Revoluzzer
-
Content Count
18876 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Revoluzzer
-
-
They really need to dial down the contrast, if that engine update screenshot is accurate. It looks like every first attempt of using the curves tool in Photoshop.
Sure, in comparison the current engine looks kinda bland. But that is also easier on the eyes. Slightly crispier lighting should totally do the job.
-
5
-
-
40 minutes ago, Fruitini said:I'm actually very surprised they haven't implemented a usuable armor for deffence against the LTL, like the grenade launcher or the pig
The game originally had a character mod for this, called Energizer.
When all character mods got a rework it was removed, but the stat-bonus moved directly into player-stamina.
-
1
-
-
On 2/14/2020 at 11:20 PM, Flaws said:Especially considering how small the crosshair is with these stats. But if that's the point then the JG must suffer greatly from what it is like in Prototype currently.
Since the crosshair on shotguns only encapsules the area in which a spread-pattern originates (i.e. pellets can go way outside the crosshairs) it makes perfect sense that being even a tiny bit off target can have drastic effects.
With fixed patterns it arguably helped to aim next to a target beyond a certain distance, but right now your best bet is to target center mass every time it is visible. Not the feet, not the head, not (literally) 1px off.
The Shredder's spread is so tight you might consider it a single projectile in CQC. If you're off target at all, you most likely miss.
Conversely the JGs spread is so wide you can hit an enemy even if your aim was flawed.
-
On 2/9/2020 at 2:11 PM, Flaws said:Your second shot seems to mainly hit the door and only partially your opponent.
What I find more odd here is that his first shot doesn't seem to hit at all, yet he still kills you with the second.
On 2/9/2020 at 2:11 PM, Flaws said:Second shot doesn't appear to have registered at all, there is no hitmarker. Third shot was aimed far above the player, must have at most graced them.
On 2/9/2020 at 2:11 PM, Flaws said:Second shot only graces his feet.
On 2/9/2020 at 2:11 PM, Flaws said:All hits look like partial ones.
To me your settings seem to wildly exaggerate how well you hit an opponent. The blood spatter appears way more prominent than under "normal" settings. Watching the footage frame-by-frame (or at least in the smallest steps that gyazo by dragging the mouse around) shows fairly reasonable explanations why each situation happened the way it did.
Admittedly the first one is pretty odd, but the others seem clear-cut to me.
-
18 hours ago, Flaws said:I'll start with the CSG as I got most time in with it. I mainly used the Speed-Dater to see how well non-IR CSG does with the current prototype changes. It felt very inconsistent because I would need to 3-shot players at point blank range, even if I'm perfectly centered on their hitbox: https://i.gyazo.com/dd3a04fb6167171c04469e6fda97b6a9.mp4 (I have plenty more clipped examples of this)
If the bullet impacts are anything to go by, you could have missed almost the entire first and second blast.
I know, I know, the consensus is that bullet impacts do not actually represent where the shot was registered server-side. But I still believe they represent where the shot can go, even server side. Also, if I'm not mistaken, hitreg around ammo vending machines has always been wonky, even worse than shooting someone close to normal obstacles. So it's not entirely unlikely that these were well aimed shots (the first one moreso than the second), which didn't register correctly.
On top it could also be a client-server-communication issue, where what you see is not what you get. Your crosshair-/camera-movement might not have registered server-side the same way it was displayed client-side.
The four-shot example shows that some hits also get registered when they really shouldn't, because your opponent is already out of the way. But again, what you see is not what you get there.
My experience in the playtest was that hitreg still isn't very good across the board, be it "normal" weapons or shotguns. But the latter work fairly reliable in their current state.
-
1
-
-
Slightly off-topic, but I'd like to see an alternative, modern model for it. The Mk14 EBR would be a good fit and it even has a pistol grip, so there are no major obstacles with animations.
-
7 in the morning, huh? I might stop by.
-
On 1/25/2020 at 12:02 AM, HawtGirl said:I doubt it will ever be "needed".
Wasn't the whole point of the engine update just to make adding things to the game easier? Once when that is done what is their benefit from updating to another engine again?
If you turn a classic car into an electric vehicle you still have to deal with lots and lots of ancient tech (i.e. everything that is not the drivetrain). Likewise upgrading APB to a newer engine and adding some new features won't change the fact that it is an ancient game.
Especially in the looks department APB is already severely lacking and the customisation-feature is, imo, not the grand attraction it once was.
