Noob_Guardian

I did the math for that up to 10 shots for for PMG in comparison to each weapon so people can understand what that "change" does. For each bullet of the PMG, i calculated the bullets that would be fired by the OCA "if" fired at the exact time. Shots fired by the pmg at what interval vs shots fired vs the oca by the PMG's interval Time PMG .7 OCA .7 OCA .67 0.145 0.0875 0.08375 .67 4 7 8 .7 5 8 9 .87 6 9 10 1.015 7 11 12 1.16 8 13 13 1.305 9 14 15 1.45 10 16 17 You may feel there's an error with the timing at 1.16, however 0.08375 x 14 = 1.1725, which means that it wouldn't be firing until 14 shots until 1.17, not 1.16. So the normal OCA has the same "13 shots fired" at the same time buffed oca when the PMG fires 8 shots. --------------- ----------------- ------------------ ------------------- I personally "don't" feel that this change would mean much when it means to balance in comparison to the pmg, the OCA and cqc weapons already have an advantage against every other weapon ingame that aren't in the same niche class/niche. "1" more bullet downrange faster than normal in most cases is not anything to "gawk" at though. I don't feel that "re-buffing" the OCA is necessary when the PMG got overbuffed initially, this change would closen the gap slightly, however it would also re-widen the gap between it and AR's like the STAR, cobra and FAR which are meant to be more capable in CQC as well, and widen the gap between it and other cqc weapons. We can agree to disagree on that, which is fine, i never felt the OCA buff was necessary, so i'd be hard pressed to find a reason to re-buff it when I feel the PMG had needed a buff, but got overbuffed in the process.

Nah, its just people stopped spamming low yields so much. A lot of players are ineffective with grenades hence why low yields or percs, so when you face the small handful of players who actually "are" good with the frag, or the conc, and know how use cover for quick resupplies mid combat for more, it can feel "really" bad. Low yields were too powerful via their damage output/radius, speed, and number, they nerfed the damage and they're fine now. Concs have a tiny radius and large damage output, percs have a decent radius and decent damage. No-one really complained about the frag, only ever the conc and low yields and percs. I guess it shouldn't be surprising that it was only a matter of time for someone to mention "frags"

That is also a suggestion I can agree with, and would feel shotguns wouldn't need a ttk increase if so. However reliability of shotguns is also an issue. We don't want LO rework Shredder and NFAS here, but we certainly don't want 2013 CSG either. Corner popping does make them feel horrible to face at times. As such any change should be done carefully. If they STK is increased, depending on CSG or Jg I'd say a fairly reliable 4 hit at 5/8m would be fine with shotguns, while still being able to 3 hit pretty easily at and up to that range as well. Since it's clear that the JG and CS are somewhat around sub 10m fighters, then balance should be set for them to be fairly consistent "up to" x range. Shredder could use with a spread reduction, it feels nerfed in comparison to how it was, and it's extremely unreliable in range at this point. Strife feels "fine", it sadly doesn't feel near as reliable as it was, but i'm afraid touching it would only make it worse... In the end, you don't want it too consistent at 3 hits and feel like the shredder did, but you don't want it to be borked with how the feel currently almost like a dice roll. Grenades work wonders against corners, however i can agree, we should be careful about what kinds of grenades are added, personally I don't think grenades really need changed at this point. Though I can see reducing conc HP damage, and increasing their hard damage a little bit, it's not something I really think necessary. I do think a new bouncy perc would be hilarious. It bounces once then blows up on contact

I mean, Praetorians are essentially the strongarm of big businesses, Prentiss Tigers are the college jocks and Rich kids of High School. The enforcers use the law to enforce order, and the businesses use their money to get what they want. Teng does have plans for San Paro to some degree though, mostly for profits. Then there's Durrant, whos just a drunk who's doing it cause he hates thugs and something about his kid? I do enjoy the enf lore though, they each have their own reasons for it. I've never really cared or understood about the crim side of things. Getting the messages that read like gibberish really made me salty that such people were pulling at the strings in the background. G-Kings and Blood roses are kinda like the relatives and rich/poor people and school dropouts in the background pulling at the strings to get what they want via blackmail and force while remaining anonymous.

