Jump to content
Forum rules

Rehtaelle

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    67

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Rehtaelle

  2. Posted · Edited by Rehtaelle

    In total truth, I'd love a spiritual successor, but you'd have to divorce its IP from APB if you wanted to step away from any potential associations to any of APB's problems, or at least officially declare it to be "inspired by APB". The formula works, the tech is there. It just needs to be given proper support, regular content updates, and be built from the ground-up with better monetization in mind. It needs to be more fair toward new players, and have a less crippling progression system. (And not have its fucking lighting tied to bloom)

     

    An APB successor is bound to succeed if you just *try*, and make sure that your development team is the right bunch, specifically leadership roles.

  3. Posted

    I do indeed pray for a spiritual successor, especially if it's one that doesn't do one-hit kills. A sniper being a support role is such a fun take on things. Maybe do a sci-fi version with energy shields to explain why headshots don't work. And you'd get to use some weird tech gizmos or whatever.

  4. Posted · Edited by Rehtaelle

    I do have (albeit potentially misplaced) hope that APB can see a resurgence. Not to the point of being a smash hit, but to the point of having a stable population count. Just, not with its current level of attention from higher ups.

     

    It goes beyond engine updates, specifically toward monetization and progression. Even with an existing deficit of fresh content, the issues are that the monetization scheme is dated and scares people off. By using mechanics designed to keep people returning, it has the opposite effect of keeping people from coming back. The most game-altering unlocks take vastly too long to obtain, and the game does currently favor a vague sense of pay 2 win in the sense that the most tide-turning weapons and equipment are locked off to grind most people these days consider unreasonable in a mobile game or a price tag that doesn't suit what you're getting in return.

     

    I feel like in the right hands, APB could get a fresh population that actually really cares and wants to keep playing, but that's not where it's at right now. Am I the only one who thinks that this game could become profitable for the devs and publisher again if they'd just show it the care it needs? Game design itself would need some restructures too, though many of those are opinion based. (I think launchers should be mission-provided, not player-owned. That would make vehicle defense missions possible for those without launchers and heavy nades.)

     

    But what about everyone else here? Are you just enjoying the ride on this game's way to the grave, or do you think it actually could be redeemed in the right hands?

    • Like 2

  7. Posted · Edited by Rehtaelle
    clarified statement

    There have been a lot of reports of cheaters lately. I haven't played in a few months, but I'm seriously wondering if people are actually cheating, or if it's people blaming their losses on opponents who are just so good at the game that it feels like they're cheating. It's hardly the first time that would happen, just look at people in public TF2 servers who have a thousand+ hours and are unreasonably good with Sniper, and they just end up getting server-banned for "cheating".

     

    People talk about a faltering playerbase, but steam charts suggest that it's followed a fairly consistent trend (not a high number, but a consistent one) over the last 3 months.
     

  8. Posted

    4 minutes ago, Solamente said:

    in the time it takes for an opgl to launch and detonate one grenade the alig puts out enough hard damage to destroy any player vehicle in the game, it’s almost a 4:1 ratio

    The OPGL was never meant to factor into the main conversation, so that's my bad. I had mentioned the ALIG in relation to the lineup of rocket launchers and their respective role in AV effectiveness. As for the OPGL, it's hard to say that either that or the ALIG are versatile weapons, though I would personally consider the OPGL to be more "versatile" in that it can combat players in a way that other weapons cannot, while still being effective against armor, whilst the ALIG is reasonably effective against both, it's just the ALIG has... Well, you know its limitations by now. Great of a gun as it is, there are still limitations.

  9. Posted

    5 hours ago, Tigrix said:

    How about git-gud and if you can't beat an opgl user, you probably suck, otherwise there would be just as many OPGL users as there are right now JG and PMG spammers:)
    Thx for a nice patch nerfing nfas to the ground, it really changed "a lot" now 90% of the playlist in FC uses PMG and JGs lol, beautiful balance again from the "veteran crew".

    If that's directed at me, the problem isn't at all that I can't *beat* a launcher, it's that they seriously rip away the cover aspect of a cover based game, as well as provide far more AV power than other players have access to, especially early on.

