399 réponses à ce sujet

[ryanshowseason3]

TheThirdRace wrote...

Bryan Johnson wrote...

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.

With this line of thinking, it would be right to say you're allowed to keep a 6/6/6/6/6 build if you're the only one having it... Or that if the game glitch and you get 10M credit for the match it's ok because it only happened to you.

I understand that people don't like to get their things taken away, but they are very well aware they are over the cap. They are also very aware they get an advantage over other players each and every game today, tomorrow, the day after that, the day after that and so on.

My opinion is that you should rectify this because it's not fair for the rest of us. I would give them a commendation pack or two for their troubles, but they don't deserve to get a higher limit just because they benefit from a glitch that lasted less than a month

You're ignoring the fact that those situations are unintended glitches, or in some cases people actually intending to cheat. The cap increases were intended...

Until BW and EA changed their minds but didn't want to penalize people who had likely spent real money to get the cap increases. Probably in the hundreds because how spectre packs were back then.

Theres a BIG difference.<_<

Edit: Rereading the statements seems like it might not have been intended. Fact remains though people paid money, and it gets dicey when that is involved. I had always thought it was though, I remember the announcement .

Modifié par ryanshowseason3, 15 février 2013 - 03:34 .

[TheThirdRace]

ryanshowseason3 wrote...

TheThirdRace wrote...

...

You're ignoring the fact that those situations are unintended glitches, or in some cases people actually intending to cheat. The cap increases were intended...

Until BW and EA changed their minds but didn't want to penalize people who had likely spent real money to get the cap increases. Probably in the hundreds because how spectre packs were back then.

Theres a BIG difference.<_<

Edit: Rereading the statements seems like it might not have been intended. Fact remains though people paid money, and it gets dicey when that is involved. I had always thought it was though, I remember the announcement.

Intended or not, it is unfair. Everyone must abide by the same rules, I cannot modify my Coalesced.ini file to give me a cap of 10, so they shouldn't get to use 10 missiles either. It's only logical.

It's not like they got a promotional item that get them +1 over the cap. Some of those players have either 10 missiles, 10 medigels, 10 OPS pack or 10 ammunition pack. Some have a combination of that, some have them all.

As I said, I understand that people shouldn't just get their cap lowered because they might have paid money. What I suggested was to lower each of those limit back to the normal value and give for each limit lowered a commendation pack.  That way, you "exchange" a 10 missile limit for maybe a Hurricane, an Eagle, a Crusader, a Valiant or a Valkyrie. Nobody has finished the promotionnal weapons, so some of those people could get up to 4 upgrades to them, which is a fair trade.

You might tell me this would give them an advantage for having more upgrades to promotionnal weapons, but I'll answer that everyone will be able to get there eventually while nobody can get a 10 missile cap no matter how long you play. I think it's fair to go that way because people that paid money still have something of value that nobody has right now and that will still be true for a good amount of time.

[HolyAvenger]

@TheThirdRace:

But the population of those players is very, very small. It certainly doesn't affect my gameplay or yours. So why bother? If it was a widespread problem, then yes, worth doing something about. On this scale? Pointless.

[RaptorSolutions]

TheThirdRace wrote...

ryanshowseason3 wrote...

TheThirdRace wrote...

...

You're ignoring the fact that those situations are unintended glitches, or in some cases people actually intending to cheat. The cap increases were intended...

Until BW and EA changed their minds but didn't want to penalize people who had likely spent real money to get the cap increases. Probably in the hundreds because how spectre packs were back then.

Theres a BIG difference.<_<

Edit: Rereading the statements seems like it might not have been intended. Fact remains though people paid money, and it gets dicey when that is involved. I had always thought it was though, I remember the announcement.

Intended or not, it is unfair. Everyone must abide by the same rules, I cannot modify my Coalesced.ini file to give me a cap of 10, so they shouldn't get to use 10 missiles either. It's only logical.

It's not like they got a promotional item that get them +1 over the cap. Some of those players have either 10 missiles, 10 medigels, 10 OPS pack or 10 ammunition pack. Some have a combination of that, some have them all.

As I said, I understand that people shouldn't just get their cap lowered because they might have paid money. What I suggested was to lower each of those limit back to the normal value and give for each limit lowered a commendation pack.  That way, you "exchange" a 10 missile limit for maybe a Hurricane, an Eagle, a Crusader, a Valiant or a Valkyrie. Nobody has finished the promotionnal weapons, so some of those people could get up to 4 upgrades to them, which is a fair trade.

