399 réponses à ce sujet

[inversevideo]

Nethershadow wrote...

Bryan Johnson wrote...

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.

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.

Two words: Armored Compartments

[Zjarcal]

@Deerber

I don't know why you get so upset about it when Link just laughs at it, even mocking the whole thing in his sig.

[N172]

Cyonan wrote...

how many of you complaining actually use all of your missiles in a match(wave 11 doesn't count) and would still use another 5 missiles?

Unless i play with friends 0 cobras and 0 ops packs is common after wave 10 gold even if i use armored compartments.
EDIT: Gold

Modifié par N172, 14 février 2013 - 07:57 .

[WARMACHINE9]

While I think it's kinda jacked up that a few have a significant advantage(and it is, think 10 missiles and level 5 armoured compartments), If they were gonna fix it they should have done so when they capped it. It's been left too long and wouldn't make sense to a) take them away or even less sense, break the game and give everyone 10. Just suck it up. E-Peen and solo times aren't the end all be all of ME3 multi.

[jlee375]

To all of those who are saying that this is unfair, let me pose a question.

How is this situation any different than pre-order bonuses? My point being, if you are claiming that this situation is unfair, then by extension, are not all pre-order bonuses unfair?

The same rules apply in both cases. In a preorder, you invest your money earlier than any others and so you receive a small perk.

In this case, these players invested their time and in some cases, money, earlier on and received what is, all things considered, a small perk.

[jm2207]

Cyonan wrote...

jm2207 wrote...
It matters for the matches that matter. It would make everything, especially soloing, faster and easier if I wanted it to be.

I am happy to see you admit that the current state of affairs are unfair to you.

It would be no less fair to take away the extra consumables than it would be to nerf a weapon that "people who played a ton in the first week to get" were trying for. And this has been done repeatedly. Compensate them with extra packs if need be. Or don't. 

52 missiles trivializes the game—agreed. Do they block 4 people with early-max caps from playing together? I'm not advocating lifting the cap unless they are unwilling to balance the game in another fashion.

Those matches are not often however. You said it yourself.

Of course it's unfair, but this is an incredibly small thing that people are making a huge deal out of. I'm not saying it's not unfair, I'm saying it's such a small deal that it doesn't really matter.

It would be different because you're actually taking something away from those players. When my Typhoon got nerfed I still had the same level of Typhoon. This would be like if they randomly said "It's not fair that some people saved up 10+ million credits, so we're going to lower everyone's Typhoon rank back down to V if you have it at X".

I've already said my piece on trivializing matters of principle based on perceived (correctly or incorrectly) insignificance. So what if I only would use the extra missiles 5% of the time? At what magic number does it become significant? This type relativism is diversionary and unproductive.

ryoldschool wrote...

Let me post from the point of view of somebody who does have an advantage due to the cap being changed. I bought some packs with real money right off the bat and I have 8 capacity on ammo packs.

This advantage was quite worthless until they released the grenade capacity gear.

But what would you have bioware do? 
1) They could have removed the spare capacity from all of us that had extra
2) change the cap and let the few who had extra keep the capacity

I did not do anything illegal or unsporting, so if they had taken action 1) it would have been unfair to me. So would you have them compensate us by giving us those slots as ultra rare unlocks?

[...]

#1 is balanced. #2 is not. They should give you whatever rarity those consumable unlocks were at the time. I don't think they were UR. If that means you get some Cryo IV ammo, you should thank them for giving you extra consumables for a year. Hardly, unfair to you.

[inversevideo]

You know, despite what the missile glitchers would have you believe, more missiles will not make you a better player. Just because you can over power the toons with missiles does not mean you are doing better on higher levels. If you want to overpower the toons stick to bronze.

Otherwise, the game is very rich in nuance, modifiers, kits, classes, and there is enough variety and complexity that everyone should be able to find their niche and grow into it to expand their game.

I never thought I would say this, b/c I am not the best player, but really... Learn to Play.

[Strongwater]

i just want more than a 2 missile cap
that's all
rng store pls

Modifié par Strongwater, 14 février 2013 - 08:02 .

[JLoco11]

jlee375 wrote...

To all of those who are saying that this is unfair, let me pose a question.

