Ydiss

After an initially good impression for my first couple nights playing again with a new account, it became apparent quite quickly that these first few nights were the exception rather than the rule. Since that, I had 3-4 sessions in a row where I ended up against blatant (to the point they admitted it freely, even proudly) de-threat/re-roll players on bronze districts that bounced between silver and gold (or were just gold and obviously hadn't left the district in hours). The majority were well over 200R. Some weren't that great but enough of them were obviously extremely experienced compared to the true bronze/silver players. I don't mind losing a match, particularly when the opponents were actually playing in the correct district, but these sessions were enough to turn me away from the game and I think I'll wait until the EU happens and, maybe, this issue goes away or is mitigated. Though, so long as someone can game the threat system, I doubt it'll ever really go away. Which is a shame; the handful of matches I played in where this wasn't happening really reminded me how amazingly fun this game can be. Some of the comments are suggesting this is "normal" for PVP games and to be expected. Not in my experience, it isn't; I've experienced toxic PVP communities before but never one quite so obviously intent on destroying itself as APB's. And that's probably been somewhat true of this game since the early G1 days but as the population has fallen, it's become a whole lot more apparent; there is undoubtedly a core of the community that is great but the trolls have become a much greater percentage and now they have a signed-off method to seek out new players and annoy them and it works. And then there's the other side of the coin... the games that I've played that are highly competitive yet have really great communities, communities that support new players and engage with them properly. There are quite a lot of these games but I just recently began playing Natural Selection 2, which is another very old game, has very complicated mechanics and is very competitive yet my experience there has been overwhelmingly positive; the rookie servers actually have rookie players on, no experts trolling them; anyone who isn't an obvious rookie is always talking over comms to give advice (friendly advice, not patronising advice) and everyone seems to be having fun even when losing, from my perspective. I'm having a blast with it, despite it not being a casual game and me being a casual player. If APB had that type of community... What a game it would be. But it doesn't. And it's nothing to celebrate whatsoever.

Sounds like someone missed their opportunity to be elected to European Parliament last week. Arguing the wrong points with the wrong people for the sake of arguing.

Sorry for the necro, this thread is three weeks old now but I was reading through and saw this. This is amazing I remember that thread. I even posted in it, partway down that page. I also remember a lot of those forum names and recall playing with a lot of them in RTW and G1's version. And yes, it's a massive shame the old forums are gone now. Good times.

It does seem a messy situation to pick apart, doesn't it? I'm definitely not the right person to answer all of these questions, nor am I particularly that bothered about the outcome of this story but I'm going to suggest that 25p sticker packs with a stick of gum included that you buy at the local corner shop don't likely pop up on the radar of those against children gambling compared to online game cash shops that people plough over $400 dollars into in one hit just to get the Legendary weapon they're after. The former is never likely to result in children getting their parents into masses of debt; the latter potentially is (and does; it is really a problem irrespective of whether I care about it or not). I'm also not an expert on APB's current legal standpoint relating to whether access is limited to adults, to a regulatory compliant standard. All I know is that, if activity A is classified as gambling then the company offering activity A must legally prove their signup process restricts access to adults only; I'm equally sure that actual gambling websites don't accept "just say you're an adult and we'll all just agree to turn an eye if you turn out to be 10 years old" as validation. I once signed up to loads of gambling sites (I did a spot of bonus bagging way back when it was lucrative) and almost all of them required scanned photographic proof of ID to sign up for (like a passport). It's all theory crafting, I really am not an expert nor do I really want/need to be. It is, however, an interesting point to ponder upon, particularly considering how proliferate this type of "game play" is in the industry on the whole (more so on the mobile platforms, where it's bloody rife and, in some cases, forms the entire basis of the game itself).

The funny thing about the "Come back when you're R255" comments is that it's literally just a matter of time before you'd get that. I imagine you probably enjoyed getting R100 so this is as "challenge accepted" a situation as you're going to get. I'll look forward to when you do get R255 and then see what the detractors say then... "Come back when you did it with the PIG" perhaps. (Challenge accepted?)

Haha "pay to win" elements. It'll be fun if only to see US Congress try to empirically define what that actually means. The gaming communities the world over have been trying and failing to agree on what it means for well over a decade

Isn't it solely targeting the randomised loot boxes because they're essentially gambling? I imagine the best solution for LO would be to just change the Joker store so there's no random element, but different prices. I've got to be honest, I don't think this is a bad thing. I really dislike the whole mobile games random loot box thing. It's a blight on games in general. Obviously extremely popular. But I personally think it's gash and won't miss it if it's obliterated.

I don't know a lot about the bill itself but if it is restricted only to minors (i.e. it's not a blanket ban of loot boxes for any game) and LO want to keep loot boxes, then they'll probably need to prove their gateway restricts minors from playing (like any gambling organisation does, for example). Which I doubt LO will be able to do (or be willing to do, to be frank).

So glad someone got that reference. And so quickly. Faith restored.

