Jump to content
Forum rules

LilyV3

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    19364

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by LilyV3

  1. Posted

    Either the Blast radius is HUUUUGE, so that even the worst average joe can use it, or it is just going to be a an inferior conc.

     

    otherwise all this is going to be is an easy troll mode for running because try toc chase someone  throwing them to a following car. :P Honestly, it's concept sounds like a bad idea, it does not really add anything to the game a regular conc can't do or just do better.

     

    Why would i want to disable a car instead of easily blowing it up?

    if disabling cars should be a valid tactic then we would need to remove all primary anti vehicle weapons and grenades or massively buff car health to make them not blow up that easily. Only then will disabling a car be a tactical choice over the effort to destroy them. But wit how easy you can destroy them, EMP's are dead on arrival.

  2. Posted · Edited by LilyV3

    On ‎10‎/‎2‎/‎2019 at 6:48 PM, Flaws said:

    I don't see how you're going to prevent abuse unless you apply some really weird and strict rules. Everyone is free to create new accounts and new characters as it is a Free2Play game and nothing should prevent that. However way you restrict it, a lot of innocent old/new players will get hit one way or another by it.

    • You can't restrict certain accounts from using those newly freed names based on some criteria since everyone should have access to the new name pool. 
    • You can't restrict the amount of characters/accounts a player can have/make for a bunch of reasons.
    • You can't limit those names to renames only either because that kills 70% of the reason you are doing this, which is, new players having good nickname choices available.
    • You most certainly can't go around banning people because they make new characters/accounts and don't play them, that's absolutely off the table.
    • You could put a cap on how many characters an account can make per day/week/month that use names from the freed up names pool but that's really questionable in itself and people with many accounts won't be stopped anyway as a F2P account has 2 character slots by default.

    Restrictions or not, one thing is absolutely certain - name wiping is an absolute must, a lot of people might hoard a lot of good names but it will be nothing in comparison to how bad that situation is currently after years of people taking nicknames and leaving the game for good. It will absolutely be an improvement with or without hoarders. Besides, no amount of hoarders can really take up THAT many nicknames as it takes time to create an email and then an account and is bothersome and you'd really need to dedicate a lot of time to come up with names to save and not that many are as dedicated. Most people just want up to 4-5 names at best and that's even a stretch. 

     

    To prevent hording they could still make it limited, like 1 week only for name changes and only 2 names per account and account solder than the announcement was.  then the rest gets free for all.

     

    Hoarders would make accounts in advance and then just spam create character random and give names they would also prepare a list. I wonder if people are goign to sell names even, surely against ToS, but well it's people.

  3. Posted · Edited by LilyV3

    On ‎10‎/‎2‎/‎2019 at 9:25 PM, Nitronik said:


    It's enough to make it unable to dispatch Kevlar 1 laden opponents at min TTK, as well as further reducing the damage it deals at range, which is the whole point of my complaint. Bravo!

    Every other short range weapon has many advantages over the NTEC, and the reduction in bloom recovery speed is more than enough to increase the effective TTK at range.
    With that last sentence in mind, there is literally no reason to add a TTK nerf on top of bloom recovery and range reduction.

     

     


    Can we please stop with this balancing trend where LO has to destroy weapons to please you all, and instead try to tune them to a still viable spot?

     

    So Yous ay Kevlar 1 suddenly would have a use?

     

    The TTK nerf practically only happens for cqc situations because otherwise you don't fire the n-tec at max RoF anyways. anything past 30m needs burst or tapfire anyways. So at these ranges the increased RoF has a negliable impact if any at all.

  4. Posted

    On ‎10‎/‎4‎/‎2019 at 11:27 AM, Skjeag said:

    but with the upcoming phase district system, districts won't have threats

     

    thats still a good bunch of time to come by until it happens. We wouldn't even need a threat color based payout at all, the only reason this can have is to prevent people from dethreating, But i doubt some JT's would be a good motivator anyways.

  8. Posted

    1 hour ago, GhosT said:

    My 2 cents on these changes since I can more or less use a mouse again.

     

    - Health damage: Fine, still is a 6 STK, will help a little with its effectivity outside of its intended range.

