mtz

Summary: A 5m thick wall in Financial allows you to scan for enemy presence on the other side with your crosshair. Description: For some reason, a wall in the Financial District, above Javez's location, is not 100% solid and allows the players on both sides to see if someone is on the other side. Steps to Reproduce: 1. The area in question sometimes houses a mission objective. It's located in Merchant Park (south of Financial), almost directly above the location of Criminal G-King contact, Javez. Obviously the first step consists of actually getting there :V 2. One of the players has to stand in position (A), practically hugging the marked wall; the other has to stand in position (B). 3. Upon pointing the crosshair at the wall, either player will be able to see the other one through the wall, in the form of the crosshair changing its colour. (In case of an enemy player, the name tag and rank emblem will also show up.) (Last screenshot courtesy of @Ketog. Thank you once again!) How many times have you recreated this bug: I've tested this with 2 different players in multiple positions close to the wall, sometimes changing roles (person from pos.A goes to pos.B and vice versa), with the bug manifesting itself every time, and both of those players also reporting to me that the bug is happening. Success rate - 100%. Results: You can (either accidentally or deliberately) gain information you should have no access to (as in, enemy position). Expected Results: The wall should refrain from pulling multi-dimensional tricks and behave like every other wall. That is, not allow crosshair scanning :V

It looks like you're misunderstanding the purpose of OTW. Open Test World is not supposed to be a gameplay server where you mess around with things you can't afford in live APB. The only reason all those items are given to players who log on there is to allow them to be tested for any issues, bugs, glitches, item conflicts and any other errors that should be removed before forwarding the patches to live servers. Your actual motivations are seeping out of your post pretty transparently. You don't want to test them (and frankly, after all this time, I doubt there's anything erroneous to find in them), you just like how they look and you want to have them. Please reevaluate what you think OTW's purpose is supposed to be.

You are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting the issue. The OSMAW is an explosive-type weapon with four rockets in the reserve, capable of dealing very heavy damage in a wide radius anywhere it hits. It will take out many cars with just one rocket, and the more tanky ones will be brought down to critical health, effectively disabling them from being used any further (not counting scenarios where a Blowtorch or a gas station repair is supplied almost immediately after tanking the rocket). The Half-Brick and the 8-Ball are throwable weapons which do not have even nearly the same stopping power as the OSMAW. By exchanging your frag/concussion/percussion grenades for those throwables, you immediately surrender your ability to deal any serious damage to vehicles. Similarly, your capability of flushing out enemies camping in corridors is effectively gone, since you have no area-of-effect attack. These throwables are only effective if and only if you can score a direct hit on your target. Grenades allow you to attack an area; throwable objects allow you to deliver a precise hit. And, as BXNNXD said before, their entire power is easily nullified by dodging their flight path. One of them impacts an area and is capable of stopping entire groups. The other is only viable against singular targets which happen to be unlucky enough to intersect the brick/ball's trajectory. Do you see the difference? Of course, I don't expect you to react to my post as one would in an argument. You are not here to bring out your point of view - you want to be told that you're right, no matter how wrong your assumptions are. The smoking gun to this is the fact that you dismissed all defense of the Half-Bricks and 8-Balls being balanced as coming from "Kempington's fanboys". Which is silly in itself, considering how Kempington does not hold a monopoly on using these weapons. Since they are a direct trade-off of versatile AoE damage for an unusual projectile-based instant K.O. attack, from an objective standpoint, the Half-Brick and the 8-Ball are perfectly balanced.

I'd be thankful for that rank boost on OTW too. Character names are martinz and izzy . On a related sidenote, I think it's an oversight that the test server doesn't already give out weapon mods and other related things to players, since said mods have a direct effect on how the weapons perform. Still, it's great to see LO solve that issue. You guys rock :]