     

    My desire is that everyone have a fair shot at stopping vehicle deliveries no matter where they are in progression, or how much they've paid. The ALIG argument holds up only on paper. Even getting a huge lead on the delivery vehicle with an ALIG encampment, the damage output just outright isn't high enough to stop many vehicles, either because they're too fast to get out enough rounds from the ALIG, or they're so tanky that the ALIG just can't do it. And that's assuming you had time to get the ALIG out and get set up in the right place. And even then, the ALIG can be hard to use consistently with its accuracy drop. You can't even use the argument to burst fire it because the entire point is that you need as many rounds down field as possible, and the thing is so damn slow that bursting hardly exists anyway. You NEED mods on it for it to be practical as an AV weapon against cars that are trying to blitz past you, which as I mentioned before, isn't a thing if you're fresh to the game.

     

    New players being at a disgusting disadvantage is what keeps people from sticking around. It's easy to write off this game as P2W because at the start of the game, it technically is. You can outright buy gear that are objectively better than your own, even if it's just by a tiny bit.

  11. Posted

    24 minutes ago, claude said:

    not if you have the option to replace the default OSMAW "spawn" with the volcano? wouldnt make sense for them to completely take it out of the game, but if you were to make explosives pickup only, this would probably be the way to do it.

    That is certainly a viable option, but it then raises the question on whether or not launchers are considered a tool or an actual weapon. At this point, their purpose would be destruction, not kills, despite there being some overlap in this case. It's just simply a tricky matter of how do you not have practically robbed all the people who both earned/ bought their launchers while creating a system which makes them easier to obtain/use.

     

    The real root of the problem here is ultimately the vehicles as they pertain to objectives, and while on paper it would seem like a better fix would be to simply adjust the objectives, that would be treating the symptoms, not the cause.

  12. Posted

    1 minute ago, Fortune Runner said:

    sure.

     

    if a new game mode/whatever had it setup the way you were talking about , then why would they need to take peoples weapons away when they could disable what players own for doing that.

     

    I think something may have been lost in translation. I would like explosives to be provided for an existing mission objective, not a new mode. To eliminate the issue of the have-nots being unable to hold off objective vehicles. It's very late/ early in the morning and I need some sleep, so I'll cover it more tomorrow/ later today.

  13. Posted

    1 minute ago, Fortune Runner said:

    while in theory that sounds good , it isn't better than other methods.

    that's why I'm confused that you are making harder for yourself.

    unless your only goal is to distract , then its not as good at it seems to you , which is why most do not even consider it.

    A conversation worth having, but this thread has gotten rather far from its main purpose, so let's try and return to it if possible.

  14. Posted

    1 minute ago, Fortune Runner said:

    what???

    What's the confusion here? The grenade comes out faster than refiring the rifle or trying to switch guns, and one shot from the rifle requires absolute minimum exposure, then the instant blast of the perc delivers the killing blow. If I have time to pistol-switch I will, but someone hauling patootie at me from my flank isn't there to play chicken.

     

    The method tends to piss people off more often than not, but hey, if it makes teams ignore the objectives just because they'd rather try to hunt me down for revenge, that's a win in my eyes. (And the angry whispers are quite delicious btw.)

     

    That said, this is starting to get wildly off topic. (My fault included)

  17. Posted · Edited by Rehtaelle

    3 minutes ago, CookiePuss said:

    Sorry, the issue is that you think HVR perc CQC is an actual viable strategy like... ever.

    I don't go charging in with it if that's what you're thinking. I use it when someone is flanking my position with a CQC weapon. If I'm down the street, in an alley, on a flankable roof, etc, it's a fast way of dealing with the problem.

     

    I'm not good with target tracking, up close or long range. I'm a flick-aimer by nature.

