jimmyneutral
-
Content Count
20 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by jimmyneutral
-
-
damn baby i remember the good old days when matchmaking was crossfaction baby that system cranked hard baby non stop around the clock ringing domes like bells baby damn now its just dead times no missions to be played not fun these days baby damn
-
open threat districts is one foot in the door baby full send it and crossfaction play baby !!!!!`
i dont want to hear jack diddly about lore baby ! fk it baby !
Le`ts go !
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, 404 said:what happens to players that no one wants to play against?
legitimizing afk behavior with a mechanic that essentially rewards the people who would afk is not the answer imo
the outlier 'everybody refuses to oppose me' players versus the numerous 'a good amount of players refuse to oppose me' players.
i wish i had a solution for players like the one youve described, atleast theyre fruitless missions would end instantly via the defeatist team forfeiting.
youre not rewarding the forfeiter, theyre doing that regardless. youre alleviating the time waste of the players who actually want to play.
-
13 minutes ago, ExoticZ said:I'm fairly sure me and Frosi are aware of these issues.
I do not like to play against unexperienced silver/bronze players either. We dont need a surrender option to work around this.
The issue lays in the matchmaking and threat segregation system. This is what needs a rework.
As of right now the engine upgrade is number one priority though. LO have to take step by step, cant take everything at once.
reworking matchmaking properly would better route high skill players and low skill players to their own brackets, alleviating this issue to some extent, no denying that.
but remember that were only addressing players who hackusate alone, not even accounting for the various players that have their own minds made up on what is valid play regarding strategy, playstyle, weapon selection etc. you can rework the game to perfection and yet you'll still have that noticeable lump of wrongfully entitled players who muddy the system up. the stubbornness that leads to sandbagging a mission stems from fucked human behavior, it will keep happening to a noticeable degree.
-
2 minutes ago, VanilleKeks said:Both sides of the coin here have pros & concs and I am well aware of them. In my opinion, the proper solution would be to develop a matchmaking system that minimizes the amount of times a surrender would even be justified. Either way, implementing a surrender function into the current game is really about picking the lesser evil, which is simply a bandaid that I don't think is good for the game.
i still understand where youre coming from, its obvious to me that forfeiting doesnt exist in a perfect environment. but the undeniable fact is that aslong as there is belief of your opposition cheating, its a rare feat to find where people will still accept the match and play anyway. needless to say, id play anyway, the potential cheater is a challenge like any other player.
-
2 minutes ago, arkup said:nope .
when the game was first released it would tell you who you were going up against
and give you the option to take the fight or not with a yes / no option pre-match
guess ,what it didn't work for obvious reasons , some players rarely got a match because of it
and again, when these defeatists are left without an option to forfeit their match, what do they do? they AFK the entirety of it. its in all ways worse.
-
54 minutes ago, VanilleKeks said:Time HAS to play a role in order to ensure that players atleast try. The individual tolerance is not important here, apart from determining an average which you can use. That's why League has a 15min minimum requirement for an early surrender. If you do not lock that function behind a timer, you will have people surrendering after the first team wipe. Taking the easy way out is far more common than you actually having an unwinnable match.
Considering what Frosi said, the chances of you having an unwinnable match will be lesser in the future. I see it all the time, people die once and then AFK the entire stage. Sure, not having to wait out the timer would be beneficial for both sides in this situation, but I just have a feeling that this will be horribly abused.
regarding abuse of a forfeit system, i could only assume you mean farming rating/money. ive mentioned earlier that, of course, parameters need to be set and adjusted accordingly to best reward players appropriately based on overall mission participation when a mission ends due to a forfeit.
5 minutes ago, ExoticZ said:No, no and NO!
^this
'Absolutely not, good players already have a hard enough time getting opposition, giving the people that hackusate everyone better than them a surrender option is just going to ruin more and more missions and make the game even less playable for 4 player groups.'
realize that Frosi omits or is somehow completely unaware of the fact that players who 'hackusate everyone better than them' AFK against said players, forcing you to either wait the 5-10 minutes depending on whether youre attacking or defending or restart your game, because they arent.
why the fuck would you want to sit in an abandoned mission any longer than you have to? so long as there are enough players with the notion of cheater pollution in mind, this is going to happen.
-
13 minutes ago, VanilleKeks said:Time HAS to play a role in order to ensure that players atleast try. The individual tolerance is not important here, apart from determining an average which you can use. That's why League has a 15min minimum requirement for an early surrender. If you do not lock that function behind a timer, you will have people surrendering after the first team wipe. Taking the easy way out is far more common than you actually having an unwinnable match.
