77 réponses à ce sujet

[BridgeBurner]

Much nova.

 

Very guard.

 

How talon.

 

Amaze.

[theflyingzamboni]

I don't know your definition of "guaranteeing", but I can definitely guarantee that it's not the wide spread one.

It means I'm confident that this was not an intended effect of the way they designed Nova. They gave it invincibility frames to protect you while you're using it so it isn't just a huge liability. At higher difficulties, you could easily get killed mid-animation otherwise. But do you really think they meant to give one specific class a means to be constantly invulnerable if the player feels so inclined? I'm not sure if that's actually what you're arguing, but I think that possibility highly unlikely.

Like | TIGGER | said, you can just alternate between Charge and Nova cancel, and you pretty much can't die except by sync kill. It may not be the most effective way to play offensively, but it's still broken. That is not intentional gameplay design. Not really a bug, but it falls under their "clever but unintended use of gameplay mechanics."

[theflyingzamboni]

I tend to think of it as a 'feature' similar to using ops pack to cheat phantom sync kills, or pizza running or any other animation cancelling (particularly reload canceling with power). All of them fall under the category of 'merely using the existing game mechanics to help the player a bit'. I don't think of it as a bug tbh.

This.

[Deerber]

It means I'm confident that this was not an intended effect of the way they designed Nova. They gave it invincibility frames to protect you while you're using it so it isn't just a huge liability. At higher difficulties, you could easily get killed mid-animation otherwise. But do you really think they meant to give one specific class a means to be constantly invulnerable if the player feels so inclined? I'm not sure if that's actually what you're arguing, but I think that possibility highly unlikely.

Like | TIGGER | said, you can just alternate between Charge and Nova cancel, and you pretty much can't die except by sync kill. It may not be the most effective way to play offensively, but it's still broken. That is not intentional gameplay design. Not really a bug, but it falls under their "clever but unintended use of gameplay mechanics."

 

Gotcha. Then as I said, it's not the wide spread one

 

And yes, I do think it was an intended feature or, at the very most, a feature they didn't tink of but see no harm in letting it be, therefore giving it their tacit support.

 

So, by what you say... Do you also think that reload cancel was introduced by mistake, unwillingly?

[FullSpe3D]

This whole nova-cancel thing reminds me of Ninja Gaiden 2. I doubt anybody here has really played the game, but basically the only way to survive the higher difficulties is through complete abuse of invincibility frames. It's just a basic mechanic of NG2 for good players, just like how right hand advantage and reload cancelling are in ME3.

 

The point is that invincibility frame manipulation is present in many games, just as reload cancelling and right hand advantage are. So all of those fall under the same category, if you're banning nova cancelling you may as well just never use right hand, and let the full reload animation happen every time for consistency within your self imposed rules.

 

Regardless, good job on the solo. Anybody crazy enough to solo Geth Platinum with a Vanguard has my respect.

 

 

 

 

[HeroicMass]

Ninja gaiden 2 master ninja was ridiculous. Loved that game.

[theflyingzamboni]

Gotcha. Then as I said, it's not the wide spread one

 

And yes, I do think it was an intended feature or, at the very most, a feature they didn't tink of but see no harm in letting it be, therefore giving it their tacit support.

 

So, by what you say... Do you also think that reload cancel was introduced by mistake, unwillingly?

Some people have to be such literalists.

And if a dev were to say that nova cancelling was intended from the start, I would literally eat my hat. Well, figuratively at least, since I don't have a hat. But I would at least admit I was wrong. But for my money, the second condition was likely the case, or it was too difficult a fix to be worth it.

