mtz
-
Content Count
326 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by mtz
-
-
Everything about this thread seems outright childish (see: no options in the poll are positive, aPairOfSocks is unironically given attention in the OP), but sure, I'll bite. Here's my personal opinion or whatever.
The event is not a success - but that's okay. I never wanted it to be one. I never expected it to be one either.
In fact, I'm glad that Little Orbit dedicated time to giving us something unique this Halloween. Bonus points for the fact that it's an entirely new gamemode, constructed within this old engine (which is notoriously awful to work with, due to the code being a bunch of spaghetti, but LO have overcome the difficulties).
Yes, it's far from perfect. Yes, it's had (or maybe still has) its bugs. But what deserves praise is that Little Orbit have immediately jumped to fixing the problems, effectively releasing like three updates/bugfixes in one day. Pre-buyout GamersFirst wouldn't have given you this kind of attention.
...actually, scratch that. Pre-buyout GamersFirst wouldn't have given you this kind of an event at all. At the very best we'd get a sale (and you best not forget to buy our special edition Joker Halloween Boxes for a chance at one of the old legendaries ;))) ) ...and that'd be all. Absolute fuck-all, the bare minimum of attention, and it wouldn't even be for the community to get together and play some games, but to try and squeeze some more money out of people.
Of course I'm not trying to imply that Little Orbit isn't in it for the profit - every company is, and thinking otherwise would be outright silly. But the difference here is that Little Orbit are working for their buck.
Releasing "Epidemic" proved that:
1) LO are actively trying to give players unique reasons to stick with the game.
2) LO are capable of releasing a working proof of concept for a gamemode (as in, a territory control-oriented, multi-team deathmatch) even despite currently being limited to the old engine's clunkiness.
3) LO are consistently working to provide a steady and enjoyable experience and will patch out bugs and errors as soon as they can.
Personally, I find that very commendable and I'm happy that finally APB is in the hands of people who actually care about the quality of the product.
aPairOfSocks's stance mentioned in the OP is simply childish. Similarly, user Sayori a couple of posts above this one said that people on the forums are stuck in an echo chamber, wearing rose-tinted glasses. Well, pray tell, what would be the correct terminology to describe the opposite, contrarian stance?
"Everything is shit. Everything is terrible. Fuck LO. They are only doing bad things." - Absolutely no consideration for the positives, no argumentation other than "it sucks and i hate it", no real attempt at trying to work with the devs to improve the game. LO have proved that they are listening to feedback... but I suppose it's way easier to just fuzzy bunny about everything and dismiss any and all positives as "not enough" or "too little too late".
I can't speak for anyone else, but from me personally... congrats, LO. Honest, unironic congratulations.
The event has its flaws, but everything concerning it proves that you do care about the game. I hope that kind of sentiment carries over into the future.
-
3
-
-
Just out of curiosity (intrigued by this thread), I've looked through the APB mission list (https://db.apbvault.net/missions/) and written down which missions have which team on the attacking side...
...surprisingly enough, the amounts are equal. (link)
Excluding tutorials, Fight Club missions and duplicates on that list (also, one of the "None" missions is a duplicate of "Deliver The Liver" and the other is a weird VIP-checkpoint Halloween mission, along with specific terms such as "trick-or-treating" and "gorging on candy" etc.; I've excluded the Halloween mission from counting.), there are exactly 90 attack missions for Enforcers and exactly 90 attack missions for Criminals.
To OP: compared to the statistical data, your complaint feels like you just got the patootie-end of the random mission pick system.
This, of course, doesn't nullify your complaint. The mission selection system could use some work or an outright overhaul, much like the missions themselves.
(Also, I can't say I agree with the notion that "defense missions are automatically easier", but that's just my personal opinion.)
-
9 hours ago, Br0calne said:I'm talking better mechanics
As in?
9 hours ago, Br0calne said:bring back the jumping scout (because it took skill to hit them)
Arguable at best.
9 hours ago, Br0calne said:and dismembering and rebuilding the whole entire foundation of EnforcerxCiviliansxCriminal.
Please elaborate on this. I'm unironically intrigued.