You might tell me this would give them an advantage for having more upgrades to promotionnal weapons, but I'll answer that everyone will be able to get there eventually while nobody can get a 10 missile cap no matter how long you play. I think it's fair to go that way because people that paid money still have something of value that nobody has right now and that will still be true for a good amount of time.

But what you said might not be true either. Look at recent weekend events where we get bonuses to our consumable capacity. Therefore, as you said we'll eventually get the same advantages as well. Whether we last that long to get those advantages is irrelevant as there is no guarantee either that weekend events will last long enough for others to catch up to the same level in promotional weapons.

[El Franko]

Computron2000 wrote...

El Franko wrote...
I don't think it should been a matter of "not many people complained until now". If gazillion changes have been made, then it should have been a leveled playing field for a long time now.

The gear itself might be meaningless but the fact that a handful of people's loss is somehow greater than any other change or loss that we as a community might not like it is not right.

It shouldn't even be an argument. If 10 or even 6 of everything breaks the game then so be it, for everyone.

Exactly.

For a level playing field we must insitute a cap of 2. That way everyone is on the same footing for consumables. Further from that we will have to look at removing everything except starter weapons as well.

For fairness, we must insitute a cap of 1. That way EVERYONE PAYS. Not just people with a cap of 6, not just people with a cap above 6 and even the newbies will pay. if anyone avoids feeling the pinch, then it is not fair to those who have to pay.

So its up to what people want. A level playing field or fairness

Yeah twist it any way you want, but that's not how it goes. All of us have a level playing field of things we can acquire through the store. The difference in-game that we may have in gear of weapons at the moment is not the same thing as never to be able to equal those who got in early enough to acquire the consumables that were taken out as balancing.

If it was taken out because of balancing issues, it should have been taken out completely then.

Those players have an unfair advantage in their games, in acquiring whatever new weapons/characters that may come out of DLC. Heck many of us hardly fail a platinum game if we are using gear that adds 3 to the consumables.

People who have that permanently have a very unfair advantage. If anyone says people who can speed run in 21 minutes solo had little help from consumables, and it's all skill, I would differ greatly. Having that huge amount of consumables let's you play at higher difficulties way more easier than anyone else.

It makes it easier to keep attempting platinum. It makes it easier to promote your character, and raise your N7 rank. It makes it easier to complete challenges.

Yet somehow they get a free pass just because the devs felt bad about removing their cap, just for them. Yet they removed the cap for everyone else.

That's where I draw the line. It is known it is unbalanced, that's not even the debate.

The debate is that it keeps staying that way because somehow the feelings of a handful is more important than them playing with same amount of possible consumables as the rest of us.

If we constantly have to adapt to changes and balancing of the MP for the greater good, then why just a handful of people do not have to ever worry about losing that?

[TheThirdRace]

HolyAvenger wrote...

@TheThirdRace:

But the population of those players is very, very small. It certainly doesn't affect my gameplay or yours. So why bother? If it was a widespread problem, then yes, worth doing something about. On this scale? Pointless.

I won't argue much, I don't really care, it's a question of principle.

If you have 100$ and you die, each of your children should receive an equal part. If one of them gets more than another, it's bound to create some problems. Even if the sum is "pointless", you just don't do that.

It's like saying it's ok to have someone above everyone else in a system where everyone should be equals. That doesn't compute well...

[HolyAvenger]

TheThirdRace wrote...

HolyAvenger wrote...

@TheThirdRace:

But the population of those players is very, very small. It certainly doesn't affect my gameplay or yours. So why bother? If it was a widespread problem, then yes, worth doing something about. On this scale? Pointless.

I won't argue much, I don't really care, it's a question of principle.

If you have 100$ and you die, each of your children should receive an equal part. If one of them gets more than another, it's bound to create some problems. Even if the sum is "pointless", you just don't do that.

It's like saying it's ok to have someone above everyone else in a system where everyone should be equals. That doesn't compute well...

Sure, I agree in principle its unfair. In practice, however, it does not affect me or my playing experience (unlike a host of other issues with the game) because its such a minor problem. The principle does not come anywhere near trumping that.

And I can't believe that people are continuing moan and whine and even want to break the game completely over such a petty matter.

