Jump to content
Forum rules

Uminee

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    350

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Uminee

  1. Posted

    Some of the absolute coolest moments I've experienced in APB came from the bounty system. It's a system that makes sense in a game as chaotic as this one, and fits with the general feel of needing to constantly adapt to a changing battlefield.

     

    I would say, perhaps there should just be better rewards for maintaining P5/N5? There'd be a definite balance point you would want to achieve, such that losing a mission due to a bounty being placed still felt completely worth it, but not high enough that a player is encouraged to throw a mission just to stay alive and maintain it. Perhaps some mission reward multiplier based on time spent on bounty and number of players in the district?

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1

  2. Posted

    When I first heard Little Orbit had acquired this game, I wondered who exactly was in possession of a genie's lamp and decided to use up a wish to save APB. I was pleasantly baffled. I don't think I was alone in that feeling.

     

    A few months go by, and now the forums are full of rage that everything isn't already fixed up and perfect.

     

    I saw something like this happen over the years with G1, the never ending barrage of players spewing negativity. You could actually see G1 losing morale each time, not knowing how to interface with a community that is determined to tear them down ... Occasionally restructuring to put forward a new approach or new public face to deal with things, only to be attacked again. I can't imagine how hard it would be to work on a game like this while constantly feeling like the people you're making it for despise you.

     

    And so I jump on the forums  to check out the state of things, and see the community up to their same old hate cycle, and so I whisper, pleadingly into the void, "Please, please be nice to them, we lucked out in getting them, don't drive them away... "

     

    So far I've been extremely impressed with Matt Scott's ability to not let the negativity get to him, I just don't know if there's anyone who could maintain that forever. The current community is one which adapted to survive in a toxic environment. APB actively teaches a player to communicate in a way which is damaging to the morale of those you are addressing, it's simply part of the culture that's developed in a game with such a strong psychological component in outplaying opponents. I don't think they actually know other ways to express themselves, so please never take it too seriously.

    • Like 1

  4. Posted

    Adding more layers seems unnecessary and taxing. If you're creative, you can make incredibly detailed things with just the 100 symbols. Take a look at what some of the other designers have done, and then look at your own designs to see how you can get the most out of the smallest number of symbols.

    If I were to suggest a change to the symbol editor, I would suggest adding a mask option that only effects the layer directly below it. In theory this alone would significantly increase the potential for complexity without actually taking up more space in terms of data for the server to manage.

    Unfortunately, I've never once in my time playing APB seen any developer make the slightest change to the customization tools. Since it's the one thing about APB that is objectively superior to any other game, their hesitance to tweak these systems tells me that they no longer have anyone around who knows how, and are afraid of messing something up. (Hrm, that sounded overly critical, but I really don't blame them.)

  6. Posted

    I love when people run from me with objectives.

    Not sarcasm. There's a very high chance of my opponents being better at shooting than I am. There's a significantly lower chance of my opponents being a better driver than I am. The most annoying thing is when enemies act like they're being honorable when they refuse to drive with an item, as though denying me my favorite part of the game is doing me some kind of service.

    If you can't drive well or don't know how to navigate the streets in such a way as to intersect fleeing opposition, then it may make you feel helpless when opponents choose this tactic. Understand that these are actual skills you can develop, and rather than try to eliminate an entire style of play, consider actually developing these skills.

    To you, this may be a shooting game that has cars. For me, it's a driving game that has guns.

    • Like 2

  7. Posted

    Thank you for elaborating BXNNXD. That sounds a lot more reasonable than scrapping win/loss having any effect on threat which seemed to be implied.

    Your responses and their incredible timeliness do make me think you skimmed through much of what I was saying though. Not your fault entirely, I can be overly wordy.

    Of course having vegas stunts effect one's score would be ridiculous. However it's something that is possible to do, requires considerable skill, and can score a victory. I had that as an example of how it's impossible to calculate everything that a player does to factor into winning. People with certain skill sets get neglected by imperfect scoring systems, whereas direct win/loss doesn't care how you got it done, it just knows that you can. There are pros and cons to each I'm sure.

  8. Posted

    2 minutes ago, CookiePuss said:
    Shit... well now I gotta try it some time.
    ... Im going to lose so many missions cuz of you.

