Jump to content
Forum rules

vsb

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    14148

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by vsb

  6. Posted

    1 hour ago, USSVECTOR said:

    I understand quite a bit actually, my point being is those games are all still active and are actively growing and I believe this to have the same potential.  Its rather sad to see a lot of people that don't think so. A lot might think I am silly to believe in such a thing however anything is possible. I know a lot of the older players even in the closed beta days who would be willing to come back if there were to be new content amongst other issues that were to be fixed

    fortnite and minecraft are still active and actively growing in part because the underlying games are pretty solid (as well as multi-billion dollar company backers, but we can pretend that doesn't matter), CoD releases a new game every year and is primarily a console ip

    asking for massive content additions while the fundamentals of apb remain broken is putting the cart way before the horse, as a beta veteran myself i have no interest in coming back for a new district or extra contacts if the same old problems of game performance, balance, moderation, poor monetization, etc are still around - just look at how badly Riot crashed and burned if you want an example of how fast the shiny new coat of content paint wears off

    • Like 1

  8. Posted

    3 hours ago, ninjarrrr said:

    ingame report overhaul lol it never worked to begin with-and still doesn't

     

    releasing guns isnt enough to satisify the community, didn't you learn this from g1?

     

    you didn't actually fix anything wrong with missions though, 1v1 vip is still a thing, you didn't try and balance some of the map locations that heavily favour the defending team, some missions still have ridiculous time on stages etc.

     

    and for weapon balance patches....... just lmao

     

    this really isnt a good way to start ur thread tbh

    feels like your reading comprehension could use some work my guy, everything you quoted was written by the “community”, not matt 

    • Like 2

  11. Posted

    3 hours ago, Yapopal said:

    I offered several options for finding the balance of the team. I don't know if they will work or not. To do this, you need to introduce them into the game and test them. To say for sure that this is the worst idea that I have heard is not reasonable.

    This topic discusses the inequality in the level of play of opponents. Everyone knows that it is difficult to pick up an enemy because of the small population. This problem cannot be solved by separating areas according to threat levels. We need a balance of power between the teams. Not by individuals, but by teams. This balance must be found at the beginning of each mission and changed as you progress through the stages. This will make the gameplay really interesting. The weak will receive support, the strong will be restrained within certain limits. If the teams are initially equal in strength, then they will not notice any changes in the gameplay at all.

    the problem with this is you are punishing players for playing well and rewarding them for playing poorly, which is the opposite of what should happen

     

    it also seems very exploitable at first glance, what stops players from intentionally playing poorly for the entire mission so that they get extra buffs, and then playing well in the final stage while abusing those buffs?

  12. Posted

    5 minutes ago, PotatoeGirl said:

    I don't get why starting a mission without opposition is even still a thing. How hard it is to make it start only when there are enough people in both teams?

    And speaking of teams, 3v3  should be the minimum team size to even have a proper match. 

    because the more the matchmaking system is forced to follow the rules, the less matches it creates

     

    the alternative is no unopposed matches and no unfair matches, but 30/60/90 minutes waiting for a mission instead

  16. Posted

    1 hour ago, Noob_Guardian said:

    If you are second from top score consistently, but not the top, you should - not lose- threat. It would be dumb to assume you did, considering that wouldn't be fair especially when on the winning team consistently, imagine going silver by winning games but still being 2nd from top like that. The only times i've seen people lose threat in this system (even with a win) is when they are consistently bottom 50% low performers, even among the winning team. (won, but provided nothing, compared to the other team and their own)

    you've never seen someone win a mission but dethreat or vice versa?

     

    thats because the player failed to achieve the performance that the matchmaking system predicted, regardless of where they place on the scoreboard - if the system thinks you'll obliterate 2 bronzes and you only end up barely breaking even scorewise, you'll lose threat even as the top scorer

     

    edge cases aside, from a practical perspective you're right that the finer details and exact percentages don't matter for the large majority of players, especially without much more granular threat representation

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  17. Posted

    20 minutes ago, xHenryman90x said:

    Having no tracers at all would make the rifle silencer and the sniper silencer mods completely and nearly useless mods. These mods are bad regardless, the only benefit of the rifle silencer is that it hides tracers.  

    tracers returning wont make silencers viable, they aren’t really a gameplay factor above a certain skill level 

  18. Posted

    2 hours ago, xHenryman90x said:

    N-HVR 243 SD series

    N-HVR 762-SD series

    Pathfinder SD series

    PSR 'Osprey'

    VAS-R2 'Crown'

    Raptor 45 'Hawk'

    ATAC 424 "Watchman"

     

    They all disagree.

    all the guns that dont have tracers disagree that tracers are ugly?

  19. Posted

    15 minutes ago, R3ACT3M said:

    They look cool, but after hearing an argument for Saints Row, that style of tracer would at least have to be sped up a lot to make sure shooting bullets didn't feel clunky or sluggish

    speed is certainly down to game feel, but i think the trailer is pretty close to actual
    tracer-fire.gif

    old apb tracers hang around way longer than the trailer anyway, its part of why i don't think they look good

    • Like 1

  22. Posted

    On 11/2/2022 at 3:40 AM, Vitrorax said:

    As long as those same cheaters keep spending money on name changes, they could care less about banning them or closing the servers down. They're gonna milk this game as dry as they can before that happens. I've stopped purchasing anything from Armas for a long time now, I still play occasionally, but I've lost hope for the game. As someone pointed out, their GM's consist of old players that probably even know the cheaters personally. shrug

    bro a name change is like 10 bucks, how many cheaters do you think there are to make that profitable???

  24. Posted

    16 hours ago, BlatMan said:

    All I know is there's too much of a skill imbalance because threat doesn't come close to matching your overall skill level. I'm not sure how to fix that without rewriting the threat system. A few of my friends are currently borderline gold threat but often they play like new bronze players. Their callouts are more than 5 seconds behind the action. They'll say 2 players are rushing me, but I've already killed both players and finished reloading with extended mag. I don't get it, how are they not bronze?

    it’s easier to upthreat than dethreat due to poorly balanced score awards and anti dethreater mechanics g1 implemented, and threat percentages are not dynamic so there’s no limit on how many players can be gold

×
×
  • Create New...