Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Frosi

  1. Its a known bug with Tokenize, you can fix it by disabling and re-enabling Tokenize on your G1 account page
  2. For all I know Unreal 4 is very different from Unreal 3, so much that you're better off rebuilding from Scratch rather than trying to port from 3 to 4 as most if not all of your code will no longer be functioning, APB also runs a crap ton of custom code to the point where APB's version of Unreal 3 may as well be its own engine and use some Unreal 3 things on top of it. In short, Unreal 3 differs too much compared to 4 while 4 and 5 are similar enough to allow for Unreal 4 projects to be migrated to Unreal 5, although even that will take a lot of work. As to building from Scratch, there's a lot to APB, an extreme amount of background systems doing things that most players would never notice, rebuilding it would be such a huge effort that you may as well make a new rather than try to rebuild a failed game again.
  3. Updating APB to anything past 3.5 would mean having to rebuild it from scratch and rebuilding APB on newer versions of Unreal with a medium sized team would likely take many years before they have anything that they can show / play. In other words, not feasible unless you're a massive publisher and don't care about income while the rebuilding happens.
  4. I am extremely sure that new engine was fixed on the new engine, even at 300+ fps.
  5. I'm not a super knowledged guy when it comes to game engines but here are some basic answers to your questions 32Bit is VERY outdated and has many restrictions that clash with modern day technologies, the most basic result of moving to 64Bit will be not being bound to ~4GB of RAM anymore, allowing the game to use more ram if possible which can be used to optimize the game whether its load times or garbage collection. Nvidia cards released as or after the 20 series cards have new memory which in APB's case causes "out of memory" crashes, this will be fixed on 64Bit. There will be a performance increase across the board. Assuming they manage to backport the tools unreal 3.5 provided it'll also help with faster development. There's no date yet but I doubt LO would want to rush this IF the update itself succeeds internally, there will likely be a lot of inhouse testing done by their Quality assurance team as well as SPCT before they head into possible Open Beta tests and the eventual release. For all I know this is an "under the hood" type of upgrade, us players will likely not see any significant changes to the games looks. If they manage to backport modern tools it should hopefully increase the efficiency and speed at which they can update the game whether its new content, balance or bug fixes. Better performance, better options for them to fix issues about the game, possibly introduce means for them to utilize graphics cards more rather than mostly relying on fast single core processing power, better tools for them as well as more options for external tools such as anti-cheats.
  6. Plant bug on Phone booths is usually not placed on the phone booth but rather on the wall behind it (this is why your character often walks a bit to the side when trying to do it from the front), this means that if the wall is thin enough you can do it through the wall from the other side, this is rather helpful cause most Phone booths are in wide, open areas that are easy to defend.
  7. I'm assuming they're going to try and backport some of the things they did on 2.2/3.5 ahead of releasing 1.3, I think the plan is to also backport the tools that 3.5 would've provided which means making new content should hopefully be easier and not like jumping through hoops at every step. While I personally think the meta is in a good spot except for very few outliers I do think there need to be improvements and I'm not just talking about buffs to the dozens of weapons that just cant compete. Weapon stats need to be communicated to players much better than the bars we currently have and hopefully that should also be an easier task to do on 1.3. I'll attach a concept I did in like 5 mins in ms paint (xd) below but ideally the bars are replaced with actual numbers for important stats that could also change dynamically depending on the mods you have on the gun such as IR increasing the effective range from 50 to 57, Three point sling decreasing the equip time etc. As with 3.5 and 2.2 I think that LO is well aware that this is likely their last shot at a big increase in player numbers, if it fails, they'll have to work their way up slowly by making the game better one update at the time much like No Man's Sky did so ideally they actually release 1.3 in a state that has a bunch of QoL improvements, updates or content that actually makes a large chunk of returning players stick around as that'll accelerate the games potential revival. I think every player that actually still cares about the game should encourage LO to do so, taking an extra month or two getting these QoL updates in in an attempt to make returning players stick around should be well worth it. I might look into making a thread in the future when 1.3 is getting closer to release asking the community for feedback and potential QoL changes that LO could implement, I already have a document with suggestions for this that I've been updating for a while myself that could then be updated with the communities ideas and forwarded to someone at LO. If you have ideas now and don't want to wait feel free to poke me on the LO discord.
  8. The engine can go beyond what the current cap is but its hardly advised because it'll break other things such as making sliding even worse or new bugs entirely. Sliding was never an issue on 3.5 however so assuming they somehow backport whatever fixed sliding I could see them unlock the fps on the 64Bit client.
