Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

User information for Bhruic

Real Name Bhruic   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname None given.
Email Concealed by request
ICQ None given.
Description
Homepage http://
Signed On Nov 14, 2004, 23:07
Total Comments 3145 (Veteran)
User ID 22304
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 ] Older >


News Comments > New DayZ Mod
3. Re: New DayZ Mod May 22, 2012, 12:02 Bhruic
 
Sadly, this seems like a step in the wrong direction. Some of the changes - nerfing the Winchester, using stuff in your inventory - are fine, but the infection and temperature stuff is pretty weak. 75% of the map is covered in trees, but the only way to "find" wood for fires is from houses/barns. And what exactly is temperature adding to the game in the first place? Just another reason to shoot-on-sight, since infection can be spread to other survivors. This game needs incentives to not shoot everyone you meet, or it just because PvP with zombies.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Diablo III Hacking?
223. Re: Diablo III Hacking? May 22, 2012, 11:40 Bhruic
 
They don't want you skipping progression as then people would want a skip Nightmare/Hell button too. I don't know why players would want this anyway, it just encourages more AH whoring.

You're joking, right? People did this all the time in D2, just with the slightly slower fashion of "rushes". Or, if they wanted to have the appropriate level, they'd do the whole Tristram->Tombs->Cows->Baal Runs gambit until they leveled up enough. People want(ed) to find end-game gear more than stuff they'll use for a level or two and then throw away - some people that is. Especially with your 3rd or 4th character. Slogging through the first couple difficulty levels becomes a bit tedious.

On the other hand, I didn't expect that to change for D3, and it hasn't. Blizzard keeps seeming to choose the "make them replay the same game" style, which helps them cut down on work on content, but doesn't make for compelling gameplay.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Diablo III Hacking?
194. Re: General complaints, longish May 22, 2012, 09:44 Bhruic
 
Mr. Tact wrote on May 22, 2012, 09:37:
Fibrocyte wrote on May 22, 2012, 09:13:
Blizzard already responded stating that all their research shows the compromised accounts were accessed using the proper username and password.

Hopefully this has already been covered in this mess of a thread.
So there was no hacking and this is all just a storm of idiots? Could be. I wouldn't bet money on it either way.

No, all that statement from Blizzard means is that the hacking system isn't simply session hijacking. That doesn't mean whoever is hacking accounts hasn't found a way to obtain passwords through a security fault at Blizzard.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Diablo III Hacking?
193. Re: Diablo III Hacking? May 22, 2012, 09:42 Bhruic
 
Quinn wrote on May 22, 2012, 08:27:
And that's, what? A good thing, Bhruic? It's a good thing the game has basically one difficulty when you think about it?

Well, it's a thing that should have expected based on previous knowledge of how Diablo games work. They did it that way in Diablo 1 (although they based it there on your character level, rather than game completion). They did it that way in Diablo 2. Thinking they wouldn't do it that way in Diablo 3 was pretty silly.

If it's a feature that you don't like, why would you buy the game knowing that's the way they've done it previously? It'd be like buying the latest CoD, and expecting that they have health kits and no regenerating health.

Jesus, I truly hope nobody is that crazy to support Blizzard's ridiculous decision to do it like this. Normal difficulty is one perfectly fit for my never-gaming wife (a fact, for she enjoys it, being the noob she is. She only died once with her WD). For an experienced gamer like myself and probably all of us here.. well, we can do it with our eyes closed.

I suspect plenty of people support this decision, because that's what they were looking for. From your "hardly played D1 and D2" comment, I can only assume that you were looking for something else. That's fine, but that means buying D3 was your mistake.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Diablo III Hacking?
183. Re: Diablo III Hacking? May 22, 2012, 06:33 Bhruic
 
Quinn wrote on May 22, 2012, 04:24:
Wait what was off with his wording? You're saying the same thing. You have to complete normal mode with every single character you want to play a more difficult mode with!

The first guy didn't say you have to complete Normal mode with every class before higher difficulties are unlocked, although it seems you think that's what he said.

Anyway.. It's still fucking ridiculous. Once I finished normal mode with my mage, I wanna play nightmare with my Demon Hunter, ffs. You guys absolutely certain this isn't the case? Rage is boiling up, you see..

