7 réponses à ce sujet

[Nethershadow]

For those that played the first week and either spent tonnes of time or more likely tonnes of money that got their max missiles / ops packs beyond the 5 missiles / 6 ops packs max (10 max i think) should either be brought in line with the rest of us or allow us (the prolly 99% of populace in this game) to buy with real money higher maxes.

For those that have it, it is like a cheat code that is legal and active all the time. If people here are big on wanting equality, like gender ext, then this is the same thing.

I want higher maxes...

What is everyone else thoughts?



I would love a BW response to why they felt this is fair/valid but i wont hold my breath if they dont.

[Bryan Johnson]

The players who played at the beginning technically did not get an unfair advantage, every player had the capability to receive the same benefits.

This is a co-op game, there is no unfair advantage to these people, I would think you would more likely want these people on your team.

[Bryan Johnson]

R0binME wrote...

Wouldn't bioware, or ea, benefit from making it possible to buy higher max of consumables for each game, from real money.

Theoretically there could be an initial amount of money to be made, but 52 rockets does trivalize a game.

Furthermore we do not have things that are money exclusive, you can either pay for or earn something in game.

[Bryan Johnson]

Nethershadow wrote...

Well yes they would be great teammates, assuming they would use them.
And i do agree that if all 4 players had tham many missiles it would trivilize things but..

But the main benefit (not the only one) for me and anyone else would be for solo, which would make a huge difference in the skill level you are at.

Also when many (bsn posters / elites) rate you based on your scorecard, this could also make a big difference. Personally i would rather have rockets done away ith permanently and have spawns not spawn so tight so then it truly is about your skill and not just spawn nuking, but that is a different thread.

Well since it is the community that is deciding skill level then if you wish to make this kind of "ranking" then the community should come up with an offset for what they see as valid.

The movement would be something like if you use more than the 6 cap then it is "invalid".

[Bryan Johnson]

_only1biggs_ wrote...

my point had nothing to do with balance. forget that. my concern is that bryan johnsons statement of "there is no unfair advantage, it's a co-op game", completely dumps on the idea of their being balance in the game.
i don't care either way about balance as i will play whatever character/weapon i feel like. just because alot of people chose to play THEIR game how THEY wanted, everyone says "nerf this" and "nerf that".

Your point stems from the singular argument that the only reason to do balance changes is in result to being fair/unfair. Just like I can use the same argument to say that we should half all weapon and power damage, since it is fair.

You also made the statement it is the person's game to do with as they please, while I am not going to get into this huge debate, but that is also not true.

[Bryan Johnson]

_only1biggs_ wrote...
wow, firstly, i didn't make a point about balance changes. i called into question your, "it's a co-op game, there's no unfair advantage" remark. if that's the case, then why bother with "nerfing" powerful weapons? i'm not saying anything about fair/unfair, you're putting words in mouth.

moreover, it is the persons game to do with as they please. if someone wants to ONLY use a Geth Infiltrator, that is their choice to do so; "they paid for the game, they can play it how they wish".

nice attempt at trying to twist my words, but you've just made yourself look incredibly stupid, at least to the enlightened

Nerfing is a balance change... So yes you did bring it up. I do not see at all how I am putting words into your mouth. I could argue that just because I make a statement about a certain thing it does not mean that statement is true of every scenario you could think of.

No it isn't a persons game to do with as they please, for example cheating. We have the right to ban people. Games are more defined as a service than a tangable product. 

And insults thrown to me and the community is not tolerated.

[Bryan Johnson]

Alright to make a farther wiping statement

The extended caps were present from March 6 (launch day) until March 27th (the day we fixed it server side).

The amount of users that were affected were small, it is especially small now. I for the record do have above the cap, I have 6 thermal clips.

At the time (nearly a year ago), we decided that those who received the packs with extended capacities would not have them taken away. That was the decision we made, and it is one that largely no one complained about until this month, I think this might fall under a statute of limitations.

Furthermore there is plenty of things that have been done that players can say benefited the past players more than now and the players now etc.

Lets look, at launch there was no such thing as PSPs, no such thing as JEP, no such thing as Reserves/Arsenal. Character cards were not cap'd, level IV consumables didn't exist etc.

Lets say that less than 1% of the users currently playing have extended capacities, do you really want them dictating how the game is played? We have heard a lot of people argue against exactly that.

Another option is to take it away from those that have it currently, which I dont know about you guys but if suddenly after 11 months my stuff was taken away just because of "popular opinion". I would be fairly upset.

Game landscapes change over time.

[Bryan Johnson]

N172 wrote...

So, if BW or EA does something wrong and I (and noone else) receive a Valiant XI from my next commendation pack because of that, then i am allowed to keep it because i am just 1 player and did not do anything wrong?

If not, why is it different from those additional capacity upgrades?

More than likely, yes

We have made mistakes and let people keep them. As long as there is not obsence abuse of the system, we typically dont take things away.

Modifié par Bryan Johnson, 14 février 2013 - 11:31 .