MrLek

Instead of putting a mission queuing, they should put a queue to enter the district and not a mission queuing. I think there are conflicts of players joining the same district at the same time, then one is thrown back to the login screen and Battle Eye announces it as "client is slow".

Simple: It didn't work so they took it out. We're not talking about something punitive like an anti cheat, the easy anti cheat will come back but that's a totally different subject of matchmaking, it doesn't mean that the easy anti cheat didn't work. We are talking about a game dynamic, which is much broader and is not restricted to cheaters, but to ALL players. So about that, in my opinion, L.O should optimize matchmaking very carefully, without major drastic changes, slowly, and slowly, until it reaches perfection. Bearing in mind that this is a very broad subject.

That's not the focus of the game, so it's not worth dedicating work to it. • In fact, the APB is already ready, just optimize it on several fronts in what it already proposes. - Matchmaking, Anti-cheat, a new contact, maybe new content to buy in the G1C store (I don't think there's much there, despite the huge amount of weapons, maybe a new outfit or a new car). I don't think APB needs any more updates outside of the subjects i mentioned. The APB in my opinion is quite free-to-play, i think that L.O can now relax. - And a more decent tutorial, of course.

This is dangerous O.O I don't want something like that. I'm silver. The community has already given very interesting ideas on this subject (matchmaking). For example, in a post i made, i rambled a lot, i was just fed up with this matchmaking subject so i decided to "contribute" in some way, even though i rambled a lot. So in this post there was an interesting comment, it was this: Not to mention the numerous publications that exist on this subject here within the forum. So i suppose there are also many interesting ideas that just need to be applied by L.O. And that's exactly it, ideas need to be applied, otherwise they would just be ideas. And L.O is wasting very interesting ideas from the community.

Bro... I really have a feeling that hackers have decreased in number with this update. It could be that hackers have become few in relation to the total number of players online. I may be rambling, but I have this impression. About this issue of criticizing golds and putting them in the same box as hackers, I think it's idiotic. I respect the golds a lot, they have experience, those who tend to criticize are those who actually harm their own team, because the one who criticizes is usually that player who goes AFK, or leaves the game and leaves the rest of the team alone. In many times those who criticize are hypocrite - Wait a minute...others can't do these things wrong, but can you? just to satisfy your ego? Besides, the one who usually criticizes is a mule, on strategic issues, but those who are older know that this is not a taboo or a myth, you really get used to the APB strategy which is easy to discern. For example: identifying where enemies will spawn, use map elements to your advantage, covering, knowing how to position yourself on the map, locations that favor the team, etc. Just think of the best for the team, these simple things that make the difference and that many of these guys who criticize do not have the ability to think. Its really simple things that get into your vein and that becomes automatic, but it seems that we have to state the obvious to these people who criticize. It's the guys who play OCA and come in shooting, wasting bullets like crazy, and when the match is over, this guy blames all the enemies calling them a hacker, but he was the one who harmed the team. I'm not being a teacher, or wanting to teach anyone. I just want to say that those who criticize are actually those who harm someone, and that at the end of the story they pass for spoiled victims. Hackers have always existed and will never be spared criticism, but don't confuse HACKER with GOLD. Admit you're dumb and your head starts to hurt and heat up when you start thinking about strategies. Of course I'm exaggerating and being ironic, but they don't think out of laziness anyway. Sorry for the big text, i got carried away. I ended up venting, because sometimes I go through these situations. You do your best in the match, doing everything I mentioned above, while the other guys on the team are criticizing in chat and rushing with OCA or NHVR like crazy without thinking. Yes... this happens a lot, people rushing with a sniper at close range and then criticizing the opposing team in chat. edit: I don't mean you NotZombieBiscuit XD, I just supplemented.

