Reply
Keyblade Wielder
Registered: 07/23/2012
Online
7289 posts
 

Re: Here's what a real patch looks like.

Mar 27, 2013

Seems to me like ND tried fixing the game... if they didn't then we wouldn't be 17 patches into the game.

 

They may not have been what some people wanted, and may not have been the brightest ideas, but they have tried improving this game and in some aspects they have succeeded in doing so.

Oh, I'm just leaving. -Best Uncharted character ever
Message 11 of 121 (315 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Survivor
Registered: 05/21/2011
Offline
2224 posts
 

Re: Here's what a real patch looks like.

Mar 27, 2013

Da_Almighty_Guy wrote:

Asraik wrote:

People always complain. ATLEAST they attempted to balance the game, fix lag and other things. ND failed at that, fixing the G-MAL worked so well. Yeah Legacy based matchmaking, that fixes lag. There is a difference between TRYING to fix things and outright ignoring them or making the game worse.


 

You could mask all of that behind "game balance" if you wanted to. One could say that the G-MAL was nerfed because it exceled in too many areas and was made to be less useful so that other guns could be chosen. Legacy based matchmaking (even though I hate it) could be all in the idea that higher levels will get a challenge, while lower levels can be with other lower levels and learn the game more easily. They are good ideas on paper, but they weren't executed in the best possible way. That doesn't mean they didn't try to fix the game.

 

Make the argument of them failing with patches. It can be very easy to defend the patch's side when everything is looked at on paper and in one's mind.


You're arguing for the sake of arguing. Their patches have failed this game, nerfing the G-MAL like that solely made it useless. Now the M9 (and ROF mod) dominate this game. You can say anything is good on paper (in theory) however they aren't releasing theoritical patches, they are releasing something that influences their game. The Beta is the time to test something, after the games release to start changing the system (like legacy based matchmaking) or nerfing the G-MAL which makes it useless isn't the way to go. You can defend the patches side all you want, but from the majority of players this game has become a blindfire, laggy melee fest. You're defending their actions just for the sake of it. I'm sure you know as well as anyone how their patches have failed or made the game worse. So why bother defending them now, or saying in theory it was good. Theory is pointless when thrown into a real life situation. If I ask you to put in a shelf, are you going to theorize all the different ways you can do it or are you just going to do it the right way. (Yes this example was bad but you get the point. Theory or not, it was executed, and executed poory at that. I can say it will make the game better but unless it does my theory is incorrect.)

Message 12 of 121 (313 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Survivor
Registered: 05/21/2011
Offline
2224 posts
 

Re: Here's what a real patch looks like.

Mar 27, 2013

sanddude20 wrote:

Seems to me like ND tried fixing the game... if they didn't then we wouldn't be 17 patches into the game.

 

They may not have been what some people wanted, and may not have been the brightest ideas, but they have tried improving this game and in some aspects they have succeeded in doing so.


How exactly have they tried fixing this game? Issues from the Beta still exist, technical fixes that were promised to be fixed still exist, they screwed up the matchmaking more. They put shiny colors and DLC items to distract you, and a scam of a tournament system. If these are improvements, then let us just keep making hats. Hats solve everything you know.

Message 13 of 121 (311 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Keyblade Wielder
Registered: 07/23/2012
Online
7289 posts
 

Re: Here's what a real patch looks like.

Mar 27, 2013

-addition of Stopping power

-FAL-SS damage decrease

-KAL-7 blindfire decrease(yes it used to be worse)

-G-mal stopping power decrese + recoil increase

-sawn-off air BD accuracy reduced

-several kickbacks tweaked in various ways

-AK-47 accuracy increase

-M9 RoF decrease (completely useless nerf but they did something to it at least)

-Tau buffs

-addition of elimination and lab

-addition of colours and cosmetics (they may not be what you like, but were additions to the game nonetheless)

 

 

I'm sure I'm missing some things and I'm not saying everything I listed was the right thing to do for every instant, but people seriously overexxagerate when theyv say ND has done nothing for this game. You honestly think every single thing was patched into this game by the company to intentionally make the game worse for the players? huh?

Oh, I'm just leaving. -Best Uncharted character ever
Message 14 of 121 (307 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Naughty Paw
Registered: 12/06/2011
Offline
20485 posts
 

Re: Here's what a real patch looks like.

Mar 27, 2013

Asraik wrote:

Their patches have failed this game


But they haven't all ruined the game. the Kal-7 nerf (this nerf started the whole nerf train that we have today), Tau buff, FAL nerf, kickback adjustments,and other technical fixes broke the game? To me, it sounds like the game was improved by making them fairer or more viable options. There's a lot of good fixes I'm not touching on, but not everything ND has ever done was terrible.

 


Asraik wrote:

You can say anything is good on paper (in theory) however they aren't releasing theoritical patches, they are releasing something that influences their game.



I'm not saying theories are the reason patches are decided upon and the reason they are the final fixes. What I meant was that anyone can look at a proposed fix, say it's good, and launch it without looking at what other changes to the game will be made along with the fix.

 


Asraik wrote:

nerfing the G-MAL like that solely made it useless.



