MrChan

Always an excuse isn't there? "No one to play against." "I don't wanna play seriously." "I shouldn't be Gold." It's all bollocks, imo. That's what pisses me off so much about dethreating, anyone who does it passes the buck and takes no ownership of the fact that they're shitting all over the game whilst simultaneously whining about how it's dying.

Basmati usually. I just boil it for 10 minutes with a pinch of salt, judge the water ratio with my eye. None of that fancy shit.

BrInG bACk RtW!!!

I thought you knew full well that you got banned for glitching through the floor during the Halloween event and G1 just FF broadcasted the ban cos they're idiots. Or are you pretending to forget that so you can harp on about it?

The delusion is strong with this one.

The rights to the musical probably weren't cheap. And Andrew Lloyd Webber wrote a new song for the movie for which I presume he charged at least a million billion $, I'd guess that Idriss Elba, Judy Dench, Taylor Swift, James Corden, Ian McKellan, Jennifer Hudson, Jason Derulo etc. didn't come cheap ether. A lot of money might go down the toilet here.

Once this has been seen, it cannot be unseen: They're horrifying.

Let's just have the all the anti-cheats currently available put into APB all at once. I'm sure the three people who'll be able to play without getting kicked because of all the anti-cheats conflicting with each other won't be able to cheat then.

Actually it does exist in quite a lot of forums (or reactions are just outright disabled) because people just use it to tit for tat dislike each other's posts like giant infants.

Removing threat outright will cause problems. One of the things that contributed to Dirty Bomb dying (no further development will take place) was that the 'casual' matches that most people played made little or no effort to group players by skill and at least half the matches I played were complete kerb-stompings one way or another. I think with a small squad based game like APB, there has to be some effort to match players by skill. We also had (have? I don't even look anymore) districts where threat wasn't used to matchmake and they never took off. So for all the valid complaints about threat, I don't think it should be binned. My view for the past few years is that threat should've been hidden, but still used to determine matchmaking. That could cause problems with regard to district selection though, especially with the game's pop being as low as it is currently. Maybe this will be a viable option if cross district matchmaking is ever implemented.

Most people who try APB are opting for the latter and leaving. As long as that keeps happening, players who stop playing won't be replaced by new ones and the game will die. Doesn't matter a toss if newbies should be able to 'get good' by being stomped into the ground by vets or not, if they're not staying the population will eventually reach the point of it being uneconomic to run the game. Assuming it hasn't done so already.

Nice to see the game's original scrubcannon getting some love.

He gave 1999 of them to himself. You do know that, right?

No. You not encounter cheaters every fight on Citadel. Ehm...

Strange, I see far more complaints about SJW Snowflakes complaining about things, than I do complaints from SJW Snowflakes. What is an SJW anyway? (Aside from an ill defined bad person who believes different things to what the user of the term believes.)

But Cookie, it's okay for players to dethreat so they can stomp on newbies learning the game. It builds character and makes them git gud. And threat is broken anyway, so intentionally breaking it further has no adverse consequences. And these people shouldn't be Gold anyway (cos I bet the majority of those vets your mates encountered would be Gold without intentional threat loss), so it's right and proper that they have artificially lowered their threat to balance it out. /sarcasm It all comes down to one thing, imo. The majority of the player base do not actually want fair matchmaking. Fair matchmaking would mean a 50/50 win/loss rate for everyone over time. What people usually mean by "fair" matchmaking is matches where they're, at most, challenged a bit but will still win a lot more than they lose. But that's not actually possible is it? If you have one group of players winning 75% of their matches, someone else is losing 75% of their matches. That's why when district lock happened, people dethreated. "Why should I be made play against try hard Golds who stack N-TECs and run with mission items? They're able to foil my N-TEC tryhardism and item running tactics. UNFAIR!" Oh they dressed it up under nonsense like there not being enough players for matchmaking* or the good old "I shouldn't be Gold" excuse, but it ultimately came down to not wanting to have to face players who were as good as them. G1 blustered about dethreating for about a week, but ultimately did nothing. Since then, everyone knows it's been fair game for a player to drop threat, go into a district that's allegedly for the threat level below even the artificially low threat they now have, and stomp on players who don't properly understand the game mechanics just so they can win all the time. And when they're done, a few of them probably wander on here to complain the game is dying. Cos the fact that this shit isn't policed means they're in no way, shape or form culpable for doing it and any impact on the long term health of the game can be blamed on someone else. A potential solution a couple of years ago was hiding threat and enforcing district auto-join, but I'm not sure we have the player base to do that anymore. (Although I'd still like to try it) All that can happen now is for LO to go and police dethreating. Aggressively. But I bet they can't. As in literally do not have the necessary tools and data. *Do NOT give me "Buhhh there weren't enough players to play against!!!" because I was there at the time, I know it's bollocks. There were plenty of Golds about on Obeya for match making, but loads of them didn't want to play each other and dethreated and forced G1 to back down. The only valid excuse was cross-threat groups, but I'd bet my house that accounted for a minority of the unhappiness.

I forgot Football Manager Live. First game I got really deep into online. I even GMd there for a while.

And how is that different from the last 50 patches?

Well considering G1 never implemented the Air Control mod because it would require a lot of areas to be reworked for balance, it's a safe bet that a jet-pack would be out, short flights or not. I'd like to see a proper Estate/Sportwagon in the game.

At the risk of some sub-literate idiot interpreting this as a pro hacker post, what do you mean by 'several layers of hack detection'? LO have already replaced two anti-cheats cos they weren't delivering the desired results. Should we bring them back, and keep EAC, which you've called lax, and have three anti-cheats not working right? Maybe implement every piece of anti-cheat software that exists all at once? Do you think that'll help? Cos I doubt it will (not to mention that they'd probably conflict with each other). The other obvious option is in game GMs actively looking for cheaters, but there's a problem there because a paid GM from outside will only be able to deal with really obvious hackers like speedhackers, people who stream themselves, and the most blatant SHAWbots because they won't have deep knowledge of the game. And let's not go down the rabbit hole of giving GMs recruited from the playerbase access to the banning tools. Petitions and Open Letters are wonderful. You just get to spout positive things you'd like to see happen without a notion of how they can be implemented.

And that's a very good way to undermine whatever point you might have had. GG.

And more than a thousand of them were probably completely inappropriate for the job.

Well, taking that reply at face value, why are you listening to shit complete randomers come out with? You're smarter than that. Of course, that is assuming face value for the reply. For some reason, I'm inclined to think the 'some blokes' are blokes you know and put more value on what they say, than what x420noscope69x says in District chat. Why you wouldn't just say "yeah, the person who told me normally doesn't tell fibs" is beyond me. It's not like I'm asking you to ID the person.

Maybe I should ask a different question then: Is your source dependable, or is it just some bloke trying to stir the shit? @MackxBolan, what you described though is not a volunteer GM issuing a ban. It's a volunteer GM elevating a complaint to an appropriate individual.

Is this something that came from some sort half believable source, or just something that someone came out with in District chat with literally no backup at all?