394 réponses à ce sujet

[GallowsPole]

Yep. And as good developers do, we implemented this feature to mimic every other FPS with the same 'intentional' trick for players because we don't believe that for your 60 bucks, we need to be innovative.

[Plerion]

Do you seriously think that 99% of people have no interest in skipping reloads? That is entirely false. It is an in-game move (not analogous to hidden numbers in Pokemon or whatever someone compared it to); there is no excuse for it going undocumented. And for the last time, I did not say that it was unintended by the developers. I just happen to take issue with legitimate mechanics being disguised as glitches. Before you mention other shooters again, remember that reload canceling may have been unintentional in those games (making it illegitimate; i.e. cheating). Regarding Halo:

"By the letter of the law, button glitching is cheating, and we suggest people to report it via feedback."
— Tom Gioconda

[Mahrac]

Plerion wrote...

Do you seriously think that 99% of people have no interest in skipping reloads? That is entirely false. It is an in-game move (not analogous to hidden numbers in Pokemon or whatever someone compared it to); there is no excuse for it going undocumented. And for the last time, I did not say that it was unintended by the developers. I just happen to take issue with legitimate mechanics being disguised as glitches. Before you mention other shooters again, remember that reload canceling may have been unintentional in those games (making it illegitimate; i.e. cheating). Regarding Halo:

"By the letter of the law, button glitching is cheating, and we suggest people to report it via feedback."
— Tom Gioconda

And there's your problem. Different game, different devs, diffferent rules. Learn them before you start complaining.

[Cyonan]

Plerion wrote...

Do you seriously think that 99% of people have no interest in skipping reloads? That is entirely false. It is an in-game move (not analogous to hidden numbers in Pokemon or whatever someone compared it to); there is no excuse for it going undocumented. And for the last time, I did not say that it was unintended by the developers. I just happen to take issue with legitimate mechanics being disguised as glitches. Before you mention other shooters again, remember that reload canceling may have been unintentional in those games (making it illegitimate; i.e. cheating). Regarding Halo:

"By the letter of the law, button glitching is cheating, and we suggest people to report it via feedback."
— Tom Gioconda

It's not being disguised as anything, nor has it gone entirely undocumented.

BioWare did comment on if animation cancelling was considered cheating or not.

Different developers like doing different things and having different rules. This is something that rewards a bit of experimentation as well as the skill of pulling off proper timing(remember that reload cancelling too early means you need to start the reload over again).

As I said before, if you cared about reporting people for cheating, you would have looked up what cheating was considered.

[xTh3xBusinessx]

Plerion wrote...

Titus Thongger wrote...

if you have such a problem with reload cancelling dont use it then.

for that matter you shouldnt
- use soft cover
- spawn nuke or control spawns
- run with the pizza
- heavy melee while switching a weapon / reviving for a quicker animation

because they're clearly all abusive exploits of the system

Funny because I don't actually do any of those things. I don't even know what you mean when you say "run with the pizza". 

A little green arent we >.>? And canceling in about any game means canceling the animation after a certain point to get back to neutral state faster. Term most commonly used and derived from fighting games.

[upinya slayin]

Plerion wrote...

Why did Bioware make a hidden feature that behaves exactly like a bug? If they wanted an interactive reload, they should have done like Gears of War and created something that actually looks like a legitimate game mechanic. Instead of a quick reload move, we have a "reload cancel" (a term which literally implies that the gun is NOT reloaded) and a ridiculous cut-off animation. This is nonsensical, lazy, poor game design. It should have been a concrete game mechanic with no balance issues, rather than a harsh jerking motion that is essentially indistinguishable from a glitch. This is necessary because I am very active at reporting and destroying glitchers on the games that I play and do not like when game developers practically disguise intentional features as cheats. This should not be seen as an unreasonable opinion. 


 

reload canceling is active in every game. its pretty much common knowledge

[Crimson Vanguard]

[The Wayward Vagabond]

Plerion wrote...
Instead of a quick reload move, we have a "reload cancel" (a term which literally implies that the gun is NOT reloaded) and a ridiculous cut-off animation.

But, it is reloaded. if you cancel before it happens it doesn't work.

[ryoldschool]

Jay posted something like this in the other thread.

If there was no way to cancel the animation then you would sit there helpless and only walk during the animation- could not dodge or take cover.

That is why the mechanic is in the game. If you use this mechanic to increase your dps its legal, but not why its in the game.

