vsb

what money they've already had to sell the ip for a cash bailout, apb clearly hasn't been profitable for a long time

except we had the opportunity to test the engine upgrade from orbit, and it was different from the g1 console version

hi

really toeing the line there, huh

advertising current apb is worthless, the game is already infamous for being a flaming trainwreck, and any unfortunate new players who didnt already know about apb wont stick around for long enough to significantly affect the population anyway

nah

links are busted

they no longer own the ip, orbit cant sell apb to anyone

88m

i miss when goodbye posts were against the rules

so you want answers but you're certain you already have the answers, that doesn't really make much sense

get hired as the cfo, become a shareholder, purchase the company, or pursue a valid lawsuit that requires disclosure of orbit's financial statements

chiro in waterfront (criminal, levels 4 and 7) and mirri kent in financial (enforcer, levels 4 and 7) unlock ceresco parts, if you've already completed those contacts then you already own the parts

most people (actually probably just todesklinge) don't know that a game can make money via microtransactions without selling items that affect gameplay

probably more likely that work slowed down and/or nearly completely halted due to the holidays, i admire your boundless optimism tho

any chance of putting the cj3 snr on armas so i don't have to farm jt for 17 different characters?

of course it does, especially in the context of pvp games, the entire point of balancing is to attempt to eliminate as many factors as possible to pare competition down to personal skill if equity of equipment doesn't matter when it comes to apb then why are you even suggesting mechanics intended to balance different levels of equipment? xp is irrelevant, neither your suggestion nor my issues with it are about xp one of the problems i have is the reverse situation, when a player with expensive weapons "overcomes" an enemy with cheap weapons because he spent more money on armas, or more time ramraiding, or more time in social cost based balancing stops being a skill rewarding mechanism when it no longer rewards purely for skill yes, i do think the progression system needs a significant overhaul to accommodate a fairer playing field when it comes to loadouts apb has consistently had a problem with balance and fair competition, stemming from multiple issues beyond just weapon or vehicle balance, and it shows in the population numbers - people don't like playing a pvp game when the pvp isn't fair why does an idea need to make sense? how is this even a question? the problem with the weapons i listed is you've listed each pair as being in the same tier, yet they have significantly different places in the meta if the intent is to influence player choice then its a failure, if a player is going to pay t2 ammo cost there's no reason for them to choose the issra over the ntec its a bit silly to assume that just because all vehicles would be useful in some way that they'd all be exactly the same, its not like all the meta weapons play the same despite all being top choices for pvp its a leftover feature because its part of a different design ethos that apb has been moving away from, albeit slowly just because the people who ruined apb intended for lower tier vehicles to underperform doesn't mean they need to continue underperforming its extra work to reach the same place then, even ignoring the other problems cost balancing may introduce this varies wildly depending on consumable use and player progression level, but its entirely possible to only use free consumables without worrying about inventory management

it should be convenient because the entire point of the game is competition? if players are actively discouraged from playing their best, i'm not really sure what the point of pvp is contact xp is irrelevant, the issue is cost/money and its effect on mission performance the race metaphor doesn't really make sense because everyone is not starting from the same place, nor is every mission a self contained competition new players complain about explosives because they don't have access to explosives, preventing them from learning the strengths and weaknesses the tiering just doesnt make sense imo, even narrowing it down to weapon categories - nfas and jg are both the same tier? shaw and euryale? ntec and issra? opgl and eol? how are legendaries in general supposed to be tiered? if you dont understand the differences between the pioneer and the mikro or the resulting effects on the meta im not sure you should be discussing balance i do think its an issue that a large majority of apb vehicles are essentially ignored, but i disagree that buffing the unused vehicles is "pointless" and that making 3 pioneer spawns negate mission profit is the right way to balance things most low tier vehicles do not perform well nor were they intended too, its a leftover from rtws attempt to force rpg progression into a pvp shooter its just more work, even if ammo cost is increased as a balance mechanic weapon stats still have to balanced as well, cost cannot be the sole balancing factor consumables have been free as mission rewards since they were implemented iirc, adding an additional way to get more didn't really do much either way for consumable issues

a lot of this boils down to making players choose between mission performance and saving money, but choosing mission performance can (and likely will) lead to it being impossible to continue to choose mission performance without being funneled into other activities - essentially punishing players for consistently performing at their best tiering categories like this doesn't make much sense for performance-based cost (opgl/osmaw being t4 despite not even being meta?), something already seen with vehicles, with the pioneer and mikro in the same tier despite significant performance differences i think you'd need each weapon to use its own specific ammo and each vehicle to have its own unique spawn cost for this kind of balancing to work, which is too much extra complication imo

i think we both know thats a pretty flimsy excuse, but im flattered you think i have so much pull with little orbit

still no censoring to be found btw it doesn't count as censoring if the thread gets removed because you're toxic to other posters

they're censoring you 100% but you're allowed to post this thread? that math don't add up homie

both mechanics are definitely comparable, the intention is the same even if the specifics are different players not performing to the best of their ability in order to save money should not be a viable option in apb i dont like the idea of making players choose between having cool stuff and playing the game, or the idea that a balancing mechanic can be completely negated outside of its intended influence more prominent money sinks mean more prominent RMT, and a larger gap between f2p and paying players

1 and 3 aren't contradictory, a new player is going to be just as bad at customization as they are at shooting enemies ramraiding and mugging are not only skewed almost entirely in favor of criminals but are also not engaging at all for most people, funneling new players into these activities so they can continue playing missions leads to a poor game experience imo there are some smaller issues as well like new players starting with no money, or new players being much more likely to waste ammo in and out of missions players do not always profit from missions, sometimes even when their team wins you've only given the ammo costs for 2 ammo types, so its impossible to determine that they would be the cheapest the starter weapons and vehicle being the easiest to maintain encourages or forces, depending on how able a new player is to keep up with costs, new players to continue using them, again widening the gap between new players and veterans i suppose it does come down to perspective, you see increased cost as a reason to use cheaper items where i see increased cost as a reason to only use the most effective items in order to maximize gains - i think a large portion of the community would also share my perspective, and so many people using strictly meta loadouts will naturally push their opponents to do the same im also unclear on how this would actually affect weapon use, an ntec and a misery both use the same ammo type, so how does cost enter in to the decision to use one or the other?