Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

214 Excellent

About Revoluzzer

  • Rank
    Signature Monkey

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Flak Jacket had to be added when they introduced Low-Yield Frags, because those were problematic, to put it kindly. It's not a good solution to anything, it's a band-aid fix at most. Since grenades are an essential asset, having one taken away from you is an absolute no-no.
  2. The districts aren't large enough for truly fast vehicles. If everyone could zip around at 150-200 km/h, they would feel absolutely tiny. (Current top speed is just above 80 km/h.) As for the handling itself, I think it is fine. The vehicles feel weighty, which I believe is much better than arcade-y driving physics that other games have. Perhaps it's a tad extreme. In contrast, it also makes it a valuable skill to have. A good driver can make a difference in APB. Plus: Had RTW tried to go in the other direction, we might have ended up with Saint's Row vehicles or something like in Ghost Recon Wildlands (Beta). Ugh. I agree with the first two points: The entire progression system needs to be condensed. It's unnecessary fat, which was justifiable when the game was bigger. APB wanted to become more fast paced, more lean. The progression system didn't follow suit. About the third point: (tl;dr: there is a system in place to widen the length a player maintains their threat level. But it can not work if players of similar skill levels are segregated into different districts.) Just removing Gold districts is no solution. Removing threat segregation in general is important, but putting players of similar skill levels in the same districts is the key. They do work on this (and call it phasing, because players will be matched against each other across district-servers and then phase onto the same server), so it's primarily a matter of time. The threat system (I assume you talk about threat here, not rank) is not progressive. You do not "rank up" (or "rank down", for that matter). Every time you play a mission, your performance is evaluated against everyone else in that same mission (based on the score you reached). Following the conclusion, your personal "score" (glicko value) is adjusted. The coloured threat levels are a representation of glicko value ranges. A Gold player can be one measly point "ahead" of a Silver player. But each threat colour spans over several hundred points. So that Gold would be closer to the Silver than most other Golds, in terms of threat evaluation. One major pitfall concerning matchmaking systems is, to assume they'd be linear (i.e. skill only goes up). Rank is linear. The more you play, the more points you collect. Ultimately you reach R255, no matter how good you are. Skill is fluid. The older you get, the harder it becomes to maintain some skills (playing fast past shooters, for example). Not just motor skills, mind you, also time invested. For example: I just don't have the time to play as much as ten years ago; or at all. My account is probably still Gold threat (although it's supposed to degrade over time, if you don't play). If I started playing again, today, my threat would probably go down quite fast. R255 Bronzes can absolutely, legitimately exist. Back to your third point: "Widening the length of time a player maintains their [threat]" is (supposedly) already part of the system. It's a confidence value. When this value is low, your threat changes quite rapidly. This means each mission performance has a large impact on your glicko value (which goes up or down). The reason for this is, that the system searches for the most optimal skill range for each player. Once you start playing with and against people who share a similar skill level, you will reach similar evaluation results in each mission (which is not just your absolute score, but the relation to everyone else's). As this happens, your confidence value increases and your threat is adjusted less with each mission result. This means, you maintain your threat level more easily, because the system is confident it found the right spot for you across the whole range. But if you get matched with wildly different skill levels all the time, the system will have a harder time becoming confident in one value. And that's where threat segregation throws a wrench in the whole machine. As I explained before, a Gold and a Silver threat player can be closer to each other than two players of the same "level" (i.e. colour). But if they are segregated into different districts, they will get matched against each other less likely than two players who are far away from each other. For those edge cases, it's difficult to get a high confidence value and as such, their threat remains floaty. The same principle applies to dethreaters, by the way. They actively (and often unknowingly) keep their confidence value low, allowing their threat to rapidly degrade. Fortunately, it can increase just as quickly. If players were unable to manually select districts (like originally intended) and if districts would dynamically adjust their assigned threat range (as. in part, originally intended*), the entire matchmaking system should work much, much better than it currently can. *Originally servers would spin up dynamically, but have a fixed threat range assigned to them. As players entered and left, the actual threat range of the population would deviate from the assigned one. But more importantly, a few groups of high skill players would remain and drive out those experienced enough to quit the district and try for a different one, but not good enough to compete with those high skill players. Thus leaving only cannon fodder to those few groups. At the time, threat was primarily (or maybe even exclusively) based on mission win-loss-ratio. Win a mission, threat goes up. Lose a mission, threat goes down.
  3. APB must've been a real outlier in skill distribution then, considering the number of N-Tec users. Or the skill required to use the N-Tec at its fullest potential just wasn't that high. But the fullest potential was leaps and bounds better than that of other weapons.
  4. Wild idea: Kevlar turns lethal damage into non-lethal damage and vice versa. No speed penalty, but sprinting consumes stamina. Also no more levels.
  5. So is it a huge issue now or not? Because you make it sound like it isn't, when before you made it sound like it is. This doesn't really matter, because hard and soft damage are not the same. If the tankiest car had 650 health and weapons dealt half as much hard damage as they do now, it would be pretty much the same situation still. As it stands most weapons deal a fraction of their health damage in hard damage. Well I just have to disagree with this. The way I see it it levels the playing field a little. Of course it doesn't address some of the other issues you mentioned (e.g. weight and flip-ability), but this might be more fundamental changes which aren't as easily done. When it comes to vehicles that are available to newbies compared to veterans you always need to remember that there should also be a sense of progression. New players start as bottom feeders in the lowest ranks and work their way up through the organisations. This gives them access to better equipment over time and something to strive for. For what it's worth, I used the Balkan Varzuga regularly even on R195.
