Cr0

For the F2P model, more client side detections does not necessarily equal less cheaters in the game, thus why they usually go down in rank instead of number. An increased number of bans is to follow a changed anti cheat system, which gets lower as the cheat makers adapt, which seems to fit the description. Such a thing is hard to take into account when deciding which is more effective.

I was skeptical at first, but I think Territory control is fine for Baylan. I'm the guy named MustardInspector who is always in Baylan. There is an issue though: The Baylan objectives doesn't affect the activity goals (end goal for most is Joker Tickets) as it does in Asylum. Explained: In Asylum, there is a reason to try and win the mission/objectives because the activities there are about earning money and when you win you get more score = more money = You get your JT quicker. In Baylan, there is not enough incentive to win the mission, in the sense that the activities there is usually about getting a certain number of kills with certain weapon types. So you can disregard the objectives and it will not affect how quickly you complete your objectives to earn your JT. That is why most people are there after all. For instance, if the mission situation would require me to capture some objectives and I need 10 kills with sniper rifles, there's no reason for me to try and capture objectives in the sense that I'll probably earn my JT quicker just focusing on my personal activity instead of helping the team. This also leads to people some times not caring about the objectives in general, since it doesn't help him/herself nor the team earning JTs. So then you'd need the same kind of activities as in asylum for the Terrotiry control to make sense reward-wise since it's only the number of completed activities that decides how quickly you earn your JT. Or you need to add an additional incentive to win the FC rounds in Baylan. I mean, yes, you get more points/money if you win, but most people are there mainly for JT.

Nobody claimed it's hard to 3 shot someone with DMR. I don't think I've ever seen anyone actually having to defend the fact that HVR in general performs better than DMR against player targets. I won't be the first one.

Of course anyone can find themselves doing that from time to time. Especially under the right circumstances, as in: when the DMR range is long enough for 2 shot kills or/and when the enemy isn't very good. Then it's a beast of a weapon. In general HVR performs better than DMR because to stay in that small space where the DMR shines where you have to have a range of 90(?)+ meters all the time just isn't going to be practical as the missions are too dynamic for that.

I don't see what is wrong with firing out of a car windows with a gun that is above average AV, only that the AV damage was slightly too high. Also what kemp says about how it's usable in CQC is true for several other long(ish) range guns, so that doesn't add a point to it being above average in terms of versatiliy. It's just like some other guns in that specific regard (I'm not saying it's not versatile though, of course). The hard damage of the ISSR-A is actually higher than ISSR-B (unless the database is incorrect). Of course it wasn't intended that ISSR-A should be a worse gun, but the end result is a pure downgrade. Niether the Shaw or Alig has any type of predictable horizontal recoil. The Swarm does however. I think I changed my mind about the 4x4, reading your comment about it, in regards to how it handles, speed etc. But a 1 shot from Osmaw vs an undamaged 4x4 is still not right.

Because you thought it'd make it more balanced. I think the patch was pretty bad. It targeted incorrect things much of the time (except for some weak cars which got increased HP). Swarm was fine. Reduced AAEPD 'Volcano JC' max hard damage from 1227 -> 800 - The explosion damage radius was a much larger problem than the hard damage, since the explosion radius is what makes it annoyingly spammable against players. You can miss a player with a too large margin and still do damage. Reduced ISSR-B hard damage from 72.9 -> 45 - A little bit too much damage reduction. Reduced ISSR-A hard damage from 70.1 -> 51 - This gun is bad enough. Now with the reduction in hard damage and nothing to make it better, which it desperately needs, it's just a pure downgrade on an already weak weapon. It needs a buff with just a little bit slower spread increase (very low accuracy in close range, no matter how close you get almost). Reduced SWARM hard damage from 50.7 -> 40.95 - Was fine ( as in good = fine). At teh very leas,t the reduction was too steep. - The pre set recoil pattern is also a strange choice since some weapons now then have set recoil patterns while most are random. Balanced games don't have that. There needs to be a consistent theme in recoil. Either it's random across the board, within the recoil parameters, or it's set recoil patterns for all guns. It's inconsistent and confusing to new players also. Vegas 4x4: 1,350 -> 1,150 Vegas: 1,350 -> 1300 If that is correct, Osmaw can now one-shot one vegas, but not the other. It's basically the same car with different steering. Again, inconsistent. It shouldn't be a pure 1 shot with the osmaw. Not a very good patch.

SWARM isn't meh against people on foot, yet it's strong AV also. Nobody said DMR AV should be better against people. I said it should be buffed in a way that it becomes a much more practical gun to use in terms of the mission stages, so you can equip and unequip it much faster when needed, as well as more portable. Then people would be bothered using it more. So there is(/was) a category with a couple of guns that are good at both (AV and anti people) (ISSR-B and SWARM.. perhaps another) and there was nothing wrong with it imo. It's just that the ISSR-B was a bit too good at AV and needed less hard damage, as opposed to completely nerfed hard damage, because now, you're gonna have to get rid of that borderline AV/people category and nudge the SWARM out of there too, if the reasoning is that guns should not be in a category that covers both types of targets. So then either: The hard damage needs to remain in some decreased capacity for the ISSR-B, OR: the SWARM needs a nerf too (against people). The first of these two options requires only one small change and accepts a weapon category covering both types of targets. The second option requires two (or more) changes as it will have to be applied to everything that risks covering both categories now and in the future, if this is now the new rule.

I promise you, people are not going to start using the DMR-AV noticably more just because the dog ear was nerfed. ISSR-B did have a tad too much hard damage, yes, but the reason people don't use DMR-AV is more because of how impractical it is (along with the other reasons I mentioned) than how good the ISSR-B is. DMR needs a buff (not in terms of damage though).

