Frosi

I've ran another set of checks and there is no accuracy altering values (such as worse accuracy on the move or after each shot) on the weapon meaning its all working off of the base accuracy stat of "RadiusAt10Meters" which is set to 0 as this value is measured in CM meaning the smaller the number the more accurate it is in this case meaning it is pin-point accurate. So my guess here is that it is either the recoil which has some horizontal to it could make follow-up shots appear as if they're going off center because they were fired prior to the recoil being fully corrected via manual input or it being caused by the system that can make projectiles such as the eggs or even osmaw rockets shoot at an angle when being fired over uneven surfaces like the hood of the car given the user is close enough to it when firing the projectile.

Its a bit of everything, I wanted to not copy the Snowball launcher 1:1 so I opted into doing the same thing in essence but with a different execution and took a more cautious approach. First I wanted to remove the Windup timer which meant that its damage and ramp stats also had to be redesigned, I wanted it to be a little more "spammy" than the Snowball Launcher so it feels different to play but that also runs the risk of creating something that could very easily be overpowered in CQC hence why initially it was a 4 shot kill until 15 meters. In the end I was a little too cautious and quickly made adjustments to push during the next maintenance which unfortunately ended up being a full week into the Event - That said many of the complaints are very placebo (such as the claims its less accurate) because apart from a few parameters such as rate of fire, damage and ammo capacity its stats are 1:1 the same as the Snowball Launcher. In regards to these comments in another thread - We just launched a large new patch that incentivizes players to play missions to level up a new contact so we made the descision to run an event that can be progressed whilst actively leveling the new contacts rather than having players go to an Event District and Mug Bunnies for rewards which meant that they would not be leveling LaRocha/Zombie in the process. Additionally previous years showed that the mugging event was one of the worst performing events overall so even in a world in which Legends had not launched around the same time as Easter I would have not wanted to run that event again. Also I am not quite sure where the "money hungry" comment stems from given that this years Easter Event's rewards are much higher value compared to those of previous Easter Events.

The goal wasn't really to "nerf" but rather make it so there's a little more skill involved in maximizing their output. Additionally, turning them Semi-Automatic fixes the horrendous ghost shooting issue they've had since their release what feels like a decade ago so the result is a more consistent gun if you can time your shots which admittedly isn't very hard on the SBSR's.

Those are both engineering tasks - Not design tasks which means I have very little involvement in either of them beside helping finetune and fix based on feedback. In other words the balance efforts do not take resources away from the Matchmaking/Anti-Cheat work thats going on.

This is actually a limitation of the current system which requires items that can be bought via JT to also require a APB$ amount to be visible for repurchase inside Kiosks. That said I am unsure why the values are different per item category.

I've been going through the initial reactions and feedback about the Leaderboards and would like to address some worries. While Leaderboards are always active and there is no way to opt out of them the system is designed in a way that rewards players for just playing regardless of whether or not they want to participate or "compete" on said leaderboards. We know Leaderboards aren't for everyone and that's fine! The system works similar to Fightclubs (or atleast that's the goal) with two static challenges (Bronze / Silver) that will award players with some Joker Tickets for completing generic activities such as "Play x amount of Missions". It is only the Gold challenge that will actively require players to keep pushing their numbers to stay in the Top Percentile which will be awarded with the Gold Challenge reward after the Split/Season finishes. Feedback will help shape this system, we understand that not everyone wants to try their hardest every mission but our initial feeling about the system is that there shouldn't be any noticable amount of increases in "tryharding" for the every-day player after the system has been out for a few days. Once Leaderboards are active we'll be monitoring feedback very closely, this is a test run of the system and as stated above we want it to work for everyone but also give those that want to push things a little more and show off something to do so outside of Fightclubs. In the future we plan to expand the one generic Leaderboard we have right now into many smaller ones that track various generic activities and provide different Ladders for players to compete in based on what they like to do most which should also make it easier for players of all skill levels to achieve reasonable rankings within the Leaderboards Gold Challenge. In the end, Leaderboards are designed to give players a reason to log in and play for monthly rewards on top of the Weekly Fightclub Challenges which we know aren't everyones cup of tea. If we see a sharp increase in the requirement to try your hardest every mission we already have some ideas on how to address that such as increasing which percentile of players is eligible for the Gold Challenge reward among other things. Please keep your feedback coming, as Matt mentioned in the AMA the Leaderboards system is highly customizable and we're going to be actively testing what sticks and what does not so when we make improvements to the system leading into 2026 we can properly expand on it based on the Feedback and lessons learned during this initial testing period.

