Jump to content

Noob_Guardian

Members
  • Content Count

    9930
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

391 Excellent

1 Follower

About Noob_Guardian

  • Rank
    Crazy ol' Kook

Recent Profile Visitors

4247 profile views
  1. That's troublesome especially for balance. While adding different hitboxes for arm/leg/foot hits would be interesting if it reduced by a small %, having headshots in APB would be broken af and dumb, especially as you already hit the top of the hitbox, when players are -completely- behind cover.
  2. I can agree with the damage based on accuracy, though i am not opposed to curved recoil or bloom.
  3. 8 shots on a 5 htk weapon at 80m is broke, especially when they want snipers to be the dominator at 70-100m. Obeya is still great as is imo, and its great on waterfront, aight on financial. Some weapons are not meant to perform as well in certain areas an maps and that's why WF and Finanical have different weapons that are heavily used in each or change based on location. Also, thats a 1.848 ttk perfect, vs 1.34 ttk for 11 vs 8. When even the HVR has a 1.75TTK. Which means that the obeya is put at range, on a similarl-ish level as the HVR if at perfect ttk currently. Which is a good balance imo. Obeya shouldn't be easily harassing snipers at 80-100m imo. So 11 shots to put it on about equal footing is A-Okay. It could be put down to 10 shots if you account for non-perfect ttk and average play standards, but 8 is certainly too low, 11 is fine for upper tier skill level since they can make the most out of it even at 80+m with the 11 shots. RFP was broke strong, I agree it's in a bad place atm though. But we don't want it to be on the same level as the old sprint shooting or even 0-40m melter that it used to be either when it wasn't balanced right. Also, it's still a decent, gun, but it's more situational, I'd still run it over the NFA and a few other joker box legendaries. I disagree that they overnerf everything. The game's gun balance is in one of the best places it's been. Though it definitely needs a few touchups. And to say that anything that is on equal footing with the .45 is balanced, is a far cry from reality as well. .45 is not greatly balanced, Fr0g however, is in comparison. .45 could take a hit to damage, similar to that as the fr0g's and it'd still be good. Though it might need a +1 shot in the mag to compensate.
  4. Hmm its been ages i forget how to embed images... But i appear to have the same glitch on my account as well. My character with 2 max 16 roles, and 3 max 15, appears to have lost all his max equiptment roles... xD
  5. I said i have, but it's in cases where the player is consistently in the bottom 50% of everyone in the match score wise. I doubt it. If you barely break even, and still get a win, you still gain score worth 5 kills over the other team. Unless you mean total. In that case, you're still 1st, you should not lose threat in that case as if free for all, you'd still be first on top. I've NEVER seen a "top scorer" who lost and was above the 50% mark dethreat -ever-, have you? I've seen the scorer on the enemy team or my own that is bottom 1/2 of 3/4 dethreat, even on a win. But i've never seen anyone who appeared to be top 50%+ dethreat. But I also never put that much thought into -that case- specifically, because the few times i recall the top scorer ever did dethreat as an enemy, was they had less score than even the worst player my team did overall. Which would have put them ~below the 50% mark.
  6. It's hard to say that it was done more towards "clarity" rather than to be more tight lipped on how to effectively dethreat. Even if it pits -everyone- against the other as if it was a free for all. There still has to be a determining factor with score, by points and where each person places, that influences whether someone went up or down and by how much. You are free to assume then that the top 50% which would likely be the winners, would likely gain threat, and the lower ones lose it. This percent ofc could be different, it could be top 40/30/20% of earners go up, have a no change, and then -reduce threat- percentage. With the percentage simply being the number of players that scored lower. - With it at 50%, even with the losing team, they could still gain rank to some degree, as they would have performed better than at least 1/2 the winning team if they did well. If it's you need to be top 40 or 30% of earners to go up, that's fine as well. But it certainly does NOT seem the case by any means. If it's a different percentage that gains threat based on the "free for all", that's fine. But for simplicity sake, (and lack of knowing the further intricacies and possibly seeing a few posts about it at some point) 50% is a good median number to indicate how well you -need to do- to -not lose threat-. If you are second from top score consistently, but not the top, you should - not lose- threat. It would be dumb to assume you did, considering that wouldn't be fair especially when on the winning team consistently, imagine going silver by winning games but still being 2nd from top like that. The only times i've seen people lose threat in this system (even with a win) is when they are consistently bottom 50% low performers, even among the winning team. (won, but provided nothing, compared to the other team and their own) Even if it's a "misread". It's still a fair assumption, and with how G1 was handling things back in 2013, it's likely they wanted to limit knowledge on "how to dethreat effectively" by being vague and editing it. (We had a massive dethreat problem back then.) Remember, you used to need negative score with 1 kill to dethreat a -lot-? They fixed it so you negative shouldn't count it towards dethreating. Which means you still need to score, but score -lower- than some amount of players. If placing bottom 50% is wrong, that's fine, but it's still more accurate then pretending that there isn't some % of players in the match you have to do better than, to not lose threat. We may not know that % completely, but it's definitely there, if each players score is weighted against the other to place who gains and who loses.