Its decent controls and handling are coupled with dated gameplay-design. I believe creating more exciting gameplay is easier when you start from scratch, using the existing game as a guideline. Otherwise you'd be trying to build on top of the current design, which is probably the most difficult way to do it. Or exchange practically everything, which also requires to create something new, but also implement it into the existing, ancient and ported framework.
-
1
-
-
On 1/23/2020 at 5:48 PM, Solamente said:ue4 apb has been shelved indefinitely at this point
Well that's a shame.
-
- Modifying the Bounty system to keep you from getting "Heat 5" in missions
Meh. I know some people dislike this mechanic, but it's there for challenging players who perform excessively well in a mission. It's one of the remaining mechanics that remind you of the open world, open conflict nature that the game tried to create.
-
13
-
On 1/22/2020 at 7:19 AM, NinaAzalea said:I'm even surprised LO has been working on it 2 years and have gotten so far. For me, this is like a suicide mission. Yet I'm still hopeful, I've never seen anyone take such a task so I want to see how this turns out.
The real treasure they acquired is the lore and general idea that APB is based around. These assets can be used to create a modern, fun game. Which - supposedly - is being done by a small team at the moment (Australian, I think? If they haven't burned down yet, literally).
Keeping the old game alive and "progressing" is probably a minor financial aid and a major learning experience.
-
On 1/20/2020 at 10:03 AM, Hexerin said:What we really need:
- Threat levels globally reset across all accounts on a set schedule.
Reset threat levels globally on a schedule? That's just admitting you failed at building a proper threat system. All past resets did nothing but allow a bunch of people to play easy missions for a while, until everything was back to square one and they had to de-threat "for fun" again.
If you want a working threat system you introduce rolling boundaries and ignore inactive accounts (e.g. everyone who was offline for 5 consecutive days) for the calculation. Then you can define 15 - 20% of all (active) players to be Gold at any given time. If you are so keen on keeping a visible threat indicator at all.
On 1/20/2020 at 4:22 PM, Lord Cashpoint said:When the gold rush event was going on, and you got G1C for fighting gold players, there was no shortage of silvers and bronze players lining up to enter the gold district. Obviously there was an ulterior motive at play, but it's not like they got destroyed every single game and had so little fun that they gave up. What was more noticeable is when the incentive went away, even golds themselves desperately started de-threating to get away from gold districts (At this point golds could only join gold districts).
It also happened to cause some "I'm definitely Gold material"-players to drop to Silver and some "No way I'm good enough for Gold"-players to prove themselves, but ultimately having both accuse the system to be broken.
On 1/20/2020 at 4:22 PM, Lord Cashpoint said:Pre-made teams do tend to have a more disastrous effect on matchmaking than having a range of threats does. A gold team of 3 for example will likely not be able to play against their equal in a district, and as such will often force the opposition to be cobbled together from various lower threat groups. [...] If APB had better population, we could have trialled a solo (Or maybe 2 man max) district only. I think that would have been interesting to see.
I disagree with this insofar as players who team up regularly will naturally end up in the highest threat regions, where they would - again naturally - fight others like them. A necessity for limited districts (i.e. another form of segregation) wouldn't exist, because good lone wolves / duos would end up in a lower skill bracket and only face full pre-mades occasionally.
Of course it all boils down to population size and the way matchmaking work. Or, more importantly as far as I'm concerned, player distribution into districts in a way that supports matchmaking.
-
On 1/9/2020 at 3:43 PM, MartinPL said:"Bad Investment" requires the Enforcers to take over an area in Stage 4 and the Criminals to retake it in Stage 5 (though as far as I'm aware, the objective completes faster for the Criminal side for some reason; could be me misremembering things though).
You remember correctly. However this might have been patched in the meantime.
On 1/9/2020 at 4:03 PM, rooq said:I gathered with some help from the apbdb creator (Speed) that there's some sort of server side player distribution system which allocates mission stages based on which city blocks have ongoing missions. [...] This is logical, and is the case for most missions - except that you may recall that some missions (DIVIDE AND CONQUER:JG_BEM4_Dis1) have objectives several city blocks apart.
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.
On 1/9/2020 at 4:03 PM, rooq said:That being said, after looking at this stuff for a few days I think that I could more or less comfortably balance missions or maybe even introduce new ones, assuming that my understanding is more or less correct. Mixing defend/attack should not pose a problem - to my knowledge these are just special stage types.
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.
-
On 12/20/2019 at 2:34 AM, Zolerox said:You realise how small the map is? This aint Halloween.
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.
