Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Good

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Just to be clear, I only voted no because I'm 100% sure that any proposition made towards "yes" is incredibly stupid and/or biased. A lot of people are arguing for lowering car health. That's dumb, nobody should listen to them about pretty much anything: The reason everyone plays high health car is because of the volcano, and the fact that nobody likes getting OSK'd. And let's face it, whether a bullet travels through the windows straight into the driver's head, or comes from the back of the car all the way to the driver's toenail shouldn't really lead to the same damage. But then you have two problems: 1) How to make sense of that in a game with no headshot (for all of you kids who get messy pants and foam at the mouth at the concept of realism) 2) How the fuck are you going to code that shit in It's not worth the effort, especially with all the grumpy "old school" (aka the reason why the game is so moldy and no new player stays long enough) players who've been playing this game for so long they've got a massive rust buildup up there and can't think straight anymore, let alone not react violently to any change, percieved or otherwise. And then there's just assholes telling others that they're wrong, yet will never point people in the right dirrection. Probably the second most pointless interaction I've seen on this smart haul of a forum. You're all Removed Inappropriate Language ~@mayii and the game is shit, that's why nobody wants to play it. And all of your ideas are terrible, be it players or staff member. "most players enjoy driving only 3 cars, so lets turn them into shit" - u Well, that would be asuming people actually enjoy that instead of being forced to due to shitty gameplay and mediocre alternatives. Yeah sure, some hipster with his han coywolf is going to be "look at me I'm so different" well nobody cares about you or your shit car, we're all different, you don't matter and your parents never loved you. Happy new year, get a life.
  2. With N-TEC 5 having 5.9 kills per mag? I'd say it is. Especially when the reload time difference is 0.2s Great point, I stand corrected.
  3. Well, in my opinion it goes beyond ...ah whatever, just read the TL;DR and be done with it. N-TEC 5 NTEC 7 and ATAC are top tier AR: N-TEC 5 is the most versatile and efficient AR overall N-TEC 7 has the best tap-fire (although no TTK gain against a fragile opponent afaik) ATAC is just ridiculously strong in close-mid range, no need to argue. The reason why N-TEC 5 is so present is because it's useful in all situations, be it close-range or long-range. S1-FA Frenzy has low damage per bullet + huge kickback so it's harder to achieve the same result with a frenzy than with an N-TEC 5. FAR has a stupidly low ammount of damage/mag and while it has better tap-fire (and worse full auto) than the STAR-556 it's still not as good as the N-TEC 5 in that regard. Sure it has no kickback and is easier to use, but that doesn't compare to the much better marksman modifier on the N-TEC. Fun but not worth it. STAR-556 while having less max bloom and being better in close-mid range doesn't have enough accuracy to be worth tap-firing; and losing the long range for some slightly better close range doesn't cut it. COBR-A: no idea. Why bother, I mean come on .85 TTK and 50m range. I'm not saying that it's a better or worse weapon, just that it's not competing in the same category therefore there's no real point in comparing them. STAR-LCR: here again, different category. AR-97 'Misery': same. Obeya cr762 is clother to the N-TEC than this. Raptor 45: poor man's ATAC with a twist. N-ISSR-A: this weapon was a mistake. ACES: fakest SMG N-TEC 5 is best AR because it is effective for the largest distance range. Decent CQC, packs the best damage/mag, can be used in full-auto at closer ranges (much more efficiently than an N-TEC 7), top-tier marksmanship accuracy, is still efficient beyond the 60m mark. It's not worth losing the versatility of an N-TEC 5 to switch to another weapon except in situational cases. TL;DR 0) Yes, the N-TEC 5 is the better choice overall. 1) No, it's not OP 2) Having a "stapple" weapon isn't a bad thing per se 3) There's no simple way to "fix" it without breaking the game 4) IR is a bigger problem than the N-TEC 5; especially with a max draw distance of 100m. But then, snipers are hitscan so eh what the heck you gon' do 'bout it