    Maybe, but I can guarantee the one time it works will be worth the reactions 😄
     
    7 minutes ago, BXNNXD said:
    i mean we already have a pretty good system of measuring actions that result mission winning, and it includes actually winning the mission

    Yes ... exactly ... but you had previously said that basing threat off of win/loss is bad. My entire post was explaining that 'pretty good system' that you were calling bad previously. I'm not certain if there's contradiction or miscommunication, sorry.

  9. Posted

    Just now, CookiePuss said:
    6 minutes ago, Uminee said:
     for instance ... timing the nitro on a vegas to use a random car as a ramp and leap up onto an overpass to intersect fleeing opposition

     
    come clean, this never happened
    If it never happened,  I wouldn't be so proud of it that I find ways to work it into random topics on the forums even years later 😛
    • Like 1

  10. Posted · Edited by Uminee

    25 minutes ago, BXNNXD said:
    i think the system we have right now could be perfectly useful, but there needs to be a serious overhaul of both what actions accumulate score and how much score those actions give

    but measuring threat solely based on one statistic is always going to skew threat for certain people and make it easily exploitable for others
    Apb is not structured in such a way that it would be remotely possible to create an accurate metric for actions that contribute to a victory.

    For instance, my main skillset is driving. When it comes to shooting, not so great. Under the current threat system, I've been gold for years.

    Could you imagine the coding nightmare that would be required to determine a statistical value of, for instance ... timing the nitro on a vegas to use a random car as a ramp and leap up onto an overpass to intersect fleeing opposition, or reach a mission objective more quickly?

    And yet, these are the kinds of insane variables that can take place in every mission, and as such would require an engine far more complex than the entirety of APB to accurately account for.

    Or ... you could measure whether or not one's ability to pull off that stunt had any actual impact on the outcome of the mission ... and the most direct way to do that, is by seeing if they won the mission or not. After enough missions, one will be able to statistically extrapolate the general likeliness of someone winning or losing missions, and use that data to assign their threat level.

    Is it perfect? Of course not, but any other option is either less perfect, or would require a quantum supercomputer and an enormous research grant.
    • Like 1

  11. Posted · Edited by Uminee

    47 minutes ago, BXNNXD said:
    a W:L based threat system is bad, idk how many times i can say this lol 
    Elaborate maybe? Also, suggest alternatives?

    If you're not basing threat on win/loss then you're either doing it by rank or by kill/death ratio, and those are both a lot more problematic than win/loss.

    If you base threat on rank you're just encouraging rerolling, and punishing the max rank players for whom shooter games are not a primary skillset.

    If you base threat on kill/death then you are misrepresenting the skills of players who focus on the objectives, and who play more supportive roles such as drivers.

    Personally ... I've never liked threat at all. I understand why it's needed in a game with as much of a tactical learning curve as this one, but I don't feel like it should be a giant obtrusive symbol constantly affixed to a player to determine their worth. It just creates an environment of constant judgement and breeds toxicity. But by now it seems that this sort of treatment is what the current remaining population has come to expect/want. I wish it were not so, I feel like this game would be a lot more accessible to people who didn't have a predisposition to thrive on frustration if threat weren't even visible.

  12. Posted

    I don't know how many players there are like me, but I only ever use premium for the sake of customization. My main is max ranked and I make vastly more money selling clothing/symbols on the market than I ever could in missions anyway.

     

    And while it might be more convenient for me in the short term if free players had more customization access, I also want this game to succeed, and for the people who are working on it to be paid.

     

    So as much as I'd like to hop in whenever and do some customizing without having to spring for premium, I want to be sure there'll still be a game to hop back into.

  14. Posted

    Regarding players' ability to cope with change, I've always found a bizarre inconsistancy during gameplay itself. Apb, more than any other game I've seen, is subject to so many variables that missions are almost always different. And yet, players will so often approach the game in the most formulaic way possible, becoming agitated at any tactic/weapon/strategy that defies their expectations. 

     

     

    I would assume that a game that requires as much adaptability as apb does would attract a playerbase undaunted by change, but experience suggests otherwise. My only theory as to why this is the case, is that many players derive pleasure through a sense of overcoming the chaos of the game, of finding methods to control the varied scenarios they encounter. As such, new variables present a threat to this idea of mastery. 

     

     

    As such, it is inevitable that many players will be upset at the changes to come. However, these changes will present new opportunities for players to master the game, which they will enjoy, assuming they do not feel too alienated by said changes. Seeing as LO appears to have an interest in maintaining the core identity of the game while improving it, I see no reason to worry. 

