Jump to content
Forum rules

speee

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    135

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by speee

  10. Posted

    10 minutes ago, Fruitini said:

    maybe I should explain this better, counterstike that we played was 1.5 in the year 2000 I believe it came out in 1999. We where kids the mechanics and strategies that we know today didn't exist then. So basically what I wanted you to take from my post was, counter it or don't use it, don't take something away becuase you don't like it or replace it with an alternative. I wasnt really aware that none excepted maybe one person would take the year into account and realize how younge the game was and we where at that time. So there I guess thanks for telling me how I shouldn't compare games together.

    I understand what you are saying. However, being able to counter a weapon does not mean it is balanced. And this has nothing to do with what we like or do not like. Naturally, if a gun is imbalanced and a lot of players know about it, then it will be disliked.

     

    I can tell you now, when I see an HVR on the opposing team which could pose a problem, I switch to HVR myself. I do this to level the playing field. I know that this player can do 850 damage instantly from almost viewing distance. There is no gun that can output that much damage quickly from those ranges. And if it is a particularly good player, they will know to switch positions and sit far back. For example, if I have an objective out in the open which I need to attack, either I take time to push the HVR or I use an HVR and pressure them to peek me through doing the objective. If I push them and I do not have a teammate to coordinate with, then there is a good chance they can spawn and walk a few feet to see the objective again before I get a chance to complete it. 

     

     

    So HVR is possible to counter, but it is unlikely than anyone will be able to counter the HVR player if they have any sense.

     

    HVR is not balanced for the type of game that APB is. Also, PMG, OCA, low yields, and cars like the Pioneer and Espacio are not balanced. If we start to think like your post, nothing will ever change because everything is technically possible to counter. 

    • Like 2

  11. Posted

    2 hours ago, Fruitini said:

    It was like 2000 we just got a computer me and by brother got into counterstike, and we played at a local lan center all the time. I remember playing with the awp, a lot but it was called the artic sniper then. Some guy would always call me a noob for using a one shot weapon, I thought it was a little cheesy but i remember one kid standing up and yelling once "well you don't have to use it if you don't want to , shut it and just counter it" that was a good day....my point is if you consider it embarrassing that's fine just don't use it. Don't ruin it for others that enjoy the weapon by taking it out. Maybe come up with a replacement if you think it's so bad..

     

    Right, except there is an economy in CS where a risk is associated with buying an AWP. Also, CS is a first person game, so someone with an AWP has to peek the corner before they can see the enemy. In APB, someone can sit on a corner and abuse the 3rd person mechanics to instantly remove 850 of your health.

     

     

    I never understood how someone could make comparisons between APB and CS. They are totally different games with different goals and play styles.

    • Like 1

  13. Posted · Edited by speee

    14 minutes ago, Similarities said:

     I agree with this, but proposing an idea and saying we're losing something, then not being told what we're gaining in return besides "something new" strikes fear in people, we're being told we're losing something a lot of people love, but given nearly no info on what we're getting in return. I'd be fine if they shook up the weapon meta tomorrow, but I am fearful of what this new mode might be because if I end up hating it, this new mode could kill off FC, and if I dislike this new mode and it takes away FC, I may have even less of a reason to play and I don't like that thought given how awful things are currently and how much I have to push myself to play even semi-regularly.

    For this reason it might be beneficial for MattScott to hold off on any announcements or hints until things are ready to roll out to OTW. It is not the idea that is the problem, it is how people are reacting to a supposed hint at potential changes. I have seen this happen with games who release trailers far too early in development and get a bad wrap when people see pre-alpha footage of a game that has potential to be great with a few years of development.

     

    Game development is a creative endeavor, not a democracy. It is clear that MattScott and the team have big plans for APB, so they are going to do what makes sense to reach those goals. 

     

  14. Posted

    3 minutes ago, CookiePuss said:

    Oh I didnt mean this one per say.

    I thought we were just making generalizations.

    I think we need to see changes in practice, hence OTW. I am afraid people are going to convince LO to back off from certain changes which could be good for the game in the long run. I think OTW should be utilized to its fullest for this reason. Hopefully LO will see the importance of OTW and make its existence more apparent.

  16. Posted

    1 hour ago, MattScott said:

    Hi all,

     

    Just for clarity, I think we've designed something that fills the spot that FC was intended to from a gameplay / reward stand point.

    The problem with FC is in the implementation. It's using a small corner of an existing district, and frame rate will always be a problem till we fix it.

     

    Ultimately we'll let the players decide.

    If they really like FC and want it to stay, then I'm 100% fine with that.

    We can run the new mode in place of OC, but I'm super excited to get players feedback on something entirely new.

     

    Thanks,
    Matt

     

    EDIT: Nothing is getting removed till the new mode is ready, and we'll likely beta test the new mode long before that.

    There will always be a vocal minority of players who will not like new ideas. APB has been in the same state for so long, it might take time for people to see how any changes could be good for the game.

  20. Posted

    3 hours ago, MattScott said:

    Hi all,

     

    I like this idea, but it doesn't honestly solve the core problem of why people want to join the most populated servers in the first place.

     

    At the end of the day, it shouldn't matter what server you join - except for what kind of district you want to play in.

    Players should match with any other player currently in any instance of their same district.

    This would significantly improve your matches, because the server can choose from a much wider population.

     

    Unfortunately we need Phasing to make this work. Phasing is the ability to throw away the network layer and rebuild it without unloading all the level assets.

    That isn't supported in Unreal 3.0. So we've put this change as soon as possible after Unreal 3.5 launches.

     

    Thanks,
    Matt

    I am excited to see this level of thought going into the game. Thanks.

×
×
  • Create New...