Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

53 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

295 profile views
  1. What about them? They're always gonna be there. You can't stop it. Any max rank gold can make a new account and play on bronze district in minutes. Even worse, they can dethreat and play against new players while using the best weapons, mods and cars in the game. At least when matchmaking is done by rank it eliminates one of those things.
  2. I already talked about this in a different post but simple sorting by rank would do a much better job at this than threat segregation.
  3. I think you may be confusing fairness with the outcome of the game. Fair match doesn't mean that both teams will win 50% of the time. It means that both teams play under the same conditions and better team will win 100% of the time unless something unexpected happens. Like who knows, maybe the worse team will learn something during the game that will make them equal or even better. Or maybe they were better from the very beginning but didn't believe it which made them play worse. Anyway, so because of how APB works you may think that 3 silvers vs 2 golds is fair or maybe even unfair for the silvers, but it's actually unfair for golds. And who will win the game is irrelevant. If you want to make a system where both teams win 50% of the time then well first of all, that's impossible, you would have to take into account a lot more factors than just threat and rank, and second why would you want to do that? Where's the fun in playing if you know that no matter what you do, you will win half of your games? But most developers are still trying to introduce this scuffed matchmaking and it just doesn't work on so many levels. If you play good, you win more games. If you play bad, you lose more games. No need to complicate things. And if someone can't handle that, maybe competitive games just aren't for them?
  4. No. Threat has nothing to do with fairness. It's actually the opposite, threat is what often makes current matches unfair.
  5. This is a problem with low population, not really the lack of threat districts. Most good players stopped playing this game because... well I don't think I have to explain that, and what is left are mostly average and below average casual players who probably don't play at even 60fps. If population was bigger there would be much more variety of players in both teams and you would meet good players more often. And there could be some matchmaking mechanics introduced so people don't get bored of winning all the time, e. g. making teams who are on win streaks vs each other. And if someone doesn't want to get "random noobs" on their team. Well, that's what groups are for.
  6. Ah yes, call the golds tryhards and dismiss their opinion. Just because someone is better than you doesn't mean they're sweating their patootie off every time they play. It just means it comes easier to them to make fast and smart decisions than it does to you. And I don't think you understand what fair means. Assuming you both have access to the same weapons, mods etc. the match is fair regardless of your threats. The fact that you're more likely to lose because you're bad, doesn't make it unfair. Truly fair matchmaking would be based on rank, not threat.
  7. If you don't want to get good, be prepared to lose. You can't suck and win, that defeats the whole purpose of winning and losing. It can happen in this game because it's badly balanced in many ways but it doesn't mean we should strive to keep it.
  8. When I started gaming online there was no matchmaking in the game I played. If I sucked I lost. But it was still fun, at least I could learn something from my opponent. When I owned someone it was nice to see that I got better. Nowadays all that is lost thanks to matchmaking. In games like Overwatch there's no sense of progression at all, it feels like you're always playing against people on the same level and that no matter what you do, you're always gonna win 50% of the games. There's no advantage for being good in a game with matchmaking and there's no disadvantage for being bad. I don't think that's a good thing.
  9. They plan to add them later so same shit.
  10. I thought they finally realized that threat districts are pointless but turns out it's just a bug. Yikes.
  11. Are you like high or something, 9/10 ARs I see are ntecs.
  12. I'm gonna give you time to think about it a little longer.
  13. It's like I'm talking with people who don't even play the game and have to spell out everything. If players utilize cover and only parts of their hitboxes are visible, much better accuracy of an Ntec gives you the advantage. Just because it's cqc doesn't mean mobility is the only thing that matters.
  14. What you're saying would make sense if ntec wasnt 10 times as accurate as smgs which makes it not only as good but even better than smgs in certain cqc situations.
  15. Other ARs should've nerfed ttk instead. It makes no sense for N-tec to kill as fast as PMG. Longer range, longer ttk. It's a simple balancing rule.
  • Create New...