Jump to content
Forum rules

MeanBetsy

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    169

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by MeanBetsy

  6. Posted

    6 minutes ago, LilyRain said:

    I have, it is called discipline. You just didn't think things through, hence denying your own words & attempting to change your stances so rapidly as shown and explained down below.

    That opening line literally told me everything I need to know about the rest of this essay. So tbh, didn't bother reading it

    Anyone with eyes can literally see that you're purposefully arguing in bad faith 

    • Like 1

  7. Posted

    4 hours ago, LilyRain said:

    I won't trust you on your stance because evidently, strategically, factually, with APB's spacial design AND statistically, that will be the end of APB's gameplay.

    I appreciate how much time you actually took to dissect what I said, I think discussions like this can be helpful even for the developers. But at the same time I don't think you were actually reading what I am saying.

     

    4 hours ago, LilyRain said:
    14 hours ago, MeanBetsy said:

    I never said they had to vault weapons, but it would definitely benefit them to have total creative control over the project.

    What makes you think they don't? The C.E.O said it himself, while LO sold the IP to the Chinese, the selling deal involved retaining complete control over THIS game, APB. LO can do anything gameplay related to this game and they did, both the good and the irrational.

    In the text that you quoted from me, I clearly never said they did or didn't vault weapons. I was just stating that it would be in their best interest to do so on a much more game-changing/overall balancing level - if that is even possible without much backlash.

     

    4 hours ago, LilyRain said:
    14 hours ago, MeanBetsy said:

    Mobile Radar Tower was not a paid mod and the Heat System was not paid content either.

    This is a first-grade online games problem. 'If it doesn't bring money there is no need to fix it or even talk about it', hmm? This is the mentality of short-term thinkers, a.k.a failures.

     

    They don't really have to be in order to receive fixes/improvements. If anything, if you think about it, there are players who religiously bought premium for the extra benefits such as more end-of-mission payout to skip grinding. Hence to them, indirectly, Mobile Radar Tower (amongst other things) were indeed paid for.

    Again, I clearly never said they didn't need to fix it or not talk about it - it was just irrelevant to our conversation because I was specifically talking about the paid content getting vaulted. Saying that Mobile Radar Tower was indirectly paid for via premium is silly at best, you're reaching.

     

    4 hours ago, LilyRain said:
    15 hours ago, MeanBetsy said:

    I know what the EULA says, which all EULA's say that. I am not saying LO will or would

    NOW you do. Had you known previously, you wouldn't have said this:

     

    unknown.png

     

    But you always seem to say things that you don't really mean so it is whatever.

    I always knew, that screenshot doesn't prove the point you're trying to make here. I still never said LO will or would, I said it may involve refunding upset customers - this doesn't insinuate at all whether LO would do that or not. In essence, this was my opinion on what it would take to be able to change the business model.

     

    4 hours ago, LilyRain said:

    For starters, the Halo franchise's balance was all over the place so it is a bad example to use to begin with, but we'll go with it. You got it backwards, btw. Halo CE was a faster game so no, weapon choice matters less in it:

    Just because it didn't achieve balance up to the standards that most games today would be balanced by doesn't mean they didn't try. In Halo CE, you wouldn't use a shotgun against a sniper player at long distances, correct? You wouldn't use the pistol against a shotgun in CQC would you? It's a good example because there are rules that very much resemble that of chess. That's also why spawn points and map design generally follows the same rules across most shooter games - they almost always symmetrical in nature to ensure fairness.

     

    4 hours ago, LilyRain said:

    On the other hand, on the disaster that is Halo Infinite with controller-aim-assist being an aimbot AND substantial time to kill, THAT game actually puts more weight to weapon choice. It isn't really hard to understand. APB is in a similar situation anyways (minus the controller aimbot).

