LaQuandra

The first 3 are config ini edits. Your config is changed all the time and BE shouldn't be alarmed with those. Developers can lock down any settings they do not want you to change. Since you can still change them I don't see why they would be bannable. If they really don't want you to do those things, they'd be locked. Third party programs should be fine unless BattlEye specifically says not to use them. Mumble and Overwolf are legitimate third party programs used by many people who play BE protected games. Send a support ticket to BattlEye and ask them directly. They will tell you and then you will know for sure.

I played with premium from 2011-2017. Past year haven't really had it. I don't notice a difference unless I want to customize.

Okay...you can believe in FF bans and that Matt Scott unbanned people for an increase in population. At least after BE comes out your hackusations will be minimal....I hope. We'll see.

Nah, I believe in redemption and forgiveness for those who admit their mistakes and own up to them. We all have flaws. Fortunately another company was able to purchase the game and allowed us to see the truth.

Obviously 1 false ban is too many, but if there were 16999 legit bans and 1 false ban I highly doubt LO would unban everyone to "increase" population. Obviously Matt Scott felt there were enough false bans to justify unbaning a significant portion of the bans. How does it support what you said at all? I think it's pretty obvious he spent time reviewing bans per his statement. It isn't possible to review every single ban nor is it needed. I would hope that reasons were given for the bans and he was able to sort through those reasons. For example, if FF flagged 1000 players for "violation x" and he deemed "violation x" to be a false flag, he has just "reviewed" 1000 accounts. If no reason was given for the bans you can point to his statement that bans were handed out inconsistently and at the discretion of the GM/CM. He felt there was enough evidence in his investigating the bans that G1's anti cheat measures lacked integrity. He said he spent weeks, not a couple of hours pursuing the list. Why don't you have an issue when Tiggs doubled down on FairFight and said that anyone caught by it was cheating 100%. She basically said anyone who claims they were falsely banned were liars and convinced community members of that. She knew what she was saying was false. Again, you were shocked by his statement....I wonder why......

He said he spent the last couple of weeks researching it....... He talked to multiple sources.............. He vetted the logs............. He even tested it.......... He said the results were conclusive............ He said the cheat system is inaccurate and capable of automatically banning players.......... He found A LOT of instances where bans were subjective............. He comments how the whole system was inconsistent......... So he is unbanning a significant portion because of 1%. You make zero sense. Go ahead and spin how Matt Scott hasn't said so.

False equivalency. He can see the bans. He can see the reasons. He can do the math. The number is conclusive. He has a number of bans of the 17000 (minus the rerolls blah blah blah) he feels were questionable. He isn't comparing his bans to PUBGor some rich guy or Donald Trump. He saw a percentage and the only subjectivity in it is if he thinks 1% is "a lot" or whatever else. If it was 1% or 10% why would you unban everyone? Shady stuff. Glad it was exposed.

Give me an example that you would use "a lot" to represent 1% or 10%. I am well aware LO purchased the game to make a profit. I've been here since the beginning but correct me if I am wrong but, "I am quitting this game because of all the cheaters." "Too many cheaters in APB." Why in their right mind would be unban "cheaters" and expect to make a profit? LO not do their due diligence on this game? Tiggs made it clear that FairFight bans were for cheating and that "yes you were caught." If you're saying she was lying, well.....yeah.

Do I need to define what "a lot" means? If I had $100 and gave you $1 I didn't give you "a lot" of money. The term isn't being used subjectively. I think you're smart enough to figure out that "a lot" doesn't mean 1% or 10%. I wasn't shocked to hear Matt Scott's statement. Been waiting years to hear that statement. Welcome to reality.

I'll like you 100 times over instead.

Considering he used the phrase "a lot" I'd say it was a good percentage that were sketchy. Why do you consider it to be the "same false ban stories?" Plenty of people said they were false banned. Plenty of people cheered on Tiggs and G1 with their name and shame policy. The same people continued to cry that FairFight wasn't banning fast enough and there were still too many cheaters. Matt Scott comes in and says FairFight would falsely flag people and bans were very subjective and up to the CM. Which narrative you gonna believe- Tiggs- "Yes, you were cheating and you got caught" or Matt Scott- "Our current system is inaccurate and capable of automatically banning players who are not cheating. I also found a lot of instances where bans were enforced subjectively. That means the punishment or lack thereof was largely at the discretion of the GM or CS person. In order to grow, we need consistency. With that in mind, I am going unban a significant portion of the player base."

Can I see a screenshot of you running APB at 170fps? Thanks.

Pretty much this. We went from Punkbuster is terrible we need a new anti cheat! FairFight is amazing it's getting all the hackers! Why is FairFight taking so long to ban suspected hacker x, y, z? We need BattEye! Wait...why is suspected hacker x, y, z still not banned? There must be something wrong with BattEye! Ain't nobody going to apologize they were wrong and that is why name and shame is gone and should be gone. All the hackusators who were vindicated by false bans have yet to apologize and admit they were wrong. Instead all I hear is, wait for BattlEye to do the judging. We'll see....

Golds are not allowed to join bronze. The only golds in bronze are the silvers that turned gold. Whether or not FC "is not exactly a hang spot" doesn't mean you can't join it. So you're basically saying that because you don't want to face the "pros," the developers should leave out a portion of community to save your ego? Be selfless, not selfish.

How about the people who cannot join bronze? Everyone is allowed to join fight club. Everyone is allowed to join open conflict. Everyone is allowed to join silver districts. Why exactly is bronze a “real” server? Why do you think it’s a good idea for the developers to hold an event and limit who is allowed to particapte? Regardless of your threat level you were able to participate in the event with the developers and that is how it should be.

I love how you just make up numbers based on your narrow perception. I can do it also. 100% of people who make up numbers are usually wrong.

But you're also kind of rude. You could have just asked if they had any future events planned. Instead you chose to be snarky. I have been playing more than usual with friends lately and have been having a really fun time. The game is far from boring if you play with people you enjoy. I also would like some events in the future as well and I am sure they have it planned but right now it isn't possible. Why don't you just play the other games you mentioned and continue to be patient and wait for the updates?

Bummer I won't be around. Do any of you plan on streaming?

Unfortunately only a very small percentage of the player base visits the forums. Your results are mainly going to be from players who have played the game for a long time, are most likely gold threat, and most likely do not dethreat or not willing to admit it. My biggest guess is why people "dethreat" is because they feel other gold players are too skilled for them and/or are cheating. People just don't like losing.

The game is not very newbie friendly. The menu system is a mess and very confusing if you have no idea what you're doing. Most new players click the big button to join a district and have no idea what to do after that. If the district they are big button'd into is empty, they think the game is dead. I am sure there are a lot of people who downloaded the game but they have no idea what they are doing and quit shortly there after. A better tutorial and making sure new players are in a populated district is key to them staying around. To keep long time players around I agree that daily activities are a good idea. However, I was under the impression that with the current system, they are unable to automatically set up daily activities and it has to be done manually. With any luck the engine gets upgraded and they can automatically add daily/weekly activities and provide an incentive for people to log in/play daily.

No offense taken. It's cool you're a chill player who is here to have fun and not worrying about being at a severe disadvantage with the low frame rate.

Hard damage means vehicle damage. At long ranges it's hard to consistently hit 3 fast shots with the dog ear. It's best to shoot it in bursts of two and wait for the reset. Generally when you're in combat long range you should have some type of cover or the confidence you can out range them. From what you've said, if you like the ISSR-A but would prefer semi auto, then the ISSR-B is exactly what you want. Even though it only has one open slot, it is superior in every way as others have demonstrated. Pop hunting sight 3 on there and enjoy the jumpshots. 6 shots only in the mag on the Dog Ear would nerf it too much. You'd only be able to get one kill at best with one clip. If you made it a 3 shot kill in it's current form it would be very OP. I'd trade 4 shot kill and 12 in the mag for 3 shot kill and 6 in the mag any day.

Your low frame performance really puts you at a big disadvantage in APB. Huge difference between 40 fps and 120 fps in this game. Have you considering turning down your graphics and other tweaks to increase performance?

Maybe buffing the hard damage on the ISSR-A might make it more viable.

I agree that the ability to drive in front of an out of mission objective is not a core aspect of the game. However...what if it is a car objective? There will be a big box around it? When I am driving to the point is my car going to smash through the out of mission people an extra 10 feet to each side? It's not a bad idea, but I have to imagine it will take them a long time to get to every mission, every objective. I would prefer they just concentrate on the other more pressing needs which affect a majority of the player base. All things being equal, yeah, it's a good idea.