It shouldn't be able to substitute dedicated AV weapons, sure, so a hard damage nerf was in place, but such a complete hard damage nerf takes away a tad too much from the selling point and fun of the weapon which is its versatility. The actual DMR AV snipers are too situational, seeing how the changes in mission stage types changes back and forth so much and so quickly, so that taking the time to equip a DMR AV for instance is too often not worth it, seeing as you have to change back to a normal weapon again, which doubles the time you have to spend with weapon swapping just to use it in one specific situation. Lowering the equip time by about half for DMR AV (for instance) is needed, as well as making it much more portable.

But those are not AV weapons. Saying DMR has lower TTK than HVR is a typical example on something that doesn't translate from numbers to actual usability.

If it's to make people use DMR AV more, that's not how to do it. Nerf dog ear hard damage just slightly (compared to how it was). Make all the DMRs much more portable. It's too heavy to use.

To start with, n-tec has lower ttk than ISSRa, but the same range (according to the apbdb). ISSRa is no good. Since you're silver and played since 2012 and use kevlar 3 I'm making the assumption that your aim isn't the best. So it's more a case of lacking skill and understanding of the mechanics rather than the opposition using "cheater weapons". You could have an easier time by playing in the bronze district where you wont have to play against golds.

In many situations when you hear the remote det start going, all you can do is prepare for the next respawn. What if flak jacket also gave increased resistance to remote det explosions specifically, on top of resistance to explosive weaponry? At least then there would be something you could do to counter it (even though you'd have to find out it is being used first). I always felt flak jacket needed something more. But to be frank, if it was up to me, remote det wouldn't be in the game at all.

You'd probably feel differently if you didn't already have almost 100 million

What if the original creator got a royalty percentage every time their stuff is resold. Doesn't get more fair than that. That way people could boost the the resale price all they like as far as I'm concerned as the original creator for something.

It's not a good idea to store passwords in any type of text on your computer. Just have good enough password strength while making one you can memorize and is impossible to guess.

I wonder how many times people have requested this to be addressed, even though it has been, and gets repeated on the forum every time someone asks.

There are two (½) large camps worth addressing who are both wrong, right now. They are... Camp A) "It's overrun with cheaters, absolutely everywhere!" Camp B) "There are almost no cheaters at all!" Both absolutely wrong. Then there are people who say that because they only banned x % for cheating the last time or whenever, that's supposed to be an indicator of how few cheaters there are. Does one even need to explain why no conclusions should be drawn from that? For example: I remember a certain (public ) cheat provider with lots of users who never got detected between 2013 and mid 2019 (FF, duh). Since they weren't getting detected, lots of people used them. If you'd find out how many they were and add those to the statistics back in those days, the number of cheaters in that period of time would increase by a really large percentage. Much of the stuff people use now will not get detected (by BE). It's not completely overrun with cheaters. There are not hardly any cheaters either. There's a notable amount of cheaters now because there's no server side statistics collection with BE, and then I'm not talking about just the obvious ones who anyone and their grandma can spot. That's the issue you could encounter with Camp B. They some times believe in myths of borderline super powers and super human "game sense" gotten from spending enough time in the game, like there is no roof for increase of abilities and they go by who someone is instead of what they are doing. So then you get told to feel free to send in videos with proof of cheaters. You'll have to summon the time, energy and motivation to put something together for one lousy cheater, who they wont ban so it's not worth it. The only anti cheat good enough is one that is both server and client side.

If you didn't right away start calling me ignorant etc then I'd perhaps feel like explaining more. Can't be bothered.

It was always supposed to be more of a mid range weapon than it was, which it is now, but the problem before was it could be used too well cqc too which was honestly just wrong, even if it was very good. Jumping around corners with the n-tec was just silly, no matter how much people tried to say it took skill to do that. It didn't, k? OK. there is a secondary weapon slot for a reason also. It's fine now. And the crosshair bloom/accuracy stuff... what's the problem? control your rate of fire. It's not an atac. I approve of this message.

When RNG is against me, I complain about it. When it's in my favour, I accept it.

EAC does one check of your ban if you contact them. In their answer they don't tell you what the ban was for exactly (as it should be) and then they never reply to you again. So at that point all you can do is guess. So... those guys you talk of don't actually know for sure that it was for what they claim.

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of us would prefer to keep EAC, so it's a bit sad of course. On the other hand EAC is the only one that ever gave me an incorrect ban, but I'd still like to keep it because APB has never had this low amount of cheaters. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

"I've only used car horn macros" "I've only used macros for abandonmission" "I've only used macros to spam join district button" "I've only used macros to test glitches" "Macros make you worse in the long run... which is the long term experiences of.... someone else that I'm quoting now, or I mean it just makes sense that it's like that" Everybody is an expert on macros but nobody ever used them to fire weapons.

All the forced appreciation is only making things worse. Like when people refuse to tell people they suck and they end up making fools of themselves in american idol. Almost everything is constantly delayed, incorrect, not working, "in progress" etc. Write to support and your first reply has a pre-written apology for the late reply. It's so Little Orbit. An engine upgrade has never saved any game, ever. A good company that has control over things has. That's not LO, sorry to say. And don't think they havn't thought about giving up and selling APB once again. But they have to maintain their reputation by completing the upgrade, even if it meant selling the name rights to the game to be able to fund it, since RIOT didn't bring the income they needed. Do people think they would have done that if they didn't need to? They needed to throw more money at the problem.