Instalează Steam
conectare
|
limbă
简体中文 (chineză simplificată)
繁體中文 (chineză tradițională)
日本語 (japoneză)
한국어 (coreeană)
ไทย (thailandeză)
български (bulgară)
Čeština (cehă)
Dansk (daneză)
Deutsch (germană)
English (engleză)
Español - España (spaniolă - Spania)
Español - Latinoamérica (spaniolă - America Latină)
Ελληνικά (greacă)
Français (franceză)
Italiano (italiană)
Bahasa Indonesia (indoneziană)
Magyar (maghiară)
Nederlands (neerlandeză)
Norsk (norvegiană)
Polski (poloneză)
Português (portugheză - Portugalia)
Português - Brasil (portugheză - Brazilia)
Русский (rusă)
Suomi (finlandeză)
Svenska (suedeză)
Türkçe (turcă)
Tiếng Việt (vietnameză)
Українська (ucraineană)
Raportează o problemă de traducere
Reguli și ghiduri pentru discuții
Raportează această postare
Please try reading, your repeated mistakes because you can't be bothered to actually read just make you look foolish. The only other alternative I can think of is your purposely misquoting what I say in a really bad attempt to troll.
never once said I don't care about the issue, I said i don't personally care about achievements. As I already pointed out to you every enhancement has a cost and developers doing pointless enhancements that are never used and most people don't care about are a waste of resources that can be used on improvements that would actually benefit people.
Pretty much everthing Steam does will not be used by the majority of users. Making a suggestion is making a suggestion. If your only counterpoint is "but that will take away resources from development" ... you don't have a point. That's on Valve to decide.
Guess Valve should stop supporting Mac, Linux and VR as only a percentage of users will benefit from it.
And how dare they reworking Artifact. Think about all that money and time they waste on something only a few thousand people will ever play.
You are arguing just for the sake of arguing. Or in other words: trolling. And you do accuse other people of it for calling you out on it. Which is trolling.
Good points. I don't always agree with you, in fact , very rarely. But this time I couldn't have said it better myself. Valve is not afraid of using their resources on "unpopular" things.
If you must know I have made many suggestions on achievements in the past and replied to other people threads. I wouldn't be surprised if you were in those threads as well arguing against my ideas. You can always use the search function if you need proof. Post history is public.
Also, as people repeatedly say on these forums "every opinion and reply is welcome". I don't share your opinion on the issue and maybe I called out your negative attitude towards a major part of steam (everyone uses achievements, whether they care or not, it's a built-in feature). But I most definitely didn't tell you to leave the thread as you did in your reply which is kind of rude if you ask me. Plus, I've written less than 10 posts in the suggestion forum this year which is hardly what you can call wasting time. This thread caught my attention though cause I DO care about achievements.
To the OP, reworking broken achievements is something I'd welcome wholeheartedly. I suggested removing broken ones altogether or at least having some sort of report function so that moderators could review unobtainable achievements and exclude them from stats.
It looks like OP suggestion is good (if not better than my ideas) but it would need some optimization to remove the need for developer or moderator involvement. Maybe some kind of user moderated system with checks and balances.
This is very true. I've done so myself a few times. The only workaround is family share to a 2nd account which can take a hit to stats, but it's just a duct tape approach. A built-in solution is a much better alternative.
Except myself, others, and even forum moderators have already pointed out numerous issues with the idea, far more then the 1 tiny point you cherry picked. It's almost as if you are trying to argue with me for the sake of arguing and leaving out that my points have been mirrored by multiple people and you just want to try to troll people you don't like.....
The OP kind of shot himself in the foot by lying in his first post, and then admitting later that he lied and can't prove his claims.
It's merely a separate set of awards with no tie-in to the main achievements that are mostly limited, event based, etc. Achievements aren't moved from the normal achievements to the feat of strength achievements and back when they are fixed. In fact blizzard explicity says feats of strength have NOTHING to do with achievements
So not only did the OP lie about the number of people this would benefit, he lied about the use of the Feats of strength system to try to manipulate people.
Don't know about other titles, but in WoW they used to move outdated achievement into this category before they introduced a legacy category.
Yep, but at no point was it ever used as a way to move achievements that were broken as claimed, nor are they ever moved BACK when fixed.
The OP is confusing a totally separate system of achievements and mixing it up either thru ignorance or deceit.
None of that is remotely true and not what the system is for. In fact it goes against the intent of their entire system as confirmed by their own staff who described what the system is for.
Selective quoting much?
Which is true. Unobtainable achievements were moved to FoS.
They enhanced the idea with moving them back and forth and doing so is called "iterating on an idea". Crazy concept, right? To not just blindly copy something but to adjust a system to one's needs.
An infamous candidate for the proposed system was L4D2 Good Guy Nick, which was unobtainable for multiple years until they made it available again last year for a short time.
It sucks to not being able to obtain 100 % in a game because you missed an event years ago.
There are other titles who opted to remove seasonal achievements like from the Summer Camp or Coal sale. With this system you would not lose your achievement but new players could still complete it to 100 %.
So maybe try to address
Again: what even is your point? The system that inspired the suggestion doesn't work exactly like the suggestion? Going so far as to call him a liar because you chose to focus on one single point?
Do you even grasp what you are doing?
I know its complicated but try to keep up. The system that was proposed to be used to archive broken achievements until they are fixed before being moved back, was actually never used for that, nor ever intended to be used for that.
Pretty simple really. The whole feats of Strength system has absolutely nothing to do with broken achievements which is the suggestion, was never used as a way to handle broken achievements, and was never intended to be used to handle it.