[X-Com_Psi_Amp]

Sometimes devs keep certain bugs because they are fun

http://tvtropes.org/.../AscendedGlitch

[Najarati]

I don't like reload canceling because it only benefits certain weapons in a particular way. Weapons have differing reload animation times for a reason (I assume as a balancing factor otherwise why not make them all the same?) so being able to cut it short on a slow-loading gun is a nice benefit for that weapon; it still gets to keep all its pros, but sidesteps one of its cons. Meanwhile, a fast-loading weapon benefits far less from reload canceling, but still has the penalties to its other attributes in order to counterbalance the advantage of a quicker reload time.

For example, take the Claymore, which benefits nicely from reload canceling since one of its biggest downsides is a slow reload time. Now, take another heavy shotgun, the Crusader. It already has a quick reload time so canceling the animation gains you little. Now, if reload canceling made the next Crusader shot do extra damage or doubled the magazine size for a time then at least the mechanic would be a little more even-handed.

Obviously, this whole argument goes out the window if it turns out Bioware doesn't consider reload time when creating weapons. I'd be surprised if this was the case, but it's possible I suppose.

Modifié par Najarati, 26 décembre 2012 - 06:27 .

[Wolfsbladex]

Are you....dumb OP?

All Halos: Reload and when you see the clip in the gun melee or sprint. Reload cancel.

CoD: Same mechanic except faster

GoW: Why do you find it essential to directly copy a game from a 110% different game? They'll be issues on a mechanic like that.

Borderlands (1&2): Reload...melee. Boom you just just avoided a literal 6 second reload (crazy I know).

And there's endless other shooters that can be named as well (pretty sure Crysis, Ghost Recon, SOCOM).

Your argument specifically targeting this game is null-void because you're talking about all shooters that have reload cancel. The only legit type of argument you can make is shotguns don't have to reload shell-by-shell but that wouldn't be Mass Effect would it?

[Wolfsbladex]

The Wayward Vagabond wrote...

Plerion wrote...
Instead of a quick reload move, we have a "reload cancel" (a term which literally implies that the gun is NOT reloaded) and a ridiculous cut-off animation.

But, it is reloaded. if you cancel before it happens it doesn't work.

Lol reload-*cancel* is just a cooler way of saying *quick-reload*. There's no official name for it so it gets called by the most popular phrase: Reload-cancel. 

[Clayless]

Arppis wrote...

Do you know how the Gears of War reload cancel works? It's pretty great.

YAY STRONGER BULLETS BECAUSE I RELOADED FASTER.

This makes sense somehow.

[Zero132132]

GallowsPole wrote...

That's the thing. I don't think it can be removed. I bet if it could, it would. I doubt developers would put this mechanic in intentionally. Im sure they would want that shotgun to fully reload for the realism of it.

You're a fool. The duration before the ammo count increases and before the animation is complete are both values that can be adjusted by Bioware in weekly balance updates. They could very, very easily remove reload cancelling entirely by just making the two values the same. That they even HAVE two separate values should pretty heavily imply that when devs say that it's an intentional feature, they mean it.

[NuclearTech76]

Plerion wrote...

Why did Bioware make a hidden feature that behaves exactly like a bug? If they wanted an interactive reload, they should have done like Gears of War and created something that actually looks like a legitimate game mechanic. Instead of a quick reload move, we have a "reload cancel" (a term which literally implies that the gun is NOT reloaded) and a ridiculous cut-off animation. This is nonsensical, lazy, poor game design. It should have been a concrete game mechanic with no balance issues, rather than a harsh jerking motion that is essentially indistinguishable from a glitch. This is necessary because I am very active at reporting and destroying glitchers on the games that I play and do not like when game developers practically disguise intentional features as cheats. This should not be seen as an unreasonable opinion. 


 

Hmm... why would a company include a feature that players who routinely play the game and have some skill would be able to discover and take advantage of?

[Uh Cold]

cowwy wrote...

It is unreasonable opinion because you can do this in almost every shooter game. If you play any FPS basically you can always reload cancel by sprinting or using melee or initiating another animation. If you think this is lazy game design that's unique to this game then you need to pay attention to other games as well.

You people do know that hidden mechanics like this are usually what make games great right?
Why do you think Halo 2 was so legendary for it's MP experience?

I can still quadshot in my sleep and remember every call out for lockout even after not touching the game for many years.

Modifié par Uh Cold, 26 décembre 2012 - 07:23 .

[Bhatair]

It's just animation cancelling in general. There was a post Bioware made on the subject that one of the designers was a fan of fighting games and incorporated the concept from there.

[cowwy]

LegionofRannoch wrote...

Zero132132 wrote...

DullahansXMark wrote...

To everyone who agrees with the OP...

