Jump to content

Revoluzzer

Members
  • Content Count

    18834
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

236 Excellent

About Revoluzzer

  • Rank
    Signature Monkey

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Two factions with two distinct groups in each. Two districts split up between two of each groups. It's a perfect setup and seems very much planned to head in the exact direction of turf wars. I'd assume the only reason nothing ever came of it were engine limitations.
  2. On paper, APB is the perfect game for NFTs. If they can secure some investor money and run with it, fine. If they buy into the whole thing, though ...
  3. If the core gameplay-loop is decent, players will stick to a game. APB does has (or had) some decent gunplay-mechanics, good movement/mobility and a serviceable progression system. It's generally fun to play. The customisation system also gave creative minds a great entry-point. But as far as I'm concerned, the whole mission design and matchmaking-ordeal is far from ideal and thus not a good gameplay-loop. Too much downtime between missions, too much downtime within missions. So it's not just a lack of development that will kill APB eventually (or fail to revive it, really). It will also be a lack of vision. More of the same won't cut it. If LO do, at some point, deliver on both, they can pull this horse out of the swamp.
  4. Bloom allows for more variety in weapon design, as ColorBauss correctly pointed out. With bloom you can define a range in which a weapon is comfortable. You can either give it the ability to operate outside that range (low bloom per shot and/or high bloom recovery), or restrict it from functioning efficiently beyond a certain point (high bloom per shot and/or low bloom recovery). What you vilify as "rng" is really just operating outside the comfort zone of a weapon. It doesn't hit reliably then, because it's not supposed to. But it still gives you the option to take a chance, yet not without risk. The early STAR 556 and N-Tec 5 were great concepts for this, albeit terribly executed. One was supposed to perform well under sustained fire, but struggle at precise shots. The other should be able to reach out further, but struggle with actual long range encounters. At the end of the day the N-Tec 5 did everything the STAR could, but better. Why? Because the N-Tec was able to kill faster (i.e. had the upper hand at close range, where bloom does not matter), had a higher base accuracy (i.e. had the upper hand at long distance combat) and recovered bloom faster (i.e. could stay closer to its ideal TTK at medium range). The STAR, on the other hand, had a very limited window of distance, in which it was comfortable to use. Now, had their damage and rate-of-fire values been reversed, they'd have made a great pair. The STAR would have had the upper hand at close to medium range, the N-Tec at medium to long range. But at the far end of it's comfort zone the N-Tec would not have been able to out-pace marksman rifles. From a purely visual standpoint I'd have had the N-Tec be dominant at close to medium, and the STAR from medium to long range. But that's less important. Without bloom, however? You'd have a hard time creating two distinguishable weapons from this very similar set of characteristics. The original ATAC was a great addon to this concept, by the way. With very low base accuracy, but hardly any bloom it was perfectly comfortable at close to medium range, but mostly useless beyond that point. Yet with the necessity to use it in marksman-mode, it was still discernible from proper SMGs. It's also why the 'Watchman'-preset was such a useless pile of junk. It tried to turn the ATAC into a medium to long range weapon, turning the very concept on its head.
  5. Who is we? I remember gathering in front of what is now the Breakwater Marina building. Although that might've been at the end of beta... https://i.imgur.com/X0El1CE.jpg https://i.imgur.com/gWc5t6B.jpg
  6. "...we can continue to try and get APB where I want it." I think you're still taking the wrong approach, continuing work on Frankenstein's Monster. Better get a fresh body and start from scratch. "I feel like there are more unknowns around the corner that could block our efforts again." Narrator: There would be. "Q1 2014" was a meme on an already postponed engine upgrade launch, iirc. So the whole ordeal started in Q3 or Q4 of 2013 most likely. Then again, it doesn't really matter.
  7. The game originally had a mission prompt which showed your opponents threat levels and you could decide whether to take the assignment or not. (This screenshot is from April, 2010.) It was not a good system, because naturally most players wouldn't go into missions against "better" opponents and matchmaking suffered thus. People need to get the notion out of their head that every match is supposed to be entirely fair. That's simply not possible. And you'll only grow if you face better opponents. Not curb-stomp annihilation type opponents, of course. But being Silver doesn't mean Gold opponents are by definition impossible to beat. The way the threat system works, a Silver and Gold player can be closer in skill than two Silvers or two Golds, when the Silver is at the peak and the Gold is at the very bottom of their respective colour-range. Taking away some information from players would be beneficial to their mental state, because the information might be misleading. Such as threat colours. Or rank. Disregarding the topic of this thread, I like the idea for the sake of novelty. Replace names with Enforcer/Criminal symbols and player outfits gain some significance. Also short names wouldn't provide a miniscule advantage over long names anymore.
  8. I think instead of disabling threat-segregation they should've gone the proper no-threat-districts and thus hiding threat levels altogether. This whole debate would possibly be much less heated if players wouldn't throw in the towel the moment they saw a higher threat colour than their own on the scoreboard.
