Jump to content
Forum rules

hotbot

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    149

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by hotbot

  3. Posted

    1 hour ago, Darth_Whatever said:

    Tigers maybe. But even if you prefer to see them that way, motivation remains. One organization is sponsored by citizens and will lose it all in a flash if, instead of fighting criminals, will start to slaughter those, who are still trying to protect this city. Another one - local people who are doing their best (unprofessionally, yes, but still) in order to protect their home from criminals, should perfectly understand that it makes no sense for them to waste their time and resources on hunting those, who are on their side. 

    There's a lot of stuff talking about how your average joe doesn't know much about the Praetorian hit squads under Danko. It'd make sense that Teng would use those groups to go after other vigilante groups in order to secure themselves at the top of the chain

  8. Posted

    From a gameplay standpoint you can't include Crim v. Crim without including Enforcer vs. Enforcer. The old RTW had matchmaking problems for Enforcers since there was hardly any opposition. Like I said in the other thread I'd like to see certain district distinctions, with competetive districts allowing Enforcer v Enforcer and Crim v Crim. From a lore stand-point it could be easily described as the CSA groups not getting along. They're basically gangs with badges at this point, so it'd make sense that they themselves would get into a scuffle. On one hand you've got a private military running errands for a major corporation and on the other is a bunch of wealthy college kids that get a kick out of gunfights. I could see them getting into some fights. 

     

    Plus this could help the matchmaking get more opposition. But I'd really only like to see it in certain districts as it kinda takes away the feeling of the game.

  13. Posted · Edited by hotbot

    1 hour ago, ScarecrowXIII said:

    What if I feel like grouping with randoms in competitive mode? It happens, I do it often in Siege and it works surprisingly well.

    That could be possible 

     

     

    I was suggesting pre-mades because I think it would be more fair from a competetive standpoint. It'd be easier if everyone in the district was in pre-mades to match with other pre-mades. Solos would work it might just be at a significant disadvantage to them.

  15. Posted

    59 minutes ago, Nymphi--DoubleDee said:

    While clans with 1 member will still be trying to go into a Leaderboard situation against a clan with 100 members.

     

    Or hell, even 10 active members....

     

    No, Clan shit is stupid.

     

    Clans with 1-15 members would compete for their own rewards with no affect from any other tier. 15-40 member clans would compete for their own rewards in their tier. They would not be able to take rewards from the 1-15 member bracket, it is separate. 40-70 members would compete in their own bracket as well, and could not take rewards from other players in the lower brackets or higher brackets. 70-120 member clans would have to compete in their own bracket as well. See where I am going with this?

     

     

     

    If you choose not to participate in Fight Club you also are severely hindered in receiving items that need joker tickets. If you refuse to use LTL you do not get custom clothing. Overwatch restricts golden weapon skins to Competitive, and in a lot of MMOs, guild housing is restricted to guilds. If you choose not to participate in certain aspects of the game (like Fight club, or LTL, or Valentines day events or literally any other holiday events) you choose to give up the rewards that come with it. Clans shouldn't be super competitive  with one  Clans were a central part of APB's marketing when it was successful and now they serve zero purpose. If you just are willing to write off a whole aspect of the game that was already introduced through RTW, by saying "Clan shit is stupid" then I don't really see the point in continuing to try to argue this with you in a thread about matchmaking.

    33 minutes ago, Seadee said:

    what do you do when you find that the "smaller clans" with 10-15 skilled members are clans like WASP and Evocoti?

     

    you could quite easily do a score based on total earned divided by total members... then Zerg clans and small clans would be just as likely to achieve (i got the feeling that the RTW scoreboards did something like this)  

    That's actually a good idea. The only reason I say to tier the member count is because during RTW there were none, and zerg clans would be gain most of the rewards, save for the rewards coming from mission win/loss ratio and kill/death ratio. Also, by including clan leaderboards more people will be looking to be apart of clans and joining up with bigger clans or smaller clans to reap the rewards. You'll have less people running around with one off clan names that serve as a alternative to their title and more actual clans running around. I remember in RTW certain clans were having trouble with the clan member limit and 90% were active just because every week they'd make sure they had the members to keep their clan rewards coming in. 