    Here you're literally agreeing with me past the example of Halo CE lol

     

    4 hours ago, LilyRain said:

    When it comes to "competitive" games (e.g counter strike), each weapon is dangerous in its own right (even when considered sub-par), because they can still kill quite fast with further ability to headshot people. So they really aren't "chess" as you call them out to be.

    That's pretty chessy in nature to me. Each pawn is dangerous in their own right.

     

    4 hours ago, LilyRain said:

    They are "competitive" because unlike APB, the dominant factors there are player speed and skill and hence, solo players can still wipe out an entire team in rapid succession. But in APB? Not even close. Good luck doing that in APB without camping some corner, abusing car gameplay or consumables against players that know what they are doing. You can start a fight with someone, have your teammate or theirs join a decade later to end the fight. Cohesion doesn't need to be good in APB to be effective because APB is by far a chess game in comparison. There wasn't much comparison anyways.

    I do agree, and have always agreed with that point: APB Is not competitive - hence why people are leaving. Hence why I said things need to be drastically changed, starting with the business model lol. There are definitely steps they can take to ensure that the player base doesn't leave to annoyingly unfair gameplay advantages and an unfun meta thats been the same for 11 years - but like I said, it'd be in their best interest to have more creative control with APB. The current business model prevents that.

     

    4 hours ago, LilyRain said:

    You are in fact on the side of some who suggested APB should have longer ttks.

    I literally never said that in this conversation lol

     

    4 hours ago, LilyRain said:

    APB doesn't need to play more like a chessboard

    Doesn't need to but it's dying? Struggling to reach 100 people in a whole server yet it doesn't need to be a more strategic game? I am pretty sure APB is already on its last leg, even if the engine upgrade comes unless something changes drastically.

  8. Posted

    55 minutes ago, LilyRain said:

    Except vaulting or developing aren't even needed to take another, more reasonable initiative towards balancing some numbers or fixing things. Of course they have the liberty to vault things, they own the game and they DID vault some things. They did vault the blue vehicle mod "Mobile Radar Tower" as well as most of the Heat System (Prestige5/Notoriety5) in order to fix the former and make the latter better. Instead, those two were simply dumped and forgotten. Considering how RFP got the same treatment, HVR's damage now scales proportionally with the crosshair size (silliest band-aid fix ever, because simply changing its damage output would've been better). Vaulting other weapons are likely to end up the same or also taking over a year (like Med Spray did).

     

    To clarify, RFP now requires 1.5 seconds at BEST to kill up to a mere 41 meters for what it sets out to do. Can it occasionally get a kill or an assist in the middle of a chaotic fight? Yes. But speaking of vaulting, LO might've as well vaulted it because right now it has no reason to even exist. Any mediocre performance would've temporarily sufficed (e.g 1.2-1.3s). Better even they should've just removed Improved Rifling 3 from RFP-Fang and gave it some 'Fang' tagger or even Improved Rifling 1 to keep it consistent with most preset secondaries (because IR3 is the root of the problem).

     

    No, per EULA, no one is entitled to a refund no matter what. Players 'agreed' to this but most have played and paid without reading the EULA. Plus, they got their money's worth of it by now anyways.

     

    I agree when it comes to not attaching weapons to real life money, if anything payments should only be made towards cosmetic items for the best results. But their balance attempts are less than stellar not because of any of that but because they are holding on to previous beliefs that shouldn't be held on. APB is a shooter so they should make it a shooter. Instead, they are trying to make it a super-silly arcadey chess board (yes, they made epinephrine consumable ridiculous also. 150% speed boost for a cheap 25% health cost) where every weapon must be a distinct chess-piece on the 2nd row. This never succeeded and certainly won't after the game re-advertises with the new engine. Literally not many outside the current community would ever find this appealing but I hope LO's luck shines and proves me wrong.