The G-MAL is far from useless. I can still use it quite easily these days. It's fine in my eyes. Why you claim it's useless because everyone thought it was too hard to use and just jumped ship to the M9 and didn't want to get better with it I don't know.

 

In short, ND didn't ruin their game with patches. You're blowing 2 or 3 things out of proportion saying that they are the sole reason the game is terrible in your eyes.

Message 15 of 121 (305 Views)
Survivor
Registered: 05/21/2011
Offline
2224 posts
 

Re: Here's what a real patch looks like.

[ Edited ]
Mar 27, 2013

sanddude20 wrote:

-addition of Stopping power

-FAL-SS damage decrease

-KAL-7 blindfire decrease(yes it used to be worse)

-G-mal stopping power decrese + recoil increase

-sawn-off air BD accuracy reduced

-several kickbacks tweaked in various ways

-AK-47 accuracy increase

-M9 RoF decrease (completely useless nerf but they did something to it at least)

-Tau buffs

-addition of elimination and lab

-addition of colours and cosmetics (they may not be what you like, but were additions to the game nonetheless)

 

 

I'm sure I'm missing some things and I'm not saying everything I listed was the right thing to do for every instant, but people seriously overexxagerate when theyv say ND has done nothing for this game. You honestly think every single thing was patched into this game by the company to intentionally make the game worse for the players? huh?


 Point taken, however they ruined the game just as much, maybe not intentionally but they did.

Message 16 of 121 (300 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Survivor
Registered: 05/21/2011
Offline
2224 posts
 

Re: Here's what a real patch looks like.

Mar 27, 2013

Da_Almighty_Guy wrote:

Asraik wrote:

Their patches have failed this game


But they haven't all ruined the game. the Kal-7 nerf (this nerf started the whole nerf train that we have today), Tau buff, FAL nerf, kickback adjustments,and other technical fixes broke the game? To me, it sounds like the game was improved by making them fairer or more viable options. There's a lot of good fixes I'm not touching on, but not everything ND has ever done was terrible.

 


Asraik wrote:

You can say anything is good on paper (in theory) however they aren't releasing theoritical patches, they are releasing something that influences their game.



I'm not saying theories are the reason patches are decided upon and the reason they are the final fixes. What I meant was that anyone can look at a proposed fix, say it's good, and launch it without looking at what other changes to the game will be made along with the fix.

 


Asraik wrote:

nerfing the G-MAL like that solely made it useless.



The G-MAL is far from useless. I can still use it quite easily these days. It's fine in my eyes. Why you claim it's useless because everyone thought it was too hard to use and just jumped ship to the M9 and didn't want to get better with it I don't know.

 

In short, ND didn't ruin their game with patches. You're blowing 2 or 3 things out of proportion saying that they are the sole reason the game is terrible in your eyes.


Not everything ever done was terrible, however to say this game is in a better state than the Beta or the release is inaccurate. Perhaps you could look at some improvements, say it is. However would you be saying how you feel/think about it in all honesty or just to prove your argument right? The whole point of releasing a patch is to put it through testing, didn't ND say all patches have to go through testing before getting released? So they just decided it was okay to release it as it impacted the game currently? I mean you have valid points, but patches shouldn't fix everything I get that but releasing DLC hats when issues from the release still remain. Kind of wrong priorities no? The G-MAL gets outgunned by an M9, KAL-7, and AK-47 at close range. The recoil nerf made it useless for the majority of long ranges. Naughty Dog did ruin their game, I'm not saying they are the sole reason they are ruined with patches. I'm also not blowing things out of porportion, how can you look at this game and say the patches made it better? Partly they did, but it has been a year and many techincal issues from the game still exist. Perhaps hats take priority over that, but the patches were handeled incorrectly on what should have been the focus of them. (At least the last few.)

Message 17 of 121 (292 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Keyblade Wielder
Registered: 07/23/2012
Online
7289 posts
 

Re: Here's what a real patch looks like.

Mar 27, 2013

5% of the playerbase says ND ruined the game, must be true! Ignore the fact that the game is still lively nearly 2 years later and there is still plenty of fun to be had. The opinion of a handful of players is powerful and true.

Oh, I'm just leaving. -Best Uncharted character ever
Message 18 of 121 (289 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Survivor
Registered: 05/21/2011
Offline
2224 posts
 

Re: Here's what a real patch looks like.

Mar 27, 2013

sanddude20 wrote:

5% of the playerbase says ND ruined the game, must be true! Ignore the fact that the game is still lively nearly 2 years later and there is still plenty of fun to be had. The opinion of a handful of players is powerful and true.


Where'd you get that statistic?

Message 19 of 121 (286 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Keyblade Wielder
Registered: 07/23/2012
Online
7289 posts
 

Re: Here's what a real patch looks like.

Mar 27, 2013

made it up! Crazy right much like people crucifying a company for not making a perfect flawless game.

 

Also I wanna know the logic thats wrong where a close-range automatic is better to use against a mid-range burst gun in close range.

 

G-mal is still usable, people just complain that it can't be used for everything now, parallel to the fact that now the M9 is the choice to be used for everything now and why it is being classed as the target OP gun.

Oh, I'm just leaving. -Best Uncharted character ever
Message 20 of 121 (282 Views)
Reply
0 Likes