     

     

    • Like 2

  15. Posted

    7 hours ago, Archon said:

    Agreed, I almost reported someone the other day for the disturbing things being said, certain people don't know what's too far

    They know what is too far, and they are going there intentionally. It's an unfortunate part of internet culture that seeks to gather attention through extremes, and is particularly pervasive in APB.

  16. Posted

    1 hour ago, TheSquigg said:

    When I said you can't put them into one general list I meant to classify them on which vehicle we can use NOW or recommend them to others, not which ones need a buff or nerf in some aspects. If I made a list of cars I thought were good and someone else tried them and didn't drive the way I do my list would be wrong. That is the sense I mean that we can't tier them all together on one list. I would support a player debated threat dedicated to classifying cars on the lines of needing a buff or nerf (not that anything but hitboxes really needs a nerf atm). 

    Ah, I see.

     

    Well, in my experience, no amount of explaining is able replicate just hopping in game and driving the car around for a bit and getting the feel for it. Deciding on a vehicle based on any rating system we could devise would amount to an experience like trying to choose your favorite flavor of ice-cream by someone's description of all the flavors  before trying them. There's very little utility in creating such categorizations, but some people enjoy doing it I suppose.

     

    As for the figuring out what is and is not effective, we don't all have to shout and squabble to come to a consensus. The fact is, people use what is effective. Just look around at what people are using, and you'll have the consensus. As you've noted, the 4x4 does not suit you, but you've recognized it is effective. I'm fairly adept with all APB vehicles (except the crims ones I havn't tried, I assume) but I have a similar relationship to long ranged guns that you have with 4x4's. As I mentioned earlier my aim's not so good, so I only really use close quarter guns because they're what I can get good results with. I wouldn't assume that all other weapons are bad, that would be absurd. I can look around and see so many people using the guns they've found effective, which are those of varying ranges. This is true of vehicles. No one player needs to say what is 'best', but the the population will naturally gravitate towards what is most efficient, so all we really need to do is see what most people are driving.

  17. Posted

    17 minutes ago, TheSquigg said:

    When is say you can't put tier on a vehicle, (my apologies for the vagueness of it) I meant as an ALL ENCOMPASSING tier they can very easily be ranked on strength like on a turning list cisco/packer/growl EVEN A CALIBRA would be on top and a 4x4 would be dead last. whereas on straight speed, the vegas would be top and in strength or durability, the Pioneer would be top alongside the Espacio. 

     

    I am not the best with words but your points are actually a much better way of explaining what my thought process is. I certainly know where some vehicles shine over others but a single 'best to worst' tier like this is not the way to go in order to really get the raw data we'd have to find some of the best and worst cars and see WHAT makes them good or bad and then based on that we can make several tier lists. Like I said earlier a good example for tiers would be Strength, Speed, Turning, Carrying capacity?, and of course looks! That last tier is more of a joke because tastes differ from person to person I love the Cisco/Vaquero/Growl/Fresno others would prefer other vehicles. Speaking of Fresno I always found with remote detty that that card blew up in a bigger radius (perhaps cause of it's length) and when I put on EXP 3 I had a little rolling nuke on the field with me so another tier could be Explosive Radius.... these are how you class vehicles. I hope that is better at explaining what I want to get across. heh

    Huh. I've been rolling around with a remote det/explosives 3/flak jacket loadout for years (yeah, turns out I've found many ways to be effective at this game while still being bad at aiming) and I never once considered that larger vehicles might have a larger explosive radius. Might have to experiment with that.

     

    Anyway, I still think it's possible to give an overall tier for a vehicle ... because if we break down a list of all potential areas a vehicle can excel at, some vehicles will will be in the top tier of more of these areas than others. Some vehicles actually have no need for certain things. Being bad at (or practically incapable of) weaving through traffic is not going to really effect the overall performance of a dumptruck, because there's very little chance that other vehicles are going to prove an obstacle. This principle would also apply to a lesser extent to the pioneer and that crim soccer van thing I can never remember how to spell, which places them at a high tier overall because they require maneuverability less often, so their lack of it counts against them less.

     

    In an ideal APB, there'd be a lot more vehicles sitting at the top tier. And indeed, someone would have to break down the existing strengths/weaknesses to figure out what to tweak to even things out. We could sit around and do that for fun if we wanted, but in the end if anyone's going to be making those changes it'll be a dev, so it'll be them making that analysis.