How is this situation any different than pre-order bonuses? My point being, if you are claiming that this situation is unfair, then by extension, are not all pre-order bonuses unfair?

The same rules apply in both cases. In a preorder, you invest your money earlier than any others and so you receive a small perk.

In this case, these players invested their time and in some cases, money, earlier on and received what is, all things considered, a small perk.

Based off a random store.

Imagine if Bioware launched the promotional items with the 4 guns. After week 1, people got a hurricane and then the following week, Bioware says the hurricane is no longer available but those who have it can keep it.

Well I played challenge and I didn't get a hurricane, why do I get screwed out of a hurricane?  Because the store gave me something different, now I can never have it?

Pre-order means someone specifically did something.  RNG means someone got lucky while others didn't.  That's the difference.  Small difference in the end, but 1 having something because of a lotto.

Modifié par JLoco11, 14 février 2013 - 08:05 .

[Cyonan]

jm2207 wrote...

I've already said my piece on trivializing matters of principle based on perceived (correctly or incorrectly) insignificance. So what if I only would use the extra missiles 5% of the time? At what magic number does it become significant? This type relativism is diversionary and unproductive.

Then let me ask you what I just posted before:

Do you run into players with 10 missiles that often, or are you complaining for the sake of complaining about something that is theoretically unfair but that you essentially don't ever actually see in-game?

> You know they're not going to take away the cap from the players who got it.
> You agree that giving the rest of us 10 missiles each would trivialize things.

What exactly do you want them to do?

[jm2207]

Cyonan wrote...

jm2207 wrote...

I've already said my piece on trivializing matters of principle based on perceived (correctly or incorrectly) insignificance. So what if I only would use the extra missiles 5% of the time? At what magic number does it become significant? This type relativism is diversionary and unproductive.

Then let me ask you what I just posted before:

Do you run into players with 10 missiles that often, or are you complaining for the sake of complaining about something that is theoretically unfair but that you essentially don't ever actually see in-game?

> You know they're not going to take away the cap from the players who got it.
> You agree that giving the rest of us 10 missiles each would trivialize things.

What exactly do you want them to do?

I have no idea how often I run into players with 10. They might only use 5, but the fact that they have 5 in reserve almost certainly affects their gameplay. 

It is not theoretically unfair because it exists and IS unfair.

What do I want them to do? Either one. Or admit it's unfair.

[ryoldschool]

@jm2207 - 1) is balanced, but it was an UR unlock that was not ammo or a character card, bought plenty of packs with nothing in them.

I'm just saying that they would have pissed some people off if they had just taken them without compensation, and in my case the extra ammo packs were quite worthless until grenade gear was added to the game.

I know of only three other players who had extra capacity ( and evidently this link guy ), so it's probably a small number.

[Malanek]

It is unfair and it is unfortunate but there is nothing that can be done about it now. Letting everyone have too many consumables is not the answer because then the difficulty will have to be ramped up which creates even more problems for newcomers. You can't remove them form those who have them because they have either earned or even paid for them. And because so few people have them, the best solution is to do nothing.

[Deerber]

Zjarcal wrote...

@Deerber

I don't know why you get so upset about it when Link just laughs at it, even mocking the whole thing in his sig.

I'm sorry, emotions and tones might not come across the internet right 

I'm not upset about it. I'm simply tired of it. I was the one suggesting that signature to Link, go figure 

And I am not tired of this thing specifically, of Link's consumables and such. It's a much more general thing.

I'm tired of people being in a kind of mentality which creates a lot of negative feedback, for them as well as for others. The mentality of: "oh look at what this guy did! How can he do it? Why is it I can't do it? He obviously has an unfair advantage!".

Well, in my opinion, that kind of mentality:

- doesn't allow you to improve yourself as you could if you thought "damn, I really need to learn to do what this guy does!"
- incites envy, which is a bad feeling
- incites negative behaviour, hackusation and such on the forum (talking about Link in this case, but it happened to other players capable of astonishing feats as well, namely Jay)
- all in all, brings a lot of negativity to the community, even when the object of the flaming (again, the case of Link/Jay) is smart enough to have a laugh about it.