The best you can hope for is that LO further develop the out of mission activities for solo players to engage in. Way back when RTW first released the game and then G1 somewhat enhanced this aspect of the game, we put forward a lot of suggestions as to how it could be improved. And I think it could be improved. Engine Upgrade is required (to make shared instancing possible so match making isn't restricted to one district). Shared instancing needs to work (so LO can do away with the manual instance selection and players are automatically placed into districts, meaning the idea of "empty district farming" isn't a thing any more). Develop the off mission activites significantly so they're fun for both sides. How to do the latter? Criminals: Don't need a ton of enhancement as they already have a few ways to make cash. In addition to these (still relatively mundane) activities, the criminal could get insider information fed to them as they progress up through notoriety levels. They start at zero, needing to do ram-raiding, mugging and boosting cars but as they rise through the notoriety ranks they unlock "insider tips" about the activities of more lucrative marks, such as: You receive a tip that an armoured truck carrying gold bullion is making its way through the district. Find it, jack it and take the goods to your launderer to cash in. A well-known fat-cat has been spotted in "insert establishment here" and is soon to leave. If you get there quickly enough, you may get a chance to mug them for a fatter payout. A gold-plated Cisco has been sighted in the district. Boost it for a massive payout. The frequency of these marks occurs more the higher your notoriety. At rank 4 notoriety, you get an indication on your map as to the rough location of the mark. At max rank (bounty), you get the exact location. Maximum risk (other criminals may be after it as well, everyone will be after you), easiest route to locating the mark quickly. But you can, of course, get clean to avoid the risk and continue seeking the mark manually. You do lose your notoriety when you hand in (as currently is the case) so you can't just constantly do insider tips and will need to raise your notoriety again. Major change: Any criminal activity committed by a criminal off-mission (including killing civilians) that is witnessed by another NPC civilian (or enforcer player), is marked on the map for off-mission enforcers to see. More importantly, the value of the current stash that criminal is carrying is shown when hovering over the blip. The blip remains in place for a short while only. Enforcers: Need a ton of work for this part. Currently, all you can do is randomly witness the odd criminal hoping they're out of mission, kill them and take their ill-gotten goods back for reward, or find stolen cars and repo them (the latter is really slow cash). The latter is the only "single player" part of it. What I'd propose is that the Enforcer can follow up on any reported crime on the map, as per the above major change. When they arrive at the location, they receive a small amount of cash for their report (stashed) but they will then get a very brief blip on the map showing the current wearabouts of the criminal that committed the crime (rough area for prestige 1 to 3, pin point dot for 4 and 5). Additional design: off duty criminals can witness Enforcers as they chase leads (exact same mechanic as witnessing criminals, perhaps with a camera icon instead of handcuffs). This serves the same function, give criminals the chance to stop snooping detectives, steal their cash and turn it in. For enforcers, when an insider tip is spawned for a criminal, if you have a high enough prestige, you will also be informed of the mark! Same rules apply as for the criminal. At this point, the enforcer can ignore these tips and just continue following up on crimes to receive low to moderate income (as their prestige increases). The same current rules apply for witnessing (if they witness an off mission criminal, they're entered into a 1v1/group v group mission to kill that criminal). So, they can follow the breadcrumbs of the criminal's crimes (but a crimnal can be more careful and avoid detection, making this harder) and, eventually, witness them - forcing them into a death match for the stashes they both carry (just as it is now). Backup rules still apply (allowing the event to turn into a mission for anyone to join when ready up). The insider events will be more lucrative for both sides (I'd suggest the final payout should get multiplied for larger player volumes). I'd say this is the only way the "single player" content is going to get developed; it needs an element of multiplayer tie-in as well; that said, the above design would make it possible for you to play completely solo, so long as you enjoy the idea that you can be opposed at any time that you're not careful.

Some things never change in APB. Such as the subjectively false perception that one side is globally better than the other. If it were measurable and demonstrably provable, it would take more than a single point of reference (your experiences) to confirm what you think is true. It could be technically possible to measure, if APB records stats for wins and losses, scores and so on. I doubt it does though. Even if it did... You can play on both sides. This immediately invalidates any measurement if one side has "better players". But maybe it would confirm "which side the better players play on more".

I watched it (first time, obviously) and thought it was OK; definitely had some cringe (no more than I've seen posted here, mind). Had some funny moments in it as well though. Didn't take itself seriously at all. Showed off some examples of why the game's pretty unique. Seems the suggestion here is it was "disliked by the community". It would take some weirdly introvert, self-destructive "Royston Vasey" kind of gaming community to actively discourage someone who is/was out there positively promoting the game they play. Unless the streamer is massively misrepresenting the game or promoting trashy, exploitative tactics, you should want your favourite game being advertised even if you personally dislike the videos.

Your artwork is really good. Hope you don't lose anything.

Without using Google, "I'm sorry, I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask but I have one question. If I usually play on PC, is it possible to connect on my PC account on Xbox? and "OK, thanks for your response" Bienvenue a la maison folle, Clarkykent. (Welcome to the nuthouse)

Well done