[TheThirdRace]

RaptorSolutions wrote...

But what you said might not be true either. Look at recent weekend events where we get bonuses to our consumable capacity. Therefore, as you said we'll eventually get the same advantages as well. Whether we last that long to get those advantages is irrelevant as there is no guarantee either that weekend events will last long enough for others to catch up to the same level in promotional weapons.

But that's where you're wrong. We'll never get to 10 missiles because devs have already stated this was unbalancing. Bryan Johnson said in this thread that 52 missiles, 4 people with a 10 missiles cap and a +3 missiles gear, would be way too powerfull. So it's not happening, no matter how we try.

But let's say it's happening, you forget that the people with a 10 missile limit will also get another +1 to their cap. You'll never get to their cap no matter how much you play or how much you pay.

So no matter how you look at it, you have a system where everyone has the same "chance", everyone are on equal footing if they are ready to put the effort, but for some reasons, a couple people are put above all else...

[HolyAvenger]

TheThirdRace wrote...

But let's say it's happening, you forget that the people with a 10 missile limit will also get another +1 to their cap. You'll never get to their cap no matter how much you play or how much you pay.

They don't.

[TheThirdRace]

HolyAvenger wrote...

TheThirdRace wrote...

But let's say it's happening, you forget that the people with a 10 missile limit will also get another +1 to their cap. You'll never get to their cap no matter how much you play or how much you pay.

They don't.

Thanks for the info. At least that would make it more fair, even if it's a situation that have 0% chance of happening anyway...

[JLoco11]

I said it before, I'll say it again... Meet the middle on a compromise:

7 consummable max capacity or 8 max capacity with gear bonus being reduced to +2 from +3. Add 6 weekend allied goals to increase the capacity to 7 on each (or 10 weekends in the case of a max of 8)

Those who lose out on capacity consummables, give them a free PSP for each consummable. If Bioware is stating it's not a big deal OR a large portion of people it affects, then damage it mitigated.

Those who paid, you're still getting something you paid for and more. You could only pay for Spectre packs back then, now you get a free PSP.

There, problem solved, the difference is split amongst everyone. Bioware, make it happen!

[ryanshowseason3]

TheThirdRace wrote...

Intended or not, it is unfair.

Opinion. Also why be angry that someone else is having an easier time with the game? Why are we so focused on taking our neighbors cake because we don't have one? Especially since your goal is to just smash it on the ground so no one has it.

TheThirdRace wrote...
It's not like they got a promotional item that get them +1 over the cap.

In essence this really is the case. They paid a large premium probably in the hundreds of dollars to get an advantage.

TheThirdRace wrote...
As I said, I understand that people shouldn't just get their cap lowered because they might have paid money. What I suggested was to lower each of those limit back to the normal value and give for each limit lowered a commendation pack.  That way, you "exchange" a 10 missile limit for maybe a Hurricane, an Eagle, a Crusader, a Valiant or a Valkyrie. Nobody has finished the promotionnal weapons, so some of those people could get up to 4 upgrades to them, which is a fair trade.

You might tell me this would give them an advantage for having more upgrades to promotionnal weapons, but I'll answer that everyone will be able to get there eventually while nobody can get a 10 missile cap no matter how long you play. I think it's fair to go that way because people that paid money still have something of value that nobody has right now and that will still be true for a good amount of time.

So you'd exchange one advantage for another? Also they wouldn't be too happy with an advantage they could just as easily have gotten for free in exchange to what they paid for. Also they might actually *HATE* all the promotional weapons or have the ones they want maxed out, then you're basically giving them garbage and taking their cake at the same time.

Definitely not a fair solution to them.

[123456654321]

Is this really still a thing?

Are you so insecure that someone has two more ops packs per mission than you that you're ready to tilt at a windmill over it?

This is, and please excuse the euphemism, a L2P problem. Not a Biower problem. Stop blaming consumables and man up. In practice you don't need Ops Packs or Medigels in quantities greater than 2 per mission, unless you're sandbagging in Gold/Plat.

[HolyAvenger]

JLoco11 wrote...

I said it before, I'll say it again... Meet the middle on a compromise:

7 consummable max capacity or 8 max capacity with gear bonus being reduced to +2 from +3. Add 6 weekend allied goals to increase the capacity to 7 on each (or 10 weekends in the case of a max of 8)

Those who lose out on capacity consummables, give them a free PSP for each consummable. If Bioware is stating it's not a big deal OR a large portion of people it affects, then damage it mitigated.