  9. If they had a date for when the post from Matt is coming they would've mentioned it, they simply wanted to let people know that something is coming and that APB is still on Matt's list of things to work on which breaks the complete silence we had in the previous months.
  10. If its an .ini file you are allowed to edit it, mousefix, hold crouch, toggle sprint and most graphical changes you can do are all done in .ini files which are the files the game changes when you make changes ingame to your sensitivity etc. They can set minimal values for these like how they did back when ppl set their Particles to 0 to turn them off entirely, this does not work anymore so instead, ppl are using .upk edits to remove things like grenade explosion particles, muzzleflash etc, this is absolutely not allowed. If the muzzleflash removal if done through .ini files it should be fine because it follows LO's rules, however, I believe all ways to do it through .ini edits has been fixed by G1 and ppl are editing the actual unreal package files to remove it. The nofog shader is weird in how it operates, its technically considered a shader but doesn't behave like what is traditionally considered as a shader edit in apb since it does not require bloom to be enabled to work. Long ago, within the first year of LO's takeover I personally asked Matt if the nofog shader is something they ban for and was given the answer that they do not ban for it but plan on fixing the ability to remove the fog at some point and I believe they even did so with the events which kick you if you are using certain versions of the nofog shader although it doesn't work for all. So I would very much consider it as a grey area and they could change their mind on how they handle it at any time.
  11. I think that's a fair take to have but in the end there's just no doing right with the APB community, ppl will always find something to be negative about and I genuienly think he simply wanted us to know that he's still there and APB is still on his map of things to work on and that we'll hear more soon.
  12. I'd imagine that if they had a time frame for Matt's post they would've announced it in the post last week, never once did they indicate that the post is coming within the next x amount of days, they simply let the community know that the concerns have been heard and Matt is making a post in the future.
  13. They are not, .ini edits are basically all that is permitted officially although there are some grey area edits like the localization ones and Nofog shader, however, .upk files are a whole different story as these are used to remove muzzle flash or other explosive particles and therefore are not allowed to be edited.
  14. Probably less than what we currently have after a few weeks of reverting to those changes seeing as it removes a lot of skill that comes with having to control your gun from the game and the fact that the majority of players nowadays NEVER experienced RTW even, let alone this very early itteration of gunplay.
  15. There need to be weapons balanced around new players, average players and the best of the best, balancing around just one will leave the game frustrating for the rest and on top of that a lot of top players think very one dimensional with the goal of turning APB into some sort of competitive game, no bloom, laser beam guns and supposedly "high skill" requirement. In a world in which the game was balanced around top level players guns that are aimed to be entry level guns for newer players will not even get close to be able into whatever the 'top players' decided should be the meta. Meanwhile SPCT has housed some of the best and most experienced players in the game that all have their fair share of ideas amongst other things. I've read your recent posts and its becoming increasingly obvious that you have some sort of grudge against the SPCT because they aren't adding wall running, crouch sliding or recoil patterns to the game, let alone reworking 100+ unique guns, to someone that actually understands a fair share of the inner workings of APB, comments like this have about the same value as "Add horses" or "Add motorbikes". Everyone is allowed to have their ideas for the game but the second you attack those that have been giving non-stop feedback, making them aware of issues as well as using countless hours of their free time to help the game in any way, shape or form then your argument immediately becomes a whole lot less valuable as it shows that you are not able to have a proper discussion. We test patches, we don't ship them. Did I say that? I think I explicitly stated that something like 1/5 current missions will have an unbalanced factor in them and that the system is far from optimal. The best of the best are absolutely farming other players, this has always been the case, the skill gap between a 'Gold' and a top player with 10k+ hours in the game is so massive that even with segregation, most golds just ended up getting farmed by top tier players. What figures did I leave out exactly? Because G1 decided that it is okay to let Golds join Silver districts without reducing their rewards gained (like how it used to be) I'm gonna bundle these two together cause I find it funny how you imply that I'm alluding that Bronze servers are healthy compared to Silver ones, both play a massive part in the games downfall, Silver districts see terrible matchmaking because of the massive gap in skill between a player the game considers to be of gold threat and a veteran with 10k+ hours in the game who can easily 1v3 a bunch of low mmr golds. Meanwhile on the Bronze server you have dethreaters car surf with Osmaws, Volcanos or any sort of AV and just farm new players in their trashy starter cars, this is equally unhealthy if not worse than what is going on in Silver districts. There are multiple issues as to why new players can not get settled in APB and LO is aware of that, however, those are issues that they require 2.2 for to solve. LO that turning off segregation would make things even harder for new players but seeing the other issues I just mentioned they still decided to go through with it so the CURRENT playerbase can play and for the most part enjoy the game until the Engine upgrade releases. Longer matchmaking and for the best of the best even less chances to face a team equal of your skill. Also do not forget that this change was meant for Jericho, not Citadel, they are well aware of the issues and even said themselves if they had the option to they wouldn't have turned off segregation for EU. You blame other players playing the game, with and without a premade group for 'killing' the game and then suggest something like this, whats next, ban all gold players?