Pretty much what ezmegaz68 said. We usually have a window that is much longer than what it'll actually take to complete the maintenance in case we run into an issue of sorts. Maintenances can be of varying lengths from doing simple restarts to windows updates, patches or even background changes to for example prepare more servers so we can spin up extra districts and so on.

The goal is to go back to the new Matchmaker and after basically every maintenance we have been running the new Matchmaker for a couple of hours until it ran into an issue and we turned it off again while the issue was looked into and new fixes are made. Its been a bumpy ride hence why I have made the changes you are quoting from the last patch notes IN CASE we have to use the old Matchmaker (which we don't want to but have to fall back to right now while we troubleshoot the new one)

No I did not, I'm free to talk about my involvement with the Game and I don't have a "Developer" account or alias.

I feel like commenting here as I am the person leading the Design front of APB: Reloaded right now - I am a single Designer who typically are not involved in coding work such as Matchmaking improvements, figuring out better Anti-Cheat detection methods etc. My job is to keep the Live game going with updates while the rest of the Team including Matt are figuring out solutions to issues such as the Anti-Cheat which is our #1 Priority right now. Apart from testing future changes and giving input on ideas which I am doing I am not a resource that can work on Anti-Cheat related matters so its not exactly like our priorities are in the wrong place, I am simply doing what I was hired for while other things that are out of my expertise are being worked on. This way those that have the sufficient skills and knowledge to work on the issue are not also tasked with having to make sure the Live game gets attention while those issues are being worked on. I hope that clears things up, Frosi

The creator of APBDB was recently provided with the most up to date stats which means that the most recent update should show all changes that happened in the last couple of weeks which means that all of these changes are already in the game.

Previously the Corsair had 30 meters of effective range and a 5 meter minimum damage range which meant that at 30 meters and onwards the damage would nosedive to its minimum percentage damage of 45% of the base damage after just 5 meters. Here's an example: Prior to this patch the Corsair would deal 400 Damage within 30 meters and afterwards have that damage drop to 180 (45% of its base damage) over the course of 5 meters. After this patch the Corsair will deal 400 damage within 30 meters and afterwards have that damage drop to 120 (30% of its base damage) over the course of 25 meters. This means that because the damage doesn't drop as fast as its drop is now stretched out across 25 meters rather than 5 meters it will now be able to 3 shot up to 35~ meters, however, this comes at the cost of no longer being able to get a 6 shot kill at up to 100 meters as I felt that this was a bit excessive given the rate of fire buff. Do however note that all of these changes are subject to change in future passes, generally speaking the goal is to ship changes that work mechanically and then improve upon them in further iterations if required.

Yes it will apply to all version's of the Cisco whether they come from a contact or other players. Essentially when accelerating (Holding W) the car's chassis will move based on how much Torque the vehicle has, to make sure that the car doesn't do a straight up wheelie the ChassisTorqueFactor modifier exists which decreases how much the chassis moves. The Cisco used to be set to 0.015 but was accidentally changed to 0.04 sometime around christmas last year which created a scenario in which the wheels would clip through the chassis quite frequently. This change aims to fix the clipping issue and has no real other effects on how the vehicle handles so don't expect it to handle any different than you're used to.

Oh yea lets nerf a weapon because cheaters use it thats definitely how game balance works

The new Engine got cancelled because porting it to 3.5 was just a flawed concept and LO realized that its not going to work way too late. APB runs off of a ton of custom code which was not part of the 3.5 Engine upgrade which has lead to many issues and horrible performance. Instead they ported the game from 32Bit to 64Bit which essentially achieves the same thing in the back end which is to allow for major improvements and more modern solutions to be used in the game but visually to us the game looks the same so it is less fancy than upgrading to a newer version of the Engine.