So, if you want to call that not "exactly" like the suggestion, you might as well claim naplam works like a lighter as you can use it to light a candle, even if it doesn't work "exactly" like a lighter does.
Also no, i called him a liar for multiple reasons, but again your cherry picking and neglected to mention the other ones such as the false claims of the number of people effected by it before he later admitted he did not actually know how many were effected and had no way to know.
So feel free to spin it as much as you want, numerous people have pointed out the same issues, but again your only obsessed with attacking me, so rather then debate with someone who uses selective memory i'll just take the high ground and update my ignore list.
Especially as you already agreed with me and everyone else that the OP's suggestion is a bad idea, but can't help but argue against me do to some obsession apparently
You can apply parts of it and make broken achievements less broken without retroactively taking them away from people who already have them. Not that anyone would notice if their achievements started disappearing. After all, it's just a tiny amount of people. Who cares about them right?
Yep, but the problem is now your saying you want to build a system that requires developers to push out an update to remove achievements and archive them, and then push out another update once fixed to unarchive them. I mean they could already release an update to fix them if they cared, but as cinedine, myself, and others have pointed out the dev's don't care enough to fix them, so why would people think they are going to do this?
That's also completely ignoring the havoc that would cause. I mean imagine this scenario. You have a game with 50 achievements, with the 50th achievement being the collect all achievements one. You have 48 of them and the 49th is broken, so the devs actually use this feature and remove #49.
Well now the game says, you have all possible achievements, so you unlock #50, now #49 is added back in meaning that is no longer true so you now have to set up a system to retroactively check and REVOKE an achievement (which i'm not even sure is possible).
Or the outrage from people who got all 49 achievments, only to find out later that their perfect game is no longer perfect because they added an achievement back in and didn't know and now have to re-install the game and earn that one.
Or the fact that this would require API changes from every game on Steam, and all those old broken games that never bothered to fix their achievements aren't going to suddenly come back and start updating things just to use this.
The OP did, i mean seriously, has anyone even READ the suggestion?
I mean straight from blizzard the two have NOTHING in common
They aren't remotely similar or intended to be used in any way remotely close to what he is asking.
Obviously more than you.
You focus on "broken" whereas the OP clearly means "unobtainable". Which is exactly what the FoS system was used for.
As mentioned before there are also no longer obtainable achievements from (seasonal) events that either stay unobtainable or are removed later.
Where did I say it was bad? Seriously, where? Do you even read what you reply to?
I question the worth of the idea if developers already don't care enough to remove or fix them.
I actually like the idea. But I doubt it will achieve what TC wants. Especially when the provider of the system doesn't give a ♥♥♥♥ about achievements. I am not trying to shut down a suggestion I claim I don't care about and call the TC a liar because I can't graps the concept of adapting something and get hung up on specific words (again: troll behaviour). I am simply disillusioned about Steam achievements and Valve's attitude towards them.
Also as an FYI: the quote by Bashiok is overly generalizing. Blizzard games does have achievements filed under FoS. Getting to level 70 in a season in D3, grinding pointless reputations in WoW, entirely destroying an enemy in certain SC2 missions or a meta achievement for obtaining all campaign achievements.
I mean, you could have taken a look at them ...
It's exactly meant the way TC ask the system to be: achievements that do not count towards the completion ratio.
That's an implementation detail and up to the game studios. There are already games which do exactly that: change the requirements of "unlock all". And if you got an achievement before "all" was extended, you keep it. And why not?
Why do you keep clasping for straws to shut down the idea. An idea which allegedly doesn't affect you in the slightest.
That's exactly that toxic gate-keeping behaviour other users complain about and that keeps people from making suggestions.
There are games that are already this confusing. Borderlands 3 has an achievement "ultimate vault hunter". Later they added a whole new set of DLC achievements. So to people who don't know that you only need base game will think you cheated because your DLC achievements are still locked. Others will think they need to buy all DLC to get that one achievement.
Original OP suggestion is not the only thing in this thread though. It's a good start but there were several ideas on how to improve it. Too bad they get buried under walls of text arguing that achievements aren't worth the dev time.
Here's an example. You can think of "feats of strength" as some kind of legendary achievements separate from the rest. You wouldn't even need to remove them completely, fix something and add them back. Just have two buckets: "standard, obtainable" achievements and "broken" achievements. Enough user reports and multiplayer achievement that is impossible due to closed servers is moved to the 2nd bucket. "Broken" sounds bad, so in the client facing interface you can change this separate showcase to "Legendary" or "Classic" or "Mythical" or whatever sound trendy.
To avoid complaints add another stat to the showcase: number of legendary achievements e.g. 43 in 10 games. So people can show off their historic achievements in a new way and new players get to have improved stats. Sure, they might complain about not having shiny new "legendary achievements" but no system is perfect. This is better than simply having something broken stuck in your library.
They are similar and they don't have to be used in the same way. Steam doesn't have points anyway. As I understand it, they are meant to separate obtainable from impossible, just like OP.
It looks like OP is taking this idea and applying something that already worked for another company here to improve everyone's experience. It may accomplish a different goal using the same principle of converting impossible achievements to something else.
The only thing that he "lied" about is that there is a major demographic. That is quite irrelevant though, as others said. A tiny portion of steam userbase uses this forum, so using your logic you can say the forum itself is unnecessary and shouldn't be worked on. Finally, achievement threads show up quite often. This tells me that it's one of the most popular suggestions among those who decide to use the forum. It's even possible there are people out there who accept achievements as they are now and if by some miracle there are improvements in the future they will silently rejoice without ever coming to the forum.