Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikeyts

So it works as designed, but you don't like the design.

---

I don't use chord numbering, but I agree that it is a bug. Not all bugs are crashes, some of them are incorrect program behavior or not fully implementing a feature in all places where appropriate. That Twitter post also indicates Harmonix considers it a mistake, along with the most/all players that use the chord numbering feature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tnevaker

right, i meant subjective, not semantic. that is, while some are obviously one or the other, some are kind of borderline and you can't tell whether they are intentional or not unless you were part of the design team, so it's just a guess whether it's a bug or a choice.

---

Huh? On that basis you could decide that the design of any feature that you don't like might be a bug. You yourself acknowledge that there is an indication of the first note to play given by the arpeggio notation; you just find it difficult to read, which doesn't say that everyone does. (It seems pretty clear to me, but I don't use chord numbering). Perhaps they could have made it clearer for people who do use chord numbering; if you haven't learned to read position wave notation, unless the fret number of the first note is the low fret, it could be difficult for you to know what it is. A better design might have been to put all of the fret numbers on the chord when chord numbering is enabled, but it would be difficult to see that it's an arpeggiated chord. Perhaps, when chord numbering is enabled, they should skip the wave altogether and just number the individual notes with a chord name on the left of the highway.

"Bugs" are things that engineers reading the design spec made a mistake in implementing. Things which don't work well for you that you think should be different which conform to the design spec aren't bugs. As a software engineer the distinction is important to me :D.

You guys are splitting fine hairs, although if Harmonix said it was a mistake it's a bug.
Either way, it doesn't matter. Anything can be changed, in theory, in a patch - whether it's fixing a bug, or an enhancement.

Whether it is cost effective/safe to do so is an entirely different story.

Anyway, I got the patch.
It's quite nice. Much snappier now that it's not saving EVERY TWO SECONDS.
30 lives is of course quite wonderful. After 30 I think I'd need to take a break as someone said.

I did a run in the leveler and I'm much more relaxed knowing I don't need to nail it RIGHT NOW. On 5 lives, The first one tends to be a 'get ready', the last tends to be the 'oh god no last try' tense up, leaving me with only a couple of good tries. I'm able to really focus a lot more now that I can 'zone in'.

all I need is auto set speed and I'd be good to go, I think.

- Frank

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikeyts

A better design might have been to put all of the fret numbers on the chord when chord numbering is enabled, but it would be difficult to see that it's an arpeggiated chord.

---

The green highway is more than a giveaway that it's an arpeggio.

Quote:

---

"Bugs" are things that engineers reading the design spec made a mistake in implementing. Things which don't work well for you that you think should be different which conform to the design spec aren't bugs. As a software engineer the distinction is important to me :D.

---

Give it up, Harmonix admitted it needs to be fixed. By design, it should have numbered the starting chord, but they made a mistake in the implementation, so it's a bug. End of story.

Increased life count is less of a pain, but RB3's practice mode is still better because the PLAYER decides when practice is over, and has control over the playback speed. And changing the practice section is just a DPAD press away, instead of having to go into the menu again. This is what Rocksmith should have been aiming for and they missed it by a lot.

I pretty much have quit playing rock band pro until they allow practice modes slower than 60%.
The difficulty gap between levels is just too large.

One thing that still really annoys me about RS is how you can't look too far ahead sometimes.
For example, (red being the bottom string for me), sometimes I'll see orange, orange, purple and think, 'okay great'. Then suddenly HERE COMES THE PURPLE, and it turns out it's actually orange purple orange. That drives me crazy.

I sometimes wish they had some sort of 'breakneck' speed to spread out the notes a bit more.
Yes, I eventually figure it out via practice, but it's annoying and it always makes me somewhat doubt what I'm seeing until the last minute.

- Frank

Yes the order of notes can be a bit confusing, mainly because of the 3d nature of the chart. If they gave us the option to have it 2d, looking down on it, then it would be much easier to see

This patch is bunk. My game still froze up at the loading screen before a quick tune before trying to play a song. Plus other PS3 owners are reporting the same thing at the Ubi forum. Still can't do long setlists. Give me a break. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by raynebc

...changing the practice section is just a DPAD press away, instead of having to go into the menu again. This is what Rocksmith should have been aiming for and they missed it by a lot.

---

Keep in mind, HMX has been improving their UI since long before the original GH. They've had LOTS of practice on music game UI. Ubi just got into this game (no pun intended). They've got farther to go.

That being said, I agree wholeheartedly with you on being able to move seamlessly from section to section. It's so much easier. But ChodTheWacko's comment about not being able to practice at 60% or less has also pretty much thrown me out of RB3 for Pro Guitar as well.

Good thing that RS doesn't have drums. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mikeyts

Huh? On that basis you could decide that the design of any feature that you don't like might be a bug. You yourself acknowledge that there is an indication of the first note to play given by the arpeggio notation; you just find it difficult to read, which doesn't say that everyone does. (It seems pretty clear to me, but I don't use chord numbering). Perhaps they could have made it clearer for people who do use chord numbering; if you haven't learned to read position wave notation, unless the fret number of the first note is the low fret, it could be difficult for you to know what it is. A better design might have been to put all of the fret numbers on the chord when chord numbering is enabled, but it would be difficult to see that it's an arpeggiated chord. Perhaps, when chord numbering is enabled, they should skip the wave altogether and just number the individual notes with a chord name on the left of the highway.

"Bugs" are things that engineers reading the design spec made a mistake in implementing. Things which don't work well for you that you think should be different which conform to the design spec aren't bugs. As a software engineer the distinction is important to me :D.

---

i'm a software engineer too, so trust me, i know the distinction. but neither of us are HMX software engineers, so we don't know what the actual design is intended to be, and without that knowledge, neither of us can say definitively that it is or is not a bug.

like the previous posters said, it doesn't have to crash the system to be a bug. if it doesn't behave the way the programmer intends for it to behave, that is a bug. only HMX's programmers know if arpeggios with chord numbering were intended to behave that way or not. so those of us who aren't part of HMX's developer team can only guess at whether the behavior is intentional (design choice) or unintentional (bug). my subjective judgment (in other words, "guess") based on the way it behaves compared to the rest of a pro chart with chord numbering on is that it is a bug.

Hey guys,

I have put up an RB VS RS January DLC poll in the main RB forum, a bit like we used to have for RB VS GH. Get voting!!