    I never said they had to vault weapons, but it would definitely benefit them to have total creative control over the project. Mobile Radar Tower was not a paid mod and the Heat System was not paid content either. I am strictly talking about purchased items from the Armas causing LO a lot of grief when it comes to even attempting to balance the poophole that is APB. Go to a lot of the updates regarding any update to do with weapon changes when LO first got in - most people who were complaining were talking about the weapon they had purchased in the past now suddenly becoming bad.

     

    I know what the EULA says, which all EULA's say that. I am not saying LO will or would, but it would definitely help populate the player base and force them into being more open-minded to a new type of business model. And it's not like they couldn't change it anyway (they changed a couple of EULA when they kicked G1 out). 

     

    Shooters are, especially nowadays, and always have been arcade-y chessboards. Even down to Halo: CE, your weapon choice mattered very much depending on distance and your ability to aim. Those two factors are like that of chess pawns. In fact, most well-thought out games play a lot like analog games. And Halo still does this to this very day because it is very viable and generates healthy player competition - and a successful product. Trust me, the game is not balanced in its current state and should definitely play more like a chessboard when it comes to weapon variables. A "shooter", as you put it, is what a single-player game is - not a competitive multiplayer game sadly

  9. Posted

    5 minutes ago, LilyRain said:

    The community wasn't in the wrong. A lot of changes weren't even close to being well thought out, completely out of place and others didn't even need to happen (e.g buffing OCA to oblivion and not a buff across the board, x2 heal Med Spray that lasted for over a year).

     

    When it comes to the community getting mad that their weapon got nerfed, we have a great example to look at. RFP and RFP-Fang. The weapon is beyond "nerfed", it is completely destroyed. Who's talking about RFP these days, really? It was long forgotten and most others would've been not forgotten but praised that they are a part of a decent balance state.

     

    A successful company should be able to tell what is reasonable and what isn't and the history of balance changes under LO's reign (discounting the Vehicle balancing because that one was actually good), doesn't really show much improvement. The good part about LO is that it is willing to revert bad changes, so once some do indeed happen, there is nothing wrong to demand going back to the previous state. It is actually the right thing to do.

    I didn't say the community was in the wrong, I specified that. I do agree, a LOT of those changes missed the mark - but I see why it's hard for LO to really come up with a balance that will make people happy. It's not like they have the same liberties that game devs have when they're developing a game (pre-retail). They can't vault weapons (because of the paid weapon issue from earlier) and they can't modify modded weapons or else people's paid for weapons will stop working as intended. About the RFP, I haven't played the game lately enough to know about that situation - but I'll take your word on that. In order for this game to even become viable, the complete business model needs to change concerning weapons - which may have to involve refunding upset customers about their fav premium weapon being nerfed.

    This is why their balance attempts are less than stellar - a successful company would realize this also, and avoid attaching weapons to real life money at all costs unless you're a looter shooter.

  10. Posted

    50 minutes ago, LilyRain said:

    That is absolutely true. However, LO is simply delaying EVERYTHING, even things that don't need to be, such as improving the game's balance for both current and potential new players by the time the engine is actually out. 

     

    Whether on the current or new engine, stats are stats. Unlike some vehicle shenanigans (embrace the new Vegas physics), A STAR will kill in 6 shots under its drop off range and so on. There is no better time than now to at least come up with a plan for execution rather than start making one after the engine and new players flood in. There is no way LO would balance the game, improve new player experience, get a better tutorial out, etc before the new players realize the game is incomplete from the first week (realistically from the first day or two).

    To LO's credit, every time they've tried to even tap the concept of balance in this game at all the community just starts attacking them and demanding that they revert their precious mods/ntec. The bad part about this game and balance is that people paid for weapons (when they used to be exclusive to the Armas Marketplace) - so it's not even like the community is in the wrong when they get mad at their weapon getting nerfed. This was the hole that G1 dug themselves; when a player pays for something, they expect it to just work and be the same way since you bought it. This is how any purchase you make should be. It's a double edged sword whenever they nerf/buff any weapon whatsoever. I still remember the backlash that G1 got for touching the shotgun spread.

