play Quickmatch UUG, but kept getting served WGG lobbies.  It was REDICULOUS!  Nine times out of ten during the day, if you queued for UUG, or UGG, you would get a farming match.  Nobody was playing Gold difficulty for the challenge, they were just farming that single gametype because it was an easy way of unlocking guns.  It was turning players into turtles, and it reflected badly on bioware that they designed this level so poorly that players could exploit it like this, ON TOP of all the annoying glitches that shipped with the game.

But thankfully the Retaliation DLC will do a lot to revive the MP.  Bioware did good by this game.

[Star fury]

Jos Hendriks wrote...

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

Thank you for the changes to fbw and glacier too! Now it's really fun to play white and hilarious to watch brainless Pavlov's dogs running to the counters, then dying there. 

At last finding non-farming game on UUG/P is quick and easy, without having to quit farming lobbies full of bronze and silver players.
 

Modifié par Star fury, 15 octobre 2012 - 05:43 .

[ParatrooperSean]

Megadawg169 wrote...

Fox-snipe wrote...

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.

Unfortuntely Fox Snipe there will always be people who look for hidden agendas. I was just concerned that Bioware as making a move to attempt to elimate camping, but once Jos clarified i have no problem now. I enjoy that changes to the maps It make a nice challenge but I'm not in favor of someone telling me how i should play. Its good to know that I was mistaken.

I enjoy the changes as well, but Jos's clarification flatout confirms what you were concerned about.

[Fox-snipe]

ParatrooperSean wrote...

Megadawg169 wrote...
Unfortuntely Fox Snipe there will always be people who look for hidden agendas. I was just concerned that Bioware as making a move to attempt to elimate camping, but once Jos clarified i have no problem now. I enjoy that changes to the maps It make a nice challenge but I'm not in favor of someone telling me how i should play. Its good to know that I was mistaken.

I enjoy the changes as well, but Jos's clarification flatout confirms what you were concerned about.

It does nothing of the sort.  You can still quite easily camp.  the only difference is that now you actually have to keep an eye out on the flank and be prepared to bail out and find somewhere else to setup shop.  In other words, you now have a risk associated with your precious camping strategy.

You shouldn't be able to sit somewhere with little to no risk and earn such a huge reward.

[Lord Rosario]

ParatrooperSean wrote...

Megadawg169 wrote...

Unfortuntely Fox Snipe there will always be people who look for hidden agendas. I was just concerned that Bioware as making a move to attempt to elimate camping, but once Jos clarified i have no problem now. I enjoy that changes to the maps It make a nice challenge but I'm not in favor of someone telling me how i should play. Its good to know that I was mistaken.

I enjoy the changes as well, but Jos's clarification flatout confirms what you were concerned about.

Riiiiiiiiight.

Jos Hendriks wrote...

 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.

[ElectroNeonPanda]

I'm a little confused regarding your stance on camping.

From this thread:

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.

From the, "Bioware seems to hate Ranged Combat" thread:

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/343/index/14445419/9

Jos Hendriks wrote...

Sitting in a piece of cover for an extended period of time and not moving away from it has never been an intended element of ME3's combat. While long range players in other third person shooters may prefer that approach to cover usage, we never designed towards this, not for singleplayer, and not for multiplayer. To me personally, ME3 multiplayer's nature of allowing people to play together and coordinate together (something that does not necessarily happen in public games with random people) actually solidifies the long range player's role (mostly snipers) as one that comes to full realization when coordinated with other players. 

Based on some of the combat we did in Mass Effect 2 we found that players tended to get into the first piece of cover they could, and then proceeded to fight through an entire combat scenario without moving. This is a valid approach, but we felt that large areas of designed combat space would simply go unused because of this, and we wanted to approach things differently so that players would make more use of the entire combat space. This especially because we spend quite a bit of time on the level design side figuring out cool ways for people to move through combat spaces. Fast-forward to ME3 and you can start seeing the roots for the different enemy factions.

So, despite the above and the implementation of Dragoons, Bombers, and all the other changes to eradicate camping are you still maintaining you believe camping is a valid playstyle?

Modifié par ElectroNeonPanda, 15 octobre 2012 - 06:11 .

[Grumpy Old Wizard]

Star fury wrote...

Thank you for the changes to fbw and glacier too! Now it's really fun to play white and hilarious to watch brainless Pavlov's dogs running to the counters, then dying there. 

It has always been fun to watch brain-dead shooty elitists who are under the misimpression that playing a class with a billion hit points and sky-high dps makes them a great player. But I could watch them before Bioware's war on campers.

Sadly Bioware listened to a very vocal minority of gamers and did damage to the game.

[Grumpy Old Wizard]

Lord Rosario wrote...

Jos Hendriks wrote...

 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.

So, despite the above and the implementation of Dragoons, Bombers, and
all the other changes to eradicate camping are you still maintaining you
believe camping is a valid playstyle?

PR. Bioware was not, I think, prepared for the backlash of catering to a small vocal minority when they decided to nix defensive play.  They need to rework a number of classes now, but that ain't about to happen, in my opinion.

Modifié par Grumpy Old Wizard, 15 octobre 2012 - 11:35 .