Bounty Level 5 isn't inherently a bad idea. However, in its current state, it is far from perfect. In my opinion, there is a number of ways it could be fixed. The things stated below in bullet points are not a list, but a loose collection of ideas to mix and match together. Relegate the P5/N5 gameplay to a post-mission activity. As it stands, any player with Prestige 5 or Notoriety 5 can interfere - and be interfered with - when it comes to missions. It is entirely possible for an entire match's outcome to be decided by a Bounty 5 player deciding to open fire on someone trying to clutch the situation in their mission. Bounty 5 (which I'll call B5 from here on out) could be made to kick in only once the mission is over. This way, someone becoming an open target does not disrupt the mission's flow and they can still keep their attention on the task at hand without having to worry about stray gunfire. Relegate the P5/N5 gameplay to a post-mission activity BUT limit it to those who were in the mission. This point is largely the same as above, however in this instance, the B5 player could only shoot or be shot at by players who were in the same mission. Once a player drops dead in this post-game state or moves out of range (for example, 100 metres away), B5 is disabled and the players are back in the "Not Ready" state the game is in by default. Make "being in a mission" a player state in which one cannot interact with B5 players. The word "interact" here refers to dealing and taking damage. Simply put, this separates the missions from B5 gameplay in a way that completely disallows either side from interfering with the other's experience. Allow players to opt out of the bounty system altogether. Some players may be entirely opposed to the bounty system's existence - which is also fine. We all have our own opinions and that's fine (as long as the discussion about them is kept civilized). Every player could be given an option to disable the bounty part of the game. By doing that, all components of the bounty system would be disabled. A player who chooses to opt out will never reach Prestige 5 or Notoriety 5 as long as they leave that metaphorical box unchecked. Similarly, they will never be able to damage B5 players and never be able to be damaged by them too.

That's because I myself wouldn't agree on that statement either. It was supposed to be obviously sarcastic, but I guess I should've made it more clear :V

This just in: a weapon's versatility makes it equal to a cheat. The N-TEC 5 assault rifle is a weapon with 6 STK (Shots To Kill), not 5. Try again. The lowest TTK (Time To Kill) in the game belongs to the Mountie SF9 'Yukon'. Try again. I find it amusing how in the same paragraph you: take pride in using a weapon you consider overpowered (AAEPD 'Volcano JC') and go as far as to call it a "legal exploit" decide to call a different weapon overpowered because it's in the meta owing to its versatility call those who choose the most versatile and optimized arsenal "hypocrites" despite you choosing the most simple weapons making you the bigger (if not the only) hypocrite The N-TEC 5 is a weapon that's available to every player without having to pay real money for it, much like the weapon modifications widely used in the meta (Hunting Sight 3 and Improved Rifling 3). Even the stock STAR 556 will rip and tear enemies when wielded by a proficient player. I'm giving you an F. See me after class.

"Embodiment of Misanthropy" or "Misanthrope", giving me either would be very appreciated. If that can't go through, I'll settle for a lack of a title ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

"Seeing is believing" except when there is a specific purpose why ban statistics are not being shown.

I like the part of your starting post where you immediately brush off any future LO-friendly opinion as "patootie-kissing", say that you "don't care" and tell every person with an LO-friendly opinion to go somewhere else instead of inviting them to a conversation. Good job, fam. Thank you for coming forward with such a brave accusation that is ultimately grounded in your anger instead of facts. No sane individual would promote cheating, so please come up with a different rallying cry. I'm glad you've given us the statistics and numbers to back that claim up, then! ...oh, wait. ...or, better yet, don't release the statistics? Cheating is nothing to be proud of. Having cheaters in your game is nothing to be proud of. Making the ban statistics public would only perpetuate the toxicity from the days of FairFight public broadcasting. Don't give the banned players any attention. They don't deserve any of it. I'll cut down on direct quotes here. - Previous cheaters unbanned That was, as stated before by Matt Scott himself, a gesture of forgiveness. Little Orbit is starting the APB experience anew and they're willing to invite everyone, even if they broke the rules in the past. Under the condition that they play fair this time around. If they don't, they'll just prove themselves to be unredeemable and get banned again. - No Proof BE is working , only your words against ours [...] No disclosure of the ban statistics is, as I've said before, a deliberate choice by LO. - /report function removed , so that any cheaters getting reported can be stopped, aint that convenience. Exactly what is "oddly convenient" about removing a function that was being deliberately misused on a daily basis anyway? If you are really convinced that you've run into a cheater, go through the extra steps and actually contact GMs about it. Don't be a lazy fuck who just tags everyone with /report as a precaution and only gives the GMs more work to do. The other three points I agree with, to a degree. Glad to see you, once again, brush off every possible incoming opinion as literal "shit" and treat your own words as gospel. I'm seeing toxicity here, but I don't think it's who you think it is who's at fault here.

