View Single Post
Old 12-03-2010, 06:20 PM   #23
AceMcCloud
 
AceMcCloud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: England, UK (GMT)
Posts: 466

AceMcCloud's Gamercard
I don't think there's a cap, it's not logical for TR to put one in, even if they did achievements aren't connected.

However, what is evident is:

Payday! is still glitched, this is the same as the PS3 Patch, no one will have this unless they start a new account (or never touched the MP).

Egon's Guinea Pig, Loans Paid Off, Employee of the Month, On the Payroll are one time unlocks, if they don't unlock when they should, they won't ever it appears. I'm trying to determine what happened in the PS3 community regarding this, but it was mostly reports of people getting the last two trophies and platinum and then moving on.

Overachiever, Gozer's Most Wanted are very awkward achievements, I don't think they've ever been glitched, but you can spend months trying to get these when there are so many factors involved.

For some reason No Job Too Big is not unlocking for some, that and the once glitched/always glitched above means that most will end up with 48 achievements around the 980GS mark.

Granted, I have not yet been able to discover what the problem is with No Job Too Big, the easy answer is "if you've only got 47 or less achievements it will unlock for you, otherwise it won't", it seems to fit so far, but again, is this logical? It could be coincidental given what we know above.

I shall be starting a test account to do MP from start to finish, if all achievements can be obtained (or even just Payday and No Job Too Big) it will answer the question of a "cap". Only problem is not knowing what is messing up No Job Too Big, unless it is just don't leave it till last/second to last.

I suppose the only other way to confirm this oddity with No Job Too Big is a collection of gamertags who don't just have No Job Too Big and Payday! achievements left to get (majority of the community I'm guessing).

A Retroactive patch is not hard, just they need to realise it NEEDS to be retroactive and it needs to be tested retroactively.... obviously they did neither...
__________________
AceMcCloud

Last edited by AceMcCloud; 12-03-2010 at 06:24 PM.
AceMcCloud is offline   Reply With Quote