Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Revoluzzer

  1. That is news to me, indeed. Beyond the introduction of the score system, the only "shifts" I remember G1 applying to threat was moving everyone down a couple notches to improve the situation, primarily because the community felt like too many people were moving towards Gold. That didn't work out because the threat system did self-correct. So they did it again a year or so later. And then, iirc, a third time just before LO took over.
  2. If there truly is a mechanism/flaw which pushes players into Gold threat despite a lack of skill (which I have not seen any explanation for yet), then tweaking matchmaking won't solve it. The only explanation I could see for it is this: New players will jump in, inflate the threat of slightly more experienced players, then give up if they can't get a foot in the door. In my opinion the threat system should already be self-healing, though. If it isn't, then I assume it's because the inactive population is still taken into account when it shouldn't be. Only taking the active current population into account (say actively playing a mission within the last 30 days or so) should solve that particular issue. And with the elimination of threat-based districts, they wouldn't even need to adjust their threat-preference dynamically based on their population.
  3. Besides throwing more people into the pool (which is a good thing when it comes to matchmaking), it will also increase the difficulty of gaming the system. Dethreating and hiding in Bronze districts for easy matches won't work anymore. Of course the next logical step would and should be to remove visible threat altogether. From the sound of it, they will consolidate all players into a single pool. The regions will be represented by physical servers, but those can be spread finer (e.g NA-East, NA-West districts, both in the NA region). Everyone can play in all regions (on all servers), no matter which region the character originates from. So I could take my EU-region character and play on a NA-East server. A player from the NA-region could have the same name as I, so I'd have the appendix @EU while I play in the NA-region. With cross-district-matchmaking, it wouldn't really matter which district you get put into. Your next mission might not even take place in the current one. So why not have everyone play on the same servers? Even if one group might be significantly smaller, they'd feel like they play a well populated game. Which performance-critical activities happen in social district? Aren't they already much less performant because the number of heavily customised avatars is much higher?
  4. Daily rewards aren't for veterans or people who play on the regular anyway. They're incentives for people who otherwise wouldn't, so players like you have someone to play with/against.
  5. If someone would pay me for this, I might take them up on the offer. Until then, it's just a fun exercise and pretty exclusive to APB, because I spent so much time with it in the past. Definitely agree. APB heavily punishes risky manoeuvrers at the moment. Hard disagree on the "buff other rifles" part. The same argument was made in the past and the same approach also lead to overall TTK getting lower over time. The N-Tec, imo, needed on simple change: A minimum TTK of 0.75 seconds to bring it into the same range as the STAR. It doesn't sound like a massive change, but it directly tackles the core issue of having the N-Tec kill as fast as dedicated CQC weapons in CQC, faster than other assault rifles at medium range and at times even going toe-to-toe with the Obeya CR within it's own territory. I wouldn't increase the required shots to kill across the board, but at least put all guns in a narrower kills per mag range. The N-Tec has 5 potential kills per mag, while the Joker SR has only 3. This might make sense if the Joker would reload much faster than the N-Tec, but it doesn't. Definitely agree on this. APB didn't need more weapons, it had a good roster. I don't mind different skins for the same weapon, but they should be selectable like the texture-skins.
  6. APB is hardly a competitive shooter, there are way too many random factors regarding everything to allow such a label. Doesn't make any of the curve mechanics more fun, though. Quite the contrary. Missions will play out differently for sure. At the moment wiping out the enemy team is practically the only way to work an objective, because a single enemy can easily take you out before you have moved the progress-bar/circle beyond the next checkpoint. It was designed with a higher TTK in mind, so you could more easily sacrifice yourself for some desperately needed progress. Whereas now you can easily sacrifice yourself for no progress at all. It goes from a wipe and reset style of combat to a push and pull style. It also requires a greater team effort to succeed, because one person could indeed rarely "clutch vs N-amount of enemies". A much better tactic was to "focus down" individual enemies, i.e. taking them out one by one as a team-effort, thus pushing them away from the objective. The HVR 762 played a crucial role in this, because of the (arguably too) high burst damage. Once the enemy was short one member, they could easily be pushed off the objective. Cars were less of a safe haven, because getting blown to bits in or around one was more likely than making a successful runaway. The combination of lowering TTK and allowing all weapons to reach across the entire range spectrum, also meant that falling back from a fight became less viable. Since any amount of damage will completely stop health regeneration, players can, with some weapons, still take you out way beyond their effective range. Minor correction: The N-Tec was so great in CQC because it had the same base TTK as dedicated CQC weapons combined with good accuracy and precision. It didn't have the mobility, but it didn't really need it in a low TTK environment.
