399 réponses à ce sujet

[Charaxan]

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.

I've got a question about that :

I understand why you do that and I like the idea. I don't care (objectively) if someone have more chance than me to finish a game. (I don't need that, actually)

But,

Considering it is a coop game, of course any "plus" is welcome.


We must consider, however, that there is a leaderboard. The question is :

What do you say to the player playing respectfully and within the rules, and who can never go up in the leaderboard because the one up has an advantage ?

He never cheated, never missile glitched, he always played "by the book". And yet, it will be always more difficult for him. 

When he see missile glitchers going up, he can denounce them. When he see someone YOU advantaged... what ?

[killer of stars]

ryanshowseason3 wrote...

Bad analogy. These people didn't steal anything so while that example is based on principle it is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PRINCIPLE. One of theft. Not even close to what we're talking about.

The one we're working with here is the principle of pseudo promotional advantage. These people did not cheat or steal and should not be treated like criminals. Find a different metaphor.

These people bought a cake, a big cake, for a lot of money. The bakery realized it would not be sustainable to continue doing this so they stopped selling cakes that big. They had the option to do this via server side settings so they did.

The krysae is a different matter. They sold cakes that they realized that one of their ingredients in all of their cakes would spoil too quickly and everyone's cake would be ruined. They had no choice but to recall them all. Especially with the limitations of the balance changes in a technical sense. There was and still is no way to change only new player's krysaes. The cap increases however had server side settings. A lot of you fail to understand that there was no other option for the krysae even if they wanted one.

Wasn't comparing the two. Was making a point, you know the one about how principle is important regardless of how many or how much.

Bioware decided that players should not have more than an cap of 5 for all consumables(excluding the ops that raised the caps), therefore no player should have over that cap. It's quite simple really. These players are now exploiting game content players are not supposed to have.

Modifié par killer of stars, 19 février 2013 - 11:43 .

[Saints]

Really? This is still going on?

[ThatGuyThatPlaysThisGame]

Bryan Johnson wrote...

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.

So erm yea if it's a coop game with no cheating and unfair advantage why do we have balance changes?

Oh snap!!!

[Computron2000]

killer of stars wrote...
Wasn't comparing the two. Was making a point, you know the one about how principle is important regardless of how many or how much.

If you support the principle then you will support a cap of 1
Taking away from those that have it = unfair
Reducing the cap to 2 = leaving the newbies untouched = unfair
Reducing the cap to 1 so everyone is hit = fair.

Since you mentioned "regardless of how many and how much", the cap amount lost, whether it be 9 (cap 10), 5 (cap 6) or 1 (cap 2) does not matter. What matters is EVERYONE is hit. So you're fine with a cap of 1 then?

[TheThirdRace]

Computron2000 wrote...

killer of stars wrote...
Wasn't comparing the two. Was making a point, you know the one about how principle is important regardless of how many or how much.

If you support the principle then you will support a cap of 1
Taking away from those that have it = unfair
Reducing the cap to 2 = leaving the newbies untouched = unfair
Reducing the cap to 1 so everyone is hit = fair.

Since you mentioned "regardless of how many and how much", the cap amount lost, whether it be 9 (cap 10), 5 (cap 6) or 1 (cap 2) does not matter. What matters is EVERYONE is hit. So you're fine with a cap of 1 then?

You know, there are some roads in this world where there's no speed limit. If the government decided to limit the speed on that road, how would they logically do it?

Following your logic the limit would have to be set to the lower common denominator to be fair to everyone. That means that if my grandmother drives at 10 mph on that road, we should all drive below that speed so the change affects everyone.

OR

They would decide what speed they think is acceptable for safety and congestion reasons and go with that. Those that drove over the new speed limit would be the only ones affected.

Now please tell me you realize how much your logic is flawed...

Modifié par TheThirdRace, 19 février 2013 - 02:38 .

[ryanshowseason3]

killer of stars wrote...

Wasn't comparing the two. Was making a point, you know the one about how principle is important regardless of how many or how much.

Bioware decided that players should not have more than an cap of 5 for all consumables(excluding the ops that raised the caps), therefore no player should have over that cap. It's quite simple really. These players are now exploiting game content players are not supposed to have.