-
1
-
-
There were many threads concerning the issue of Bounty 5. My stance on the subject is the same as before.
On 7/26/2018 at 6:45 PM, MartinPL said: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.
-
Relegate the P5/N5 gameplay to a post-mission activity.
-
I give up. I failed to notice that you're not putting your idea up for critique - you want it enacted without question because you're fatally convinced that you're right and that after over six years of runtime, this game somehow needs friendly fire to be disabled.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Zvitatzki said:if the only problem is shooting though ur own ppl and hit the enemy just make bullets still hit ur team member but 0 damage or just damage reduce
...but that is literally the problem. That is the problem. Right there. Being able to bomb the shit out of the fight area with OSMAWs, OPGLs or just regular grenades without any risk (because teammates take no damage in the proposed scenario). Absolutely no consequence to careless bombing.
-
Wow, that's an original thread. The complaints about the matchmaking system definitely haven't been made yet, I wonder why nobody had done that yet. I especially like the screenshot of Steam game statistics - such a bold move that absolutely hasn't been done before by anyone else.
/s, in case it wasn't obvious enough.
-
I honestly think you do not understand the repercussions of removing friendly fire. A single isolated example is that OSMAW becomes viable indoors, since your teammates will take no damage - and just this one thing is bad enough on its own.
If you want to "fix" it with exceptions, you will only complicate the rules of the game and make things confusing for new players.
-
The game already punishes teamkillers by decreasing their rewards (and allowing the team leader to remove them from the group the moment they receive a demerit). What else do you want done here anyway?
-
55 minutes ago, Zvitatzki said:as many already fear this game is dying some actions need be done
>trying to paint every single person who leaves the game as someone who has a problem with friendly fire
yeah no
56 minutes ago, Zvitatzki said:no new content nothing not even a new map or the promised new engine 3 years ago
A new secondary weapon has been added. The engine upgrade has been soft-scheduled for the end of this year. Can we stop repeating this nonsense about how supposedly nothing is happening to the game?
59 minutes ago, Zvitatzki said:they seem to not care at all i get killed by my own team in almost every mission
some careless overdrive me today i got shot by holding the delivery pot then the team mate took it to delivery probably to get bonus score
i not see this is any fair gameplay
Pro tip: Don't prioritize score over actually having your team win the mission.
By the way, care to share your opinion about Counter-Strike? That game is very teamwork-oriented and it has friendly fire enabled in official matchmaking - and it still has a lot of players. What's up with that?
-
5 minutes ago, Zvitatzki said:every game has no friendly fire while in group
[citation needed]
16 hours ago, Zvitatzki said:sure i get insulted here by ppl who love team kill but learn to play fair
Disagreeing with you does not mean that the ones disagreeing are teamkillers.
The existence of friendly fire serves to encourage coordinated and careful gameplay. Being careless with how you use your weapons and explosives will hinder your team's effectiveness, and may eventually cost your team the entire mission. As BXNNXD pointed out, removing friendly fire would pretty much nullify any and all risk connected with using explosive weaponry.
Plus, teamkillers already get punished for their endeavours - teamkilling gives you demerits, and if you perform 5 consecutive teamkills, you are immediately kicked out of the server after the fifth one.
-
Point 1 (PVP overhaul):
...kind of yes but at the same time no? APB deals with a massive amount of players in one district by segregating them into missions. You cannot interact with people outside of missions specifically to prevent griefing. The issue is present either way (going Bounty Level 5 on a mission adds a problem while playing missions - everyone and anyone can kill you) and allowing people to get dragged into PVP events unwillingly would only exacerbate the issue.
Perhaps the idea could be worked upon when the Engine Upgrade (and district phasing) is finally shipped. While in a district, you could check an option that tells the game that you want to participate in an open PVP event that's currently happening, or something like that.
Point 2 (Clan owned structures):
Why?
I mean, I understand the idea of clans owning buildings/hideouts/safehouses in the city (and it does sound kinda cool), but... is it really necessary to further separate the players in terms of places they can be in? We already have the Social District to facilitate conversations, social interaction and trading.