What if I told you, that raising powerful Pokemon is much MUCH more than merely leveling up? See, for those who just want to enjoy the game, there's merely that... But what if you want to be better than that? To be the very best like no one ever was? There are SO many hidden numbers that the games don't even tell you about that determine how powerful your Mons are. Is this truly lazy design? No. It's an intentionally secret mechanic.

Same as reload canceling.

IVs, I never got the hang of, and I haven't played a Pokemon game in a long damned time, but it's true, EVs aren't mentioned anywhere in the game. There are values associated with each monster defeated, though, and they affect the stats of your pokemon. Took me a while, but I think I had a near-perfect Garchomp once.

Even in games explictly aimed at children, there are game mechanics that aren't explained, but become important if you take the thing seriously. Claiming that it's a bad game mechanic exclusively because it isn't documented is silly.

Garchomp is OP. Nerf it.

biower pls

No, Garchomp is totally balanced because it has a 4X weakness to ice, therefore it's balanced and deserves to be classed in the UU tier. Maybe you just need to lrn2play.

[GroverA125]

Most/All modern shooters feature reload cancelling. Halo, CoD, Battlefield (interrupting is more difficult, but still possible) the list goes on.

It's a feature to ensure that reloads occur during high-action circumstances, allowing players one less concern while in conflict. Hence why games have it, because nothing is more annoying than having to reload more than once because you accidentally got bumped while reloading.

Besides, logically we'd all be using speed-loading pumps to load new clips, not bolts and current-game ejection ports.

[billpickles]

This topic needs to die a horrible death.

[Mahrac]

cowwy wrote...

LegionofRannoch wrote...

Zero132132 wrote...

DullahansXMark wrote...

To everyone who agrees with the OP...

What if I told you, that raising powerful Pokemon is much MUCH more than merely leveling up? See, for those who just want to enjoy the game, there's merely that... But what if you want to be better than that? To be the very best like no one ever was? There are SO many hidden numbers that the games don't even tell you about that determine how powerful your Mons are. Is this truly lazy design? No. It's an intentionally secret mechanic.

Same as reload canceling.

IVs, I never got the hang of, and I haven't played a Pokemon game in a long damned time, but it's true, EVs aren't mentioned anywhere in the game. There are values associated with each monster defeated, though, and they affect the stats of your pokemon. Took me a while, but I think I had a near-perfect Garchomp once.

Even in games explictly aimed at children, there are game mechanics that aren't explained, but become important if you take the thing seriously. Claiming that it's a bad game mechanic exclusively because it isn't documented is silly.

Garchomp is OP. Nerf it.

biower pls

No, Garchomp is totally balanced because it has a 4X weakness to ice, therefore it's balanced and deserves to be classed in the UU tier. Maybe you just need to lrn2play.

All Ice attacks are OP and need to be nerfed though. Ice Beam should not be able to oneshot a full health Garchomp under any circumstances

[Reizo Ryuu]

Arppis wrote...

In Gears of War thou, the reloading continues on rolls, vaults, sprints, etc... So you have mobility and realoads in that game. I just wanted to point that out.

And it's compaired, because it would just be so much more simpler if there was actual mechanic built around it, instead of it being pretty vague.

Yes but that is because gears' system extensively rewards the player for "canceling"  the reload; besides from cutting the reload time, you get a full clip of bullets that do ~3x normal damage on an active reload. That is the sole reason why it's a visible and taught mechanic in the game, if it didn't give such a huge benefit then the tradeoff, gun jams forcing super slow reload, would simply not be worth it for just a quicker way to reload.

Also, you can cancel the active reload if you missed it simply by doing a melee, makes it start over, so you can still get the super damage; active reload "cancel" ;]

Now imagine if ME3 had the "active reload" system and gave a claymore/javelin/BW/harrier 3x normal damage...

That's why it's a stupid comparison, all reload canceling mechanics in nearly all tps/fps's are "active", but there is no point in making it a visible mechanic unless there is a big reward/hard punishment; canceling a reload early which restarts the reload is punishment enough.

Gears in itself has plenty of hidden mechanics though, have you ever seen pros play the game? They wallbounce around like crazy to make themselves harder to hit or move around super fast.
Similarly many fighting games that allow animations with cancelable states have option-selects, safe jumps and wave dashes.
Many castlevania games have backdash-canceling and triangle jumping.
I could go on but you get the point, none of these games "teach" or make extensively visible these mechanics.
Hidden mechanics exist in nearly every game, but just because it's "hidden" doesn't mean it's poor gamedesign.

Modifié par Reizo Ryuu, 26 décembre 2012 - 10:04 .

[Battlepope190]

OP is 100% correct.