Rocksmith discussion thread - New real guitar game.

[Magnet]

I thought HMXHenry said that can't exist

I know some jerk made a post a couple months ago that said, "I asked him about putting it in the RB forum. He said no. Then he told me to "Rock on."" The post was deleted since it was just trolling and misleading other users.

Unless you heard directly from HMXHenry, I haven't seen him comment on the idea at all, and I don't think such a thread would be a problem.

[mikeyts]

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.

AFAIK, I've never suggested that it has to crash the system to be a bug, which is obviously ridiculous. A bug is any behavior which does not conform to the design spec, whether users like that behavior or not. Since we don't have that spec, we'll never know whether it works as intended. My opinion is that if they'd put full chord numbering on the first note of an arpeggio it would be very difficult to make it clear that it was an arpeggio, since chord numbering almost completely obscures the position wave, so I don't think that putting chord numbering on it would be the solution since people would tend to strum the entire chord. I think that with chord numbering enabled they should just abandon arpeggio notation altogether and chart them as individual notes. I suspect that they may not have addressed the issue at all in the original design, since chord numbering seems like an afterthought.

Just because they say that it's something that they say might be changed doesn't make it a bug either.

To me it seems likely to be similar to the "5 lives in riff repeater" issue in RS--something that works the way that it was intended to but which displeases many users. In RB3 there was the aforementioned pro-guitarists-playing-online-with-people-without-pro-guitar-charts issue, which no doubt worked the way it was spec'd but many users objected to it; they changed it and now many users object to the fix (pro guitarist who want to play online, who were fine with the way it originally worked ).

Let's drop it--it's an off-topic rathole in this thread. Everyone's opinion has been stated and neither of us is going to change the opinion of the other.

[toymachineSH]

I know some jerk made a post a couple months ago that said, "I asked him about putting it in the RB forum. He said no. Then he told me to "Rock on."" The post was deleted since it was just trolling and misleading other users.

Unless you heard directly from HMXHenry, I haven't seen him comment on the idea at all, and I don't think such a thread would be a problem.

Oh ok thanks for clarifying.

[tnevaker]

AFAIK, I've never suggested that it has to crash the system to be a bug, which is obviously ridiculous. A bug is any behavior which does not conform to the design spec, whether users like that behavior or not. Since we don't have that spec, we'll never know whether it works as intended. My opinion is that if they'd put full chord numbering on the first note of an arpeggio it would be very difficult to make it clear that it was an arpeggio, since chord numbering almost completely obscures the position wave, so I don't think that putting chord numbering on it would be the solution since people would tend to strum the entire chord. I think that with chord numbering enabled they should just abandon arpeggio notation altogether and chart them as individual notes. I suspect that they may not have addressed the issue at all in the original design, since chord numbering seems like an afterthought.

i think changing the color of the note highway makes it clear enough. it works for solos after all. but i wouldn't mind if they didn't have a special way of marking arpeggios at all. it's more important to know what notes to play, then to know it's an arpeggio section. the most important thing is that the chart should be easy to read and it should be obvious what note(s) to play at each point without having to do mental gymnastics to figure it out. i think we agree they didn't sufficiently address how chord numbering and arpeggios should be displayed.

Just because they say that it's something that they say might be changed doesn't make it a bug either.

To me it seems likely to be similar to the "5 lives in riff repeater" issue in RS--something that works the way that it was intended to but which displeases many users. In RB3 there was the aforementioned pro-guitarists-playing-online-with-people-without-pro-guitar-charts issue, which no doubt worked the way it was spec'd but many users objected to it; they changed it and now many users object to the fix (pro guitarist who want to play online, who were fine with the way it originally worked ).

Let's drop it--it's an off-topic rathole in this thread. Everyone's opinion has been stated and neither of us is going to change the opinion of the other.

actually the riff repeater update is a good example of how we can't know for sure if something is a bug or a design choice. for all we know, perhaps RS intended for players to have "50" lives in riff repeater, and some careless programmer left off the "0" in the code, it never got caught in testing, and the game was released with the wrong number of lives. in that case it would be a bug, not a design choice. although that's not the most likely scenario, it is possible. still, unless someone from RS comes out and says one way or another, we can't know for sure.

but the whole "bug vs design choice" tangent is irrelevant and i have no problem dropping it, since i think we're actually probably more in agreement than disagreement and it all started with me mistakenly using a different word than the one i meant in describing the difference.

[ChodTheWacko]

This may be new:
I blew a song for the nth time and the game asked me if I wanted to lower the qualifying score on the song so I could pass it and move on to the next event.

I said yes and it set the qualifying score to the highest score I had achieved so far (which was still 8000 below the qualify score).

That's pretty sweet - sometimes I'd get just sick of a song and delete it from the setlist. Now I don't have to.


- Frank

[Doom878]

Interesting. I wonder if they make it easier now to unlock the bonus songs. I've yet to

[lvmathemagician]

Finally got my first double encore. Huzzah!

[SeattleSauve]

This may be new:
I blew a song for the nth time and the game asked me if I wanted to lower the qualifying score on the song so I could pass it and move on to the next event.

I said yes and it set the qualifying score to the highest score I had achieved so far (which was still 8000 below the qualify score).

That's pretty sweet - sometimes I'd get just sick of a song and delete it from the setlist. Now I don't have to.
- Frank

I didn't know they had changed this in the patch, that should help folks who are banging their head on songs. I'm happy for the higher lives (still not clear why there are lives to begin with), and am happy about ability to set level. Now I'm just wishing for the ability to set speed...

[SeattleSauve]

Interesting. I wonder if they make it easier now to unlock the bonus songs. I've yet to

I think they might have made it harder to unlock bonus songs. I posted a short guide to unlocking bonus songs on the RS forums (after talking with a bunch of folks who had issues with it), but part of that guide was after finding out about the encore you can skip out of the event, practice that encore song, and know that the encore would be the same if you went back into the event. I'm not sure if that still applies.

There was an issue with the qualifying score for the encore not getting updated when you remove songs from the setlist. If they've fixed that then they have made it a bit easier to get the double from that perspective.

[alexlifeson]

Wow been gone for a while and not playing RS or RB at all for several weeks. Now I see the patch is ready to go. Time to d/l it and try it out and get back into rocking out and having fun.

For the guy with the bad fret wear on his Squier, wow! thats bad. What will you do since those are not stock frets you can easily replace as they have sensors in them and the product is now discontinued and no more warranty so..... are the frets even purchaseable/replaceable? I bet the detection is way off because of the fret wear. Not wanting to see that happen on my Squier. Might make it a collectors item after all and not play it.