Point 2.5 (First person camera):
APB was never meant to be played in first person. Whenever you pit a First Person Perspective player against a Third Person Perspective player, the latter will almost always win, thanks to being able to (for example) peek around corners without exposing themself to enemy vision. Letting people play in FPP mode would effectively be kind of like adding an option that says "Do you want to make the game harder for yourself?".
Point 3 ("adding more things to do"):
Absolutely. I feel like adding even the smallest options to Social would go a long way. Give us benches or ledges to interact with (aka: sit on them :V ), so that Breakwater Marina does not look like a congregation of mannequins, all stuck in the same pose. I'd love to be able to just sit and chill in Social, talk to others while my character also sits back and relaxes etc.
Point 4:
I, uh... I don't think I get it.I think the paragraph/idea concerns being able to start cross-faction duels with other players, in which case... yeah. Though the functionality is already present in a way (duels can be arranged through witnessing someone who wants a duel and then getting to a location to have the actual duel), it would be an improvement to allow players to do it much more easily.
No rewards, though, to prevent farming cash and standing points and all that.
Point 5 ("High alert locations"):
I feel like this just boils down to "make yourself Prestige 5/Notoriety 5 at any time if you feel like it". Introducing the idea from Point 1 (PVP opt-in) would pretty much allow for the same thing to happen - a zone/mode where you can open fire on anyone.
-
9 minutes ago, TheKeanuReeves said:They'll give you the "too much work" excuse for anything you ask, like working on a game isn't the developers job.
This just in: a game is not being worked on in any aspect whatsoever because the developers did not immediately accept one person's random suggestion and start working on it right away.
-
- Certain clothing articles do not have their equivalents for the opposing gender. Those items would be lost in "transition", rendering all the money spent on them as wasted.
- For existing equivalents, their properties would probably also be corrupted and/or lost (colouring and applied symbols; the latter would be messed up due to both genders in the game having different body shapes - for example, male characters can have their muscularity changed, whereas for female characters the muscularity slider only affects the shading of muscles already present on their body).
- There is no starting point for this procedure - even in the pre-game character creation menu, changing the character's gender overwrites all visual changes and forces you to start the process all over again, instead of carrying over your choices.
- The feature is unnecessary and introducing it would discourage players from rolling out new characters (and thus playing the game), since they can just flip between genders and turn a R255 female character into a R255 male character (or the other way around) instantly.
Impossible in the present day, unnecessary/unneeded in the engine upgraded APB.
(There are probably even more points to it than I've listed here, but I can't think of any more right now.)
-
4
-
Can't say I fully empathise with the sentiment. However, APB allows for creative freedom of levels still not matched by other games, and I understand that why you would want that to be reflected in this competition.
The point of the contest is to put a massive restriction on it by imposing a theme. The challenge is to create a good-looking outfit in spite of being so heavily restricted in the colour palette. You can still create great outfits even without sticking to the given colours - the sky's the limit, really - but the focus of this contest is to prove that you are capable of working with just three colours.
A similar idea appeared in @Kempington's Theme Scene music studio contest. One of the Season 1 rounds had a "five seconds only" stipulation. The idea was that 5 seconds (the default, unglitched/intended maximum theme length) is WAY too restrictive and it does not allow themes to have any build-up or any of that sort; glitching your themes to be longer than 5 seconds allows you to spice them up, give them fade-ins, build-ups, fadeouts and so on - but the point of that round was to make a theme that sounds good and/or interesting despite being so short.
As for the rewards - I dunno. I think they're appropriate. You aren't expected to log on at a specific moment to participate - you only have the deadline. How you distribute your workload is entirely up to you.
TL;DR: I understand why this thread was made, but I don't agree.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Ignas / qsn said:They are directly supporting people who make cheats and they most likely wanted to cheat if they bought them. I wouldn't really call them helpful.
Not exactly 100% agreeing with you here. There is no other way to obtain paid cheats other than sending that couple of bucks their creators' way, so some money has to be lost to cheaters. However, if the cheat gets paid for and downloaded, then forwarded straight for analysis, it effectively becomes an open invitation for the anticheat providers to run wild in the cheat's code, see how exactly it hooks into the game, what to look out for, etc.
