Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About Jobs2k

  • Rank
    Smiles when they see a person use brain BEFORE fingers.

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I think that will get very different responses depending on the viewpoint of the person replying. My overall aim is to try to bring new life/players to the game... or just generally increase the active player base and I'm looking for ways to do it. The reason I felt a need to post came from a discussion that began in the 'Extended Server Maintenance' thread.
  2. I completely understand that psychology but do you feel it is productive ? This is not an easy problem to solve. I would be naive if I couldn't admit that. It doesn't stop me wanting to try. I'm pretty sure I remember G1 doing exactly this across all threat levels. It failed hard. I think that was because it was a hard limit. Back then I frequently played in a 4 man team and the moment one of us went gold they would become annoyed and depressed because they knew the moment their connection dropped (happened a lot back then) they wouldn't be joining us for a good while. They would be playing alone on gold while listening to the rest have fun. I totally agree. I'm just trying, probably in vain, to find community acceptable solutions that LO might want to consider. I feel that pain far more frequently than I like, but I don't believe going AFK is the best solution. Even if I know that direct conflict simply will not end well for me, I just switch to being an aggravation to do damage and leave. I focus on combat survival while hopping my team mates will capitalise. Yep, totally understand. It makes sense in the low population state we're in. Do you think it will change when the population increases, or will the server list show 2 empty gold servers, 6 full silver servers and three full bronze ones? Currently I forsee the latter. That had a higher chance of working because there was enough players on-line to provide a choice of active servers. I remember back then, if you were getting stomped (or just not enjoying the opposition) you switched out. It might happen again, but it relies entirely on getting enough players to fill enough servers.
  3. Yeah, in a way I misspoke/typed. I do understand they are basically guaranteed to be going for the cash, but part of my confusion is the fact that there are empty silver servers they could be doing that in. They go for the gold servers for exactly the reason you're talking about - no one goes in there, even if there are Crims raiding. They are at least 90% sure that they are safe in their crime spree and a huge chunk of that safety is provided by the idea of "Silver = Gold".
  4. Again with the error.... I'm guessing it is down to a flurry of praise DDoSing it now!
  5. We're totally up and running except for the bits that aren't! lol Joking aside, please pass on our extreme gratitude for everything the entire team has been going through during this entire ordeal... complication... situation... whatever. Just, thank you!
  6. When is LO bringing in platinum then? That way there is an even greater distance for platinum to dethreat down to bronze and keep players from being able to enjoy the game and stay. Sorry, but I feel that the Silver = Gold reasoning is fundamentally wrong and hurting the life of the game. Just because people accept a situation it doesn't mean it is correct to do so. It is quite possible I will (and do) drag down the performance of my team, I don't recall ever denying that here or in game, but that is also possible. A great many times I am apologising to golds for bringing them down. Just as many people I have introduced to the game have done to me when I have taken them to bronze servers. I thought this was politeness and understanding. "I'm not in the server intended for my level so I must recognise that others aren't likely to be at my level. I should still help them enjoy the game where I can." One, both or neither of us has things confused in regard to the phasing. In a recent post Matt said that they are no longer looking at merging the two databases, rather they were now intending to loan characters back and forth between the two that currently exist. I took that to be more like other MMOs that allow you to move your character to a different server. Am I wrong and do we know what impacts that would have to the idea of phasing yet? This is a huge issue when it comes to player retention. I don't know this to be true, but it sure as hell feels like it a lot of the time. Agreed. I am always baffled when I see 0 Enf 10 Crims in a gold server in the list but enter a silver server and see a sea of gold that I feel are all ready to tell me that the gold servers are empty. I don't fully agree with everything you are saying as I feel at least some of it might be a remnant of experience in the G1 days. I did enjoy seeing the odd one pop up in chat just after LO took over though. I hope it is something that is on their roadmap, even if it is an 'after the bigger stuff' type of thing. Not directly, but I know of at least one person that has outright said that they can't wait to jump back in on the new engine. They are out there and their return might bring a shift we sorely need. I do agree that the new engine and phasing, separately or together, will not fix the overall issues. I also think that LO and the community understand that as well.
  7. I'm contemplating spinning up a server, but knowing this community it'll get DDoS'd by the first person to get blown up by a creeper!
  8. While your post is on the better side of the criticism I think there is one possible scenario that critics might not have considered: What if LO took a good look at the public face or APB and saw so much potential, then they found out that they could own the IP and thought "yeah, let's look at doing this!"? They took the time, spoke to the right people, got lied to profusely, realised it would be a challenge but thought it was going to be okay. We know LO had to have had a fuller idea than any of us how bad it was, but frequently companies or their liquidators make their products/stock look the best they can while hiding the full story so they can mitigate losses. I'm describing a scenario similar to going to a real shady car dealer and seeing what you are SURE is a gem, a diamond in the rough and just think it needs a good clean and a tune up. Once that deal is done you don't get to go back. Now your options are simple: Sell it on and hope it doesn't kill people, break it up for scrap and take the loss or rebuild it over time. The scrap option for APB is essentially switch off the servers and give up on it. I don't see anyone who is reading these forums actually wanting that to be the ultimate outcome in the near future... especially LO! Selling it on would be possible, but it is likely that the game, in its current form, would be a loss in money and at this moment (yes, even after the servers have been completely off-line for days) I feel that all of LO (especially @MattScott) really do want the game to be successful... even if that is just for financial reasons. It's all the same to the end user - the game is on-line instead of dead. Once you rebuild the engine ( ) and the car is up and running, you can turn your attention to fixing up the panelling and interior. This is all completely speculation but it might provide people a different or unconsidered viewpoint.