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1

  11. Posted

    Its funny how toxic players are to people who suggest that they should give LO some slack. 

    Consensus on hardcore apb forum dwellers: "nO I DoNT THiNk I wILl! SHuDAp".

     

    You guys do realize that it's harder for a company to please you if everything they suggest for the game is met severe backlash? I get it, some updates you all felt like were a miss but I think ANY change to this game should be welcome since it can always be fixed later down the line in your lifetime. This is a stance I've also had with G1, but they never did anything ever except for cash grab with premium weapons for like 7 years. The game is NOT even close to perfect in its current state, otherwise it would live forever and LO wouldn't have had to buy it off of G1. Also, programming on top of someone else's mess, especially a heavily modified engine from pre-2010, is not a cake walk. We've had so much progress, updates, and EVEN OPEN BETA TESTING for the new engine - I don't understand this baseless mentality that "Oh LO has never done anything".

     

    Some people are clearly just stuck in 2011.

    • Like 1

  12. Posted

    Unpopular Opinion: I think it was necessary since the toxic APB community can't even be trusted with a dislike button lol. You can tell if the community truly dislikes something by observing the comments, dislikes just enable trolls to be trolls without even reading the post while staying anonymous.

     

    I think everyone is overreacting to this change, especially since other social medias do the same thing and people/ideas can still get negative backlash. I get it, it's a feature that some of us used - I understand that we don't like having stuff taken away from us but at the end of the day comments are more powerful and telling anyway. This change encourages the people that dislike something to say specifically why they dislike it instead of just pressing a button. Some people might say "why not just remove reactions all together?". You don't really need to communicate what you like about a post or why you're saying thanks about something, but if you have criticism for something then it's better to voice it so people can assess themselves and others better. A dislike button really doesn't communicate anything at all besides "I disagree" which helps no one and won't convince an opposing view point.

     

    Merged.

     

    On 9/16/2020 at 9:03 PM, Talla said:

    APB has trained me to grow a thick skin

    and I am grateful for it.
     

    I don't care about the removal,

    but I'm wary about progressively "gating" the game experience.


    Teaching people to properly channel their emotions is the real solution, not protecting the "entitlement to feelings".

    Disliking something & harassment are different things.

    You do bring up an interesting point, but here's the thing: while it may have helped you grow thick skin and properly channel their emotions, the rest of the community hasn't grown up at all. I'll be honest, the majority of APB players (retired and active) are like worse than sweaty CoD and CS players. Also, I don't think it's not up to the game to teach someone how to properly channel their emotions. That just comes with just wanting to be a decent human being. Another thing about people is that you can't trust/expect them to do the things that require them to learn from their mistakes - 9/10 times they won't. Why? If you never cared about being a decent human being to other players then you won't care to learn how to channel emotions either.

    • Like 1

  13. Posted

    37 minutes ago, NotZombieBiscuit said:

    That's not where the conversation of competitive started at all.

    Yeah but I think that's what most people's conception of competitive video games are. Technically, you can have a casual game pvp shooter - yes it is competitive in nature still but it is by no means designed to be an esport (the definition of competitive to most gamers). Yes we can use dictionary definitions or whatever, but we all know semantics are governed by the social group you're in/the individuals you're surrounded by. I am not disagreeing with you or anything, APB is technically competitive in nature due to its pvp - but most people believe that the ranking system, design flaws, random elements, and balance stop it from being an esport (or what most consider to be a competitive game). This is also why people didn't consider Battle Royale games to be competitive, since they are technically based mostly on luck despite it being a literal battle till the last person is standing.

  16. Posted

    On 2/16/2020 at 8:40 AM, blockblack said:

    Why in APB Only old players stick around, I've found out that most APB players play since 2012~2014 and some of them play since the game's release, What I want to know is why... just why only old players stick around, why do they rather APB and don't move to any other game? and why new players always quit in the first few days or the first weeks?