  19. Posted

    17 minutes ago, Solamente said:

    the same points about LoS and team coordination can be made about any hitscan weapon in apb, the game is inherently designed to enhance the effects of team coordination

     

    i can't help but question how familiar you are with the hvr if you think it lacks versatility, it's received several nerfs precisely because its too versatile and yet it remains so

    I should restate, the NHVR is not able to chase the way an AR, SMG, or Shotgun could, given distance and mobility. Also, I'm fairly practiced with the thing at <10m. (idfc what people will say about me for doing the N-HVR pop then a perc slam. If you wanna rush me with a shotgun or SMG all bets are off.)

     

    But let's be totally real, if a sniper rifle like the N-HVR were as versatile as an AR, you wouldn't see anyone using ARs. They serve their role best as fight shorteners, either setting up for an ally or picking up where someone left off. Can you effectively single-focus targets? Of course you can. But the maximum efficiency of the weapon is reached when supported/ supporting. Ironically it takes the opposite role of what I'm suggesting for grenade launchers, where a sniper drives people into cover, the launcher drives them out.

     

    24 minutes ago, Solamente said:

    the opgl is already most valuable when paired with a teammate as unlike the hvr you can't really hold your big burst damage back to be used at any time, so aggressive plays are much riskier 

     

    i'm unclear on how your suggested changes would re-establish the opgl's (already clearly defined) place, as they reduce its effectiveness at area denial and make it almost incapable of killing enemies on its own - the opgl already has the longest ttk of any weapon in apb iirc, and any damage nerf at all will double it from 5s to 10s

     

    additionally this new opgl would not have its own place at all, its almost guaranteed to land somewhere equivalent with the current eol weapons depending on final numbers, leaving its niche all the more muddled

    Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but OPGL is in the category of one-shot-kill viable weapons. While that doesn't automatically turn it into an assault weapon (give the fuse) it is technically capable of killing someone without Line of Sight in one-shot. (Unless that's changed and I was unaware). And the cut to hard damage in this case (And I do envision a very small cut) would be based on the original point of this thread, readily available rocket launchers for all. The presence of AV grenade launchers on top of more abundant rockets would presumably be a bit much to try and work through, not to mention ordinary grenades. (I still think Conc grenades should be available slightly sooner, purely because Anti-vehicle burst options are ENTIRELY unavailable to newer players who are left totally helpless in that regard and rely upon players who HAVE unlocked those things. It puts the people at the biggest knowledge disadvantage at an equipment disadvantage too, and a harsh one at that.

     

    You should not have to pay or 1000hr grind to get a weapon dedicated to AV (not including concs, which you can technically earn sooner) (Also, I'm going to disregard comments about joker tickets for now. If you have to farm the fuck out of one mode just to afford a RENTAL for the main mode of the game, I wouldn't call that a reasonable solution)

     

    31 minutes ago, Solamente said:

    if the opgl absolutely has to be nerfed imo there are two ways to go about it without crippling the gun

     

    option 1 is to leave it mostly untouched, only decreasing the damage radius - this forces users to be more accurate and precise without compromising the threat of a properly placed grenade, and also removes a lot of versatility because relying on excess splash damage to quickswitch will be much more difficult

     

    option 2 is to slightly reduce damage, i would say no lower than 800, and leave the current radii alone - this allows the opgl to keep its current area denial niche and almost all of its versatility, but without the possibility of a one hit kill

    I agree with the sentiment, and accept that my authority on the matter is limited.

     

    1: Cutting the radius is VERY okay with me. I feel like it could be handled with a touch more deftness, but if there must be a nerf, I would be perfectly content with this one.

     

    2: Yes. Perhaps I was a bit hasty going with Perc damage, as that's what I'm very accustomed to (perc + NHVR fan, as I've mentioned) And technically, option 2 is what I was proposing... Kinda. I was a bit sharp on the damage cuts to standard damage, and can see that point. And as mentioned before, I retain the notion of a reduction in hard damage to offset the new presence of mission-generated launchers. (All purely theoretical of course, I would NEVER expect this to come to fruition, but you know.)

     

    AT ANY RATE, I feel this has been enough of a digression for the time being, and would prefer to return to the topic of rocket launchers (for now. I know that grenade launchers are invariably going to be part of the conversation).