     

    So to explain why it's important that we use these generalized tiers rather than break down the strengths/weaknesses of the vehicles: If we ever want any devs to look and notice there needs to be adjustments for balance, a nuanced list of the pros and cons of each vehicle isn't going to get that across at all. Generalized tiers indicating the vehicles that are vastly more useful overall, will. I'm getting tired of seeing the same 3 types of cars everywhere I go.

  18. Posted

    Everything in this thread is merely a symptom of a flawed system.

     

    The very idea of icons that perpetually float over your head to indicate your worth as a player is offensive.

     

    The fact that it's always there on display more easily visible than even your name or faction, even in social district where it couldn't possibly even matter just adds more toxicity to an environment that already breeds it.

     

    You are not silver. Or gold. Unless you've managed to slather yourself in some sort of metallic paint. Perhaps your threat rating in APB is one of those colors, but it should not form any part of your identity. Anyone who addresses you by your APB threat rating has given you a good indicator that they are not likely the sort of person with opinions that are worth your time or attention.

    • Like 1

  19. Posted · Edited by Uminee

    15 hours ago, TheSquigg said:

    Tiers for vehicles are very tricky and this one is based on your experience and your skill in vehicles. Personally, I prefer higher turn rates on the Grown, Cisco, and Vaquero. The ability for me to dodge and weave around opposition causes them serious issues and has resulted in many wins in a vehicle to gun combat swaps. An example of this happened about two hours before my posting of this in my little packer vaquero I was 'racing' a criminal in a vegas to point they kept trying to pit maneuver me off the road and into walls but couldn't touch me because of the sharp turns and quick stopping resulting in his vehicle receiving enough damage by the time we reached the objective for me to jump out, AMG the crap out of his vehicle, kill him and move on.  In that case, the Vaquero an average tier superbly outplayed one of your top tier vehicles. As with guns, there is no 'best overall' just 'best situationally'.  Long straight paths to a point where there are no collisions the vegas would have beat my packer but cause he tried to deal damage while mobile on a faster/smaller target he messed up his chances.

     

    I also read the part of this not being 'an end all' and no i get that but this list is biased for you and your opinion on vehicles which is totally fine... this is just my opinion on the matter that you CAN NOT PUT TIER ON A VEHICLE. 

     

    Espacio or a Pioneer. Also the 'everyone should have' part on the vegas/pioneer/dump truck bit... that's illogical you need ALL the cars in game to have a rounded team comp just like the guns.

     

    Also, one quick note certain cars that are kind of pointless and are really just there to have a rounded out pool of vehicles to pick from such as the Varzuga, Ravan, Calibra, stuff like that more for "I LOVE THAT CAR IRL I'M GONNA USE IT INGAME!" For an example, I owned a Bravada and a Blazer irl so the Charge Sentinel hits home cause I LOVED those cars and it looks like them.

     

    Have a wonderful day now!

    You make some good points in that vehicles, much like the variety of guns in the game, are useful situationally. Which to me seems like the way it should be, balance wise. Where I disagree is that you cannot put tier on a vehicle ... because some vehicles are useful in more types of situations than others, or are useful in a type of situation that occurs frequently.

     

    That's not to say that driving skill is not a factor in determining a vehicle's usefulness, as with your vaquero vs vegas example scenario. I myself am a lot better with cars than I am with guns, often getting more vehicular kills than gunfire ones. I've had more than one gold player accuse me of 'drive botting' after a match. I can say with certainty that it's a skillset as important to winning missions as fps skills.

     

    But the balance of cars abilities at the moment is such that we see very little to no variety. As much as I love how effective my 4x4 vegas is in missions, I really miss the days before they existed. The regular, rear wheel vegas had such a high risk vs reward factor, as it's very unforgiving of mistakes, but unmistakably faster than anything else. Now driving it just feels directly inferior to the 4x4, because even if it has a slightly higher top speed, the time it takes reaching that top speed would still put it behind the 4x4 on all but the longest, straightest roads.

    • Like 1

  21. Posted

    A lot of cars could use some changes in regards to the handling, among other things, especially as there's only about 3 vehicles anyone bothers using these days. It would be nice to see diversity again.

     

    In regards to the physics, however .... I honestly hope they always stay as wonky as they are now. Seeing and doing ridiculous things in vehicles has brought me so much joy over the years.

×
×
  • Create New...