  9. The game shouldn't allow anything but 2v2, 3v3 or 4v4 and their uneven variants (e.g. 2v3). Mission design is built around those numbers. Anything bigger and the defending team will gain a major advantage (unless the attacking team outclasses them by far). A pre-made group will always win against a random team, unless the latter is far better at the game. A pre-made group will therefore also routinely end up in a higher threat bracket, which ideally results in them fighting other pre-mades rather than randoms. Of course, this will only work when people can't game the system so much. Has been done in the past, doesn't work. You'd have the current situation, but everyone's threat would wildly fluctuate for a while, before settling down back to where it currently is. The problem isn't how threat is caluclated, the problem is how players try to game the system. If you want to tackle that issue, you need to take away their ability to do so, for example by removing manual district selection. There need to be weapons which are easy to use, but not very powerful (low skill floor, low skill ceiling), weapons which require some understanding of game mechanics and can deliver a punch (low skill floor, high skill ceiling) and weapons which require fundamental skills at the game and can turn the tides of a mission (high skill floor, high skill ceiling). But ALL of these weapons need to be balanced against each other, otherwise you end up with some garbage nobody needs after a few hours and the hot stuff everyone uses once they got comfortable with the game. APB had a good foundation with their original gun setup, but lacked some variety. The introduction of recoil allowed for more variety and made guns not only look and sound, but also feel different. The (poor) implementation of alternative models for guns added some visual variety, without the necessity to disrupt gun balance too much (which they did anyway, tough luck). Here's what I find a good example: The ALIG, when first introduced, allowed players to rapidly shred vehicles to bits, which could heavily influence the way a mission would play out. It was still very good at fighting human targets, provided the user had good understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of his weapon and kept within the ALIG's comfort zone. A more novice player would lack the fundamentals of how to fight human targets and only use the ALIG's strength of destroying cars. Another more experienced player would also understand how to counter an ALIG user outside of his comfort zone, by picking an appropriate weapon and an appropriate path of attack. (Normally half the population used the N-Tec anyway and thus had a perfectly capable counter-weapon already at hand, even within the ALIG's comfort zone. In a more balanced situation assault rifles would've been viable, but CQC weapons would've been far more capable.)
  10. Game-tick as in what your client does? Because, correct me if I'm wrong, a macro will talk to the server through your client. If that doesn't run smooth, neither will the bot. And since the gun you're using has a defined rate of fire, you would want the bot to hit that ROF rather than send a trigger-pull every tick. Otherwise you'll run out of sync and miss every couple trigger-pulls (e.g. every 5th one for the N-Tec 5, if your client runs at 60 fps and your server at 30). If I fire as fast as I can ingame, the gun will not fire smoothly either, because I'll inadvertently pull the trigger before the gun will be ready to fire again, which makes me miss one shot until the next game-tick.
  11. 9 out of 10 players: "Matchmaking doesn't work, unless I win!" 1 out of 10 players: "I think these following improvements could alleviate some issues with the matchmaking:" The matchmaking-system in APB isn't very complex anyway. It looks at all currently available players in the district and figures out, who'd be a good match based on their (combined) threat levels. It starts off with a very narrow goal and slowly widens its search radius, if no applicable opponents are available. The threat-calculation-system is, as far as I'm concerned, pretty smart and should do a good enough job. Unless it doesn't actually work the way it has been described by the devs. It would, of course, do a better job with a bigger pool of available matches. Now here are some real issues with matchmaking: Allowing players to be in an Action District, but not be available for missions (Ready-Up feature). Allowing players to manually join a district of their choosing, rather than putting them in one designated for their threat level (this reaches back all the way to the original beta in 2009). Allowing players to see threat levels. (If you can't see your own, it's more difficult to manipulate. If you can't see anyone else's, you have to play against them to judge how good they might be). A pool of 10 full teams per side isn't so bad, if at least some of them are available for matchups and all of them are roughly in the same threat range. But with everyone being able to mix and mingle all the way across three "colours" and many of them possibly idle in the district, it becomes tough as nails.
  12. That's kind of the point of team based multiplayer games. Since APB is fairly old-school in this regard, too, it is almost mandatory. You can learn to play an instrument and stay in rhythm while performing complex melodies. Tapping a mouse-button is child's play in comparison. What your client sees and what actually happens are two different things, anyway. So if you think someone "shoots faster than the weapon can" (which is mechanically impossible) or "always perfectly times their shots" it is, more often than not, your perception and your client's presentation playing tricks on you.
  13. I'm not holding my breath, but I do hope you will succeed.
  14. None of those three "features" is dependent on an old engine, though.
  15. It remains to be seen if pushing through with the engine update will be quicker than rebuilding APB from scratch, even if they would start with the latter today. And how much they can really do with that upgraded game, compared to a proper new setup. A major benefit I see for a complete rebuild is that all the conceptual groundwork has already been laid out. All the "how could this work?" and "how should that look like?" questions don't have to be asked any more - unless they want to improve certain aspects of the game. And they could probably trim a lot of the fat along the way. As it stands, they are upgrading a minimal viable product of 2006 to a minimal viable product of 2014-ish. In 2021. With UE5 around the corner. And since they port everything, they have to put a lot of work into getting stuff to run that they might not even want to use in the future. Is the way APB handles character customisation even feasible in this day and age? Fifteen years ago it was a spectacular novelty. Today it is a run-of-the-mill feature that has been drastically optimised. Heck, UE probably ships with some module for out-of-the-box support. And that's just the obvious tip of the ice berg. APB has a day-night-cycle. Uncommon back then, absolutely nothing special today. A small-scale open world? Realtime Worlds had to hack together a solution in their version of UE to get this to work. As far as I'm aware their districts are, technically, composed of "rooms" stitched together at invisible walls, because that's how UE's logic worked at the time. Today the size of these maps is child's play for any modern engine.
×
×
  • Create New...