There are multiple issues with this topic and a simple poll on a forum does not properly grasp the subject at hand. Allow me to explain: 1) Age rating varies depending on country. Different countries rate media products in a different manner. Very often there are various backgrounds as to why a video game or any other piece of media receives a specific rating in one country and a different rating in the other. Australian government decided to ban Hotline Miami 2: Wrong Number altogether, while pretty much all other countries can play the game. (The HM2 ban itself is a rather absurd situation and I'd much rather just mention it and move on.) You can't just assign a universal content rating that applies everywhere. That doesn't work. Never did and never will. 2) Content classifying organizations don't classify online components. Ever noticed that one part of game boxes (if you still remember the plastic cases that game discs came in >:) ) close to the age rating box? In case of ESRB (Entertainment Software Rating Board) ratings, it usually says something like "Online content not classified by ESRB". You know why? It's because you simply cannot foresee what will happen in multiplayer. These are live players in a non-laboratory environment let loose on the game servers, with an open mind and a downright scary imagination. And unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your outlook), APB Reloaded is exclusively a multiplayer game. You may run into trainee clothed newcomers, while a veteran friend of yours might run into missions against female characters in B-movie stripper outfits, and yet another friend of yours may get threats sent to them through whispers for some reason (though I hope it never happens to you). Everyone's experience will be different. You can never tell. 3) Age restriction enforcement is... wonky. Perhaps the greatest issue: how do you even enforce the rating? Sure, some countries restrict the sale of games depending on their rating compared to the age of the client trying to buy them - but that is not the case everywhere. The Wikipedia page for Video game content rating system lists the legal situation in different countries. For example, some countries in Europe use PEGI (Pan European Game Information) ratings as law, while others use it as a suggestion of whom the game is intended for. 4) It's impossible to control every player on their age. There's also the fact that you cannot control every single player's age, since you pretty much can't have an age check system that doesn't infringe on the user's right to privacy. Free-to-play games struggle with that issue more than their paid equivalents. There is a cubic fuckton of underage people (we're talking <18, which is the most common definition of maturity) who will play free games, even if just for the sheer fact that they didn't have to ask their mom/dad for cash to buy "yet another of those video james". Plus, content ratings for F2P games are often skimmed over or ignored altogether (hands up, who can remember Team Fortress 2's ESRB age classification without looking it up?), so there's pretty much no point in assigning one such rating to APB Reloaded. So yeah. That's a no from me. I'm not going to vote in the poll because my opinion about assigning APB isn't any of those provided.

Miles ahead of you, sweetie. By the by, try not blaming your team and the matchmaking.

How awfully convenient that you can't provide any proof of ever reaching max rank. What a shame. /s And as Asparii said... this "account rank" is already in the game. And it's literally the threat system. Which LO have already said that they intend to fix. This is where my not-necessarily-nice personal opinion starts. "You" want to weigh more in matchmaking? Then just play the goddamned game. You are not going to be given a victory every single time you play the game. You are bound to win some missions and lose some too. Being able to cherrypick the type of players you'll face off against is a surefire way to never improve. As a matter of fact, playing against whomever the algorithm threw at me was how I personally improved my skills. An enemy is stronger than you? Learn their weaknesses, surprise them, try to be unpredictable - there's lots of tactics, and there's no player who's undefeated. Everyone has a weak point - and yours seems to be people stronger than you. The entire point of this thread is baffling to me. How many more people will have to come here and say that you're misunderstanding rank and threat for you to finally stop trying to push this perspective of yours??

Oh my God, no, no, no, absolutely not. You're deliberately misrepresenting the issue. Threat does not signify a player's skill level - but neither does their rank. In fact, I'd go as far as to say it's even less of an indicator of skill. High rank means high playtime - that much is true. But believe me when I say this: I've seen hundreds of R255 players who had little to no game sense. It is possible to just go through the game, earning standing with contacts and yet learning nothing in the process. This is only made more common by the existence of crutches in the game (see: the meta loadouts render some players simply unable to use anything else, because they become so used to the meta guns carrying them in the fight). And, once again, you're completely omitting the fact that anyone can make a new character who will be an R9 one to everyone around. Care to give us your background? Your example conveniently omits your own rank and threat level and I believe it could explain to us why you're holding these flawed beliefs.

Personally speaking, my only complaint about those mods would be the free-to-play cooldown of 2 minutes being way too much for a couple of seconds of use. Premium cooldown of 45 seconds is a lot more reasonable in my opinion.

...in which case, why even have different characters at all? You want players to be able to only progress through the game once and that's it. This scenario can (and will) result in multi-accounting. The distinction between threat levels should be reworked, not removed. In its current state, APB's threat system has been incredibly offset by dethreaters and the like. Right now, gold doesn't mean "one of the better players", but "anywhere between top and average". Separating players by their in-game rank (especially according to your proposed schematics) is a silly idea. There's no effective difference between a R197+ player and a R255 player when it comes to equipment choices, since all variantless mods (i.e. Clotting Agent has 3 variants, Fragile has no variants) are restricted to players above Rank 195. Even then, the variantless mods and equipment available in the R197+ endgame provides no straight advantage. As a matter of fact, one of the meta weapons is the N-TEC 7 with Hunting Sight 3 and Improved Rifling 3 - all components of this are available before R195.

