Jump to content
Forum rules

Dopefish

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    3991

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dopefish

  2. Posted

    On 6/1/2018 at 11:52 AM, Dopefish said:

    Just the fact that a single mobile spawner gives an advantage to the teams using it, should say enough about the mod. The reason why entire teams are using it, is in case one of them would be destroyed or blocked, they still have the others to rely on. It also takes considerably more time, effort and resources to take out more than one car spawner, which is time not being spent on the actual mission, while also giving away your position as you go through each car spawner. During this time, the enemies can easily just spawn a new car and place it somewhere else instead.

     

    If you're not running concussion grenades, satchel charges and anti-vehicle weapons, you might not even be able to destroy the vehicles in a timely matter.

     

    As someone already mentioned in this thread, a mobile spawner on an overpass let's long range players repeatedly spawn there, until the opposing team actively moves away from the objective to remove that mobile spawner. Something else that's already mentioned is that mobile spawners let's you literally respawn next to the objective, and I don't I need to explain how broken that is. If one team are using mobile spawners, and the other team aren't, the team without will be at a severe disadvantage, and that's not a matter of being able to use other mods to balance it out.

     

    Other than when the mod was new, I've not seen a single person using radar tower for the last few years. Not a single one. I think the mod is really great, it's just that people use mobile spawner instead, which is another reason why that one needs changing, so that we can get more variety to the game. The mobile radar tower is beneficial for sure, but unlike remote detonator, it doesn't instantly kill the enemies without being able to do anything against it.

     

    If mobile spawner would no longer be the dominant choice, then radar tower would become more prevalent, and so would radar jammer as a result.

     

    EDIT:
    Muffler would also become a viable choice. So changing mobile spawn point would make atleast three other mods more viable. That by itself should be reason enough to change it.

    The devs themselves knew how broken the mod was, and is the only reason that it didn't have rank 195 requirements like everything else that was introduced at the same time.

  4. Posted · Edited by Dopefish

    54 minutes ago, WingedArc said:

    More things were said.

    I believe it takes about 330h to reach rank 255 with premium (much less for rank 195), so by then you should have had enough time to figure out which one to go for, but it might be more of an inconvenience (cause frustration) rather than an good incentive for creating multiple characters. I believe RTW used to level the contacts sub-faction when you pledged to a maxed out contact, or to someone that was in the other district, so maybe something similar but only for the final contacts?

     

    So your choice of sub-faction is based on who you pledge to after you've already maxed out all other contacts?

  5. Posted · Edited by Dopefish

    13 minutes ago, Freewind said:

    If you were to allow the veteran players to keep their stock, the newer players would have every right to call APB pay to win due to the fact that the older players now have a massive advantage over anyone new due to the lack of mods. New players will have a massive turnover rate due to being stomped all over by veterans with modded weapons.

    I think that's more a matter of balancing of how many mod slot items you'd unlock through progression. Other than that, this would only affect mid-level game (and endgame to a degree) while there would be no difference for a new player from what we have today.

     

    It puts a higher importance on what you choose to have additional slots in, instead of everything being a 3-slot at the endgame.

     

    Of course pricing and similar would be adjusted to accommodate these changes.

     

    EDIT:

    Besides, if weapon mods determined who would win or not, we'd have a bigger issue on our hands.

     

    Also, think of how nice it would be to simply add slots to your existing car, instead of having to redo the customization every time.

  6. Posted

    On 6/14/2018 at 10:23 PM, VickyFox said:

    Do you really think that these historic guns are fitting with the themes of the war on the streets of San Paro?

    For legendary JMBs and as part of a pack exclusively It is ok in moderation but I feel this list is a bit much.

    I agree with these sentiments, and I think APB needs a more sensible and logical approach to what it implements in the future, so we don't lose the sense of it being an actual place (aka immersion).

  7. Posted

    2 hours ago, WingedArc said:

    Both G-king vs Bloodrose and Praetorians vs Prentiss Tigers are lore friendly as long as we could pick our sub-faction as both sub-factions hate each other.

     

    Honestly I would love to see this!

    Alright, then it should be more of a question about when it should be possible to face opponents of the same faction.

     

    I don't think it should be possible from the start as to keep the factions distinct from each others, and it doesn't make sense to me that rookies would have internal power struggles.

     

    If it would be possible after a certain rank, it would still require that you pledged to one of the sub-factions to make sense lore wise. Should you be locked to this choice or would you be able to change freely after a certain point?

     

    Do you pledge to a faction and level up its standing as a unique role that becomes available after R195?

     

    Alternatively, you could be forced to pick between the sub-factions to unlock their end game contacts, and the other ones would become permanently unavailable for that character.

     

    The last suggestion could promote leveling up a new character of the same faction, so you could unlock everything with a lot of dedication.