OCA never needed buffed to begin with so i don't know what you're going on about. All they did was litterally revert it to prebuff ttk. That's not the issue here. PMG got overbuffed in 2013 and it's been an issue since. Nerfing the NTEC was necessary regardless, the PMG however has been an issue long before the issues with the NTEC became known (you can thank HB for hiding them). The goalpost never moved, it's just that everyone was more preoccupied with the NTEC and the overpowered shotguns, rather than the PMG like they normally would have been after the shotgun rework. Just because one "topic" gains more prevalence and "hides" an issue, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, nor didn't before hand. Merged. Or just increase PMG's ttk slightly so that it's ease of use, range, and damage are better balanced overall.

PMG got buffed 2x then reworked so CJ3 effects it, OCA got "buffed" then CJ3 reworked, then reverted to its original power level. PMG got its accuracy buff (and i think something else), and range buffed. OCA got its TTK reduced (I think possibly an accuracy buff?) -> then ttk reverted. PMG was never an issue until they overbuffed it in 2013. It did need buffed, that's entirely true, however, not to the level that they buffed it to. Nerf the PMG "slightly" and it'll be better overall. There's litterally 0 reason to have accurate SMGs have lower than .7ttks without cj imo. As such reducing the PMG's power level would be the better option for balancing it, rather than buffing the OCA, which never needed rebalanced (aside from CJ3 effecting it) to begin with.

I mean, i agree with shotgun corner/cover peaking being an issue and that shotguns could use a higher ttk to compensate, however i'm still strongly against oca having a faster ttk. I can understand the desire to make shotguns have closer to a .8 ttk in general (and i feel it is a warranted suggestion.) However I also don't want shotguns to be completely decimated either. In general i think aside from the NFAS, SHAW or a small handfull of "spray with very little accuracy" weapons like NFA, no weapon should have a ttk faster than .7 as a "base" ttk. So i cannot agree with OCA getting a ttk buff. I can however agree with making shotguns have a higher base ttk than SMGs due to cover advantage. I feel .7s is a good "base" ttk for weapons that function sub 30m. (and i'm eternally upset that G1 intentially screwed up the increased TTK testing weapon stats to make it so that noone would support increasing the game's ttk) Yes, those situations happen a lot, however i don't factor that "perfect invisible shot" into balancing the shotgun either. that's fine to do, it can and does happen. Albeit it's not common for it to happen at all.

If it's missed or avoided you wouldn't be taking that much damage from it. I've mained frags for years over all other grenades. I've seen it literally tickle players, other times it doesn't. I've never felt it was too powerful over other grenades.

OCA was the most balanced SMG in the games existence. They decided to "buff it" initially via faster ttk, they then made CJ effect it, and THEN they decided to undo the faster ttk. Overall the OCA is one weapon that should have never been touched aside from CJ 3 having an effect on it. PMG has been an issue since it got buffed initially. Hell, back then OCA was used almost as much as the broken CSG was, so that's arguably not true about OCA being terrible. OCA isn't meant to be used much past 15m. The problem is that PMG has better accuracy at range (ontop of hitting like a truck), and the exact same ttk. G1 buffed the PMG several times, and ended up making it too strong, and instead of tweaking it better to balance it, they left it as is. Shotguns rule the sub 5-8m fights, OCA comes in up to ~15-20m, PMG goes up to ~30. However PMG doesn't suffer from a slower rof for its better accuracy and range.

OCA was never really nerfed. It was reverted to it's base stats, aside from having CJ3 effect it. OCA never needed its initial buff ttk buff, in fact it never should have gotten one to begin with. It was only buffed because they decided to buff and bork shotguns with reduced ttks. The problem with balancing shotguns is they either are consistent and become cqc kings with corners and without corners, or you make them reliant on corners and cover without very much usability outside of corners. LO had suggested making them spend more time outside of corners to help counteract the issue, but never went that route.

