Tigrix

Changing a mod that is LOCKED on many guns they SOLD for irl $$, is completely unaccpeable without a recourse as to how ppl can change the mod on those locked guns afterwards. They destroyed a lot of guns that are STUCK with IR3 locked to them. You can't just destroy X amount of guns in a players inventory and say "oh well, it might be revised down the road, just wait and let it play out." No, if you change such a core thing of the game, as how a MOD works, then u gotta fkin roll out a plan for how everyone stuck with this mod on locked armas rifles, can at least remove or change that mod once as a choice. I say it again, since they don't seem to listen. A bunch of weapons has become so so bad... temptress with 18% fire reduction... ughhhh.... ATAC patroller too, the silenced AR also and getting -range too (issr-b? i dont recall the name) Your attempt at giving people alternatives to the NTEC, has only made MORE people use the NTEC and ensuring the few alternatives there was are even worse now. It's every mission, shotguns and ntecs.

Yep. I'm also really annoyed that Matt won't comment on locked mod guns affected by this re-make of IR that nobody could've foreseen. I can foresee balances, such as increasing or decreasing the range of IR, increasing/decreasing the bloom effect etc, but nobody can foresee they add a fire-reduction to IR, making it now a new MOD in the game which in some cases has made it the completely wrong mod on guns they sold on armas with that mod LOCKED on the gun.. That really drives me nuts. If you're new to the game and you make such a sweeping change, you better have thought it through to have a plan how you'll handle the locked versions of those guns people bought in good faith with a locked IR3 mod on them. Still waiting for a comment from LO at this. Whether it's "oh too bad, you're **** out of luck, we didn't plan for this." or hopefully more along lines of "We'll unlock those mods so players can set a new mod that suits the weapons we sold, so players aren't stuck with guns locked with a mod that negate the entire design of that gun".

It's not a point of them "being sucky long range" it's a point of stacking nerfs on nerfs. ATAC already struggled range, then it received a reduction in fire-rate (well at least the armas version so far, since they still didnt comment any solution on those locked mods) APB weapons are not at all similar, even if they are in same category ... they wanted to nerf NTEC & make regular Rifles shine more on range, but they're nerfing AR guns that already struggled @range, unlike the NTEC.

I think the HVR and Yukon nerf(fix) was really good. I was NOT expecting the random change to the IR mod or the shotgun damage buffs. It really nerfed some guns that did NOT need more nerfs and it changed some guns in a way that made the mod completely unfit to go with that weapon. That's a HUGE problem when you have guns in the game that you sold with LOCKED mods. People bought those weapons, because of their mods... no-one could ever dream you'd change the basis of how a mod works. People could imagine u'll balance the mod, either increase or decrease its positive and negative impacts, but no-one could guess you'd change the mod entirely as you did with IR. That IR change made some guns with locked mods completely pointless to ever equip, as the ATAC, the TAS, the CSG from armas, all sold with locked IR mod that makes them worse guns than the free/similar counterparts in APB. When you make such a sweeping change to a MOD, you gotta already have a way to handle those guns you sold locked with the mod, either by opening the mod slot, or changing the mod, along with your changes. I'm still shocked nobody on your team commented this ..

Does "across the board" balancing bring good things for APB? The guns in APB are so different, even if they are within same category, there are many guns that are wildly different from their siblings in same category. It was shown by the shotgun changes and by changing a MOD instead of re-balancing individual weapons.... and now they're doing an "across the board -range" for all rifles... While some rifles already struggle hugely on range like the raptor and the atac, they get the same nerf as those rifles that shine on range as the ntec... (same as others mentioned: Misery and ISSR-A are impacted very negatively, as they already suck in close compared to other AR's and range was really their "shine") It just doesn't make any sense balancing wildly different weapons, with the exact same changes... Did they comment anywhere on all the locked guns sold via armas' and their fate? Tons of players stuck with $$ sold guns that are now locked with a mod that was changed to be a terrible mod on the gun, still seems incredibly out of touch with the game imho, without at least unlocking the mod of those guns.