  7. The gun itself is a slightly better feeling star/ntec hybrid. So typical Bando/Extended mag, and Hunting sight 1-3 (depending on preference for cqc to ranged accuracy) and CJ/IR for preferred engagements. I normally ran HS3/Mobility Sling EM3, CJ, or IR3
  8. That's how it was a year or so after gold lock when they changed to the Win/Loss top 50% bottom 50% system where score in a match became the determination for threat level rather than just straight win/loss that it used to. There may still be tiers and the like, but there is definitely a "match number" limit that determines rank (which I never heard they removed) you are based on the last x matches, and they still should have the top bottom 50% rank increase decrease based on match score. Because they never said they removed it. I know they made changes since it's been 5-6 years since that implementation, as i haven't been nearly as active as i used to keep tabs. But i also never heard of them changing from the score based and past x match system combination, even with the glicko tiers likely still in place.
  9. There used to bel a background 1-10 system, not sure what it is now. Your threat and rank is determined by the last like 20-30 missions you've played. If you're top 50% in the match it goes up, bottom 50% in score it goes down. Losing with a good score prevents threat degradation. But that's all I know anymore.
  10. That depends, if it's an actual GM such as Mattscott or game dev, they would have the power to do so. If it's a "player gm" who went through the open application process ages ago (i don't even know if that is still around or not) they I believe don't have that kind of power to ban, maybe kick, but not ban.
  11. True, During "gold lock" i was a consistent sub 30fps and was still gold, and went on a like 21 mission win streak around the time of that that gold lock event thing. The amount of sweat that required though xD Yeah you've been around for a while. I had issues with my OBT title, I had to email G1 ages ago and ask about it, they checked the system for my account age, and got me it. If LO still has access to the stuff, they might be able to assist if you open a ticket and they look at the account ages. Not at all, you see, how the system works, is that if you score in the top 50% of the scoreboard, you go up in threat. If you score in the bottom 50% you lose threat. If you win, you have a good 25-50% chance of the entire team, having more "score" than the enemy team. If you carry hard, and ensure that the other team, except 1 or 2, get little to no kills, or fail the objectives. They end up lower on the scoreboard than your "silver group" then that means 2-3 players on your team is "in the top 50% and goes up in threat. Some missions you can get 2-3k score on a win, and generally, only 1-2k on a loss unless you got a "ton" of kills while losing. Which means by winning, you're inadvertently ensuring your team goes up in threat. So to basically, "carry" someone to gold, all you have to do is carry them, and hand them an HVR, or teach them to tapfire an ntec properly along with range increments in general and get them 1-5 maybe 7 kills a match if possible. Boom they hit gold within a few days to a week or so. Has nothing to do with making them do all the work, all they have to do is exist on the same team as you as you simply "play the game" and if you do really well against facing other golds even "alone" boom they hit gold. If you mentored them well, they'll outperform the silvers and bronzes with some but mild issue, and they'll go up to gold simply based on that as well. (One of the biggest things I always start with is to have them lower their sensitivities in-game. The base ones are atrocious) And yes mack, I've "mentored" new players, given them mods, vehicles, and tips and tricks for how to play APB:R. I might have an "elitist" attitude when it comes to APBR after playing for years it tends to happen but even I recognize that new players need to be mentored and helped for the game to survive. There's a reason I took the name "noob guardian" as a handle. I've also probably blown over 1-3mil in game giving away things over a few years of off and on playing as well. Not that you'd believe me anyways.
  12. Old G1 back in 2013/2014 changed the threat distribution and reduced the requirements to be gold from like the top 10/15% to 20%. It's something people don't talk about much anymore, but it had been somewhat complained about mildly by certain members for a short while, as it happened around when threat segregation by reward loss occurred, ^ basically this I started back in like Sept-Nov 2011. I have literally mentored and carried R50 silvers to gold threat within a day, and have had bronzes hit gold within a week. Can you like... not pretend that it's that hard to get? It's really not xD
  13. gold is exceedingly easy to get if you aren't a newbie. I have been perm gold since they made the top 20% rather than 10% gold, and i've never managed to dethreat - even when I had tried intentionally during "gold lock". I can understand not being gold if you're always drunk as a vet player. But holy damn its piss easy to keep and get. You almost have to -try not to- get gold to not get it,
×
×
  • Create New...