    Two reasons:

    1) Toxic Community - You're seeing it right now.

    2) Investment - People spent so much money and emotional energy (essentially "no-life"-ing) on this game, leaving it would be literally a waste of money and years of their life lol.

    • Like 2

  17. Posted

    17 hours ago, yood said:

    there are many words .

     

     

    Current issue: skill level gaps between levels / threats are currently too large,

     

    the problem is abuse . clans play against single players ( Packed groups play against noobs who don't even have all stock weapons )

     

    There isn't really much you can do about that second issue

  18. Posted

    On 12/6/2019 at 10:54 AM, Ai-Zhú said:

    Uhh, no. That is not a fair comparison. 

     

    You are comparing casual game modes, where players of any skill level are being mashed up, to APB's missions, which is APB's competitive game mode. Casual game modes are the casual games in CSGO, the non-ranked matches in OW or the Fightclub in APB. These modes feature players of any skill level, but also a higher player count. Competitive or ranked modes, however, include a matchmaking system because they are competitive.

     

    Being carried or stomping on players just worse than you has nothing competitive about it, nor do you learn anything from it. There is a reason why in any competitive sport (e-sports included), there is some kind of "matchmaking" system, be it football leagues, racing leagues, or in our case, threat levels.

     

    HOWEVER, in this particular and odd case, the matches got more enjoyable for me. I have played several hours now since the temporary change was made and went out victorious in about 40% to 50% of the time, which is a fair ratio. I have to admit here, it was either stomping or getting stomped. That is not how it should be, but the previous matchmaking system was worse. There, it was getting smashed only. Either way, a fix is really necessary, but reverting back to the old system is not an option imo.

     

     

     

    APB is a casual game, not just fight club, whether you wanna admit it or not lol. 

     

    As I state in later posts, and sorry for the late reply, the game would benefit more if we had multiple tiers like the competitive modes in other games... but then you take away the social aspect of the game where you can't play with your friends since there are too many tiers - it's definitely not like sports in a sense where you can be on the same team with your best friend regardless of skill level (its usually the team that picks their teammates... not some sort of matchmaking algorithm). It would, however, definitely make matches more "fair". The current problem: gaps in skill levels between tiers/threats are currently too wide to really be of any use in terms of matchmaking. The more variables you add, the less people have a chance to play with each other.

     

    Back to the sports thing, this game is nowhere near e-sport levels of good nor should it be imo. Not every game can be an e-sport, only ones that are made from the ground up as e-sports will have any sort of success or fairness. I don't think it should be highly competitive either... there's no way to add a competitive mode without killing/separating the players even further (any further and the game will basically die).

     

    I would argue the opposite. Getting carried/stomped is one of the best ways to learn. Actually, it can even make you aspire to be like them - drive your motivation rather than just think you're as good/better than everyone else. But this is theoretical and wouldn't apply to everyone... HOWEVER, getting carried and seeing better players take better positions/perform certain tricks is very valuable. Getting a chance to talk to them is also very valuable - which would typically be in a match. This is why there are even sports to begin with... you look up to them, you can see what they're doing and learn from it, etc. You see your favorite team get rekt and you learn how they did (or just get angry that they lost).

  19. Posted · Edited by MeanBetsy

    19 hours ago, Solamente said:

    because rank and playtime are not indicative of skill otherwise everyone with 1000 hours would be high gold, which is not the case

     

     

    generally when i get into a 1v2/2v3/2v4/etc situation it's because im facing more lower threat players

     

     

    finding 10+ people to make a perfectly even match is a tall order with the limited player pool

     

     

    i've honestly seen very little feedback from console players at all

     

    also i imagine no segregation is an easier pill to swallow for consoles because A) they don't have visible threat levels, and B) they never had threat segregation to begin with so to them its normal

     

     

    "back in the day" there were several instances of each district so if you were getting curbstomped too hard in one you could always jump around (in fact i remember it being a pretty widespread practice to jump districts in an attempt to get easy opp, the old version of today's dethreaters), this is not the case currently especially on NA - whoever is in the district is who you're stuck on missions with

    How does that, district hopping, compare to dethreaters? In other words, how was it even a terrible thing that was ruining matchmaking? Sure it's a P-Word move but I can't really see it as a damaging thing. Dethreaters, mal-intentioned or not, do. With non segregation at least people dont need to Dethreat and you know more of who you are up against.

