Dopefish

@MattScott I think this is an overreaction based on a vocal minority of the community creating drama where there isn't any. I'd be disappointed if developers of a game didn't actually enjoy it enough to play it themselves, and I believe it's a good way to get involved with the community. Likewise if there's an issue with someone playing a maxed out character, it implies there are bigger issues related to balancing. There's no possible way to know of what all the different players thinks of each others, and singling people out based on their "reputation" in the community is way worse than just grouping up with whoever is playing the game at that moment. It's also skewed to think of someone losing in a PVP game as something inherently bad. You've shown a humble and open attitude to criticism in the past, which has been positive, but I think this is taking it too far. Sure, you could argue that a community manager stirring up controversy for any reason, no matter how justified or not, might be arguably bad as they're representing the company they're working for, but I think you just need to make a proper distinction between if it's a private stream, or an official one.

Yes, it was introduced a long time ago by now, and I no longer remember the exact patch where it was introduced.

There's an issue where you exit a vehicle, it sometimes looks like you're falling through the floor for about half a second. I don't have any reliable reproduction steps for it, but I believe it only occurs when you exit the car through a passenger seat. This didn't always used to be an issue, but were introduced in one of the patches.

Linking accuracy to damage on the N-HVR 762 doesn't make any sense, and doesn't do much for balancing it other than making the weapon handling more confusing. There's no other weapon that works like this in the game, and it doesn't make any sense logically, so it's an extremely unintuitive mechanic which can only be understood if you've been told about it. This change would just add a minor delay to quickswitching, at the cost of how intuitive its usage is. It sets a bad precedence for how weapons are being balanced in the game, and is very concerning when coupled with the thought of balancing curves and unique mechanics for legendary weapons. Besides, it does nothing against the issues with the massive amount of damage the HVR is able to do nearly instantaneously, which puts player out of commission for up to ~15 seconds, or even worse, kill someone immediately when they spawn in line of sight of someone who's been barely tagged. I'm not sure why you're so reluctant to lower the damage of the HVR. EDIT: DMR is another non-legendary weapon that's unintuitive with its reverse damage drop-off. I can be fine with weird mechanics being applied to legendary weapons, since they're meant to be special, but I think it's detrimental for the game to make normal weapons work mechanically different from their expectations.

You mean how Battle(non)sense makes his videos, right? Though the results should theoretically be the same for those, as there's no difference between "location de-sync" and "visual representation sync". Consider the server being the authority for what counts as a hit or not, so if you're the one who's lagging and trying to hit someone who's trying to run into cover, you might not get any hits if he's actually behind corner on the server, and likewise, if you're the one who's trying to run into cover, you might take damage after you're behind cover on your end as you're lagging behind on the server.

There has also been another video where they've used car surfer to make them desync from their position, and it were possible to shoot at their server-side location on top of the car, aswell as shooting them at their client-side location standing next to the car.

I intended the example to be about hitting a player, as I've not done extensive testing for other things. The difference is that in the first example you could be shooting at something you don't see, and land a hit if the server consider the player to actually be there, while in the other example the player could be completely desynced and you would still hit him by shooting at what you see on your computer, aslong as there's no obstacle in the way between you and his actual location on the server. Both cases are being confirmed by the server in the end, but you can be assured of what you're shooting at on your end will work to land hits on.

There's two ways to hit a target in APB. The first one is if you shoot at a location, and the server registers a player intersecting the line of the shot. You don't have to see him on the client-side and he can be completely desynced for you, but it will still hit if you shoot at his server-side location. The other one is that if you shoot at whatever you see on the client side, the server will draw a line between your actual location, and the location of what you hit on the server, which then register it as a hit if there's no obstacles in the way.

I'd say every item should need refurbishing and 20% tax for trades in the new system as well. Wanting to remove tax is shortsighted and will result in even more inflation than APB is already suffering from. Just consider what happens if you just add more money to the economy without ever detracting anything.

I never thought Fight Club was really suitable for APB, as there's so many other games that provide a better experience for those type of modes, and it felt like it was just thrown in and never balanced afterwards. However, there's plenty of people who have a hard time playing the original action districts for one reason or another, who frequently play Fight Club instead. Hopefully a new improved mode, that would be more along the style of APB, would be a good replacement. Open Conflict districts see no usage at the moment since there's really no purpose to them while everyone is just able to join the silver district instead. But instead of removing them, I'd rather see hard threat lock being reintroduced again, so only golds can join gold district, silvers joining silver districts and so forth, until the moment matchmaking and threat levels can be overhauled properly. Open Conflict would then fill the function of cross-threat grouping. And while we're on the topic of cleaning up among districts and such, green threat should be merged with the bronze threat levels. The green districts are empty, and if players don't know about the advanced tab for district selections, they'll be placed in empty districts without ever seeing any other players, and then lose interest in the game.