Don't get me wrong, it can happen, it's just really rare to hit all shots perfectly at that distance.

it happens haha

you're right, i think its always taken at least 12 shots past 20m

The CSG was too powerful with its predetermined spread originally. When they went first and reworked shotgun spread, they reworked the CSG to no longer have predetermined spread, they then gave every shotgun the same mechanic for spread,, likely due to coding limitations and to nerf the powerlevel of the CSG in one go while somewhat re-balancing the other shotguns, as well as lag prevention with the server. They did have a thread on it when they reworked shotgun spread and how it was calculated, before and after, and why. But that disappeared with the old forums. In the end the answer would be "to balance it better".

it's because they simply dotted the dots there to indicate randomness. It's not intentional, it's simply that there's "more" edgespace than "centerspace" for the pellots to hit the chance to land at.

I don't see it much of an issue, though i do feel that preventing enemies from "camping" the car would be the simplest fix. Also 50m concs are pretty hard to hit on a moving vehicle. I do end up leaving most vehicle missions before they start though. (Mojang money is absolutely the worst on defense)

I mean, i've done similar for each of those weapons and grendades, however I highly disagree that frags are too powerful. So please don't act all high and mighty, I've gone through the same bs with others. It doesn't however mean you are "always" right on everything you think to be wrong. The logical argument is that they are balanced with their timer and damage. 7m is not too big of a blast radius, and min blast damage can be rather low. They have a fairly slow throw speed, with the timer of 4 seconds. You sprint at 6 m/s. Most times depending on distance you have at "least" 1 second to react which means depending on distance you have roughly 2s to react. meaning depending on where/how far you are from where they are throwing (such as whether it's an ambush grenade or not) you generally have plenty of time to react AND move from the blast radius. That is, as long as you know it's coming for you. Player awareness is a massive thing that is necessary when playing against grenades. If you have no such awareness of grenades or cannot quickly identify it's fly angle and distance, you're going to suffer consistently because of it. That doesn't mean that the grenade is overpowered. I can agree here, i can dislike conc hp damage or the existence of percs at times, but that doesn't make them broken.

Vegas 4x4 has a slower max speed than the g20 honestly. Most vehicles have a max speed of 18-20. Except the vegas series which is 23/22 for both the g20 and 4x4. Hell, the growl has a max speed of 22.7 (i just looked that up, and am surprised) but noone talks about that one as being too good because it's almost a glass cannon.

Hmm I didn't realize it was that high now. Maybe it's just the fr0g or my aim being dumb then, most likely it's enemies getting behind cover just long enough for it to negate the damage and add an extra shot.