It's just a slight annoyance to me, to be honest. But when it gets brought up again and again and again like this... It makes me tired of discussing it in an objective and hopefully intelligent way.

I only did this because I know you're not among them, I know you're a smart and nice guy and I know the time I took to write it down won't be wasted... Hopefully 

Modifié par Deerber, 14 février 2013 - 08:12 .

[Bolo Xia]

Cyonan wrote...

Bolo Xia wrote...

there-in lies the problem still, everyone is affected accept for those that that already have it.
under your example, everyone would have a lvl 5 typhoon or whatever, so everyone would still be on equal playing field.

if they changed the cap to lvl 5 typhoon and didnt reset your weapon to 5 then you still retain an advantage over everyone else who didnt get it above 5 before the "balancing".

so in the end those people with more still retain an unfair and unachieveable advantage.

But at the end of the day if they did it right after Earth came out would it really matter if the same number of people who have 6-10 missiles had a Typhoon VI - X? You'd almost never actually play with these people.

Do people run into players with 10 missiles that often or are we just complaining for the sake of complaining about something that is theoretically unfair but that we don't ever actually see in-game?

the same could be said about cheaters, i have only ran into 2 cheaters throughout my entire play time.

so then we shouldnt worry about cheaters either i suppose or at least i shouldnt then?

true it is such a small amount of people with extra stuff, but fair is fair.

btw if there was only 10 people that knew how to do a missile glitch or any other glitch that is considered cheating, is it ok then that they "get away with it?".
especially for argument sake that if bans are being handed out for other cheats regularly.

i know that is kind of a stretch argument there, but it is the principle of the matter at hand.

also, dont confuse my counter arguments with me being hostile or a direct attack, not accusing you of thinking so either.
just sayin, since im strongly arguing the other side of the topic.

plus the line has to be drawn somewhere on the "fairness" debate, as to why is it ok for 10 people to get or have something but the rest are not allowed to have the same thing, especially when we all start on the same playing field.

add: ignore my grammar errors, i have already seen a few flawed words in there that i used, i dont proof read and working on my 1st cup of coffee still when i 1st entered this landmine thread 

Modifié par Bolo Xia, 14 février 2013 - 08:18 .

[Malanek]

Bolo Xia wrote...
the same could be said about cheaters, i have only ran into 2 cheaters throughout my entire play time.

so then we shouldnt worry about cheaters either i suppose or at least i shouldnt then?

true it is such a small amount of people with extra stuff, but fair is fair.

btw if there was only 10 people that knew how to do a missile glitch or any other glitch that is considered cheating, is it ok then that they "get away with it?".
especially for argument sake that if bans are being handed out for other cheats regularly.

i know that is kind of a stretch argument there, but it is the principle of the matter at hand.

It's a small problem with a very difficult solution. Cheaters are a problem (not really sure how big) with an easy solution - you ban them.

[jlee375]

JLoco11 wrote...

jlee375 wrote...

To all of those who are saying that this is unfair, let me pose a question.

How is this situation any different than pre-order bonuses? My point being, if you are claiming that this situation is unfair, then by extension, are not all pre-order bonuses unfair?

The same rules apply in both cases. In a preorder, you invest your money earlier than any others and so you receive a small perk.

In this case, these players invested their time and in some cases, money, earlier on and received what is, all things considered, a small perk.

Based off a random store.

Imagine if Bioware launched the promotional items with the 4 guns. After week 1, people got a hurricane and then the following week, Bioware says the hurricane is no longer available but those who have it can keep it.

Well I played challenge and I didn't get a hurricane, why do I get screwed out of a hurricane?  Because the store gave me something different, now I can never have it?

Pre-order means someone specifically did something.  RNG means someone got lucky while others didn't.  That's the difference.  Small difference in the end, but 1 having something because of a lotto.

The difference, however, is in the absolutes. In your hypothetical situation, the outcome is binary: hurricane or no hurricane. That is not the case with the consumables, we all have them, just in varying amounts. The players who have these upgrades did do something specifically, they started playing earlier and were rewarded for it. Yes, it was based off a RNG and the store, however, that is simply the nature of the Item system in MP. 