  4. Do you consider addictions and coercive marketing to be within the realm of personal choice? Because you seem to be using that term rather loosely. Also I am not arguing to make lootboxes forbidden, I'm arguing against their existence. I'm not sure wether you simply can't appreciate the nuance or just chose to ignore it. Besides, lootboxes carry exclusive items, so maybe you consider "my way or the highway" to be a satisfactory choice proposition; but if that's the case I think you're mental. And yeah, you can argue about my usage of hyperbole -of course there's going to be the weird one out there so, not every single human that ever lived conforms to that statement- but the vast majority does not enjoy purchasing lootboxes. And yes, people purchase them. Guess what, that doesn't still mean anything other than "some people buy lootboxes". That is not an argument, you are making no point. As for "If people did not purchase loot boxes, game companies would not have them. " Well first of all, you don't know that. And it's not all companies either. And you're just stating the same thing again, which is "some people buy lootboxes". The last sentence is entirely beyond the point, I'm not sure wether you're desperate, have no idea how to argue, or simply just want to score brownie points. Don't bother replying if you have nothing constructive to say. NB: just stating "here is the argument" doesn't make the following sentences arguments. You have to argue a point for there to be an argument.
  5. Heroin also sells. Just because it sells doesn't mean it's good. You have no point to argue, that's why you have to run away with a smartass, pseudo-rhetorical question presented as a monologue instead of arguing head-on. Fair point, there's no sense in removing them after they've been introduced for so long anyway, so I'm not really advocating that either. But to be fair, a lot of people are sad they have to put a seatbelt on in their car; which isn't such a good comparison since loot boxes aren't a self-destructive behaviour as much as they are an exploitive one. I don't have a problem with the option of lootboxes as much as I have a problem with the concept of lootboxes. Some sort of safety net, either a guaranteed legendary tier reward after X ammount of boxes without a legendary tier drop, or an increase in legendary tier drop the further a players opens joker boxes, reseting upon legendary obtention.
  6. Nobody in the whole history of language ever said "I am so happy I can spend my money on lootboxes! They bring me so much joy!" nor will anyone ever. It's just a fact of life.
  7. Hey, just poping in there to ask "what about the LCR". Not that I have high hopes, but I'm not planing on giving up any time soon.
  8. Yep, I had the same occurence of "item grab triggers win". I think it also happened with successfully stealing a car once, but I'm not certain. An official statement or status on how this is going to be treated would be nice. The bug in itself isn't really a major issue, but the fact that it's been going on for over a week while there's total radio silence on LO's part (to my best knowledge) is at the very least worrying. Especially since some people percieve them do only break the game each time they try to balance it out and wish they'd just do the new engine and nothing else not even events. Of course I personally prefer a more present dev team that's actually trying so I'd gladly accept a few missteps; but a few joke posts on the forum by official staff members doesn't quite equate to transparency in my mind. Especially when issues like this are kept unaddressed.
  9. Agreed. Especially when they already have to deal with detcars, carsurfers, low yields and to add insult to the injury no conc nor explosive weapons to deal with cars, so if their opponent chooses to have bullet proof on a pioneer/espacio/vegas their only option is hitting perfectly timed regular nades twice since ALIG would be virtually useless. Not to mention unmodded basic weapons vs IR3'd NTEC-5 & high map awareness, plus using every dirty tricks in the books like shieldladders, flipping objective cars over and using the blowtorch to fix them etc... I think noobs have enough bullshoot to deal with as is without adding more grind-to-win for people who can't get good no matter how long they play. As for the RFP-9 I've been using it while playing in brainless-mode recently and it's definitely above average. Not the 40% health damage burst at a mid-close range that is ridiculously easy to hit, but the sustained long range damage that can deter AR users from closing in on you. It won't win a 1v2 fight, but you can stall a good minute while your teamates flanks/clears the objective. A nerf on the reload time sounds like a good way to balance this imo, around 1.8~2 seconds sounds right to me. It would make the long range bullshoot more bearable, but it will also make close ranged interractions more of a pain, so there's that to take into consideration too. Of course you could just take the easy way out and nerf the hell out of the min damage or accuracy but then the RFP would become something else entirely, and you can't really change the TTK/burst interval either without making it an absolutely worthless weapon. Yeah, it's incredibly easy to use, useful in almost any situation and has decent TTK. But then again, is being "slightly bullshittey" OP enough to warrant a nerf? Maybe but probably not. Besides secondary weapons have like portable submachine-guns, mini shotguns at this point so why not a pocket OBIR? The only thing the secondary weapon category is lacking right now is a high hard damage weapon and we're set. It's definitely OP enough to make yukon users salty tho. And for the IR3 straight upgrade stuff, guess what? there's tons of secondaries like that, like the N-FA 9 "Quickdraw".