  7. Slow down there, fella. I'd wager many people who passed high school can't even work those numbers properly. Some people interpret math differently, too. As long as the wording is consistent, it doesn't matter how anyone interprets it. Translations can get icky, if someone doesn't follow the original consistency, though. Those lore-bits in item descriptions are such a nice detail, too. It's also a good exercise for game design when creating a new weapon, because a good description already outlines what the weapon is supposed to do and how the stats must be shaped to create those characteristics.
  8. I wouldn't. 40 and 50m are both medium range, for all intents and purposes. That's the crucial information a player needs. Say we have two medium range weapons, but one is slightly better designed for short range and the other for long range. Essentially the original concept for the STAR and the N-Tec. I would have them both described as medium range assault rifles, but outline their preference towards one end of the spectrum. Naturally this is also reflected in their other stats; after all, no gun should be defined by a single one of its attributes. Conversely, I wouldn't describe the original ATAC as a medium range assault rifle, despite it's effective range of 50m. Because that was not what it was designed to do and that information would not be relevant. The advantage of describing in prose what a weapon is supposed to do and then setting the numbers to reflect those words, is that most people easily understand words, but hardly understand numbers.
  9. Thanks for an actual recap/summary. And I think you are spot on. Every previous endeavour of this kind fell flat on its face once an actual full district of complex custom designs came into the mix. I hope this won't be the case here, but I doubt it.
  10. At least battle royales have stressors during the low-conflict-phase, which keep the player on edge. Grab good loot, make sure nobody jumps you when you're ill prepared, figure out a decent route for the ever-shrinking battlefield. APB could have something like that, if it was set up more like a true cops-and-robbers game. Start a mission and anyone who notices you are on a job can intercept. But it would be much more difficult to lay down some basic rules, to prevent districts from simply devolving into mayhem. I guess nowadays such emergent gameplay would be much easier to realise. When APB was being made, the idea was certainly there, but the technology wasn't.
  11. I don't mind a 3-second-fight if it doesn't take me much longer than that to get into the next one. But when I spend 80-90% of my time waiting for or getting back into that fight, I quickly lose interest.
  12. I don't think this is a necessity, as long as each weapon is accurately described in the way it behaves. Which is not and has rarely ever been the case in APB. But just like showing players where they stand in terms of matchmaking, I think showing them exactly how a weapon functions ultimately leads to a worse gameplay approach. Each weapon should be designed with certain strengths and weaknesses and those should be communicated to the player. You like getting up close and personal? These guns will help you with that. As long as description and behaviour do not diverge, players will more naturally find a weapon that suits them. Should the actual numbers be kept secret? No. But put them somewhere for enthusiasts to look up (like APBdb).
  13. Who doesn't enjoy a healthy balance of 3 second fights, 10 second respawns and 15 seconds running back to the objective? That's two whole fights per minute! It's not like APB is a top contender for a great number of players. Should fully lean into its strengths.
  14. In no scenario is this a better option than cross-district-matchmaking. Walled-off districts have done nothing but exacerbate the matchmaking-issues which plague this game.