The fact that it is random has little relevance to the actual issue, in my opinion. The fact of the matter is they played earlier than pretty much anyone else, and were rewarded for it, in much the same way as pre-orders reward people for investing earlier. And given how trivial the reward is, I don't understand why people are so angry/think its completely unfair/imbalanced. 

Modifié par jlee375, 14 février 2013 - 08:25 .

[FateNeverEnds]

lazysundae wrote...

You're basically arguing that you should get full backwards compatibility without having to wait in line at wtf-time-is-it o'clock.  You had the opportunity to be in line but you chose to sleep in, you don't get early adopter perks for getting here late.

Thing is, I didn't "get here late". I paid full price for the game as you did on day one. Not to mention I couldn't find N7's Edition anywhere so I paid 140 bucks for it even knowing I could find it at its right price later on. That big my commitment for the ME series is.

HolyAvenger wrote...

This would make some sort of sense if there was a huge power gap in the playerbase. There isn't. The overwhelming majority of veteran players also do not have these extra consumables (I started playing MP from week 1, by the way, and I am as much of a loyal fan as you and resent any implication other wise), so almost all the playerbase apart from a couple of individuals is on an even keel. 

These individuals are not affecting anyone else's MP experience. 

There is no argument for removing these consumables or increasing the cap to their level beyond idiotic entitlement. 

I know and I agree. Here comes the but.

But man I play this as much as I can. If I'm not at work or asleep I'm doing space magic. I haven't played anything else in almost a year. I can rightfully say this game is my social/love life, as pathetic as it sounds. So I can get really turned on when it comes to this things, as small as they are.

Edit: typos fixed.

Modifié par FateNeverEnds, 14 février 2013 - 08:27 .

[ssxpro]

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.

Apologies if this was already mentioned, but it isn't solely a co-op game, as the solo challenges prove. Having failed in solo gold attempts at the hand of insta-banshee badness, I've been thinking about approaching a geth gold to avoid the insta-deathness. Having a stack of extra cobras, ops packs or whatever else certainly sounds like it would offer an unfair advantage.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want an extra advantage, I'm enjoying the challenge (that I've not yet managed), but I can see why a lot of people would see it as being unfair, and I'd have to agree.

[HolyAvenger]

Yeah great, lets drive away the playerbase by making the game completely unbalanced...

A few extra consumables affect almost no one. The pre-nerf Krysae broke the game for everyone. If you're trying to equate the two...

[HolyAvenger]

ssxpro wrote...

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.

Apologies if this was already mentioned, but it isn't solely a co-op game, as the solo challenges prove. Having failed in solo gold attempts at the hand of insta-banshee badness, I've been thinking about approaching a geth gold to avoid the insta-deathness. Having a stack of extra cobras, ops packs or whatever else certainly sounds like it would offer an unfair advantage.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want an extra advantage, I'm enjoying the challenge (that I've not yet managed), but I can see why a lot of people would see it as being unfair, and I'd have to agree.

 

The game is not balanced around soloing, much in the same way it isn't balanced around Platinum. 

Make sense? They don't really care about solo attempts. See broken spawning. 

[jlee375]

_only1biggs_ wrote...

it's concerning that people are just ignoring what bryan johnson said, about there not being an unfair advantage due to the game being co-op. if this is the case, they should not have nerfed anything, weapons OR powers.
if people only want to use pre nerf krysae, so what? it's their game, they can play as they wish. if someone wants to only use a GI or destroyer with pre nerf piranha, again, their choice.
when these weapons were available as shipped, i didn't use them all the time, because i like a bit of variety. i didn't come to a forum and complain about said weapons being "over powered" in a co-op game. if things were dying, i was happy.

so again, if there is no unfair advantage in a co-op game, then all powers and weapons should be reverted back to their shipped states.

http://social.biowar...ndex/14681282/1

A great explanation for why balance exists in a co-op game. That being said, we should return to the original topic. 

[Baron_Von_Bonbon]

Bryan Johnson wrote...

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.

The problem is that there is no "earning" something in this game because all rewards are lottery based.  
Does the man who wins a million dollars in the lottery "earn" his winnings or did he just get lucky?

The  store is seriously flawed and I, friendly, suggest that if there is an MP component in the next Mass Effect game, the rewards be distributed via rank reached rather than by chance.