  10. It's a bullshoot weapon because it's got faster TTK than OBIR on paper, with good accuracy, good alpha (40%) and is yet still decent at range. It also can kill with a little less than half the magazine, most secondary weapon except for snub nosem N-FA and .45 are around half mag to kill afaik. It has the highest damage/magazine out of every secondary. let that sink in. That wouldn't be such a big deal if it weren't for the long range efficiency. I mean yeah, the reload is .40 seconds longer than the average secondary, but that's about the only factual drawback. Could be argued that it's only raw numbers and doesn't reflect in-game usage, but no sane player can deny that RFP is definitely above average in term of performance. It's not something insanely strong, but still is a bit bullshitey and could benefit from better balancing. Nothing to lose your mind over, but I can see where you're coming from.
  11. "Ooh, someone wants to defend neonazi symbolics!" -MartinPL No. I was arguing that since those symbols are not used with neonazi intent, they therefore aren't neonazi sumbolics. You could use better reading comprehension. "Perhaps through people's decisions to deliberately use symbols loaded to the brim with hateful messaging behind them, hm?" -MartinPL Except that, those symbols weren't used with hatefun intent. You therefore cannot claim there was a deliberate decision to do so. "Feel free to amuse me by trying to claim that 88 is not a hate symbol." -MartinPL All I said that it wasn't forcibly a hate symbol. Do not put words in my mouth. "I like how you've conveniently left out the part where I literally mention that the situation changes when the Black Panther Party and the New Black Panther Party are the focus. Next time, please try not to manipulate other people's posts when they're visible to everyone. Or just don't manipulate the intended message, 'cause that's kind of a shitty thing to do." -MartinPL I only adressed the parts that were mistaken, and explained why. If you equate pointing obvious mistakes that resulted from what I can only consider poor reading comprehension on your part as "manipulating the intended message" then I suggest you spend more time figuring out what it is you want to say. "That is relevant, because it explains the reason why those symbols are stigmatised." -MartinPL That is a claim, not an argument. You have to argue why it "explains the reason [...]" otherwise it's just thin air. "Unfortunately for you, just because you misunderstand the argument, it does not make it invalid." -MartinPL As I pointed out, there was no arguments. You might want to read the definition in any online dictionary. "@first line: ...are you seriously trying to get me to explain an axiom to you? You don't have to be German to understand that it's a dark chapter in the country's history. All it takes is a history lesson or two in that field." -MartinPL You're not adressing my point at all. "That's yet another instance of you conveniently omitting the part that, if included, would render your point as moot" -MartinPL That you convinently omit in turn eventhough it could've effortlessly and irrefutably proved me wrong. Which just leads me to believe you're yet again full of air. "The intent of the symbol's use loads it with meaning." -MartinPL So you're either agreeing with everything I said, or you have no clear understanding of the difference between conotation and denotation. You sound confused. "so showing others that you're "badass" by invoking Nazi symbolism. Huh." -MartinPL Excuse me, but how is that an argument? All I can see is someone being nasty on the internet. "Source? Because I seriously doubt Antifa ellected you to speak on its behalf, so I'm not willing to just swallow your opinion as truth here either. :^)" -MartinPL That statement is irrelevant to whatever you quoted. You're not making any point either, you're just parroting me, being a nasty person. "Nice false equivalency with the Nazi comparison there, by the way." -MartinPL Explain why the eauivalency is false. This is a claim, not an argument. Claims have to be either proven with facts or justified with arguments. You should really read on basic logics/linguistics as this exercise