Not quite sure I buy that first sentence. You seem to have the notion that these people are acting in a manner outside the rules, as if they were criminals. When they aren't. Rules aren't so clear cut as you think they are. Also you're ignoring what is in the realm of possibility and ease for BW to do about issues that come along, in a technical sense not moral or philosophical.

Rules are set constantly on the prices of commodities like food and insurance, contracts are made under those rules. The rules might change in a week or month and the contracts made under the old rules are honored, and with good reason. If they weren't your cell phone carrier could raise your rates whenever they felt like it and without notifying you. Its the same here. These people played by the rules at the time. The rules changed for everyone else going forward and for them since they were capped at whatever they had. Also consider this was all BW could do easily at the time. Going through the database to delete records like this requires developer time, testing, money, and possibly straight up server downtime to go through an ever expanding list of records. The system wasn't built for these kind of edits.

I pose to you the question is it worth it when the time could be spent creating new content to make everyone happy? Or is this principle as important as theft as you seem to suggest. I'd argue no, since the landscape of the game is not hurt and honestly no individuals are harmed. The principle of theft DOES involve people being harmed and one person advantaged and another disadvantaged as well as the possibility that the advantaged might continue in their activities if not punished. This isn't a possibility here. The people with higher caps cannot get any more at this point, and they are not disadvantaging anyone by having higher caps, it is arguable that their leaderboard e-peen success is harmed, but it is also arguable that their extra resources help the team get space money easier. And really if the leaderboard e-peen is the only thing at stake here can we just grow up and not focus on something so inane and non important?

Knocking the krysae down was technically feasible since this kind of change was forseen to be necessary at some point or another. Not only that but the landscape of the game was roiling in earthquakes, playing other classes with other weapons became a novelty and you did not make any more impact on the game than being a bullet sponge.

If a large percentage of people had this I'd be with you. At another time in my life I would be for such rigid measures. Developing software has taught me there is a limit to what makes sense to do in reality.

Modifié par ryanshowseason3, 19 février 2013 - 03:32 .

[Computron2000]

TheThirdRace wrote...
You know, there are some roads in this world where there's no speed limit. If the government decided to limit the speed on that road, how would they logically do it?

Following your logic the limit would have to be set to the lower common denominator to be fair to everyone. That means that if my grandmother drives at 10 mph on that road, we should all drive below that speed so the change affects everyone.

OR

They would decide what speed they think is acceptable for safety and congestion reasons and go with that. Those that drove over the new speed limit would be the only ones affected.

Now please tell me you realize how much your logic is flawed...

Do realise that absolute fairness is never the most popular choice.

In your example, there is no gain or loss by anyone prior as there was no precedent (no speed limit in the first place). For your example, the considerations do not consist of fairness. It consists of
i) Crash and accident data on said roads.
ii) Travel time and hence transport time which impacts the economy
iii) Conditions of the roads (new/old, material used, etc)

Now please tell me you realize how much your example is flawed...

[E71]

Personally, I want my caps raised to 10. Not for the sake of in-game use but for when I've earned my last promotional weapon and have a fully completed manifest I'll be able to lay the game to rest knowing my profile is 100% complete.

Sure it's a selfish request given that 10-13 x4 missiles can trivialize the game but then again there's always the option to bring their caps in line with ours.

Modifié par E71, 19 février 2013 - 04:32 .

[Dracian]

whyisthisthreadbackagain.jpg

[TheThirdRace]

Computron2000 wrote...

TheThirdRace wrote...
You know, there are some roads in this world where there's no speed limit. If the government decided to limit the speed on that road, how would they logically do it?

Following your logic the limit would have to be set to the lower common denominator to be fair to everyone. That means that if my grandmother drives at 10 mph on that road, we should all drive below that speed so the change affects everyone.

OR

They would decide what speed they think is acceptable for safety and congestion reasons and go with that. Those that drove over the new speed limit would be the only ones affected.

Now please tell me you realize how much your logic is flawed...

Do realise that absolute fairness is never the most popular choice.

In your example, there is no gain or loss by anyone prior as there was no precedent (no speed limit in the first place). For your example, the considerations do not consist of fairness. It consists of
i) Crash and accident data on said roads.
ii) Travel time and hence transport time which impacts the economy
iii) Conditions of the roads (new/old, material used, etc)

Now please tell me you realize how much your example is flawed...

Here's my answer...

