vsb

people spazzing out about "another nerf" when the pmg could lose 5m of range without losing its meta status whatsoever lmao

i thought the codes were bound to the account

i’d prefer they just re-add the 7 day leases to the joker store tbh, that way “trials” are open whether a player can spend money or not

im not sure there is a way to try the manic (among other guns) before buying, orbit really should have kept the 7 day lease option in the joker store

havent noticed anything worse than usual on na

at the end of the day it’s just an rsa reskin with a very situational legendary mod - that’s doesn’t make it a bad gun, but i imagine many people don’t think it’s worthwhile to buy joker boxes for a gun so similar to its f2p variant

cool

there was a spectate mechanic in riot, it would be interesting to see that utilized elsewhere abuse would also have to be carefully considered

source:

this is my issue with polls of random community members, how many people are like this guy and advocating nerfs to weapons they don’t even understand?

the engine is the foundation, why is this so hard for you to understand?

yes many people agree that the pmg is busted, but i’m sure there’s a fair number of people who disagree as well my point is that a lot of people also think the atac or the oscar or the ursus or any number of weapons are busted and the inability to agree on a rule set is where a lot of organized matches stall out and/or lose participants if competitors aren’t satisfied that the tourney is fair they’ll either drop out or they won’t participate in the next one (if there is a next one) and the toxicity will sour the event for everyone else at the end of the day any apb tourney is obviously going to be apb gameplay, it doesn’t really matter what rules the players are following (unless its something silly like snubs only), watching people get melted by a pmg might be boring “cheese” but imo it’s infinitely preferable to watching “fair” gameplay of 90m dmr potshots

it’s not about pleasing people who want to cheese their way through a tourney, it’s about however many people involved each having their own opinion on what constitutes cheese and those opinions probably conflicting id also argue that a tournament for any significant prize (possibly even irl winnings such as steam funds or such) requires way more “perfect balance” than normal gameplay, which is already proven by almost everyone chiming in mentioning special rule sets idk what being worth watching has to do with anything

i’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re a console player

this is usually where player made tournaments start to fall apart, when everyone involved has a different idea of perfect balance it’s impossible to please them all

it’s not good atm, not sure why that’s surprising

i think it’s just random, but i’m not certain

could just make it 3slots, i don't see any issue with that

what happens to players that no one wants to play against? legitimizing afk behavior with a mechanic that essentially rewards the people who would afk is not the answer imo

legitimizing it will only encourage more players to use the mechanic, using "it already happens" is a pretty poor justification imo

why does all the game footage have an awful tint or something over it

is surrendering done on an individual basis or is it a group thing? is it a vote system like team leader request? will players lose threat for surrendering? more or less threat than a normal mission loss? are players who vote not to surrender compensated in any way? will there be a cooldown/limit on how many times a player can surrender? how does that cooldown/limit work when a player is solo and bouncing from group to group? will there be prerequisites (e.g. a certain number of stages lost, or a certain number of enemy kills) before a team can surrender? its hard to really discuss the idea with you giving absolutely no details but i'm generally against mechanics that allow players to leave matches whenever they want, why bother readying up if you aren't going to play?

”good but could be nerfed” and “broken has no downsides” both kind of skate around the no mans land of “this gun is op”, with the former seeming to refer to meta weapons that are balanced but could recieve small tweaks without major performance impact and the latter not applying to any gun in apb at all imo i think a lot of players might take “good but could be nerfed” as “nerf this gun” (which might be intended, could you clarify?), leading to them either applying it wrong or avoiding it altogether for fear of another nerf wave there’s no option specifically for guns that need a rework, unless that was what “straight downgrade” was intended to be and i was using it incorrectly

alternative skin is usually what i use assassin skin is a close second, but it makes some guns look like toys

50% would make pioneer/espacio weaker than a bishada and the 4x4 would be the most fragile vehicle in the game