Uke

Yes but they always had lower damage and radius as well iirc which meant you had to be quite a lot more precise with them. A lot of frag users conveniently seem to forget that when complaining about yields.

Well I don't actually remember which nades you had. My point was there was this huge hate for low yields even though they were never really that much stronger than frags if at all. But now that frags are dominating the nade game, no one really seems to care. They're not really considered as cheap or lame, but they should be. I wouldn't say they are occasional, with how much options of resupplying them you have, almost every fight starts or ends with throwing nades.

Hey I recognize you, aren't you the same person that is maining frags now that they're op? Sure I used low yields a lot. I have an aggressive play style and with more nades, you can push more corners. Doesn't change the fact that I thought both them and frags had too big blast radius. I'm happy they nerfed yields. Now do it to frags, they could've get their radius cut by 1-2m and still be very good. And yes I used percs recently, they get really bad rep from silvers spamming them at their own feet but they're not as easy to use properly as you may think (and somehow frags got the rep of "pro nade" even thought they're the easiest granade in game to use, as if holding G for a few seconds was that hard). The fact that you can't cook them is an advantage but also a big disadvantage in some scenarios. Not to mention very slow travel time and low damage. Either way, I don't think that what I use is relevant to my opinion about balance changes. It's not my job to try and balance the game by not using op things and hope that my opposition doesn't either. All I can do is state my opinion on the forum and hope LO will listen.

Good point but I think if the easiest grenade is also the best grenade then some balance changes are overdue. It's a simple equation really, the easier to use something is the weaker it should be. I don't think it would hurt new/low threat players much if frags were nerfed in either damage or range. Honestly most of them probably wouldn't even notice. Concs require more skill but there's no much reason to use them since they don't deal that much more damage (does it really make a difference to you if someone is tagged by 750 or 990, he's fucked either way) but are much harder to hit, not to mention that you can't really damage multiple targets with them. Sure they are better against vehicles but with everyone driving around in vegases or one of the two tanks lately, they're just too weak. I mean that's kinda limited view of what actually happens in game. Just like you can change your position to avoid the nade so can a person throwing it change where they throw it. They were always a problem imo but back in the day a lot more people were using concs. Now that both yields and concs were either directly or indirectly nerfed there's no good reason to use anything other than frags. And they're just not fun. It's annoying to die to a nade that exploded 5m away from you, and it's not satisfying to get a kill with it either because it's just too easy to hit with.

Your opinion means nothing if it's not backed by logical arguments Mr Big Brain. hot take: "frags are fine" is not an argument. Amazing how you have 12k posts but don't know how to discuss.

Says the guy who didn't say anything relevant to the thread yet. Can you just go away and let people have a proper discussion?

Here's a thought. Don't talk if you don't have anything to say. What don't you understand?

How about you actually explain what's so ridiculous about this suggestion and stop being an a$$? Fucking hell. He is right that frags are very strong and really easy to use because of their huge blast radius. If you haven't noticed, almost everyone is using them. There's a reason for that. You can miss both nades by 5m and still kill the target, while with yields or percs you will barely scratch them (and concs obviously won't even hit). I don't know about you but I would like it if fights in this game didn't revolve around spamming nades, or at least required you to aim those nades properly. The point is it doesn't actually require any skill because you can miss by literally 5 meters and still deal over 500dmg. I can say "nice conc" when I die to a nicely aimed conc, but have you ever said "nice frag"? I don't think so.

That's a really over complicated solution to a problem that could be easily fixed with a simple hp nerf for vegas, pioneer and especio.

So apparently it's not obvious why accuracy is important in cqc... Try overclocking that little brain of yours and maybe you will figure it out, because I'm honestly tired of explaining the most basic shit to morons. This has nothing to do with anything I said.

test test test

Almost 10 years with 5000+ hours apparently isn't enough, ok, whatever you say buddy. In case you haven't noticed, APB has been borderline dead for the past few years. It needs to change things up if it wants to gain popularity. Also they didn't remove bounty completely, what are you even talking about. You're completely missing the point. As expected from someone who probably barely ever gets H5. And the hell is keep the pvp flow supposed to mean? Getting H5 and suddenly being able to shoot random players in their back possibly making them lose their mission is "keeping the flow"? Getting killed by some dude who just spawned 10 meters behind you is "the flow"? Let me answer for you. No it's not, it's just random crap that sounded good on paper to one of the developers over 10 years ago, they implemented it and didn't test properly how it would affect the game. It's one of the reasons why this game was never taken seriously by any good players. I don't even know what are you on about here tbh. But if you're playing with 270ms you should probably choose a server that's closer to you or not play at all. It's way too high latency for a shooter game. If you had any brains you would realize that this thread is biased. I can guarantee you that there's a shitton of both good and bad players who have quit APB because they hated bounty system, but they obviously won't be here to tell you about it. They've moved on and forgot about this game. Probably playing something that's actually balanced. The game keeps losing players. It obviously needs to make changes or it will just keep dying. And believe it or not, simply updating the engine and making the game look a little nicer and run a little smoother isn't gonna be enough.

Faith in LO +1. More smart changes like this please. This is exactly why people who don't know how to play the game shouldn't try to balance it. Any decent player gets bounty almost every mission. It's not a rare thing at all and it's annoying for almost everyone involved.

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.

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.

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?

No. Threat has nothing to do with fairness. It's actually the opposite, threat is what often makes current matches unfair.

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.

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.

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.

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.

They plan to add them later so same shit.

I thought they finally realized that threat districts are pointless but turns out it's just a bug. Yikes.

Are you like high or something, 9/10 ARs I see are ntecs.

I'm gonna give you time to think about it a little longer.