The "no speed limit" is still limited to the maximum speed your car/truck/etc can drive at. So there is a precedent and putting in place a limit does "prevent" you from using your full speed. Thus, some people lose their right to drive at the speed they could.

As for the fairness, my point wasn't about that. The only thing I have to say about fairness is that everyone should be affected by the same rule. The people that have more than the current cap should be brought back in line.

But let's address your argument...

1) Never said there was any accident or crash or whatever... The reason for the speed limit could be to avoid exceptions. Here in Canada, every highway has a speed limit of 100 km/h no matter how much accident there are or the number of crashes. It doesn't matter, the rule applies to every highway.

2) I don't see how putting a speed limit takes into consideration travel time. You don't put a speed limit because you think people get there too fast... As for the economy and transport time, you are sorely mistaken too. Trucks are built to go a certain speed to maximize their fuel efficiency. Sure they can drive at 80 MPH but at the cost of triple the amount of fuel, which defeats completely your argument. Most of the transport companies lock the speed limit of their trucks (done with the internal computer) to 90 km/h (55 mph?) because it cost too much fuel to drive over that speed. So all in all, even if the limit was 200 MPH, it wouldn't matter because the companies are chosing to use a lower speed limit for a completely different reason.

3) Never said there was anything wrong with the road either. We have the same speed limit on highways no matter how good or bad the state of the road is. Aren't they fixing the roads where you're from when there's something dangerous?

So now here are why I think Bioware should just rectify this.

1) They stated that having too much consumables was unbalancing the game. You could have up to 52 missiles if everyone had the 10 missiles cap and the +3 missiles gear.

2) When someone with 10 missiles get into your lobby, it has the potential to give the team an advantage based on something not accessible to other teams no matter what, which is a bit unfair. I can live with it because 5 more missiles isn't that much considering pubs usually refrain from using theirs no matter what. So in a way, it "can" balance itself out.

3) But what happens when 4 people with a 10 missiles cap join the same lobby? Bioware stated that 52 was too much, so technically this shouldn't be allowed. What is the most sensible solution to avoid this?

3a) Is it to change the matchmaking system to avoid putting 2 or more of those people in the same lobby? Meaning people over the cap cannot be matched together by random lobbies or by the join option in the friend list...

3b) Just apply the cap limit to everyone so that you avoid the problem entirely.

See, it's not just about fairness, it's about balance too. If Bioware decided that the cap for whatever the consumable is 5 or 6, it's because it would unbalance the game if you had more. Thus, there's no logical reason to allow some people to go over that cap. You wouldn't accept that a small group of people have the old overpowered Krysae because it wasn't balanced (not that the new Krysae is balanced, but that's another story). Everyone should be under the same rules and the "over the cap" situation arised because Bioware were weak and decided to apply the balance change only to those who didn't get the goods. You just don't do that...

Modifié par TheThirdRace, 19 février 2013 - 05:09 .

[Computron2000]

You're really emotionally invested in your example no matter how flawed it is...

TheThirdRace wrote...
1) Never said there was any accident or crash or whatever... The reason for the speed limit could be to avoid exceptions. Here in Canada, every highway has a speed limit of 100 km/h no matter how much accident there are or the number of crashes. It doesn't matter, the rule applies to every highway.

You are looking to set the speed limit. There is NO speed limit NOW. Do you look at the data to see the median speeds at which accidents happen currently? Does it make sense to set it below that speed? Here's an exercise. Instead of taking your country's speed limit for granted, think about how they came up with 100 km/h

TheThirdRace wrote...
2) I don't see how putting a speed limit takes into consideration travel time. You don't put a speed limit because you think people get there too fast... As for the economy and transport time, you are sorely mistaken too. Trucks are built to go a certain speed to maximize their fuel efficiency. Sure they can drive at 80 MPH but at the cost of triple the amount of fuel, which defeats completely your argument. Most of the transport companies lock the speed limit of their trucks (done with the internal computer) to 90 km/h (55 mph?) because it cost too much fuel to drive over that speed. So all in all, even if the limit was 200 MPH, it wouldn't matter because the companies are chosing to use a lower speed limit for a completely different reason.

Refer to your example of 10km/h. Answer me this. How much productivity is wasted by time locked into the transportation of goods and workers?

TheThirdRace wrote...
3) Never said there was anything wrong with the road either. We have the same speed limit on highways no matter how good or bad the state of the road is. Aren't they fixing the roads where you're from when there's something dangerous?