I'd imagine that most anticheat providers would appreciate people sending them copies of cheat files, since then they can reverse-engineer them, implement counter-measures in the next update, and thus be able to take pride in preventing even more cheats than before.
Then again, I'm not an expert in this field, so take my opinion here with a grain of salt :V
-
3
-
3
-
-
6 minutes ago, BXNNXD said:i think the radar should stay pretty much as is, having it be more detailed would make it a little too easy to see exactly where pings and radar tower tags are
Though this is a valid argument, I'd argue that it wouldn't be made too simple, seeing as the topdown image would not account for height, but just show the topmost thing (so, in a way, only rooftops would be represented instead of entire hallways, corridors and indoor areas).
-
One of the issues with current day APB is the inaccuracy of its map/radar. The proportions on the map are vague approximations that don't really indicate the exact location. This issue is especially glaring on Waterfront when it comes to respawning in the vicinity of the Santa Maria Transport Ferry - a location that suggests spawning on the west end of the ferry actually spawns you on the west side of the dock, requiring you to run back south and walk up the gangplank. Marking locations with waypoints (for the rest of the team to see) is also problematic, seeing as pinpointing them on this basic map isn't reliable (it's not hard to place a waypoint in a ~8m radius away from the actual spot you want to indicate).
The radar in the bottom right corner could also use a similar change. It does not show anything except for specific icons. Adding an image beneath it as a background (as seen in other open world games such as Grand Theft Auto series or Saints Row series) could also help players with learning to approximate distances. The circles indicating 20, 40, 60 and 80 metres (numbers might be wrong, which would be entirely my fault here) combined with an image showing where EXACTLY these circles reach would allow players to measure distances by sight more easily.
What I have in mind is something similar to those maps.
(These images do not belong to me, I do not know their original author, I only found them on Google.)
I think it would be a universally and unambiguously positive change to add a more detailed map to both the M-key menu, the respawn screen and the radar in the bottom right corner of the screen.
-
8
-
-
Arguably, if you can manage to pull off successful arrests with how gimped the LTL guns are compared to their lethal counterparts, you probably deserve them (and deserve the subsequent power to massively slow down the Criminal side's momentum). However, I can understand why this could be frustrating to Criminals.
No strong opinion one way or the other from me.-
1
-
-
Wow, you sure showed me with that reaction GIF and trying to avoid a discussion! :^)10 minutes ago, CookiePuss said:Unreal... but expected. I dont really want to upset you anymore... I know how emotional you can get, so lets just agree to disagree eh?
If you want to drop the topic, go ahead. I won't reply if you don't.-
1
-
-
It has been stated numerous times, but sure, let's do it once more for clarity. The game is not being advertised in its current state because LO is still working on making the game more presentable. The priority right now is pushing out the Engine Upgrade to streamline content development and allow more people to play the game without having to downgrade their visuals to have a chance of breaching >30 FPS.21 minutes ago, CookiePuss said:Unreal. If only believing LO can do no wrong translated into people playing the game.
>Kemp becomes the most prominent community figure through consistent streaming with a triple digit viewercount, good knowledge of the game's mechanics, and going out of his way to reach out to developers and give them his opinion24 minutes ago, CookiePuss said:Yeah... lets not talk about Kemp and the special treatment he gets. I dont need him having another hissy fit on his stream.
>"how does LO dare to listen to this guy?!?! fuckin' special treatment!!"
also
>says "let's not talk about Kemp" to later accuse me of trying to avoid a conversation
Yeah, that's what baffles me, because ever since I've known of your existence (mostly through the fact that you posted a certain screenshot of yourself and got kicked from WASP for that) you have been nothing but critical of G1 and LO and everything they do. I get having a love-hate relationship with something, but this is basically a variant of Stockholm syndrome in your case.14 minutes ago, CookiePuss said:Seems odd to have played some 5,000 hours in 4 years and spent nearly as many dollars on a game I hate.