it has better range than the supposed "ranged" cqc weapons (oca, pmg etc) idk how it's called a shotgun... ok it fires spead bullets!? but somehow that spread has turned into 1 massive bullet hitting you at 20+ meters ez is shredder armas-only? cuz if so.... omg .. this really turned P2W even to a degree i can't deny;P

go ahead, try it ;D i dare u ;D

I do feel it's a bit rushed from LO to just patch such a massive change as the IR3 into the live servers.... The weapon re-balance.. OK, this can be re-worked a few times. But the IR3 change? erhm ... idk what to say ... changing how a mod works, to balance weapons?... they didn't really consider all those pre-set armas guns they sold that are now stuck with a mod that doesn't belong on that gun anymore due to the different nature of the mod... It feels like a mistake that should be avoided, until they already had a plan on how to deal with the affected mod-locked guns. It's a bit like they don't have a super experienced "PvP" player in their team? (in lack of a better description) *shrugs* just a feeling... or he/she would've brought it up the first time they had a "round-the-table" meeting and discussed this IR3 change. I'm all for changes! and I'm HAPPY they're working on stuff ... but ye, you know... everything within' a scope of "fix things and add things, but don't break a whole row of stuff while you're fixing..." on a side note, did shotguns need a buff? I always saw them plenty used..

None of those problems exist if they simply unlock just the IR3 slot on the gun People can select a different mod or leave the current IR3 in. If they unlock that 3rd slot on the gun and a player freely choose to remove the IR3, then imho it's fair that the player can only use that open slot, same as any other open slot in the game, i.e. put in mods that are usable by his rank. It seems a far more gentle and fair way of handling things as opposed to hinting that it's just a shame you spent irl $ on supporting the game and now you should go pickup the f2p version or counterpart of the gun and get some open mods that don't make the gun suck. And yes, we willingly chose guns with locked mods, based on our experience with those mods and the trial we had with the gun, using those locked mods. Atm it feels like, without saying anything, they're hinting strongly that: Oh well, seems ya'll got stuck with some pretty horrible mod pre-sets on your armas purchases from our decision..... oops, better luck in the future! That imho is a very poor way of handling it when you're a F2P game, relying on people feeling comfortable purchasing things off armas from you as a company.

I can't speak for UE, I never used it, but I'd wager to say yes. In any environment like such big platform as UE, it is a matter of code lines they'll execute once to make the change, once they know what they actually wanna change. They changed IR3 on all those same guns:) To target specific guns, is merely a matter of; do they have unique calls/id's for those guns they sell on armas with locked slots. And again, of course yes they do, anything else would not be common sense at all for any programmer of any level

The tech is already available to them. They have guns with certain locked mods and an open slot etc. If you mean tech, as per say "how do we make this change to current affected armas guns in the game" - well, I'm pretty sure it's not a problem on a programming level of things, but it'd be nice to know if it's something they at least consider or if they just made this change and expected no-one to ask about the guns they sold with this completely changed IR3 being locked to them lol.

Exactly this ^ I don't see an issue in unlocking the mods on the armas weapons affected by their new IR3 mod. If anything, only unlock the IR3 mod on the gun and keep the other slots locked, it's a tech they already have available, so at least the players get a choice for a new red mod on those armas weapons. Making a drastic change and not addressing how it affects certain guns that you sold with locked pre-sets...... well, it will deter others from buying mod-locked guns on armas in the future - I can of course only speak for myself, but I don't think it's a far fetched theory.

You miss the point. let me copy-paste: It's perfectly expect-able that re-balances might happen, but to completely change the effect of a mod that are locked on many of your armas sold weapons...... well, i'd assume you'd at least unlock the mods then. re-balancing a weapon making it less strong than other guns, is not a problem imho - it just changes the meta and that's fine (and needed tbh after years of everyone using same guns, I welcome it). But changing a specific MOD completely, so that multiple guns sold through armas, now has a mod setup that makes no sense and people who spent $$ on them are actually stuck with inferior guns to their counterparts in the game, even inferior to their identical siblings that may not be locked with an IR3 mod.... that's the issue imho. Should you be punished for using armas? does it make any sense that people who support the game should be stuck with guns that are less useful than their f2p counterparts with open mod slots? I'm not asking for them to be buffed or for the IR3 change to be reverted, I don't think ARMAS guns should in any way be stronger than f2p guns, hell no. If it was up to me, then ALL guns was obtainable in-game with enough time/effort played, so there never was a p2w debate. But I'm asking if LO considered all those guns sold on armas with a locked IR3 mod that are now joke weaponry compared to their f2p counterparts and their non-mod locked siblings. Imho it would be fair to either unlock their mods, or give players a choice for a new locked mod on those guns affected by their choice to completely re-do how IR3 affect a weapon.