     

  20. Posted

    1 hour ago, Solamente said:

    you're all over the place here

     

    you want the opgl not to be a "directly offensive" weapon, but reducing damage forces users to push aggressively for every kill instead of sitting back and directing enemy movements

     

    you also bring up the hvr as the ideal example of a support weapon but there's two problems:

    1. the hvr isn't a support weapon, its arguably (pmg still broken) been the best gun in apb for years at this point, viable from 0-100m regardless of solo play or group composition - its good at being a support weapon because its good at everything
    2. the hvr is so powerful because of its massive burst damage, allowing a single shot to take any player out of the fight for several seconds whether it killed them or not

    these are both things that you're suggesting to nerf on the opgl, so i'm really not sure where you're going with this comparison

    (I'll try to respond to all of the points I can, I'm just not going to quote the entire post)

     

    When it comes to exact damage values, obviously what's on paper doesn't always reflect what happens, so testing would need to come into play, and thus it's better to apply the concept of what you're hoping for than exact values in all cases. (Obviously numbers will still help to establish things, but I'm sure you get my point.)

     

    I use the N-HVR almost exclusively these days (girl even has an N-HVR tattoo on her thigh), and what I mean by a support weapon is that in most games, a sniper rifle is capable of being a 1-hit kill all on its own. For maximum effectiveness, the N-HVR is paired with a teammate. While very powerful on its own (Again, very, very familiar with the gun) it has major limitations on versatility, and taking down targets in high cover areas. Once LoS is broken, whatever happens to the target in question is beyond your control. Sure, I can tag enemies running into an alley towards my team to set them up for easy kills, but unless my team gets involved prior to that, I can't rack up any kills effectively. (Unless the street is SUPER wide-open.)

     

    So what I mean by support weapon is that it be most valuable when paired with a teammate. Either enabling your teammate to charge in with an advantage, or to be more effective at flushing enemies out of cover (obviously death is more effective than flushing, I'm saying more effective in terms of a nerf) So a bump up in radius at the cost of damage (Maybe a tiny bump up in fire rate, but that would depend on play testing) would make the thing great for supporting your team rather than leading it. In the end, this proposal is a nerf, but I would like it to be one that re-establishes its place in the arsenal, not one that just actively downgrades the thing in all regards.

     

    And as for being "less powerful than the ones on your belt" quantity is the key here. In fact, the cut to damage should come with an increase to max carry count. One, maybe two more mags.

     

    I'm not saying to use EOL as a baseline, but I think reaching stats in the middle would (in theory) be a good resting place.

     

    If you're not sold on the idea, I don't expect you to be. Hell, the title says "Unpopular opinion". 

  22. Posted

    On 3/29/2020 at 4:35 PM, illgot said:

    explosive weapons are great against people camping rooftops or limited access locations.

     

    It would be nice if all rank 195 mods would drop to rank 85 so new players have more defense against explosives.

    I agree to an extent, however this is a bigger issue with map design than with our arsenals.

     

    Merged.

     

    On 3/29/2020 at 6:15 PM, Solamente said:

    i'll repeat that many weapons make locations borderline untakeable and that isn't an issue to be solved via weapon balance - if an objective is too open so as to be impossible to take you add more cover, you don't nerf snipers

     

    assuming you're just suggesting opgl changes, since any nerfs to the already underpowered eol weapons would be silly:

    • a 60% soft damage nerf feels very overboard (without even taking into account flak jacket), percussion grenades have low damage because they are essentially instant-use whereas the opgl has a 5s fuse timer
    • the opgl only does 500 stamina damage so any "undue edge" for enforcers would be fairly minimal, not to mention enforcers have their own ltl version of the opgl anyway
    • a hard damage nerf goes against pushing explosives into a support and/or av role


    these stat changes seem contrary to your desire to make the opgl less offensive, as reduced damage resulting in an impossibly long ttk will force users to push more than ever and quickswitch for almost every kill - a higher radius allowing users to ping enemies for that initial damage burst more reliably only doubles down

     

    lack of damage will also hamper the opgl as an area denial support weapon - enemies are much less likely to be afraid of sustaining 400 damage, especially if they already have an environmental advantage over the other approaching members of your team

     

    the hard damage nerf probably wouldn't affect much in the end since the opgl already requires at least 10s (2 shots) to destroy most, if not all, vehicles but at that point it seems rather pointless

     

    ultimately i think your proposed opgl would end up worse than all of the eol series, which are not known for being particularly well balanced themselves - why waste a primary weapon slot for a gun that is outperformed by the grenades that every player already carries?

