Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

174 Excellent

About Revoluzzer

  • Rank
    Signature Monkey

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. You remember correctly. However this might have been patched in the meantime. And some missions feature somewhat unique objectives (radio towers, for example), which simply only exist in a few spots. Also "dummy"-objectives which, I guess, were supposed to be randomly assigned, but just so happen to always be assigned the same letter. I think a more interesting twist on the system would be tug-of-war mechanics for missions, which could dissolve into a classic finale if certain conditions are not met within a certain timeframe. The current system is just too predictable after a while.
  2. Boils down to how short a round is. If the hunt only lasts for a few minutes you can probably fortify to the top floor against the nutcrackers.
  3. In matchmaking 3 mediocre Golds are very close to 4 high Silvers, but 4 high Golds are very far away from 4 low Golds.
  4. The difference between a Bronze bordering Green and a Bronze bordering Silver is just as massive as between an average Silver and average Gold. That's why threat segregation as a concept doesn't work to begin with. You will always have to deal with edge cases that don't fit into the system; but with threat segregation you introduce yet another hurdle for the matchmaking system which wouldn't exist otherwise.
  5. If they want the N-Tec to be a mid-range weapon it may very well be a tap fire laser. As long as it doesn't routinely kill faster than other mid-range weapons and also doesn't kill as fast as CQC weapons at full-auto. Technically the STAR was supposed to be for longer range, while the N-Tec was supposed to be for shorter range. That's why the N-Tec has a lower TTK. But sometime during development someone decided that apparently the N-Tec should be both, while the STAR should somewhat be neither (that's when the STAR was still working similar to what the LCR is now, but with much less range and accuracy). When Gamersfirst took over they had the chance to fix this issue, but for some reason they only turned the STAR into a slightly weaker version of what we have today and kept the N-Tec as it was.
  6. Are you now working on a world consolidation based on the "loan"-model, or is that an interim solution?
  7. Dethreating is the issue as it causes ripple effects. The player who dethreats will also inflate another players threat artificially. And those players carry these incorrect values into their next match, where it affects their next opponent. Of course its not the exclusive cause for all threat-related matchmaking issues APB has, but it certainly adds to it. Especially with a small population, where those ripples can easily affect the majority of all players. Also segregation by thread and visible threat colours are the root causes for dethreating, as far as I'm concerned. Segregation can not work, because for players right at the edge there is no good spot. If you are close to the expectations set by the threat-system for your current match, the amount by which your threat moves might be minuscule, though.
  8. There is a mathematical, mechanical benefit. It doesn't really matter if you don't notice it, it still exists on a technical level. It's not as palpable as aiming down sights and confirming that the FOV has, in fact, decreased drastically, of course. For someone comfortable with hipfiring, that extra bit of consistency goes a long way. We've already established we're talking high level gameplay here. People have long broken those habits. Not quite Shroud levels of routine, but similar.
  9. I don't recall them ever stating this in conjunction with Settle the Score; except maybe as in "we're no longer looking at your past 50 matches to determine threat". Of course I might be wrong, I'm not infallible. All my information is based of everything we were supplied with through blog posts and forum discussions. Given that I spent an insane amount of time on the APB forums back then I feel like I have had a very complex grasp on that information. But from my memory the idea of Settle the Score was to make threat more accurate and the computation more complex than the original system (RTW) or looking at past matches (before scores). Confidence is built essentially the same way as threat. If you meet expectations your CV increases, if you are far off base it decreases. There is no duration (re: "Over how long is that CV based?"), it is based on your performance and is just as stable as your personal performance. All it does is harden your actual threat level (glicko value) against fluctuation caused by momentary spikes in performance (both positive and negative). If those spikes are the norm (because you are new or actively manipulating your mission score result) the CV stays low and your threat becomes (more) mobile. Time isn't necessary in this scenario. [i}]However speaking of time-based[/i] there is supposedly a time-based mechanic for gradually decreasing your threat if you do not actively play the game. This was never explained in depth and only thrown in as an offhand remark. My threat level has not visibly changed while I didn't play the game for two years (I think) at all and only sporadically (and mainly in Fight Club) more recently, so that system might not actually work. Or my threat level was fairly well settled. That was handled piss-poor, because they never introduced a system to dynamically keep these desired ranges in place. Or in other words: Twice they manually adjusted threat ranges to create those values artificially and twice they went wildly out of place again within a week. The threat system only calculates individual threat, it doesn't look at the whole population. This caused a general uptick in threat over time as new players would enter the matchmaking system, get beaten by more experienced players, then quit. The more experienced players would gain a bit of threat, get beaten by even more experienced ones who would gain threat off of that and so forth. Pretty sure @MattScott mentioned they plan to - finally - introduce a dynamic threat range in the future, so this issue should hopefully be a thing of the past as well then.