Uh, how is that any different than the way it worked in D2? Every new char you made had to play through Normal->Nightmare->Hell. You couldn't just skip to the end because you'd got a different character to Hell difficulty.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Diablo III Hacking?
65. Re: Diablo III Hacking? May 21, 2012, 15:15 Bhruic
 
Creston wrote on May 21, 2012, 15:04:
Someone said something to the effect that authenticators can easily be compromised if the main algorithm is broken. This is exactly what happened to RSA, causing them to have to replace tens of millions of tokens for free.

And some Blizzard fanboy actually posted "That's because RSA has shitty coders, unlike Blizzard's elite ones."

I... what... no...

As you can't see sarcasm on the internet, I'm going to assume that's what the poster was going for. That, or maximum trolling. No way that's serious.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Diablo III Hacking?
36. Re: Diablo III Hacking? May 21, 2012, 13:16 Bhruic
 
Darks wrote on May 21, 2012, 13:03:
Possibly, but I do know for a fact, and Iím going to say that this is probably the case for some of these people getting hacked that they donít have the option on that says always prompt for your token. I saw this first hand with a fiendís account this weekend when he came over. He logged in and it didnít prompt him to use his authenticator. I told him, turn that on. To dangerous with it like that.

translated from Danish:
Diablo 3 was yesterday the subject of a major hacker attack that has resulted in stolen accounts. The attack was the reason that many European servers were closed for up to four hours.

It grants Blizzard to Eurogamer.net, now that many gamers have complained about the lack of information on the official Battle.net forum.

At the forum, you can see several posts from people who have hacked their account with the result that all gold and all items are removed and transferred to others. Blizzard has backups of the characters from before the hacker attack and is currently working. to roll back the changes. The publisher can not guarantee that some accounts will not be lost forever.

I initially went the rumors on Battle.net forum that the long downtime was due to a SQL attack on Diablo database, but this is neither confirmed nor denied by Blizzard's side.

Reportedly, the hackers could get into accounts that would otherwise be protected by the Blizzard Mobile Authenticator.


Danish Article

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Diablo III Hacking?
29. Re: Diablo III Hacking? May 21, 2012, 12:59 Bhruic
 
As for those who are getting hacked. Iím willing to bet you right now that those are the same clowns that visit the Chinese gold farming sites. You log in and most of the time those idiots are using their same email addy and password. Not hard to figure out your pass for the game then. And some are saying that they have a security token. But Iím betting again, many people donít have one which is how and why they are getting hacked.

And not only that, but they were wearing slutty clothing!

Blaming the victim is fun and all, but this is hardly the first situation like this. Rift had a similar problem - people were getting their accounts hacked, even with a validator. People like you popped up claiming it had to be the individual people's fault. Turns out, surprise, surprise, that there was a security hole that hackers had found that completely bypassed the password as well as the validator.

Very likely they'll find some similar security hole here.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Diablo III Hacking?
28. Re: Diablo III Hacking? May 21, 2012, 12:56 Bhruic
 
ASeven wrote on May 21, 2012, 12:49:
Take a look at the many forums around the net where the fanboys most gather and you'll easily find this argument that being online always would prevent any type of hacking and more stupid arguments like that. Therefore I tell to all rabid fanboys, told you so because as you've said it didn't take too much intelligence to see that this would happen.

There is a vast difference between in-game hacking, and account hacking. The people talking about the always on connection preventing hacking were, almost universally, talking about the former. Suggesting an always on connection would stop account hacking would be, quite possibly, the stupidest statement ever made, as the online requirement has no impact on account hacking in any way, shape or form.

Gloating over this and trying to use it to "disprove" the people talking about in-game hacking just makes you look silly and desperate.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
61. Re: Op Ed May 20, 2012, 12:05 Bhruic
 
as with every other game, ie Team Fortress 2 online

Wait, what? TF2 supports offline play with bots. There is no online requirement if you want to play that way.

That's the same way Valve has done most (all?) of their games - even L4D 1 & 2, games that were designed primarily with multiplayer in mind, just like Diablo 3 was, still support singleplayer offline play.

The game isn't single player. That is a term end users are using - not them. End users want it to be, but it isn't....and that is just the way it is

Again, repeating this ad naseum doesn't make it true. The game as it stands right now has the ability to be played singleplayer. I could, if I owned the game, fire up a session, play for hours, finish playing, and never have had to interact with another person in any way at all.