(if you read this, do yourself a favor and read the topic/answers all the way down:) there's some good discussion imho.) ----------------------- Are there any plans to unlock mods on your armas sold weapons? I feel that people who pickup the bill and support your game shouldn't get screwed over when you make a purchase with RL money for a specific gun with specific mods that are LOCKED to the gun. It's perfectly expect-able that re-balances might happen, but to completely change the effect of a mod that are locked on many of your armas sold weapons...... well, i'd assume you'd at least unlock that mod then. I don't see an issue in unlocking the mod on the armas weapons affected by this new IR3 mod. If anything, only unlock the IR3 mod on the gun and keep the other slots locked, it's a tech already available and at least the players get a choice for a new red mod on those purchases. I'm not complaining about nerfing a gun, if anything i'm ALL for making it so ALL armas guns are obtainable in-game via F2P methods, so there never has to be a "p2w" debate. But what I'm against is that if you change a mod in a way that makes it affect guns in a new way without addressing existing mod-locked guns you sold....... and you've sold tons of people a gun with a mod pre-set that include IR3 and now makes no sense, and in-fact make the gun perform worse than its f2p counterpart or its open-slot siblings... you have to consider that in your equation upon such a big change. "get a trial gun first" used to be the response from old G1, if anyone complained about a gun being weak or "bad" and fair enough imo, but we can't trial nor predict that you change the way a mod works. These guns that supporters of your game bought, are suddenly locked with mods that actually make them terrible weapons vs equal guns without the mod, isn't that quite frankly just stupid? Who wants a CSG / TAS or ATAC with 18% reduction in fire-rate? O.o (and if some do want that, bless them, but it should be a choice.... ppl made a choice when they bought that gun from you) ATAC with 18% fire re-duction is literally garbage.... it's only strong point was that it fired faster than most other assault rifles, so what it lacked in range it made up for in CQC vs ntecs etc... now it fires slow and any sane player would never use IR3 on it. Yes, people willingly purchased guns with locked mods, but based on experience with those mods and the trial with the gun, using those locked mods. I don't care as much, I don't play much nowadays but I do think it's unfair to everyone who spent $$ getting a gun with certain locked mods that now make no sense with the gun. I'm just wondering what and if any thoughts went into that? and if so, are you planning on anything to address the locked armas guns that were sold with IR3 or you just saying "too bad" ? Solution: You could consider to unlock the IR3 slot on the gun, so each player can freely choose to replace IR3 with something else or leave it in. It's fair that the player can only use that open slot, same as any other open slot in the game, i.e. put in mods that are usable by his rank. It seems a far more gentle and fair way of handling things as opposed to doing nothing and leaving it as it is, which basically tells those affected players: now you should go pickup the f2p version or counterpart of the gun and get some open mods that don't make the gun suck. Atm it feels like, without saying anything, it's being hinted strongly that: Oh well, seems ya'll got stuck with some pretty bad mod pre-sets on your armas purchases from our new IR3 mod..... oops, better luck in the future! That imho is a very poor way of handling it when you're a F2P game, relying on people feeling comfortable purchasing things off armas from you as a company. Might just be me being grumpy about what I feel wasn't thought though before it got pushed out and I can only speak for myself obviously when saying that it really deters me from wanting to ever grab a locked armas gun again.

so, i counted.... we did 12 missions today, we had only ONE mission out of 12 that did not involve either CSG or JG shotguns, most often on multiple or even all players. Just sayin' I hope there's a re-balance in the works already, because at this rate, i'm wishing back the HVR QS'ers rather. Also... some others can maybe help add to this list but... the mission "bad investment" can you please balance it a bit? It's hardly fair you have to do multiple break-ins AND carry/deliver a heavy item to a drop-off, without getting any timer resets. Normally, in missions that are somewhat balanced, the timer reset if you successfully break-in the objectives.... then you get a new timer to complete delivery. gg though, happy to see balances and new stuff taking place... just wondering if really no-one on test servers (if you have those? sry, i've been away) saw the problem with this shotgun balance.