This is awesome news that you guys are seriously considering this, and probably one of the most important changes needed for APB. Though, keep in mind of making the transition as seamless as possible, and try to minimize how often a player or group is moved, as to maintain the sense of the world they are in.

This was a Kickstarter pitch from 2013, by a company that couldn't even manage their own ongoing projects. The trailer is mainly default Unreal movement (except for a few seconds of a wall run) or rigged scenes. They couldn't even bother with the sound editing for the video, and never released any actual updates to the Kickstarter page. All the concept art featured were just old APB concepts, so not even that were created for the campaign. Alot of the people who did the higher pledges were Gamersfirst related employees, which was a very shady way to try to make it seem like people would be excited about it. $300.000 is nowhere near enough as a budget for a project of the size they were pitching. Speaking of which, this was their pitch: "APB Vendetta is a character-driven extreme mobility competitive shooter, inspired by the APB: Reloaded universe and built on an entirely new high-agility game system featuring extreme movement mechanics, melee combat, dual wield weapons, character-specific finishing moves, a fighting-game ethos, customizable private servers, modding tools, and the latest version of Unreal Engine 3." As you can see it's just a bunch of hyperbole without any actual substance, letting your own imagination make up what it's actually supposed to mean. If a game like Lawbreakers made their studio go bankrupt, and knowing how the shooter market have changed the last years, could you honestly say that this would have even been a remotely good idea?

Come on guys, we might not agree with the idea, but we should appreciate the effort. No need to belittle him and turn every post into shitposting.

I approve of people coming up with new ideas and being willing to discuss them seriously. Not to mention going through the effort of making illustrations. But I have no idea how to read your image. Difficulty based on specific objective? It doesn't help that some streets have multiple difficulties. Edit: I think I get it. It illustrates areas rather than the streets, though there are some gaps here and there. I'd use this reference for how the map can be improved instead.

This would require to manually tweak the threat multiplier for both mission type and location. This is extensive work for little to no improvement to the system as it is now. I agree threat and matchmaking should be overhauled, but I don't think this is a good way to go about it. Besides missions and objective locations need to be rebalanced as well, so there would be way less "difficulty gap" (read Repo Racers) between them.

Account trading (and real money trading) is against the terms of service, as far as know. Other than that, as already mentioned, the roadmap list a trading system coming in an upcoming patch.

Furious Fighters

I believe that's already planned for it, together with an crosshair change. We'll have to wait until the weapon balance patch for that though.

This is a really good list about issues that have been neglected for too long, together with some QoL-suggestions, and then some important overhauls. Problem is that the list is very unstructured, and incomprehensible for those who haven't been around for long enough to know what certain things mean. A lot of these would even warrant a topic of their own, so it's hard to comment on this thread as a whole. I'd suggest categorizing the issues and add more detailed explanation and examples under each. Know that if all of this would be implemented correctly, it would vastly improve the game.

+1

First of, thanks @CookiePuss and @Nite for taking the time to reply with their thoughts. I like the depth and tactical gameplay of APB, and sure, removing something would give you one less thing to think about (aka dumbing it down), but I really don't think it adds any depth to the game, quite the contrary. You can mostly place the car spawners wherever around an objective without much thought, and still gain a big advantage from them. I also believe that a nerf, integration, or removal of the car spawner would make muffler and radio tower (and consequentially radar jammer) viable options, adding more variation to the game, which would then give plenty of new things to think about. You bring up some very valid points, but the car spawners doesn't really solve these issues, just circumvent them some of the time. This is a much bigger task (but something I've always felt been needed either way), but would you consider nerfing or removing car spawners if the spawning system would be reworked? To illustrate one of the issues I have with car spawners, check this clip below: Kemp seemed to just drive up as close as he could to the objective, which caused his car to be placed at that location. He died and then ran back in time to help his teammate to recapture the point, whereby their team gets wiped. Now because of that car, they have time to spawn 30m from the objective with line of sight to the enemies and are able to prevent them to recapture the point. That single car spawner completely changed the outcome of that match.

Seems like a really good solution

I'd also like to be able to renew the leash, without having to visit the contact.