Thanks Matt Scott D; D; D; Our dear APB rose from the ashes

I don't think there should be something like that. Everyone has their own understanding of what is offensive. It could happen that L.O put in the future a very rigid filter that would be annoying. For example: if I put a nickname like this -- "Yourmotherisabitch". I could have created this nickname just to joke, but I can be an honest player. But in fact there should be a filter for nicknames that refer to Nazism, ra...pe, incest, etc. These really heavy and indisputable things. This idea of yours is good, it could be something to be discussed. In my opinion it wouldn't change much, the problem is the bad attitudes of the players, I think the nick doesn't match their attitudes.

Edit all of that and erase everything you wrote. APB already has a taser. The game must be democratic, whoever puts an offensive nickname, the community itself will denounce that particular player, if he is toxic, the player may have a shitty nickname, but that does not mean that he has a shitty attitude, this will be justified in terms of complaints about your ID. There are also ways to change nicks, the administration itself could send this nick change ticket to a certain player with many complaints related to his nick, such as "a warning". That's what the joker store is for. This encourages the player to play more to get a better grenade. I already talked about this. The enforcer can arrest the thief and take all the money. You can steal using your criminal character and send the money to your enforcer character. Just put some product up for auction with your enforcer at the same price as what you managed to steal with your criminal character. edit: You make the payment with your criminal. Maybe motorcycles. It's a semi-open world urban game, not an open world like GTA. edit: But it won't be cool if they put motorcycles with the same handling or worse than what we already have with cars. This could be placed in the very distant future. Good idea. A player with a certain number of reports on their ID could have their name tarnished (literally). Just changing the color of your nick, for all to see.

Make a post with your ideas, they are very good, people will like it, maybe there is some mobilization in the community.

I tried to describe every possible situation.

You made me have another idea: when by chance, if the district at any time had few golds, then this mechanism could only, only in those cases, confront gold against bronze and silver. I will edit and put in the post. Let's see that, if there are many golds in the district, it won't take long to find matches. For example if we compare the current matchmaking to that before the 1.30 update, with the increase in the number of players in districts to 100, matches are being found extremely easier. For example, a match is usually 4 vs 4. If the district had 10 enforcers golds and 5 criminals golds, you can put a match of 4 enforcers golds vs 4 criminals golds. It could be a 2vs2 match and another 2vs2 match, but we are working with the average number of matches that the APB offers and which is enough to satisfy a good match. Besides that the algorithm would be very specific and there could be failures, 4vs4 is very good. |--Only in cases of scarcity, only 2 enf golds and 2 crim golds remain from the entire population of the district. Only and only in this case could 2 crim golds vs 2 enf golds enter matches. If you wanted to make a 1vs1 match to record and put on youtube, L.O could open the Fight Clubs to open in 1v1 and in the far future with APB 2.0, L.O could create small maps for this purpose, and create another system for players create private rooms with these small maps. Back to the subject: So there would be 6 enforcers golds and 1 criminal gold left. These are all golds in the district. So, when the number of golds criminals was dissimilar with the number of golds enforcers or the number of enforcers golds were different from the number of criminals golds, then we would separately divide the number of enforcers golds so that it would be divided into groups with 2 players, and the number of criminals golds as well, each pair would be sent to play against bronzes and silvers. If the number on one of the sides did not match (in the case of our example the criminal), the system would send it to play against bronzes and silvers. Remembering that I had 6 enforcers golds and 1 criminal gold left in my example, so 6/3 = 2, 3 groups of 2 would be sent separately to play matches against bronzes and silvers. 2 would go to one match, another 2 to another different match and the remaining 2 to another different match. The 1 remaining criminal would also be released for any match against bronzes and silvers, as we are working with pairs and 1 criminal is not part of a pair, so there is no way he can enter a match |--against 2 enforcers (I'm saying this, so that the algorithm is not so heavy and so specific). Remembering that I had 6 enforcers golds and 1 criminal gold left in my example, if you and your friends were some of the enforcers and you were in a group of 4, all with the "k" pressed and waiting for a match, you would go to different matches, 2 would go to a match and you + another would go to another different match. |--Remembering what I said at the beginning: Only groups of 4 crim golds vs 4 enf golds will be formed. * If there were 10 players in the total population of a district, with 9 golds and 1 bronze (4 crim gold, 5 enf gold and 1 bronze), unfortunately it would be left over for a 1v1 match of 1 gold against 1 bronze. But they are rare cases; * Or if the total population of a district were 11 players, with 9 golds and 2 bronzes (4 crim gold, 5 enf gold and 2 bronze) there would be a match of 1 gold against 2 bronzes. But these are rare cases.

