Frosi

There's no simple solution to the issues players are facing right now, you either have 5 playable mission districts (on EU) which keeps the game playable at all times but has matchmaking issues or you turn threat segregation back on which then makes NA less playable at all times for Gold players as well as reintroducing the issue of dethreating which then causes frustrations for the players playing against dethreaters getting a boring missions as well as the players on the dethreaters team since they are now getting actively griefed and are playing a mission one man down. I don't know if there are any plans to bring back threat segregation but I can see why they would not want to bring it back and create extra work which would then delay the actual solution for matchmaking issues which is Phasing, something Matt has talked about a lot and is now possible thanks to the 64Bit update. Phasing for those that aren't familiar with it allows for cross-district matchmaking meaning that all financial instances are connected and the system may now match players from Financial 1 against players on Financial 3, one of the groups will then seamlessly (no loading screen) be phased over to the district of their opponents where the match will take place. Right now the matchmaking system is simply crippled by the fact that there's only 50 players to match against, some of which may be afk or not ready, ram raiding, in an existing mission, too high of a threat to be considered for an even match, in a group bigger / smaller than your current group etc. There's SO many factors that play into matchmaking that if they were enforced any stricter than they currently are players would find themselves not getting opp at all or at least waiting for opp a long time, because Phasing expands the pool beyond 50 players they can then work on a system that enforces stricter matchmaking rules the more players are online meaning that around peak times you shouldn't feel like you're constantly getting put into poorly match made missions which should then hopefully also make it so players don't feel like they're forced to dethreat just to increase the likely hood of getting "fair" missions. APB is over a decade old, some systems simply don't work as initially intended anymore as well as the top players exceeding levels of skill RTW / G1 never thought possible and therefore didn't account for, I don't enjoy playing against silvers either but for the time being even if its not the best experience it is simply down to the fact that the game is in dire need of updates to its core systems and LO can now actually get those updates into the game and I would expect Matt to talk more about the things they have planned in his upcoming roadmap which he will hopefully post soon.

Every account should be brought up to the current max that long time players have on their characters, however, G1 stated multiple times in the past that the inventory capacity could not be increased any further due to engine limitations, it'd be interesting to know if that has changed now that 64Bit is out.

Matt has stated that the community wants them and he's fine with them being used as long as they aren't editing files like shader files to add them to the game because most gaming monitors nowadays let you add one, they can't stop you from taping something in the middle of your monitor etc. So yes, using programs like Hudsight is permitted and is EXTREMELY unlikely to be what got OP banned.

Very nice guide, I hope this helps people that use Linux / Steam deck and want to play, consider publishing it on steam too if you haven't. Also smh my head not using a steam skin

They are going to replace the current anti cheat "BattlEye" which has had mixed results but was the only option for the time being with "Easy Anti-Cheat" in the hopefully very near future. Easy Anti-Cheat has worked very well for APB in the past with just its client side solution, however, this time around we'll be getting both Client and Server side components to the Anti-cheat which should make it even better. From what I know the timing of EAC is however out of their hand right now as they're waiting on Epic to finish their integration of the anti-cheat, once that is done it should be good to go and will be added to the game.

If its an empty district it'll do that, the /fps menu is simply not reliable on lesser populated districts and hasn't been in a long long time. NA has also experienced atleast 1 major crash in the last 48 hours and Matt stated that they're looking into whats happening on the LO discord so it is possible that something may be going on with the servers themselves or possibly another round of DDoS attacks causing issues.

I agree, its very clear that some cheats have gotten updated to support 64Bit already but that's why EAC is coming in the hopefully very near future, when is out of LO's hands right now as they're apparently waiting on Epics part of the integration but I'm sure LO is well aware that the sooner they get EAC going the sooner they can start actually tackling the cheating issue APB is having. Cheaters will always be a thing tho, its just a matter of how fast you can detect their cheat and ban their accounts, its basically impossible to keep them out entirely, even if they got banned in the past.

They want to make it an actual option ingame but for now their plan was to get 1.30 out but also include the ability to uncap for those that really want to, same goes for sliding and the ghost bloom stuff that happen on higher fps values so it'd make sense to fix those things and make it an ingame option in the same patch.

You can do it yourself now, to do so go to your APB install directory and navigate to Engine\Config and open the file called "BaseEngine.ini" in there search for "MaxClientFrameRate=128" to whatever you want the cap to be up to 500 and then start the game with the APB.exe found in the Binaries folder and make sure you have "Smooth Frame rate" and "Vysnc" turned off ingame.

As of this patch you will be able to increase your clients FPS cap by yourself, to do so head over to your APB install directory and go to Engine\Config and open the file called "BaseEngine.ini". In there you want to scroll down or search for "MaxClientFrameRate=128" and set the value at the end to whatever you want your cap to be, to restore the current behavior if you have a 144Hz monitor set the value to 145 although you may now also exceed said cap up to 500. !!!You will have to start the game with the APB.exe located in the Binaries folder to keep the changes set in BaseEngine.ini!!! Raising your FPS cap above 145 will make existing issues related to running above 128 fps worse although sliding will only happen if your fps is too stable aka running at cap. There's an issue related to high framerates that makes your crosshair open and show an inaccurate accuracy value, this is however a purely visual bug and does not actually affect accuracy. If you want to keep using your existing BaseEngine.ini from last patch as part of a config it is advised to add the new "MaxClientFrameRate=" line yourself just under the "MaxSmoothedFrameRate=" line in the .ini, make sure to add a value as well!