  16. Could you name me a few examples? I know a bunch of recent changes (namely the N-tec one) haven't been received all too well by the 'top players' as they think it adds more RNG to the game. The game shouldn't be balanced just around top players neither should it be balanced around just the average player, it has to be a mix of both so striking that would be ideal. If you think top players enjoy farming new players / lesser skilled players then you are wrong, speaking from my own personal experience, it is not fun to go up against players far below your own skill level and to me there has been a noticeable decrease in missions where I feel like I'm playing against players close or equal to my skill level. This might sound bad when I say it like that but for the average player, this should mean that more missions after the change will result in matches containing players that are average in skill. For every mission I have that is unbalanced because of me, there will be 4-5 other missions that are balanced in return, is it great that 1/5 currently running missions has an unbalanced factor in them? No, not at all, but the upsides in my post above still stand, there are more districts and the game is playable far longer throughout the day. This is an example of what I mentioned above where it isn't exactly fun for the top players to play against new players either so they will try to have some fun by going FBW / .45 only, this also makes it a little more fair for you as their kill pressure goes down noticeably but a lot of players won't see it this way because their mentality has been crushed by this change. All in all, players need to start thinking to themselves what is really going on, there have been 2-3 Bronze districts at peak times and ONE Silver district as well as ONE Asylum / Baylan with mostly Gold players in them. Now, if we break that down into actual data it is going look something like this: https://i.imgur.com/tBEXOAv.png Obviously, data like this is very complex and fluctuates a lot but we can get a pretty good idea of player threat percentages by doing this. We see that up until threat segregation was removed up to 40% of players that took part in any of the PvP districts were considered gold, however, only 34 to 31.1% of those would play missions at the time. Now that districts are no longer segregated will change but the majority of players will still belong to either Silver or Bronze threat and I myself, while playing have seen A LOT more Bronze / Silver players than I saw Gold players. Another thing is that Gold, as a threat is relatively easy to achieve by inflating your MMR through doing Objectives or other passive score gains, you can achieve Gold threat with zero kills on your account given that the majority of your missions are attack missions and you are doing objectives or are near them when they are finished. This means that while some players might be considered gold, more often than not they will still be below average or at best average at the game but have simply gotten a couple of attack missions in a row in which they did objectives and managed to achieve an above average score by doing so. In short, just because they are gold doesn't mean they are good, let alone unbeatable, most of the Golds I've had in missions were consistently getting beaten by high rank silvers and could not stand their own whatsoever. Another thing to talk about is that the better players (Who will usually play on their Max rank characters) will always prefer to play on Financial as its the district with the better design and combat flow overall. Waterfront still has good players playing on it but they shouldn't be as common, another thing is that there are 2-3 instances of Financial at peak times meaning that if you want to play Financial, there are multiple ones to choose from, some of which might not house as many Golds or top players. Don't think of this post as some sort of justification for the change, while there are upsides there are some apparent downsides to it, I know a lot of people have been upset by this change but its one that aims to keep the game sustainable for the foreseeable future and I want to say that they will change things back to normal the second 2.2 launches. What this post really aims to achieve is an attempt to calm people down a little and explain to them that they are still far more likely to face Bronze / Silver players than actual Gold players that are above average at the game. I urge those that look at Golds and think that they are much better than them to take a step back, start to ignore threat levels and actually see how those players play first, if you afk against most golds you face you will be surprised that most of them really aren't that good and even some of the best players can be beaten with a little bit of teamwork.