Those who paid, you're still getting something you paid for and more. You could only pay for Spectre packs back then, now you get a free PSP.

There, problem solved, the difference is split amongst everyone. Bioware, make it happen!

I don't want this. Current caps are fine.

[Deathsaurer]

I'd love 1 more missile for those days you get a really bad team but 10 is uh... excessive to say the least. I'd likely never PUG again.

[juanjo_dpr9]

Well, if you buy expensive packages it's normal you are angry. It's useless buying premium or the other ones (99000 credits) if you are looking for credits. That's why I always buy recruit packages to improve my N7 and get my missiles, meds, ammo and ops. pack back. It's the ebst tactic because if you beat a platinum game you can buy like 27 packages and you can get maybe about 15-20 of every item you normally use. Forget about the expensive packages, that's my advice. I'm number 9 in N7 Xbox ranking and I've played more than 3600 games with almost 1200 hours, so I know what I'm talking about.

By the way, don't use more than equipment 1 in gold, 1 is more than enough. Reapers and cerberus and a piece of cake if you are using the destroyer, the turian ghost, the geth infiltrator or the drell infiltrators. Even the kroguard is awesome against them. Be careful if you have collectors in your game, specially wave 8 : you have couple or praetorians.

[JLoco11]

HolyAvenger wrote...

JLoco11 wrote...

I said it before, I'll say it again... Meet the middle on a compromise:

7 consummable max capacity or 8 max capacity with gear bonus being reduced to +2 from +3. Add 6 weekend allied goals to increase the capacity to 7 on each (or 10 weekends in the case of a max of 8)

Those who lose out on capacity consummables, give them a free PSP for each consummable. If Bioware is stating it's not a big deal OR a large portion of people it affects, then damage it mitigated.

Those who paid, you're still getting something you paid for and more. You could only pay for Spectre packs back then, now you get a free PSP.

There, problem solved, the difference is split amongst everyone. Bioware, make it happen!

I don't want this. Current caps are fine.

Yes, we should all do what you only want!  Just change your middle name to Biower.

If they could increase the capacity for 2 consummables through weekend challenges, there's enough reason to believe people would support increases for at least the other 2 items to a capacity of 6.

[HolyAvenger]

JLoco11 wrote...
Yes, we should all do what you only want!  Just change your middle name to Biower.

So I shouldn't express my opinions on changes to the games balance? You said you wanted them to change one thing, I expressed an opinion otherwise. We are on exactly the same level.

[Saints]

I got a question. Why does mostly everyone with a DA origin avatar with a "questioning" look? Has anybody notice this?

[Stardusk]

Nethershadow wrote...

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.

Son, I was there back in the demo days soloing Gold with naught but the bare minimal...the youth today.

[juanjo_dpr9]

Stardusk wrote...

Nethershadow wrote...

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.

Son, I was there back in the demo days soloing Gold with naught but the bare minimal...the youth today.

I remember the demo, it was too easy beating cerberus. Ghost is one of the best map to do soloing and cerberus were really squishy, without dragoons and shlt

Modifié par juanjo_dpr9, 15 février 2013 - 05:49 .

[TheThirdRace]

ryanshowseason3 wrote...

TheThirdRace wrote...

Intended or not, it is unfair.

Opinion. Also why be angry that someone else is having an easier time with the game? Why are we so focused on taking our neighbors cake because we don't have one? Especially since your goal is to just smash it on the ground so no one has it.

TheThirdRace wrote...
It's not like they got a promotional item that get them +1 over the cap.

In essence this really is the case. They paid a large premium probably in the hundreds of dollars to get an advantage.

I'm not angry, there's no need to be and that's how I can keep things civil while discussing it. My goal isn't to take the cake of my neighbors, I only state an anomaly where in a system where everyone is supposed to be equals (in chances and possibilities), there are some that benefit from a "glitch" that puts them above the others. Either you have a system where everything's equal or you don't. As far as I know, Bioware made it pretty clear that it's the former.

You say they spend money to get an advantage. What really is this advantage? Bioware made a RNG store so you couldn't buy a specific item, you have to pay credits or real money to buy a pack. So technically, they paid for a pack and whatever is in it is up to chance, no guarantees. The only advantage you get for paying is to get your things faster. You never get better things that nobody else can get, you just get them faster. That is the advantage of paying, the only advantage there is actually if you don't benefit from a glitch.