  8. Posted

    42 minutes ago, CookiePuss said:

    I think Im sort of split on changes to APB.

    Oh the one hand, I love the game as it is.

    On the other, I recognize that without changing APB will never be more popular than it already is.

    I think more people feel the same way you do. It seems alot of players have become very conservative about the game the last couple of years, and it might because of how patches in the past have either broken something or made the game worse, aswell as the game was on the brink of death just a month ago. Since I'm not actively playing the game in its current state, I might be way more open for testing new things as I don't really have any stakes if it turns out badly for a week or two.

  9. Posted

    33 minutes ago, CookiePuss said:

    To be fair, I also said this:

    Leave it, fix it, I wouldnt mind either tbh  

    Fair enough 🙂

     

    It's mainly the item hold or your drop/their drop-missions that are negatively affected by it at the moment, so if those would be changed, I'd be fine if they made it so you'd be sprinting with the item to speed up gameplay in general. It's mainly bad when it's clearly meant to slow you down, and then circumvented by a bug that was introduced by one of their older patches. The same bugs also allowed for jump kicking doors, which are a big improvement for the game instead, so it's hard to draw a clear line for what's considered an exploit.

    • Like 1

  10. Posted

    5 hours ago, CookiePuss said:

    Hasnt it been around for years though?

    Im sure you dont think G1 was ignorant of this fact, and yet they left it.

    Come on, not even yourself would believe this argument?

     

    4 hours ago, Genobee said:

    Currently being caught out in the open for even a brief moment at slower then normal speed is enough to result in you dying a horrible death.

    This is true, and is the main concern I would have with reintroducing the pickup animation that would prevent this. I'd rather see it being fixed from the other end, whereby dropping an item would give you 500ms delay to pick it up again.

     

    Item hold or your drop/their drop-missions are dependent on the slower walk speed to allow enemies to catchup up to you.

     

    This exploit were originally introduced to the game when G1 enabled you to interact while in midair (a good change with lots of unintended consequences, such as jump arresting).

    • Like 1

  13. Posted

    The system was heavily abused in the past, where already existing APB players would re-roll and play with others for the sake of the rewards. I don't think it actually brought enough players to be worth.

     

    However, I think all weapons should be able to be unlocked in game (except legendaries maybe, but those could be on the marketplace), and purchased from Armas.

    • Like 1

  14. Posted

    4 hours ago, FaleFly said:

    If i'm not wrong, Tracers end up causing a lot of lag on the current engine, which is why it was removed forever ago.

    Tracers didn't have any noticeable performance hit, and were just accidentally broken when G1 attempted to update their VFX system. There were more issues at the time, but those got fixed unlike the tracers. No idea why they never bothered, as it should be just a ribbon material and shouldn't take more than a day to recreate. All the code is already there.

  15. Posted

    3 hours ago, SandyBitch said:

    I cant agree on that tbh, imagine, if all mods getting removed from guns and cars and what not, after you have paid hundrets if not thousends of dollars / euros and now you have to pay another loads of money to make everything as it used to be.

     

    Thanks but no thanks, thats literally p2w tbh

    My apologies as I was a bit unclear, as I only meant that things available on Armas (and things you'd unlock through progression in the game) would come without mods or mod slots. My intention wasn't that your existing gear would get all of their mods removed, but it does rise the question what to do about items that was acquired prior to this change? Keep them as they are so that you're sitting on a stock on valuable assets (as a reward for veteran players), or that those would become the only items that could't be traded?

     

    I mentioned that these mod slot unlocks would also be available through Armas, and I meant that you'd normally be unlocking those through normal progression in the game, albeit to a limited number. This would make you consider what you'd spend them on, and could be a valuable item to trade on the marketplace, similar to how RTW only allowed for a very limited number of three-slot weapons to be unlocked from maxing out all the contacts.

     

    The purpose of this would be to make an healthier economy with providing additional money sinks, aswell as making 1-slot and 2-slot weapons valuable.

  16. Posted

    46 minutes ago, illgot said:

    If Armas weapons were base weapons (OCA, PMG, OBIR, etc), then you purchase skins and models for the weapons, I would be more apt to make more purchases for new models.  As it is I have the original model of most weapons but won't repurchase the weapon again just for another model (especially since all the weapons I purchase are account wide).

     

    The current way they sell weapons and allow players to claim weapons (mail) seems inefficient.

    I think Armas and the marketplace would need an overhaul for how APB is being monetized. I think only selling base weapons would be good, together with removing all mod slots for weapons and vehicles, and instead introduce hard to get mod slot unlocks that can also be sold on Armas.

     

    I'd like to see everything being tradeable on the marketplace, including options for G1C usage on the market. So I don't think you should be able to buy weapons from contacts and each weapon is unique instead. Marketplace tax would still apply, and each item would need to be refurbished before selling.