There's little interest in testing these things so its usually best to just do it on one server regardless of ping just to have everyone on one server, things would likely be unplayable / testable if there were 2 servers cause it'd be like 10 ppl on one server and 10-20 on the other.

What I heard is that EAC was waaaaay faster to patch things and that cheat providers would basically have to maintain their cheat with weekly updates else it'd run into being detected. In the cases they were too slow it was detected and players got caught. Putting pressure on cheat providers is huge cause keeping things updated are work hours and in a game with a population like APB they may run into the whole thing simply not being profitable anymore. As for the server side, if anything it'll help with detecting private cheats / closets since server sides can give away who's cheating so the client side can look into said flagged players.

Color based Triggerbots may still very well work, however, cheats that inject into the game will have to be updated to 64Bit which is a big task and therefore means its unlikely anyone has done so in such little time.

The 64Bit update is an entirely foundational change, its not meant to change the games looks but rather modernize the engine to a 64Bit standard which then allows them to backport things from 2.x and more reliably work on the games issues and therefore steer it into a better future. In other words, 1.30 is so they can continue to support the game and actually develop things. 64Bit also fixes the RTX crash and increases the memory ceiling which allows for future game optimization, one such example being a new approach to garbage collection and texture streaming so stutters aren't as frequent or don't happen in active gameplay scenarios.

1.30 looks identical to live, nothing has changed in that regard, its a foundational change without any visual impact, however, I can still provide you with the data of 3 of the benchmarks I ran, you will quickly notice that the first two are basically identical with the third one being a run with uncapped fps that I however can't mirror with a benchmark from Live since Live obviously has capped FPS. Specs are as follows: Intel i9 12900k (Stock) 2080 Super 32GB of 4000Mhz Ram Live 1080p Max settings (145 FPS Cap) 1.30 1080p Max settings (145 FPS Cap) 1.30 1080p Max settings (Uncapped FPS)

If you want to participate in the 1.30 Beta please refer to this thread and follow the link to download the client. Happy Testing

That's a mix of using High Quality Health Hud, Bloom and the night time shaders and can be fixed by changing two ingame options, no configs required.

You can try the code "AMA2022" and see if its still active, it awarded you 100G1c

You can check out the VoD on Twitch, Matt will also upload a recording of the AMA to Youtube at some point.

What Matt posted above is a quote from the Open Letter that I have written, those aren't his words, they're mine.

It is not, the document was done as a passion project of mine but kept the fact that if weapon balance becomes a talking point and LO wants to do something about it in mind, That way I can submit the document in which case the wording makes sense. I won't go into the feedback much but I want to point out that both of you seemed to have missed that the RFP changes are a revert to how the RFP used to be when it was the go to pistol in the game and could reliably kill players on 40-47 meters. Also all these changes are subject to change, I don't have access to their tools, I have to do a lot of math for these and often have to guess how certain values interact with each other, many of these values are starting points to iterate from, not something to just ship to the live game and expect to go flawlessly. I agree that the Tommy gun needs some love, its a bit of an oversight that its not in the document but the first thing I'd want to do to it would be to move back to its old, static recoil which no one has the old values for so its hard to make a suggestion without actually providing stats. From there it would likely need a recoil reduction but still keeping the old values in mind, simply toning them down a little followed by buffs to its bloom as example. Not a typo, very much intentional, its an aggressive approach and that's why, if this would ever be an approach LO would want to take it would be tested in which case it'll be very obvious if its too strong or not.

The document hasn't been given to Matt, it wasn't linked in the letter at all however he has now seen it because I asked for permissions to make it public since players have been asking to see it to which he said yes so here is the document. https://docs.google.com/document/d/167-1L_hXaxFe9a2QMTbHfLsGONCVaEEem2pTP3le97c/edit?usp=sharing

I authored the letter and intentionally made the decision to make it anonymous, this way players aren't afraid to give their unfiltered feedback to some of the serious topics at hand. The overall amount of toxicity in the game coming from some players will also make players not want to put their name on something they don't know the outcome of. Here you go this was also entirely authored by me, almost all of these changes are my ideas and opinions, nothing is set in stone and this is nothing more than a passion project of mine. The changes in the document are balancing around the current state of the game and primarily focus on buffs to underused guns or some that were recently over-nerfed. Both, its usually easier to buff guns without taking mods in mind considering many of them don't exactly have a set of meta mods to use on them especially when it comes to red mods which tend to change a gun the most. For Meta guns, nerfs shouldn't entirely kill a certain mod on a weapon (I am aware that was the case with CJ N-tec as well as HB2 N-tec back in the day) but in many cases there's also not a huge amount of room for nerfs in areas in which a gun is over-performing, again using the N-tec as an example, lowering the RoF would've been an option rather than nerfing its bloom / jump accuracy although this change was tested in a public test environment previously and was received with even more negative response than a simple max-bloom nerf. Balance is so incredibly subjective and guns like the Oblivion or even DMR-AV existed in that very state for the longest time before people have figured out just how strong they are after another part of the game has been touched. With the exception of the DMR-AV nerf I want to say that none of the changes in the document cater specifically to one type of play, this is also largely helped by the fact that its almost all buffs to weapons that never see any use in high level play anyways. I honestly think that higher mechanical skill already wins you fights, aiming, knowing how to play around cover and so on, I know the suggestion of overall lowering the bloom / increasing base accuracy exists but that'd require a rework for more than half the weapons in the game so I personally don't see that as an option, if balancing a hand full of guns is an issue then I don't see how this is a possible path.

Now that's a really spooky idea

Its a known bug with Tokenize, you can fix it by disabling and re-enabling Tokenize on your G1 account page