    When I was referring to a knock against stamina damage, the ratio of damage to stamina from these altered grenades would be very LTL-friendly. And I did mention that I think a bit higher damage than percs would suit me fine. And yes, the entire point against a (small) hard damage nerf is (still a small one) is that with the proposed mission-available AV weapons, the OPGL would be far more than should be available. Besides, concs and normal grenades still exist (conc grenades are yet another weapon that should be made more accessible). 

     

    And what you're describing with being not-"less offensive", That's kind of the point. The blast should be an opener for teammates/ other weapons, similar to the N-HVR which is fairly inefficient against anyone who knows how to take cover and flank (not bad, just inefficient) unless it gets an assist/ is the assist. As a sniper, once I reframed my state of mind as being a support player rather than a kill player, it all connected. So similarly with a launcher, it's a weapon with a TON of unique utility, and rather than make it a doomsday device in hallways, I'd rather see it be used to support allies. People claim it's a tool to flush people out, but... Technically yes, though there's generally little reason to try and run from it if it lands near you, because it'll kill you anyway.

     

    And I understand the last sentiment, my point is more that the launcher has many more grenades than what are on your belt. So yes, I suppose what I'm chasing is more of an EOL-OPGL hybrid design.

     

    But if you're not convinced by now, then I don't expect you to be going forward.

  23. Posted · Edited by Rehtaelle

    11 hours ago, Solamente said:

    explosives are already a niche weapon class, even more so now that they can't resupply via ammo box

     

    new players not being good with the tools they have available is one thing, but actively removing those tools from a majority of the game will only broaden the experience/contribution gap between players who already understand these weapons after owning them for years and players who have to figure it out one use per every five missions

     

    there are certain locations that many weapons make borderline untakeable, that's a map balance issue not a weapon balance issue

     

    rocket launchers excelling at single point area denial seems pretty support to me, they're already much more of a deterrent than a directly offensive weapon

    It was rather late when I typed that. I mean to say:

     

    I would argue that explosives grenade launchers make certain locations borderline untakable, if not fully so, and of course, they're another key weapon in anti-vehicle matters, especially when you need to break into a car, no form of cover really matters if they know how to arc the thing. Like I was saying, they should be for support, not a directly offensive weapon.

     

    EDIT: To further state what I would like to happen to grenade launchers (Based upon the vanilla variant) I would like the damage model to be dropped down to that of the percussion grenades, or slightly higher, but not by much. (And obviously cut the stamina damage, otherwise it would give enforcers an undue edge.) and perhaps drop the hard damage by 20%. WIth these changes in mind, I think it would be appropriate to extend its radius by .5m (For a 1m wider diameter, of course, but thinking of it in diameter might shift the perspective on that number.)

  24. Posted

    Niche, but for the situation where that niche is most filled.

     

    You would absolutely need to fall back on other weapons eventually, that's the point. You use the launcher when it's clutch and you're convinced that nothing else will work.

     

    And new players not being good with the tools they're given is kind of... Well, what makes them new. Learn by doing, and all that.

     

    I would argue that explosives make certain locations borderline untakable, if not fully so, and of course, they're another key weapon in anti-vehicle matters, especially when you need to break into a car, no form of cover really matters if they know how to arc the thing. Like I was saying, they should be for support, not a directly offensive weapon.

  25. Posted

    At the VERY LEAST bump up the shape limitations to half that of what premium has.

     

    And give us more closet space/ outfit slots, for fuck's sake.

     

    And let us have vehicle templates so I can transfer the look of a car when I upgrade to a model with more slots. And let me sell the template on the market.

×
×
  • Create New...