Considering what Frosi said, the chances of you having an unwinnable match will be lesser in the future. I see it all the time, people die once and then AFK the entire stage. Sure, not having to wait out the timer would be beneficial for both sides in this situation, but I just have a feeling that this will be horribly abused.
placing a forfeit option behind a time restriction ultimately results with a quitter afk'ing for that time restriction, then proceeding to forfeit. no difference is made, this is obvious to you based on what youve said at the end of your reply. of course not regarding all games or communities, but specifically for APB, it could range from something as simple as recognizing an enemy player's name, indicating that the mission is infact an 'unwinnable match', which is ground for 'taking the easy way out'. obviously this issue is behavioral, meaning that you cant treat it with the assumption that people are behaving according to the structure.
your previous post, you mentioned that, 'if you really want to, you can spam out of district or close your game'. thats what we already are doing when our opposition determines that theyd rather afk. streamlining this as a proper option funnels you against players actually willing to play you more quickly.
the main point here is that im not advocating quitting, im pointing out that a notable amount of players do quit for their own valid/invalid reasons, and theres no mechanic that can with certainty make them play, so there needs to be a mechanic that lets willing players conveniently get themselves out of a would-be abandoned mission.
-
7 minutes ago, VanilleKeks said:I can understand a surrender function in a game that requires a relatively long time investment per game, such as MOBAs. No one wants to play another 45 minutes dragging out the inevtibable. In APB? Most missions don't take that long. If you really want to, you can just spam in chat and get kicked to the lobby, or leave the game. This sounds more like a more convenient way to skip any form of challenge, since you don't give up your district slot.
Not a fan.
tolerance of duration is variable, what you mentioned about inevitable losses is far more concrete. time/duration shouldnt be the factor in what determines whether or not a feature like this is positive because again, from that lesser experienced player's perspective, that soon-to-be loss is just as inevitable as the MOBA players match.
-
1 hour ago, Mitne said:I don't care about griefers. I care about situation where we got finale for 10 minutes with enemy team bunkered in some cheesy spot with item or VIP and just sniping us down whenever we try to approach.
That's situation where you should just give up and look for normal mission.
yeah its pretty clear to me now that you dont care about griefers or how to cushion the impact they have.
Merged.
i think were neglecting the fact that you cant change a players intentions or behavior for things of this nature. obviously among lesser experienced players, there is the stigma that this game has a high percentage of cheaters, and id like to think weve all played this game a fair amount to know at which rate you encounter these players where when they die to you once, they ultimately end up driving to the end of the district while you either restart your game or chore your way through that abandoned five stager. when i say it happens regardless, i quite literally mean that the difference between an official forfeit option and no official forfeit option would be marginal.
-
12 minutes ago, Mitne said:I am for that idea but only under three circumstances.
No is treated as veto for that vote. If even one teammate votes no, voting for surrender is cancelled.
And NO bonuses for surrender. And you can only surrender in finale (so "winning" team gets something out of it).
Then we can talk, otherwise I see room for abuse.
voting for the option to forfeit introduces a new method of griefing via, again, sandbagging a mission and now voting against your team forfeiting, which defeats the purpose of a forfeit option in itself.
its implied that forfeiting yields no gain in progression unless a ***yet to be determined*** amount of mission participation took place.
2 minutes ago, 404 said:legitimizing it will only encourage more players to use the mechanic, using "it already happens" is a pretty poor justification imo
and the more it happens, the more quickly you'll reach players who want to play against you as much as you want to play against them.
-
26 minutes ago, Dezire said:It shouldn’t be convenient to p*ssy out, there’s a reason the cointoss exploit was patched.
im not in favor of it anymore than you are, thats not the point being made.
the point is that 'sandbagging' a mission will occur regardless, whether its due to suspicion of the enemy cheating or that theyre 'too difficult' to oppose. its a positive addition for forfeiting to be conventionalized so that the players who actually want to play can avoid being griefed by afk'ers, again, because it happens regardless.
-
afk'ing is surrendering in a griefed form. officializing a surrender option speeds up the process of what would have been you closing your game and relaunching to actually play the game.
whether theres a surrender option or not, the end result is still the same people deliberately not playing versus you, the difference made is convenience.
-
2
-
-
wouldnt want those new engine dumptrucks going untested am i fuckin right or am i riiiiiii-YEAHHH
-
tzicky liiisten buuddy the satellite objective youre defending is already 55m away from you which means that player is even farther than 55m buddy and u only hit him at most 20 times which isnt a kill at that range, same with the pre and post nerf ntec buddy
-
hello everyone . i have input my game files a crosshair custom and config but i am still not going good scores when i play i want to ask there is more files people can change becuase i need more adtantage i suppose ? any help then thank you for it
9/22 Maintenance Announcement
in General Discussion Archive
Posted
god damn baby all of this im liking what i am rreading here baby lets go