-
On 12/7/2019 at 7:08 PM, Solamente said:this is why no segregation is a problem - because we still have the same limited pool of potential players but now there’s even more variation in threat levels
for a simplified example: if you have 10 golds in a district (segregation) it’s far more likely that you will get a balanced match than if you have 3 golds, 4 silvers, and 3 bronzes (no segregation)
In matchmaking 3 mediocre Golds are very close to 4 high Silvers, but 4 high Golds are very far away from 4 low Golds.
-
13 hours ago, KawaiiAlice said:How about Bronzes playing vs bronzes only? , , why a bronze should fight a silver or gold , Think about it ,
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.
-
1
-
-
On 12/4/2019 at 3:45 PM, GhosT said:I don't think full auto and its CQC effectivity is its problem, the tap fire laser is.
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.
On 12/4/2019 at 4:24 PM, Frosi said:Not sure about you but the N-tec's cqc viability is what puts the gun out of line and makes it the most versatile assault rifle in the game. It was always meant to be the long range assault rifle, not a laser with tight max bloom in cqc that overshadows both the FAR / Star who are designed to shine in those closer encounters.
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.
-
1
-
-
On 11/20/2019 at 1:06 AM, MattScott said:EDIT: We are still working on the world consolidation. We hit some extremely frustrating blockers once we built our proof of concept.
The strategy has shifted to worlds that can seamlessly loan their players/characters to other worlds, giving us the same end result of NA - EU cross play.
Are you now working on a world consolidation based on the "loan"-model, or is that an interim solution?
-
On 10/21/2019 at 8:37 PM, illgot said:The issue is not dethreating,
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.
On 10/22/2019 at 4:00 PM, CookiePuss said:Thats not how it works, regardless of opp threat, every match either raises or lowers threat.
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.
-
36 minutes ago, Thial said:Why is it a good pick though if it has no visible benefit ? Can you elaborate ? I have tested it on the walls, vs players and with my friends in the past and I see no benefit to OSCAR from using RS3 on it.
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.
36 minutes ago, Thial said:That's true if you are talking about it from the perspective of a calm mind. What happens in the middle of a fight is different. As soon as you flick and you will see a head popping out of the corner you will automatically aim at it, not at the invisible hitbox. Our brains are just coded that way. Of course some people will be able to counter that fact if they are aware of it and they will be consciously trying to counter it for a long time. That's just esentially breaking the habits.
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.
-
On 10/14/2019 at 3:16 AM, Noob_Guardian said:Except that g1 had expressly stated that they did look at a number of previous matches to determine threat, and since the point system, no such changes have been announced to the threat system to say they changed the system to the one you describe, without the match averages. Nor did they say that the system changed to not include the previous match information (not that they had to, but it would seem odd that they'd leave it out)
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).
On 10/14/2019 at 3:16 AM, Noob_Guardian said:The system to my knowledge runs similar to what you're saying, but it accounts for your overall progress over a number of matches. You also talk about CV but how is it calculated? You simply talk about the glicko values. How does the confidence value change? What is that based on? Over how long is that CV based? How does it know that its confident? You can't have that value without some sort of performance over time basis can you?
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.
On 10/14/2019 at 3:16 AM, Noob_Guardian said:What about them trying to keep a ~20% gold pop ~30%-40% silver whatever it is for bronze and gold. How is that handled?
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.
-
On 10/16/2019 at 6:13 PM, Thial said:I wrote about quickscope lean ADS. No moving involved (lean out of the corner and zoom at the same time, shoot, and immediately zoom out, lean in and walk into the corner, it takes split of a second and makes it nearly impossible to hit a person doing it correctly)
It gives you advantage over your enemies since it's performed much faster than a hipfire strafe and makes people try to aim at your head as opposed to anywhere on your body which makes people more tense as the target is much smaller increasing the chance of error.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.
On 10/17/2019 at 11:02 AM, Thial said:Lean ADS quickscope reveals basically only your head for split of a second, gives you zoom and better control due to ADS and in OSCAR's case better accuracy since you eliminate the hipfire recoil. Makes your enemy try to hit your tiny head which will make them fuck up far more trust me.
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.
7 hours ago, GhosT said:Has been proven and confirmed a thousand times that bullet holes are wildly inaccurate.
Years ago you could enable server sided markers that showed your actual hits, sadly you can't anymore.
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.
-
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.
-
34 minutes ago, CookiePuss said:I think most of us despise bloom period.
I'd rather a game where I aim at enemies. In APB you just bloom at them, and often enough RNG decides who wins and who loses.
Its quite frustrating at times.
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.
-
1
-
Message from Matt - Blog Post (March 2020)
in General Discussion Archive
Posted
LO has been at the helm of APB for almost two years now? Wow, time flies.