criterion-sm dice-lg ea-starwars-lg instagram lucasfilm-lg motive-lg twitch you-tube

So StarFighter Straffing invinciblity wasnt fixed in patch?

It wasnt listed in patch notes. Please for the love of god someone tell me they still fixed this already..
Dawson_Crying.gif

Replies

  • handcuff
    923 posts Member
    edited May 2016
    uh....
    Gary-Coleman-WTF-M_zpsiax17syv.gif
  • Nope. Not fixed
  • GRDNANGL172
    5513 posts Member
    Not till next patch if they get it done this month.... :(
  • Mcap
    873 posts Member
    Huh?


    "Sledgehammer70
    608 posts Community Manager
    May 3, 2016 3:54AM
    Developer Comments:

    Vehicles: Resolved an issue which would make players invincible after attempting to enter a vehicle.

    This occurred after we deployed an update that protects a soldier from being killed at the end of the call-in sequence and they have moved into their vehicle. If the sequence fails there wasn’t a signal sent back to remove this protection."
  • GRDNANGL172
    5513 posts Member
    edited May 2016
    @Mcap
    Furious is referring to the inability to damage fighters at close range in tight turns, not transition protection...
  • swaza79
    778 posts Member
    @Mcap different bug. That's the invincible player bug.
  • Mcap
    873 posts Member
    My mistake. So much talk about the other invincibility bug, every time i see the word I assume it's the same bug!
  • GRDNANGL172
    5513 posts Member
    This is the response I received from the info I sent him.

    TheVestalViking April 28
    Heya - Thanks for all the info and videos. The last one about the T-47 is super interesting as well, will start digging in on that one as well.

    What you mention, and is shown in the videos, is how this is seemingly only present when in tight turns or when close up. That tidbit gives us a bit more to go on - I don't think that aspect fully jumped out at us previously. Hopefully it leads us to a quick solution!

    I understand your frustration and I appreciate you talking with me about it. I can't promise anything immediately but know that we're not ignoring this issue.
  • This is by far the biggest letdown of the may patch. Inconceivable how terrible this company seems to be at eliminating bugs. It seems they cant even fix what they purposefully focus on fixing... Once again 2 steps forward, 3 steps back.
  • GRDNANGL172
    5513 posts Member
    I mentioned the T-47 couldn't damage Ties since release (except very rare conditions) and it seemed they didn't know....
  • DominatorCDA
    354 posts Member
    edited May 2016
    If they're having such a hard time on nailing down what exactly is causing this issue I'd be more than happy to compile about a dozen different videos of every single time this happens to me---because there's quite a few of them.
  • GRDNANGL172
    5513 posts Member
    Trust me I sent him LOTS!
  • Artists_Operandi
    441 posts Member
    edited May 2016
    No it wasn't fixed. And by this guy, whomever he is, saying that it "Hadn't really jumped out at us before and now we're digging into it?" Are you KIDDING ME?????????????????? Exactly WHERE do the bug reports go when we spend multiple posts reporting them????? The Phantom Zone???????

    HERE, allow me to re-post my original video and forum post on this subject...I only have about, ohhhhhhhh, 30 of these videos captured to choose from to date...



    And my original post

    And my original post that clearly didn't "jump out at them" the first time...

    http://starwars.ea.com/starwars/battlefront/forums/discussion/38381/ea-battlefront-team-its-time-for-a-sincere-update-on-this-entire-debacle/p1#Comment_276586
    Post edited by Artists_Operandi on
  • GRDNANGL172
    5513 posts Member
    I'll forward that to him
  • I'll forward that to him
    @GRDNANGL172 -Thank you. That's actually really appreciated by me.
  • GRDNANGL172
    5513 posts Member
    It's in his box friend. I send him all the fighter glitch related stuff. This is really clear video. That should help.
  • I don't see how they didn't notice the issues.
    But, since they didn't, anyone who expected a fix so soon after @GRDNANGL172 brought the issue(s) to their attention needs to take a step back and look at things.
    This isn't a problem from anyone here, I just see complaints like this a lot. People expect everything to be fixed within one week of developers first acknowledging or realising bugged content is present. So...
    If the developers haven't acknowledged a bug who's to say they even know about it at all, in other words it can't be fixed.
    Then after they acknowledge and finish creating a patch it has to be verified by Microsoft/Sony. This verification process usually takes about a month, at a very rough estimate.
    So let's review, shall we?
    They have to know about the bug, they then have to create the patch, the patch has to go through Microsoft/Sony verification, they then have to coordinate a date to release the patch. So most likely any kind of patch could/should take up to 6+ weeks. Though, it is possible that Microsoft/Sony gets to it sooner, in which case it may only take 2-3 weeks, still very rough estimates.
    Supporter of offline multiplayer! #soloplayersmatter
  • DominatorCDA
    354 posts Member
    edited May 2016
    I don't see how they didn't notice the issues.
    But, since they didn't, anyone who expected a fix so soon after @GRDNANGL172 brought the issue(s) to their attention needs to take a step back and look at things.
    This isn't a problem from anyone here, I just see complaints like this a lot. People expect everything to be fixed within one week of developers first acknowledging or realising bugged content is present. So...
    If the developers haven't acknowledged a bug who's to say they even know about it at all, in other words it can't be fixed.
    Then after they acknowledge and finish creating a patch it has to be verified by Microsoft/Sony. This verification process usually takes about a month, at a very rough estimate.
    So let's review, shall we?
    They have to know about the bug, they then have to create the patch, the patch has to go through Microsoft/Sony verification, they then have to coordinate a date to release the patch. So most likely any kind of patch could/should take up to 6+ weeks. Though, it is possible that Microsoft/Sony gets to it sooner, in which case it may only take 2-3 weeks, still very rough estimates.

