Jump to content

AsgerLund

Members
  • Content Count

    4633
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

976 Excellent

5 Followers

About AsgerLund

  • Rank
    Big kahuna of manbewbs

Recent Profile Visitors

893 profile views
  1. Are you suggesting constructive criticism yields a better and more constructive discussion? That’s just pure LO off-sucking.
  2. This may be a mistake from my side, but let me see if I can still tickle your extremely high, and even more entrenched, iq... "I view banning as a failure" does not mean: If there is a hacker/cheater in-game, then banning him/her is a failure. It means: It is a failure that this hacker/cheater is even in the game in the first place. Both the fact that he/she is physically able to be in the game while hacking/cheating as well as the fact that he/she feels the need to hack/cheat. Therefore, banning him/her is part of that failure. In the perfect world, there would be no need to ban hackers/cheaters. That is why banning is a failure. He even states his personal belief/intention in the very same quote:"My commitment to the community is that we are going to clean up the cheating problem in a fair and good manner." You don't need an extremely high iq to understand that sentence. There is no grey area to anyone's mind, as to whether LO should allow cheaters to play APB. There is no conspiracy within LO or on the forum. We all want the game to be cheat free, and currently it is not (and it probably never will, as no anti-cheat is 100% effective). The only thing we can do is to send evidence of suspected cheaters to Support, and then hope they take swift action, if the evidence provides conclusive proof - and off course hope that the tweaking of EAC improves detecting and banning, as this tweaking is a never ending process.
  3. So you don't have anything else than a gross manipulation of what Matt Scott actually means? I thought so. Here's the full line, btw: Q: Will bans be broadcasted? A: No. It’s a super toxic practice. I view banning as a failure; it’s not something to be proud of or to enjoy. We lost a player and it’s our fault when it happens. We have done something in the meantime; even if you’re banned in game, we’re not going to ban you on the forums. We’re going to be doing some tweaks and utilize temporary bans. My commitment to the community is that we are going to clean up the cheating problem in a fair and good manner.
  4. Could you show me some links or screenshots of him openly supporting cheaters? Would be interesting to see.
  5. As an official representative of LO held to a higher standard, you and your clandestine forum trolls are enabling a cheating environment.
  6. The only way to really rule Asylum is to get some real life experience: Get HALO'ed into a run-down lunatic ward with no staff and an impenetrable fence all around the compound Acquire heaps of weapons and ammo Start your own fight-club (without blackjack or hookers, and don't fucking talk about it. Them's the rules!) Kill people. Over and over Once you can kill many people without dying, you are ready to move on to APB pls don't kill people irl.
  7. I like a CEO being open and talkative. Especially in LO's case, since Scot Matt is a really pleasant communicator. I would like the CM to be managing the community, but maybe she has taken a different approach. Maybe she's travelling around the world, handing out signed forum warnings in person to all us shitposters! ...wait, is that the doorbell?
  8. The post Signarly replied to: CEO is relatively talkative. Our Community Manager not so much these days. I hope it's because she's banging down cold cocktails on the Bahamas!
  9. He only said people have to do an IQ test.... nothing about having to pass the test.
  10. I think cows suit the lore much better than horses.
×
×
  • Create New...