  10. You are trying to invalidate a factual, mechanical advantage with a psychological technique. From a gameplay perspective the argument makes sense, but it doesn't change the fact that RS3 is a good pick on the OSCAR. Since we're basically talking high skill gameplay here I've got to shoot your argument down here. Skilled players won't care if only your head pokes out of cover, because they know your hitbox is exposed all the way to the ground. They will still target center mass. Does your technique work against the average player? Certainly. But so does hipfire and sprinting in and out of cover. For every engagement that does not allow you to ADS-lean the RS3 user will be at a mechanical advantage. I don't think it was ever proven that client side bullet holes are wildly inaccurate. They do not represent where the server will confirm your hit, but they still follow the mechanics of the gun (unless you tamper with them client-side). For the sake of testing a gun by shooting at a wall they should be perfectly fine.
  11. The purple pumpkin hunt was one of my favourite events in APB. Will red pumpkins follow the same ruleset? The low number makes me curious how difficult it will be to find them. With the purple ones it only took a little understanding of the mechanics to estimate the next pumpkin's location to a fairly accurate degree.
  12. Bloom is a perfectly fine mechanic to limit a weapon's effective range. If the bloom affects your ability to hit an opponent reliably it means you are outside your weapon's effective range. If the bloom affects your ability to kill an opponent quickly enough it means you are outside your weapon's effective range. In combination with all other mechanics that are used in APB (and other shooters, of course) it also enables a much larger variety in weapons.
  13. The baseline for 'confidence' is 0. That's when your threat is 100% volatile. There are only two types of players who will have a CV of 0 - new ones and dethreaters. For most other players the CV will probably hover in a "medium" position (assuming it goes from 0 to 1 that would mean ~0.5 for most players). Some players who perform very consistently will be close to the max value. How does the system know when your threat has to change from one colour to another? Simple, that's based on your glicko value. A range of values corresponds to a colour. A subset of values corresponds to a threat level within that colour (e.g. Silver 7). Since glicko works with fairly high numbers (afaik in the four digit range) I assume each threat level is composed of a relatively large range of glicko values (easily double digits). Now here's why I don't think the system needs to look at your past X matches' performance: To calculate threat you need only two ingredients: 1) The current threat level of everyone in the match, which defines the expected performance of everyone in the match; 2) the actual performance of every player in the match at the end. Did they meet their expectation? Keep their threat at the same level (rather unlikely to happen; at least some minimal movement is expected to happen at all times). Did they fail to meet their expectation? Adjust their threat accordingly. Why do we need a confidence value at all then? It acts as a stop-gap to reduce threat volatility and the constant change in threat levels (now hidden, of course) which would come with it. Why do we need this stop-gap? Because otherwise players would regularly have their threat-level change in unexpected ways (e.g. lose, but have it raised), which causes confusion and oftentimes anger. With the CV in effect minor spikes in performance (both up- and downwards) will be much less relevant and keep the system more stable and accurate. At no point is it required to look back at your past performance, because your current threat level / glicko value already represents how you performed in the past. That's how it got to where it is.
  14. I don't think it really matters what the random bloom is caused by; it shouldn't exist in the first place. It's not a mechanic any player would expect from the gun and it was better off without it. It was a terrible addition in an attempt to fix the N-Tec.
  15. Since we're on the topic whether most weapons can stun at all, I think stamina damage should be used more on some weapons to disable an opponents ability to sprint. Once your stamina goes below a certain threshold you can not sprint anymore. I think weapons like the SG-21 'Strife' should use mechanics like these to make them more interesting (i.e. does loads of health and stamina damage; kills slowly, but you can not run away).
  • Create New...