  17. While I can understand the frustration, it is not like this change is only for the worse. Yes, there will be awful matchmaking moments but I wouldn't say its nearly as bad as some people are trying to make it out to be, yes you will sometimes face incredibly talented players but at the same time you can also have those players on your team, sometimes it'll be one-sided in your favor and sometimes in the enemies, its not perfect by any means but its far from unplayable and more often than not you will still play against the same players you would've faced on silver districts, just because they're gold, doesn't mean they're good. On top of that, no threat segregation also means there are 3 to 4 districts to play on at peak times, if one district is stacked with good players, you can now opt into a different district instead to avoid situations in which you feel like you are outclassed more often than not, this also means that there is usually two Financials and one Waterfront districts which allows players to freely level their characters without feeling stuck because people refuse to play Waterfront, this for example is one of the few reasons I've been playing as of late, since it lets me level some of my other characters without having to constantly check https://will.io/apb/ in hopes that a Waterfront district is populated. Jericho has also seen a decent increase in player numbers (although still fairly low) which means that the change is doing what it was intended to do, while it causes some minor issues on Citadel, those issues have workarounds that work at just about any time of day other than the early mornings. In the end, I feel like a lot of people have had their mentality crushed by this change, a lot of players assume every gold they see is one of those golds that wouldn't be the ones they would've seen on Bronze districts and must therefore be gods at the game, this is wrong and almost every single Gold I've gotten as random team mates would've been better suited as a Silver player if Threat was better at judging player skill instead of arbitrary inflation to their MMR by doing objectives or collecting all sorts of passive Score gains which are no indication of player skill let alone how well they're doing.
  18. It basically clears the system of all sorts of things that can happen while a server runs over the week such as Memory leaks, ghost processes and other things that could hinder the server from performing optimally.
  19. The DB is now updated to reflect these changes. https://apbdb.com/changes/ (Its not showing the Frag grenade Max damage radius change, however, on the Frags actual page the value was changed from 4 to 3)
  20. The intend is not to bring up the TTK across the board, its been this low for countless years and changing away from it will be as much of a bad change as making the TTK too fast as seen with the OCA prior to this patch.
  21. While technically correct, this is a free to play games and these guns were monetized in the past, changing one gun into another regardless of how commonly used it is will upset players. There is no winning scenario here even if it seems like a logical or 'simple thing' to do. I don't agree with this at all, G1 meta while there were guns that aren't in the meta right now wasn't exactly great and IMO was a great example of what I mean with "guns that are unhealthily strong". Here are a few examples of gameplay that sooner or later was deemed frustrating. Being tagged by an 850 DMG HVR and having to wait 15 seconds to regen. PMG being the meta SMG by far due to its range which meant that sometimes fights would be decided by pure RNG as well as the not so uncommon scenario in which you got out ttk'd by a PMG on 20-30 meters, once again due to pure rng. Every mission having multiple N-tecs as it was the essentially the only usable AR in the game despite the others not exactly being bad on paper. The FAR is accessible on both Armas and through events correct, however, in the past that has not stopped a weapon from becoming the absolute meta pick. Old version of the CSG, Whisper, Trouble Maker or even Scout are good examples of this and none of those were available as part of an event either. Looks, sound or whether something is a starter gun or not does not impact the Meta because the Meta isn't decided by those stubborn to try something new for whatever reason they might have. The meta is outlined by those willing to play something new and match it up against the meta to see if it does well, an example here is the DMR AV which has been slept on for a while but was popularized after good players picked it up during the CET and did surprisingly good with it in an environment that matched some of the best players against one another, this is and will always be more meta defining than any gun sound, look or prejudice. Neither the STAR or FAR are good enough at mid range to reliably compete with the N-tec or the guns the N-tec can take on within its effective range. They are better in CQC but this tradeoff was not worth losing out on mid range capabilities. I feel like you contradict yourself in this statement, if the weapon in question (The N-tec) was made a lot worse then people would've steered away from it already or even back when it was at the 2.4 Modifier Cap initially many months ago which was also in an environment in which the FAR was even better than it is now. This isn't the case however, NONE of the weapons changed in this update have dropped in popularity by a noticable amount which is an indication of a set of changes that don't disrupt the meta but instead leave some room for new weapons that break into the meta. I'd argue it won't take long for weapons like the PMG or even Manic to see more of a use again while guns like the Cap-40 may not become the most popular but will at least have a decent chance combating an OCA. I agree here, over the past 10 years Shotguns have been re-iterated around the same idea of a 2 shot kill with a big delay in-between shots, this concept is fundamentally flawed as it plays into the idea of playing around corners / corner popping heavily for as long as the JG / CSG follow this concept they will always end up overpowered or flat out bad. Your last paragraph doesn't make a lot of sense as it revolves around the idea of the N-tec's CQC being killed entirely which isn't the case because if it was, people would've steered away from it back then and especially now. The N-tec will continue to be a dominant pick, however if you want to full auto it you now need to be closer to your target OR opt to burst it in 3-4 round bursts which due to its very fast recovery and extremely low recovery delay will always be strong regardless of its max bloom value. You could argue that you're changing the way the gun is played in CQC and how that is something 'bad' but I feel like players with a mindset like that are preventing themselves from improving heavily. G1 has allowed stagnant balance to kick in by not making changes, this has allowed players to spend years playing a weapon and making them believe it is fine that way but as LO took over the game the game has started to evolve and with it evolved the meta, however, due to the stagnant past of APB's balance players have often perceived these changes as an attack to their favorite weapon / playstyle, often not accounting for the overall health of the game for their own sake. To an extend you prove this point by saying that a worse player with a CQC gun can beat the N-tec, stagnancy has allowed for the idea of "my gun should beat this guy because he is a worse player" to fester when in reality he SHOULD have something going for him playing a CQC gun into a mid range gun, somewhat levelling the playing field, if you're the better player you can adapt to the situation and optimize the way of playing your mid range gun in CQC even after a direct nerf. If you find yourself in a CQC scenario against guns that you feel like the N-tec can't match in that very scenario then you can opt into using a gun that is better suited such as the ATAC or FAR for AR's or weapons such as the Carbine, Oscar or OCA much like in a different scenario you would consider opting into using a gun better suited for long range instead of the OCA you have equipped. The patch has been out for 3 days now and so far the meta has shown no signs of shifting, only time will tell but at least now they can actually focus on buffing weapons instead of having to pay attention to just whatever seems to be overperforming. In a game like APB the meta SHOULD always be evolving through continuous balance, if something is too strong it might see adjustments and if it ends up too bad as a result then it should receive adjustments to bring it back up.