What logic? NTEC is fine didn't need touched, didn't include any logic, only opinion, and one that even G1 and LO disagreed with, which ended up with its nerf twice. Did I say that new players "should"? No I only said that new players often identify what they consider gameplay problems and call for there removal more than veterans do. This isn't wrong, you see far more average players bring up suggestions for balance, whether it be locational, mission stage/location, weapon, or gameplay. You rarely see vets do any of that. This is regardless of whether or not they "should" have a say in the matter. Many have made suggestions for legitimate changes, such as buffing the star, odin series, fixing broken locations by adding more entry into them. I'm not going to be ignorant and ignore "every" suggestion from a new player or even "average" player without seeing if it first has "any" merit. I'm not ignorant. You think that weapon balance isn't thought out to some degree before implemented? Every weapon change has been thought out, tested, and pushed out. That is regardless of whether it worked or not, or whether anyone "believes" it should have been done or not. Merged. I agree, i do tend to be bad at conveying things at times. The game company doesn't make changes simply because a new player asked for it. It generally has to have some form of backing. Most (not all) changes have had some mixture of average and veteran support and some form of suggestion for it to be done (LO and G1 do read forums and said that if they were "looking at something" already they said they may take it into consideration). The difference is also that just because the company decided to nerf something doesn't mean they are going to go about the same way as suggested. There have been multiple reworks that weren't suggested by at least any players that I know of or seen on forums, while still having that weapon or feature changed. Clusterfuck means clusterfuck from mission balance, spawning, the glitch/exploit abuse, to weapons ranging from pretty good to extremely underwhelming. It's not directed at the NTEC, it's directed at what the gamestate is generally called "overall". It's really chaotic. So the "Average players" are ruining the game by trying to make the game more enjoyable, rather than enjoyable for a select few veteran players? Game companies have to weigh changes they make and how it will affect the game overall. Any change, weapon, vehicle they add, is always weighed for both groups of players as well as for whatever goal they intend to meet. They also admit they cannot make everyone on both sides happy. They do try to balance things out, but will always end up upsetting someone if any changes are made and have consistently said this. Vets like to argue that a lot of changes are unnecessary, yet at the same time, doing so ends up increasing "player enjoyability" (of other players) to some degree. Maybe not "every vet" is happy about it but it may make a large number of other players happy. Let's not forget that vets range in skill level, play style, and drastically as well. I don't think you're doing it for kicks at all, don't get me wrong, I can understand where you're coming from to some degree. I used to play OW heavily and everything in it has been rebalanced a billion fricken times because of powercreep and new heroes and "unfun" abilities just legit destroying gameplay enjoyability. (And a number of unnecessary changes to boot) Even if you, or I may not like something happening, there does tend to be a reason, even if we don't like the answer. OW leads for example tends to do very well at conveying their "idea" for what they want and lay out exactly why the character or weapon or ability is being reworked/nerfed/buffed/changed whether for balance, enjoyability to go against, or ease of use. However, here in APB you get a little bit of text that says "we felt it was too effective". Ironically on both games you still end up having the same response, "your statistics are wrong it didn't need changed, you gave in to the casual noobs". I saw HB and QS as gameplay things that were too powerful, however well within the bounds of what the game permitted. HB and Qsing weren't glitches, they weren't exploits (though qsing essentially bypassed the hvrs 2 hit ttk via 3ps3 to make it easier for a kill), they didn't necessarily "bypass" preset intended features (like the slowdown on a vehicle from carrying a vip/item hold obj). Half the players did them, yet hated their existence. Most people do things regardless of if they like it or not, and whether its sportsmanship to do or not, because everyone else does it, or because they know they won't be banned for it. You don't have to like the fact that I did them while calling for their removal, as I said, I did what I felt I had to.

You've been name calling pretty much all thread, and any thread that comes up about "ntec rework". You really can't piece it together can you. You can't imagine that someone would want anything that they "Abuse" or "use" fixed or removed. You actually think I enjoyed it abusing qsing and hb? You're right. I enjoyed it. I enjoyed the free kills they got me. I enjoyed knowing that using them made me win in situations where I otherwise shouldn't. I enjoyed that "abusing them" put me at a higher skill level that allowed me to compete with players "supposedly" better than me, If they were truly better, they could have handled me using them. I enjoy getting those ez kills from cheap means. I called for their removal because I knew such things were truly unfair for the general playerbase and the games balance. But I abused them knowing that if I didn't i'd end up suffering worse against players who abused them against me. Don't expect a boo hoo from me for abusing things that practically EVERYONE ELSE did. Don't expect any remorse from me for calling things that were legitimately imbalanced as needing fixed while still using them. I did what I had to, while advocating their removal. What, you didn't know that game balances in various games occur because of player enjoyment? Or the fact that critical thinking is hard for you.

I use broken as = to too powerful/strong. If something is a little broken, its just a "little too powerful". It's just how my language mannerisms are. Strong to me = strong, not broken but broken is "too strong". I will agree to disagree with that second point because I have noticed things differently while playing with the different ARs and NTEC, and have noticed that I simply did a lot of things that I could not do and would not have been able to do without using the ntec. I don't agree with every change suggested, like nerf frag radius (lol that's a new one... wait nvm I think that popped up a few years ago too) and PMG? Well that one has been around forever, well not forever, for only as long as the PMG got its initial buff. (Which I agree "something minor" should happen to it, some have suggested reducing it's crouch modifier, which i don't think is too bad of one). I can agree that in some cases nerfing does come from average or lower skill players, but not always, and even veteran players have had decent nerf suggestions for imbalances in the game. I think new players tend to suggest nerf suggestions because they tend to be more vocal about things that make gameplay experience unfun. This isn't necessarily always a bad thing. What is "normal" for veterans to play and think and deal with, is often entirely different from new players or the average player. From an intial gameplay perspective we can all almost agree that APB is a clusterfuck. Yet when any suggestions tend to be made about making said clusterfuck be more organized and better, or even more sportsmanlike, and less reliant on abusing exploits said "features", Vets tend to get very upset.