     

    This will need a bigger topic to discuss though, and need much more consideration for how it would actually affect the economy of APB.

  18. Posted

    Several suggestions in one topic :) would be nice to be able to customize your characters personality, but it would require a lot of work to make all those animations, and I'd consider that pretty low priority for now.

     

    Perhaps new emotes being sold through Armas? Different dances seems like a big thing for Fortnite for example.

     

    New hairstyles is something I'd really think the game would need, as they'd be much simpler to add as well. Down the line it would be nice with better hair customization, similar to Black Desert Online.

     

    Motorcycles have been suggested since the origin of APB. Would also require a lot of work, not to mention discussing how they're supposed to work.

     

    The loading time for APB is ridiculous, but I think we'd have to wait for the engine overhaul for that. Matt have mentioned that he like the original APB login screen, and I think it would severely help not having to load in several scenes before starting the game.

    • Like 2

  20. Posted

    It's not an overwhelming lead (but there is one) for people who would like some changes for either remote detonator or car spawner, but there's definitely enough to justify more discussion. I also suspect that some people vote for no changes to be made due to worries that any other vote would result in their removal instead of just changing them.

     

    Do their existence in the game make it an overall better experience for the playerbase, or would their removal be an improvement?

    If they would be tweaked, what changes would you like to be made for them?

  21. Posted

    At this point in time I think it might be better to merge Nekrova with Citadel, and provide some G1C or Joker tickets in exchange for the Nekrova exclusive items. Do Nekrova even have their own server location, or do they just share it with Citadel anyway?

    • Like 1

  22. Posted

    I'd like to see a proper trading system being implemented, and the marketplace being overhauled. Trading between your own characters shouldn't have any penalties, but trading with other players would require you to refurbish your item, and the market tax to be applied to the trade. I'd like to see everything become trade:able, and even allow for using G1C on the marketplace (with the tax being applied to each transaction). This would require a much bigger discussion though and consider how those changes would affect the economy of the game.

  23. Posted

    On 6/11/2018 at 6:44 PM, Gizzly said:

    Locking districts to 1 threath has been done in the past and It almost killed the game.

    The reason why the gold districts are empty nowadays are because of the stigma caused by threat locking only the gold districts, so it felt like a punishment to become a gold and then be locked away in a district when it didn't apply to anyone else. Open Conflict didn't exist back then either, so hard locking threat levels today would be a completely different matter, especially if it applied to everyone and not just golds. Besides, it would force dethreaters to work alot harder to be able to enter the bronze district.

     

    Once in the actual districts, there shouldn't be the hidden MMR trying to affect the matchups, and only focus on even number of players instead. 40 vs 40 is too small of a number to provide good matchmaking if there's further restrictions applied beyond the threat restriction. Variation is better than forcing the same teams to fight each others over and over, if the current system would even acknowledge people as viable opponents.

     

    On 6/11/2018 at 6:47 PM, LUST said:

    Turn every district into open conflict while they gather data to better the system.

    This is probably the easiest and quickest change they could make to vastly improve the current situation, until they have time to develop a replacement system. Only tweak needed is to make the system attempt getting 4 vs 4 matches (none of that 1 vs 1 without being able to call backup, or 1 vs 4 scenarios).

     

    There were no threat restrictions to districts in RTW or early G1 and it seemed to work out alot better than how it is now, aswell as it seems to functioning well for consoles.

     

    15 hours ago, Hyenard said:

    as a gold, i want to go to the bronze area to talk to and help out lower rank and newer players. i dont think i should be able to fight there. god no. but i like giving away things to new players and such. so i want access to that district but in a list seperate from people who can actually do missions that way im not taking up slots.

    It's an admirable sentiment, but your stance on this is quite unique, and would be better applied as a GM volunteer (similar to SPCM was in the past).

     

     

    Another big issues with all of this is something I touched upon earlier with the MMR and threat level distribution. The current system isn't evenly divided and updating based on the active playerbase, so a low threat green, or a high gold will have a fraction of the possible matchups as a silver player would. I don't have an up to date view of the district distributions, but as far as I know there didn't use to be enough players to fill the green districts, and it would be better to remove that threat level and make them bronze instead, and then divide threats based on equal amount of possible matchups.

     

    The game needs less segregation, not more of it.

  24. Posted

    I'm not entirely convinced we should even keep consumables, but this is a really good suggestion if we do. It can be used to more safely open doors, or feinting the enemies with a delayed door opening as you approach from a separate direction.

  25. Posted

    I think this is more related to having active GMs and proper reporting system, rather than disabling parts of the mechanics that make APB unique. And no, I don't mean trolling, but rather that you're in a world together with other players, and not closed off in your own instance for each mission.

×
×
  • Create New...