MrChan

"Gold is full of cheaters" is and always was a convenient excuse, that for the majority is a fib. If it was only about evading cheaters, dethreating would've a lot less prevalent once hard district segregation was relaxed and would've stopped altogether when EAC cut cheating down to very little.

Unless you've disabled all particle effects (is that even an option in Advanced Launcher anymore?), I don't think so.

Yeah, either disable prototype or find a way to turn the particle spam down. When you spike up to 50fps in a quiet area and it looks like butter compared to what it's normally like in a prototype round, you know there's a problem.

Players dethreat because they want easy matches where they win the whole time.

Even if they'd balanced the game perfectly (good luck getting all players or even a majority to agree on what a state of perfect balance in APB is, btw), it probably wouldn't be much better off for player numbers than it is now without frequent content updates. And major content without doing the EU is not viable because anytime anything was added to the game the performance deteriorated. I used to run this game on a Core 2 Duo. As Jelly says, they completely miscalculated the scale of the task. They'd have actually been better off developing a completely new game from scratch and not carrying a single asset or line of code over from what we have now.

Hey Devs, you could make APB better by just making it better. Y'know. Just like that. Why didn't you think of that? Are you stupid or something? EDIT: Dude seriously, you must have some notion of the technical difficulty that'd be involved in making the existing APB districts into one map, before you add anything else to it? Also your post is very car orientated. Should you perhaps be playing Forza Horizon instead?

Probably filling it with bullshoot like: "I have unfair ban. I only cheat once." "Person was mean to me. Pls ban." "other player kill me. He must hax. Pls ban."

Newsflash Einstein, newbies are already give the game negative press, I'd say it's well gone beyond the point where it makes a difference. Let's say they release Open Beta without any bugs (which is basically impossible in any case, that's why you do an Open Beta). People will still gripe because the mission districts aren't there, or because they don't like the lighting, or they don't like the hospital signage on the walls, or the extra bits added to the outside of the level, or because there should be something in the lore about Luke Waskawi becoming an Ancient God to recreate the world, or because the original login screen music isn't there. If you want to wait until we have a product that no one will find fault with, you're going to be waiting long time. There comes a point where you can't just keep sitting on it and actually have to solicit useful commentary from the elements of the playerbase that aren't morons.

Should I ask why people want to run potato resolution?

Imo, push it. The Open Beta is more likely going to unearth new bugs than not anyway, so it's not like we're guaranteed a relatively bug-free experience if you do fix what's there. As long as the game is playable, you might as well deal with them together. Some of us might actually understand what the concept of a Beta test actually is, though.

It was completely shit and got exposed badly when PB was shut off and it took a fucking eon to ban even a blatant cheater using a free cheat (with a large side of malware). FFbans was funny for drama sometimes, but ultimately the practice of broadcasting bans feeling so cathartic was reflective of utterly, utterly cancerous this community is.

Nerfing weapons or banning certain things from Bronze district (although I'm not necessarily opposed to the latter) will have minimal impact. An R255 dethreater is going to massacre as many new players with the STAR 556, FBW and Frag Grenades as they will with current meta guns and remote detonators. Experienced players need to be stopped from intentionally going in to low threat districts and stomping on new players. That is the only solution. At this moment in time, the only way to do that is manually police Bronze districts with GMs, make judgment calls about who genuinely should and shouldn't be there and kick people who shouldn't, or actively police dethreating. The former would be a giant, unmanageable clusterfuck, so let's park that idea, and I'm not sure the latter is actually possible. Unless LO have access to the threat history on an account and can see repeating strings of threat loss followed by suddenly facerolling all their opposition, they're relying on reports from players, which probably aren't going to be comprehensive or detailed enough to act as proof. Also, I wonder how much is new dynamic matchmaking going to help if people are still dethreating to get easy matches. Sure the game will stop you from going into a low district, but it'll still pull lower skilled players to put you against.

Matt's post says they couldn't agree a price for client only. This is a shame because I thought EAC was working well. There were probably the fewest cheaters I've ever seen in APB. Although snubnose macros went through the roof in the last couple of weeks, which would lead you to speculate as to who's using stuff like fire rate macros. Hopefully improved BattlEye will work as well.

Better than making money through lockboxes.

(Brick Top needs to be an APB contact)

You should measure an anti-cheat's success by how many people you see cheating, not by how many people it was telling you were banned by it. FairFight did root out a good few people, and I note that some of them are back due to LO's general amnesty but mysteriously aren't as good as they used to be. But do you wanna tell me that more people cheat now than under FairFight? I don't think so. Not to mention the period between PunkBuster being turned off for false positives and LO coming in and implementing BattlEye badly showed up FF's lack of client-side detection when blatants running free cheats could run around for days before FF's metrics would cop-on and drop the ban. Now of course, we know from Matt that FF's metrics weren't really tuned for APB at all by G1. Maybe it could work if it was tuned correctly, but things are, imo better now than when we had FF. Suppose LO decided to publish weekly or monthly ban lists and there were more names on it than we had during an average month or week of FF. Would that change your perception? As I said above, it should be judged by how many people you see cheating, not how many people the system tells you it banned.

It'd probably be easier to build the game completely from scratch on UE5 than try to carry over anything we have now. Good luck waiting for that.

In it's lifetime APB has tried 4 different anit-cheat programs, as well as whatever they're able to do with their own internal software. Assuming the game is full of cheaters (spoiler alert, though: it's not), what's going to make another off the shelf anti-cheat do what PB, FF, BattlEye and EAC couldn't?

I understand fine, I just think you're wrong. Frag grenades are not overpowered. I don't have a problem with their blast radius, and I don't experience this issue of people spamming them at me. Most top rank players I've seen use concussion grenades, presumably for AV purposes. I only find grenades in general overpowered if someone is near an ammo box and thus have unlimited supply, which doesn't happen that often. "Frags are fine" is a valid argument. Surprisingly enough, some things don't actually require change.

Okay, so we'll nerf the second least spammable grenade then. Will we just take 'em all out apart from concs? Will that meet your desired skill floor?

I shot a guy and then shot him again nearly 2 seconds later. Game broken.

Some assclown somewhere fell for it though.

Making paper models of anime girls is probably a lot better for his blood pressure.

Ray Taylor.

I've noticed a few prominent ones who got FF'd aren't as good anymore. I'm sure it's just lack of practice from when they had 'unfair ban' though.