Or, look at it differently: let's say they did have offline play. How exactly would the offline play be any different than the online play for someone playing solo? It wouldn't be. The only "features" that you would lose access to are features that are dedicated to multiplayer. So if there is literally no difference between playing it in an offline function, and playing it in an online function, how can you claim there's no singleplayer?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Wasteland 2 NOT an Origin Exclusive
55. Re: Wasteland 2 May 20, 2012, 11:57 Bhruic
 
For starters, virtually every KS project was offering their games via-Steam. They clearly felt it was worthwhile doing so.

Ok, so that proves that they want to distribute through Steam. Does nothing to show that Valve is giving them 90 free days.

And Valve doesn't release its developer/publisher terms to the public and doesn't comment on their business practices

Sure they do, you can find info on their business practises on the Steam website.

If you're trying to convince me that EA isn't a shitty company then you're doing a very bad job.

Thanks for proving my point so elequently. I haven't been trying to convince you of any such thing. You're looking at this as a black-and-white scenario, when it's clearly not. It's possible for EA to be a shitty company, and still do some things that are good. Rather than looking at this as some sort of nefarious plot on EA's part, why not just agree that occasionally EA can do something decent? That doesn't mean all the stuff they've done that sucks doesn't still suck, because it does.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Torchlight II Stress Test This Weekend
139. Re: Torchlight II Stress Test This Weekend May 20, 2012, 09:05 Bhruic
 
- The classes are generic and the skill points are shallow. The standard warrior/mage/rogue types. Nothing special, nothing new. Skill points do nothing more than give you a small damage increase per point. The abilities are likewise, generic and shallow.

I especially agree with this one. So I put one point in, I get 5 damage for all elemental types, and a 10% chance of DoTs. I put another point in and I get... 5 damage for all elemental types, and an 11% chance of DoTs? Seriously? There are quite a few skills like that, and it really makes me wonder why I'd every bother putting more points into such skills.

It's not even better than Torchlight 1, it's just the same with a larger game area.

I enjoyed Torchlight 1, so more of it isn't necessarily bad, but I must admit I'm struggling to see what they've "improved" with 2. I mean, yes, outdoor areas, but in terms of gameplay nothing has really stood out. I was expecting them to have some new features or refinements on old ones, but it's hard to tell I'm actually playing a new game.

So while I like it, I'm a bit disappointed compared to what my expectations were.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Wasteland 2 NOT an Origin Exclusive
52. Re: Wasteland 2 May 20, 2012, 08:42 Bhruic
 
It's designed to increase EA's market share

And how does it manage this increase in EA's market share? Again, it's not an Origin exlusive. People aren't going to be required to flock to Origin to try and buy the game.

which it will then abuse in the same its been doing for decades.

First off, if you go back a decade, EA was quite a good company. It's only recently that they've been making anti-consumer decisions. Secondly, how exactly have they been "abusing" market share?

I didn't claim that every single business decision that EA makes is inherently abusive

No, but you (and others) have turned a story about how EA is doing something decent for Kickstarter projects into an "OMFG, EA is the fucking devil!" story.

It's pretty simple, if you'd rather keep using Steam, retail, or whatever you use to buy games, that's fine. I'm not trying to convince anyone who dislikes Origin to use it. Hell, I won't be buying any of the games on Origin - although that's mainly because Origin charges tax where Steam doesn't. But I'm fairly confident at least some people will buy it on Origin, so if the developers end up getting more money because of that fact - and because EA is effectively giving it to them - I don't mind admitting that EA is doing a decent thing.

However, we don't know what terms Valve offers and it's entirely plausible / likely that it offers the same or better terms and EA is only responding because it doesn't want to be ignored as a platform.

Well, as neither of us have details, I certainly can't prove they don't, but where is your evidence to suggest that it's plausible - let alone likely? Has there been any stories about Valve doing anything for Kickstarter projects? Considering how quickly this story hit the news, a similar story from Valve should have been equally well reported, but I find no such story.

So again, that's just bias talking. "EA is doing something decent, and they are totally shitty, so there's no way they could be doing something decent unless they were getting forced to by Valve."
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Wasteland 2 NOT an Origin Exclusive
48. Re: Wasteland 2 May 20, 2012, 05:14 Bhruic
 
During my mercifully brief time with Origin recently (when I played the horrible Star Wars: ToR for a few weeks before unsubscribing in disgust), I determined that it is still awful - glitchy, barebones, cumbersome, and counterintuitive.