     

    And that's what I mean, it doesnt matter if theyre used to it... the fact is APB can easily do fine without threat segregation with Consoles as proof of that. You kind of just proved my point. If console players really felt as though it was missing or that it was completely screwed up, which they're very vocal within the game itself about its issues more than the forums, then I am pretty sure there'd be as much of an uproar about it as the poor optimization/performance. But as far as I can tell that isn't the case. It's only the hardcore PC crowd that really wants it to stay despite it needing more tiers to truly determine skill level... which cant happen because then there'd be more segregation between districts. 

     

    Edit:

    Imagine this - You just got the game, you're playing but you barely know jack about the game.

    You're mechanically better than your teammates and then bam you're gold, now you can't play with your silver/bronze friends that like to play in bronze, if you leave the district. Should you try to join them, assuming you even know/remember how to do it, you get an error. You could say well just deal with it, but remember that most normal people play games to play with others. This is mainly why there aren't many new players. An even more close to home example would be that this is why I couldn't get my other friends to even touch the game past trainee.

     

    On the other hand, in this new instance, the only thing they have to worry about is the opponents... and learning the game. The game is simply too small to have a tier/threat system, which isn't even that good to begin with - like I said, it would need more tiers, more players, and more competitive fairness. This is why what APB had to begin with was fine, the fact that you could go to any district regardless of what rank you were was good - this was with its issues though, despite the penalties you would get.

     

    Threat-less, on the other hand, is even better because you can't pick your op, the matchmaking does. Threat district hopping is impossible and the purpose of dethreating is null. You're just playing. The. Game.

     

     

  20. Posted

    5 hours ago, Solamente said:

    matchmaking theoretically works fine, it’s the limited amount of people it has to choose from that results in problems

     

    this is why no segregation is a problem - because we still have the same limited pool of potential players but now there’s even more variation in threat levels

     

    for a simplified example: if you have 10 golds in a district (segregation) it’s far more likely that you will get a balanced match than if you have 3 golds, 4 silvers, and 3 bronzes (no segregation)

     

    this is not an issue for most other games because most other games don’t limit matchmaking to players currently in a specific instance/district/lobby, which is what apb is moving towards with the eventual addition of phasing 

     

    but until phasing happens no segregation will continue to be a mess

    Theoretically? Maybe. I am going to have to disagree with it in actual practice though... since it doesn't seem to actually take rank and playtime that into account. Also not to mention that I've seen outright times that the game thought a 2v4 was fair, meaning the two individuals couldn't call back up.  This was even on a segregated district system. The issue with that is you're at a disadvantage just by sheer player count. What it should try to do is give the op 2 golds and give the other 4 silver teammates. This sometimes happens... but never consistently enough. 

     

    But let's say my observations were extremely limited and only happened in those cases ever.

     

    The interesting thing is you bring up how unbalanced it is being non-segregated... but you're forgetting barely anyone on Console is complaining about matchmaking based on skill. They're not segregated by threat either, that's the funny thing. The only thing making console people quit/complain is the lack of updates and cruddy optimization ( and maybe occasionally toxic players I guess, cause u know... APB community). There are many good console players out there too, it's not like they all suck.