Instead of separating districts by their respective medals (bronze, silver and gold) as it was before, there should be some mechanism keeping the districts the way they are today, a district for everyone, however, with selected matches. I don't know how to do that, but in my layman's opinion on the matter, there should be some mechanism to detect a limit of matches in which a certain player won to reach gold. A player with many matches played to reach gold is certainly a normal player, a player who played few matches to win gold, he is out of the ordinary. So, with this information, the mechanism would put the "players with the most matches played to win gold" together in a match (both on one side and the other - enforcers and criminals), this would happen in the same way with the players with the fewest matches played to win the gold. This would encompass the entire match, not just for one side, but for both sides (criminals and enforcers). Detail: I'm talking about a mechanism that aims to find matches only for golds, it doesn't involve silver or bronzes, it's only for golds. For silver and bronze, it continues as it currently exists. EDIT: This mechanism could fail sometimes, it could be that due to some failure some bronze or silver drops in a match with a gold, but these cases must be rare, the essence of the problem must be solved. Essence of the problem: Normal players and beginners fall into disadvantaged matches against old and experienced golds. They must be separated. Golds must play against themselves, they must be treated differently from other players. However, this should be done the way I wrote it here, you shouldn't separate the districts by threats as it was before, because the golds are few compared to the amount of them with the rest of the players (most are bronze or silver), that would discourage the golds from playing, as I said before, this system must be flawed, no can be 100% (maybe 85% faithful - it must be complicated to make something extremely faithful with these descriptions [ but it has to be flawed, but not too much {you won't waste time doing something shitty}]), rare cases should happen that golds fall in matches against normal players, but this MUST BE RARE. ---> When I say "but it has to be flawed, but not too much" I am referring to these "rare cases". I want to make this very clear, because it wouldn't work and it wouldn't be healthy if these "rare cases" happened all the time. • When by chance, if the district at any time had few golds, then this mechanism could only, only in those cases, confront gold against bronze and silver. Leave your opinion in the comments. EDIT: I actually rambled a lot. Thanks anyway for the comments, there are many ideas from yours that are valuable. I tried to give some idea on the subject, but I don't understand much. But anyway, the intention was good.

The second option is ruled out. With the district's population increasing to 100, matches are being found much faster than before. The first option is still an issue. Matchmaking... Instead of separating districts by their respective medals (bronze, silver and gold) as it was before, there should be some mechanism keeping the districts the way they are today, a district for everyone, however, with selected matches. I don't know how to do that, but in my layman's opinion on the matter, there should be some mechanism to detect a limit of matches in which a certain player won to reach gold. A player with many matches played to reach gold is certainly a normal player, a player who played few matches to win gold, he is out of the ordinary. So, with this information, the mechanism would put the players with the most matches played to win gold together in a match (both on one side and the other - enforcers and criminals), this would happen in the same way with the players with the fewest matches played to win the gold. You are taking a step bigger than your leg. How about improving the handling of cars? Imagine if they put in all these transport options, but the handling was similar or even worse than cars? HAHAHAHA

I don't think N-TEC is for beginners. You see, in the same text you say that it is reliable for beginners and then you say that it requires more skill than STAR. In other words: STAR is easier to play than N-TEC, so beginners will be more familiar with STAR, so they will play with STAR and not with N-TEC. No beginner will have N-TEC skills, fact. I'm advocating that it stays that way, N-TEC must forever be a tough weapon to handle, so once you understand it, you've mastered it. EDIT: One of these days i was in a full match, and among the enemies there was 1 beginner playing with an N-TEC. Poor guy, he didn't know where he was going with that gun. Imagine the situation XD. Those who are older here understand what I'm talking about.