  16. Posted · Edited by hotbot

    45 minutes ago, Nymphi--DoubleDee said:

    So, basically we the the Clan stuff, one Clan would always be getting rewarded, just because they have 100 members. And you be forcing me to ditch my Clans and brands of 4+ years, so I'd be able to get exclusive skins and clothing?

     

    I don't like that portion.

    Did you miss the part where I said the clans would be tiered based on member count? Clans with 20 members wouldn't be competeing with those of 100 members.

  17. Posted

    23 minutes ago, Sergsininia said:

    I like this, except I'd extend threat to level what we have now, 40, and competitive would be nice, but it shouldn't have to be only for people who are in groups, solo players should be allowed.

    40 would be way too much, especially for our current population and how our districts are setup. Games like CSGO have only 18 and they have millions of players. To many ranks would mean it would be a lot easier to change rank and thus it wouldn't really change much than what we have now. Most of the population should lie in the median and with 40 ranks it would just be overkill. If APB had tens of thousands of players and a better matchmaking system to base off of (not a district with only 40 possible opponents) then it could work but APB needs to cut back on all the ranks.

  21. Posted

    I think the solution lies in a couple different things

     

    1) The tiered threats need to be removed. Set all threats to 1-15. Make them invisible, and set all districts open to every threat.

     

    2) Tutorial districts

    with this new threat level, if a player is below the rank of 75 and under the threat of three, they can join tutorial districts. While it is abusable, it means that new players won't be facing fully stocked max rank dethreaters with gear they cannot touch. It also means the decent players who know what they are doing can get bumped up to regular districts.

     

    3) Casual vs Competetive

    This I believe is the best solution to handling the extremely skilled and try-hard players going against more casual players. There needs to be a separation of competitive and casual districts. The casual district would consist of what we see now, but without the tiers and your invisible 1-15 threat level. Crims and Enforcers fighting it out. 

     

    The competetive districts would open up to people threat level 6 and higher, and you would need to be apart of a pre-made group to join. To tackle the potential lower player counts in this districts, I would suggest that in competetive districts Enforcers could get matched against Enforcers and criminals could get matched against criminals. That way the pool of matchmaking is opened up. To entice players into joining the comp districts, this would be the only place where threats are visible, and the only place where you could reach threat levels of 13, 14, 15. There should also be higher rewards in the way of earning joker tickets for participating in Comp matches.

     

    4) Clan Rankings and Clan Rewards

     

    These could also only be achieved in competetive districts. Clan rankings should be tiered by organization size, so big clans like WASP and Evocoti would compete against each other and smaller clans with only 10-15 more skilled members would compete against each other. There would be rewards on total missions won, total kills, Win Loss ratio, Kill Death ratio, and maybe some gimmicky thins like most cars blown up or most objectives completed. Clan rewards could include joker tickets, weapon skins, and maybe some custom clothing options or titles. These rewards give incentives for players entering the competetive district, and it also gives incentive to players to running or joining clans. Which was originally a key point in the original APB. Clans are good for matchmaking as well as APB itself. This game is best played with friends, and having clans server a purpose would mean that more people would enjoy the game. 

     

     

    Having this system coupled with the competetive and casual districts would mean the highly skilled players would be more likely to join the comp districts and face people ready for them, rather than rolling around silver districts stomping random players with their pre-made groups.

  23. Posted · Edited by hotbot

    I don't think the ban on the OCA is neccessary, and the only gun that needs banning is the N-HVR 762 category, I think DMRs and Scouts are just fine. Also I think the ban on vehicles is a little dumb as well, as vehicles are hugely important to APB and most people have access to vehicles like the Vegas, Espacio and Pioneer. Also, I think with 4 players the matches would be more fair. And with the defense bonus there needs to be a best of three rule. Where they alternate on defense and offense.

×
×
  • Create New...