Following your logic, if I paid to get a pack and got the Krysae before the nerf, it shouldn't have been touched by the nerf because I paid real money for it. Maybe some people had it at level X, but it still got nerfed into oblivion. Why is that? Why didn't they use the same logic as with the cap on missiles and apply the nerf only to players who doesn't have the Krysae? Why no one have seen an exception even if they paid money? Because the system is done in a way where everyone abide by the same rules, everyone has the same chance to get the same gun.

ryanshowseason3 wrote...

TheThirdRace wrote...
As I said, I understand that people shouldn't just get their cap lowered because they might have paid money. What I suggested was to lower each of those limit back to the normal value and give for each limit lowered a commendation pack.  That way, you "exchange" a 10 missile limit for maybe a Hurricane, an Eagle, a Crusader, a Valiant or a Valkyrie. Nobody has finished the promotionnal weapons, so some of those people could get up to 4 upgrades to them, which is a fair trade.

You might tell me this would give them an advantage for having more upgrades to promotionnal weapons, but I'll answer that everyone will be able to get there eventually while nobody can get a 10 missile cap no matter how long you play. I think it's fair to go that way because people that paid money still have something of value that nobody has right now and that will still be true for a good amount of time.

So you'd exchange one advantage for another? Also they wouldn't be too happy with an advantage they could just as easily have gotten for free in exchange to what they paid for. Also they might actually *HATE* all the promotional weapons or have the ones they want maxed out, then you're basically giving them garbage and taking their cake at the same time.

Definitely not a fair solution to them.

As stated before, they paid for a pack. There were no guarantees to get that +1 to missile cap and if it becomes unbalanced there's also no guarantees they will not nerf it (same as guns). Technically, Bioware could give you 1 PSP as reimbursement and be done with you. I simply gave a trade-off that is "valuable" because other players won't be able to match their new advantage for a good while.

As for giving them garbage and taking their cake, I'd say only this. In the real world, if the government send you a check every month and they realize they made a mistake, they're gonna ask you to reimburse them all the money. They won't let you keep it, some will even charge you interest because you should have told them when it happened the first time.

All in all, it's not a case where it's essential to correct this thing. It's not game breaking and it certainly doesn't affect my game at all. It's just a matter of principle, Bioware made a mistake back then and I think it should be fixed.

[Saints]

saints 944 wrote...

I got a question. Why does mostly everyone with a DA origin avatar with a "questioning" look? Has anybody notice this?

Sorry man make your own Thread for a question like that.

[JLoco11]

HolyAvenger wrote...

JLoco11 wrote...
Yes, we should all do what you only want!  Just change your middle name to Biower.

So I shouldn't express my opinions on changes to the games balance? You said you wanted them to change one thing, I expressed an opinion otherwise. We are on exactly the same level.

Opinions usually involve some form of explanation or motive.

"Game balance" is a cop out explanation.  It sounds good on paper, but in the end is a meaningless and empty statement that everyone wants.  That's not exactly the basis of a true opinion as opposed to just an empty statement.

But if we just go with the this theory of balance, why did we get gear bonuses that add additional rockets?  Doesn't that throw off the balance you claim?  Because let's face it, this issue isn't about thermal clips, medi gel or ops packs.  The focus of this thread is about rockets.

Modifié par JLoco11, 15 février 2013 - 06:01 .

[juanjo_dpr9]

JLoco11 wrote...

HolyAvenger wrote...

JLoco11 wrote...
Yes, we should all do what you only want!  Just change your middle name to Biower.

So I shouldn't express my opinions on changes to the games balance? You said you wanted them to change one thing, I expressed an opinion otherwise. We are on exactly the same level.

Opinions usually involve some form of explanation or motive.

"Game balance" is a cop out explanation.  It sounds good on paper, but in the end is a meaningless and empty statement that everyone wants.  That's not exactly the basis of a true opinion as opposed to just an empty statement.

But if we just go with the this theory of balance, why did we get gear bonuses that add additional rockets?  Doesn't that throw off the balance you claim?  Because let's face it, this issue isn't about thermal clips, medi gel or ops packs.  The focus of this thread is about rockets.

Your idea is really good, because if you decrease the damage of the weapons but you can have 6, 7 or even 8 rockets, the nerf is useless.