As for that last... depends. Kind of. Sort of. I don't think it was desired, but it was understood that there wasn't really a way around it. The thing with all of this stuff is, the animations are necessary to cover up server-client communication. They have to make sure that your ammo is updated within the animation time, and updating it right at the end is probably not the best guarantee. The animation time is what they'd prefer for balance reasons, but sometimes you have to play a little loose for pragmatic reasons, like, oh, playability. So it's sort of a soft balance, because most people will respect the animation length and not give it a thought, and probably a minority will actually dig into the system enough to game the server-client communication system. So, sort of. I don't think it was a nugget they threw in for balance reasons, or to reward the hardcore, but I do think they were likely aware of the possibility just because of the way animations and actual game logic interacted.

EDIT: The hat eating was supposed to be in reference to nova cancelling. I mistyped. My figurative hat remains uneaten.

[FFANDRADE]

Amazing skills!

 

 

I love watching vids on the human vanguard. Very rarely see them in pugs. Unless I host I don't use it. Great job man, I learned something new.

 

Thanks

 

 

It's not a bug, but it is a cheap use of accidental game-mechanic consequences. They were obviously not too concerned with it, but I can't imagine it was intended for players to be able to scream their way invincibly across the map. I can pretty much guarantee it. So yeah, it cheapens Novaguard play.

Exact. It is a great facilitator for novaguard. So not used

 

 

I wager they thought the Vanguard class was going to be the hardest class to play at release.

 

As far as buffs, I imagine that had to do with the gameplay data.  Lot less people playing Vanguards.  Most of that is really due to the fact they aren't as good off-host (and were near useless off-host at launch), and they "have to operate at sync kill range."

 

Whether or not Nova canceling was a good idea or not is debatable.  Calling it a bug requires insight into the developer's intent, which we only have circumstantial evidence of, and all of it points to "feature."

 

 

I tend to think of it as a 'feature' similar to using ops pack to cheat phantom sync kills, or pizza running or any other animation cancelling (particularly reload canceling with power). All of them fall under the category of 'merely using the existing game mechanics to help the player a bit'. I don't think of it as a bug tbh.

 

Agree. updated the topic title

[Barrogh]

Even though I'm not a fan of lengthy solos, I've watched this one from start to finish (talk about having nothing to do lol) and didn't feel bored.

Good job, man.

[JGDD]

And if a dev were to say that reload cancelling was intended from the start, I would literally eat my hat.

Scroll to post #68.

 

Old post but Cristina was the one that implemented it way back in ME2 and it made its way into ME3. You might want to use a tasty dipping condiment.

[cato potato]

And if a dev were to say that reload cancelling was intended from the start, I would literally eat my hat. Well, figuratively at least, since I don't have a hat. But I would at least admit I was wrong. But for my money, the second condition was likely the case, or it was too difficult a fix to be worth it.

 

As for that last... depends. Kind of. Sort of. I don't think it was desired, but it was understood that there wasn't really a way around it. The thing with all of this stuff is, the animations are necessary to cover up server-client communication. They have to make sure that your ammo is updated within the animation time, and updating it right at the end is probably not the best guarantee. The animation time is what they'd prefer for balance reasons, but sometimes you have to play a little loose for pragmatic reasons, like, oh, playability. So it's sort of a soft balance, because most people will respect the animation length and not give it a thought, and probably a minority will actually dig into the system enough to game the server-client communication system. So, sort of. I don't think it was a nugget they threw in for balance reasons, or to reward the hardcore, but I do think they were likely aware of the possibility just because of the way animations and actual game logic interacted.

 

Two and a half years of ME3:MP and some people still insist that reload cancelling was an unintended glitch......sigh. No offense meant, flyingzamboni, but this topic has been discussed to death here.

 

There's a variable in the game files that determines how much of each weapon's reload animation can be cancelled by the player, meaning reload cancelling was clearly intended from the start. Also, if Bioware had wanted to 'fix' reload cancelling then it would have been a very simple job, something they could have accomplished with just a balance change, I believe.

 

It's not a glitch, it's a feature. See JGDD's post for proof.

[Barrogh]

That sounds a bit tongue-in-cheek though, and even if not it isn't specified if pushing RoF by such "mini-QTE" was the intent behind allowing to cancel reloading recovery animation.