I mean jump shooting over pixel cover isn't "fun" to just die because someone decided to "jump" at 80m with a sniper. It was the player using it, it certainly was not fun for the other side dying to that nonsense which only existed because a glitch in the games coding that the game maker decided not to fix for years. (player enjoy ability tends to be a factor for weapon balance in games believe it or not) Oooh name calling again, cool, lets clear this up shall we? For me to want to "nerf" the ntec in some way. (my prefered methods would have been ttk to .75 or bloom recovery time to 4.0 from 5.0) wasn't because I simply died to it. Though you and those who never wanted it nerfed like to argue that. I originally thought the weapon was fine, it took a lot of time and looking at its stats and stats and comparison in performance of other weapons in the same category for me to believe that it was too versatile. That it was too strong "somehow" too flexible, and we all have admitted that the weapon was the most versatile in the game. I initially felt the problem was indeed heavy barrel, so I did initially call for that to be reduced in effectiveness. Which is something you yourself said I believe you were fine with. But I still came under fire from others for even holding that opinion, with the same argument you just said. "It's balanced, you're just a weak player" I had done an analysis of the ntec, it had accuracy over the other ARs, ttk (aside from ATAC which came later), ranged ttk, and better bloom recovery. Everything about it aside from a handful of very small situations vs the star in cqc accuracy wise (like litterally sub 5m with both out of mm) indicated that it consistently performed better. That is why I decided to start calling for a minor nerf to it. It wasn't "oh he died to it" it was because I looked at the stats, the handling, the usage, the range, situations where it consistently came on top, and decided, yeah, something "should" be done about it. It's also why I started calling for a minor buff to the star at about the same time as well. I initially did say hey NTEC is fine now that HB was nerfed, and I held that opinion for a time, but something still felt... "off" to me. Sure it couldn't just "full auto spray" anymore so much, and it wasn't as "great" at tap firing quickly for perfect accuracy, but I felt it still felt "off". That is when I started suggesting .40 bloom recovery or .75 ttk. Those were the only "nerfs" i ever suggested for it, and even as I suggested nerfing it, I never once said I wanted it nerfed to the ground. I said it was only "a little" too powerful/versatile. Hence only "minor" nerfs being suggested for it.

If something is "too strong" it's considered broken. Was the C-9 broken? Or was it just strong, was the RFP with like 60m range broken or just strong? Was the pre-nerf 80m nano broken? Or just strong, was qsing broken or strong? They were considered broken for being too strong. Sure we can argue "semantics" of broken vs strong if you like, however that doesn't change the fact that people equate "(too) strong" to being "broken". You were never required to you're right. But let's be honest, it most certainly helped your game play in most situations if you did so to level the playing field.

PMG was (and still is) considered as slightly too powerful and needing a nerf. HVR was considered (and still is considered) too powerful and needing a nerf. NTEC was considered too versatile and was considered as needing a nerf (though this had the biggest split in the community as whether it needed any changes or not). They were 3 weapons that the general consensus was, that if you wanted to win, you HAD to run, because they were considered that much better than other weapons. (that's not considered balanced and almost every other gun in game has been buffed as well by now) That can certainly have been said for the HVR and the NTEC of the time. PMG had "some" competition with shotguns (least before the csg nerf), and the OCA was still/is decent against it. That is why 2 of those 3 weapons have recieved reworks, with the PMG really not being touched aside to have CJ effect it (but OCA got the same change as well so it was more or less to balance out CJ on all SMGS as equal)