  22. Basically this. APB has a lot of guns and no one is talking about making all of them viable in a competitive environment and be able to compete with one another, it is simply not realistic. However, there's also the problem of stale gameplay caused by having too few guns sit at the very top such as you mentioned. It isn't fun facing the same hand full of guns over and over especially while attempting to play something that isn't one of those select few weapons. The other issue is what is a good "baseline" and what isn't (insert baseline joke here). Having a meta is fine, but if said meta is unhealthily strong within its own vacuum then that hurts the overall gameplay, this was seen with the OCA prior to this patch and its INCREDIBLY low ttk of 0.62 with CJ3. It wasn't fun to play against and it was so unreasonably ahead of most other SMG's that it was nearly impossible to buff other SMG's to compete as well as doing so posing the fact of creating even more unenjoyable weapon options to go against. Think of the OCA nerf of a change aimed to bring it from 110% strength back to 100% strength, something still very strong but not to the point where it hurts the overall gameplay. This patch (so far) has not shown signs of weapons that were adjusted completely falling out of the meta, instead, what appears to be happening instead is a bunch of lesser used weapons popping up more as players are experimenting and giving more things a shot which is a good thing. Also something Little Orbit is hopefully very aware of is that shotguns, in particular the JG and to an extend also the CSG pose the very same problem of being so incredibly strong due to APB being a third person shooter and the ability to maximize the amount of time behind cover in which the enemy will not be able to return fire. However, shotguns over the years have proven over and over to be either overpowered due to being too consistent or worthless because they weren't consistent at all which means that the past 9 or so years of attempting to balance shotguns has basically done nothing and always ended up with one of two results. Diversity is key, there will always be a meta but once those guns exceed a certain strength then no amount of buffs to underused guns will make them playable in comparison while keeping the gameplay from becoming too frustrating.
  23. I want to say that they are aware of this issue as its been probably the largest bug in the game for many years, however, don't expect it to be fixed until the Engine upgrade releases. As for your claims about it lasting longer, for all I know it can last for a few seconds until I assume a server side check kicks in, however, the players themselves will also fix it by crouching as this resyncs their position and hitbox due to them changing the size of their hitbox on a server side level, however, despite all of this I don't think this is an easy bug to squish and if they were to do it now it would likely break a bunch of other things but I sincerely hope that they look into this bug and fix it for 2.2 prior to releasing it.
  24. Weapon balance will always be ongoing, and yes, I would also love to see some buffs to underused weapons like the Norsemen, ISSR-A, LCR or even the SBSR Rifle / Sniper. The list goes on, however, if you want to make these guns viable with things such as the OCA, Cr762 etc existing in their current state then you will have to buff them to an extend in which they will likely feel overpowered or simply unfun to play against, much like the current OCA. After this patch, there shouldn't be anything that is massively over the top which leaves much more room for diversity and also make it easier to buff weapons without running the risk of making them overpowered just to fit in a meta in which weapons are unhealthily strong. As per usual, every player is very much welcome to give their feedback and provide suggestions for weapon balance changes. APBDB and the new version that is still in development gives you every stat as well as working range curves (on the dev db). If you want to make suggestions with values then you can do so freely. APBDB Dev DB These should be updated on the DB at some point, keep in mind its ran by a community member, not Little Orbit.
  • Create New...