  9. Nope! At minimum, 70% of "You should play on bronze" comes from an opposed gold player, usually right after I kill them. When it comes to my team mates (or rather my faction) the mission starts, I am put in a team of about 4 players, the golds immediately abandon mission (see, not team mates), it is down to only silvers... which is very often just me. They don't stick around long enough to berate me for what they feel is me being in the 'wrong server'. I explained why I don't feel I should go to a bronze server and why I like to have my account in the silver threat level. Is my rational actually wrong? Or is it that people can't understand why I don't just conform to what everyone else does? Or have I entirely missed something important? Thank you for providing a thought-out detailed response. I agree with your post, but specifically with the bit I quoted. That said, I know how this community can be (but not always is) and I wanted to skip the general "you're just salty, try learning to play first" or "just go to bronze and stop bitching noob" type of stuff that so often happens. I recognise that I'm one player and I don't have a clue what the game code is doing, but you never truly know if your ideas are good or bad unless you discuss them with others or implement them yourself. I can't do the latter so I went with the former.
  10. After trying really hard to understand anything you said, I can't agree with this statement more! It is your decision, but I would suggest typing in your native language and then providing whatever English your translator of choice provides you. At least others can then try to decode what you really meant if they feel a desire to.
  11. The major difference in this area is that you're talking about people you work with and companies you contract with. The closest we are to LO is customer receiving a free product. If you feel like you want to complain as a customer then go right ahead, but drawing comparisons to your employment (while it seems generally accurate to you) isn't the same at all. As has been stated; the community was warned that there was likely to be a tough situation to get through but the members of the community that were paying attention were, on the whole, urging LO to go forward. It seems like you are part of the player base that doesn't check forums unless there is an issue and then gets upset that decisions were made without you. That's similar to not voting and then getting angry that the people who end up in power don't do the things you want. Its understandable why you are upset, but it doesn't make it acceptable or correct.
  12. I assume joke as I don't think any of them can be turned off. Most you can do is prevent the updates from existing on your machine in the first place. At this point your RP interjections in this thread are one of the main reasons I'm still going through it. At minimum I smile from me so feel free to throw more of the 'story' in to break up the argumentative crap. Honestly caused me to chuckle! Now, the content. The BB code on this site is so limited/broken... Let the bashing commence...
  13. I want to weigh in on the back and forth about dethreating and server ranking from my own point of view. First (so you're less likely to want to jump down my throat and berate me), some context and stats: I'm pretty much a perpetual silver (a bit of that is by design, more later). I currently have just over 2000 hours in the game and, while I understand that I could easily of padded that stat in Social, I didn't. That's boring and, in my view, pointless. I enjoy playing the game. I've seen a lot, raged a lot, smiled a lot, been accused of hacking a bit. I have only one account; Citadel (originally Obeya) with three characters: 1 Crim (Jobs2k: 255), 2 Enf (Laney: 255, Jobs2k: Can't remember the rank but low and pretty much unplayed. Now, the content. After many years of playing I feel like the main reason to dethreat, especially in the current segregation system, is for someone of a gold skill/experience level to gain access to bronze level servers. My reasoning is simple - gold can go to silver any time they want. A frequent exchange when I kill a gold player goes like this: "You're shit. Go to bronze." "I'm silver, this is a silver server." "Then you should be on bronze [Insert random slur]." "I'm silver, this is a silver server. You should go to gold." "You're stupid. Gold servers are empty. Everyone knows silvers play on bronze and golds play on silver. Fuck off you stupid noob scrub." Let's break that down a little. Apparently, because I am not playing at the level a gold player thinks I should be to go against them (even though I just killed them) I shouldn't be in the server they are in. Now, I know that the most likely instigator of the exchange was 'butthurt' due to 'death by scrub'. People don't like to lose. I'm allegedly a person and I don't like losing. Now, why would/should the silvers go to bronze? I see two reasons. They can fight bronze level players there. They can 'escape' the golds there. They can fight bronze players, but "silvers play on bronze" so they'll be fighting both. Silver on silver is cool, it's the way it should be, but they shouldn't be slapping around bronze players. Why not? Because the game needs to keep players, not lose them. Bronze and green players need a place where they can be safe from stomping until (at the very minimum) they feel comfortable to branch out. "But wait, you said golds dethreat to gain access to bronze!" True, and I'll be the first to say that I don't have a foolproof solution for that incredibly complicated problem. What I will say is that I don't condone it and I wish LO every bit of luck finding a way to stop it. At the end of the day this game will succeed or fail based on holding a player base. Having newbs getting stomped and leaving is, in my view, the biggest root cause of the game being 'dead/dying'. The next point thrown out is that "gold servers are empty". My immediate reaction is "OF COURSE THEY ARE! You're