That said, some people do enjoy such "very special nonsense tricks" in their game and don't believe in character doing all the work but decision making for player. So I guess it's definitely a possibility that aforementioned post is sincere.

 

That won't help me to wrap my head around such mod of thought though.

[cato potato]

That sounds a bit tongue-in-cheek though, and even if not it isn't specified if pushing RoF by such "mini-QTE" was the intent behind allowing to cancel reloading recovery animation.

That said, some people do enjoy such "very special nonsense tricks" in their game and don't believe in character doing all the work but decision making for player. So I guess it's definitely a possibility that aforementioned post is sincere.

 

That won't help me to wrap my head around such mod of thought though.

 

Oh good god. It's an intended feature, not a glitch. She wasn't being 'tongue-in-cheek'. It's an intended feature, not a glitch. Four and a half years ago Christina Norman was writing about reload-cancelling here (post 194). It's an intended feature, not a glitch. Feel free to dislike the mechanic if you want but......................it's an intended feature, not a glitch.

[Pearl (rip bioware)]

Cato, I think you forgot to mention that it's an intended feature, not a glitch.

[Barrogh]

Oh good god. It's an intended feature, not a glitch. She wasn't being 'tongue-in-cheek'. It's an intended feature, not a glitch. Four and a half years ago Christina Norman was writing about reload-cancelling here (post 194). It's an intended feature, not a glitch. Feel free to dislike the mechanic if you want but......................it's an intended feature, not a glitch.

Cancelling recovery time of reloading to commit to another action entirely, like melee (something that I think is actually being talked about there), is something I very well understand (for example, to make particular weapon lose less DPS if it's used in CQC compared to using something else). I'm pretty sure, however, that what we are talking about is non-situational and straight increase of rate of fire without drawbacks, tradeoffs and with no decision making involved, something you can do in this game as well. As I've said, this may be left in the game on purpose to cater to people who value some "mechanical skills", or heck, actually introduced specifically for them.

 

To me, however, that's no better than bad interface: you have to press two buttons when one would suffice (as you'll never want slow reload over fast reload).

 

Again, to make it clear: being a casual member of fighting games community, I know that there are people who are willing to defend their 720's, just frames and such when such inputs aren't needed to recognize move in question from anything else player could be inputting simply because to them PvC (controller) aspect of FGs is as fun and important as PvP one. So I can understand that and I'm not going to tell anybody how to have fun in a game made for them. What I'm saying is that opening manual and seing: "You must input 2,8,2,8,4,4,4,6,A+G and do it fast for this move to be performed" or "If you input second part of 1В:В too early or too late you will get a blunder that may cost you a game instead of an amazing tool" is one thing. Another thing, however, is when entire deal isn't documented, looks like doing something else on the first glance, and isn't introduced simultaneously with "normal" way of doing the same thing (i.e., there's no "fast reload" in "move list"), ofc some people who believe in interface being a way to control the game and not the part of the game itself will question if it's intended and/or why, figuratively speaking, it isn't in tutorial if pseudo-QTEs and twitch mingames are integral part of the game.

[Deerber]

Some people have to be such literalists.

Sorry, I realize I can be annoying at time. Its just the physicist in me speaking, it really gets me when people use words like "guarantee", "sure", "100%" when it's not appropriate XD. Again, sorry if I was annoying.

Scroll to post #68.

Old post but Cristina was the one that implemented it way back in ME2 and it made its way into ME3. You might want to use a tasty dipping condiment.

Thanks for saving me the hassle to find that. Although I think theflyingzamboni didn't mean what he wrote, there...

Also, lol Cato XD

And, thumbs up to the OP for taking the word "bug" off the title. I have no quarrel with this thread anymore now. Good job on the solo!

[FFANDRADE]

Even though I'm not a fan of lengthy solos, I've watched this one from start to finish (talk about having nothing to do lol) and didn't feel bored.

Good job, man.

