Spudinskes

Ok, then WoW's phasing then...? It was just an example of what needs to be done. Weird thing to pick on.

The game needs matchmaking that selects from the pool of all players. As it is right now even if you fix rating that still doesn't solve the problem of the system only having a pool of 40 players to select from. We need phasing technology similar to how destiny 2 implements it. Also you are too optimistic if you think all players have infinite skill ceilings. Some people just aren't as good, and that's that. People have peaks.

I think the thread started off on the wrong foot. The OP should have suggested the weapon drop mechanic with some modifications like only being able to have one primary, the weapon you trade disappears (to avoid having an arsenal on the ground), and fixing the performance issues guns on the floor presented. I think a lot of people are hung up on the actual old mechanic that was, from what I read, actually broken. Being able to carry two primaries? Broken. Bad performance, no good. But if fixes to these issues were suggested in the beginning of the thread we could have started on step 1 rather than step -2. Because now people, who have just read the topic name and OP, are posting about the broken-ness of the old drop system. I agree with them on their points, the old system should never be re-introduced in the state that it is right now.

In response to your edited asylum comment, it's highly unlikely that you get destroyed to the point where the 20 enemy members manage to all have it at the same time. Players lose the weapon after death, and the weapon pickup will only provide a few extra mags, like 2. However, if you play long enough then the chances that at least each enemy has held your gun at some point, increases. You're living proof that there are people out there that dislike it. "i do not want that someone who killed me to take my legendary i spent so much time farming and enjoy it for free." As for proof that the number of people that currently hate sharing their legendaries is incredibly small, you got me there. I can't provide actual statistical evidence. But out of curiousity do you have a source of the counter-claim? Is the number of people with legendaries that dislike plebs rubbing their grubby hands on their virtually cloned weapons significant? I will say this though, we shouldn't allow legendary weapons affect the balancing of a game. That's a slippery slope imo.

I didn't assume that, you're putting words in my mouth. I clearly said there are people out there that don't want the fruits of their efforts in the hands of others, which is absolutely understandable. "The number that hate the thought of their legendary weapons falling into the wrong hands is incredibly incredibly small."

Woah I haven't said anything out of line, illogical, nor rude. Not sure where the anger is coming from. Anyways, what do you mean by "replace YOUR primary with anyone else"?

The vast majority of players don't mind that one person's legendary weapon might get used by another person after they die. The number that hate the thought of their legendary weapons falling into the wrong hands is incredibly incredibly small. You think I've been following this game's forum discussions every year since 2011? You think I get a summary of threads in my email?

I think it would be a buff to attackers actually (which imo need a buff). Defenders get to perch up in advantageous positions and require attackers to reach them. If they only have the gun that is suited to killing the defender from the position but not a suitable weapon to kill people from that position then they are practically useless until they resupply or run back to the objective (by that time the defenders will have respawned). But by allowing the attacker to immediately take advantage of the previous defender spot this buffs the attackers. Shouldn't the picked up weapon replace your primary? Why would you be able to hold two primaries? That sounds like it would be absolutely broken, game breaking even. Unless you mean pick back up the gun you dropped, in that case the gun you drop should just disappear. That's one way of balancing that out. Being able to switch back to your original gun from off the ground would be a bit unbalanced.

Responding with some information like this to your initial post could have avoided the posts above. I wasn't here during those times and I don't think they're searchable any more. There's a couple ways of making sure your opponent doesn't use your beloved legendary. One way is to not die to your enemy, another is to switch before you die if you know they're going to kill you, or don't equip it because you don't want your enemy to rub their tainted pleb fingers all over your precious legendary.

How is this a useless thread? This is the suggestions subform. When you're at a movie theater you have to tell people to be quiet or else they won't stop.

Lol just downvote the post, no need to respond with a useless post.

I'm not talking about how it is currently implemented. There are issues like weapons not actually replacing your weapon. If it were to be implemented it into the main game it would absolutely have to replace your primary, not just give you an extra.

I didn't experience it myself but I have been reading conflicting stories. Some say it was horrible without much explanation, while others are saying people disliked it because it introduced performance issues.