Awesome news, really really good job! I hope next step will be, that you guys can figure out a way of making it more troublesome to re-create a fresh account for a player who has received a ban.

I almost would guarantee you that the people looking at BE integration, mostly consist of experts from BE and likely a single liaison from LO, providing oversight and giving them access to the part of the code-tree they need, in order to configure and implement BE and it's features within APBs current UE. also, for questions @LO, they've made a thread to avoid tons of threads piling up, all with single-posed questions. it's here

I didn't monetize the video, it wasn't the purpose. I could mostly use any music, so long as I accept that all ad revenue goes to the owners of the music used. Yes! And samurais.... and turtles... and uhm ...every unique player-made outfit that isn't just a black hoodie=) but thanks

That's definitely not something a GM should be doing. heard, not seen.

top 3 are just ini config edits anyway aren't they? i doubt that's a problem with battleye. the last one is iffy, not cause i think it's a big issue or big advantage, but cuz' G1 (so far) pretty much stated that custom crosshairs is a no-go, right? or?

yup exactly heh .. ofc delivery is important, but lets see right? they haven't broken any promisses yet as far as i'm aware. Plus it's awesome they decided on keeping fairfight in the background, working in tandem with BE, doing it's slower statistical calculations. (probably they're also updating it? since Matt said in the interview that nobody had updated fairfight in ages) Whatever time needed to do it right, it's better than simply seeing the game dead (which was the fate until this surprise take-over).

Admins are employed with a pay-check and power to ban, but there can't be admins everywhere 24/7, they're expensive cuz' they're on a payroll GM's will be the intermediary between admins and players. (an SPCM, but with heavier responsibilities to ensure rules are being upheld, while under strict oversight) They'll resolve things that can be done via Q&A and monitor the districts for violations of the TOS you sign up to follow upon account creation. If a player violates it, they can warn/kick them. If they disregard and continue, the GM has a more direct line to an admin that can show up and take the appropriate action. (This is all what i'm estimating btw, so don't take it as gospel, but I believe @Lixil already said similarly (if it's miss-interpreted, delete my post^) ~ I'll try find the quote). (edit: source )

It was really really bad before the acquisition, the difference was that most of the cheaters had stopped bothering to play, same as the legits.... in other words, no-one cared. With the acquisition, a LOT of veterans has come back, but that also means a LOT of cheaters has seen interest in getting their name out there "again". Yes right now it sucks to wait and to see the scale of trash login to desperately cheat for their 15 minutes of fame before BE & FF is activated. It's a phase, give them a little time to work with, they already announced BE in the coming weeks.

so in short, it makes you a "butt-kisser" if anything LO suggests falls within reason of your own logic or experience and you find it worth to discuss/point out why or why not. (...what's a forum for again? ) Making a welcome video is butt-kissing too? lol, ok dude. There are other things to do on the internet, than seeing everything in the most negative way. I sure wish I could've included outside of missions game-play, but as things stood when their announcement came, I hadn't exactly been recording myself in the designer box and I was pressed on time already. I did try to encapsulate more than "only pew pew lazer game-play" and give a humorous look at the game they had just taken over and make them feel welcome, yes. why? because I'm genuinely happy a studio was willing to take the chance on a game most of us had all but abandoned. I think most people was hoping that, but nobody, nor myself, thought it was ever going to happen at this stage.

Exactly... and it's been said multiple times, yet people refuse to get it lol. the source: quote by Lixil --------------- Not to in-flame anyone, but some people seem extremely butthurt that I posted in defense of LO and was providing my own view from past experience as to why I think LO's choice to use "free labor" versus hiring, could easily work out for them if they are as actively involved as they seem to be. I was trying to be nice and share some experience that wasn't based on fictional guess-works and/or conspiracy fear mongering and what not -.- I should've known better .. I've edited the main post to carefully block out everything relating to my own thoughts and why my views were positive in favor of their plans to have way more active GM's but with far less power. Perhaps the most crucial part can then sink through and be discussed (paid labor vs volunteers, the pro's and con's), as opposed to just making irrelevant discussion about things already answered.