Your initial post said roads not specifically highways. Does your country set the speed limit at 100km/h in all roads? Why or why not? 

TheThirdRace wrote...
See, it's not just about fairness, it's about balance too. 

Wrong. The entire post was about "Was making a point, you know the one about how principle is important regardless of how many or how much." The principle in question is fairness.

[TheThirdRace]

Computron2000 wrote...

...

Fine, I'll just categorize you as a troll...

[killer of stars]

Computron2000 wrote...

...

So
it's more fair for a few to have an advantage of the many?

Outside of the capacity caps we are talking about, a player starting out
today has access to all the same content as those that have already
been playing since the game released.

ryanshowseason3 wrote...

...

Never called anyone a criminal. The thing about rules, is that the simpler something is the easier it is to enforce. Such as rules in a forum, this being a game, the rules are going to be pretty simple. As for the ease of fixing this, simple, change the cap back. Quick and easy, problem solved.

Comparing this to food or phones on anything else like that is silly as there are a lot more things going on in the real world then there likely ever will be with the context of a game.

Now as to the time needed to create new content, everything we have gotten could have been created my users if EA and Bioware simply released the proper tools. So while they do take their time, it doesn't really show given the bugs and issues always cropping up with each piece of content they release. Also taking the time to fix an issue is important, as it shows that the company or an individual does care and will take the time and money needed to solve the problem.

There are people with a clear advantage and those with a clear disadvantage. Yes those with the higher capactiy will contine to profit from said advantage.

Leaderboards are worthless in a great many games considering that most have hackers and cheaters at the top, so who honestly cares?

I doubt the people suggesting being able to have pre-nerf weapons are being very serious, and that more likely trying to make the point that every other 'balance change' was even across the board. And that no one should get special treatment.

If everyone did have 10 for everything who would benefit the most? Not the average player, that's for sure. The decent and ok players would make some use of it. But really it would end up being the most useful for the good players who understand the mechanics of the game. As they would make them a means to an end. Whether it be the competitions that are around here often enough or simply pulling in the credits in the most efficient manner.

[Computron2000]

killer of stars wrote...

Computron2000 wrote...

...

So
it's more fair for a few to have an advantage of the many?

Outside of the capacity caps we are talking about, a player starting out
today has access to all the same content as those that have already
been playing since the game released.

There is no "more fair" there is only fair and unfair. If you want absolute fairness then a cap of 1 is the answer. If you want to avoid penalties for yourself, then of course it will never be fair as it will be biased towards your well being.

Before bringing up fairness, do think of whether you are thinking about benefiting from or penalising a group that does not include you.

[killer of stars]

Computron2000 wrote...

There is no "more fair" there is only fair and unfair. If you want absolute fairness then a cap of 1 is the answer. If you want to avoid penalties for yourself, then of course it will never be fair as it will be biased towards your well being.

Before bringing up fairness, do think of whether you are thinking about benefiting from or penalising a group that does not include you.

Once again a player starting today has the same access to content as those that have been playing since the beginning aside from the capacity change. so your cap of 1 is illogcial.

Also once again, why should the few have the advantage over the many?

[Computron2000]

killer of stars wrote...

Computron2000 wrote...

There is no "more fair" there is only fair and unfair. If you want absolute fairness then a cap of 1 is the answer. If you want to avoid penalties for yourself, then of course it will never be fair as it will be biased towards your well being.

Before bringing up fairness, do think of whether you are thinking about benefiting from or penalising a group that does not include you.

Once again a player starting today has the same access to content as those that have been playing since the beginning aside from the capacity change. so your cap of 1 is illogcial.

Also once again, why should the few have the advantage over the many?

Wrong. Those playing today never experience the Krysae, Falcon, Typhoon, Explosions, grabbable pyros, etc at full or reduced power. That content will be forever lost unless bioware changes it back.

As for illogical? Well thats just your failure to recognise your own hypocrisy when a negative change affects you rather than just some shmucks you don't even know. 

Now tell me this. In a lucky draw, 10 people win a car. 1000 people win  a ipad. 10000 win a burger.
The organizers want to take back the car. Is that fair to the 10?
The organizers want to take back the ipad. Is that fair to the 1000?
The organizers want to take back the burger. Is that fair to the 10000?