This is a flawed idea on so many fronts. First off, as CookiePuss has already stated in this thread, rank is not an indicator of skill. A gold R255 player can easily make a new character - and they will pose just as much of a threat to the enemy team as their main character. Secondly, strength indeed is grounded in playtime - but not on a single character. You learn the game the more you play it - but it's not like your knowledge instantly evaporates the moment you create a new character and have to start all over. Thirdly, Athon's post seems to completely misunderstand the distinction between threat and rank. Your threat segregates you into districts (green, bronze, silver, gold) and your rank merely indicates how far you are into in-game progression. That post seems to want to merge the two concepts... which is just silly. This game does need some things to be implemented into it very badly. The one proposed in this thread is not one of them, despite the imperative tone of the OP.

San Paro is a melting pot of many different cultures. The lore establishes it as a city founded by the Chinese, the English, the Dutch, the Spanish and the Korean people. We can even sometimes hear foreign languages on the streets, as civilians cuss out the player-controlled Enforcers and Criminals for being the reckless gun-toting bunch of maniacs they are. It also translates into the interactions between said players - especially true on the Citadel server, we come from different backgrounds and speak a multitude of different languages. But that's kind of beside the point. (A bit.) The point is that the English language is really all that can be used efficiently in the in-game chat. While I agree that the district chat should use English as its primary language, the game as a whole suffers from a lack of support of some diacritical marks present in some languages. I come from Poland, so I'm not an expert on a wide linguistic range. I speak fluent Polish, fluent English, and an itty bitty tiny bit of French. I'll talk about this issue from my own perspective, since that's the only one I can provide; however, if any other players feel similar about their own language, please feel free to contribute to this thread! In the Polish language, we have the following diacritical marks: ą ć ę ł ń ó ś ź ż . These are considered to be separate letters, and each of them is placed in the alphabet immediately after its Latin counterpart (so ą goes between a and b and so on), and ź and ż are placed after z in that order. Their keyboard shortcut is Alt + the Latin counterpart, so Ą is Alt + A. (Except for ź, which uses the shortcut Alt + x.) They're not really trivial differences - there are some instances in which their presence or absence can change the meaning of the sentence entirely. (For example, [wysłać] dziecko do kąta means [to send] a child to the corner, but remove all diacritical marks from that and you're left with dziecko do kata, which means a child to the executioner. Pretty grim, huh?) APB Reloaded's in-game chat does not support those letters... Well, okay, that's 88.(8)% true - for some reason, ó is supported by the default Alt + o key combination. Other diacritics aren't. It's just this one. My question is: Would it be possible to add support for these letters to the game in the future? It is by no means an urgent issue that needs immediate resolving, but it would honestly be pretty nice to see my country get some support for our convoluted language I'd imagine that providing the support for those special letters would pave the way for a Polish localization or anything of that sort. Adding the ability to experience the game in one's native language brings interest from those who aren't too good at the game's "natural" language. I'm looking forward to any and all feedback!

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

...okay, first off, the chat comes with a censor mode which you can freely enable or disable in chat options through pressing the Home button and clicking the cog icon (if my memory serves me well). This is in all likelihood just an option mismatch and not some enforced censorship. By the way, you're coming off as incredibly entitled, OP. If you're playing APB for what you call "erotic" content, then I'm afraid we're playing two completely different games here. Yes, the players have a giant role in creating the game - but this does not mean we're free to do whatever we want. Is this game aimed at mature players? Yes. Does this mean you can ignore all standards and basic human decency? No. If dressing your character up as a combat prostitute and making every third word of your chat message a swear word makes you happy, by all means don't let me stop you - but don't expect any special treatment at the same time. If the developers make any changes to the terms of conduct (even though the situation described in this thread is entirely different :V ), that is entirely up to them. We agreed to follow the same Terms of Service when we started playing APB Reloaded. You were warned that they may change.

- The clan has been shut down. I'd like to request deletion of the thread. -

You've spent money to obtain certain items literal years ago. During all this time you've had unrestricted access to them, as opposed to anyone who hadn't bought them. The prices might be perma-lowered years on from that time (in other words, now) and you want to be refunded/given back the price difference after all this time? This is not how it works. This is not how anything works.

I have remade the survey. The second version should make the choices more precise and indicative of what they convey. Any and all feedback is greatly appreciated!

This is why I'm considering redoing the poll with a more precise goal. I feel like people are casting their votes based on their own interpretation.

I honestly thought it was. Should I remove it from the list then?