  6. On one hand I agree with @Noob_Guardian, if you use a weapon within its intended range you won't have to deal with RNG. Only outside that range it does become a factor. Of course this is usually gradual and there is one perfect spot where a weapon is entirely predictable, while it becomes increasingly less so as you move away from that sweet spot in either direction. And generally speaking all weapons should be 100% predictable when your barrel touches the enemy, because the bullets have no other option but to hit. But due to latency this rarely ever applies. I think the SHAW is a great weapon and needs the amount of RNG to work. Without the heavy recoil it would need a much higher TTK or much lower accuracy, both of which would make the gun less unique. Not every weapon needs to be a competitive headliner. The SHAW is a fun niche weapon which is still perfectly able to compete, albeit less comfortably. The NFA in its current state is bad, but I'll say that I don't think the concept behind it is fundamentally flawed. It is supposed to quickly dispose of enemies as extremely short range and to force it into this range a low base accuracy is necessary. Alternatively one could cripple its effective damage range. But this would turn it into a much more frustrating weapon, because it would allow shots to hit at greater range without dealing any meaningful damage. It would communicate a use-case which it is not supposed to be used in.
  7. Gotta admit I haven't played the apparent current implementation of Territory Control, I'll argue purely based on previous versions of that mode which existed in the game. Territory Control or Domination, as other games would call it, is probably the best mode for Baylan. It encourages players to fight in the actual set-pieces of the map, allowing both long range and short range engagements. Takeouts/Kills or Team Deathmatch, as other games would call it, mostly left the inner part of the map unused, because players would always focus on the spawn areas. This also heavily reduced gameplay variety, because it mostly boiled down to long range engagements or explosives-spam. Now one important change that would, in my opinion, improve Baylan in general would be fixed spawn-sides for each faction. But not North/South based, but instead East/West. As far as I'm concerned the Southern spawn area is superior to the Northern one, as it allows for better access to the inner part of the map - especially on foot. The Northern area can more easily be locked down for spawn-camping. The East and West provide more cover for spawning, especially when nobody can spawn to the North or South. I'll go out on a limb here and say that Baylan is the best Fight Club map. It offers the greatest and most balanced variety of combat ranges and is very easy to digest both visually and mechanically. There are no complicated or incomprehensible routes, but it still offers a couple of shortcuts/trick jumps. Its greatest weakness is poor access (i.e. barely any cover to move) from the spawns to the inner part. The TDM-mode exacerbated this problem, because fighting mostly took place in the spawn area and much less in the actual meat of the map. In comparison, the Asylum is a convoluted, visually confusing house of horror. It does, hands down, have the best atmosphere of all maps in APB. But as far as I'm concerned it also has the least variety in gameplay. It is almost exclusively built around short range engagements. The few areas which allow for medium or long range combat can pretty much all be circled around to still force opponents into CQC. Of course this flexibility in access to various areas is also its biggest strength. I love outmanoeuvring opponents on this map, despite the fact that it usually takes a while to get around an area, because most routes take you on a little detour. The Beacon is too vertical, I think. In some games verticality is great, but in APB it only works well when adding to a good horizontal playing field. Since Beacon has a very small footprint, there is too great a lack of horizontality to make proper use of its vertical features. If the concept of two opposing towers was more fleshed out, it would probably work better. But with their very close proximity to each other it also mostly boils down to short range engagements with the occasional medium range skirmish sprinkled on top. Snipers work better on Beacon than they do in the Asylum, but they don't shine nearly as much as the concept of the map would suggest.
  8. I doubt APB is a game people would check out if there is an entry fee. Even once the engine update gets released it will be that 10 year old game which got shut down 6 months after release, but surprisingly still has not died.
  9. Impressive patch! I wouldn't have expected anything of this scale before the engine update. Sounds good to me. Hopping into a car when you run CQC weapons shouldn't mean you can just bum-rush your opponents all willy-nilly. Missions are hard-coded progressions of various stages. They currently can not change dynamically based on player count (or anything else, really). Once a mission launches the final stage is set in stone, no matter what happens during it. To change this behaviour, a fundamental rewrite of the entire mission system is probably required. The behaviour on the technical side is absolutely intended, the code does exactly what it was written to do. The result can, however, be unwanted. So strictly speaking it's not a bug that can be fixed, it's an issue that needs to be addressed.
  10. It's impressive it lasted this long. I'm curious how it will fare once the engine upgrade has gone live.
  11. FWIW the SNR 850 should be 3 shots to kill without any nerf, as it was originally. The damage-nerf back in the day was completely uncalled for.
  12. If you remove it, would the next fastest TTK become game breaking?
  13. So only when somebody is cheating it becomes an issue. I don't think it's the weapon combo, then.
  14. Lowering the min TTK of assault rifles below 0.75s is putting the cart before the horse. The N-Tec was so strong at close range because it competed with dedicated CQC weapons on a purely mechanical level, i.e. min TTK. The STAR did not, because it was by design slower. The same should have been applied to the N-Tec before doing the whole monkey dance with the curve mechanics and whatnot. In general it was a wrong move to introduce more assault rifles with a TTK below 0.75s after they added the ATAC. This one was specifically designed to act as a close range AR with a heavy emphasis on aiming down sights at all times, while still not being a noteworthy threat beyond 40m. And it was one of the most balanced weapons at its time of introduction. I still can not comprehend why they felt like it needed changing. APB as a whole would probably benefit from nerfs across the board. The district maps were designed with a slower TTK in mind and gameplay suffers as a result of the current state. When a mid range weapon can kill at short range as fast as a dedicated short range weapon can. Which the N-Tec could, as explained above.
  • Create New...