How, exactly? The only thing you have to do with Origin if you buy SW:TOR through them - and you claimed a friend bought the game for you. After it's bought, you don't deal with Origin at all, the game has a separate launcher which is untied to Origin in any way. You literally would never have to run Origin at all.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Wasteland 2 NOT an Origin Exclusive
40. Re: Wasteland 2 May 19, 2012, 20:29 Bhruic
 
It's not "blind hatred" to oppose businesses that behave in an abusive way.

By all means, explain how giving developers 90 free days is abusive.

When you can't do that - because it's not - but you won't admit that EA is doing a decent thing, you'll understand why your hatred is blind.

Bill Gates was a conniving, sneaky, underhanded bastard when he was running MS, singlehandedly responsible for screwing over innumerable companies and stealing their products. I couldn't stand him for the longest time. But, with that said, when he turned around and put a bunch of his money into the various charities he's into, I recognized that as a decent act. It didn't invalidate all his other acts, and I still despise the way he conducted business, but I'm man enough to admit when someone I don't like does something decent.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
26. Re: Op Ed May 19, 2012, 19:06 Bhruic
 
The point is not whether other players can affect your experience when you're soloing in Diablo. The point is that millions people can deal with online only requirement in gaming in general, so get the fuck over this particular requirement for D3.

The point is that people are willing to put up with an online requirement when they get corresponding benefits to that online requirement, such as the ability to play with others. Having an online requirement when you don't get a benefit from it isn't welcome.

Out of curiosity, where were you when Ubisoft needed defending for their "always on" DRM? Or is it only Blizzard that gets a free pass?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Wasteland 2 NOT an Origin Exclusive
35. Re: Wasteland 2 NOT an Origin Exclusive May 19, 2012, 17:43 Bhruic
 
Absolutely false. Ever heard of hostile takeover, think Bioware was willingly bought out?

Yup. It wasn't a hostile takeover. EA bought Bioware and Pandemic by acquiring VG Holding Corp.

As for a "hostile takeover", you can't do a hostile takeover of a company that's solely owned. It's very difficult to do a hostile takeover of a company that's jointly owned, because you'd have to convince the majority of owners to side with you. If there are no shareholders, who are you convincing to sell you the company?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Wasteland 2 NOT an Origin Exclusive
33. Re: Wasteland 2 May 19, 2012, 17:21 Bhruic
 
You are confusing indie games with AAA games. Indie games actually often grow in sales as word of mouth spreads

I think you are overlooking the fact that Kickstarter is word of mouth. How much publicity has Wasteland 2, Shadowrun, etc gotten already? You really think they're going to have to rely on word of mouth post-release to get sales?

But even if that were true, I've still yet to see any evidence of why what EA is doing is a bad thing. They aren't forcing anyone to use Origin. They are merely acting as one distributor among many. They are simply giving people the option of buying the game from them, and giving 100% of the money to the developer. What, besides the irrational hatred of all things EA, is the downside supposed to be?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Wasteland 2 NOT an Origin Exclusive
32. Re: Wasteland 2 NOT an Origin Exclusive May 19, 2012, 17:18 Bhruic
 
Keep ignoring facts Btaman...  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
19. Re: Op Ed May 19, 2012, 17:15 Bhruic
 
Every single MMO can be played alone, solo, and never "interact" with groups or other people, but you have to be online. It is required. Get over it man!

How many times do I have to debunk that claim before it sinks in?

It's not possible to not be impacted by other players in an MMO. Even if you never group with them, you are still the same game world. They are still affecting it, and therefore your experience. It's a persistent world in which you are only a single person. It's impossible to have a singleplayer experience there.

The same is not true in D3. If you make a private game, and set it to be completely private, no one else can impact your game world. It's a completely separate instance, and can only be affected by you and what you choose to do in it. It is completely a singleplayer experience.

If you bought the boxed version of D3, it says "online connection required". If you bought it online, YOU ARE FUCKING ONLINE! And the EULA states it is an ONLINE game.

So what? I bought a chair online, does that mean I should expect to constnatly have an internet connect to use my chair? And seriously, you are well aware that less than 1% of people ever bother to read the EULA for any game.

It isn't even an argument, it is just self entitled asshats that THINK they shuold get what ever they want.

So not liking and complaining about a game feature makes you a "self entitled asshat" now? So what exactly does that make someone who decides they need to go online and bitch about the people who are complaining?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
3145 Comments. 158 pages. Viewing page 26.
< Newer [ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo