LaQuandra

Not important enough to change core aspects of the game. The general player base is more important than streamers. Again, if Summit was so influential where are all the APB players from his streams? APB has an issue retaining players and running into out of mission cars while on a mission is at the bottom of the list. Like I suggested before....why can't the big time streamer just be able to create a custom match and spin up their own district? Catering to streamers and leaving out your real population is dangerous. It would lose the whole open world aspect of APB which is a core part of the game. The game would lose it's identity. which is a lot.

I don't think the weapons really need to be balanced. There is still a wide variety of weapons being used by players on a daily basis. I see SMGs, Assult Rifles, Semi Autos, Shotguns, etc. Seems like a lot of people want balancing because they think a gun is terrible because they don't know how to use it, or they think a gun is OP because they get killed by it a lot. Generally people aren't willing to adjust their play style and find it easier to just complain about the weapons.

I've generally found the silvers to be idiots and high golds to be fairly smart. How are the silvers getting into MIT?

What is wrong with the oblivion? Isn't it basically a dog ear with no car damage? The gun isn't OP by any stretch of the imagination but I don't think it's a totally worthless gun.

Don't cry about me wall hacking when you ran past my car with mobile radar tower......5 straight times in a row without blowing it up. Also, I am using spotter. Please don't tell me my account is going to be banned for wall hacking. I generally just reply "k" now because I don't have time to tell them how my mods work.

I didn't say that would exactly how it looks. I was using it for purposes to show you how larger districts would most like funnel people into one district which they would spam and they would avoid the overflow. I have some anecdotal evidence for you. I played yesterday and was in a group of 4. The only Financial district was full. We sat in social for a bit knowing spamming would be annoying. I suggested going into the "dead" overflow district that was 10/7 I believe. Within 10 minutes there it was 25/25. We had to wait a few moments for opposition because of MATCHMAKING, but within 20 minutes the district was full and we got consistent opposition. Last night I played with a group of 4 and we had to wait a little bit in a 40/40 district because of MATCHMAKING. Adding 10 more silver or low gold players isn't going to help MATCHMAKING. Once some higher level players joined we got missions. I know very much what I am talking about. I am not being emotional and complaining that I do not get opposition right away and think that MATCHMAKING is dependent on server population when it is more dependent on player quality. You wouldn't be complaining if all districts were like open conflict because regardless of population size, if they are ready, you're getting opposition.

Too bad dem da rules I picked obeya because while I love the dog ear and such, I could live with CR726, Oscar and FBW all day.

So you allow players to create their own custom matches/districts. Summit or whoever else can make the parameters for their match. They can choose the mission(s) they want to play, which guns/mods/cars to exclude, etc. They then receive a custom code which they share with those who are invited. They then get to play the game on their terms without the griefing or whatever else. Of course you cannot progress in this custom mode but you can still have your competitive match and not worry about griefers. This way everyone is happy. Please do not change a core part of APB and remove the collision.

I excluded the reskins and maybe left out a gun here or there, but this the gist.

Because it just isn't APB. All collisions are not griefing. I've benefited from and lost missions because of collisions. The open world and randomness is what makes APB. So what if you're on mission and a random car smacks you while they are on their mission. It can create some pretty great clip-able moments. The game is not going to be competitive because of many other issues so why take the fun away? Might as well just queue in a lobby and then load in only against your opp. Boring........

You get more players when you tell your friends. You play other games and make friends. They ask what other games you played. I find most of my new games by looking at the games the people on my steam list are playing or links they send me or whatever. I then research and make a decision best for me. Word of mouth is better than what Summit says or plays. I found the game SOS from someone always playing it on my steam friend's list. I thought it look fun and got it and then reccomended it to a majority of people on my list. Some got the game and played it. When it died I recommended APB to some of the people I met. Some of them are still playing APB now and spending money. That is how it works. Instead of Little Orbit worrying about making collision and griefing going away they concentrate on optimization. They concentration on upgrading the engine. They concentrate on adding new content. They concentrate on adding new game modes and maps and guns and vehicles. That is how you plug the hole. Then when you recommend APB to your friends you don't need to qualify it with, "but there is a big amount of server lag. but the population is dead and not many people are playing. but there hasn't been any content update in 4 years." Nobody complains in APB that they are getting griefed 24/7, it just doesn't happen. I have streamed. I have played 5000 hours. Have I gotten griefed before? Yes. Is it a common issue? No. The bucket of water's hole isn't made from griefing.

I am pretty much against being able to ghost through cars and I don't like catering the game to popular streamers. Summit isn't going to be the savior. He has promoted the game and streamed it before. Where are the players? Why weren't they retained? They didn't get griefed like Summit. Concentrate on the issues that affect 98% of the player base. We are the ones who fund the game and the reason Little Orbit bought it.

The whole "I've played enough games in my day to be able to spot a cheater" thing is such a meme. If you think that many people are actively cheating then you do not know how to spot cheaters. The perception of cheaters has always been higher than the actual cheater population in the game, even all the way back in RTW days. Glad to hear your 300 hours have been fairly enjoyable.

You can do this fix in the APBinput.ini and that file is edited all the time when you change your configs so I am not sure why BattlEye would flag someone for a file that is changed all the time. An ini edit is different from shader edits.

I assume you've played APB. Ever have a texture not load and a person is behind a wall and you shoot at them? Ever see the red name bleed through a wall and you aim that direction or their position is betrayed? FairFight can be a good thing but there are so many glitches in the game still FairFight cannot be trusted 100% and never should have been set up to auto flag and queue players for bans. Only people who never played the game would set it up like this. How many admin tags did we see in district after FairFight came out? I am not disagreeing with what you're saying by the way, just pointing out how FairFight could flag for "suspicious" activity when the game's flaws can make you appear to be suspicious.

Matt Scott's quote about false flagging and the community manager banning for personal reasons pretty much fit my narrative for the past 4 years don't you think, interesting.... Thank you again Matt Scott. And this is the mentality that Gamersfirst promoted by broadcasting their bans. Banned FF players were seen as cheaters and Tiggs confirmed FF did not falsely ban anyone and they were in fact caught for cheating. Matt Scott has confirmed in "a lot" of cases this was not factual. Insecure hackusators won't change either regardless of how perfect the anti cheat is. We are still going to see a lot of "you're cheating, they're cheating, why aren't they banned" posts and district chats as well. Many skilled players will continue to be targeted and harassed by players who just don't know. Nothing is going to make anyone feel better about their skill level or lack thereof. We are too quick to accuse people of cheating and then foam at the mouth to be validated for our opinion. The old team validated a lot of hackusators and they were proven to be corrupt and hand out false bans. Are you ready to apologize and change your way of thinking or are you still convinced you were right about all of them?

Just because you "refuse" to believe something doesn't mean it happened. If you "refuse" to believe we landed on the moon does it mean it didn't happen? I gave you the quote from Matt Scott. He said "a lot." He didn't say "some," a "couple," or a "few." I don't consider myself getting a second chance because I never should have been banned in the first place. No anti cheat is 100% so even if you think they really are cheating even when they are, it shouldn't be broadcast in case there are mistakes. Because you don't know 100% and you don't know the details behind their ban. Maybe you thought they were cheated and they do get banned and it's TOS issue. Maybe. Overall it's best not to broadcast the bans for the reason you stated and the reasons I've stated.

Because most of the bans are getting lifted. Do you feel vindicated still they ended up on FairFight because of a false flag or simply the community manager didn't like them?

I'm not disappointed nor is it a very "bad" idea. In fact, it is a great idea. It's "good" because people shouldn't feel vindicated when someone is banned. Gamersfirst ruined a lot of people's reputations, banned their accounts, and publicly allowed them to be shamed all off flimsy evidence or personal reasons. I am glad Matt Scott cleared the air and used the phrase "a lot of instances" and was specific on how they were false bans. So many of those broadcasted FairFight bans people celebrated in district chat and on FFBans turned out to be false. Why allow that to happen all over again?

No...you're missing the point. Do you want 1 50/50 district and no over flow or two 35/35 districts? I'll take 2 districts over one. Why is an extra 15 better than a extra 35?

When did I say split it into 2? Did you not read my post. You tell me how the districts will look with 450 players if the max size is 50/50.

Do you actually care to show me why/how you think that? If you increase the districts size all that will happen is babies will die. See, I can say ridiculous unfounded things as well.

Okay, it is obvious you're not reading my posts or comprehending them so I am going to attempt one last time. I generally like to speak in facts and reality and I don't over exaggerate things. Let's say on average NA has 450 people. We will use your suggestion and look at see how much it will improve match making (hint, not much). Silver FN- 50/50 (350 people left playing) Silver WF 50/50 (250 people left playing) Brozne FN 50/50 (150 people left playing) Bronze WF (50/50 50 people left playing) Social district 43 (7 people left playing) The other people are in the other districts that look like 0/4 0/1 etc. You aren't ever going to join those districts. Instead you're spamming one of the full districts. Now, let's take a look at how it would look if you didn't increase the population. Silver FN 35/35 (380 Left Playing) Silver WF 35/35 (310 Left playing) Bronze FN 35/35 (240 Left playing) Bronze WF 35/35 (170 Left playing) Social District 43 (127 Left playing) Ram Raiders 7 (120 Left playing) Well, well, well. In your scenario I am spamming the only full district. In my scenario there are 120 other people now. What can those 120 do you ask? Overflow district 35/35 (50 People Left Playing) Overflow district 25/25 (0 People left playing) There you go. Proof in the numbers. So ahead guys. Upvote this "terrific" idea to improve MATCHMAKING and instead you're left with 15 extra people in scenario 1 who would do active missions. In my scenario you're getting an extra 60 people for matchmaking. Guys, this isn't fantasy land. We won't have 1000s of players on NA to do what you're suggesting. Instead you're going to make it be 1 Financial and 1 Waterfront. My solution gives you OVERFLOW districts in which people will CONTINUE TO PLAY MISSIONS. Isn't that what you want? Your suggestion is going to make people log off, sit in social, or just play fight club because the one district they need/want to play in is full. Please tell me how that improves the game? My suggestion gives them an overflow district which would encourage other players to join. I am well aware of what I am saying....it's obvious you guys have not thought it through....so yeah.....let's just bandwagon a terrible idea in the current state of APB. Maybe you want to log in and spam one district with 3 of your buddies. I don't. I'd rather log in and go into a populated district. How well does matchmaking work when you're spamming?

Okay, so you're suggesting an extra 15 people to choose from for your pool while I am suggesting an extra 35 to pick from. Why is an extra 15 better than an extra 35?

I am having trouble understanding why this is a population issue and not a match making issue. Saying you have more to choose from doesn't mean it fixes match matching. Someone please explain it in simple terms. Thank you.