    Which if you take into consideration how many bugs get created because of each of these patches when it goes through such a long filtering process plus how some bugs that supposedly got fixed are in fact still broken and add to the fact that they do not live test their servers and it really seems to me that this current system is grossly inefficient and ineffective.
  • I don't see how they didn't notice the issues.
    But, since they didn't, anyone who expected a fix so soon after @GRDNANGL172 brought the issue(s) to their attention needs to take a step back and look at things.
    This isn't a problem from anyone here, I just see complaints like this a lot. People expect everything to be fixed within one week of developers first acknowledging or realising bugged content is present. So...
    If the developers haven't acknowledged a bug who's to say they even know about it at all, in other words it can't be fixed.
    Then after they acknowledge and finish creating a patch it has to be verified by Microsoft/Sony. This verification process usually takes about a month, at a very rough estimate.
    So let's review, shall we?
    They have to know about the bug, they then have to create the patch, the patch has to go through Microsoft/Sony verification, they then have to coordinate a date to release the patch. So most likely any kind of patch could/should take up to 6+ weeks. Though, it is possible that Microsoft/Sony gets to it sooner, in which case it may only take 2-3 weeks, still very rough estimates.

    Which if you take into consideration how many bugs get created because of each of these patches when it goes through such a long filtering process plus how some bugs that supposedly got fixed are in fact still broken and add to the fact that they do not live test their servers and it really seems to me that this current system is grossly inefficient and ineffective.

    Never claimed it was efficient and effective, but it's how the system works.
    Additionally, it would probably take notably longer to fix a bug if they more effectively tested their patches, though it would be preferable.
    Supporter of offline multiplayer! #soloplayersmatter
  • GRDNANGL172
    5513 posts Member
    I don't see the need for extra approval to fix the game in order to bring it to what was already approved...
  • MoistGamer
    894 posts Member
    I don't see how they didn't notice the issues.
    But, since they didn't, anyone who expected a fix so soon after @GRDNANGL172 brought the issue(s) to their attention needs to take a step back and look at things.
    This isn't a problem from anyone here, I just see complaints like this a lot. People expect everything to be fixed within one week of developers first acknowledging or realising bugged content is present. So...
    If the developers haven't acknowledged a bug who's to say they even know about it at all, in other words it can't be fixed.
    Then after they acknowledge and finish creating a patch it has to be verified by Microsoft/Sony. This verification process usually takes about a month, at a very rough estimate.
    So let's review, shall we?
    They have to know about the bug, they then have to create the patch, the patch has to go through Microsoft/Sony verification, they then have to coordinate a date to release the patch. So most likely any kind of patch could/should take up to 6+ weeks. Though, it is possible that Microsoft/Sony gets to it sooner, in which case it may only take 2-3 weeks, still very rough estimates.

    I agree with your stance of being fair to the developers, being a QA tester myself.

    However, we're talking about 6 months here. Not a few weeks.

    #cougar hunting #40 or older only
  • I don't see the need for extra approval to fix the game in order to bring it to what was already approved...

    Well Microsoft/Sony do, they didn't approve the update, they don't know what could happen if something slipped past the developers. It doesn't hurt to be carefull.
    Supporter of offline multiplayer! #soloplayersmatter
  • GRDNANGL172
    5513 posts Member
    I respectfully don't see the logic. If something is broken they should be able to fix it right away. The process is ****.
  • I don't see anything wrong with the vids, just learn to aim better.








    :trollface:
  • GRDNANGL172
    5513 posts Member
    You don't see all the sparks flying off from the hits?? Time to see the eye doctor friend. You're legally blind.
  • I respectfully don't see the logic. If something is broken they should be able to fix it right away. The process is ****.

    Yet it was probably implemented for a reason, and I'm sure that Microsoft/Sony are far more concerned with more serious problems that could arise than releasing a buggy update.
    Supporter of offline multiplayer! #soloplayersmatter
  • Just done in F'S private match .An AI was going in circles you could hit with Hero ship cannon - AI took no damage
  • GRDNANGL172
    5513 posts Member
    Yup, that's the Guardian Angel bug alright...
  • Yup, that's the Guardian Angel bug alright...

    I wonder, is that an insult, praise, or curse on your name?
    Insult as in your name now represents an evil bug.
    Praise as in you did something memorable involving the bug.
    Or a curse, because you play well enough that it seems like this bug is affecting you...
    Supporter of offline multiplayer! #soloplayersmatter
  • You don't see all the sparks flying off from the hits?? Time to see the eye doctor friend. You're legally blind.

    And you don't see the troll face at the end of the message? Force is[not] strong on this one :wink:
  • GRDNANGL172
    5513 posts Member
    Didn't know that was a "troll face". Sarcasm and the Internet rarely mix well. ;)
  • Didn't know that was a "troll face". Sarcasm and the Internet rarely mix well. ;)

    Does anything mix well with the internet?
    Supporter of offline multiplayer! #soloplayersmatter
  • GRDNANGL172
    5513 posts Member
    In reference to the name, it was only because I brought a lot of awareness to it and brought it to Vestal's attention directly and it is now at least being worked on. The name fits because it's like an Angel is protecting your target lol. Sigh....
  • In reference to the name, it was only because I brought a lot of awareness to it and brought it to Vestal's attention directly and it is now at least being worked on. The name fits because it's like an Angel is protecting your target lol. Sigh....

    I'd like to think that Imperials are cursing your name as you obliterate them.
    Supporter of offline multiplayer! #soloplayersmatter
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!