     

    Even funnier is that no one in APB used to really care about what district others were in back when I first started. Sure they cared about being gold/silver but never complained about people being in the wrong district. I know I was never harassed for it the times I did it. This is only in a post e-sports era that this is even an issue - from what I am noticing anyway. The funny thing is, unless APB completely changes its weapon/progression system, it will never be fair.

  21. Posted

    I don't understand why my last post was disliked to all hell, so I think people missed the point - either that or they just don't want APB to let people play with each other. Basically the matchmaking is the true problem with the game. Not the threat. We wouldn't need the threat if it wasn't for bad matchmaking. I don't see whats so bad about what I said since literally every other LIVING game has decent matchmaking opposed to segregating you from the same world as other players. I know APB has some Matchmaking, but it's not at its full potential. 😐 But I am sure there will be dislikes on this post too since maybe that's not what people want, I guess they just want to stomp on bronzes all the time lol

  22. Posted

           For those who dislike fighting golds, I hope you know the legit bronze people would like a word with you. In fact, they are probably very happy that they can have gold players on their team against silver players that would normally stomp them constantly. But we don't talk about that - despite the fact that this matchmaking method works in every other game. In fact, the most enjoyable times I had with a game like early Overwatch, Counter-Strike, Call of Duty, Battlefield, etc. was when I was fighting a mixed bag of players... not just people on the same skill level. Overcoming the people who were better than me or just taking a some breather and stomping people - that was a nice appeal. This is why the old server selection in games like TF2 was interesting because you never knew who you were going to fight.

           The way I see it, it's not like it's any different from the threat segregation when a gold player DT's (which happens all the time... hence why Bronze districts always have more players than silver). People who were getting stomped before are getting stomped with a chance of getting someone who is better able to help them as backup now.

           For example, I was paired up with two low rank silvers against 4 silver players near max rank. It was a very enjoyable match where in any other normal instance they would have had to fight a handful of 255 or near max rank silvers with the possibility of getting two/three feeding bronzes as their teammates. I just can't possibly see how removing threat segregation is a bad thing, but perhaps there could be another matchmaking system overhaul - I understand it doesn't always work out well (in that example, I was not able to call backup so if I was unable to help those two silvers we would have had no chance), which tbh is probably more of what people are unhappy about when removing threat segregation. Plus the eventual re-balance of the weapons might help a little too who knows.

    • Thanks 1

  23. Posted · Edited by MeanBetsy

    2 hours ago, AzeliaBLankz said:

    I'm back in the game after 4 years. I used to play Pubg and last week I made the decision to return to Apb. I've been playing the game for about 5-6 days, bought 2400 g1 premium or something. To enjoy the game, but after 6 days the game was closed.

    Due to the update of the database kapansada close to 2 days can not enter the game.

    I'm going back to pubg. Now we wish to meet in the next few years.

     

    See you all..

    "Now that I can't play the game for a single day (or possibly two) out of the f****ing week, I now shall never play the game ever again. Even if it means the game will get better as a result, I don't care. I am off to purchase my chicken tendies at the PUB-O-G."

     

    Do you understand how unreasonable this is? You could use some sunlight. 

    Edit: There are 365 days out of a year. Ya, no, you people just need to chill. Your a**es that actually paid money are getting compensated while they're making the game better, do you want an award or something??? It seems like no matter what, the devs can't win with you people.

    • Like 2

  24. Posted · Edited by MeanBetsy

    3 hours ago, xXD4v1dXx said:

    Yall are really sad bruh... Like fr majority of you bash every f****** move they make (they haven't even had apb that long when you really think about it, mistakes and wrong calls are bound to happen) and then when it's down for a couple days you'll cry like some b******, I'm calling it right now their gon get sick of y'alls whining and as soon as the engine update is complete they're just gon give us away to another company thats most likely gon let us sit and rot again.... Acting like some goddamn crack addicts. Sorry to the admins for language.

    Tbh I thought I was the only sane person for the longest while to realize APB is full of crybaby manchildren that want their stupid chicken tendies.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...