seems to be too difficult for you as you are right now. "Wow, it's almost as if activism wasn't limited to just peaceful protests, and it often extended into questionable tactics!" -MartinPL Yeah, which is why it was a poor choice on your part in my opinion. My point still stands as you've only confirmed it. "Also, good job on trying to suggest that I'm advocating for their actions." -MartinPL Trying to suggest? You are raving. And slandering me at the same time. I would never resort to such slimey tactics. But those might not be beyond you I suppose? That could explain your antipathic tone. Anyway, you bring no arguments to the table, have clearly no understanding on how to argue - or even what consitutes an argument for that matter - have been needlessly rude, and just keep on making nonsensical claims. I am not responding to you anymore until you learn how to argument your points at least semi-decently.
  12. Allegedly. Which doesn't mean much. Nazism was a group united behind an expression of protest towards the mistreatment, abuse, hated, and violence aimed at the German people... It's also been recognised as a domestic terrorist group for over a year now. Poor choice.
  13. And how would you go about determining non-virtual to virtual hatred? Feel free to try and prove your unbased claim. However, you can't just claim things as if they were truth and expect me to accept them with no real effort on your part. As we've established before, we're not talking about the movie. You lack reading comprehension. How is that relevant? I think that most people agree that people dying is a bad thing and that war brings sorrow. Platitudes aren't arguments. Source? Because I seriously doubt Germany ellected you to speak on its behalf, so I'm not willing to just swallow your opinion as truth here either. Besides, if what you said were true, it wouldn't be in history manuals and there wouldn't be any museums dedicated to the events around that period. Then perhaps you should educate yourself on the topic of semiotics. What is important isn't the symbol per se, but the intent to which it is used to denote a certain meaning. In this case it can be argued that it's solely been used to demarcate itself from other bikers groups percieved as less hardcore and/or posers. Rules are to be enforced at the discretion of the authorities. You can't force them to actually enforce a rule as they have no obligation to do so. At least as far as APB:R goes, and we're only concerned with that. Admitedly, you could try to sue them for this in the state their servers are hosted, or in other states because their service is accessible from them. But are you really willing to go this far to prevent someone, whom means no ill, from using some symbolics with no intended hate behind them? While you're entirely right in that the conotation of those symbols (as opposed to the denotation) are admitedly of or akin to racist ideologies, taking it so seriously in the context of a biker avatar for a virtual online game is overblowing things way out of proportions. Especially since there is no harm intended and nobody actually bothered to report him and/or enforce the rules on him for a seven years period; esentially legitimising his claims that he isn't harmful.
  14. You're not being fair either. He didn't say hitler, but "anything to do with white pride or hitler". So that would include the toothbrush mustache, the name adolf, being born in austria, etc... Also I'm of the impression that the "black panther" he might be refering to might not be the comic hero eponymous to a recent movie. I'm getting mixed signal here.
  15. While I almost entirely agree with that, what about joker tickets? That would either advantage/disadvantage people with multiple characters. I'm with you 100% for event exclusives (ie not on the armas shop) being account wide though. Yep, agreed 100% there too, as I highlighted on an other post. And since winning doesn't matter, participating in the event also doesn't. And, truth be told, if it weren't for the shitty activities, I'd actually enjoy the "novelty" of it. But a good chunk of the people are just doing it for the activities, so that makes it just more sluggish.
  • Create New...