Well I'm not exactly sure how the old system worked, but I would assume some common logic would be used when implementing this feature in prime time. This means only being able to swap out primaries for primaries, and the gun you traded in doesn't get put back on the ground. Also weapons disappear at the end of missions similar to how trial weapons do when time runs out. "All of these things take time, and since in-game time is often so limited this means you have to make decisions..." Since the player's original weapon would disappear once they pick up the sniper, the player would have to make a decision. I can already tell we are both heavily cemented in our opinions. I prefer more adaptive and streamlined gameplay while you prefer a more gameplay that contains very consequential decisions. Similar to RPG games where whatever decision you make will lose you something in order to gain another. Since both sides of this topic have their own opinions maybe this feature can be implemented in OTW or in a special district like open conflict. Once players experience this after it's been updated and tuned people can reconsider their opinions.

Absolutely it is a different game, but the feature would be even more useful in APB where there are rooftops and other areas that are difficult to get up to.

That should also be implemented into the game. But I believe my idea should be as well. It takes a non-trivial amount of time for the supply box animations, as well as getting a workable amount of ammo. Like I said this is about adding dynamic-ness to the stale gunplay

You can only swap your primary weapon, I'm pretty sure no one here thought of allowing your secondary slot to pick up primary guns. That would be broken for the reasons you've stated. Being able to storm an smg and swap your gun for a sniper (your smg would disappear, it doesn't get put on the ground) would introduce so much dynamic gameplay. It's interesting that you see it as a bad thing. It's such an incredible feature in CSGO. I can't imagine not being able to switch up an mp5 for an awp and being forced to walk down long A on dust2 to take someone out in pit.

If the weapon you traded in disappears after picking up the one on the ground it would be balanced. I would want to see it in only regular action districts. This would add so much dynamic gameplay to the stale gunplay.

I'm pretty sure you've run into this scenario before. The opposing team has a long range gunner in an advantageous position that is hard to dislodge with your own long range guns because he is able to break line of sight. The smart thing to do would be to go up there, with probably a CQC weapon, and kill. Mean while the rest of your team is fighting the rest of the enemy team, but unfortunately your CQC gun can't do anything from where you are. You have two choices: run back to the objective to utilize your CQC gun, or take 15 seconds to lay down your resupply to switch out to a long range gun. In both scenarios the battle could already be lost by the time you are able to do anything. Now imagine if the long range gunner dropped his gun when he died. You could pick it up and immediately support your team without moving. This adds a great dynamic to the game that will also improve the balance of hard to assault locations. If you pick up a dropped gun, the gun you traded will disappear. This ensures you can't lay down an arsenal on the ground and switch willy nilly. Also once the mission ends and you're holding a dropped gun the gun will be removed from your hands, similar to how trial weapons disappear once time is up. This feature is, for the most part, already implemented in the game for the Valentine guns. A few performance and ui fixes and the feature would be ready in no time. Maybe this could be implemented in special district mode and if the feedback is well received it could be implemented into the main game. Feedback and concerns?

There's more to it than that. If a long range gunner is posted up on a high position that can't be killed easily from below (because he breaks line of sight when he's low or even has a shield down) you'll need to send in someone, probably a cqc gun, to kill him. After the cqc guy has killed the long range gunner he now has two choices, both of which waste precious time. He can go back down and run back into cqc where his gun will be effective, or take almost 15 seconds to lay down their ammo supply and switch to a long range gun. In the second scenario one can not always rely on their ammo supply being available, especially if they're not using premium. Now if the long range gunner were to drop his gun after he died the cqc guy could have picked it up immediately and provide support from where he is. This is one thing that makes CSGO so adaptive. In a shooter a lot of things can happen in a split second and every moment of time wasted is a lost opportunity.

There's counter strike and team fortress that immediately come to mind.

Vertical combat exists in hundreds of 3D shooter games created in the past decade. Combat between across large differing heights is not unique to APB. This is nothing about realism. This is about making jumping off from high vantage points have some sort of consequence when done with happy landings. The little animation when a character lands is negligible.

No one in this thread claimed that a client can receive packets faster from the server than the server is able to. How did you assume this?

While a lot of players are glad BattleEye was implemented, there are tons of casual players that don't know or don't care.

He's talking about client side fps and not server tick. Combination of fps and your monitor's refresh rate is a big factor on how fast you "see what the server can output". Raising the client side fps cap will not suddenly cause our games to lag and crash. Raising the fps cap really "is that simple", I'm pretty sure it's do able in the configuration files.