all HERE!", hence me saying that I shouldn't have to go to bronze because they should be in gold. I realise that (while I feel that is correct on the face of it) it isn't a viable solution at this time because the player base is so small. I understand that people don't want to take on the same 10 - 20 players for 3 or more hours. The answer to this goes back to bronze players getting happy and secure enough in the game to enjoy it and stay. They then become silver, but happy silvers. They can take a bit more and they understand the game enough not to instantly feel victimised. To finally explain what I meant by being silver by design... I'm not generally at gold skill level because I don't play for a sustained amount of time. I'm back and forth in many games I play, spending multiple days focused on one or two until my desires shift. This means I frequently return to APB in a 'rusty' state. It also means that towards the end of each period of playing APB I have recovered what I had before and even progressed into 'gold territory'. This creates a few issues. Due to my feelings on what is fair I only enter servers that match my displayed threat level. No, I don't go gold and instantly switch servers, but I do check what my threat is before going to the server list. I know that players can move to one threat level either side of their current threat level. This means silver can go to bronze and gold. While my view of fairness means I don't go to bronze, I only hold that view when I'm playing alone or with similarly skilled players (well over 90% of the time). However, if I am bringing a new player in, and trying to help them find enjoyment in the game, I'm not going to take them into silver! At this point I will enter a bronze server, but I spend most of the time helping them understand the main mechanics and watching their back to stop gold experience silvers stomping them. I rarely end up at, or even near, the top of the mission stats. Because I don't know when a friend might express an interest in joining the game, and I want to support the game and grow the player base, I essentially give up making an effort (though I won't go AFK) when I go gold. I basically maintain silver as a personal balance. It allows me to play at my general level even when I'm rusty while also helping new players when desired. No matter what is done there are going to be 'bad actors' that like to spoil things or just simply test (and play with) the boundaries. I realise that this will always leave LO (or whoever owns the game) open to criticism. That's a hard place to be and I applaud their efforts while simultaneously being glad I'm not in their position. I would like to offer two potential solutions for the community to pick apart and criticise me for. Maybe LO might even consider if it is viable: Would it be possible to time lock moving out of your threat bracket? Example: A silver goes gold. They can't switch instantly to lower server. They carry on playing where they are because it only just happened and they are doing well, having fun. If they haven't moved out of gold threat for 24 hours then they are refused entry to silver servers. Eventually they would have to stop playing (sleep, eat, RL stuff) so balance would slowly be achived. This would also mitigate people being silver, having a string of a few bad missions, then being unable to access silver to play with their friends. It could also have a knock-on impact of people trying to help others to stay at the same threat with them. Would it be possible to kick players with a threat level that differs from the server threat? Example: The server has 39/40 Enf. A silver Enf goes gold or bronze. They are marked as 'kickable' and the server registers the time. A silver Enf enters the server. Server now at 40/40 Enf. The non-silver Enf that has the highest time being 'kickable' is allowed to finish the mission they are in, prevented from 'readying up' and kicked after X seconds. Server now back to 39/40 Enf. If the server is below 39/40 Enf then players of differing threat levels can still enter based on current 'one either way' rules of entry. This solution still allows for servers to remain well populated but they would slowly balance to being full of players of matching threat level.
  14. Might have something to do with the fact they either rushed it through now and did some other stuff on top of it while they were there or they would have had to extend the deal with the previous company(ies) for another year. If you're trying to save as much money as possible to keep a game running you find the best deal to achieve the end result. If that means it is better to pull staff in round the clock and force through some highly complicated logistics then you knuckle down and get it done. That's what LO seems to be doing in this situation and they are still at it. This isn't a company planning a move of a few Gigs of data from one machine to another. Unless I've misunderstood things, they are switching out data companies, hardware and software as well as configuring and running large scale servers for high numbers of people with an aim of 24/7 continuous service. Would another company have planned it all out and taken their time to have deals in place so that the switchover took the shortest time possible? Yeah, most likely. Is that what LO would have preferred to do in this situation? Again... yeah, most likely! From what I can glean as I check in on this situation between other things in my life, it wasn't on the cards this time. Take a deep breath and find something that will bring positivity into your life and the rest of the world. After all, if the servers never come back on... what else will you do?
  15. I'm referring to things like Spector, Meltdown, Zombieload, Et Al. If you could switch them off, I wouldn't suggest you do. A quick internet search on these topics and you'll probably join many others who are annoyed they have to lose some performance because of hackers and bad CPU design.
  • Create New...