So where is that vaunted principle that you are upholding? Or is that principle worthless when it affects you?

[TheThirdRace]

killer of stars wrote...

Computron2000 wrote...

There is no "more fair" there is only fair and unfair. If you want absolute fairness then a cap of 1 is the answer. If you want to avoid penalties for yourself, then of course it will never be fair as it will be biased towards your well being.

Before bringing up fairness, do think of whether you are thinking about benefiting from or penalising a group that does not include you.

Once again a player starting today has the same access to content as those that have been playing since the beginning aside from the capacity change. so your cap of 1 is illogcial.

Also once again, why should the few have the advantage over the many?

Forget about it, he's obviously a troll.

Modifié par TheThirdRace, 20 février 2013 - 02:15 .

[SOG TOUGH]

Stop saving them in moments of need in Gold/Platinum matches.

[Computron2000]

TheThirdRace wrote...

killer of stars wrote...

Computron2000 wrote...

There is no "more fair" there is only fair and unfair. If you want absolute fairness then a cap of 1 is the answer. If you want to avoid penalties for yourself, then of course it will never be fair as it will be biased towards your well being.

Before bringing up fairness, do think of whether you are thinking about benefiting from or penalising a group that does not include you.

Once again a player starting today has the same access to content as those that have been playing since the beginning aside from the capacity change. so your cap of 1 is illogcial.

Also once again, why should the few have the advantage over the many?

Forget about it, he's obviously a troll.

You see logic does not care about ego. Thats why you failed to prove your own logic. Failure to look at things objectively without self bias. Right now, to soothe your damaged ego, you want to find someone to support your stand. What you want is the following

U: Guy is wrong. He's so dumb
U2: Yeah, he's totally wrong. Not as if we couldn't refute his logic, its just he's too dumb
U: Yeah
U2: Yeah

Just to shortcut the entire process 

[TheThirdRace]

Computron2000 wrote...

TheThirdRace wrote...

killer of stars wrote...

Once again a player starting today has the same access to content as those that have been playing since the beginning aside from the capacity change. so your cap of 1 is illogcial.

Also once again, why should the few have the advantage over the many?

Forget about it, he's obviously a troll.

You see logic does not care about ego. Thats why you failed to prove your own logic. Failure to look at things objectively without self bias. Right now, to soothe your damaged ego, you want to find someone to support your stand. What you want is the following

U: Guy is wrong. He's so dumb
U2: Yeah, he's totally wrong. Not as if we couldn't refute his logic, its just he's too dumb
U: Yeah
U2: Yeah

Just to shortcut the entire process 

Yes, logic has no emotion.

I'm the kind of guy who would sacrifice 1 child to save 2 because the math works...

To me you are the like the Geth heretics, we both have the same equation but your hardware doesn't give you the same answer than me.

You compared a contest to balance changes, how can I agree with you logically when your premises are wrong?

I took the time to check other thread you posted in before I categorize you as a troll, I doubt you did the same with me...

Modifié par TheThirdRace, 20 février 2013 - 04:34 .

[Computron2000]

TheThirdRace wrote...
To me you are the like the Geth heretics, we both have the same equation but your hardware doesn't give you the same answer than me.

You compared a contest to balance changes, how can I agree with you logically when your premises are wrong?

I took the time to check other thread you posted in before I categorize you as a troll, I doubt you did the same with me...

Your problems are failure to maintain context and inability to recognise self bias. You swerve the topic into other areas in an attempt to make your statements more correct. Whether this is deliberate or simply self inflicted blindness, the result is the same

For example, in the very post i quote, you are already failed to maintain context. I did not compare a contest to balance changes. In fact i did not talk about balance at all. Balance was what you said.

Computron2000 wrote...

TheThirdRace wrote...
See, it's not just about fairness, it's about balance too. 

Wrong. The entire post was about "Was making a point, you know the one about how principle is important regardless of how many or how much." The principle in question is fairness.

To repeat what i already said.  The principle in question is fairness. Oh and you might want to search the thread on who said "Was making a point, you know the one about how principle is important regardless of how many or how much." and the order of responses.

[killer of stars]

Computron2000 wrote...

killer of stars wrote...

Computron2000 wrote...

There is no "more fair" there is only fair and unfair. If you want absolute fairness then a cap of 1 is the answer. If you want to avoid penalties for yourself, then of course it will never be fair as it will be biased towards your well being.