 

Novaguard really good gameplay. Very dynamic. If you stop dies
 

Sorry, I realize I can be annoying at time. Its just the physicist in me speaking, it really gets me when people use words like "guarantee", "sure", "100%" when it's not appropriate XD. Again, sorry if I was annoying.


Thanks for saving me the hassle to find that. Although I think theflyingzamboni didn't mean what he wrote, there...

Also, lol Cato XD

And, thumbs up to the OP for taking the word "bug" off the title. I have no quarrel with this thread anymore now. Good job on the solo!

 

Complementing about the new cancel. I have nothing against. I think a cool feature. Not utilized to improve the quality of solo and gameplay.

[NuclearTech76]

Oh good god. It's an intended feature, not a glitch. She wasn't being 'tongue-in-cheek'. It's an intended feature, not a glitch. Four and a half years ago Christina Norman was writing about reload-cancelling here (post 194). It's an intended feature, not a glitch. Feel free to dislike the mechanic if you want but......................it's an intended feature, not a glitch.

To give more of a back story on it there was some debate about whether or not to include that feature in ME2. I think some are thinking it just slipped in and got covered by yeah we intended it that way but it goes all the way back the ME2. Some devs didn't want it in that game, some did. It was included and well received for the most part then carried over to ME3. 

[capn233]

^ Yep.  And the Claymore isn't very good in ME2 w/o reload canceling.

 

Also I am 99% sure I remember one of the guys from Bioware writing that canceling with the medigel key was unexpected, but that otherwise reload canceling was a mechanic in the game that was intended.  I don't remember which guy that was, but I think it was probably Eric Fagnan.  I don't know if the thread was a casualty of lock and ban wars though.

[JGDD]

^ Yep.  And the Claymore isn't very good in ME2 w/o reload canceling.

 

Also I am 99% sure I remember one of the guys from Bioware writing that canceling with the medigel key was unexpected, but that otherwise reload canceling was a mechanic in the game that was intended.  I don't remember which guy that was, but I think it was probably Eric Fagnan.  I don't know if the thread was a casualty of lock and ban wars though.

Probably Derek Hollan. I stumbled across someone else quoting him mentioning that very thing while searching for the link above earlier.

[capn233]

Probably Derek Hollan. I stumbled across someone else quoting him mentioning that very thing while searching for the link above earlier.

 

Ah maybe it was him.  I mainly just said it was EF because for a time he was the one making the most comments in the MP forum.

[theflyingzamboni]

Sorry, I realize I can be annoying at time. Its just the physicist in me speaking, it really gets me when people use words like "guarantee", "sure", "100%" when it's not appropriate XD. Again, sorry if I was annoying.


Thanks for saving me the hassle to find that. Although I think theflyingzamboni didn't mean what he wrote, there...

Also, lol Cato XD

And, thumbs up to the OP for taking the word "bug" off the title. I have no quarrel with this thread anymore now. Good job on the solo!

Argh, you are correct, that isn't what I meant. I was addressing you paragraphs in order with my own. That was supposed to say Nova cancelling, not reload cancelling. So no hat eating yet.

But okay, I guess the reload cancelling at least was more intentional, as opposed to just an artifact of coding.

[capn233]

This meme will annoy Deerber

 

[Deerber]

This meme will annoy Deerber

Damn you!

[theflyingzamboni]

This meme will annoy Deerber

 

 

Damn you!

lol

Having majored in the sciences myself, I understand your issues with definite statements, but it doesn't really bother me. When I'm writing something academic, I never (actually never) use words like "guarantee," "definite," "absolute," etc. But in casual converstation, even casual arguments? No problem with it. Language is a flexible and changeable thing, and people using "guarantee" and "literally" when they aren't literally accurate is a just a part of how language develops. Nitpicking aside, I suspect you knew the connotative intent of my original statement as a statement of personal confidence.

Actually, at this point I kind of do want to ask a dev about nova cancelling. I wonder who would answer a question like that?