Understandable, but my point was that iirc G1 never did fix the Yukon - that "honour" went to LO while they were cleaning up.11 minutes ago, BXNNXD said:i’m not sure the willful ignorance of a single bug compares well to the intended change to an entire weapon category tbh
and while orbit did fix their mistake (way faster than g1 would have) after implementing the initial changes (despite the complaints of the few otw testers), they did so by implementing more changes that they seem to have decided on their own, all while allowing players to give negligible feedback
The over-eagerness to push out balance changes, while I agree is a flaw, it is also something LO have acknowledged - and even Matt Scott himself apologised for it. We wouldn't have had that in the days of G1 - neither the actual changes, nor any apologies.-
1
-
-
Once again, the fault lies in those who were only expecting rewards instead of the possibility of reshaping the game. That being said...15 minutes ago, CookiePuss said:I think the ghost towns that were OTW and the prototype districts prove that not offering incentives was a mistake.
In the context of Jericho's super-low playercount, though, incentivising testing could honestly be a viable option. I'll admit that's my fault from mostly focusing on Citadel here.1 minute ago, BXNNXD said:there is a need for incentives imo, while good testing does require actual gameplay scenarios it also requires a lot of non-gameplay activity which generally isn’t fun or entertaining at all - if you’re going to ask the players to voluntarily not play, shouldn’t you make it worth their time? especially on jericho where even the minor player shift into the test districts meant regular districts suffered as well
We must have played different events, or you must have not paid attention to what is actually happening in the game. (As I suspect you to be doing, considering you're so vocal on telling everyone how much you hate the game, its new developers and so on; it's hard for me to imagine you logged into APB if you can't stomach so many of its aspects.)15 minutes ago, CookiePuss said:We must have played different events... "Playing with the devs" was a lol fest, it was in no way a serious ineraction with the devs.
There was a day when the GMs and developers showed up in a prototype instance and the people in that instance had the option of using /d chat to communicate with them directly firsthand. Even happened on Kempington's stream, and he even got the opportunity to be in a team with Beastie and Aphadon. Do you still want to pretend that LO doesn't listen at all?
Personally speaking, I have no real issue with changes LO wants to make. After being very stale for multiple years, it's kind of nice to see the usual loadouts get mixed up a bit. That being said, I understand why some people take issue with that.3 minutes ago, BXNNXD said:i have no issues with this, if the devs have a specific vision for what they want apb to be and are consistently working towards that more power to them (although obviously ill still voice my opinion about it)
i just think think it’s a little disengenuous to pretend that the players’ feedback has so much power over the game direction
As for having more or less power over the direction the game's headed, I'd rather have LO's "A or B or you guys propose C together" than G1's "fuck you this is how it is now". (see: Yukon's broken/unintended rate of fire), but that's just my opinion here.
If you'll excuse the Twitch lingo... LUL but also FeelsBadMan9 minutes ago, BXNNXD said:frankly i imagine we’d be in largely the same place we are now, except maybe lixil would still be streaming with players
-
>implying that there needs to be material gratification or other incentive to absolutely everything7 hours ago, CookiePuss said:OTW and prototype districts were empty because LO did nothing to incentivise using them.
>implying that the opportunity to directly draw the developers' attention to specific issues isn't an incentive in itself
>implying that the developers need to constantly create events to satisfy the community instead of dedicating time to solving issues7 hours ago, CookiePuss said:Oh except for one "play with the devs event"
>implying that the players could not provide feedback to the changes at any time7 hours ago, CookiePuss said:after they had already decided what changes to make.
Imagine all the places we could be in as a community if all the bullshoot contrarianism, pessimism and defeatism just disappeared. But I guess we can't have nice things. -
...except Fortune Runner explicitly stated that the perceived "failure of LO" is actually only present in minds of the more impatient people. And expecting Little Orbit to practically resurrect the game and solve all of its faults within a matter of days is downright foolish.23 minutes ago, CookiePuss said:Blaming the community for LO's failures... Now Ive heard it all.
Fun part is that there are some people in this very community who are never satisfied with anything LO does, regardless of whether it's a change or a fix or basically any action at all.
purchasable event rewards
in General Discussion Archive
Posted
This is literally not the case.
You can play the event normally and you will obtain the rewards for free. However, the same rewards are also available for purchase from ARMAS.
It's a "pay for convenience" type of deal. You can still get them for free, but you can also get them instantly if you're willing to pay with cash.