Before bringing up fairness, do think of whether you are thinking about benefiting from or penalising a group that does not include you.

Once again a player starting today has the same access to content as those that have been playing since the beginning aside from the capacity change. so your cap of 1 is illogcial.

Also once again, why should the few have the advantage over the many?

Wrong. Those playing today never experience the Krysae, Falcon, Typhoon, Explosions, grabbable pyros, etc at full or reduced power. That content will be forever lost unless bioware changes it back.

As for illogical? Well thats just your failure to recognise your own hypocrisy when a negative change affects you rather than just some shmucks you don't even know. 

Now tell me this. In a lucky draw, 10 people win a car. 1000 people win  a ipad. 10000 win a burger.
The organizers want to take back the car. Is that fair to the 10?
The organizers want to take back the ipad. Is that fair to the 1000?
The organizers want to take back the burger. Is that fair to the 10000?

So where is that vaunted principle that you are upholding? Or is that principle worthless when it affects you?

You're jumping all around the point. And refusing to answer simple questions.

Does anyone still have pre-nerf weapons, powers or characters? No, everyone is on a level playing field and can use the same things. Does anyone still have pre-change consumable capacity? Yes, the playing field is uneven and only those that have content players are not supposed to have continue to use said content, while everyone else is at a disadvantage.

Again why should the few have an advantage over the many?

[Computron2000]

killer of stars wrote...

Computron2000 wrote...

killer of stars wrote...

Computron2000 wrote...

There is no "more fair" there is only fair and unfair. If you want absolute fairness then a cap of 1 is the answer. If you want to avoid penalties for yourself, then of course it will never be fair as it will be biased towards your well being.

Before bringing up fairness, do think of whether you are thinking about benefiting from or penalising a group that does not include you.

Once again a player starting today has the same access to content as those that have been playing since the beginning aside from the capacity change. so your cap of 1 is illogcial.

Also once again, why should the few have the advantage over the many?

Wrong. Those playing today never experience the Krysae, Falcon, Typhoon, Explosions, grabbable pyros, etc at full or reduced power. That content will be forever lost unless bioware changes it back.

As for illogical? Well thats just your failure to recognise your own hypocrisy when a negative change affects you rather than just some shmucks you don't even know. 

Now tell me this. In a lucky draw, 10 people win a car. 1000 people win  a ipad. 10000 win a burger.
The organizers want to take back the car. Is that fair to the 10?
The organizers want to take back the ipad. Is that fair to the 1000?
The organizers want to take back the burger. Is that fair to the 10000?

So where is that vaunted principle that you are upholding? Or is that principle worthless when it affects you?

You're jumping all around the point. And refusing to answer simple questions.

Does anyone still have pre-nerf weapons, powers or characters? No, everyone is on a level playing field and can use the same things. Does anyone still have pre-change consumable capacity? Yes, the playing field is uneven and only those that have content players are not supposed to have continue to use said content, while everyone else is at a disadvantage.

Again why should the few have an advantage over the many?

Jumping around the point? No i have always maintained the same point. You on the other hand, failed to see your own hypocrisy. Let me make this simple
a) Do you  support a cap of 1?
If yes then petition BW to set the cap at 1
c) If no, then is it fair for those who have above 5/6 to have it taken away?
d) If yes, then congraulations you just slapped yourself with the entire "amount doesn't matter, its the principle" spiel because it doesn't matter how few people are affected, its the principle.
e) If no, then congraulations you finally get the point.

As for the krysae, falcon, etc, notice the following sentence i quote from yourself "Once again a player starting today has the same access to content as those that have been playing since the beginning aside from the capacity change."

As mentioned, new players will never access the full power krysae/falcon. New players will also never see a cap of 10. Those things are now history except the remaining effects of that history still exists.

How many credits was earned by weak players completing gold matches with the lulz krysae and infilitrators just because they managed to unlock a krysae 1? How many unlocks was gained by said players ahead of others who failed to unlock the krysae? Even now said players are benefiting from the unlocks gained at that time by getting a leap ahead of other players. Sure it was legal at that time for using the krysae and so was the cap.

Same principle. If you want to drag up the effects of history, then apply it to all. 

[TheThirdRace]

Edit: Sorry, wrong thread...

Modifié par TheThirdRace, 21 février 2013 - 02:15 .