  15. At which distance? Afaik the crosshairs represent your accuracy at 10m, beyond that the cone widens.
  16. Ideally that advanced tab had never existed. It's part of the core-issues with matchmaking (i.e. picking the fullest district over the most appropriate one). With cross-district matchmaking this would be obsolete anyway. And if districts can be hosted across the world, ping should probably be a factor in matchmaking. Just like the game will not consider players way outside your threat-range at the beginning of the matchmaking process, it should not consider players way outside your region before some minutes have passed.
  17. At the steep price of those terrible, terrible curve-mechanics. The gun-feel was much better when weapons performed in a linear, expectable fashion. Let alone completely nonsensical designs like damage based on weapon accuracy. Terrible formatting-job on Matt's behalf. Should've put the text in a quote-box or "formatted it differently" to show they're not his own words. (I guess it's even worse that he has some different formatting in this topic-starter, but neither are his words.)
  18. Open Conflict was badly received, because it had no matchmaking beyond putting equal numbers of players against each other. Or simply hide it. Is there any menu in the game where a faction symbol next to a player name is actually necessary?
  19. If the core gameplay loop is solid, that's reason enough for players to return day in, day out. Counter Strike was popular for a reason, without any progression system beyond gaining money during a match. When gameplay design is lacking, dangling a carrot in front of everyone's face might work. But that's only borrowed time. Once players have unlocked the new content, they come back asking for more. I would rather see this precious time spent revamping the fundamentals of how a mission plays out.
  20. Threat rebalance =/= QoL change. In my opinion a quality of life change would be a searchable mailbox for the hundreds and thousands of mails one can accumulate. Loadout-presets would be another. More broadly speaking, I don't think QoL matters for a game in APB's state. Jank doesn't stop players from truly enjoying a game. If a QoL-change can be easily implemented while working on core design issues, sure, go for it. But otherwise, don't bother. There are much, much bigger fish to fry.
  21. One logical server can be distributed across different physical locations. Heck, the naming scheme of districts even suggests hosting them in different regions, while having all players in the same database.
  22. The issue with displaying threat levels in a nutshell. If people didn't know what "colour" they're up against, they might actually try to win.
  23. This would certainly make it more comfortable for good players to farm bad players. In fact, spawning 50 m from the objective is very much within the movement radius of decent players. Spawn. Die. Repeat. Welcome to the suck.
  24. And there is. Your final score of the mission is put against each other's final score individually and as a result you gain or lose threat and/or confidence for each of those pairings. High confidence means threat moves little, low confidence means threat moves lots. Meeting expectations increases confidence, but not threat, Missing expectations lowers confidence and threat. Exceeding expectations lowers confidence and increases threat. If everyone in the mission is roughly at the same threat level, then yes, this is a practical guideline. When threat levels are more spread out, though, this guideline falls apart. Staying on this guideline-system for the moment: if the system expects a low threat player to perform in the bottom 25% of the field, but they perform in the bottom 25-50% (e.g. 4v4 and their total score places them at 6 out of 8), they would gain threat. I would generally advise against the mindset of "need not to lose threat", by the way. Threat is not a progressive system. It's merely a tool for matchmaking. Losing threat can be perfectly fine and should lead to better, more enjoyable matches. I'm pretty sure I lost threat on every mission I played these days, because I haven't played in years. If a group of four Golds faces a group of four Silvers, the threat system will expect the Golds to achieve a certain score. If you place 2nd on the scoreboard, but don't score as much as the system expected you to, you might lose threat (and the Silvers might gain threat). If you consistently perform as the system expects you to, it will gain confidence in your current threat level and you'll have to lower that confidence before your threat starts moving noticeably again. But the system does not expect you to hit a specific placement on the scoreboard, it expects to you score in relation to each other player. Ergo it also matters who was placed 1st, 3rd and so forth. You only ever see someone dethreat if their colour changes. Which is exceedingly rare as playtime increases (because the confidence value will be more affected than threat after a while). So you will usually see it on new accounts and dethreaters. Nevertheless a person gains and loses threat, even if the colour of their badge doesn't change.
  • Create New...