Jump to content
Forum rules

Sniperturtle

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    1154

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Sniperturtle

  3. Posted · Edited by Sniperturtle

    10 hours ago, Tobii said:

    By that logic it would mean Advanced launcher shouldn't be allowed, but it was.

    And I am sure USPStyle could add framerate limit to his UI.

    Would that mean it's allowed then since we're now making the change using the AL?

    The file AL makes changes to is the same file the MaxSmoothedFrameRate=62 line is in.

    Like i said, they added an exception (even announced that on the forums and in USP-Styles Thread) for it so it was not considered bannable. They also did not pursue every infraction on the game files, but it was and as it stands is considered a bannable offense, period.

  4. Posted · Edited by Sniperturtle

    2 hours ago, Tobii said:

    It's allowed, and if you don't want to mess with it anyways just download MSI AfterBurner and enable FPS limiter? Since that is allowed. /shrug

    Quite the contrary, the old ToS forbade ANY change in the game files. G1 did not go after everything and created an exception for APB-Launcher - but if you want to be on the safe side, which is advisable atm, you just keep your fingers out of those files.

  5. Posted · Edited by Sniperturtle

    13 minutes ago, MrChan said:

    Is it impossible to weed the unjust from the just though? How were Matt and the new support guys able to tell there were unjust bans? There was obviously some level of record keeping that was able to tell them that, I doubt they just took players at face value when they emailed support with "I got unfair ban :(" as soon as they saw the new owners.

    Sure they will be able to see that here or there in that particular case the circumstances were fishy, maybe they even put the old system to the test and found it lacking, no doubt there. The error is in your next point:

     

    13 minutes ago, MrChan said:

    I'd say they could theoretically go through the old bans and separate out the just from the unjust...

     As you stated yourself it would be a task beyond any mortal to go and look over each individual ban, the exact circumstances that led to the ban and review whether FF worked properly that day, or whether some GM had cat-piss in their coffee this morning and was banning for the most harmless things, or if these persons got banned for things unrelated to cheating even.

    I am not quite sure what the latest count on ffbans.org for cheaters only was, but it would have been somewhere in the six-digit range.

  6. Posted · Edited by Sniperturtle

    What you don't understand apparently is that due to past false positives and completly useless bans this is opening a chance for everyone who got banned unfairly to come back.

    There will be GMs in game and new anti-cheat.

    So you can now put your china back on the shelf and quit being mad and upset.

     

    44 minutes ago, Etsukoo said:

    However if there is a case where a person got banned but actually did not cheat (Spamming free codes, Using a Crosshair,Shaders) I do think they can get unbanned.

    Also if people did get banned and what a second change i think they should first of all apoligize to the community and then the team should decide whether to unbann them or not.

    ...

    If everyone that cheated just gets unbanned then they will mostlikely cheat again.. And that would mean the game would be very unenjoyable after the changes. There might be a few cases where players would actually start playing legit.

     

    Yes, those got banned unfairly by your standards, others were using shaders or the like to have names clip through walls, etc.

    It is impossible to weed the unjust from the just, and if the new anti-cheat works as advertised there wont be a reason to worry about that. Your point is that it will look like a cheater got away with cheating, that is not the case for they have been banned and prevented access to the game for the time being - so punishment was handed out accordingly. Now if they play clean and fair there shouldn't be a problem - otherwise it's the hammer again.

  8. Posted

    11 hours ago, Guartorias said:

    I just finished watching it. Here are my take-away notes (Can't guarantee they're direct quotes. So take it all with a grain of salt)

     

      Reveal hidden contents

    Anti-cheat will be upgraded to Battle-Eye + Fairfight.

    Matt says "I can unequivocally say there were false bans" - "We are going to unban 'the majority' of the playerbase." - "won't happen immediately"

    When Battle-Eye comes out, they'll unban most people. Bans WON'T be broadcasted anymore. "Bans are a failure"

    APB will be upgraded to UE 3.5, as G1 planned. In parallel, they'll be working on taking APB to UE 4

    "It is near impossible to bring new content to the game as it is" (Working on UE 3.5)

    "There are long-standing mechanical issues in the game"

    "Do a new weapon or two, a new outfit or two - beyond that, new map, new mode" (Adding content)

    "There are so many pieces, new pieces, sitting at the 90% mark. Literally waiting to be finished!" (Content, I assume)

    "I don't think APB is P2W" - "You could give the worst weapon to the best player, and the best weapon to the worst player, and the best player will win every time. - It is a game of skill. The weapon doesn't make that big of a difference." (Stupid example  imo.)

    "We do need to go through and update the cost of Armas" - "Some of the  pricing is a little obscene"

    "We have hired one of the designers back from the game" (Doesn't specify if RTW or G1. Implies G1 staff is gone.)

    "You're gonna see us around (in game) - Having GM's in the game being present, talking to people shouldn't be a big scary thing. We should be present."

    "Nudity is great, nudity is amazing! - There's no place for it in our game." - "With GM's in game, nudity should be a problem that solves itself"

    "We're hoping to get coverage on all servers, all the time" (On GM's)

    on threat: "At a minimum, it has to be altered. At a maximum, it has to be scrapped."

    "Shame on us for leaving an exploit in for so long - I mean it has a name!" (On dethreating. Also, obviously they aren't to blame for it, the "shame on us part" was Matt giving an example)

    On dev stream or blog: "I love this idea, absolutely!" - "It's a great way to show progress to the community" (They should take tips from Digital Extremes, the devs of Warframe. Say what you want about the game, those devs are the best communication I've ever)

    On login screen: "I don't think we need a loading screen for a loading screen" (He likes the old login screen, and wants it back. But has to check rights.)

    Console optimization is something they're going to work on.

    Dodges (?) A question about extending friends/ignore. But does dislike the idea of paying for them.

    Prestige/Notoriety 5 and griefing "needs to be fixed" - "Needs some tweaking, or redesigns" - "It's something we need to look at"

    "The fact that you CAN scam a player, is a problem"

    JMBs won't be tradeable in the future? P2W?

    Shaders are "a slippery slope", goes on to say that it should be an in-game function. (Crosshair customization, lower low-quality, colorblind mode)

    Don't use Advanced launcher until they confirm Battle-Eye is ok with it. They may also implement the advanced launcher's features in-game.

    Weapon balance "could be tweaked *a little bit*", talks about removing just 1 bullet from a mag (if that gives any indication of how little "a little bit" is.)

    There's some interest in making APB "Competitive", but Matt didn't/couldn't discuss it at this time.

    Thanks for the summary, it should be more visible though, especially the part about APB-Launcher.

×
×
  • Create New...