    - Fire Interval: Remove it. Why is it even there to begin with?

    - Jump modifier: Seems fine enough to remove its jumpshot effectivity

    - Recovery Decrease: Makes tap firing a liiiiiittle bit slower, but barely changes anything as you can still tap extremely fast.

    - Effective Range: Also fine. Most players will use IR3 on it which gives it 53m range, and then add the extra effective range on top of it due to tap fire spamability.

     

    Then again there aren't any players to test the guns against.

    I guess the intervall change is to make it less competitive in the short ttk face spray scenarios.

  11. Posted · Edited by LilyV3

    1 hour ago, Flight said:

    Quite a few people are impacted by this - I've already escalated it as a potentially larger issue that needs to be addressed.

    But thank you for highlighting it.

     

    Something totally avoildable if someone gave that info like a few days ago.  And given Support hast capacity issues this isn't going to mane any of this better at the moment.

  12. Posted · Edited by LilyV3

    On ‎10‎/‎2‎/‎2019 at 7:10 AM, Nitronik said:

    Recovery nerf is enough to increase NTEC's TTK at range which is where it is most troublesome.

    Why add :

    HP Damage
    Drop Off reduction
    (a bit more acceptable) RoF reduction

     

    on top of all that?

     

    How much does the Damage change affect in shots to kill? and at which ranges? Check that and you see how much effect it truly has.  This effect really just has a lot impact on specific longer ranges during dropoff so it's impact is small and affects, together with the range nerf, the long range capabilities.  It sounds much but truly isn't

     

    The RoF change is to make it less competitive with cqc guns, which is good, because the natural ttk of the N-tec always was too low.

     

    These two changes put the n-tec more into it's bracket it always should have had.

     

    The Debloom however, I cannot yet make out how much impact it will have, it always had a crazy debloom, and 3 is still a lot. it will probably be the biggest impact as it affects accuracy and ttk directly at ranges.

     

    But so far even if it sounds all drastically it is not too much it is needed to give th n-tec a proper area to perform good without performing too good in other weapons niche.

    • Like 1

  16. Posted

    15 hours ago, Noob_Guardian said:

    the act suffers the same hitreg issues as the star, so i doubt it. "aims 6 shots right on and misses" "bullets appear outside of reticule" wtf

    Never notioced this happening but the crosshai was just always too big at range to reliably hit anything. And that is even on the GM. But after the change I am definately going to try it again. always liked the GM a lot visual wise.

  21. Posted · Edited by LilyV3

    would only make sense if groups are not allowed and the game mixes all threats so that teams get a balanced mix.

     

    On 9/28/2019 at 7:58 PM, Salvick said:

     

    But I wonder if having roughly 160 players in peaks hours on Jericho (80 in gold/silver and 80 in silver/bronze) wouldn't make it harder if these 40/40 per instance gets split around 2 or 3 different locations leaving let's say 15/15 players per district as much...? Yet my hope is that phasing will also bring more players considering the low ping it should provide for SA and other regions. But what if we don't get these players re-joining? ...is just a thought I had.

    definately yes when we had true threat seggregation during the gold rush event even pretty empty servers got instant mission after instant mission because the right threats were available.

     

    So phasing should us bring back to such alike state.

  22. Posted

    14 hours ago, SquirrelFace said:

    That's too easy. Gotta play the long hard game and screw over the old time players.

    thats not about being easy.  I can imagine that adding stuff like ( ) would mean many side effects in the code if it was never properly implemented to contain such characters. And with all the custom code APB got additionally it could be a huge effort from technical side to make this happen.

  24. Posted

    14 hours ago, Fortune Runner said:

    with an id number for each and every character on apb , it would be possible to not lose names

    however then the problem of someone pretending to be you could happen unless further names identical were stopped from being created

    but even then it could still be problems by switching out an I for an L ( lowercased )

     

    well if names aren't ID's how would oen /w NAME if 2 of the same people are online? it's mostly the whole chat and console commands that are important why names are the ID's + also messing up with proeple recognising each other.

    Thats why I think one or 2 blanks so people could have fore and surenames would be cool. Much more namespace for unique names.

×
×
  • Create New...